Taking a page straight out of 1984, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, recently changed the definition of assault rifle to fit pro-gun control talking points.
Bre Payton of the Federalist highlights how the online dictionary modified the entry for “assault rifle” with the following definition:
“noun: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire”
Curiously, an earlier version of the same entry from June 13, 2016 only included the traditionally accepted definition of assault rifle:
“noun: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use”
After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February, the pro-gun control crowd has had a field day exploiting this tragedy. Part of their revived push for gun control consists of advancing bans and restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” like the much maligned AR-15.
A whipping boy for gun control advocates, the AR-15 and its cosmetic features generate polarizing emotions among the general populace. Add a little bit of fearmongering and sprinkle in some ambiguous political language, and you have the recipe for a national disinformation campaign.
For starters, “assault weapon” is a politically invented term gun control advocates like Senator Dianne Feinstein have used over the past few decades to instill fear among the general populace.
The media enjoy creating lurid images of criminals toting “military-grade” weapons after every shooting, but any serious analysis of these incidents will quickly pick apart this myth.
Cosmetics notwithstanding, firearms like the AR-15 function no differently from regular handguns. To add even more confusion, media talking heads use the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” interchangeably.
Assault rifle actually refers to a military firearm that possesses semi-automatic and automatic settings. AR-15s can’t be classified as assault rifles due to only featuring a semi-automatic setting.
Alas, hard-hitting facts don’t jive well with sensationalist media figures and demagogic politicians hell-bent on advancing an anti-gun crusade at all costs.
Gun controllers had their way during Bill Clinton’s presidency when the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was enacted. Coolers heads eventually prevailed during the Bush years, when George W. Bush let the Assault Weapons Ban expire in 2004. The FBI reported a 3.6 percent decline in the national murder rate from 2003 to 2004 much to the chagrin of gun control advocates, who warned that the repeal of the 1994 AWB would lead to an upswing in crime.
However, this trend did not stop there. Declining crimes rates became the norm from 1993 to 2013, when gun ownership per person increased by 56% and gun violence correspondingly decreased by 49%.
While correlation is not causation, this statistical finding demonstrates that laxer gun laws which allow more people to carry and own firearms do not necessarily produce large spikes in violence like many gun controllers fear.
But gun controllers have remained persistent and they currently have a favorable political environment in which they can operate in.
With a Republican controlled Governor’s office and legislature in Florida kowtowing to anti-gun pressure and the federal government passing the largest piece of gun control legislation since the 1994 Brady Act, supposedly “pro-gun” politicians can no longer be counted on to defend gun rights.
And it doesn’t stop there.
Now that political figures like retired Supreme Court Justice Paul Stevens are calling for the outright repeal of the Second Amendment, gun controllers smell blood in the water.
Merriam-Webster’s latest move to change the definition of assault rifle just serves as another stark reminder of the tide shift towards gun control.
Many will scoff at this development and claim that it’s much ado about nothing, but the significance of this lexical change cannot be overstated.
Author George Orwell understood the power of words and warned how the English language could be corrupted to serve a more nefarious, statist agenda.
In his famous essay, Politics and the English Language, Orwell argued that if “thoughts can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought”. This very same language could be used “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. Then the stage is set for the rise of Newspeak, where everyday speech is filled with politically approved vocabulary that contains ambiguous and empty meanings.
——
Rest in the link. Linguistic control is critical for an authoritarian who cannot win an argument with reason and sound philosophical underpinnings.
I guess I should get around to writing something on this topic, especially now that people are convinced that the internet as we know it is over, and we’re all about to be bent over the table by ISP megacorps.
Let’s lay this out first: The internet isn’t about the be throttled and you’re not about to start getting notifications every 5 minutes telling you that you have to pay extra if you want to access sites or services that your ISP has put in the slow lane. They aren’t going to start shutting down websites left and right. Really, not much is going to happen. Comcast and Verizon will continue to be shitty companies, they just won’t have to pay lip-service to the FCC like they have been for the past couple years.
