Category: Language Matters

Conspiracy Theories?

The Language Nazi doesn't much cotton to the loose lingo that leftists love.

Hillary spoke of a "vast right wing conspiracy" directed against her husband.  Maybe that's where the linguistic mischief started. How can a conspiracy be vast and composed of half the population?

A conspiracy is a clandestine agreement among a small group of people to achieve a nefarious end, typically by means of treason or treachery. The members of a conspiracy are called conspirators. They meet in secret and in small numbers.   Hillary's abuse of English is plain: conservatives do not form a secret organization; they are not few in number; and their opposition to Bill Clinton and his policies was not nefarious, treasonous, or treacherous. 

A conspiracy theory alleges that a conspiracy is under way or has occurred to bring about some event. An example is the theory that 9/11 was an 'inside job.' Some conspiracy theories  are true, and some false; some are well-supported by evidence, others are not.  None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are well- supported in my opinion. But that in not the present point. The present point is that it is a mistake to assume that every conspiracy theory is false or baseless.

It is also a mistake to refer to any theory or any  bit of groundless speculation as a conspiracy theory.   Not every theory is a conspiracy theory.  A conspiracy theory alleges a conspiracy where 'conspiracy' is  defined as above.

Finally, it is a mistake to oppose theories to facts, as if no theory can be true. 

Why are Lawyers so Unhappy?

Martin P. Seligman explains. 'Seligman'! Now there's an aptronym for you. Selig is German for happy, blessed, blissful, although it can also mean late (verstorben) and tipsy (betrunken). So Seligman is the happy man or happy one. Nomen est omen?

Give some careful thought to what you name your kid. 'Chastity' may have an anti-aptronymic effect.  As for anti-aptronyms, I was introduced a while back to a hulking biker who rejoiced under the name of 'Tiny.'  A student of mine's name for me was 'Smiley' to underscore my serious-as-cancer demeanor.

Diversity Worth Having

Diversity worth having presupposes a principle of unity that controls the diversity. Diversity must be checked and balanced by the competing value of unity, a value with an equal claim on our respect.

Example.  One language only in the public sphere makes possible many voices to be heard and understood by all.  To communicate our differences we need a common language.  

Talking with one another is preferable to shooting at each other.  Polyglot 'cultures' are more conducive to shooting than to talking.

Word of the Day: Gallimaufry

A gallimaufry is a hodgepodge. 

The word is of course white-supremacist so be careful  of the contexts in which you use it, assuming you dare use it.  After all, if correct grammar is racist, as per the Rutgers English Department, then a large vocabulary must also be.  Don't forget: anything blacks are poor at is ipso facto racist, and that holds in spades for ipso facto.

'Gallimaufry'  is also a useless word and for two reasons. First, 'liberals' have so eroded standards that almost all have impoverished vocabularies; hence nothing will be communicated by the use of this word.

Second, in this Age of Levelling, the  use of the word in question will be perceived as effete, and possibly epicene; you will be thought to be putting on airs.  It is a verbal bow tie.

The Ability to Write and to Comprehend a Good, Long Sentence . . .

. . . is one mark of an educated mind. You won't learn this in the English Department of Rutgers, however. Example:

If you value the life of the mind, the pursuit of truth, the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, high culture and its transmission, in short, the classical values of the university as set forth in such great works as John Henry Cardinal Newman's The Idea of a University,  then you should withdraw all support from the culturally Marxist indoctrination centers that the vast majority of contemporary 'universities' have become.

A good stylist, I will add, varies the length of his sentences.   (And a good upholder of traditional values insists on his right to use standard English.)

The 'universities' of the present day are more an impediment to the development of an educated mind than  a help. You don't need them.  Do your bit to defund them.

Note the difference between 'good, long sentence' and 'good long sentence.'

Is ‘Looters’ Racist?

But of course!

