The Marxists thought they could gain control over production by seizing the factories, the “means of production.” They failed because the means of production is not a factory machine, but the mind.
The new statists are much more ambitious. They think they can gain control over reality by seizing control over language, the machinery used by the mind. They will also fail: the mind must use language—concepts—that actually connect to reality. Twist the meaning of language, and the mind is worse than useless.
Like the Marxists, these new thugs will leave nothing but ruin in their wake.
There was a time a female horse was a mare and a female human was a woman. But now, when it comes to female humans, the word woman may be applied to someone who is biologically male. The term woman is now political enough for the phrase "people with uteruses" or "pregnant people" may be used in its place in some instance. Here is a link to an article describing "birthing people".
The word "violence" is another example. If words, pictures, ideas, constitute violence then the word trades on all of the emotion of its previous meaning while effectively meaning something different.
Thank you for the specific example. It makes it more productive, in my view, to consider the issues being raised. The examples you raise seem like an improvement on our language and meanings of words, making them more accurate. For example, 'humankind,' I suggest, is an improvement on 'mankind.'
In the theatrical world, what is the utility of the word 'actress' when 'actor' is all that's necessary. We have doctors, and not doctoresses.
As for the word "violence," surely an act, even the portrayal of an image or the utterance of some words, intended to hurt others is violence and intended to be so?
The use of the word violence in the way you describe is new to me in the past few years. Violence used to be physical. Cruel words or shared images would have been called malicious. The physical aspect of the word violence was necessary for its definition. If "violence" occurred in a news story for example, I knew that a physical altercation had taken place. The physicality was an essential part of the definition. Removing this aspect of the definition has made the word less useful in my opinion especially when there are other words that can be used to explain the harm caused by images or words. It truly damages the language and subverts the ability of people to communicate when a words is altered with out an adequate word to serve as a synonym. The ease with which people may misunderstand one another or talk past one another when the definitions of words begins to shift is frightening to me, especially in such a politically charged time. Since I see this pattern happening with many words in our social/political discourse I have to come out as a bit of a linguistic prescriptivist.
"Violence," as a word, is often used to refer to psychological assault. Language is not, and never has been or ever will be, immutable as are say numbers or universal constants like π, G, or C. Language evolves and is always evolving. See https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1334
The flaw in this theory of language is that words are used to describe something. Shakespeare put it eloquently: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Conversely, trying to rename a practice or group of people won't change the underlying prejudice against what others perceive in that practice or group of people. I think of the number of times we've changed the label for developmentally disabled people in my lifetime: we've gone from retarded to mentally handicapped to mentally challenged. Each time, the term just becomes another cruel euphemism because there are so many who stigmatize the group we're describing. You've got to change the attitude, not the language.
Been following this for a while and while it's mostly playing out in the
Sex vs gender debate (covered today by Matt Talbi) but it, wokeness, is something most people hate but are terrified to speak up about. So the question is how will this play out, will society adjust or wil the good people rise up and rebel? Watching the US election tells me the latter.
Could you provide a link to the Matt Taibbi article you're citing? It would helpful. Thanks.
Also, for my benefit, could you be more specific about who are the 'good people' and who are not the good people? I ask because people often think they are the 'good people.' Thanks.
Thanks for this. As best as I can tell, no one is censoring Abigail Shrier's “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters.” Some vendors have chosen not to sell it. Shrier is free to market her book herself.
Not ascribing arguments to you, but are you suggesting book vendors should be obligated to market all books regardless of their content? They should be compelled to distribute every person's 'speech?'
I'm sorry but comments like that really really piss me off. What is it about this issue that TRAs (meant as a comment not an insult) are so scared to disucss this issue. IYou know for a fact that is not the issue. Vendors won't touch it becuase they know they'll incurr the wrath of the mob. No one would review it for the exact same reason! It is almost impossible to disucss this issue as you either get shouted down or people like yourself dodge the question!
Why do you think so many writers are jumping to Substack, it's than they are free to write what they want without interference from editors or triggered co-workers. Substack, so far, is a censorship free zone
Wrath of the mob? TRA, by the way, is "An acronym for Trans Rights Activist. As distinguished from transgendered people in general, TRA is usually reserved as a pejorative for those who are perceived as the most demanding or politically extreme among trans folk." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tra
Why, in your view, shouldn't Trans Rights Activists push their agenda? Apparently, it's acceptable for Free Speech Activists to push their agenda.