You see, all this Net Neutrality stuff kind of failed to talk about certain other aspects of our legal system and the way it regulates businesses. A lot of the stuff that people believed only the FCC and Net Neutrality covered was kind of already covered by various antitrust laws, consumer protection acts, and other shit. Some of the things they told you might happen without Net Neutrality are already illegal. Before Net Neutrality was a thing, many of the crimes that Comcast, Verizon, Apple, and Google got in trouble for were things that they also did after it became a thing. It’s mostly been digital slapfights and shitty business practices, by the way. Not listing a competitor’s app. Restricting consumers from using 3rd party SIM cards. Awful contracts and markup of hardware. It’s not really so much of a “destroying the internet” thing, as much as it is just “being a shitty company that thinks it can do whatever it wants” thing.
There’s also the point that most of this stuff about being forced to pay extra to access social media and netflix separately and so on.. That’s all a big maybe. Don’t get me wrong. It’s certainly a dumb thing they could try. The catch is that bad ideas and really awful business practices make for terrible PR. Just recently, Patreon announced they were going to roll out a new billing method that was going to screw over small donors. The PR was so bad and the backlash so large, that they dropped the idea entirely, one, because it made them look bad, and two, because it pissed off people so much that they immediately started losing money.
Which brings me to my final point. Net Neutrality was just one layer of protection. Not even an especially good one. All they were really aiming to do was to tax and charge fees for internet activity the same way they did for telecommunications. Either way, you’re terrified that these megacorps are going to start screwing you and ruining the internet, right? Then make it a point to keep an eye on them. By now, this whole song and dance of learning about an issue and then using social media to spread awareness should be easy enough.. Even though this time around it mostly worked to spread misinformation and rile people up over nothing… But regardless, you are worried that without the FCC big corporations will do bad things that will harm the internet. So, keep doing the same shit we always do! Stay informed, keep an eye on their policy changes, make sure big news outlets are actually reporting on these things, and get the word out.
Some of the things they do may not even be illegal, but they can still be shitty. That’s no reason you can’t be pissed off about it. Incidentally, google, facebook, twitter, and several other big companies are guilty of manipulating information on the internet. I think you should be pissed about that too.
Large scale consumer action, which is easily organized through social media, can lead to quicker and more meaningful results than simply waiting for the government to take notice and then simply slap them on the wrist with a fine. They can weather that sort of thing easily. In some cases, it doesn’t even make them flinch. However, a massive wave of bad PR, a total shift in public attitude and perception, and the ever-effective ‘voting with your wallet’ can more quickly and easily force large, wealthy companies to get their shit together and fly right in a far more effective and efficient way. You literally don’t need to rely on the government to do this stuff for you.
Going forward, be vigilant and be ready to act. If your ISP is screwing you over, drop them, and when their pitiful customer service rep asks you why on their recorded phone call, you tell them because you are sick and tired of their shit and the awful way they treat their customers. Be prepared to move to one of the small companies if you can. These guys were squeezed out of the market because they couldn’t offer you anything that the big companies couldn’t. Now they have the edge and you have the ability to spit in the eye of any company that dares to offer you a fast lane or premium access package for you internet connection.
tl;dr - Stop panicking and thinking that you’ve lost the only means to protect yourself and fight back against shitty companies. Your voice and rights as a consumer are potentially even more powerful than ever, especially in the event that comcast or verizon decides to start some awful service again. You just need to be aware of what’s going on and quick to speak up about it.
BITE stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.
Many people think of mind control
as an ambiguous, mystical process that cannot be defined in concrete
terms. In reality, mind control refers to a specific set of methods and
techniques, such as hypnosis or thought-stopping, that influence how a
person thinks, feels, and acts.
Ironic… this whole Net Neutrality mess started because Netflix refused to pay more to Comcast for being such a burden to their infrastructure, and in the end, Netflix may not even be that big of a thing in the future, seeing that a day before the FCC’s repeal, Disney bought 21st Century FOX, and Disney will be launching their own streaming service, and pulling out everything they own from Netflix, and there’s no reason to believe other companies won’t do the same.
