<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Our Ideologically Biased Language</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=our-ideologically-biased-language</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:19:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Jakareh</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5336413</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jakareh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5336413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Instead of &quot;capitalism&quot;, we should say &quot;a free economy&quot;, as in, &quot;I&#039;m not in favor of type of socialism, I support a free economy.&quot; Done!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Instead of &#8220;capitalism&#8221;, we should say &#8220;a free economy&#8221;, as in, &#8220;I&#8217;m not in favor of type of socialism, I support a free economy.&#8221; Done!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagalog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335542</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagalog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let everybody be at liberty to do what he pleases within the boundaries of the law, which applies equally to everyone, and let the equalities and the inequalities emerge as they may.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let everybody be at liberty to do what he pleases within the boundaries of the law, which applies equally to everyone, and let the equalities and the inequalities emerge as they may.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagalog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335541</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagalog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Consider the mainstream nature of the idea that (as one example among many) women earn less than men; then consider the polls that find that 80% of Americans think women and men earn about the same for doing the same job.

There is a cognitive disconnect at work here.  People have been propagandized into swallowing what Orwell characterized as Doublethink.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Consider the mainstream nature of the idea that (as one example among many) women earn less than men; then consider the polls that find that 80% of Americans think women and men earn about the same for doing the same job.</p>
<p>There is a cognitive disconnect at work here.  People have been propagandized into swallowing what Orwell characterized as Doublethink.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: popseal</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335408</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[popseal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Assaulting the language by impregnating dark meanings into common words is a propagandist&#039;s tactic as old as dirt.   Shallow unthinking herd animals looking for a free lunch will buy their lies every time.   As long as the general population is waiting for a bureaucrat to make its life better, the verbal claptrap will continue.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assaulting the language by impregnating dark meanings into common words is a propagandist&#8217;s tactic as old as dirt.   Shallow unthinking herd animals looking for a free lunch will buy their lies every time.   As long as the general population is waiting for a bureaucrat to make its life better, the verbal claptrap will continue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leland64</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335289</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leland64]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Equality?  I want to be the point guard for the Bulls - sorry. I am an old white guy.  How about this? - Affirmative action for non- blacks in the NFL and the NBA. Why do all those black guys step up and perform so well?   Discrimination?  Us Whites, Asians, Mexicans are mostly not NFL, NBA quality.  The under performing, regardless of race,  never have a chance.  The best performers play while the rest of us watch on TV.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Equality?  I want to be the point guard for the Bulls &#8211; sorry. I am an old white guy.  How about this? &#8211; Affirmative action for non- blacks in the NFL and the NBA. Why do all those black guys step up and perform so well?   Discrimination?  Us Whites, Asians, Mexicans are mostly not NFL, NBA quality.  The under performing, regardless of race,  never have a chance.  The best performers play while the rest of us watch on TV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Z</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335269</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Z]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2013 02:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“‘When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.’” - Confucius

That fits so well with 1984 &amp; Newspeak

Orwell must have read some Confucius&#039; work, but how much?

If not, then the truth must be self evident to great minds when  they consider a subject after a time.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“‘When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.’” &#8211; Confucius</p>
<p>That fits so well with 1984 &amp; Newspeak</p>
<p>Orwell must have read some Confucius&#8217; work, but how much?</p>
<p>If not, then the truth must be self evident to great minds when  they consider a subject after a time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason P</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335147</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason P]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 21:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jack, one pattern common to your analysis of all the terms (aside from capitalism) is the very collectivist and paternalist nature of the terminology. Whether one is talking about the economy as a whole or a system of economics or so-called material inequality, the analysis is inherently utilitarian in its analysis of the outcome for society&lt;i&gt; as a whole&lt;/i&gt;. 

In that regard the left&#039;s concepts are inherently concern with what is known as “distributional justice.” This is the idea that some &lt;i&gt;a priori&lt;/i&gt; outcome is the proper criteria for justice and, by implication, some paternalistic guidance is required. Even utilitarian theories of free markets or free enterprise by our friends on the right justify liberty as a &lt;i&gt;privilege&lt;/i&gt;, conditional on “the greatest good for the greatest number” or “as long as it contributes to elevating the poorest” etc. Ultimately case-by-case utilitarianism undermines liberty as people tend find rationalizations for having one’s neighbor’s wealth redistributed to one’s own account. 

