Post: #1

Here's how SJWs, leftists, feminists, and other agents of subversion manipulate public opinion:

You use game to treat women as responsible, sexually consenting adults to get what you want ==> society still views women as sexually vulnerable ==> women are thus still vulnerable ==> if anything goes wrong, it's a man's fault ==> you are "exploiting" women ==> People that do that are rapists ==> You are a "potential rapist." Therefore success with women will imply rape and exploitation. Never mind that there's is a drunken slut culture.

Thus a player using game = potential rapist.

You want traditional women instead of drunk bar sluts ==> you want to limit female sexual freedom/power ==> plus you used the word "slut" to describe sexually empowered women ==> that's misogynistic and oppressive ==> you are a misogynist ==> misogynist are mean shitlords that want to beat women and force them to make sandwiches ==> you are a very bad person.

Thus men seeking traditional women = misogynists.

You travel because you prefer a certain type of woman ==> you are a tourist also looking for sex ==> Bam, you are now a sex-tourist ==> Sex tourism is associated with prostitution ==> now they can insinuate that you are hiring prostitutes and supporting exploitation.

Thus a man dating in a foreign country = exploiter.

You prefer dating women of a certain race/ethnicity ==> that sounds racist ==> you are most likely a racist ==> all racists are white supremacist neo-nazis, filled with hate and bloodlust ==> you are now a neo-nazi.

Thus if you prefer white girls = racist!

----------------------------------

Through this process of tacking on a train of connotations, they are able to accuse us, masculine men, of being chauvinistic misogynists, rapists, and racists. And unfortunately, the general public is all too receptive to their propaganda.

They get away with their accusations in the mass media, because they are still better at culture war, or specifically, at controlling language and meaning as demonstrated above.

Beyond simple communication exists words that have abstract meanings and more connotations; to the point that many people that share a language on a basic communication level do not otherwise speak the same language -- example, people may agree on what a real house is, but not on what a real republican is.

Now you might be saying to yourself, "Well that's so obvious. I already knew that." However, just because you've immediately comprehended something when it's stated doesn't mean that you are really generally aware, or that you fully understand it yet. And that's another issue...

Given the clever and subversive nature of the ideological antagonists working against us, we ought think about this phenomenon more often. We must not only be more vigilant, but actively transform and influence culture and communication on the same levels that they do.

We can't win hearts and minds with sound logic and reason alone. We must control the language.

Post: #2

Why do you care? If you want a certain type of woman or want to travel for sex, do it and don't explain it to anyone.

Post: #3

Yeah it's a well known part of their repertoire. If you can obfuscate the very language people use, you damage reasonable and rational thought and communication, which makes social degeneration easier.

The term you're looking for is 'definition hijacking'.

The only counter tactic I know of is to spot it and call it out immediately (and as always, follow up with a riposte). Appeal to natural law, and never accidently accept one of their fabricated ideological premises.

Post: #4

You should read George Orwell, particularly 1984 on how to control thought by controlling language. Because we think using language.

Group think, double speak, re-writing history to suit the agenda. Orwell fore saw it all in the late 1940's.

Post: #5

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...koff.shtml

Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003

BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

_____________________________________________________________

There's really nothing new or particularly leftist about controlling the debate through words.

For Abortion and Against Abortion became

Pro-Choice (so it's not pro-baby killing)
Pro-Life (so it's not anti woman)

A bunch of you never took liberal arts classes, but this is exactly the sort of thing that gets discussed in "useless" liberal arts.

It's used all over. Advertising, Politics, even science.

Here's one I read today.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles...restaurant

"But the pop-ups also taught Bruner-Yang and his team another important element: How to talk about their dishes. “Depending on how we named [a dish], you would get a different reaction of whether people liked it,” Bruner-Yang says. Take, for example, a recipe made with pig’s blood, sticky rice, sweet soy, crushed peanuts, and cilantro. Bruner-Yang and Wozniuk would list it under a different name on the menu over the course of four days. When named Pig’s Blood Cake, the dish did not sell. But as Black Sticky Rice Cake, it sold just fine. "
_________________________

I mention this because forums like this (fora?) attract a bunch of mouth breathers who truly believe in smoke filled rooms and the Illuminati on the other side.