Eventually people will be demanding Netflix to be some sort of public service.
With every studio or producer looking to become its own streaming service (or to acquire them, now Disney owns 60% stake in Hulu), we’re literally regressing back to cable television where content was locked by channel access. Our choices moving forward (if things stay the course) will be to pay for a subscription to each and every streaming service (or several of the best options) or hope that the ISPs offer a bundle package where you get access to those services vis-a-vis your internet contract.
You might be onto something about Netflix being a public service lmao
Theirs already been talk of congressmen, who are acting to repel the FCC’s vote. I’m honestly not too concerned about it cause like my mom and dad have said, along with other people I know, they’ve tried this before in the past and it didn’t get very fair, but that’s just my opinion. Does it honestly suck, yes. Is it infuriating, yes, but that doesn’t mean people need to go out and start rioting like mad. NO,Cause let’s face it…has violence ever solved anything…no it hasn’t. It just makes things worse. So, please people of the internet…all hope is not lost….the fight isn’t over. It’s just getting started.
Also for the sanctity of me writing this,I’d like to keep things peaceful and if you leave rather strong opinionated words…then that’s your opinion and I’ll respect that, so I hope you will do the same.
They’ve tried this before in the past? Are you talking about the big push to repeal net neutrality in 1982 or when they tried to scale back the application of Title II by excluding providers that served less than 100,000 customers in 1989?
Sadly, it is only referring to the one in 2015. Back then the internet was niche and small and government too chance to cut down competitors
The belief that men are biologically inclined to be more aggressive and oppressive is false.
Men do not need to repress a instinct to be aggressive because it doesn’t exist.
They are taught from an early age to repress all emotions except for anger which leads to violent outbursts.
Toxic masculinity upholds this repression leading to many
men not knowing how to communicate clearly and to associate women with
emotions they deem “inferior”.
You ever witness things like the Net Neutrality hysteria and marvel that people can think Comcast is anti-Title II when the FCC chairperson who set the agenda that implemented the regulation was Tom Wheeler?
Now it is time to use all the hysteria and rage to open up ISP to total competition so we don’t have to deal with Comcast, which is really what everyone is afraid of at the root of all this net neutrality.
We don’t have a choice to deal with anyone else in areas, so they have power and we can’t do anything about it. Fuck that.
In every single urban area in Romania, ISPs are allowed to spring up and do their thing and as a result the 9.5 million people there have nearly 700 different ISPs who serve them. We should have more choices already, but you all slept hard on google fiber and let cities fuck that up, so now is as good a time as any to screech at your local and state politicians to let more ISPs get going.
imo the drive for NN / Title II was undertaken at least in part to set a precedent for control over what’s next.
If it is decentralized and does not require the ISP gatekeepers, they would need a regulatory framework to justify government interference and their involvement / control over the successor.
I’m looking forward to absolutely none of the doomsday scenarios people invented for the repeal of the 400 page FCC rule booklet labeled “Net Neutrality” to come true.
Including the ones that actually already happened in real life, moron?
Is this where you show me photoshopped images of cell phone carrier plans being falsely presented as ISP packages?
Because if so, you’re legally obliged to eat your own shit on video in exchange.
How’s being an unpaid shill working for ya
Is the false sense of intelligence worth your dignity
My dude this isn’t Reddit or 4chan, the “everyone who disagrees with me is a shill” tactic doesn’t work. Doesn’t really work there either.
If nothing’s gonna change at all, why bother being a whore for big telco in the first place?
I’m not a big whore for telecoms, hence why I’m against telecom monopoly-creating regulations that turn it into a utility.
Ya boi Tom Wheeler and his telecom lobbying history can get fucked.
