fox files

It all started innocently enough:

I saw that the AP Stylebook was urging us not to use the word “Popsicle,” because “Popsicle” is “a trademark for a brand of flavored ice on a stick. Use ice pop or frozen pop as the generic.”

Sure, AP Stylebook. Sure.

“Hey, kids, want a frozen pop?”

Yeah, that’s not happening.

But then it occurred to me: I’ll bet the AP Stylebook is unsound on more than just popsicles. And having looked through its Twitter account, I can report that the old man’s instincts were once again sound.

Several years ago, for example, we were treated to this little gem:

“We now say not to use the archaic and sexist term ‘mistress’ for a woman in a long-term sexual relationship with, and financially supported by, a man who is married to someone else. Instead, use an alternative like companion or lover on first reference. Provide details later.”

Well, alrighty, then.

Then we learn that we really ought to avoid the words “riot” and “rioting.” Why, you ask? Here’s why:

Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s.

Unrest is a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt.

Super.

So you can call something a riot as long as the AP disapproves of the motivations of the people involved.

I did recall the AP Stylebook taking a unpopular but very sound stance back in 2012 when it removed words like “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.”

The suffix “-phobia” refers to “an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness,” and thus should not be used “in political or social contexts,” said the Stylebook.

“Homophobia especially — it’s just off the mark,” said AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn. “It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone.” My thoughts exactly. Someone who disagrees with you or dislikes you does not have a clinical disorder, even if the left likes to treat dissidents as if they do.

Well, that didn’t last long. By 2017 the Stylebook was saying that “homophobia” and “homophobic” were “acceptable in broad references or in quotations to the concept of fear or hatred of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.”

Now of course it’s normal for new words to come into use, or older words to acquire new shades of meaning over time. This is all part of the organic development of a language. But there is nothing organic about what the political class wants to do to the English language.

Just think of what’s been done to the word “violence.” We’re told that unkind words are “violence.” We’re told that “silence is violence.” Or bigotry is “violence.”

“White supremacy” doesn’t mean anything at all at this point. Punctuality, professionalism, eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and dozens of other positive goods have been condemned as white supremacist or racist.

How can we talk to each other when crucial words we need to use carry weird and ever-changing ideological baggage? Will the word ‘weird’ be next? Stay tuned guys and gals. Stay tuned!