What issue are we discussing, in your view? The Trans Rights Activist 'mob' or the a perceived right to enjoy unfettered, inflammatory, uninformed speech without consequence of any kind?
Meaghie, thank you for this! You have quite the talent. I've been reading tonnes of articles about the impact of PC language but this is the most articulated and reasoned article I've read. I especially loved your point about the new definition of racism, ""No longer does that word refer to "bigotry based on race." Now, it can only refer to systemic oppression." This explains what is happening with Jewish people. They are facing renewed racism but now it's coming from the 'woke' left. They are generally more successful than your average person which, according to the left, means they do not experience racism. One University professor has talked of hearing students being dismissive of the holocaust because it was only 'white on white crime'. That just made me sick! If anyone wants to learn more, just read Bari Weiss.
I'd like to ask if you hold the view that the 'impact of PC language' is always or usually detrimental? Perhaps, you could provide a link to one of the 'tonnes of articles' that, you think, well represents your views. That would be helpful.
NO, I don't believe it's always detrimental. There is nothing in my post that alludes to that.
And which article you asked represents my views?.... it's this one! Stop being disingenuous.
On your own post you asked for an example.
"Stephen Best. Dec 10
So what are some concrete examples of language and alternate language to show the concerns being raised? In terms of language, generalities are rarely helpful. Specific examples would be helpful, for me at least."
My post just gave you an example.
I've read your other posts on this article and the responses to you. This is the only time I will engage with you! It's done.
Your example was an anecdote, "One University professor has talked of hearing students being dismissive of the holocaust because it was only 'white on white crime'." How am I supposed to assess that if I can't reference the context and the source of that anecdote? Is it wrong of me for wanting to check to see how accurate anecdotes are? In this time of widespread, deliberate, viral misinformation, I think it's prudent to check the claims people make. I certainly don't want to repeat an anecdote about a serious claim, like the one you're making, if I'm not sure it's true, it's just something I read on the internet made by an anonymous person, and it contains no particulars whatsoever.
Much of this thread and discussion is about free speech and censorship, but much offence is taken by some when they're asked to support their speech with something other then their emotions and hearsay.
Thank you for this. It's a very interesting read, but I'm not sure how it relates to the notion of "The plot to hack reality by changing language." In return, here's an article you might find interesting about Bari Weiss the author of the article you shared with me. Thanks. https://observer.com/2020/07/bari-weiss-resignation-new-york-times-free-speech/
'Fuck off and die' seems like a far more extreme and irrational response to someone with a different opinion than what the people whom offend you are advocating.
Another very good article from Ms. Champion. I remember Richard Gwyn writing in "Nationalism Without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness Of Being Canadian" about similar movements in academia, and how some of the very same advocates were shocked and dismayed when they ended up being targeted by the same angry attacks they helped launch.
And that was back in 1994.
Now, in more recent years, we have articles like this:
A lot of the goals these movements support are laudable, such as enabling minorities to live safer, healthier lives. But then there's the risk of some of these minorities themselves being ostracized from their own communities for not "toeing the line" that some activists use to determine whether someone is or isn't truly "part" of the group.
How well I remember, decades ago, a panelist on some CBC talk program insisting, 'oh, no, perish the thought, no one will ever use this to inhibit free expression, it's just sort of a way of being polite, of not giving offence. No one will ever try to use it to suppress debate.' Hilarious!
I enjoyed your article. I have my own opinions on some of the things you write towards the end, but the basic idea that English is being altered irretrievably in ways that are definitely not helpful has bothered me for a long time, and you put eloquent words to that. English is a great language for writers, but I don't agree with the way it's being used these days to shape how we think.
The English language has always been in a state of flux. It's always been used by some to shape how others think. We call that propaganda, marketing, advertising, and rhetoric. There's nothing different happening today with English or any language for that matter than has been going on for centuries.
You have a point, but if we don't take note of its changes when they are happening, then those developments may go into directions one does not agree with. The dialog is important IMO to shape what's happening right now, even if we're discussing something that has already happened previously and will happen many times again.
Developments all the time go in directions someone might not agree with. The people you seem to be concerned about and the people obliquely referenced in the article that spawned this discourse are pushing back on how directions have been going for decades, in their view. Why are they wrong and you are right?
