Words have meaning, and the left is very good at ever so subtly altering the meaning of words so that over time those words no longer mean what they meant. Words, of course, are the bullets of intellectual debate. If you allow your opponent to select your ammo for you, well, let's just say you are at a disadvantage.In other posts and reader comments here, we have discussed a range of words which have become transformed into things far removed from their original meanings: gay and liberal, of course, are two words which come immediately to mind. There are many more, of course, as the progs try to make 1984 into a how-to manual. Let me bring up another perfectly good and evocative word now heading for the freak show booth, "survivor."
Survivor: A great and strong word, and once one easy to understand.
If you sailed on the Titanic, or the Lusitania, or the Hood, or the Yamato, or the Indianapolis, or the Andrea Doria, and made it home, you are a survivor. If you were a Jew, a Gypsie, or a Jehovah's Witness in Nazi Germany and made it through the horrors of the holocaust, you are a survivor. If you made it through a fiery plane crash, or a horrid car wreck, or a massive train derailment, well, you are a survivor. If you were at. the facility in Benghazi when it was attacked by the jihadis and Obama/Clinton/Rice did nothing except lie and you came through, you are a survivor. If you were brutally attacked, beaten, and raped, and lived to tell, you are a survivor.
If you had your bottom pinched, or underwent some catcalls, or got groped on a date, or had to put up with a "hostile work environment," you are, well, let's just say "survivor" is not the label for you, anymore than it would be if you had your pocket picked or your car burgled. Depending on the example you pick, you are a victim of perhaps of a crime, or most certainly the sort of rudeness and crudeness which perhaps should have provoked a slap across the face, or a swift kick to the nether regions, or--how about this?--a complaint to the appropriate authorities.
Victim does not equal survivor.
The word "survivor" is now quite easily thrown about by anybody who claims to have suffered a "sexual assault." The problem, of course, is that "sexual assault" has been steadily redefined and watered down so that just about any action can be labelled a "sexual assault." Now it can be a boorish comment, a leer, or a gesture. To claim that as a "sexual assault" insults those who have suffered and survived real sexual assault.
Let's be a bit more judicious in the use of the label "survivor" for the sake of the real survivors.
Whle we're on it: "Victim". Let's not redefine that, either.ReplyDelete
Like Hero, and not a sandwich....Delete
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
From: "Through the Looking Glass", Chapter 6.
And, to round thing out, a few choice words from Lenin:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.- It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain. - April Theses (1917)
We must display determination, endurance, firmness and unanimity. We must stop at nothing. Everybody and everything must be used to save the rule of the workers and peasants, to save communism. - Speech to Third All-Russia Congress of Textile Workers (1920)
The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive. - The Slogans and Organisation of Social-Democratic Work (1919)
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
Thanks for the important reminders, Cousin Bruce!Delete
I can agree that "survivor" is definately a change in meaning. Last I heard, words belonged to us, and meansing change over time with no intent to change them.ReplyDelete
I could just as easily talk about how conservatives have changed the meanings of words over time, like the word "conservative".
As for "real sexual assault", i would say that if someone burgled a penny from you, or $1000, it is still burglary. If someone imposes their sexual desire on your awareness, a catcall is a lesser form of assault than a physical attack, but it is still assault (a violent verbal attack, check Merriam Websters for the definition).
So your view Brow, is that there is no difference between boorish behavior and violent attack.Delete
"If someone imposes their sexual desire on your awareness, it is still assault."Delete
You gotta be kidding me OneBrow. "Imposes on somebody's awareness"?
Are you aware that ...
So your view Brow, is that there is no difference between boorish behavior and violent attack.
So your view is that there is no difference between stealing a penny and stealing $1000, and you think I'm the one that's hard to believe?
You ever seen how men respond when they get flipped off or otherwise rejected after catcalling? Many (yes, #notallmen) get angry, and start hurling insults. Why do *you* think that is?