Meanwhile, bullshit happens right in front of them, perfectly publicized, all the time.

WIA

Post: #6

(08-08-2015 12:47 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...koff.shtml

Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003

BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

_____________________________________________________________

There's really nothing new or particularly leftist about controlling the debate through words.

For Abortion and Against Abortion became

Pro-Choice (so it's not pro-baby killing)
Pro-Life (so it's not anti woman)

A bunch of you never took liberal arts classes, but this is exactly the sort of thing that gets discussed in "useless" liberal arts.

It's used all over. Advertising, Politics, even science.

Here's one I read today.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles...restaurant

"But the pop-ups also taught Bruner-Yang and his team another important element: How to talk about their dishes. “Depending on how we named [a dish], you would get a different reaction of whether people liked it,” Bruner-Yang says. Take, for example, a recipe made with pig’s blood, sticky rice, sweet soy, crushed peanuts, and cilantro. Bruner-Yang and Wozniuk would list it under a different name on the menu over the course of four days. When named Pig’s Blood Cake, the dish did not sell. But as Black Sticky Rice Cake, it sold just fine. "
_________________________

I mention this because forums like this (fora?) attract a bunch of mouth breathers who truly believe in smoke filled rooms and the Illuminati on the other side.

Meanwhile, bullshit happens right in front of them, perfectly publicized, all the time.

WIA

The left does it more so than the right.

And I'm not just talking about definition hijacking, but a more overall strategy of tacking on connotations and emotions. That's what I was trying to point out.

Instead of changing the literal definitions, they also change the emotional nature of the language. I think its as if some words have a secondary definition/meaning that exists beneath the literal dictionary definition.

Post: #7

del

Post: #8

Look at these motherfuckers, they’re trying to eliminate the use of the phrase illegal immigrant in Twitter.

The Twitter bot that 'corrects' people who say 'illegal immigrant'

Quote:Two American journalists have created a Twitter bot that "corrects" people who tweet the term "illegal immigrant", and offers alternatives. But not everyone appreciates the suggestion.

The "I" word has been called into question in recent years. Defining any human being as "illegal" is considered offensive by some, who think the term should be reconsidered.

That's why Patrick Hogan and Jorge Rivas, journalists at Fusion.net, created a Twitter bot - a computer programme to compose and publish tweets automatically - to "correct" people who use the term on the social network.

Twitter users who include the phrase in any context may receive a message from the bot reading: "People aren't illegal. Try saying "undocumented immigrant" or "unauthorized immigrant" instead."

As you might expect, many people weren't happy about being asked to rethink their use of the phrase, and were infuriated that the suggestion was generated by a piece of computer code. Without realising they were now debating a computer, some retaliated. "I don't recall asking for your opinion", and "They broke the law entering here illegally, that makes them illegals", two users replied.

Some appreciated the tip, however. "Good point! thank you!" said one. "I think you have a good goal in mind, but it makes me uncomfortable to be corrected by a bot," wrote another.

"We see the phrases 'illegal immigrant' and 'illegal alien' thrown around a lot in policy debates," Patrick Hogan tells BBC Trending. "It struck us as a very dehumanising way of referring to someone."

The first version of the bot replied to every instance of the term, but was sending more tweets than the network would allow, he says. The team have now amended it to send one reply every 10 minutes, and not to target the same user twice.

The phrase refers to those who have entered a country without legal permission to do so, and the debate centres on whether people themselves should be defined as "illegal". In 2013 the Associated Press issued new guidance to its journalists to stop using the phrase. "Use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant," it read. Instead, they should refer to people as "living in" or "entering a country illegally". Campaigners argue that it is an unnecessarily loaded term, though others think it remains both straightforward and accurate.

Many American news organisations have moved away from using the phrase, but the BBC does not issue guidance on its use.