Thanks for asking about "words"! This allows me to comment. The NY Army Nat'l Guard flew me to a residence course in the Race Relations Equal Opportunity Institute at Patrick Air Force Base Florida. So I was a "Certified" Counselor Instructor for 2 years at a Battalion HQ in Buffalo NY.
As situations improved, the course and the facility became the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. So I fully support females in the US Military. It is unfortunate that this "Equal Opportunity" now has acquired "political" overtones. Support for Masonic brothers who have daughters and / or wives in the US Military need our support.
The words "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion" need to be discussed, even if not in a closed Lodge meeting, it can be at a dinner before a meeting or during gatherings after a meeting (and certainly here in these comments)?
>>>Support for Masonic brothers who have daughters and / or wives in the US Military need >>>our support.
This is a really important point. Thank you for making it. I've been acting as Chaplain in one of my Lodges, cooking up my own Opening and Closing prayers. I've mentioned in those prayers veterans, and active duty service members, but I've not made special mention of those with children serving. I'll have to remedy that.
Personally, I worry about the "newspeak" in the political discourse. The over use of some terms lessons its real meaning. While the change in definition or meaning of others with an attempt to social engineer is vile. A case example is Orwell's 1984 " War Is peace. Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength." Semantic engineering for the purpose of activism.
Context: In the U.S., the Civil Rights Movement’s legacy (1960s-70s) had already broadened "racism" from overt bigotry to include institutional effects, but this gained traction in political discourse during the 1980s.
Example: Academic works like Racial Formation in the United States (Omi and Winant, 1986) argued racism wasn’t just personal bias but a structural force shaping society. Activist groups, like those opposing Reagan-era policies, used "racism" to critique systemic inequalities (e.g., in housing or policing).
Shift: Political rhetoric began reflecting this—e.g., Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential campaign tied "racism" to economic disparity, not just hate.
1990s: "Political Correctness" Emerges as a Pejorative
Context: Originally a neutral term for avoiding offensive language, "political correctness" was weaponized in the 1990s culture wars.
Example: In 1991, President George H.W. Bush criticized "political correctness" in a University of Michigan speech, framing it as stifling free speech—a view echoed by conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh. Activists on the left, meanwhile, saw it as a tool for inclusivity.
Shift: By the mid-90s, "PC" became a loaded term in political discourse, often used to mock progressive language reforms rather than describe them neutrally.
Early 2000s: "Terrorism" Redefined Post-9/11
Context: After September 11, 2001, "terrorism" shifted from a broad term for political violence to a specific marker of global jihadist threats.
Example: The Bush administration’s "War on Terror" rhetoric (e.g., 2001 State of the Union) linked "terrorism" to Islamic extremism, sidelining earlier uses (e.g., IRA bombings). Anti-war activists countered by calling U.S. policies "state terrorism."
Shift: In political discourse, "terrorism" narrowed to focus on non-state actors, often racialized, while activists tried to reclaim its wider meaning.
Context: Rooted in academic feminist and race theory (e.g., Peggy McIntosh’s 1988 "White Privilege" essay), "privilege" surged in political discourse via social media activism.
Example: Occupy Wall Street (2011) popularized "check your privilege," tying it to class and race. By 2014, Black Lives Matter amplified it to critique systemic advantages (e.g., in policing debates post-Ferguson).
Shift: Once a niche term, "privilege" became a staple of progressive rhetoric, often contested by conservatives as divisive or guilt-tripping.
2013: "Black Lives Matter" Redefines "Racism" Again
Context: The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, coined after Trayvon Martin’s killer was acquitted, reframed "racism" in political discourse.
Example: Activists used it to highlight police brutality as systemic racism, not just isolated incidents—e.g., protests after Michael Brown’s 2014 death in Ferguson. Politicians like Obama began addressing "systemic racism" explicitly (e.g., 2015 Selma speech).
Shift: "Racism" in discourse increasingly meant structural bias over personal prejudice, a shift cemented by 2020 dictionary updates (see below).
