Snakelips #3

Dear Snakelips,

Yes, in fact conversation can be greatly rendered to our advantage. There are several techniques that allow for hours of conversation and very little being said. The first is the universal agreement technique. Train your patient to think people will only like her if she constantly repeats and rephrases her fellows thoughts. This is marketed as a communication technique, and indeed it can be, but when we twist it and enhance it the conversation descends into a series of agreements. It is best when this is used on frivolous themes, even mindless over-agreement can be damaging if it is on something the Enemy loves. On those topics I would recommend the "intellectual approach". This should look like a bunch of people trying to understand each others opinions solely in order to disagree. The smaller the nuance of disagreement the better (it is easier to misunderstand small details).
Ahh, Snakelips I love this art. I wrote previously to Wormwood about types of humour, the most effective being flippancy. This is another good tactic to employ once you have the disagreements broiling. When everyone is on edge have your patient mock or brush off someone's comment by repeating it derisively. Many a valuable servant of the Enemy has been ruined by this very technique (whether being used by or against them!). We are at war my dear Snakelips. And although the Enemy's propaganda says that He has already won it, that is fal... I cannot seem to finish that word. Suffice it to say that Our Father Below is still confident in his chances.
There are so many tactics that are simply useful to alienate and irritate. Such as promoting condescension in your patient, or mundane nervous tics and peculiarities. We can't always stop them from saying dangerous things but we can hopefully make it harder for people to listen. Never underestimate the power of cultivating personal dislike. These humans love to take offence.

Yours in the superlative Hatred,
Screwtape

Snakelips #2

Dear Snakelips,
 So she is arrogant about not having any of these online personalities? So much the better. Make sure she is reminded to smirk and feel condescending to her friends who do have them. If she can be made to utter a snide remark here and there you will find that quite a treat.
What are her relations with males? Does she have any idolized? The humans should always have a few idols to worship. If they don't they begin to wonder what that capacity of worship was created for. Dungtongue has some patients in her area that would make great idols. He is a connoisseur of hypocrisy, and there is no better idol than a deceptive one.
If she already has an idol encourage her to always be "improving" him. Make her take great pride in "educating" and bettering him. Guard her from realizing that this only makes him resent her. It is great fun to balance this tightrope of criticism in love that builds up mountains of hate and enmity between them. Experienced tempters who don't get over-eager and tip their hand can keep this going for years, even a lifetime! Always appreciate the nicety of subtle sins. We are devoting an ever greater number of sins to the Tolerance category, no one condemns others that they be not condemned themselves. Don't let them ever remember that human condemnation is a real thing, albeit one they have no say in.
             Affectionately, Screwtape

The Death of Communication

When I read 1984 my favourite part was the appendix, "Principles of Newspeak". I believe I've described elsewhere the concepts of reducing vocabulary significantly, eliminating shades of meaning and creating words that are easy to say without paying attention to what you are saying and meaning. The purpose of all the modifications was to make any unorthodox thoughts (from the perspective of Big Brother) unutterable. Or if uttered to be nonsense words and sentences to an orthodox hearer. Orwell believed the government would cripple language to subdue the proletariat. Interestingly the exact reversal is happening. The masses are using glutted language to cripple the government.
I read an article on a lawyer who is working on creating legislation so that people can have short-term marriage contracts. I understand the perspective, some 70,000 divorces are sought each year in Canada. What I don't understand is why what she is describing has need of legislation or filing under "marriage". Doesn't it already exist as "common-law" or "dating"? So now gay people who have managed to get the legal right to marry can say, "I just got married." To which someone will reply, "cool, how long of a contract though?"
The over saturation of definitions in a single word create words without meaning. If a word can mean multiple things in the same context you might as well use a different word. Unless the purpose is simply to obfuscate or to outright confuse the hearers.
The same issue is present in pronoun use and gender identification. If gender is something that can be objectively defined then it should remain a classification and be seen on licenses and birth certificates. If it is not objective but is subjective and ineffable then it should not be used to classify and should be done away with. If my thinking that I am a girl is just my opinion and not based in my chromosomes and sex organs then how do I know that is what I am? What I perceive as "feeling like a girl" might actually be what a rabbit "feels like". But a rabbit can't tell me what it "feels like" and neither can another girl. Either gender is objective and should remain a physical distinction or it is subjective and should be removed altogether.
(I'm trying to form my thesis on the basis of language alone and not on moral or political grounds. If I have failed to remain impartial perhaps it is that it tends to be moral and political vocabulary that are most affected by what I describe.)
Do we want words to mean less as in Orwell's satire, or more as in contemporary English? Either extreme is equally devoid of meaning, and either extreme, when it reaches completion, is irreversible.