Words

Words have comprehensible meanings. Obviously you agree, since you are reading this. Words are essential to humanity. Without verbalization, complex abstract thought would be impossible. Without verbal communication, many of the relationships we depend on in society would not happen. The meaning of a word to the speaker always has some consistent relationship to its meaning to the hearer, otherwise speaking would be counterproductive. The meanings are usually not identical, but they can be brought closer together by mutual effort.  

The meanings of words can and do change over time, both to individuals and on average in general usage. They change gradually (awful) or abruptly (Karen), consciously (gender) or unconsciously (prevent). But there has to be a meaning a priori for that meaning to change. 

Typically, the changes in the meanings of words are not centrally planned. Changes in language overall are almost never so. Usually an individual or small special interest group has an idea and needs a word to attach it to. If the idea gains prominence, so does the word. If the word previously had a different meaning, the new meaning can coexist as an alternate (spring) or supersede it entirely (gay). There is no committee with veto power over new words. Nor does anyone decide which words die out (forsooth). With limited minds and limited time to spend verbalizing, people's vocabulary is limited, and since new words are continually being added to language, other words must be disappearing. All words compete for usage, and only the useful survive. Although the new word is intentionally designed to fill the need of its inventor, its success is not designed, but depends on its value to everyone. 

As words or language change over time, it is possible to compare usages, but it is not possible to declare one absolutely better than another. Even though a new meaning may be more successful today, the old may have been better fitted to its time. People change, in their behavior and their minds as well as in their technology, and all we can effectively say is that the words that are said more are more effective. I like old words, but I like them because they are old, not because they are meaningful. If value is judged by usage, I prefer common words. 

As new technology is invented, the reach of words has expanded. No longer are words limited to the hearing range of the speaker. With writing, words can travel to anyone, and with radio and the internet, words can be understood by many people, without the speaker even knowing how many. Paradoxically, this made it easier and harder for a word's meaning to change. Harder, because the old meaning is locked into so much writing spread so widely, and easier, because the new meaning can be spread so widely so quickly. 

With the increase in technology, a trend has become apparent where people take advantage of new meanings in order to win arguments. The fallacy of four terms has been known since Socrates, and equivocation has always been common even when it has not been recognized as such. What is new is the intentional use of new meanings, which to be successful must be adopted by other users. In other words, there are people intentionally twisting the meanings of words, and convincing their opponents to accept the new meanings—to their cost. These people can then update their language again, keeping their opponents on the retreat, on the defensive, always using 'outdated' language (by definition, since the new language becomes accepted belatedly by them). 

Many are ignorant enough to take this lying down, but others are driven into this defensive position by the moralization of language. What used to be called politically correct terminology is now woke-speak, where you become a bad person for using yesterday's words. It once was generous to give special attention to a 'minority' group. Then that term became bad, and was replaced by 'disadvantaged'. Then 'marginalized'. Now, according to the American Medical Association, the correct term is "historically systematically excluded". Again, it once was a good thing to be a "discriminating customer". Now, every time that is said (on the first page of Google results at least) it is treated as immoral if not illegal. To use a 'bad' word approvingly of oneself is to admit defeat. 

Alternatively, if a name claimed by their opponents has a positive connotation, these people attribute it to themselves as well. With respect to the law, it used to be possible to call your position originalist, in order to distinguish it from a results-based approach which twisted the laws words to mean whatever was currently politically attractive. Then, the term was adopted by progressives, who claimed that they were following the 'original intent' of the law's writers, if not their actual words, so that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan could claim "we are all originalists". Conservatives resorted to defending their position as textualist, i.e. following the original meaning of the text, leading to Elena Kagan claiming "we’re all textualists now" because she based her reasoning on what the text could mean. 

How is this happening? These progressive meanings are not gradually supplanting less effective or useful concepts. When a word gains a second meaning opposite to its first, understanding is not increased. It is not efficient to have to learn all-new woke jargon every few years. It is counter-productive to deny the agency of the individual and to shift all responsivity for ills to amorphous 'society'. Who are these people that can change our language out from under us? The new words are coming from intellectuals, the wealthy, celebrities, politicians, and the media, who are all small minorities of the population (able to coordinate their subversion of language) and who all share five characteristics. First, they all have the occupational incentive to novelty. Second, they all want and depend on political power for security. Third, because they don't work with their hands, they have a lot of time to devote to attention-getting antics. Fourth, because they don't produce any valuable resource, they need another source of moral superiority. Finally, they all tend to assume they have the right and responsibility to guide everyone else, whether this is called noblesse oblige or social justice. 

Intellectuals (academics and other dealers in generalities) are judged by whether other intellectuals share their ideas, not by the outcome of those ideas. They have no need to consider net results or side effects. All that matters is that they can sign their name to something new. Because they have a genuine expertise in their own narrow fields, they tend to think themselves wise, and capable of improving society at large, given enough money and power. Because they can discover new things, they think their reasoning ability transcends collective experience. The wealthy are always vulnerable in a democracy, and are always viewed negatively unless they can claim to produce some new 'good'. Celebrities are in constant intense competition with each other for the attention of the populace, and will do anything to maintain popularity. Politicians have the same negative incentives, to a greater degree if possible. And of course the media, which spends most of its space tracking and translating politicians, is the commercialization of these characteristics. 

When these forces combine, the results become obvious. 'Fascist' becomes anything they oppose; 'democracy' anything they support. Equality under the law is replaced by 'equity', handouts (funded by unequal confiscations and tax breaks) to those who consent to remain dependent. Justice is no longer fairness, or even favors to the unfortunate, but special treatment to those who identify with the progressive movement. Until 2020, racism could be defined as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Now, Merriam-Webster defines it as "the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another." Progressives are working to apply a new meaning, "the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people." 

Everyone has the right to say what they want, even if it's not what they mean. But it is sometimes possible to identify which side is wrong in an argument, based on which party regularly twists the meanings of the words used by the other. As meanings are increasingly twisted and words vilified, individual thought and human communication are breaking down. As if that were not enough, today large corporations and federally funded bureaucracies are imposing new meanings on us through our wallets. If you don't mouth the new vocabulary, you won't even be considered for many jobs or your company won't be able to get work or funding, and if you advocate against it, your bank will close your account and your web presence will be shut down. Such intentional confusion cannot win out in the long run over effective word usage. But it can curtail much of what we value now.