All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others, George Orwell
Progressives are masterful at language manipulation. They love to use words and expressions that make the users feel good about themselves. The actual meaning of a word or expression is distorted or bastardized for political purposes. It is camouflaged as academic and sophisticated. What sounds so darn nice, compassionate and reasonable is nothing of the sort. Here are just a few examples that come to mind.
Demands for ‘social justice’ flow smoothly and compellingly off the tongues of well meaning students at all levels of education. Teachers and professors have done a wonderful job of indoctrination. Activism in the spirit of social justice is sold as a college recruiting enticement. Who wouldn’t want to be on a team of activists dedicated to social justice? But why has simple ‘justice’ been replaced with ‘social justice’? Because justice as enshrined in the Bible and Constitution applies to everyone equally. One’s race, ethnicity, heredity, gender (the only two), economic status and religion are blind before justice as administered by lady liberty. Some of us remember the original meaning behind that symbol. By modifying ‘justice’ with ‘social’ the left introduced inequality. It is a complete oxymoron. Social justice mocks justice in order to accommodate identity politics. It offers designated identities special accommodations. This is not justice. Indeed this is injustice.
‘Reproductive freedom’ might be more accurately termed destructive freedom. The sole purpose of this kind of freedom is to destroy nascent human life. It is “health care” that ends a life. It makes a mockery of doctor’s solemn pledge to “do no harm”. Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, the process in question is not a reproductive one. It entails ending one woman’s process of reproduction. If you believe in abortion in the first week, the thirty-sixth week or upon an unsuccessful ‘termination’ (born alive), the result is not ‘reproduction’. Roe v Wade’s trimester differences was grounded in viability. We are discussing the survival of a human, not merely the disposal of a piece of tissue. As reproduction proceeds by day and week, if the endpoint is interfered with, it most certainly is not a case of reproduction. Euphemisms are used to disguise the essence of destroying a baby. People can agree to disagree about permitting an abortion, but at least let’s be clear about what is at issue. The baby is not a tumor or cyst. It is a budding human with a full compliment of genetics all its own. What had been a reasonable debate has morphed from “safe, legal and rare” (Democratic talking points long gone) into “Pregnancy Kills, Abortion Saves Lives”(editorial title in New York Times). The scary NYT editorial represents an Orwellian nightmare that is deceptively referred to as ‘reproductive freedom’.
‘Dispirit impact’ describes a legal theory that was popular in the Obama Justice Department. It is all the rage among those who wear racially tinted lenses. Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez is a big advocate for a legal theory that promotes injustice. Here is a hypothetical example of how to implement the policy. Let’s assume we find a high school that is 80% white and 20% black. Let’s further assume that 50% of the suspensions and expulsions are of black students. One might think administrators would examine the reasons each kid was disciplined before declaring racism the culprit. You remember that old-fashioned idea called evidence. But under the rules of dispirit impact that school would be presumed to be a racist institution. Black kids who are misbehaving would be given excuses for their misbehavior. The tragedy in such a situation manifests itself if there are cultural and familial (not racial) reasons that young black kids are acting out more often than their white peers. The presumption of school guilt allows for ignoring real issues, let alone the injustice of labeling innocent people racist. In other words the needs of the black kids will not be addressed. This of course comes courtesy of those who see themselves as compassionate.
A ‘food insecurity’ crisis has replaced a ‘hunger crisis’. Why the change? Because there is no hunger crisis in American. But activists need a cause. Thirty million kids are getting free meals in school. That’s about 1 in 3 K-12. I challenge anyone to visit the poorest communities in America. They will discover the fattest poor people on earth. When hunger became an insignificant issue, the hunger activists could have declared victory. Instead they invented a new term. This is not to say that some kids and adults may not miss meals. But the resources, both private and public, necessary to be sure people are fed are both numerous and widespread. Issues of mental illness, drug addiction or parental neglect may create food consumption problems, but the idea of widespread insecurity is a myth. Unfortunately absent a crisis, activists groups can’t raise money.
‘Unconscious racial bias’ (implicit bias) was a term coined because leftists found themselves living in a largely racism free nation. This is what happened when they realized that race is no longer a barrier to success or advancement. They dared not declare victory. If they acknowledge the truth, they become rebels without the cause that gives meaning to their lives. Plus the federal dollar spigot would dry up. The beauty of this theory is that the racist doesn’t know he is a racist. We are doomed to suffer in a state of white racial coma. It’s classic leftist race theory. Ingenious! This theory is the logical progeny of the decades old theory that only white people can be racist. These are the ways that the race baiting industry has stayed alive, well and name calling while the rest of us live the MLK dream.
