The case for new words

​Is anyone else exhausted by the world yet? The last 4 years have made the news effectively useless as a medium for informing the public, and the populace at large have become so tribally loyal that the main political parties behave like cults.

​Think I’m joking? Removing family members from your life over political views has become less of a fringe activity and that is exactly what cults seek from their followers.

Most people are/get angry about the things they are told to be angry about rather than the things that fundamentally violate their principles.

As an independent bystander it has been comical at times to see side go against side, devoid of logic, reasoning and critical thinking to purposefully commit intellectual lies so that they can “own the libs” or score points.

Life is not binary. Things are messy. Most of the time situations are complex, nuanced and have several interdependent facts & situations which hold true at the same time - an understanding that is immediately lost in a binary true vs false, Democrat vs GOP world.

The upsetting part is seeing people whom we admire, those who we respect and in some part look up to, act in an intellectually dishonest way just to win or virtue signal.

Having thought about this a significant amount, I believe we have been miseducated about language. I believe that there are such things are objective verifiable facts but that they are actually rare. I believe that the context in which a statement is made will determine whether or not it is true.

In a binary world, many things are both fake and real at the same time. It’s Schrödinger's information. This renders “fact-checking” an already blatantly partisan activity - useless.

What if we created a third option. One where we understand the context of the statement, and how within subjective reason it can be viewed as the opposite of its technical accuracy.

We need a new term to describe many of the things said and done since the beginning of the internet. 

​An example:

I was about to search something on twitter the other day when I spotted this...

Now this was a surprise to me as I:

• Watched several parts of the DNC
• Was notably taken a back when 2 sessions purposefully omitted the “under God” part of the pledge
• Personally witnessed this happening.

Am I going crazy? The claim that is was omitted is both true and false here but it is somehow mostly false under snopes' judgement.

When the president says the DNC omitted these - I witnessed it. They did. Now did the entire DNC have a policy of removing the pledge? No. Did every pledge have it removed? No. Was it removed by accident? No. But was it omitted - yes.

To me, if you understand the context and the implication of the claim - this claim is true. Can you see how these things are contextually subjective?

Any purposeful removal is notable and in that regard the president is right - it was removed. But without a complete removal of the section and a policy of removal - it can also be said the DNC did not remove it.

The meaning of the words we use is precious. A shared language and understood history - are core foundations of the culture that we live in.

A culture that, I might add, while never perfect, strives to be better.

What if we labelled things as contextually subjective rather than true or false and the audience can determine whether the event is worth being upset about rather than being told like drones what to be angry about by the press.

I can only hope.

​It is clear that the business model of the press has been laid bare. Clicks, clicks, and more clicks.

From shilling for a communist regime that is systematically carrying out nazi like activities to painting early covid warners as entitled elites afraid of the boogeyman - it is clear that we must force the press to change rather than rely on it as an arbiter of truth.