As opposed to “distributional justice” is “commutative justice.” The &lt;i&gt;right means&lt;/i&gt; of acquisition and securing the fruits of one’s labor become the main concerns. Man is an actor, not a passive recipient. He cultivates his productive ability, applies practical reason to his affairs, creates wealth for others as a means of earning his keep, and respects the sovereignty of his fellow citizens. He thrives and passionately values other honest and productive individuals. That this has led to the most prosperous nation on such a vast scale is a derivative matter that to be expected in the nature of the thing. But that outcome never becomes the a priori criteria. Each and every individual is an end, not a means.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jack, one pattern common to your analysis of all the terms (aside from capitalism) is the very collectivist and paternalist nature of the terminology. Whether one is talking about the economy as a whole or a system of economics or so-called material inequality, the analysis is inherently utilitarian in its analysis of the outcome for society<i> as a whole</i>. </p>
<p>In that regard the left&#8217;s concepts are inherently concern with what is known as “distributional justice.” This is the idea that some <i>a priori</i> outcome is the proper criteria for justice and, by implication, some paternalistic guidance is required. Even utilitarian theories of free markets or free enterprise by our friends on the right justify liberty as a <i>privilege</i>, conditional on “the greatest good for the greatest number” or “as long as it contributes to elevating the poorest” etc. Ultimately case-by-case utilitarianism undermines liberty as people tend find rationalizations for having one’s neighbor’s wealth redistributed to one’s own account. </p>
<p>As opposed to “distributional justice” is “commutative justice.” The <i>right means</i> of acquisition and securing the fruits of one’s labor become the main concerns. Man is an actor, not a passive recipient. He cultivates his productive ability, applies practical reason to his affairs, creates wealth for others as a means of earning his keep, and respects the sovereignty of his fellow citizens. He thrives and passionately values other honest and productive individuals. That this has led to the most prosperous nation on such a vast scale is a derivative matter that to be expected in the nature of the thing. But that outcome never becomes the a priori criteria. Each and every individual is an end, not a means.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: carltjohnson</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335059</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[carltjohnson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok...This is raw, but here it goes. How about this: 
We are all equal to EXPERENCE the CONSEQUENCES of our choices according to one&#039;s ability, wants, desires, just laws and the marketplace of society.
Does that cover it all without surface level misunderstanding?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok&#8230;This is raw, but here it goes. How about this:<br />
We are all equal to EXPERENCE the CONSEQUENCES of our choices according to one&#8217;s ability, wants, desires, just laws and the marketplace of society.<br />
Does that cover it all without surface level misunderstanding?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gray_man</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335051</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gray_man]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The only fuzzy thinking here Fred, is yours.
The statement is quite clear.
Get a dictionary and look up &quot;ambiguous&quot;. It does not mean what you think it means.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only fuzzy thinking here Fred, is yours.<br />
The statement is quite clear.<br />
Get a dictionary and look up &#8220;ambiguous&#8221;. It does not mean what you think it means.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason P</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335050</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason P]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The proper word for our disposition is &lt;i&gt;liberal&lt;/i&gt;. It’s an honorable word that goes back to Roman times and refers to everything proper to a free man. Many &lt;i&gt;classical liberals&lt;/i&gt; in the 1950s wanted to retain the word. It’s sad that conservatives allowed this honorable term to be hijacked by socialists and other paternalistic creeds. 

I still use the word in phrases like “liberal society,” “liberal order,” and even “liberal economy.” Not once have I found a conservative confused by my usage. It bothers &lt;i&gt;social democrats&lt;/i&gt; to hear “liberal” applied to the economic sphere with the implication that their creed is illiberal. That’s more of a reason for us to revive the original usage. 

PS Read Hayak’s appendix in “The Constitution of Liberty” on the word “conservative.”]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The proper word for our disposition is <i>liberal</i>. It’s an honorable word that goes back to Roman times and refers to everything proper to a free man. Many <i>classical liberals</i> in the 1950s wanted to retain the word. It’s sad that conservatives allowed this honorable term to be hijacked by socialists and other paternalistic creeds. </p>
<p>I still use the word in phrases like “liberal society,” “liberal order,” and even “liberal economy.” Not once have I found a conservative confused by my usage. It bothers <i>social democrats</i> to hear “liberal” applied to the economic sphere with the implication that their creed is illiberal. That’s more of a reason for us to revive the original usage. </p>
<p>PS Read Hayak’s appendix in “The Constitution of Liberty” on the word “conservative.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gray_man</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335047</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gray_man]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The only fuzzy thinking here Fred, is yours.
The sentence was quite clear.
I suggest you look up &quot;ambiguous&quot; in the dictionary. It doesn&#039;t mean what you think it means.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only fuzzy thinking here Fred, is yours.<br />
The sentence was quite clear.<br />
I suggest you look up &#8220;ambiguous&#8221; in the dictionary. It doesn&#8217;t mean what you think it means.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Texas Patriot</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5335028</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Texas Patriot]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5335028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great, great article.  It is clear that most Western industrialists who call themselves capitalists have no idea that they are already conceding that what they are doing is immoral and contrary to the best interests of humanity.  Adam Smith did not call his ground-breaking treatise “The Capital of Individuals and Corporations&quot;, rather he called it “The Wealth of Nations”, and that is the correct formulation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great, great article.  It is clear that most Western industrialists who call themselves capitalists have no idea that they are already conceding that what they are doing is immoral and contrary to the best interests of humanity.  Adam Smith did not call his ground-breaking treatise “The Capital of Individuals and Corporations&#8221;, rather he called it “The Wealth of Nations”, and that is the correct formulation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagalog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5334989</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagalog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5334989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The statement &quot;... that all men are created equal...&quot; seems quite plain to me.  It obviously has nothing to do with the notion that all men must wind up equal.

