Deceptive terms
Photo 
#1
A phenomenon which deserves attention is certain words being deceptively used to convey extra meaning on top of their explicit definitions.

One example of this is the commonly used term "conspiracy theory". Taken literally, a conspiracy theory is merely some posited explanation for an event, where the event is at least partially explained by a grouping of people planning something, or "conspiring". Despite this, a common response to people offering alternative explanations for, for example, western states being in favour of policies destructive to the native populace, is that their explanation is a "conspiracy theory". What's unclearly and even unconsciously being implied by such a claim is that the explanation up for consideration is false.

Another example is terms like x-denier. In these contexts a denier is merely supposed to be defined in contrast to someone affirming whatever proposition is up for debate, thus a denier should be someone who affirms the negation of the proposition. However, when someone is called an x-denier, the accuser isn't just saying that the "denier" thinks some proposition is false, the accuser is also deceptively making the implication that the "denier" is cynically arguing for a position they know is wrong.
#2
just dropping by to suggest some reading
Richard Bandler's books are interesting. I own a copy of Trance-Formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Structure of Hypnosis
Really, the topic of NLP is worth investigating re: your line of thought.
NLP is something that is hard to explain, you just sort of have to see it in action until you get it, but there are examples everywhere (including this post)
Hypnosis too, is one of those underexposed topics worth investigating, but there are some differences between stage hypnosis and hypnotic theory, and its relation to marketing, propaganda, filmmaking, art, "game" - as in pickup artists, mind control, etc. so that's something to keep in mind, although there is overlap in their principles so that's also to keep in mind

one example that particularly bothers me is "circumcision vs. uncircumcised"
it should be something like "healthy vs. mutilated" or "functional vs. crippled", etc., but the words and the way they are used are meant to suggest slicing open the genitals of an infant and removing tissue full of nerve endings that serves a mechanical function during sex is default/standard and even healthy.
its one of these utterly psychotic and psychopathic features of the modern world that's been normalized in a few sad places with a little word magic. It's something that can only be described as evil and it breaks my heart. It's as if entire nations are, spiritually and somewhat literally, kept chained up in a sadist's basement. This includes the jews btw: they're just as much victims of this linguistic web, which normalizes pure evil, as they are its primary perpetrators and primary beneficiaries (hospitals in Z.O.G. countries charge for circumcision and infant foreskins can be sold for thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, due to their stem cells. Also, this is becoming tangential, but there may be (there is) some literally vampiric underpinning to it all, not just financially vampiric for-profit-sadism, as the idea that consuming the flesh and blood of the young has restorative/life extending properties is both true and very old. Celebrity facial creams made from foreskins is a topic you can find Oprah talking about (or maybe it was The View idk or care), but then you have the Metzitzah B'peh part of the complete orthodox jewish circumcision ritual, where the rabbi sucks the infant's bleeding penis. Just literal actual vampirism. Anyway.)

Terms like "refugees" and "illegal immigration" are worth thinking about. The latter phrase still has some kind of positive connotation, despite it containing the word "illegal" - maybe it's because "illegal" things are cool (the "fuck the cops" "ACAB" mentality - ACAB also worth unpacking) and "immigrants" are always supposed to be sympathetic 100% of the time in the dominant propaganda.
Maybe we should just be using the word "invaders" instead.
"refugees" is a whole other knot to untangle: nations that are constantly at war, like the warring states of Islam, or nations full of people who are too stupid to solve their own problems, resulting in famines and other crisis (see: much of Africa), the word "refugee" is used to suggest people suffering in these situations are the responsibility of the first world nations to help and uplift. Although I've noticed that what actually tends to happen when "illegal immigrants" and "refugees" are normalized, it's under the guise of humanitarian aid, but it's basically the importing of a slave class to be exploited.