‘White privilege’ is a meaningless term used to give out unearned privileges to designated aggrieved groups. It is the first cousin of unconscious racism. We are told that because of slavery and Jim Crow the melanin in ones skin is somehow related to acquisition to success and opportunity in America. They tell us that by virtue of a lack of color one has advantages. It’s a good old boys club whose admission requires white skin. How does one refute such a declaration? One need look no further then the privileged Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indians (from India) and blacks that have immigrated from Africa and the Caribbean. After all they have had stunning success in joining that white club. As of about 20 years ago, more blacks immigrated to the USA then were brought here as slaves. I guess they were drawn to America because of white privilege.
‘Climate change’ became the calling card for climate Armageddon when ‘warming’ became scientifically dubious. Activist can’t give up the need for a pending catastrophe. Plus federal grant money may dry up. Hence Green Peace and the Sierra Club among many other ‘environmental’ groups have transformed themselves into anti-capitalist lobbies that treat a climate driven earth destruction theory as their religious doctrine. Those who dare to question the falling sky theory are deemed heretics. Activists cling to a fixed immovable theory that discounts alternative theories; failed models and predictions that most often fail to materialize.
‘Black lives matter‘ is the only woke position permitted. What used to seem a self-evident value of western civilization, ‘all lives matter’, today is considered an offense among the intelligentsia. Woke souls are offended if anyone dare say, all lives matter. At least two Presidential candidates (Robert Francis O’Rourke, that young Hispanic guy, and Peter Buttigieg) have apologized for uttering the forbidden words. They lacked the courage to defend an obvious truth. Instead they groveled at the feet of “black lives matter” race baiters and progressives of all varieties. It’s a constituency they dare not antagonize by telling the truth.
The sign I find on more and more public bathrooms reads, ‘all genders’. Yes boys and girls you can throw away all those old-fashioned biology and genetics textbooks. In a woke world we are what we feel, to hell with biology. It’s not even a live and let live world anymore. All of us are required to alter our world-view, institutions and behavior to accommodate the emotional (psychological) identity problems of a tiny minority of people. Most tragically young children are caught up in the hysteria. Abusive parents and doctors are participating in body mutilation while pumping hormones into children’s bodies. This anti-biology movement is very real and hideous.
We are told that we must ‘believe all women’. In the progressive world evidence is no longer primary; a female accusation raises the presumption of guilt. This profoundly unfair dictum has arisen in the name of women’s rights. Indeed the new rule declares a woman’s rights are superior to a man. Every other area of the law and common sense would require a smidgen of evidence. Witnesses, physical evidence; a recollection of details like day, time and place would seem to be basic tenets of fairness before we assume guilt. Maybe actually get the guys side of the story before guilt is assigned. Those who support the nonsense of believing an individual based on their gender can’t simultaneously say they believe in justice. Telling the truth is a learned and practiced value. It is not based on XX or XY.
‘Undocumented immigrant’ is another euphemism employed for fear of telling the truth. Progressives tell us that the use of ‘illegal immigrant’ is demeaning or racist. Those who come here illegally have not merely misplaced or lost their green cards or visas. They have chosen to enter the USA without obeying the law. Hence they are illegal and immigrating. It is the perfect description of those who break the law. Its only implication about the person’s character is an accurate one. It is not a description of the entirety of the person’s character. They may or not have bad character in areas not related to this particular law breaking. But they most certainly committed at least one illegal act.
What is the moral of these stories? Treat these examples as my plea for a resurgence of critical thinking. Teachers and professors would tell you one of their goals is to encourage students to develop critical thinking skills. In truth far too many educators are consumed with passing along their ideology as a priority over critical thinking.
A critical thinker might examine questions like the following: Why is there a need to modify the idea of justice? Why would anyone call the process of killing a baby reproduction or healthcare? How come so many Asians and black immigrants have achieved so much success if America is institutionally racist? Why are so many people traumatized when they hear opposing opinions? Why should I believe a woman over a man without evidence one way or another? This kind of clear thought analysis is what education should be about. The use of the terms discussed above would be better described as indoctrination or theft if it comes with a fifty thousands dollar a year bill.