|Back to Back Issues Page|
On the ethics of language: English dictionary Vs. Political-Correctness taboos.
March 07, 2007
Ethics of Language in Public Usage
Some of you have taken issue with my “uncivil” use of language, particularly in light of the current public brouhaha over Ann Coulter’s public “hate speech.” Even the use of that term makes me wonder about who’s definitions of words or phrases we’re using to define them as “hate speech,” and why any thinking Catholic or any critically-thinking American should feel constrained in their language towards those who are absolutely unrestrained in their own language towards us. It seems to me that whenever the term is used, it is always, almost definitively, used to restrain speech in one direction only, that being, any speech opposed to the “Progressive” or “Leftist” or “Immoral” position.
In the Homo-Nazism page and elsewhere, I have used the words faggot and faggotry somewhat differently than Ann Coulter, who uses it as a synonym for wus, or sissy, and she says she is tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. I am not. I say, homosexuality is wrong. It is abnormal, perverse and immoral, and I say so. I believe it; therefore I say it. My preferred terms for practitioners rotate between homosexual and sodomite. I reserve the term faggot for the open, obvious, in-your-face screaming queen types, and I refer to their open public celebration of their condition as public faggotry. I see nothing particularly gay about homosexuality, and so I avoid that term, except in its older usage. I believe in being clear.
This, of course, puts me at odds with the SLIMC, American Academia, Hollywood and the Democratic Party, all of whom love, sponsor, champion and encourage open public faggotry in America. They will resent it being put in those terms, but nevertheless, that is precisely what they do. They even seek to advance its cause in the public school system, and in the legal modification of acceptable public language. Clearly, they love it. They prove it every day.
Some of you didn’t like my un-censored quotes of Democrat Party activists Marcotte and McEwan in the American National Existence article. If these ladies were proud enough of their words to put them out there in public for everyone to see in a purely Democrat venue, where this language is quite normal, who am I to become the official censor of their words in this venue, where it is obscene? You know, a foul mouth used to be the unmistakable sign of the semi-literate; the poor person lacking in language skills to fully or properly express his thoughts. Those days are gone; very few if any Americans fall into that category today. A filthy mouth today is almost always a reflection on the parents, family and household that produced the filthy mouth. That language was taught at home; and it was likely enhanced in academia. In all likelihood their parents and professors are all quite proud of them. While I studiously avoid all such language myself, I see no reason to not highlight it when it comes out of the mouths of the Leftists, where it is absolutely common language. It is mainstream for them.
This, of course, puts me at odds with the SLIMC, American Academia, Hollywood and the Democratic Party, all of whom love, sponsor, champion and encourage the public acceptance of such “progressive” language in America. They will resent it being put in those terms, but nevertheless, that is precisely what they do. Note well how, in this case as in others, they studiously ignored (censored?) not only the filthy language, but the vicious attack on the religion of the majority, which they all despise. They even seek to censor our religion in the public school system, and in the legal modification of acceptable public language regarding what kind of people we are. Clearly, they despise Christianity. They prove it every day.
It’s the same thing with the abortion issue; those who love, champion and sponsor it despise being referred to as pro-abortion rather than pro-choice. They seek to obfuscate and blur distinctions here. The sole choice they refer to here is the choice of someone to abort someone else, and there is absolutely no other choice involved. They are pro-abortion, and I am anti-abortion, and that’s just a straightforward fact. Anyone who doesn’t like is just going to have to get over it.
This, of course, puts me at odds with the SLIMC, American Academia, Hollywood and the Democratic Party, all of whom love, sponsor, champion and encourage abortion on demand. They will resent it being put in those terms, but nevertheless, that is precisely what they do. They even seek to censor or control our acceptable public language regarding the killing of human babies in the womb. Clearly, they love abortion. They prove it every day.
And, it’s the same thing with my refusal to bow to Femi-Nazi social pressure to properly “feminize” or “gender-neutralize” my language. I just ain’t gonna do it. So English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun. So freaking what? I’m not going to twist it into all sorts of contorted and tortured sentences just to ensure that I not insult someone who has been very carefully educated in how they should be insulted by someone who intends no insult. It’s stupid. Look up the words man and men in your English dictionary and you should find among the early possibilities mankind and the human race and all human beings. Anyone who cannot tell, by the contextual usage, whether a verse containing the word man refers to a male or to all mankind needs to go somewhere where English is still properly taught, and start all over.
One of you asked, why do I use Moslem instead of Muslim; well, what can I say. I’m just old, I guess. In my formative years, when I was educated, it was Moslem, and it was Mohammed, and that’s what I use. I still think of Peking rather than Beijing. For personal reasons, Ho Chi Minh City will forever be, for me, Saigon. Once upon a time, in common usage in print and verbal language, nigger was not a pejorative word. That was then. All my life, it has been an open insult, and therefore a “bad” word. As a small boy, I once got my tongue washed with soap for using it, to the absolute glee of a little black friend. Negro was acceptable, then considered demeaning somehow and out-of-grace. Black came in during the “black and proud” years, and that’s where I got stuck with it. I remember a previous time when calling someone black could get you a punch in the nose. When it moved on to African-American, something in me resisted, and I just stayed with black. I don’t like the other nation coming first in the name of any American. Some of us are black and some of us are white but all of us are Americans, regardless of heritage or ancestry or genealogy, and that comes first, to me.
Bottom line, when I resolved to fight the good fight, I further resolved to speak clearly and directly on all issues and to not ever obfuscate. There is simply no good moral reason to describe something other than as it really is. Honesty demands clarity. Ethos demands sticking to your guns on important issues. Threat demands attack. Attack demands counter-attack.
Pray for America, and for the strengthening of her Judeo-Christian ethos.
This is the free periodic e-zine of the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center.
Forward this e-mail to a friend.
All previous articles are available right here.
|Back to Back Issues Page|