I suppose it's the quality/quantity of the imposition on the individual male's awareness.
(I'll understand the degree of the imposition better, I think, when Justice Kavenaugh renders his opinion on the case to be heard today to wit:
We both agree quality and quantity are meaningful. Hugs all around!
(DENARD STOKELING, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
Legal Eagles, Criminal Clowns, and the Victim:
‘MAD’& the dying Spirit of the Law
Perhaps the Kavanaugh Kid will help the confused parties of the 1st 2nd and 3rd part on how and where to re-discover the Eureka moment now hidden in the 'captcha' bushes?
“Petitioner objected to his classification as an armed career criminal…He argued, inter alia, that his 1997 robbery conviction … did not qualify as a “violent felony” … Petitioner noted that in 1999, the Florida legislature enacted a separate statute prohibiting “robbery by sudden snatching.” (defining “[r]obbery by sudden snatching”). Petitioner argued that before that statute was enacted, robbery by sudden snatching was prosecuted as robbery … He further argued that “robbery by sudden snatching does not ‘have as an element’ the use or threatened use of violent force…
The district court determined that petitioner’s 1997 robbery conviction … did not qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA. … The court recited the facts underlying the 1997 conviction -- that petitioner “grabbed [the victim] by the neck and tried to remove her necklaces” while she “held onto” them…”
SO, NO doubt about the inherent "VIOLENCE" in the criminal act as perpetrated on this woman, imho the SOB should have a stump, where his violent hand once was... but will the court, in its wisdom throw the babes out with bathwater?
Sarcasm OneBrow is very apparently difficult to convey on the Interwebs. "Quality & Quantity" being something I would submit being near impossible to enshrine in Law as developed through the several centuries of Western jurisprudence wherein: the "goal" of such searching has been, rather than quality or quantity, uniformity! Without that latter being supreme I would argue, the very foundation of republics such as ours is destined inevitably to fail.Delete
For unless uniformity rather than either quality or quantity be the substance of the Law to be balanced in Justice's scale that result in all instances renders unattainable such concepts as "equality before the Law."
I should say OneBrow that any effort to color into Law the mass of either or both at once quality/quantity onto the scale of Justice and further dependent on any individual's characterization of an "imposition on awareness" brings necessarily into mind the Latin de gustibus non disputandum or in our common English, "It depends."
And how in God's name OneBrow might any dispute be satisfied when the rule of evidence rests on "it depends."
Your sarcasm came through pretty clear in the last post. I mean, even a rank amateur like me knows that the difference between murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide is a matter of quality, while the difference between petty larceny and grand larceny is a matter of quantity (in monetary terms).
The point is that arguments suggesting something such as "making a comment is assault" is a ridiculous reach.Delete
Assault is probably *already* too broadly defined in law. It's not a matter of downplaying the target of some sort of harassment, but a matter of distinguishing comments, from actions, and both of those, from violence.
"Oh it's all just a matter of degree." most often will downplay the severity of an assault. "But he grabbed me by the shirt collar!" is not comparable to "He stabbed me with a broken bottle." When I hear an argument that sounds like (which this thread does): It's really a matter of degree/quantity/quality, that necessarily softens the impact of severe crime. I think there's a larger nefarious purpose behind these arguments, personally.
Survivors are people who have gone through something likely to cause their death. If not, then 'survive' doesn't mean what it meant before (see Dip's note above), and there is no longer a word in our lexicon meaning "continuing to live in spite of having gone through something with death as the likely outcome".
Survive, noun, est. unknown, death, 2000+, RIP "Survive"
- reader #1482
reader #1482 said:Delete
The point is that arguments suggesting something such as "making a comment is assault" is a ridiculous reach.
It seems to me that "making a comment" has many levels that fall well below "cat call". If you can only make your argument work by equivocation, maybe the argument is lacking?
