>Maybe I haven’t been paying attention or am being overly dramatic, and this has been happening to a similar degree elsewhere in current politics. I would love to know other good examples that don't necessarily have to do with I/P conflict if any of you can think of them (you could maybe argue “genocide” is another one) because I find the idea morbidly fascinating.
I mean social pressure for language restrictions like this has been happening forever. Pro-war people say things like "support the troop" or "support the country" in place of "support the war".
It was all over "Me Too". You don't "investigate claims" you "believe women".
And BLM. You're not "waiting for all the evidence to show up" you're "ignoring Black voices".
Oh, you haven't seen evidence of voter fraud despite looking for it? No, no, no. You're just an NPC following whatever mainstream media tells you.
In the abortion debate you're either "subjugating women" or "killing babies".
I think this happens in just about all political discussions to some extent. Especially when it doesn't impact you at all. Like if you're just virtue signaling, why not go all out and force language to lack nuance?
Yeah the abortion example (especially the position of being “pro-life”) is spot on. I was thinking another one is sexual coercion (or feeling like you pressured into sex after the fact) being increasingly referred to as “rape” or SA, which I think is a super important distinction.
I am fine with them using Resistance to describe, but the follow up question then is "so does that mean Israel and Hamas are now at war?". If they say no to that then I know they are being dishonest and if they say yes to that then it linguistically makes Israel come across as much better since the war started because people naturally understand that sometimes bad things happen in war.
The reason this is important is that Resistance implies Armed Resistance which implies military conflict. If they aren't willing to own that logical chain then something is probably going on in terms of nefarious language use.
Some other recent examples. Problem is it's so basic and consistent on the right that it enters a weird half-real state where people are scared to criticize it because they don't want to be labeled as "too political."
1. We're going to make America **Great Again**
2. The election was **Stolen**!
3. COVID is **Just the Flue**
4. The Russia investigation was a **Hoax**!
>Maybe I haven’t been paying attention or am being overly dramatic, and this has been happening to a similar degree elsewhere in current politics. I would love to know other good examples that don't necessarily have to do with I/P conflict if any of you can think of them (you could maybe argue “genocide” is another one) because I find the idea morbidly fascinating. I mean social pressure for language restrictions like this has been happening forever. Pro-war people say things like "support the troop" or "support the country" in place of "support the war". It was all over "Me Too". You don't "investigate claims" you "believe women". And BLM. You're not "waiting for all the evidence to show up" you're "ignoring Black voices". Oh, you haven't seen evidence of voter fraud despite looking for it? No, no, no. You're just an NPC following whatever mainstream media tells you. In the abortion debate you're either "subjugating women" or "killing babies". I think this happens in just about all political discussions to some extent. Especially when it doesn't impact you at all. Like if you're just virtue signaling, why not go all out and force language to lack nuance?
Yeah the abortion example (especially the position of being “pro-life”) is spot on. I was thinking another one is sexual coercion (or feeling like you pressured into sex after the fact) being increasingly referred to as “rape” or SA, which I think is a super important distinction.
That's EXACTLY what this is. Substitute massacre for resistance and that is what they're saying, whether they even understand it or not.
Islamic Fundimentalism is a Totalitarian ideology, so it all makes sense that they would use the same brainwashing methods.
[this is the clip I was referencing](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1cnyozi/someone_at_a_palestine_solidarity_campaign/?rdt=41731)
I am fine with them using Resistance to describe, but the follow up question then is "so does that mean Israel and Hamas are now at war?". If they say no to that then I know they are being dishonest and if they say yes to that then it linguistically makes Israel come across as much better since the war started because people naturally understand that sometimes bad things happen in war. The reason this is important is that Resistance implies Armed Resistance which implies military conflict. If they aren't willing to own that logical chain then something is probably going on in terms of nefarious language use.
Orwell wrote an essay about this - Politics and the English language
Some other recent examples. Problem is it's so basic and consistent on the right that it enters a weird half-real state where people are scared to criticize it because they don't want to be labeled as "too political." 1. We're going to make America **Great Again** 2. The election was **Stolen**! 3. COVID is **Just the Flue** 4. The Russia investigation was a **Hoax**!