We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
Whoever controls the language controls the debate. Whoever controls the debate controls the laws. Whoever controls the laws controls the civil government. And then the people.
To move along new social, cultural, and political trends, it is of the utmost importance to define and redefine words for the purpose of empowerment. Liberals have a long history of picking the right words to make pig slop seem like filet mignon. In fact, a liberal “artist” can slop some dung on a painting or piss in a jar and command large sums of money because it’s art, and no liberal wants to be found disagreeing with the intelligentsia on the matter.
Lewis Carroll has some insights:
“I don't know what you mean by ‘glory,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you . . . . When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
It couldn’t be said any better. Along those lines: none of the following labels accurately represent the ideology behind the names: Gay Rights, Pro-Choice, Progressives, Affordable Care Act, Social Security, Dreamers.
So when we hear that some liberals (another word that does not mean what it originally meant) want to pass legislation that would outlaw “hate speech,” we know that we are headed for treacherous territory where the goal is control.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has called attempts to define “hate speech” a “dangerous trend”:
I have never in my life seen a successful effort to define hate speech that does not interfere with rights of free expression. It is a worthy effort, but my prediction is that it either leads to the conclusion government cannot do it, or that they will do it and that will infringe on First Amendment rights.
Governments are trying to also make changes to hate speech law and debating the issue in Canada, at the United Nations, and even right now in Israel. It is a worldwide trend, but it is a really dangerous trend.
Consider that any time a policy of President Obama’s is opposed, it’s because of racism. This is no exaggeration. It’s such a common accusation that it’s become a joke. But it’s not a joke for liberals. The only way they can maintain political power is through redefinition.
Just holding an opinion and speaking out against same-sex anything can get a person fired or fined.
Look what happened to the CEO of Mozilla because he donated a (truth be told) paltry sum to Proposition 8. Then there are the brothers who lost their show on the Home and Garden Network because of their views on homosexuality and abortion.
A newspaper editor in Iowa has been fired for opining on his personal blog that the Queen James Bible is an attempt by homosexuals “to make their sinful nature ‘right with God.’”
These are private companies. But once the government gets involved, punitive action of the worst kind is inevitable, especially since the hate-crimes monitors will also be the ones who write the regulations.
One person’s hate speech is another person’s freedom to speak. The last thing any of us should ever want is to allow the State to define what they contend is or isn’t proper speech.
While Dershowitz believes there is greater freedom of speech today, he noted people tend to be more easily offended and more likely to call for a solution for that offense, which can set a dangerous precedent.
“There is an ‘-ism’ for everything — racism, sexism, fatism — and once you give in to one -ism, every other -ism comes back and asks to be treated the same, too. It can be dangerous to satisfy people's sensitivities.”
And once the door is open, it can never be shut.