"Oh it's all just a matter of degree." most often will downplay the severity of an assault. "But he grabbed me by the shirt collar!" is not comparable to "He stabbed me with a broken bottle."
Actually, there are many comparisons, such as the need to exert dominance through physical force. So much so, that I think we agree grabbing people by the shirt collar is also an activity that should be frowned upon.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If someone were going around grabbing random people by the shirt collar, would you consider that to be acceptable behavior, simply because is causes much less harm than stabbing someone with a bottle?
It's a totally different category... that's the point.. saying "it's just like murder, only different in quality/quantity of violence" is garbage. Doesn't mean it's acceptable, but as we go down this naive path of intolerance in the name of progressivism, shirt collaring will be the equivalent of knifing.Delete
"Whew, that guy could've broken my neck.... if I'd slipped and fallen into an elevator, and then stepped out over a balcony railing three floors up!
I'm SUCH a SURVIVOR! (pass me my latte)"
Nothing can be tolerated in the name of tolerance.
- reader #1482
I'm confused. Who is trying to make groping (the act behind the metaphor of grabbing a shirt collar, I presume) the equivalent of rape? Is anyone proposing that they be given the same criminal penalties? Is it really that hard to say "both are wrong and rape is worse"? Why the need to treat groping as an acceptable act?
I've had worse, and would not be adequately termed 'a survivor'.Delete
Just because one has gone through something unacceptable, doesn't mean they're 'a survivor'. The point to the entire article is that They (which apparently includes you), co-opt words to rob value from those who deserve it by applying it to those who don't.
The word 'survivor' is, alas, not a survivor.
- reader #1482
Something occurs to me in my experiencing these more recent uses of survivor and/but I'd appreciate other's opinions.ReplyDelete
Using for example Mr. Amselem's person[s] on the Titanic, the Jehovah's Witness there's that necessary second element ie, made it home, made it through.
More and more I seem to be noticing today's "survivors" are, almost necessarily (they seem to be saying) "in the midst" of whatever the tribulation is.
And, their only possible remedy is that, society as a whole must be; Fundamentally Transformed.
I hope I've not lost y'all.
Where'd everybody go?! Oh JK is still in the house!Delete
Secondly, I do hereby with knowledge and aforethought proudly take the DiploMadic pledge to: "be a bit more judicious in the use of the label "survivor" for the sake of the real survivors."
Next, back to JK, I feel you brotha, it's like a Lefty get outta jail 'survivor badge' gives the wearer all the authority he/she needs to get up in the face of any citizen, wherever they choose, be they on the street, restaurant, office, or even the political target's driveway, or front stoop for G-d sakes! Moreover, the LAW better think twice before butting in, as it is the socialist-activist's inalienable right as a politically anointed survivor to make life as miserable for others as they make it for themselves!
In closing, I do want to be clear, that if I happen to make it to 100 years, and still breathing air aboard this precious and forgiving planet, I will rate myself a special case, for having survived more two-legged jackasses, male and female, than I care to remember! Amen~~~
When life is easy, small hills become mountains. If the only real challenge in life is whether to add extra soy to the laté, then being trapped in an elevator for twenty minutes becomes something that requires 'true grit' to 'survive'.ReplyDelete
The term they're actually intending is: "micro-survival".
As in: "I was unable to micro-survive, so I had to go back to Starbucks for a non-fat frappucino and sous vide egg bites."
- reader #1482
ZOMG! I just outed myself as non-Starbucks compatible. 'latte', apparently, is the correct spelling. Please, nobody tell anybody with whom I work, they might suspect I own a gasoline-powered car!Delete
- reader #1482
I like this comment very much. Most of these 'survivors' in internet discussion of whiny coeds seem to be micro-survivors of micro-aggressions, not actual survivors of real trauma.Delete
To be a survivor, you must have almost died. Not even rape victims are survivors. And all this "survivor" terminology is disingenuous anyway. They're not even saying "We believe victims". They're really saying, "We believe accusers".ReplyDelete
Well to the point!Delete
I have a small quibble. I don't know the statistics, but many such victims are killed as part of the crime... those who escaped from the golden state killer certainly were 'survivors'... and there have been many other cases, though perhaps not statistically significant.Delete
I don't know what the statistical threshold for the 'survivor' monicker is, but it's probably something more than "he looked at me funny in the line at Starbucks!", which appears to be the current generation's definition of 'survivor'.