I could think of a few more examples if I tried, but that circumcision rant took quite a lot out of me. It's an issue that's extremely disheartening for me. Mostly because the problem seems intractable.
I think I would have rather stayed closer to the topic at hand, too, but I suppose that example is one of the most egregious and evil examples of deceptive language use.
#3
Thanks for the reply
I don't think it's a correct to say that refugees or illegal immigrants are being exploited in any substantive way, it could be true if exploitation is just being used in some loose marxist sense in which all labour is exploitation, but in that case it's dubious that what's going on is even wrong or immoral, and thus unclear why describing the phenomenon with an inherently pejorative term like exploitation even makes sense. Coming to 1st world nations is good in their eyes, because it is an improvement to wherever they were before (at least supposedly, whether it's really an improvement to live in a richer but extremely degenerate society, where your children will more likely go gay/tranny/druggie or racemix, vs a poorer society, is worth considering). Also they aren't victims in the circumstance, they generally are not even productive, and often commit violence on the native population through various means.

But anyway, as for the term "refugee", it is definitely tacitly implies that the person deserves to be helped. This is the reason why the term was/is used so frequently in the mainstream, regardless of whether the kinds of people it's used to describe actually fit the definition.

This is why it's important for us to be extremely careful when describing our ideas. The same idea could be seen as objectionable or reasonable just depending on the the term used to describe it, i.e. separation vs segregation.
#4
I support both male and female circumcision, because I base my worldview on believing the opposite of whoever is currently annoying me.

(01-06-2023, 05:41 PM)Guest Wrote: I support both male and female circumcision, because  I base my worldview on believing the opposite of whoever is currently annoying me.

Ah yea. The old "I'll be evil because I think it's funny" gambit.

I think Deceptive Terms is related to Social Norms. I remember when word Psychopath had gotten extra popular in Normoid speech but it’s definition had nothing to do with a Clinical diagnosis but rather a new word to call someone a super weirdo. Words like Conspiracy Theory and Denier are used in Context of Social Control, it has more authority then saying Freak or Weirdo. The appropriation of complex words(holding more authority) to replace less whiny uncivil words for the same purpose(Social Conformity).

While Illegal Immigrant is more Associate with libtard Morality(Humanistic Liberalism). Social Norms is calling someone weird while Morality is calling someone Evil. If you appose Illegal Immigrant you are evil, you reject Their Human Rights Making you Inhuman. Humanistic Liberalism is all about affirming your own humanity my Recognizing the Humanity in even the Lowliest and Most Misshapen. By affirming the Humans Rights of Illegal Immigrants(right to the society your ancestors built and right to welfare) they affirm their own humanity, “just be a good human being.”
#5
(01-06-2023, 05:38 PM)Kuman Wrote: This is why it's important for us to be extremely careful when describing our ideas. The same idea could be seen as objectionable or reasonable just depending on the the term used to describe it, i.e. separation vs segregation.
Ideas Stand Alone, there is no reason to be careful when Explaining them by Nature of the Reason the Audience or Listener would Find them Objectionable or Unreasonable. The Reason being that Our Idea is in some way Already apposed to an Idea that the Audience or Listener Already holds. The Distinction Between Refuge and Invader is not one Developed from a need to Convince the Audience but rather to Invoke Pre-held Ideas and Sentiments. Trump calls Mexicans Rapist not to Convince his Supporters that Illegal Immigrants are bad but because his supporters already Appose Illegal Immigration and Recognize his words as Words of Action.

It’s doesn’t matter what you call Segregation if Everyone already Understands that black apes need to go back in their cages.