2016: "Fake News" Flips from Critique to Weapon
Context: Originally a term for deliberate misinformation (e.g., 2016 election coverage), "fake news" was co-opted by political figures.
Example: Trump, starting in 2016, branded critical media "fake news" (e.g., January 2017 press conference), turning it from an activist critique of propaganda into a rhetorical cudgel against journalism.
Shift: Its meaning blurred—activists used it to call out disinformation, while politicians redefined it to dismiss inconvenient truths.
2020: "Racism" Officially Includes Systemic Power
Context: George Floyd’s killing and global protests prompted formal redefinitions.
Example: Merriam-Webster, responding to activist Kennedy Mitchum, updated "racism" in June 2020 to include "systemic oppression" alongside belief in superiority. The ADL also shifted its definition to "marginalization… based on a racial hierarchy" that summer.
Shift: Political discourse absorbed this—e.g., Biden’s 2021 inauguration speech tied "systemic racism" to national reckoning, a framing rare decades prior.
2021: "Woke" Goes from Empowerment to Derision
Context: Originally African American Vernacular English for awareness of injustice (traceable to the 1930s), "woke" was mainstreamed by activism in the 2010s.
Example: By 2021, conservative politicians like Ron DeSantis used "woke" to attack progressive policies (e.g., Florida’s "Stop WOKE Act"), flipping it from a positive activist term to a pejorative in political discourse.
Shift: What once signaled social consciousness became a catchall for criticizing left-wing excess.
Citation Researched on Grock Prompt "show me a time line of examples of Semantic engineering in political discourse"
Looking back in historical text one has to keep in mind the original meaning of these words. Because the author at the time didn't write with the intent of conveying the modern term.
Wheat and Corn are a prime example. Corn now equates to maize, however in old English it was a word that described "grain". NC ritual uses an "ear of corn"
I agree, this is a very serious concern of mine as well. Inflating words to mean things that they do not mean is an attack on reality, an unfair attack on the person it is used against, and devalues whatever historical crime they describe. I'm hopeful that we can see the damage this causes and stop doing it.
Words have value, and we construct them can effect others positively or negatively. Good practice for everyone even outside of Masonic circles. Thank you Cameron! ✨💖✨
Well said, MW. May I add a few thoughts. First, it is important that we listen to the other person. Not just hear what they are saying but actively listen to the words and the underlying meaning. Second, that we listen to engage in dialogue, not argument. Everything does not have to be debateable or black and white. Most times we can agree to disagree and still remain friends.
Finally, let's remain civil in the language we use. There is no need for name calling, or put downs. Particularly in the context of Masonic brothers, let's remember the tenets of our fraternity and treat each other with the dignity the deserve.
Michael D. Neben, Co-President, Worldwide Civility Council and member of Irvine Valley Lodge #617, Lake Forest CA.
Your points are very well taken. If we debate instead of dialogue we have little chance of coming to understand each other. And if we do that in a Masonic context or setting, we will drive our Brothers away.
I wonder if this is amplified as a result of avoiding addressing our problems candidly.
Much like fitting two stones, both require a bit of work in order to serve the purpose they have been joined for. I imagine this is often uncomfortable for both, but I imagine necessary nonetheless.
I had a conversation with a brother the other day where we discussed our generation not having really learned conflict resolution or de-escalation.
Most of our generation it seems were told to stay out of it and leave it to the adults. Now we are the “adults” in the room and are having to learn to approach these challenges much later than is prudent to do so.
The kindness of our predecessors now resulting in the inability to meaningfully disagree and find common ground.
I am concerned what things might look like if we fail to become comfortable with civil discourse and impact based thinking and communication. Though we should always strive to do so in the kindest manner possible.
Rethoric and grammar. No one wants to learn. Is just symbolic they say.
And by that thinking, most missed the most important teachings.
Our degrees do encourage us to study the liberal arts and sciences. We do well to heed that advice I think.