Blacks are 'over-represented' among looters. It would be racist to hold blacks to civilized standards of behavior because such behavior is not 'who they are.' Therefore, any use of 'looters' is racist.

Is that the 'reasoning'? I'm just asking.  See here:

At the Los Angeles Times, for instance, an editor has said the word “looters,” which has been used many times in the paper, now has “a pejorative and racist connotation” and that anyone who is inclined to use the word should “talk to your immediate supervisor.” Translation: Best not use the word at all, if you want to stay employed. So what to call looters? Non-paying shoppers? That doesn’t quite tell the story: Ordinary shoplifters don’t usually bust up all the windows. How about self-appointed retail-justice-commandos? Revolutionary mass goods-redistribution agents?

'Liberals' can't think, but they are really good at associational slides. Their thinking is slurry and surreal and 'morphy' and muddled. One thing reminds them of another and morphs into it.   Their 'thinking' is feculent, a byproduct — of con-fusion.  An intercranial crapstorm. Foolish and flushable.

'Blacklist' is another word the Pee-Cee Brigade wants to ban.  But then what about 'white out' and 'red line' and 'brown nose' and 'Code Yellow'?

'Liberals' need re-education. We'll begin building the camps at the start of Trump's third term.  He will no doubt get a third term by simply refusing to leave. Ask Nancy Pelosi. 

Don’t Talk Like a ‘Liberal’!

When you do, you validate their obfuscatory and question-begging jargon.

For example, leftists believe in something they call 'hate speech.' As they use the phrase, it covers legitimate dissent.

It is foolish for a conservative to say that he is for 'hate speech,' or that 'hate speech' is protected speech. Dennis Prager has been known to make this mistake. We conservatives are for open inquiry  and the right to dissent. Put it that way, in positive terms.

If leftists take our dissent as 'hateful,' that is their presumably willful misapprehension. We shouldn't validate it.

Don't let leftists frame the debate. He who controls the terms of the debate controls the debate.

Ohne Fleiß Kein Preis

Loosely translated: No pain, no gain. Der Fleiß (Fleiss) is German for diligence. Thus 'Heidi Fleiss' is a near aptronym, diligent as she was in converting concupiscence into currency.

Another interesting German word is Sitzfleisch. It too is close in meaning to diligence, staying power. Fleisch is meat and Sitz, seat, is from the verb sitzen, to sit. One who has Sitzfleisch, then, has sitting meat. Think of a scholarly grind who sits for long hours poring over tome after tome of arcana.

And that reminds me of a story. Max Scheler and Nicolai Hartmann were German philosophers of high repute, though Scheler was more the genius and Hartmann more the grind. As the story goes, Scheler once disparaged Hartmann thusly, "My genius and your Sitzfleisch would make a great philosopher!"

But you are probably more interested in the later antics of Miss Fleiss than in dead old white German philosophers.  According to this undoubtedly reputable source,

Fleiss moved from Hollywood to Pahrump, Nevada where she lives on a bird sanctuary and cares for parrots.

Although I've been everywhere, man, crossed the deserts bare, man, I never did make it to Pahrump.  Now that's a name verging on an aptronym that I could have some fun with. But I will resist temptation.

Gotta go. Time to mount the mountain bike. Ohne Fleiß kein Preis.

Words of the Day

Thanks to, or rather, because of 'liberal' dumbing-down, people these days have terribly limited vocabularies. Here are a couple you should know. Both definitions from Merriam-Webster.

Definition of avulsion

: a forcible separation or detachment: such as
a : a tearing away of a body part accidentally or surgically
b : a sudden cutting off of land by flood, currents, or change in course of a body of water especially : one separating land from one person's property and joining it to another's. 

Definition of affine

 (Entry 1 of 2)

: a relative by marriage : in-law

affine

adjective

Definition of affine (Entry 2 of 2)

: of, relating to, or being a transformation (such as a translation, a rotation, or a uniform stretching) that carries straight lines into straight lines and parallel lines into parallel lines but may alter distance between points and angles between lines affine geometry.
 
