President Barack Obama delivers a statement on Ukraine in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, March 6, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama delivering a statement in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, March 6, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Unlike the previous posts in this series, here we will consider a technique instead of the abuse of a particular word. Here we will consider how loaded words divide us. We will begin by defining the expression, “loaded words”.  Then we will discuss some examples of how loaded words are being used. Finally, we will consider how some people are dividing us by so corrupting the language that every word we use is becoming loaded.

Defining The Expression

Let’s begin by defining the expression “loaded words”. Here is a straightforward definition from Yahoo! Answers.

What are “Loaded Words”?

Loaded words are words (or phrases) which have strong emotional overtones or connotations and which evoke strongly positive (or negative) reactions beyond their literal meaning.

Unloaded Loaded
Plant Weed
Animal Beast

While few words have no evaluative overtones, “plant” is a primarily descriptive term. “Weed”, in contrast, has essentially the same descriptive meaning as “plant”, but a negative evaluative meaning, as well. A weed is a plant of which we disapprove.

The Fallacy Files provides examples of fallacious reasoning.  That includes the post Loaded Words. Here is the crux of it.

Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. For this reason, Jeremy Bentham dubbed this fallacy “Question-Begging Epithets”.

In other words, with loaded words we give our judgement of a person, a place, an animal, a vegetable or a thing. If we use a loaded word just to concisely state an opinion (Crabgrass is a weed.), that is an appropriate usage. On the other hand, if we use a loaded word to “win” an argument, that’s not logical. Sometimes it is utterly comical.

Peacock_terms (from here)
Peacock_terms (from here)

Arguments With And Over Words

Politics, sales, and life itself revolves around persuading others to accept our judgement. If we can get the other to accept and to adopt our language — to use the same loaded words we use — logical or not we win the argument. Hence the importance of loaded words.

Here is a clear and unambiguous example, Does it matter if Obama uses the term ‘Islamic terrorism’? The expression “Islamic terrorism” suggests that Islam is part of the problem the problem of terrorism. Hence Donald Trump, who endorses the phrase, wants to stop immigration from Islamic nations, and Barack Obama, who will not concede that Islam is part of the problem, refuses to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism”.

So it is that when we debate issues, we carefully use loaded words. That includes labeling ourselves and each other. In addition, we label our work and the things we produce. Consider.

  • Trying to associate themselves with our nation’s founders, Democrats use to call themselves Liberal. Then, after they had fouled term “Liberal”, they started calling themselves “Progressives”. What’s next? This article, Democratic voters increasingly embrace the ‘liberal’ label – especially whites, Millennials and postgrads, demonstrates how short our memories can be.
  • Some Atheists try to associate themselves with the word “reason”.  Hence some Atheists rallied under the banner of Reason.
  • This one is kind of funny.  RationalWiki.org has a prominent post that defines Loaded language. Given the title of their website, they should know.
  • Here in Loaded Words we have a discussion of how we should label Dylann Storm Roof, the man who walked into a church in Charleston, South Carolina and murdered nine black parishioners.
  • Here in Loaded Words we have a discussion of the problems scientists have naming a new biotechnology or biomedical process.

    The terms that scientists and researchers select to name a new biotechnology or biomedical process can impact the public’s perception of the advance and willingness to consider its potential clinical utility. Terms such as “cloning” or “gene editing” are not ethically neutral. In fact, while the use of these terms may be provocative and increase readership of news stories and even articles in peer-reviewed journals, such value-laden names may directly impact the ethical acceptability of new technologies as well as government policies related to these innovations. (continued here)

Identity Politics

In a free society, we each have the right to do as we wish so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. That is, if it is not illegal, you and I can do it. Thus, in a free country we can pursue our own definition of happiness, but we cannot force others either to participate in or to condone our actions. In fact, others have the right to disapprove of our behavior. Therefore, if we defy social conventions or customs, those who disapprove can subject us to various forms of censure including ostracism and shaming. Generally, the people of a healthy community discourage antisocial behavior primarily by enforcing local customs. Because it is costly and inflexible, legal action is usually the last resort.

Unfortunately, communities sometimes abuse their social powers. Therefore, the Federal Government has stepped in to “fix things”. So our once relatively healthy society is suffering an epidemic of identity politics. That is, instead of treating all people equally before the law, government leaders now think it is their job to provide  “special” constituencies “special” protection.  How does that involve loaded words?

