The power of language

The weakness of language

American linguists Bernard Bloch and George L. Trager defined "language" as "[A] system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates.” [From Outline of Linguistic Analysis (1942)]. Various theories regarding the origin of language have been proffered, but proving one would be elusive. Exactly how would such evidence appear in the historical record? Early humans couldn’t very well have engaged in much of a discussion regarding creating a language before such means of communication even existed.

That would be an odd example of “meta,” right?

While the origin of language is a fascinating subject, this article will focus on an important contemporary issue: The perversion of language. To be clear, to “pervert” in this case, is to “make use of usually willfully in a wrong or improper way : divert to a wrong end or purpose.” [Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/pervert. Accessed 4 Feb. 2024.]

One way to pervert language is to undermine the fundamental meaning of a word. For example, everyone agreed on what a “woman” was since the very beginning of human existence—indeed, even before there was a spoken language at all. Now, however, in a blatant attempt to sow discord, we are being told by our betters that a woman is merely someone who feels like a woman on that particular day.

Never mind the glaring use of circular reasoning: If someone “feels like a woman,” then what does “woman” mean, anyway? Only asking such questions will label you as a “hater,” with no further argument being advanced. I’ve never understood how being a “hater” is always wrong. If I condemn, say, pedophilia, how does my being a “hater” excuse such activity?

Sadly, merely “feeling like a woman” is not enough. This ginned up gender dysphoria has created a vile cottage industry of would-be Mengele “physicians” prescribing dangerous puberty-blocking drugs, and “gender-affirming” surgery. If this weren’t bad enough, the “outcomes” of such “therapies” cannot possibility achieve the touted result of magically turning a man into a woman. But, since neither “man” nor “woman” convey an agreed upon meaning, it doesn’t really matter.

You’ll note, of course, that quotation marks have to be used liberally throughout this analysis since words no longer have any meaning.

Everyone knows that an “election” is the “act or process of choosing a person for office, position, or membership by voting.” [Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/election. Accessed 4 Feb. 2024.] But now, this process has apparently become so sacrosanct that we are forbidden from questioning how it is undertaken. In other words, by definition, the result has become the absolute inerrant proclamation of the truth.

In perhaps the most insidious case, the CDC changed its definition of “vaccine,” leaving out the word “immunity” in its latest iteration. The reason advanced for this is that the agency did not want to imply that vaccines are 100% effective. Fair enough, but it also opened the door to explaining away the outrageous lack of effectiveness of the current COVID vaccines.

From this came a new made-up expression “sterilizing vaccine,” a term used to cynically impart the notion that if such a thing did exist, it would kill all the target pathogens. Naturally, the COVID vaccines were not of the sterilizing variety.

In Catholic theology, many instances of sin involve the use of a Divine gift in an illicit manner. The various sexual sins would fit this description. But, communication is also a gift from God, and perversions of this gift are nothing less than mortal sins. Not that this would matter in the slightest to the perpetrators.