My Blog List

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

A Rose by any Other Name

The chart at the left depicts progressives' brains.  According to them, words only mean what they mean when it is convenient or politically expedient for them.  Their members are a mental, moral, and ideological collective that is similar to Star Trek’s Borg; they are the collective conscious crowd.  Having unthinkingly adopted the Borg’s prepackaged collection of values and beliefs, they also parrot Borg propaganda, disinformation, and boilerplate.
This group likes to use euphemisms to mislead others.  A euphemism is a term that is substituted for another word that more accurately but inconveniently exposes attributes that Borg wishes to hide.  They try to hide their dishonesty by arguing that words have more than one meaning.  That claim is accurate but misleading because each meaning has but one definition, no matter how it may be rephrased, paraphrased, or euphemised.

For them, a prostitute is a sex worker, not a hooker.  They want to sanitize references to that behavior as part of their campaign to de-criminalize prostitution based upon their unfounded belief that the whore in the equation is actually a victim.  They resolutely refuse to address assertions that the women to whom hookers transmit STDs, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, and other deadly maladies are the real victims.  They are the wives, lovers, and girlfriends of their tricks.
Pandering to victims, both actual and contrived, requires much subversion of the English language.  English is rarely taught in today’s schools, but mastery of it could help expose much of the Borg’s verbal trickery.  Some of it is subtle, and some is blatant.  Borg is collectivist by nature.  It operates much like a colony of ants, passing signals along by exchanging chemicals and body language because specifically articulated stand-your-ground statements are subject to examination, analysis, and logical refutation.

Borg boilerplate includes misuses of terms such as society and community.  They like to proclaim grandly that “Society should do more…"or that “the goal of society should be…”  Another favorite Borgism is the claim that “the community does far too little…"or that “the community rose up.”  Used thusly, both terms are collective nouns. 
A collective noun is merely an invention, a construct of language that was created to name a collection of objects or people.  It does not possess the characteristics of what it names because it lacks a physical presence.  Another such term is corporation.  A corporation is a tax status that the IRS awards to the people who own a business; still, Borg claims that “corporations harm the environment” as though a tax status could create pollution.
This sort of con job is anthropomorphically invalid; this means it is an attempt to give human characteristics to that which is not human.  It is vitally important to scrutinize what Borg says and does because they are nothing if not devious.  All of this has been leading to another deceitfully invented word meaning, or neologism.  The way that Borg uses the term racism is inconsistent with the term’s established meaning and a form of faulty reasoning that is known as question begging.

First, Borg’s operational definition of racism is “insufficient pandering.”  The insufficient part of the term is where the question begging lies.  The Borg has not established the justification for pandering to any extent, much less insufficiently, to their chosen few.  Apparently, they assume that no one will notice this unwarranted leap of logic.  Now, to address the term itself.
The world’s gold standard for lexicography and etymology in reference to the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary.  It defines the term racism thusly:  (Belief in, adherence to, or advocacy of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities etc., specific to that race, esp. distinguishing it as inferior or superior to another race or races; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism based on this.
Nowhere does this definition mention set asides, quotas, affirmative action, padded SAT scores, selective law enforcement, segregated and inferior requirements and expectations as to conduct and performance, social promotion through school, or any of the other myriad forms of official government policies of racial discrimination.
Despite this, in Seattle, WA, the place that has more sociology professors, English literature majors, and latte-sucking progressives than any other metropolitan area in the US, we have the legal and ethical abomination known as the Race and Social Justice Initiative.  This example of government enforced racial discrimination was invented about five years ago.  It operates like a welfare program that only serves people with melanin-positive skin.  

The Examiner has an article by Steve Pomper in it about RSJI.  He points out that the RSJI is chock full of how this liberal City government has failed in area after area, decade after decade to establish “race equity, social, economic,” and—get this—“environmental justice,” among some other equally absurd goals (such as promoting “green-collar” jobs), for its residents.  The document itself infers just how racist this city must be if it oppresses [colored people] to such a degree that such an initiative is necessary.
Now, let’s get back to why the city would issue such a caustic RSJI report condemning itself in such a brutal manner.  It’s because, although I’m certain they’d much prefer condemning conservatives, there are virtually none—the Seattle conservative competes with Sasquatch as the Emerald City’s most mythological creature.
So instead, the progressives seem to have created this amorphous idea of some unspoken, undefined, nebulous, racist "enemy,” which seems to simply exist independent of someone or some group to blame.  Seattle’s apparent institutional racism exists at the hands of this unnamed enemy, because, since progressives can’t blame themselves, and they certainly can’t blame conservatives who haven’t held any sway in Seattle’s politics since at least the eighties, progressives just sort of let the idea float out there in the political ether that “someone” is responsible for the need for RSJI in Seattle, just not them, but don’t worry, they’re sure going to fix it—this time—for real—for sure.

So, in Seattle social justice means racial pandering, lax law enforcement, and government guaranteed privileges and benefits that are not available to all of the city’s residents.  Fifty years ago, official government policies of racial discrimination were perfectly legal, but progressives claim that they were morally wrong.  Now that racial discrimination has allegedly been outlawed, THEIR official government policies of racial discrimination are morally proper.  Hypocrisy is a particularly reprehensible form of lying.

May your gods be with you.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Rational civil discourse is encouraged. No vulgarity or ad hominem attacks will be posted.