  • We regularly hear our leaders using a slew of loaded words we associate with identity politics: discrimination, bigotry, profiling, hate crime, favoritism, civil rights, affirmative action, equal treatment, harassment, and so forth.
  • We regularly hear our leaders glorify identity politics with loaded words: diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance, rainbow, social justice, healing, and so forth.
  • Nobody wants to be seen as intolerant.
  • Everyone, especially businesses, are afraid of being sued.
  • We make a Federal case out of everything.
  • We have way too many lawyers and numerous other people using identity politics as their cash cow.
  • We cannot think objectively, especially when our identity is involved.

So it is that in the name of diversity, we do some strange things. Here is a personal example. Years ago I wrote Reviling Christian Fundamentalism. What that post explains is how and why I discriminated against Christians.  Thanks to indoctrination with the load words “Jesus freak”, I had bigoted opinion of Christians Fundamentalists.

Here is something more recent (what inspired this post). This past week I watched an exchange between two female bloggers. First LeeLee wrote Of Course Women Are Objects, and insanitybytes22 responded with “Women as Objects?” Trying to explain herself,  then wrote Aftercare. In comments on each others blogs, and debated fiercely, but — why?

Neither nor argued women should be treated as sex objects. Instead, they argued over whether people are objects. Since resolving their dispute is not germane to this post, I have no interest in taking sides. What I want my readers to observe is that the loaded words “sex object” are so powerful that these loaded words prevented the ladies from participating in a worthwhile discussion.

Some call our era the Information Age, but Propaganda Age seems more accurate. Thanks to a proliferation of twisted words, we have more and more trouble understanding each other.

Relief For The Disconnected: Conclusion

What do loaded words like “Jesus freak” and “sex object” do? Either they push us apart, or they express just how disconnected we are.

Dictionary.com defines people as objects. Even my 1956 edition of Funk & Wagnalls’ New Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language suggests human beings are objects. Yet as objects we each stand alone. As objects we see only from our own point of view. As objects we know only of our own needs.

In this Propaganda Age, words storm and rage. Words toss us about. We drift apart and collide violently. Our flesh is too weak; it has no power to resist.

John 6:63 New King James Version (NKJV)

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

The Bible, the Word of God, speaks to our spirit, the spirit within our flesh. Thus, the Bible anchors us. When storms of words disquiet our souls, we need to turn to our Lord and His Word.


For more posts in this series please see OF TWISTED WORDS => FEMINISM.


marriageWhen we try to solve the problems of this world, we quite naturally preoccupy ourselves with what others are doing wrong, but that is the way of the world. That is not the way of the Christian. The Good News is Jesus Christ has saved us, not that we know how to save others. Therefore, we point to His work, not our own.

So how did I get to this thought? What is the cause of this post? When I commented on insanitybytes22 post (here), The Apostle Paul loved women…, OKRickety replied. Thus, we all began in a little debate.

What did have to say? Well, there is much more, but here is how he started. He begins by quoting from my comment.

  • OKRickety said:                                          June 23, 2016 at 12:45 pm


    “What is the supposed problem? Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. Then Paul tells husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies, to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

    Wives, in other words, should love their husbands because their husbands love them so much that they would die for them. “

    First, the passage says nothing about wives loving their husbands. It only refers to husbands loving their wives. Yes, it is Biblical that women should love their husbands (all Christians are to love one another), and you would expect that wives would love their husbands if their husbands are loving them so much that they would die for them. But your last sentence above is not a correct restatement of the concepts in the passage. For that matter, there are no requirements or preconditions (that is, there is no “because”) for wives submitting or husbands loving. Each spouse is given their own action to take regardless of the other’s action or inaction.

    As to the “supposed problem”, consider the concept that husbands are to love their wives. Search the internet and you will find almost no one who complains about this concept. If you find otherwise, please let me know. I’d be very interested to see it.

    On the other hand, search the internet regarding wives submitting to husbands, and you will quickly find extreme furore at this concept. This is the real, not “supposed” problem.

    Why the difference in response to these two behaviors? The problem is that many, perhaps most, women (and many men) consider wives submitting to their husbands to be unacceptable. At least one reason for rejecting submission is the feminist concept that women are completely equal to men. There are probably others. Whatever the reason(s), wives failing to submit to their husbands is contrary to Paul’s admonition (and, yes, husbands failing to love their wives is also contrary to Paul’s admonition. I feel obliged to emphasize this statement to counter the common objection “But what about the husbands?”).

‘s complaint is understandable, but casting blame does not solve problems. Often, casting blame just adds to our problems. So it is that and I also had much more to say. I think the following is the crux of my argument.

  •   Citizen Tom said:                                                June 25, 2016 at 6:06 am


    The only thing each of us can control is our attitude. We cannot control the attitude of another. Why do I say that? Complaining about the fact women (Christian women, apparently. Why worry about non-Christians obeying the Bible?) don’t submit appropriately to their husbands is futile. Complaints will not fix this problem. We lead our families by example.