I'm not aware of anyone who's completely wrong or right, to be sure. And, yes, the dialogue often leads to new thoughts and ideas for some people. Best, in my view, to listen and read carefully, check for cogency and facts, respond with facts and cogent arguments, and not take anything from anonymous people on the Internet personally. Ironically, that's also seems to be the best way to piss some people off. :)
As a thought experiment, let's assume the concerns raised by Meaghie Champion are all realized to the worst that it's reasonable to fear. Beyond annoying some people, what harm befalls society if that happens?
If you have to ask, sincerely I’m not sure you understand the article. There are some great examples found in the comments section of this article.
Try to imagine how utterly offensive and disrespectful it is for women to hear themselves being referred to as ‘birthing people’, ‘cervix-having’ - it’s reductive.
Us men, if that is indeed what you are Stephen, would not accept being called a ‘penis-haver’ or ‘fu$@ers’.
And before you try to argue it’s ‘fringe’, do check in with the Trans Rights Activists. They’ll tell you a gay man who refuses to have sex with another ‘man with a vagina’ is a transphobic. Imagine when some straight women tried to complain when gay men wouldn’t have sex with them - it’s kind of the point of being homosexual and male. The current Trans debate has become homophobic.
I realize I probably won’t change your mind (too much snark on my part, apologies) but if you and others are genuine about wanting to create positive change, you can start by listening to US and not try to cancel those that may disagree with your point of view.
Are you able to speak for all, some, a few women? Or all, some, a few men? Or anyone but yourself? I'm not arguing anything is fringe. I'm asking what harm is caused by the concerns vaguely and ambiguously raised in the article. What I'm trying to determine is are the concerns raised just personal annoyances being extrapolated and projected onto a broader population.
I don’t think you’re trying to determine anything except to discredit a very reasonable view based on the available evidence.
I speak for myself and many others who will not typically engage with disingenuous conversation. It’s very clear with how your asking your questions that you’re not interested in a genuine discussion and that you’re not ‘listening’ to what is being written and asking thoughtful follow up questions for clarity or education.
I only hope that you genuinely do listen at some point and perhaps you’ll hear what men and many other women have been saying - this language is not ok.
If you look at my comments, you'll notice I've not tried to discredit anyone. Not infrequently people 'feel' there's an issue, but when it's explored more deeply, it turns out it is only a feeling or a consequence of limited perception. Racial prejudice and bigotry, for example, are the consequences usually of emotion not anything substantive about people of a different complexion, spiritual view, or social status.
So far you've suggested I don't understand the article and, now, you say that I'm being disingenuous. Frequently, such ad hominen arguments are made when a person can't articulate well or substantiate their claims.
I suggest if you believe I don't understand the article and I'm being disingenuous that you ignore my comments. That's what I do when someone is like you describe me of being (ignorant and disingenuous) comments about what I write on social media or in traditional media.
I also tend to not engage further with people who devolve to ad hominen arguments. It usually means their capacity to make substantive arguments about an issue under consideration is exhausted.
Heavens! How awful being asked to justify your comments and opinions! Why, in your view, should I or anyone have to accept your comments and opinions on faith without evidence or support, and simply accept you're infallible? That's what you're implying.
What basis, I wonder, does Meaghie Champion rely on to imply that her current 'language' fairly represents reality? Perhaps the hack she decries is a correction.
" I identify strongly as a writer, and I take this assault upon the tool with which I conduct my craft very personally." Now there's a nicely turned phrase right there.
I'll have to look up the Sapir Whorf theory but I believe it's true that language affects our thinking. People who speak more than one language can often see that clearly. Thank-you for a very good article.
More from this writer, please. She’s terrific.
Wow. Succinct and right to the point.
The Marxists thought they could gain control over production by seizing the factories, the “means of production.” They failed because the means of production is not a factory machine, but the mind.
The new statists are much more ambitious. They think they can gain control over reality by seizing control over language, the machinery used by the mind. They will also fail: the mind must use language—concepts—that actually connect to reality. Twist the meaning of language, and the mind is worse than useless.
Like the Marxists, these new thugs will leave nothing but ruin in their wake.
Can you provide some specific language examples to demonstrate your concerns?
