Introducing the new verb 'to ment' for an important phenomenon in the natural history of the modern human species

@jeremygilmore @ludwig_muller @christiaan_viljoen

The sociopsychological nature of modern Homo sapiens is such that it is possible to get whole populations to accept untruths so gross that they defy both logic and evidence.

The falsity of the propositions in question should be obvious with even cursory scrutiny, but the population seems oblivious to the deception.

This form of brainwashing, on the part of governments in coalition with media and corporations, is overwhelmingly important in shaping developments in the modern world.

Deception on this scale is particularly noteworthy, given that

our species tends to consider itself 'thinking/rational/reasonable', as implied by our specific epithet 'sapiens' (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sapient), and
we live in an intensely technical time, in which our 'technology' tends (incorrectly) to be equated in the public mind with scientific rigour.

The following are the main forms of propaganda to which I refer:

messages that are outright self-contradictory,
repeated denials of what should be obvious to all,
repeated assertions of what is plainly untrue, including the phenomenon of political hoaxing,
arbitrary inversions of morality/legality, e.g. it is a sin to kill another person in a civilian context, but likewise a sin to refuse to kill another person who is deemed to qualify as a military enemy, and
political parties acting in obviously illegal/unethical/corrupt ways while shrilly accusing the opposing parties of what they themselves are doing.

However, until now we have lacked satisfactory terms for this multifacetted activity of perverse persuasion.

In the last few years, the terms 'to gaslight' and its participle/gerund 'gaslighting' have arisen for a related phenomenon at the smaller scale of relationships in the family and within small groups of individuals (https://theabigailproject.org/what-is-gaslighting/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwzby1BhCQARIsAJ_0t5Ofi3GHTC2wndSEbvxF44nIW9iZinpxqoMdU3-g6CUq832YYJKfaNEaAlSSEALw_wcB and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting).

However, 'to gaslight/gaslighting' cannot satisfactorily be applied to both the demographic/political scale and the interpersonal scale. Furthermore, they suffer from the drawbacks that they

are makeshift/stopgap words serving as placeholders for a satisfactory term,
lack etymological validity, with cultural origins that are obscure/idiosyncratic, and
are ambiguous (because it is possible literally to illuminate someone by means of combustion of certain gases).

The following terms are also unsatisfactory:

'psyop' (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psyops) is a noun, is awkward to spell, and lacks a verbal form, and
'brainwash' and 'brainwashing', although certainly related, are both too vague and too metaphorical.

So, here is a new idea.

The word 'ment' is simple to spell and to pronounce, but by accident has never been recruited into the English language. It seems ready-made as an apt candidate for a new term.

Furthermore, 'ment' happens to possess an etymological pedigree, because it is

congruent with the Latin root for 'to lie', as seen in the English word 'mendacious (https://www.etymonline.com/word/mendacious and https://www.oed.com/dictionary/mendacious_adj) and the Spanish verb 'mentir' (https://www.200words-a-day.com/spanish-verb-mentir.html#:~:text=Spanish%20Verb%20MENTIR%3A%20to%20lie), and
appropriately reminiscent of the Latin root 'mens' (genitive: 'mentis'), meaning 'mind' (https://www.etymonline.com/word/mental) and perpetuated in English as e.g. 'mental', 'mentality', and 'demented'.

(Also please see https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/97482-introducing-the-new-verb-to-ment-for-an-important-phenomenon-in-the-natural-history-of-the-modern-human-species#activity_comment_220dd22a-ca29-47a8-8cec-ad8caf9a7d36.)

As in the case of the long-standing terms 'to brainwash/brainwashing', the new terms 'to ment' and 'menting' require an object, as part of the correct syntax.

Thus, they would be used as follows:

'The authorities continued to ment the population until hundreds of millions of voters accepted the counterintuitive premises.'
'We live in what is ostensibly an age of scientific objectivity rather than primitive superstition; however, in reality people even in the best-educated societies remain susceptible to menting that blatantly defies notions of reason and evidence.'

More particularly, the following would exemplify correct usage:

'I realise that we are being mented on this issue',
'please, government, stop menting us about the national debt!',
'the menting under this administration has reached new levels',
'throughout the history of civilisation, menting the population has successfully served the rulers', and
'in recent times, menting has become overused to the degree that some sectors of the population have woken up to it.'

The following would exemplify incorrect usage:

'please, John, do not ment me' (too small-scale),
'propaganda is synonymous with menting' (confusion of definitions),
'all brainwashing is equivalent/tantamount to menting' (confusion of definitions), and
'I noticed that the intelligence agencies were menting' (the verb requires an object in this syntax).

It is essential to the concept of menting that the message in question can be seen to be categorically false, inherently nonsensical, or axiomatically absurd (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absurd) if one stands back far enough to evaluate it in proper perspective.

Therefore, I suggest that the following forms of persuasion do not qualify as menting:

mass-advertising in which the main messages are merely biased/hyperbolic, rather than logic-defying, blatantly untrue, or self-contradictory, and
any programming of public opinion targeted exclusively at scales below one million persons, e.g. at the level of most municipalities.

הועלה ב-אוגוסט 5, 2024 02:49 לפנה"צ על ידי