    What does it mean for a woman to submit to her husband? Does it mean that she surrenders her will to him? No. Submission is itself an act of will. A woman submits to husband because she loves and she trusts him. She submits by loving and trusting him.

    Genesis 2:21-25 Amplified Bible (AMP)

    21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man He made (fashioned, formed) into a woman, and He brought her and presented her to the man. 23 Then Adam said,

    “This is now bone of my bones,
    And flesh of my flesh;
    She shall be called Woman,
    Because she was taken out of Man.”

    24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed or embarrassed.

    The woman submits because she knows she is one with her man. She submits because they are so joined as to be one and the same.

    If a man wants his wife to love and to trust him as a Godly woman should, then he must strive each day earn her love and her trust. He must love her. He must do what Jesus did for us, set an example. He must love and trust our Lord. He must submit to the will of God in all things.

    How does a woman submit to her husband? She loves. She trusts. She teaches his children to love, trust, and follow the example of their father. She sets the example for his children by following the example of their father.

    Husbands earn authority by being worthy of it. Husbands set a Godly example their ladies want to follow. There is no other way.

Much is made of wives submitting to their husband, but we forget that Jesus used marriage as an analogy for His relationship to the church. No analogy is perfect. Unlike Man and God, man and woman are equal. However, nature requires from woman love of the sort Man should give to God, and nature requires from man love of the sort Jesus Christ gave to us.

For the sake of her children, the woman must love, trust and respect her man. Similarly, for the sake salvation, Man man must have faith in Jesus Christ.

The man must love his woman as Jesus loves us, selflessly. The man must be worthy of the trust the woman gives him. Jesus Christ is worthy of our trust. He was something no man can be. He was and is perfectly worthy. Because He lived the perfect life, His sacrifice upon the cross paid the price for our sins. All we can do is strive to follow His example and be grateful for His sacrifice.

If a man could his wife perfectly, he would not need Jesus. If a woman could submit to her husband perfectly she would not need Jesus. It is because of our imperfections, our inability to love God as we should that we sin, that we need a savior. Yet each of us should seek to love our spouses as much as we can. That our Lord commanded to do. Moreover, in this life only giving and receiving such love can bring us close to heaven.


Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.
Here is an example of what people once thought of when they spoke of fellow travelers. Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford, and Miles Standish, at prayer during their voyage to America. Painting by Robert Walter Weir.

Recently, I got this comment from a fellow who calls himself “The Night Wind.”

The Night Wind

That’s just the tip of the iceberg:


Sputnik? Aside from the fact the news content was atrociously anti-American, I was suspicious of the name. What does sputnik mean?

sputnik (n.) Look up sputnik at Dictionary.com
“artificial satellite,” extended from the name of the one launched by the Soviet Union Oct. 4, 1957, from Russian sputnik “satellite,” literally “traveling companion” (in this use short for sputnik zemlyi, “traveling companion of the Earth”) from Old Church Slavonic supotiniku, from Russian so-, s- “with, together” + put’ “path, way,” from Old Church Slavonic poti, from PIE *pent- “to tread, go” (see find (v.)) + agent suffix -nik. (continued here)

As this article indicates, Russia launches ‘Sputnik’ media offensive to counter US propaganda, sputniknews.com exists to promote Russian propaganda. It is similar in nature to rt.com.

The name “sputnik news” is ironic. The word “sputnik” first gained familiarity in the West when the USSR launched a series of satellites named Sputnik. Since  artificial satellites generally orbit the earth, most satellites are in fact a “traveling companion of the Earth”.  oxforddictionaries.com, however, describes a slightly different origin for term “sputnik” which adds a bit of perspective.

Russian, literally ‘fellow-traveler’. (from here)

What is “fellow-traveler”?

fellow traveler noun
1. a person who supports or sympathizes with a political party, especially the Communist Party, but is not an enrolled member.
2. anyone who, although not a member, supports or sympathizes with some organization, movement, or the like.

Read The Night Wind’s comments defending (here and here) sputniknews.com. The Night Wind is something of a fan of Vladimir Putin. Thus, the Night Wind’s comments suggest that that old KGB agent’s propaganda is having some success.

Are The Night Wind’s complaints about the Western news media legitimate? Sadly, the answer is yes, but reading Russian propaganda hardly constitutes a solution.

What makes us so vulnerable to such propaganda in this country? We need to think about that, and we need to formulate a solution. So let’s consider the nature of the problem.  What factors make it more difficult than it once was to discern the truth in the news?