There was a time a female horse was a mare and a female human was a woman. But now, when it comes to female humans, the word woman may be applied to someone who is biologically male. The term woman is now political enough for the phrase "people with uteruses" or "pregnant people" may be used in its place in some instance. Here is a link to an article describing "birthing people".
https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/boost-inclusivity-words-matter-healthcare-world
The word "violence" is another example. If words, pictures, ideas, constitute violence then the word trades on all of the emotion of its previous meaning while effectively meaning something different.
Thank you for the specific example. It makes it more productive, in my view, to consider the issues being raised. The examples you raise seem like an improvement on our language and meanings of words, making them more accurate. For example, 'humankind,' I suggest, is an improvement on 'mankind.'
In the theatrical world, what is the utility of the word 'actress' when 'actor' is all that's necessary. We have doctors, and not doctoresses.
As for the word "violence," surely an act, even the portrayal of an image or the utterance of some words, intended to hurt others is violence and intended to be so?
The use of the word violence in the way you describe is new to me in the past few years. Violence used to be physical. Cruel words or shared images would have been called malicious. The physical aspect of the word violence was necessary for its definition. If "violence" occurred in a news story for example, I knew that a physical altercation had taken place. The physicality was an essential part of the definition. Removing this aspect of the definition has made the word less useful in my opinion especially when there are other words that can be used to explain the harm caused by images or words. It truly damages the language and subverts the ability of people to communicate when a words is altered with out an adequate word to serve as a synonym. The ease with which people may misunderstand one another or talk past one another when the definitions of words begins to shift is frightening to me, especially in such a politically charged time. Since I see this pattern happening with many words in our social/political discourse I have to come out as a bit of a linguistic prescriptivist.
"Violence," as a word, is often used to refer to psychological assault. Language is not, and never has been or ever will be, immutable as are say numbers or universal constants like π, G, or C. Language evolves and is always evolving. See https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1334
But the drift of words may be accelerated or guided by political actors. This is harmful.
The flaw in this theory of language is that words are used to describe something. Shakespeare put it eloquently: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Conversely, trying to rename a practice or group of people won't change the underlying prejudice against what others perceive in that practice or group of people. I think of the number of times we've changed the label for developmentally disabled people in my lifetime: we've gone from retarded to mentally handicapped to mentally challenged. Each time, the term just becomes another cruel euphemism because there are so many who stigmatize the group we're describing. You've got to change the attitude, not the language.
Been following this for a while and while it's mostly playing out in the
Sex vs gender debate (covered today by Matt Talbi) but it, wokeness, is something most people hate but are terrified to speak up about. So the question is how will this play out, will society adjust or wil the good people rise up and rebel? Watching the US election tells me the latter.
Could you provide a link to the Matt Taibbi article you're citing? It would helpful. Thanks.
Also, for my benefit, could you be more specific about who are the 'good people' and who are not the good people? I ask because people often think they are the 'good people.' Thanks.
Sorry about that
It's subscriber only but he¡s worth paying for
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-abigail-shrier-db7
FYI, this might be of interest. It's relevant, I suggest.
https://newrepublic.com/article/160321/dangerous-inversions-debate-around-trans-censorship
Thanks for this. As best as I can tell, no one is censoring Abigail Shrier's “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters.” Some vendors have chosen not to sell it. Shrier is free to market her book herself.
Not ascribing arguments to you, but are you suggesting book vendors should be obligated to market all books regardless of their content? They should be compelled to distribute every person's 'speech?'
I'm sorry but comments like that really really piss me off. What is it about this issue that TRAs (meant as a comment not an insult) are so scared to disucss this issue. IYou know for a fact that is not the issue. Vendors won't touch it becuase they know they'll incurr the wrath of the mob. No one would review it for the exact same reason! It is almost impossible to disucss this issue as you either get shouted down or people like yourself dodge the question!
Why do you think so many writers are jumping to Substack, it's than they are free to write what they want without interference from editors or triggered co-workers. Substack, so far, is a censorship free zone
Wrath of the mob? TRA, by the way, is "An acronym for Trans Rights Activist. As distinguished from transgendered people in general, TRA is usually reserved as a pejorative for those who are perceived as the most demanding or politically extreme among trans folk." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tra
Why, in your view, shouldn't Trans Rights Activists push their agenda? Apparently, it's acceptable for Free Speech Activists to push their agenda.