Although Correcting libtards in Speech does work and should be Encouraged. Letting them call the Invaders “Refuges” is to allow them to Establish their Narrative. Be Pedantic with their words and Police them in their use of Language. “Refuges? I think you mean Illegals who are in our country in Apposition to the Law, Criminals even.”
#6
Eugenics is a great example of this. Any policy which might improve fitness or ability is decried with the term because it is either morally equivalent to Aktion T4, or because of the historical eugenics movement's association with white supremacism. Rather than evaluate the policy in its own right as an investment in the future of a people, the false equivalences have to be made so that the unfit can continue to suffer as unfit in the name of social justice.
#7
Great thread idea, good OP.
You could see this deception being built in real-time when Covid entered the news cycle in early 2020 before there was a news-accepted term between Corona, Covid-19, China Virus, Kung-Flu, etc. The act of describing the coof with scientific language like "Sars CoV-2" lent itself to supporting the more severe claims of its deadliness. People are much more likely to feel helpless in understanding something themselves when it's described in uncommon, scientific terms rather than more common words like "flu" or "cold"; anyone can power through a "cold", but what layman even knows what a "covid" is? In this way, the language choice can obfuscate meaning by being intentionally obtuse. Conversely, in my lifetime I have experienced the change from "homosexual" to "gay" to "queer" in common parlance. The use of "homosexual" has declined because of its colder, diagnosis-like connotation, for "queer", a term which is by design vague and fluid. Among fag communities there is talk of "queering the x community", or of the "queer experience". There's not a homosexual subculture and a lesbian subculture and a pedophile subculture, there is only the wishy-washy Queer Community. In this way, allowing homosexuals to define themselves obfuscates their way of life through the nuances of deliberately vague terms.

(01-06-2023, 11:59 AM)Temporary Guest you can call me Zeth Wrote: Although I've noticed that what actually tends to happen when "illegal immigrants" and "refugees" are normalized, it's under the guise of humanitarian aid, but it's basically the importing of a slave class to be exploited.

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/xsDhzQY/itsover.jpg]

(01-07-2023, 07:15 PM)Corvid Wrote: Eugenics is a great example of this. Any policy which might improve fitness or ability is decried with the term because it is either morally equivalent to Aktion T4, or because of the historical eugenics movement's association with white supremacism. Rather than evaluate the policy in its own right as an investment in the future of a people, the false equivalences have to be made so that the unfit can continue to suffer as unfit in the name of social justice.

This feels more like a genuine issue of philosophy than of the twisting of words. To what NationalKid said, the discomfort with eugenic policy is more because the most common political ideologies today are expressly dysgenic— there's no way to trick people who want 100 Billion Bantus to care about racial hygiene, no matter what you call it.
#8
I think a somewhat related phenomenon is something we could call 'deceptive facts'. Libtards, especially Millenial ones, often commit to memory a whole host of factoids that they love to deploy at the right time in debates as discussion-ending mic drop moments. They bolster the use of 'deceptive terms'. They're often very plain 'facts' but you're supposed to draw far-ranging conclusions from them.

I have in mind stuff like "The Irish weren't originally considered white" (thus race is a social construct), or "Urban developers look at literacy rate statistics to decide where to build prisons"
(thus the capitalist/ruling class is evil, racist, anti-education etc), "The population is aging and there isn't the right support for them" (thus mass immigration from the global south is needed).

They often learn them from a Ted Talk or podcast or Instagram graphic where the idea is presented in a tone implying it's forbidden or underappreciated knowledge ("people aren't talking about this") that has been suppressed by the ruling class or whatever. 

Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens, which advertises itself as a pop science book about human evolution but quickly descends into moralizing and advocating for global communism, is a masterclass in presenting thoughts in this sort of way. It's a favourite book, or at least used to be, of these types.
#9
(01-07-2023, 07:15 PM)Corvid Wrote: Eugenics is a great example of this. Any policy which might improve fitness or ability is decried with the term because it is either morally equivalent to Aktion T4, or because of the historical eugenics movement's association with white supremacism. Rather than evaluate the policy in its own right as an investment in the future of a people, the false equivalences have to be made so that the unfit can continue to suffer as unfit in the name of social justice.

(01-07-2023, 09:45 PM)Datacop Wrote: This feels more like a genuine issue of philosophy than of the twisting of words. To what NationalKid said, the discomfort with eugenic policy is more because the most common political ideologies today are expressly dysgenic— there's no way to trick people who want 100 Billion Bantus to care about racial hygiene, no matter what you call it.

