By Walter E. Block People should be free to ruin the English language if they wish to do so. Bell Hooks wrote in all lower-case letters, and had done so for years, even before the plague of wokesterism arose. She signed her name “bell hooks.” Many people no longer refer to he or him as inclusive of both genders. They resort to “his or hers” or, if they really want to virtue signal, they employ only “she” or “her.” Nowadays, some transgendered folk insist upon the plural when referring to them, individually: we should refer to such people as them, theirs. The latest off this particular turnip truck is to capitalize the word “black” when denoting people, albeit not to colors of inanimate objects, such as cars or shoes. Some in this vein now want to capitalize “white,” also, again only when indicating people. But the radical elements in this movement insist that only black be capitalized, not white. Why? That is because capitalization implies greater respect and since whites are unfairly and systematically privileged, this evens up the score. Whoa, I shouldn’t have said “systematically.” That is no longer politically correct. A thousand pardons. I should have written “systemically.” Sorry, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Woke Warriors aren't interested in fostering communication. Rather, they are trying to advance their agenda by intentionally thwarting communication. As George Orwell observed: "Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Their New Left philosophy and its treatment of language is derived from the primitivist/egalitarian doctrines of Critical Theory (popularized by Fromm and Marcuse in the early 1960s) and from the nihilistic doctrines of Deconstructionism (popularized by Derrida in the late 1960s).
The basic view underlying CT is that social obligations and conventions (at least in a free society) just get in the way of the realization of one's inner desires. This implies a severe devaluation of the rational discourse that would normally be considered a necessity for voluntary social cooperation. In the case of Marcuse, it also leads to the doctrine that it is better to shout down your capitalist opponents than to endure the "repressive toleration" of trying to persuade them of anything.
Deconstructionists have a radical skepticism about linguistic meaning. Words are supposedly just tools used by those in power to manipulate everyone else's behavior (often without their victims being conscious of the manipulation) and have no clear referent in reality anyways, so giving favored groups the power to redefine words to suit their whims while suppressing words that are peculiar to the discourse of their critics is merely a convenient means for empowering the favored groups.
Woke Warriors aren't interested in fostering communication. Rather, they are trying to advance their agenda by intentionally thwarting communication. As George Orwell observed: "Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Their New Left philosophy and its treatment of language is derived from the primitivist/egalitarian doctrines of Critical Theory (popularized by Fromm and Marcuse in the early 1960s) and from the nihilistic doctrines of Deconstructionism (popularized by Derrida in the late 1960s).
The basic view underlying CT is that social obligations and conventions (at least in a free society) just get in the way of the realization of one's inner desires. This implies a severe devaluation of the rational discourse that would normally be considered a necessity for voluntary social cooperation. In the case of Marcuse, it also leads to the doctrine that it is better to shout down your capitalist opponents than to endure the "repressive toleration" of trying to persuade them of anything.
Deconstructionists have a radical skepticism about linguistic meaning. Words are supposedly just tools used by those in power to manipulate everyone else's behavior (often without their victims being conscious of the manipulation) and have no clear referent in reality anyways, so giving favored groups the power to redefine words to suit their whims while suppressing words that are peculiar to the discourse of their critics is merely a convenient means for empowering the favored groups.
Way too rational.
Way too rational.
Mr “privatize the ocean, what could go wrong” uses strawman to prove stupid point? Who would’ve guessed.