What issue are we discussing, in your view? The Trans Rights Activist 'mob' or the a perceived right to enjoy unfettered, inflammatory, uninformed speech without consequence of any kind?
TRA, Yah I wondered about that, do you have a better suggestion? Pro Trans activists is a bit clunky.
A) Awesome piece Ms Champion.
b) We have a troll in our midst; stop feeding it.
Meaghie, thank you for this! You have quite the talent. I've been reading tonnes of articles about the impact of PC language but this is the most articulated and reasoned article I've read. I especially loved your point about the new definition of racism, ""No longer does that word refer to "bigotry based on race." Now, it can only refer to systemic oppression." This explains what is happening with Jewish people. They are facing renewed racism but now it's coming from the 'woke' left. They are generally more successful than your average person which, according to the left, means they do not experience racism. One University professor has talked of hearing students being dismissive of the holocaust because it was only 'white on white crime'. That just made me sick! If anyone wants to learn more, just read Bari Weiss.
I'd like to ask if you hold the view that the 'impact of PC language' is always or usually detrimental? Perhaps, you could provide a link to one of the 'tonnes of articles' that, you think, well represents your views. That would be helpful.
NO, I don't believe it's always detrimental. There is nothing in my post that alludes to that.
And which article you asked represents my views?.... it's this one! Stop being disingenuous.
On your own post you asked for an example.
"Stephen Best. Dec 10
So what are some concrete examples of language and alternate language to show the concerns being raised? In terms of language, generalities are rarely helpful. Specific examples would be helpful, for me at least."
My post just gave you an example.
I've read your other posts on this article and the responses to you. This is the only time I will engage with you! It's done.
Your example was an anecdote, "One University professor has talked of hearing students being dismissive of the holocaust because it was only 'white on white crime'." How am I supposed to assess that if I can't reference the context and the source of that anecdote? Is it wrong of me for wanting to check to see how accurate anecdotes are? In this time of widespread, deliberate, viral misinformation, I think it's prudent to check the claims people make. I certainly don't want to repeat an anecdote about a serious claim, like the one you're making, if I'm not sure it's true, it's just something I read on the internet made by an anonymous person, and it contains no particulars whatsoever.
Much of this thread and discussion is about free speech and censorship, but much offence is taken by some when they're asked to support their speech with something other then their emotions and hearsay.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked
Thank you for this. It's a very interesting read, but I'm not sure how it relates to the notion of "The plot to hack reality by changing language." In return, here's an article you might find interesting about Bari Weiss the author of the article you shared with me. Thanks. https://observer.com/2020/07/bari-weiss-resignation-new-york-times-free-speech/
You obviously didn't take the time to read it so you are being entirely disingenuous.
https://unwatch.org/bari-weiss-to-be-honored-by-un-watch/
I don't expect you'll read the above either. So, what Ron said!!
'Fuck off and die' seems like a far more extreme and irrational response to someone with a different opinion than what the people whom offend you are advocating.
Bang on.
Another very good article from Ms. Champion. I remember Richard Gwyn writing in "Nationalism Without Walls: The Unbearable Lightness Of Being Canadian" about similar movements in academia, and how some of the very same advocates were shocked and dismayed when they ended up being targeted by the same angry attacks they helped launch.
And that was back in 1994.
Now, in more recent years, we have articles like this:
https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2017/10/13/why-ive-started-to-fear-my-fellow-social-justice-activists/
A lot of the goals these movements support are laudable, such as enabling minorities to live safer, healthier lives. But then there's the risk of some of these minorities themselves being ostracized from their own communities for not "toeing the line" that some activists use to determine whether someone is or isn't truly "part" of the group.
How well I remember, decades ago, a panelist on some CBC talk program insisting, 'oh, no, perish the thought, no one will ever use this to inhibit free expression, it's just sort of a way of being polite, of not giving offence. No one will ever try to use it to suppress debate.' Hilarious!
I enjoyed your article. I have my own opinions on some of the things you write towards the end, but the basic idea that English is being altered irretrievably in ways that are definitely not helpful has bothered me for a long time, and you put eloquent words to that. English is a great language for writers, but I don't agree with the way it's being used these days to shape how we think.
The English language has always been in a state of flux. It's always been used by some to shape how others think. We call that propaganda, marketing, advertising, and rhetoric. There's nothing different happening today with English or any language for that matter than has been going on for centuries.
