Loaded Words

[-K2-]

...the phrase Deliberately Obtuse to describe someones writing.

I meant that they were dancing around the obvious and making the reading experience difficult both to follow and to swallow....

Hey! I resemble that remark

K2

 

[Parson]

Interesting thought about the development of language. There are certainly multitudes of words in English that mean something far different than the original meaning. And as @zmunkz has pointed out several words whose meaning is less extreme than before, I started thinking about words whose meaning has become more extreme and I am hard pressed to come up with one. Words like "Fundamentalist" "Islamist" or "homophobe" might qualify but they are supposed to name something very specific rather than be an adjective describing someone.

I'm thinking that one of the things that this thread has shown is that the general polarism in our world's society is being seen to a degree in the way we use and think it is appropriate very strong words. If I look at the Reformation and the American Civil war those times were also marked by the relative ease that very strong language was considered appropriate for their opponents --- of course then they were all labeled "enemies."

 

[tinkerdan]

Nothing recent...

Interesting thought about the development of language. There are certainly multitudes of words in English that mean something far different than the original meaning. And as @zmunkz has pointed out several words whose meaning is less extreme than before, I started thinking about words whose meaning has become more extreme and I am hard pressed to come up with one. Words like "Fundamentalist" "Islamist" or "homophobe" might qualify but they are supposed to name something very specific rather than be an adjective describing someone.

However in the past you could look at fag faggot and fagging for one that had a rather strange rise to infamy.

 

[Pyan]

Interestingly, there is a list of word and phrases that you can't use to describe your opponents in the UK Parliament - and some of those sound very mild indeed to the modern ear, including rat, wart, swine, dodgy, pipsqueak, git and hooligan. These, apparently, 'offend the dignity of the assembly'...

 

[Pyan]

However in the past you could look at fag faggot and fagging for one that had a rather strange rise to infamy.

Not so much in the UK, possibly - here a faggot is a tasty tea-time treat...

 

[tinkerdan]

@pyan I think you could check the etymology related to the word.

 

[Pyan]

@pyan I think you could check the etymology related to the word.

Yes, it relates to the original meaning of 'bound up', as in sticks for the fire, and by extension, a bundle of meaty bits cooked together. It doesn't have quite the same connotations that it seems to have in the USA, though, and is not traditionally used in the UK as an insult referring to gay men. I don't quite get the point of your comment, I'm afraid.

 

[tinkerdan]

It also refers burning heretics (emblematic of this from 1550s), so that fire and faggot and was used to indicate "punishment of a heretic".
Use of faggot in connection with public executions had long been obscure English historical trivia by the time the word began to be used for "male homosexual" in 20th century American slang.

Obsolete British senses of faggot were "man hired into military service merely to fill out the ranks at muster" (1700) and "vote manufactured for party purposes" (1817)

Fagging was a traditional practice in British boarding private schools (nearly all "public schools" in the English sense) and also many other boarding schools, whereby younger pupils were required to act as personal servants to the most senior boys.

Granting that my sources might be less than authoritative.

if you keep digging
a cigarette.
"she's got a fag in her mouth, and she's squinting her eyes against the smoke"



The bottom line:
Apparently Faggot might have been used as a pejorative here.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071014224030/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2005%2F11%2F10%2Fnblair110.xml

 

[CTRandall]

I'm thinking that one of the things that this thread has shown is that the general polarism in our world's society is being seen to a degree in the way we use and think it is appropriate very strong words. If I look at the Reformation and the American Civil war those times were also marked by the relative ease that very strong language was considered appropriate for their opponents --- of course then they were all labeled "enemies."

As you note, there is nothing new about this. Plato wanted to ban the teaching of rhetoric because it's sole purpose is to convince people of something, rather than inform them of the truth. Nietzsche acknoweledged that he deliberately stated his arguments in the most extreme way he could, e.g. "God is dead" (no offence intended, Parson!), just so he would be noticed. Politicians/publicists/salespeople/journalists/teachers do it all the time--sometimes for self-serving ends but sometimes for good reasons.

What I find interesting about the examples from the original post is that it highlights how both speakers and audiences share in the misuse of superlatives and emotionally-charged, socially=provocative language. I suspect very few people will agree that the Donald's impeachment was truly evil but I also suspect that many of his supporters revel in his deliberate use of such an extreme description. The Orange One has found an easy means of sharing a good joke with his friends while making his opponents see red. America's Number One Great-Maker knows the word "evil" will mean differnet things to different people and that is precisely why he used it.

I may be giving that particular person too much credit for thinking before he speaks but, regardless, the principle of using a single word to mean multiple different things is common place. Liars do it all the time. So do negotiators and diplomats. Very few peace treaties would ever be signed without judicious use of constructive ambiguity in language.

 

[Ray Zdybrow]

Personally I'd only use "evil" and "wicked" for things which really are, though I'm aware the latter, at least, has/had a meaning of great and marvellous among the young, at least for a time. But then, I'm probably as out of date as you are, Parson, when it comes to such things!

Words do carry weight, and I find it objectionable when their use is degraded. But even I have to acknowledge that words change in meaning -- "sophisticated" has changed dramatically since it was first coined, let alone more commonplace words like "awful" and "terrible". When I write I do pay attention both to the original meaning of a word and its common use, but usually its modern meaning is the one that has to hold sway even if I'm writing in the equivalent of the Middle Ages, which often means I won't use a word as its connotations nowadays won't fit with what I want.


With my mod's hat on: although Parson has picked up usage by the US President which has brought about this thread, please remember that we don't talk politics here, so we shan't be referring to Donald Trump again, nor any other politician. Please keep this thread to a discussion of word use, nothing else.

"Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"