Language matters.
You can’t combat what you can’t name, because what you can’t name, you can’t identify.
So let me help out: “jihadists”; “Islamists”; “Islamic radicals”; “terrorists”; “unlawful enemy combatants”; “Muslim extremists”; “foreign nationals”; “illegal aliens”. These are descriptive terms that those hoping to shield our enemies — along with those hoping to project their own phony righteousness — demand we not use. Just as they demand we not ascribe motives to those protected groups we aren’t permitted to describe — though these same people, as I noted yesterday, are quick to ascribe motives to unfavored groups (eg., “right wing extremists” that have been reimagined to include constitutionalists) regardless of there being no history of violent engagements by said groups.
Do not allow them to shame you, to cow you, to prevent you from describing, from identifying, from speaking the truth. Because though it’s become almost a punchline at this point, surrendering the language to those who would make you afraid to use it means that the terrorists really will have won.
And to some on the left this is not altogether a bad thing.
I would suggest we do not listen to Michael Bloomberg…
And, in other news: Charlie Rangel (D – Harlem) is apparently suing John “Weepy” Boehner and pretty much the entire group that found him to be a crooked sack of shit (I’ve re-phrased it a bit).
He wants a court to declare him honest. No, really.
John Bolton — or at least his mustache — knows the words and how to use them.
The Euphemism Treadmill only temporarily works. After a while, people figure out that the new hotness, approved name means what the old and busted disapproved name means.
Example:
You can’t call them “crippled”; that’s mean. Call them “handicapped”.
You can’t call them “handicapped”; that’s mean. Call them “disabled”.
You can’t call them “disabled”; that’s mean. Call them “differently-abled”.
(No, what’s mean is BEING crippled. What you call them is just a label for that mean thing.)
At each stage, the time between the introduction of the new euphemism and the general realization that it means the same thing gets shorter.
That’s not to say that changing the language to paralyze thought isn’t bad. One of the reasons I’m a Language Martinet is that I believe that fuzzy language produces fuzzy thinking. And the Conceptual Shell Game (getting people to accept the validity of a statement based on one set of definitions, then changing the definitions and hoping they continue to accept the validity of the altered statement) is very dangerous indeed.
mojo, the court should toss that suit, because Art I §5 ¶ 2 of the Constitution
and Art I §6:
are clear.
There is no place for any court to do a damned thing about how the House exercises its authority over its own members.
One of the best examples of “terrorism?” whataboutery you will read. By a master of the genre.
-Along the lines of monitoring the ongoing AML (Adolescent Mentality Liberals) faux narrative, we’re seeing more reliance on the “well fuck all, that didn’t work out so well so nothing to do but “move along”.
– Hilldebeast Clinton: “What difference does it make why Benghazi happened?”
– Chrissy fan-boy Mathews: “What difference does it make why the two young men bombed Boston.”
– Aside from the fact that the “two young men” are now charged with terrorism, a word that Chrissy and most of his Leftist cohorts apparently choke on, the whole “new idea of the wonderful ways” that the “all inclusive diversity” approach to loving the other was going to completely reverse the intentions and actions by our enemies and remove all the hate from their peace loving hearts, has fallen completely on its ass.
– Just don’t dare bring it up.
Monster, what do you want to bet that Rangel’s suit is a civil action suing for lost revenues?
After being officially designated a corrupt sack of Hickenlooper, Charlie’s probably having a tougher time bringing in the graft. The decrease in ill-gotten booty is crimping his style, and it’s all the rethugliKKKan’s fault!
My daughter prefers disability, because she knows that it’s just a generalization that means something like: lacking in a normal-ish set of abilities.
She also knows that it doesn’t mean anything in the vicinity of “unable”, “worthless”, or “lesser person”. She’s carrying a straight A average (while taking two college-level courses in high school) and testing in about six weeks for her 2nd degree black belt. Both of those things she has had to work her ass off for. She expected to have to. She can’t ride a bike, and she probably will never drive, but she will always have the things that she can do and has accomplished. They are for her, personally, victories.
But she’s only 16; what does she know?
This just in: Terrorists not found because Islam/Jihad no longer recognized by FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/blind-eye-conciliatory-fbi-policies-toward-islamis/)
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s failure to recognize political Islam as a driver of jihadist terrorism is partly to blame for the FBI not identifying one of the Boston Marathon bombers in 2011 as a security risk, according to U.S. officials and private counterterrorism analysts.
…
“The fact is religion has been expunged from counterterrorism training,” said Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism specialist with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The FBI can’t talk about Islam and they can’t talk about jihad.”
Ali Abunimah is one of Obazm’s best buds from back in ChiTown, though he’s had to hide — and said so at the time — since Barry was elected.
Islam/Jihad no longer recognized by FBI
So the country has chosen suicide, huh? Good to know.
Or in another vein of p.c., John Kerry, the Secretary of State of the United States of America equating the victims of the cruel bombers in Boston with the Hamas supporters on board a blockade running ship from Turkey, who when their ship was boarded by Israeli servicemen and then attacked those Israeli servicemen, were killed in the Israelis’ defensive response — Victims! Poor blockade runners just minding their own business.
Yes, sdferr, it’s as if moral relativism is imbibed with progressive mother’s milk.
And I actually believe that there have been many chief Executives of the United States who, had they heard anything remotely similar coming from the mouth of their own appointed Secretary of State, would have removed that fool from office within the hour. In fact, it’s nearly impossible to imagine the chief Executive who wouldn’t have done so. Almost as though a genuine and steady moral sense might be considered a prerequisite for the job.