You have a point, but if we don't take note of its changes when they are happening, then those developments may go into directions one does not agree with. The dialog is important IMO to shape what's happening right now, even if we're discussing something that has already happened previously and will happen many times again.
Developments all the time go in directions someone might not agree with. The people you seem to be concerned about and the people obliquely referenced in the article that spawned this discourse are pushing back on how directions have been going for decades, in their view. Why are they wrong and you are right?
Is either ever completely wrong or right? But it's the resulting dialogue that develops new thoughts and ideas.
I'm not aware of anyone who's completely wrong or right, to be sure. And, yes, the dialogue often leads to new thoughts and ideas for some people. Best, in my view, to listen and read carefully, check for cogency and facts, respond with facts and cogent arguments, and not take anything from anonymous people on the Internet personally. Ironically, that's also seems to be the best way to piss some people off. :)
Well put
As a thought experiment, let's assume the concerns raised by Meaghie Champion are all realized to the worst that it's reasonable to fear. Beyond annoying some people, what harm befalls society if that happens?
If you have to ask, sincerely I’m not sure you understand the article. There are some great examples found in the comments section of this article.
Try to imagine how utterly offensive and disrespectful it is for women to hear themselves being referred to as ‘birthing people’, ‘cervix-having’ - it’s reductive.
Us men, if that is indeed what you are Stephen, would not accept being called a ‘penis-haver’ or ‘fu$@ers’.
And before you try to argue it’s ‘fringe’, do check in with the Trans Rights Activists. They’ll tell you a gay man who refuses to have sex with another ‘man with a vagina’ is a transphobic. Imagine when some straight women tried to complain when gay men wouldn’t have sex with them - it’s kind of the point of being homosexual and male. The current Trans debate has become homophobic.
I realize I probably won’t change your mind (too much snark on my part, apologies) but if you and others are genuine about wanting to create positive change, you can start by listening to US and not try to cancel those that may disagree with your point of view.
All the best.
Are you able to speak for all, some, a few women? Or all, some, a few men? Or anyone but yourself? I'm not arguing anything is fringe. I'm asking what harm is caused by the concerns vaguely and ambiguously raised in the article. What I'm trying to determine is are the concerns raised just personal annoyances being extrapolated and projected onto a broader population.
I don’t think you’re trying to determine anything except to discredit a very reasonable view based on the available evidence.
I speak for myself and many others who will not typically engage with disingenuous conversation. It’s very clear with how your asking your questions that you’re not interested in a genuine discussion and that you’re not ‘listening’ to what is being written and asking thoughtful follow up questions for clarity or education.
I only hope that you genuinely do listen at some point and perhaps you’ll hear what men and many other women have been saying - this language is not ok.
If you look at my comments, you'll notice I've not tried to discredit anyone. Not infrequently people 'feel' there's an issue, but when it's explored more deeply, it turns out it is only a feeling or a consequence of limited perception. Racial prejudice and bigotry, for example, are the consequences usually of emotion not anything substantive about people of a different complexion, spiritual view, or social status.
So far you've suggested I don't understand the article and, now, you say that I'm being disingenuous. Frequently, such ad hominen arguments are made when a person can't articulate well or substantiate their claims.
I suggest if you believe I don't understand the article and I'm being disingenuous that you ignore my comments. That's what I do when someone is like you describe me of being (ignorant and disingenuous) comments about what I write on social media or in traditional media.
I also tend to not engage further with people who devolve to ad hominen arguments. It usually means their capacity to make substantive arguments about an issue under consideration is exhausted.
Could you explain why you use 'Leftists' as a pejorative?
Heavens! How awful being asked to justify your comments and opinions! Why, in your view, should I or anyone have to accept your comments and opinions on faith without evidence or support, and simply accept you're infallible? That's what you're implying.
What basis, I wonder, does Meaghie Champion rely on to imply that her current 'language' fairly represents reality? Perhaps the hack she decries is a correction.
Wow, really well said. Behaviour is always the culprit, not the person.
" I identify strongly as a writer, and I take this assault upon the tool with which I conduct my craft very personally." Now there's a nicely turned phrase right there.
I'll have to look up the Sapir Whorf theory but I believe it's true that language affects our thinking. People who speak more than one language can often see that clearly. Thank-you for a very good article.