Living in denial: How corporations manufacture doubt - opinion - 20 May 2010 - New Scientist"Objective scientific research": those words would almost make you believe that Panzer was talking about objective science. But when doubt is your goal, the misuse of language is just another way to confuse the public.
-----------------
Hmmmmmmm.
3 comments:
Ha!
I was reading George Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics of the English Language" just before sitting down at my computer this morning.
*** begin quote ***
Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.
*** end quote ***
"Homeowners associations" are associations of homeowners, which foster a sense of "community," in the same way that a "People's Democratic Republic" is a democratic republic of, by, and for the people.
*** begin quote from "Politics of the English Language" ***
Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending
Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing
off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably,
therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply
justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
*** end quote ***
If Orwell were writing about HOA apologists today, the above passage might read something like this:
Consider for instance some comfortable politician defending
privatized corporate tyranny. He cannot say outright,
"I believe in stealing homes for trivial amounts and reasons
when it helps the HOA corporation's bottom line by doing so."
Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the HOA régimes exhibits certain features
which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think,
agree that a certain curtailment of the right to private property is
an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors
which the American people have been called upon to undergo have been amply
justified in the sphere of preserved property values and sense of community.
Glad to see ECM is back.
Post a Comment