- reader #1482
There are other abuses. The other day I saw a reference to someone as a holocaust survivor: it turned out he'd skedaddled from Germany in 1933. Very wise of him: a reminder that it's better to avoid horrors than to survive them.ReplyDelete
I was a survivor of the Rodney King riots in 1992. The Beverly Hills police department saved me. I am still suffering PTSD.ReplyDelete
survivor, victim and, my favorite appellation of the new age, hero. everyone is a hero for just fullfilling a position description, or for being an aforementioned new age defined survivor or victim. i especially love (not) the various and sundry nodding heads gravely arrayed behind the grave leader as he intones gravely during a hurricane or riot or some such other grave event.ReplyDelete
in dealing with the 2009 jakarta hotel suicide bombings i explained to a panicked front office that “we are carrying out our normal consular responsibilities in a more compressed schedule, that’s all.”
Here's a laugh. Liberal groups are going to be asking that Kavanaugh recuse himself due to partisanship in cases where they are involved.ReplyDelete
I can just see the ACLU trying to pull this line: After spending millions lobbying senators against your confirmation, how can you treat us fairly?
Own... Goal.... :)
- reader #1482
the "survivor" transformation started as a call for victims of crimes to move beyond a victim mentality and to take control of their recovery and not spend the rest of their lives reliving their victimization.ReplyDelete
People urged victims to grow and find a positive way to respond and become a survivor, no longer a victim.
But Dip is right that "survivor" has morphed into meaningless liberal blather.
"I'm a thrivor!"Delete
Right before I woke up I dreamed I had an assignment: write a bad feature story in the style of the New York Times. When I woke I had the last sentence still in my head; I stumbled next door to the studio, woke up the Mac, and typed this sentence:Delete
Over in the field, a hound was hunched over excreting a “striver,” the local’s term for the hard, elegantly tapered stools for which the wild dogs are renowned.
It has it all! It has a field, which is always a sign that the urban reporter is braving the flat & empty lands of America. It has a word known only to the locals, and the locals are always the real subject of the piece. Every East Coast story on Midwestern people feels like they’re writing about pygmies. Doesn’t matter if the story’s about clothing, or music, or nose-bones; beneath it all is the writer’s underlying inability to forget that these are pygmies, for God’s sake. And they’re so cute! The final detail - “for which the wild dogs are renowned” - reminds you that the author has some knowledge of this culture you don’t. Now that you have it, you can pretend you knew it all the time, too. There are two sorts of people who read the Times, perhaps - those who blow through it hoovering up headlines and pull quotes, and those who absorb the details, file them away, and deploy them at dinner parties. And if someone at the party says they remember reading a piece in the Times about that, the teller of the tale will still have the advantage, and imply that he knew all about strivers before the Times did that piece. “Well, the locals call them strivers now, but the Dutch had another word for them. Anyway . . . “"
I propose that these "micro-survivors" are in fact "strivers".
Nice Work! 3 Cheers for the Institute, Larry!Delete
Keep sharing those "strivers"... Tks!
PS nice too, hearing Dion say n' play his memories of the "Winter Dance Party" that didn't end in Fargo...
I got groped once at a party in high school, over thirty six years ago. The story is VERY similar to this Ford woman's tale. Extremely similar. I wasn't "assaulted." I am not a "survivor." I'm not a "victim." I'm just someone who was on the receiving end of boorish teen behavior.ReplyDelete
I'm genuinely glad that your experience did not scar you. However, I assure you that if you were pushed down onto a bed and climbed on top of, that was assault by every single definition of the word.
