This won't stop them from using it, and in fact grants them more credibility and power when we continue to use it properly as people assume they are also doing the same.
We are literally watching this happen in triple speed with the word "anti-vaxx" as literally any usage they have for it is now equal to any and all prior valid usage. That's why their word games are so effective, and conceding it to them is very dangerous territory.
The least we could do is put "science" in quotes whenever we're using it in their twisted way. The same goes for any other word, like "anti-vax" or "racist."
I feel that using the word "science" in their way without qualifying it with at least quotes gives them more credibility as any onlooker would view us as admission that we don't trust science, which they may still view as a process, not a bizarre consensus.
I can agree to that, but that's far more effective in text than in speech where doing so constantly will make you look far worse than them often unless the person already agrees with you.
It's even easier in speech because you can just change your inflection. You can also throw in longer explanations in lieu of just the word ("their idea of science") very quickly whereas in text it might look unwieldy.
This won't stop them from using it, and in fact grants them more credibility and power when we continue to use it properly as people assume they are also doing the same.
We are literally watching this happen in triple speed with the word "anti-vaxx" as literally any usage they have for it is now equal to any and all prior valid usage. That's why their word games are so effective, and conceding it to them is very dangerous territory.
"The vax" now refers to an injection that is literally not a vaccine. That's the power of manipulative language.
I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the printing press was a mistake.
The least we could do is put "science" in quotes whenever we're using it in their twisted way. The same goes for any other word, like "anti-vax" or "racist."
I feel that using the word "science" in their way without qualifying it with at least quotes gives them more credibility as any onlooker would view us as admission that we don't trust science, which they may still view as a process, not a bizarre consensus.
I can agree to that, but that's far more effective in text than in speech where doing so constantly will make you look far worse than them often unless the person already agrees with you.
It's even easier in speech because you can just change your inflection. You can also throw in longer explanations in lieu of just the word ("their idea of science") very quickly whereas in text it might look unwieldy.