On the website thoughtco, we read: “About 20 percent of the world’s population speaks English as a first or secondary language, about 1.5 billion people. If you include people who use it, that brings the estimate up to about a third of the world, or more than 2 billion of the world’s 7.6 billion people (2017). Only about 360 million people speak it as their first language, though.
“After a certain amount of usage, dictionary editors decide whether a new word has enough staying power to add it to the dictionary. Merriam-Webster notes that its editors spend an hour or two daily reading a cross-section of material looking for new words, new meanings to old words, new forms, new spellings, and the like. The words are logged into a database with their context for documentation and further analysis. Before being added to the dictionary a new word or change to an existing word must have a considerable amount of use over time in a variety of types of publications and/or media (widespread use, not just in jargon).”
The problem is that words can mean different things to different people and can be “massaged” to fit what a person or group want it to mean. Take the word “discrimination” for example. From Wikipedia we read this description of discrimination:
“In human social behavior, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction towards, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong. These include age, colour, criminal record, height, disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, generation, general characteristics, marital status, nationality, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.”
You would think from such a description that discrimination would be understood by most people. However, a new twist has been given to the meaning by adding the word “positive” before it. Merriam-Webster defines positive discrimination as “the practice of improving the educational and job opportunities of members of groups that have not been treated fairly in the past because of their race, sex, etc.” That is certainly fair enough, but it often doesn’t work out that way.
In practice, positive discrimination as “understood” by those who have a particular “diversity” agenda, can certainly mean, in the UK, that members of the indigenous population can be legally discriminated against in their own country.
For example, as reported in the Daily Mail on February 23rd 2019, was the case of a police inspector’s son who tried to join his father’s force but was rejected for being “a white, heterosexual male without disability”. He had applied for his “dream job” as a constable with Cheshire Police, where his father, 52, is a detective inspector. He performed well in tests and at his interview but the force was so desperate for more recruits from ethnic minorities or who were gay or transgender that it refused to hire him.
The article continued:
“He had a degree in particle physics from Lancaster University, and lodged a discrimination claim against Cheshire Police under equality legislation, and won. It is believed to be the first successful case of its kind. In a ruling a judge criticised the force for treating candidates with ‘protected characteristics’ – including those who were gay, transgender, disabled, black or from other ethnic minorities – more favourably than this candidate who was ‘a white, heterosexual male without disability’.”
Interestingly, in spite of this ruling “the case came as the leader of Britain’s police chiefs called yesterday for radical laws to allow police to positively discriminate in favour of ethnic minority candidates.” They can certainly play with words to get their own way!
This case was mentioned in our Update number 866 dated 1st March 2019 with Mr Norbert Link’s comments below the article which stated that “We are told not to discriminate as it is against the law but the police want to discriminate against qualified candidates. Will this kind of nonsense ever stop?“
The playing field should be levelled for all candidates but it patently isn’t working out that way in many other cases of a similar nature. In Deuteronomy 28:43 we read: “The stranger that is among you shall rise up above you higher and higher; and you shall come down lower and lower.” It certainly seems that way as the British, in general, have forsaken the Way of God and are bringing upon themselves destruction on their own country.
Another example of playing with words to get their own way is that of the homosexual/lesbian lobby referring to their “partner” in a way that is ridiculous. For example, with two men, one can describe his partner as his wife even though he is male. Likewise, a lesbian can refer to her partner as her husband with no male in sight! Oh, how they love to refashion the English language to fit in with their perversion.
These are just two of many examples where we can see how long-held meanings are fashioned and shaped to fit in with an ungodly society and “normalise” that which would, not that long ago, have been rejected as abnormal and unacceptable.
It is, in effect, a hijacking of words purely to regulate or enhance specific societal changes and make them acceptable to the prevailing culture!
Even though we are living in this world, we are not to be of this world and its evil practices—and this includes that we are not to fall for the deceptive practices of using words which, upon reflection and scrutiny, refashion the clear meaning to fit in with concepts which are opposed to God’s specific instructions.
