"Seen On DU": Ed Meese Approves of this thread!

[ElboRuum]

65. Orwellian Newspeak

See, how Newspeak works is if you want to get rid of a concept, let's just say the concept of useful degree comparatives, because comparison doesn't serve a specific goal, you reassign the language such that the accepted words dilute or eradicate the nuance and therefore the concept in the words they replace.

Say something is good. Then say something else is better. Then say something else is great or the best.

What you do is replace the words with other purportedly equivalent expressions which claim to be the same meaning, but obviously dilute the nuance of the words which deliver the concept.

So you replace better with plus good. And you replace best or great with double plus good. Now one could argue that the substitution is reasonable (insofar as Orwell's world can manage as reasonable) but a second glance offers the idea that comparison (the nuance of better and best) has been removed from the phrases. Comparatives have been replaced by contextless absolutes. Consider better. Before the replacement, better NEEDED comparison phrasing to make sense. It makes sense to say, thing A is better than thng B. It does not make sense to say that thing A is better unless the context names thing B. Otherwise you are compelled to ask "better than what exactly?"

On the other hand, you can say without difficulty that thing A is plus good. In fact it makes no sense to say that thing A is plus good than thing B. Now the words expressing the concept appropriately have been removed, replaced with these empty shells of expression which have effectively removed even the ability to express a value comparison.

So what the eff does this have to do with misandry not existing...

Well, the idea with Newspeak is if you don't want an idea expressed, you remove from consideration the words whose nuance expresses that concept.

Actually, the day someone invented the word misogyny, they invented the word misandry, perhaps without intending, but they did. Such is the nature of a binary concept within a language. If you extend one using a root (gyn) with a prefix (mis), you automatically do so to its binary (andr). So if "misogyny" means the hatred of women, then the second it was conceived of, "misandry" means the hatred of men.

The problem is, misandry doesn't fit the narrative. It implies a duality of hatred, which the narrative claims either A) does not truly exist (misperception), or B) exists but is justifiable and rational, and therefore can't be hate because hate must, by definition, be irrational. So the word is meaningless, and not having a word dilutes the nuance and denies the appropriate expression of the concept.