Sunday, July 20, 2008

Word Magic...

Neo-liberalism is essentially the art of applied mental/linguistic hypocrisy with a straight face.

Example: "We will not tolerate intolerance".

That slogan has actually been used without the slightest hint of the tongue-in-cheek parody it so obviously offers up.

There are other examples of innoculous words which are used by liberals to fear monger and harass.
For example,

Are you prejudiced?

Well, let's see.

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

In other words, Prejudice is to pre-Judge something before you have a knowledge of it.
If you have knowledge of it, then your opinion, no matter how negative it might be, is not prejudiced.

Take race, for example.
If you have studied up on any given race, have read the accumulated wisdom of others and have had first hand personal experience with that race, then your opinion of them, positive or negative, can hardly be called prejudiced, but rather, a verdict.

Those who would unwisely retort, "But unless you have met every single person of that race, then you cannot pass an all inclusive judgment", I would simply point out the incongruousness in your applications.

A. You will have just admitted that that race exists, which means my race exists, which means Race, exists.

B. Since you have admitted that that race exists, the inverse of your non-judgment can be applied back at you...."unless you have met every single person of that race, then you cannot make a collective declaration (or excuses) in regards to their collective behavior or lack of civilizational accomplishments.

C. If collective, general, judgments are invalid, then there is no reason why you shouldn't hang a hornets nest up in your living room, as occasionally there are bees that don't sting.

At this point, the conditioned responder will proclaim, "Well I judge people individually, not collectively!"

If this be so, then things like 'Affirmative Action' and Race Quotas must offend you deeply.
And no doubt you un-hypocritically refuse to pass "collective judgments" on those involved in issues such as Slavery, Imperialism and Colonialism.....right?

It's almost comical the way culted Whites go all 'individualistic' when the subject of black crime is brought up, insisting, "You cant judge the whole bunch by the actions of a few", yet turn around and wax collective on colonialism, croaking, "you know, White people sure have done the Indians bad".


Next up, Bigot.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

The definition to this is a bit hard to pin down as can be seen by the definition above. Words there like "strongly", "partial" and "intolerant" have nuanced meanings, the debate of which might look like a verbal riff from a Seinfeld episode.
Not to mention the fact that beginning with "and" the second half of the definition looks like a clumsy tag-on which contradicts the first half.

The definition, "One who is strongly partial to one's own home", is sufficient at that and need not have the addendum, "and is intolerant of those homes which differ".

So, if you prefer fishing to bowling, you're a bigot.
If you like Coke more than Pepsi, you're a bigot.

Basically, Bigot is an old french word that, while it may have had a contextual function at one time, has long since been replaced by the word, Prefer.


To choose or be in the habit of choosing as more desirable or as having more value: prefers coffee to tea.

Now, take that word and run with it.....