Here is an interesting use of 'affine' that I found this morning in  Dietrich von Hildebrand, In Defense of Purity (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1962, p. 37):
 
But not only are insensibility and purity in no way identical; insensibility [Unsinnlichkeit] . . . does not even constitute an environment particularly favorable to the virtue of purity. For it is not even the temperament  which is affine to that virtue and which makes it easier. That is to say, it is not the temperamental counterpart of purity.

A Comment Thread on Tribalism and Identity Politics from December, 2015

Part of an uncommonly good thread. Here is the entry to which the thread attaches.

………………………………………………….

Anon,

My point was that many short comments are better than one long one.

One problem here is that I tossed out a word, 'tribalism,' but did not define it. What's worse is that I used it very loosely. Mea culpa. It is a stretch to think of women as a 'tribe.'

Perhaps we have a 'family' of tribalisms: racial, sexual, etc.

Now I'll take a stab at a definition:

A person P is a racial tribalist =df P defines himself and values himself first and foremost in terms of his being a member of the race of which he happens to be a member.

I'm Caucasian as you may have guessed. But when I get up in the morning I don't look into the mirror and affirm: I am a white man! This is who I am most fundamentally. This is what makes me be ME. This fact is what constitutes my innermost identity and is that attribute upon which my value as a person primarily supervenes.

I am therefore not a racial tribalist by my definition. This is not to say that I am not white or that being white is not a part of WHAT I am, namely an animal, a bit of the world's fauna. Indeed, insofar as I am an animal, it is arguable that I am essentially (as opposed to accidentally) white if we grant Kripke's point about the essentiality of origin: if I could not have had parents other than the parents I in fact have, then, given that both are white, I could not have failed to be white. So I am essentially white.

But is it essential to WHO I am that I be white? (Related question: Are persons reducible to objects in the natural world?)

Now in my definition above there is the phrase "member of the race of which he happens to be a member" which suggests that it is a contingent fact about me that I am white. There is the animal that bears my name, an animal that is essentially white. But there is a sense, brought out by Thomas  Nagel in various writings, in which I am contingently the animal I am. I am contingently an animal that is essentially white.

But now we are drifting towards some very deep waters.

Posted by: Bill Vallicella | Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 11:12 AM

I’m not sure we need to even address the question of whether our race is essential to our personal identity or not. Isn’t it enough that it is a feature of us that is deeply important to our functioning in the world and part of the natural categories into which we separate ourselves?

As you define it, I doubt anyone here is a racial tribalist, because saying that you are “first and foremost” part of a race makes it sound as though the interests of that group or yourself as a member of that group trump everything else. I take it that the position that Jacques and I are defending is just that racial groups are morally legitimate and one’s racial affiliation provides genuine moral grounds for certain prioritizations of members of that race.

Posted by: Anonymous | Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Anon. writes,

>>it is obvious that it is morally permissible to prioritize one’s family, one’s country, one’s species, etc. in various ways. So, it’s already obvious that “tribalism” is morally permissible. Why arbitrarily think that racial tribalism is illegitimate given that tribalism in generally is clearly morally permissible?<<

I take it that what you mean by tribalism in general is favoring or "prioritizing" one's X over another person's X, if they are different. So racial tribalism is favoring or "prioritizing" one's race over another's assuming they are different.

Whether or not this is morally permissible in a given case will depend on the nature of the favoring. In the O. J. Simpson case, the black jurors voted to acquit despite a mountain of evidence showing that he had murdered two white people. They favored Simpson over his victims because he is black.  I would say that their favoring was morally impermissible.

We have to agree upon a definition of 'tribalism,' however, if we are to move forward.

Posted by: Bill Vallicella | Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:08 PM

Continue reading “A Comment Thread on Tribalism and Identity Politics from December, 2015”