The reference in the operative document, the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is that all people present in the United States (or on U.S. territory) have the right to equal protection of the law.  It&#039;s the law that is at fault in that regard, to the extent that it provides for equality of result.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The statement &#8220;&#8230; that all men are created equal&#8230;&#8221; seems quite plain to me.  It obviously has nothing to do with the notion that all men must wind up equal.</p>
<p>The reference in the operative document, the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is that all people present in the United States (or on U.S. territory) have the right to equal protection of the law.  It&#8217;s the law that is at fault in that regard, to the extent that it provides for equality of result.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tagalog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5334987</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tagalog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5334987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The one English term that can be employed to rebut the claim that the English language contains terms that lend themselves to Leftist ideology (the English language also contains terms that can be used for right-wing ideology, and all other languages have the same capability), is the term &quot;equality of opportunity&quot; as opposed to &quot;equality of result.&quot;  Those terms are readily and easily distinguishable, in English as well as in all other languages.  You just have to think for 30 seconds.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The one English term that can be employed to rebut the claim that the English language contains terms that lend themselves to Leftist ideology (the English language also contains terms that can be used for right-wing ideology, and all other languages have the same capability), is the term &#8220;equality of opportunity&#8221; as opposed to &#8220;equality of result.&#8221;  Those terms are readily and easily distinguishable, in English as well as in all other languages.  You just have to think for 30 seconds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PhillipGaley</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5334954</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PhillipGaley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5334954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;why&quot;?

Well, if to borrow meaning from the article, in that age, the sight of physical differences i.e. economic position, born estate, education, freehold vs slavery, being plain and in affect on every hand—witness for instance that, Chas Dickens had not yet begun writing—in the logic of discussion, then, evidently, that phrase was there chosen because it was to be understood in the larger sense of life.  And today, I and very many others accept it so, continuing differences in born estate, educational achievement, economic position, religious inspiration and so on, notwithstanding to alter the fact of valid use of the term



And yet again, and from our own perspective, although you and I are different, the term comprehends that difference in a way which is fair for the reason that, ultimately, there is a G0D who as The Great Equalizer, is able to set such valuation and final assessment such that, in the true and meaningful sense, it will then be seen that, yes, we were actually created as equals.  In a word, while &quot;created&quot; points to The Creator, there, their use of &quot;equal&quot; does, too.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;why&#8221;?</p>
<p>Well, if to borrow meaning from the article, in that age, the sight of physical differences i.e. economic position, born estate, education, freehold vs slavery, being plain and in affect on every hand—witness for instance that, Chas Dickens had not yet begun writing—in the logic of discussion, then, evidently, that phrase was there chosen because it was to be understood in the larger sense of life.  And today, I and very many others accept it so, continuing differences in born estate, educational achievement, economic position, religious inspiration and so on, notwithstanding to alter the fact of valid use of the term</p>
<p>And yet again, and from our own perspective, although you and I are different, the term comprehends that difference in a way which is fair for the reason that, ultimately, there is a G0D who as The Great Equalizer, is able to set such valuation and final assessment such that, in the true and meaningful sense, it will then be seen that, yes, we were actually created as equals.  In a word, while &#8220;created&#8221; points to The Creator, there, their use of &#8220;equal&#8221; does, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred Glass</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jack-kerwick/our-ideologically-biased-language/comment-page-1/#comment-5334922</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fred Glass]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213316#comment-5334922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wouldn&#039;t it have avoided  confusion &amp; fuzzy thinking if in the Declaration of Independence after the sentence: &quot;We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.....&quot; the clause, before the law, was added.  Wonder why the statement was left so ambiguous.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t it have avoided  confusion &amp; fuzzy thinking if in the Declaration of Independence after the sentence: &#8220;We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal&#8230;..&#8221; the clause, before the law, was added.  Wonder why the statement was left so ambiguous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 616/625 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 09:24:26 by W3 Total Cache -->