Newspeak is upon us....
How do you win an argument when the definitions of words keep changing?
One of the most concerning things about this whole covid mess is the willingness of the ‘leaders’ to change definitions of words in order to make their statements ‘technically true’, when those statements would have been false just a few months ago.
The biggest one, of course, is ‘vaccine’. Just a few short months ago, a vaccine was designed to make you IMMUNE to the virus. That’s why you don’t need regular boosters for your ‘normal’ vaccines. Once the public realized these jabs don’t even count as vaccines, something had to be done. That something was changing the definition of vaccine.
In the before-times:
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Now a vaccine doesn’t provide IMMUNITY, it only ‘stimulates the body’s immune system’.
(Of course, in the real world, people don’t change definitions so easily. I have lost count of the number of people who got jabbed and got covid anyway, and have then complained that they got the shot for no reason.)
But the issue goes far beyond the definition of vaccine. Remember out ‘way out’ of the crisis, herd immunity? Suddenly that only comes out of a bottle, too:
“Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.”
“‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.”
The new definition COMPLETELY IGNORES people who have already recovered, WHILE ALSO using the ‘old’ definition of vaccine to claim that people become immune to the virus once they are jabbed. We know that is not the case for this particular ‘vax.’
And that leads us to the term ‘anti-vaxxer’. In the before times, it was simply a person who didn’t want to get a vax (or didn’t want their kids getting it.) Now we have expanded the definition A LOT.
anti-vaxxer: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination
So now you’re an anti-vaxxer if you oppose VACCINE MANDATES! Specifically, you’re an anti-vaxxer if you oppose vaccine mandates FOR A JAB THAT WASN’T EVEN A VACCINE A FEW MONTHS AGO!
One of the most frustrating things about engaging in conversations with people is that they claim ‘you need other vaccinations to do things, so this is fine.’ They don’t realize the jabs don’t do what they promised. They don’t realize the jab wasn’t even considered a real vaccine until a few months ago. And when you point all this out, they just scream ANTI-VAXXER at you.
So how do we win a battle of words when the ground keeps shifting under our feet? I’m not exactly sure about this, but we must keep hammering away at the fact that words have meaning, and you can’t just change the definition of words to make them more politically favorable. Any other ideas?
*Note - Another important change has been ‘gain of function’, but I’m already running pretty long here. Fauci is trying to slither out of his self-dug hole by changing the definition of that as well. What can we do?