  • The mechanics of our government have changed drastically. When it originated, the Federal Government had little power. Except for a few items, those actually enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, most government operations — what little there were — in the United States were state and local. Then we could see for ourselves what was going on and speak to our leaders face-to-face. Yet the Federal Government now spends nearly twice what our state and local governments spend.
  • Why has local government diminished? To make local government work, we must be engaged in our local communities, but power-grabbing politicians have nearly torn our local communities apart. Unlike previous generations of Americans, we are not skilled in the art of community organizing. We would not even use such a phrase the same way. Our forbears would have thought of organizing to perform a charitable work. We think of community organizing getting the government to spend other people’s money.

Our forebears spent most of their day engaged within their local communities. They worked, educated their children, went to church, and played (even the adults) with their immediate neighbors.  Today not many of us do that. We spend our days tens of miles from home at our jobs, and we waste hours traveling on government-run roads that don’t work. Then we compound the damage. We educate our children in poorly managed government-run schools that discourage parental involvement. We may not go to church, and most of us spend hours a day escaping our “problems”. We “play” on a TV or Internet, or we just commiserate with each other by boozing it up with friends.

What do I think we should do? Well, turning sputniknews.com or rt.com for information is not going to help us. We know these people are trying to deceive us. Instead, we need to decrease the power and importance of government. We need to diminish the vast wealth our government controls. We need to make lying to us less attractive and less profitable; we need to bring government closer to home where we can keep an eye on it.

  • We need to stop giving politicians OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY to pay for public infrastructure. The worst kind of politicians sell access to OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. When we pay for our roads, for example, with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, in return for campaign donations and various “favors”, politicians put the roads where developers want them. Then, in return for more for campaign donations and “favors”, politicians strangle what they had the gall to call a parkway with stoplights.  If we want decent transportation system, then we have to pay with our own money. We have to pay tolls. Then, developers will have to pay for their own roads.
  • We need to stop giving politicians power to redistribute the wealth.  Politicians use the power redistribute the wealth to buy our votes.  That has nothing to do with true charity; such charity is just stealing. Yet we have based our education system, our retirement systems, and our health care system upon such notions of charity. Because true charity is based upon love, government cannot effectively provide charity. Whenever government tries to provide charity, larceny will result. Human nature is such that any government system that spends OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE must become corrupt, too costly, and eventually useless.
  • We need to put the kibosh on the identity politics. What just happened in Florida illustrates the gravity of the problem. Because of the fact they tend to vote Democrat, some of our glorious leaders want to import all the poor, dark skin people they can into this country. That includes Muslims. Yet as events keep demonstrating, our leaders have no way whatsoever of screening out Islamic terrorists from a peaceful Muslims. So why then is the LBGTQ crowd voting for Democrats? Consider their choice, our choice. Is it more important to force our views on others or to be left in peace to pursue our own definition of happiness?

Why do we have to drive so far and spend so much time traveling to work? Everybody wants to live in the country in a big house with a big yard.  So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY (so-called parkways), and they have protected big yards with zoning laws.

Why do we have expensive schools that don’t work? Everybody wants a fabulous education for their children. So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. They have built costly schools and staffed those schools with expensive teachers and administrators, members of public employee’s unions who kindly contributed to and worked for their reelection. Therefore, since those schools must be run by the government and secularized, we have created socialist institutions promoting the glories of Big Government.

Why don’t local communities provide charity, and why is our country going broke? Everybody wants a fail-safe financial safety net.  So politicians have subsidized what we wanted with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. Thus, we have food stamps, Social Security, Obamacare, and dozens of other programs that cost too much.

Why do politicians keep insisting that it is a small world and diversity means everyone must be politically correct? Everybody wants the assurance that everyone else likes them just as they are. We want everyone to think like us, and we don’t want anyone better or worse off than we are. That is, because every little community would be different, we cannot get by with local government. Otherwise, we actually would have diversity. So we have to nationalize every problem and make everyone think about everything and do everything the same way.

Therefore, as the result of too much government, we don’t have time to spend in our local neighborhoods, we don’t have much reason to talk to our neighbors, and we have trouble believing anything the news media wants to tell us.

You don’t believe me? Then please explain why we have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for president.



soldier.pngFor Memorial Day Weekend 2016 (http://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/)

To Our Heroes – Thank you. (pumabydesign001.com)

Counterpoint: This Memorial Day, Up With The Cross (bearingdrift.com): This is one of those point/counterpoint things.

Trump speaks 44 minutes into the video.

The meaning of Memorial Day (www.americanthinker.com)