Thanks for asking about "words"! This allows me to comment. The NY Army Nat'l Guard flew me to a residence course in the Race Relations Equal Opportunity Institute at Patrick Air Force Base Florida. So I was a "Certified" Counselor Instructor for 2 years at a Battalion HQ in Buffalo NY.
As situations improved, the course and the facility became the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. So I fully support females in the US Military. It is unfortunate that this "Equal Opportunity" now has acquired "political" overtones. Support for Masonic brothers who have daughters and / or wives in the US Military need our support.
The words "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion" need to be discussed, even if not in a closed Lodge meeting, it can be at a dinner before a meeting or during gatherings after a meeting (and certainly here in these comments)?
>>>Support for Masonic brothers who have daughters and / or wives in the US Military need >>>our support.
This is a really important point. Thank you for making it. I've been acting as Chaplain in one of my Lodges, cooking up my own Opening and Closing prayers. I've mentioned in those prayers veterans, and active duty service members, but I've not made special mention of those with children serving. I'll have to remedy that.
Personally, I worry about the "newspeak" in the political discourse. The over use of some terms lessons its real meaning. While the change in definition or meaning of others with an attempt to social engineer is vile. A case example is Orwell's 1984 " War Is peace. Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength." Semantic engineering for the purpose of activism.
1980s: "Racism" Expands Beyond Individual Prejudice
Context: In the U.S., the Civil Rights Movement’s legacy (1960s-70s) had already broadened "racism" from overt bigotry to include institutional effects, but this gained traction in political discourse during the 1980s.
Example: Academic works like Racial Formation in the United States (Omi and Winant, 1986) argued racism wasn’t just personal bias but a structural force shaping society. Activist groups, like those opposing Reagan-era policies, used "racism" to critique systemic inequalities (e.g., in housing or policing).
Shift: Political rhetoric began reflecting this—e.g., Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential campaign tied "racism" to economic disparity, not just hate.
1990s: "Political Correctness" Emerges as a Pejorative
Context: Originally a neutral term for avoiding offensive language, "political correctness" was weaponized in the 1990s culture wars.
Example: In 1991, President George H.W. Bush criticized "political correctness" in a University of Michigan speech, framing it as stifling free speech—a view echoed by conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh. Activists on the left, meanwhile, saw it as a tool for inclusivity.
Shift: By the mid-90s, "PC" became a loaded term in political discourse, often used to mock progressive language reforms rather than describe them neutrally.
Early 2000s: "Terrorism" Redefined Post-9/11
Context: After September 11, 2001, "terrorism" shifted from a broad term for political violence to a specific marker of global jihadist threats.
Example: The Bush administration’s "War on Terror" rhetoric (e.g., 2001 State of the Union) linked "terrorism" to Islamic extremism, sidelining earlier uses (e.g., IRA bombings). Anti-war activists countered by calling U.S. policies "state terrorism."
Shift: In political discourse, "terrorism" narrowed to focus on non-state actors, often racialized, while activists tried to reclaim its wider meaning.
2010: "Privilege" Enters Mainstream Activist Lexicon
Context: Rooted in academic feminist and race theory (e.g., Peggy McIntosh’s 1988 "White Privilege" essay), "privilege" surged in political discourse via social media activism.
Example: Occupy Wall Street (2011) popularized "check your privilege," tying it to class and race. By 2014, Black Lives Matter amplified it to critique systemic advantages (e.g., in policing debates post-Ferguson).
Shift: Once a niche term, "privilege" became a staple of progressive rhetoric, often contested by conservatives as divisive or guilt-tripping.
2013: "Black Lives Matter" Redefines "Racism" Again
Context: The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, coined after Trayvon Martin’s killer was acquitted, reframed "racism" in political discourse.
Example: Activists used it to highlight police brutality as systemic racism, not just isolated incidents—e.g., protests after Michael Brown’s 2014 death in Ferguson. Politicians like Obama began addressing "systemic racism" explicitly (e.g., 2015 Selma speech).
Shift: "Racism" in discourse increasingly meant structural bias over personal prejudice, a shift cemented by 2020 dictionary updates (see below).