Not everyone is fortunate to be born with such immunity to physical assault by others.
the term 'survivor' also necessitates belief in the accusations made.Delete
One Brow October 11, 2018 at 8:20 AMReplyDelete
"I assure you that if you were pushed down onto a bed and climbed on top of, that was assault by every single definition of the word."
The, One-Brow less bonehead, continues to conjure-up a hysterical specter of hypothetical victimhood! Complete with a bogus badge of courage, for recruits willing to accept his vision of survivorship in the brave new Democrat LaLaLand -- where boys can get reparations for wrestling with their girlfriends!
LOCK 1BROW UP! LOCK 1BROW UP! 1LOCK BROW UP! 1LOCK BROW UP!
Is the Law Squaw a "survivor" of her DNA test?ReplyDelete
Well Dearieme as I understand it the good ol' white Senator Lizzy tested her DnA up against some from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia and, got about ... oh I dunno maybe between ten and sixteen generations back?Delete
Anyway there may be a bright spot in all this:
Reckon we might petition ICE to get into the DnA business to figure out if Senator Lizzy's ancestor had a boarding pass?
If not we maybe could deport Squawain't Warren.
..."maybe could deport Squawain't Warren."Delete
Dust her tail with pepper,
and trade her back to Mexico
for a bag of jumpin beans!
But before we book the bimbo's passage for the BORDER maybe ICE could round-up a trainload of interlopers, to go along with her, before they get their Voter ID Cards on this side of the divide?!Delete
Don't know we could "trade 'er" OW. Didn't our President's new agreement with Canada and Mexico contain language specifying "All future trades must be fair"?ReplyDelete
Don't know now we could pull off a pig in a poke deal, even if we only ask for jumping beans. Maybe the singular jumping bean I s'pose.
Set your coffee down OW and take a 'Blast From the Past'
...President's new agreement with... Mexico contain language..."All future trades must be fair"?Delete
Welll ok JK, how 'bout she accidently fall's in the trunk of an Indian drug mule's car on his return run to Chipas, who then trades her off to his chief in xchange for a fair quantity of friholies?
As for the relevant, tho hoary video you shared, sorry, but must admit, even her still image, looked so revoltingly familiar, that it triggered an aversive psychophysiological reaction, such that I couldn't bring my self to --> rolltape~~~
However I was somehow able to stumble into the Comments Lounge where a sympatico Amigo shared his bottle of Cerveza, and related to me in broken English, Said he:
Gringo! I just saw the Trump Quote you are speaking off.
Don Donaldo said 'IF' her dna it says she's native american he'd pay the charity, it [he swore +] verifiably did NOT show that. What't showed she, the 'FauxcohauntUs of Guadeloopy' lied, about everything...
Made sense to me, and after 1/2 a dozen cans of Montezuma dark...I survived, but still a little shaky from the International encounter~~~ happily he'd didn't invite me home~~~ OoOOoW```
I do believe the Diplomadico in Chief may be thinking about the Fake NEWS' latest flurry of flak, stirred up to obscure Erdogon's dirty finger nails behind the disappearance of his Islamic Brother from da Hood, Jamal Koshoggi.ReplyDelete
Suspect the daffy Turkish Tyrant surmised that he could slice n' dice Jamal, blame it on the Saudis, and get away with it, wearing the mask of a humanitarian jailer[Democrat] and releasing Pastor Brunson to the GOP with the skill of a snake charmer!
As our good neighbor to the WEST of US, the Sultan~Knish put it Today: "The Khashoggi case demands >context<.
Before the media and the politicians who listen to it drag the United States into a conflict with Saudi Arabia over a Muslim Brotherhood activist based on the word of an enemy country still holding Americans hostage, we deserve the context.
And we deserve the truth.
P.S. Here's the link to the article mentioned above:Delete