Over the years, I’ve noticed that the “reality-based fantasy” community of the Left has persuaded almost everyone else to play along with their lies, damned lies and leftist fantasies to the degree that not only are commonly used words now unmoored from any sensible meaning, but because of this unmooring–in part–those bastards can utter any damned* lies they want to and… no one can say them nay.
How about a short list of some of the commonly twisted terms?
Democratic–referring to persons of a party that pioneered legislation from the bench, instead of by ELECTED legislators; a party that is THE party of voter fraud (no one and nothing can approach the degree or depth of voter fraud condoned and directly sponsored by Democrats); persons whose elitist attitudes and condescension toward the unwashed, the stupid and those who are simply not of their class is unparallelled… (and the list goes on… )
Gay–what?!? A word meaning “happy, carefree” used to describe the angry, neurotic, spittle-spewing homosexual “activists” we all have known and loved? *heh* Pull the other one. I’m willing to bet there are more truly gay heterosexuals than gay homosexuals.
Welfare–to describe a process of engendering generational dependency upon handouts… of other people’s money (taken from thos e people by force or threat of force). Whose welfare is really being served here?
Compromise–Riiiiight: “Give me everything I want and get nothing but scorn and abuse in return.” That’s what Leftist “compromises” entail.
Liberal–one of the Left’s most-abused words, used to describe people and programs that are the antithesis of liberal: programs that squelch speech that leftists disagree with, deprive people of essential liberties and promote a nanny state mentality that “protects” non-essential, non-existant fake “rights” always at the expense of whomever disagrees with the leftist view. Let the FAKE liberals of today be condemned by the father of modern classical liberalism, John Stuart Mill, who held that lies could never damage society as long as people were free to speak the truth to counter them.
Speaking of quelling dissent,
Pro-choice–except when denying unborn children a choice about whether they want to be aborted or not… Hmmm… seems like in almost all (almost: yes, there are pregnancies that result from rape *sigh*) cases, the woman has a choice about whether to get pregnant. After that, doesn’t it seem fair to give the baby the next choice? Not to leftists for whom…
Fairness–means “completely unjust, unfair, inequitable” whenever the object of regard is an inconvnience, not a leftist or simply one who doesn’t matter… to the leftist.
Progressive–Used to refer to covert (or sometimes even overt!) reactionary communists/socialists. Wobblies in all but name. Progressive? So far behind the times they should be put in a coffin and interred as the dead men’s bones they are. (Even casual readers of the NT will catch the reference. Cultural illiterates will not. *sigh*)
Compassion–any time I hear a leftist start in on “compassion” my first impulse is to throw the bullshit flag. Want to impeach a leftisat’s “compassion” argument? Ask them who will pay for their compassionate program. If it is not themselves, then they’ll have to take the money from someone. Where’s their compassion for the folks they’ll steal from? Nowhere, mon frere. And what other unintended (or perhaps intended!) consequences are they concealing by their emotional pleas? (See “Welfare” above.)
Heck, when we allow leftists to twist any word to mean anything they want, it’s not hard for them to convince us to accept their appeals to emotion as reasonable argument. From there, it’s but a step to them ignoring the argument entirely and putting words in the mouths of their interlocutors–an all too common practice. In fact, almost weekly, in email or in comments–comments that usually do not make it out of moderation, cos then I’d have to respond and simply waste my time–some idiot leftist will
1. Take exception to something I’ve said
2. Proceed to “argue” with me by saying I said something I did not.
3. When responded to (email), IGNORE what was said, again accuse me of saying things I did not and
4. Think that constitutes a valid argument.
It boggles the mind how folks can get to the corner grocery store and back without killing themselves and a score of others when they are so incapable of rational thought.
And these are the intelligent, well-educated, moderately successful leftists. I shudder to think what the rest of that class is like.
The left today seems sadly populated by people who believe (sincerely or not) that lies, screaming and pounding the table, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth are valid arguments.
But the really sad thing is that those who know better largely let them get away with it day in and day out.
Of course, by now fewer and fewer people are able to discern when undemocratic Democrats, troubled, unhappy and downright angry “gay” people, reactionary “progressives” and tyrannical “liberals” are blowing smoke up their skirts.
*sigh*
Ever wonder why the schools are full of leftists? a. It’s the perfect environment for them and b. it allows them to enstupiate another generation of suckers.
*”damned lies”–no, I’m not using a profanity. I am making a considered theological assessment: those whose behavior proclaims them to be of their father, The Liar, are damning themselves.
THIS is an open trackbacks post. Link to THIS post and track back. 🙂
If you have a linkfest/open trackback post to promote OR if you simply want to promote a post via the linkfests/open trackback posts others are offering, GO TO LINKFEST HAVEN DELUXE! Just CLICK the link above or the graphic immediately below.
If you want to host your own linkfests but have not yet done so, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance. The FAQ there is very helpful in understanding linkfests/open trackbacks.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
“Gay–what?!? A word meaning “happy, carefree” used to describe the angry, neurotic, spittle-spewing homosexual “activists” we all have known and loved?”
Come this Monday I will be posting a commentary of the Democratic debate on the gay network- LOGO
hey there David..long time no see..I actually wrote a post this week..
about words myself…but I doubt you’d agree with my assertions..ha
as always a joy to read your rantings and analysis!
are we feeling “gay” t’day…oh sorry cant say that no moe!
Since conservatives, as a species, seem to object to the concept of evolution in living things it is no surprise to se an objection to evolution in language as well.
I’d be interested to know, Thomas, just how using “democratic” to mean its opposite is “evolution in language” rather than Orwellian Newspeak; or how “gay” when used to refer to people who are frequently decidedly UNgay is “evolution in language” as opposed to propoganda; or “liberal” used to refer to the antithesis of liberality is “evolution” rather than a flat out lie.
And, Thomas, if you think I’m a conservative (in any modern pejorated sense of the word) then you’ve not read much here… or not been paying attention when you did. And, BTW, the “liberal-conservative/left-right” model of political and social thought is woefully outdated, almost to the point of uselessness, anymore–except in the broadeest sense. But what agreement there may be on the putative right or left of a false dichotomy is found mostly in the disingenuousness of the Left (whatever version of “left” one may examine). If I’m anything as to political/social beliefs, I’d have to say I’m more of a classic liberal conservative (or conservative liberal) of a kind that’s not been seen much since the Founders, who were liberal–in the Millsian sense–in their views of the traditional (conservative) rights of Englishmen… thus their objection to George’s usurpation of those rights. *sigh*
Back on point: any time folks misuse words to decieve, it’s not “evolution in language” but devolution of society.
Oh, and the idea that “evolution in living things” is rejected by “conservatives” is another shiboleth of the leftard mind. In fact, “evolution in living things” is such a loose concept that it’s impossible to tell whether to argue for or against the concept. (As is the use of the word, “conservative”. Conservative how? Politically? Socially? Religiously? Scientifically?) Darwinian special evolution? Neodarwinian evolution of all life from the same primordial slime? What? In point of fact, one of the most genuinely liberal writers I know (James P. Hogan) devoted a section of a thought-ptovoking book–“Kicking the Sacred Cow”–to debunking the a-scientific processes of Neodarwinism, from the viewpoint of an engineer’s pragmatism and a committment to scientific process.
Is special evolution (Darwinism) valid? Most current data seems to support Darwinian processes outlined in *Origin*, but little actual hard data supports extending it as Neodarwinists have done. House of cards. Easy to get taken in by a religious viewpoint such as that held by Neodarwinists. It all depends on one’s preconceptual biases, I suppose.