The FCC just voted to kill Net Neutrality. Congress can stop the FCC and overrule their vote using the Congressional Review Act. We need each and every one of us to keep the pressure on Congress. Here’s how: BattleForTheNet.com
It’s up to Congress to stop the FCC. If your representative isn’t doing that, contact them now.
Please, guys. This is horrifying.
the website linked above is an excellent resource where you can fill out a little bit of info and have a letter automatically emailed to your congressperson. but calling directly is important too! calls are what tie up congressional offices and really get the attention of representatives, so if you can, please please give your representative a call.
nervous on the phone? all you need to provide is your name, zip code, and a short message saying “I’m calling because I want my representative to support net neutrality” or “I want Congress to pass a Resolution of Disapproval and overturn the FCC vote on net neutrality.”
not sure who to call? use CallMyCongress to get all the contact info for your representatives. BattleForTheNet will also automatically prompt you.
Please guys do something. This will really hurt small businesses like my fledgling photography business and the business that literally pays for the roof over my head and keeps us fed. Not to mention that the internet was named a human right and we all deserve equal access to information. There shouldn’t be a pay barrier to these things. Don’t let it go and don’t assume someone else will make calls. Do it yourself.
just because the internet was ‘named a human right’ doesn’t make it so. You don’t own the infrastructure used to transport the data. to suggest you have a right to such a thing is to suggest you have a right to the labor that goes into maintaining that infrastructure.
and absolutely nothing will happen, the internet will continue to function the same way prior to ‘net neutrality’ rules being put into place.
“named a human right”
what mega-corporation happens to be on hand that can supply this human right with cash money bled out of taxpayers by the state?
I’m curious why we have to legislate anything in this respect?
For instance, the Netflix / Comcast issue has been used as a primary driver for the FCC intervention, but the Comcast and Netflix dispute is over a hung negotiation between a content provider and an ISP.
It has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Netflix accounts for approximately 30% of all internet traffic. 30%. Comcast wanted them to pay for additional nodes to account for the bulk data they pump into the Comcast local networks which are owned and managed by Comcast.
Netflix wanted Comcast to pay for the nodes, an impasse occurred, and so there you have it.
Netflix tried to pressure Comcast publicly by using the “throttling” and NN rhetoric but that was simply to build public pressure against Comcast.
I have no problem with the actions of either. I have a problem with the opportunists in both camps that have utilized this business matter to advance a corporatist agenda.
Do you believe this issue warrants Title II application? Perhaps arbitration between the parties would be more appropriate. If it does warrant Title II regulation don’t you think it would be appropriate that we know what the hell that entails?
The Internet is a series of networks, the ISPs account for a narrow slice of that. Imagine them as controlling the last mile of network infrastructure before it hits your PC at home. The rest of the net is a vast network beyond the control of any one company or person. Digital communication is beyond control because it is decentralized by nature. We all own and control pieces of the network. We secure these pieces and provide access as we choose to whom we choose to share our data stores and networking capability with. In many ways the individual constitutes the Internet.
Government has been struggling with this fact in all facets for years. They have actively sought information dominance, information monitoring, how to justify use taxation, how to tax Internet commerce, etc, etc. Now through a blitzkrieg like campaign they have the crack they need to get in the door.
Title II creates monopoly, it does not destroy it. It regulates it into existence. And with the government claiming domain over the Internet it extends their power far beyond the squabbling of the ISP and a content provider into the broader network and into any decentralized network that may evolve from the terrestrial Internet and past the technological grasp of the corporatist gatekeepers, the ISPs.
I contend that we’ve been a witness to political theatre bordering on the absurd from the Sony Hack to the ISP “bad guy” and FCC “white knight” charade.
This is about corporatist control and the public has been manipulated into supporting it.
from 2015
Since the internet is decentralized and the recent ruling of “Net Neutrality” stuff has been revoked, what does it mean for corporatism, government intervention, and freedom at various levels?
Should we really be worried about “Hidden corporate tricks”?
I like a nice and detailed analysis on the end of Title 2 ruling?