2016: "Fake News" Flips from Critique to Weapon
Context: Originally a term for deliberate misinformation (e.g., 2016 election coverage), "fake news" was co-opted by political figures.
Example: Trump, starting in 2016, branded critical media "fake news" (e.g., January 2017 press conference), turning it from an activist critique of propaganda into a rhetorical cudgel against journalism.
Shift: Its meaning blurred—activists used it to call out disinformation, while politicians redefined it to dismiss inconvenient truths.
2020: "Racism" Officially Includes Systemic Power
Context: George Floyd’s killing and global protests prompted formal redefinitions.
Example: Merriam-Webster, responding to activist Kennedy Mitchum, updated "racism" in June 2020 to include "systemic oppression" alongside belief in superiority. The ADL also shifted its definition to "marginalization… based on a racial hierarchy" that summer.
Shift: Political discourse absorbed this—e.g., Biden’s 2021 inauguration speech tied "systemic racism" to national reckoning, a framing rare decades prior.
2021: "Woke" Goes from Empowerment to Derision
Context: Originally African American Vernacular English for awareness of injustice (traceable to the 1930s), "woke" was mainstreamed by activism in the 2010s.
Example: By 2021, conservative politicians like Ron DeSantis used "woke" to attack progressive policies (e.g., Florida’s "Stop WOKE Act"), flipping it from a positive activist term to a pejorative in political discourse.
Shift: What once signaled social consciousness became a catchall for criticizing left-wing excess.
Citation Researched on Grock Prompt "show me a time line of examples of Semantic engineering in political discourse"
Looking back in historical text one has to keep in mind the original meaning of these words. Because the author at the time didn't write with the intent of conveying the modern term.
Indeed. From time to time this comes up in Lodges as well, given that the common meaning of some terms in our ritual has changed over time.
Wheat and Corn are a prime example. Corn now equates to maize, however in old English it was a word that described "grain". NC ritual uses an "ear of corn"
I agree, this is a very serious concern of mine as well. Inflating words to mean things that they do not mean is an attack on reality, an unfair attack on the person it is used against, and devalues whatever historical crime they describe. I'm hopeful that we can see the damage this causes and stop doing it.
Words have value, and we construct them can effect others positively or negatively. Good practice for everyone even outside of Masonic circles. Thank you Cameron! ✨💖✨
Thank you Charlotte! I'm glad that you found some value in the post.
Well said, MW. May I add a few thoughts. First, it is important that we listen to the other person. Not just hear what they are saying but actively listen to the words and the underlying meaning. Second, that we listen to engage in dialogue, not argument. Everything does not have to be debateable or black and white. Most times we can agree to disagree and still remain friends.
Finally, let's remain civil in the language we use. There is no need for name calling, or put downs. Particularly in the context of Masonic brothers, let's remember the tenets of our fraternity and treat each other with the dignity the deserve.
Michael D. Neben, Co-President, Worldwide Civility Council and member of Irvine Valley Lodge #617, Lake Forest CA.
Your points are very well taken. If we debate instead of dialogue we have little chance of coming to understand each other. And if we do that in a Masonic context or setting, we will drive our Brothers away.
Thank you for a timely and gentle reminder. This is something I have seen in myself of recent and something I certainly need to subdue.
It is something that I have to remind myself of from time to time as well.
I wonder if this is amplified as a result of avoiding addressing our problems candidly.
Much like fitting two stones, both require a bit of work in order to serve the purpose they have been joined for. I imagine this is often uncomfortable for both, but I imagine necessary nonetheless.
I had a conversation with a brother the other day where we discussed our generation not having really learned conflict resolution or de-escalation.
Most of our generation it seems were told to stay out of it and leave it to the adults. Now we are the “adults” in the room and are having to learn to approach these challenges much later than is prudent to do so.
The kindness of our predecessors now resulting in the inability to meaningfully disagree and find common ground.
I am concerned what things might look like if we fail to become comfortable with civil discourse and impact based thinking and communication. Though we should always strive to do so in the kindest manner possible.