Wednesday, July 30, 2008



An introduction to NewSpeak

Some good points in the excerpt below:
"WorldNetDaily reported yesterday on San Francisco's official condemnation of the Catholic Church specifically for its position on sexual morality. What caught my attention was this paragraph: "According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the 'act of provocation' by what it termed an 'anti-gay,' 'anti-choice' organization that aimed to 'negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city.'"

Evidently, "tolerant" doesn't mean what I thought it meant. If it did, then San Francisco would, ummm, what's the word ... ah! tolerate those who hold sincere, but opposing views. Like, say, a religious organization?

Evidently, "progressive" doesn't mean what I thought it did, either. Or even what the liberals who've adopted it define it to mean. They define "progressive" to mean "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties."

Why should anyone feel marginalized by their government while their most cherished beliefs are condemned? That is the main argument advanced by pro-Islamic groups like CAIR, and they use it because it is a fair one. Freedom of religion is the most basic of American rights.

If you were a heterosexual pro-family, pro-life Catholic citizen of San Francisco and heard your most bedrock beliefs condemned as: "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant," how protected would you feel your civil rights were in the most "tolerant and progressive" city in America?

Here's a tantalizing idea. Islam is both restrictive of women's rights AND prohibits homosexual conduct. And it proscribes the death penalty for those who violate its provisions. But no such resolution condemning Islam for its anti-gay and anti-choice rights is likely. That would rightly be neither "tolerant" nor "progressive."

"Progressive" and "tolerant" now have to take their place with archaic words like "illegal" and "immigrant" and "nuanced" and "unbiased" and "racist" and "liar" on the Endangered Meaning List. They used to have a definite meaning. Now, they have so many meanings as to render them meaningless.

"Illegal" used to denote criminal behavior, which was frowned upon. Now, applying that term to a person who is unlawfully living as an immigrant inside the country is a "racist pejorative" whereas the act of being an illegal alien inculcates with it certain rights not available to legal American citizens. Instead, they are "undocumented workers seeking a better life" - unless they are from a country other than Latin America. (If they are from Europe or Canada, they're still illegal aliens.)

Source

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah - now THAT's tolerance.
Thanks for the example boromans623

Anonymous said...

"Ah - now THAT's tolerance.
Thanks for the example boromans623
"

Yes, we should always be tolerant of the intolerant, shouldn't we. Spoken like a true liberal. It's very clear from many examples that San Francisco has decided to be the freak capital of the nation, which makes boromans623's suggestion more plausible.