On Eugenics and the underpinning schools of thought which promote dysgenics and decry eugenics, there are two ideas I've encountered which are enough to give me pause.
This is arguably better for a different thread entirely, but

I've encountered ideas from people in relative positions of power that suggest they are afraid of what will happen if whole populations are composed of the most physically, mentally, and spiritually fit specimens.
"If the ideal man is a warrior/poet/philosopher, and every nation were filled with warrior/poet/philosophers, the natural competitive inclinations of men would lead to bloody tragic wars" - seems to be the line of thinking. There is a debate to be had over whether that idea holds real water, but there is some truth to the idea that if you put two physically formidable, virile, independent thinkers in a room, the result isn't necessarily going to be kumbaya peace love and friendship: one may kill the other.

Piggybacking off of this, I had the disturbing thought that, in pre-christian Europe, the European Pagan tribes literally were doing this: we literally were fighting, brutally competing with, and killing each other. I can't make a moral judgement on this, in fact on some primal level it would be awesome to have been running through the woods naked with an axe alongside my kinsmen, exercising my will to power in the purest sense. The court dramas of European Feudal politics were a continuation of this kind of vicious competition between bloodlines.
... but a disturbing thought came to me a few years ago: that the people in power might actually care about the continued existence of the European peoples, and importing invalids from africa into European countries may be for the purpose of uniting European brothers against a common ... annoyance. Enemy might be too strong a word, because the imported africans are, to me at least, pretty obviously controlled as a new lower worker caste in European society.




If there is any truth to this, then here is a real problem: if dysgenics is being promoted by an outside force in an effort to keep the peace and preserve European blood en masse, regardless of the quality of that blood, then that effort does have a domesticating quality which degrades the peoples subjected to it, and it's insufferable to live in a dysgenic society.
Nobody in their right mind wants to interact with their dysgenic neighbors, and everything feels like it's in decline.

Or it could just be genocide.
#10
(01-08-2023, 02:55 AM)Guest Wrote: ... but a disturbing thought came to me a few years ago: that the people in power might actually care about the continued existence of the European peoples

In a certain way yes insofar Europeans are human and ergo like all human life is equally worthy of being protected from the forces of evil reaction. This faction has always played back seat however to those who wish for a global melting pot with no borders  no soul not free to get a apartment with running water and power in choice Northern Europe at best and total revolt of the worlds colored at worse. Which is bad for Europeans obviously as is every aspect of the post 1945 Nuremberg system broadly outside being able to dull people into material comfort while their house is robbed and the power cut in the name of squeezing more bare life into existence. I am of the mind there is not really deceptive terms insofar they are knowingly lying or deceptive policies with a honorable end in secret as you propose rather they are honest when they say they want a dysgenic mass under one roof.  The real  question is how do they get people to believe such a thing is a self evident positive as put nicely by the users here much sophistry no doubt about it.
#11
(01-08-2023, 03:25 AM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: This faction has always played back seat however to those who wish for a global melting pot with no borders  no soul not free to get a apartment with running water and power in choice Northern Europe at best and total revolt of the worlds colored at worse.

It is a terrible fetter.
There are points where I wonder if I've not simply died and am in some sort of hell.
We could be excelling, but there is so much intentionally done by people in power to hold us back.
#12
(01-08-2023, 04:12 AM)Guest Wrote: It is a terrible fetter.
There are points where I wonder if I've not simply died and am in some sort of hell.
We could be excelling, but there is so much intentionally done by people in power to hold us back.
I like to think of how its a fetter built entirely out of a deep sense of fear when my mind comes to how vast the Iron Prison is. What is made out of resentment can be rent apart-its a mere matter of the right tools and a little will. Like the topic of this thread for example, The System with no chance of ever resting tries to create words for its needs and bend all the rest, but already in a few posts the people here can see a way to part the fog. All it takes is getting a quite a few yes steps further.
#13
(01-08-2023, 04:32 AM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: What is made out of resentment can be rent apart-its a mere matter of the right tools and a little will.  Like the topic of this thread for example, The System with no  chance of ever resting tries to create words for its needs and bend all the rest, but already in a few posts the people here can see a way to part the fog. All it takes is getting a quite a few yes steps further.

That's the idea, yea. I do believe it's possible to create something good, transmute it all into gold, etc.
However, as an occultfag, with some interest in astrology and alchemy, I do have some sense that we'll be needing to move some planets (metaphorically, astrologically, or literally speaking, take that how you like).
Entirely possible, but difficult in the sense that the problem demands thinking outside the box, a perspective shift, and for multiple people to get on the same page with a worthwhile new perspective: and to do that, we need to recognize the box or nested boxes we're in, in order to step out of them.
#14
(01-08-2023, 04:42 AM)Guest Wrote: Entirely possible, but difficult in the sense that the problem demands thinking outside the box, a perspective shift, and for multiple people to get on the same page with a worthwhile new perspective: and to do that, we need to recognize the box or nested boxes we're in, in order to step out of them.
Well said, I for one believe ideally in this forum(Among other places and ways) every thread and post helps weave the  map to get out of the boxes that entrap all of man's endeavors today.

And to get ever so slightly back on topic I wish to note how bureaucrats are/have been central to the creation so many deceptive terms. Be it NGO or a national agency concepts have been able to be put down almost by decree just by memos and PR campaigns. A example off the top of my head the word unhoused as a replacement for the word  homeless. Just roll it around you tongue for a moment its a masterclass!
#15
(01-07-2023, 09:45 PM)Datacop Wrote: You could see this deception being built in real-time when Covid entered the news cycle in early 2020 before there was a news-accepted term between Corona, Covid-19, China Virus, Kung-Flu, etc. The act of describing the coof with scientific language like "Sars CoV-2" lent itself to supporting the more severe claims of its deadliness. People are much more likely to feel helpless in understanding something themselves when it's described in uncommon, scientific terms rather than more common words like "flu" or "cold"; anyone can power through a "cold", but what layman even knows what a "covid" is? In this way, the language choice can obfuscate meaning by being intentionally obtuse.

I've been acutely aware of the naming issue because semantic drift and grammatical errors are like nails on a chalkboard for me. "SARS CoV-2" rarely appeared outside of scientific papers even before it was officially titled. Up to this point, it was almost universally known as "[novel] coronavirus" or "Wuhan flu." The acronym "COVID-19" was chosen, by their own admission, to "destigmatize" Wuhan and China. The more clinical sounding the better. Liberals' first priority was to save a precious minority from any association with something bad. (See: Monkeypox -> MPX). Once they realized they could exploit this for political gain, the word "Covid" was invented to make it sound more familiar and the Chinese (-American) pandering was shifted to "Stop Asian Hate". The goal behind "Covid" (or "covid" by the especially brave editors out there) is to have a quick, catchy, and easily pronounceable word you can throw around to "continue the conversation". You can throw it around the water cooler much easier when it's two syllables. Dropping the capitalization is key here as well, as it makes it sound more like a familiar concept or a force of nature that you just have to accept. The forecast says there's a 25% chance of rain today. Inflation raised your grocery expenses by 20%. Covid infection rates have doubled in your area.

I also sometimes see other news-cycle-friendly acronyms being made lowercase now, like "Nato". I don't know if this is a general trend caused by lazy editors, shifts in style similar to why we don't write acronyms with tedious P.E.R.I.O.D.S. anymore, or a desire to make it more familiar and comforting to read. (To the writer or to the reader?) Given that I've seen them use different versions even within a single headline, I can say the first point is true for some of them at least.

They really shot themselves in the foot with the ell-gee-bee-tee-kyu-co-myu-ni-tee shit, thoughever. They had a perfectly serviceable catch-all word in queer, then someone decided that's a sexuality or gender or something, or that it was just as serviceable as an insult, so now they're stuck with a syllabic nightmare. Who knows how many letters will become mandatory in the future.
#16
I will add a boring one: Left-wing and right-wing being purely economic terms. Or being defined by "modern situation". A very convenient way to forget what right wing even is...


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)