Talking With The Left: A Basic Lesson

One of my prized possessions is my dictionary.

It isn’t just any dictionary.  It is Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.  It is just shy of 3 1/2” thick.  It contains detailed definitions, pronunciations, and diagrams.  I bought it for $14.oo at the Horrocks’ Store in West Lansing.  It was a trusty companion through three years of law school earning a Juris Doctor, and was an aid in the year earning an LL.M.  It has illuminated the meanings of many words encountered in my various sojourns into literature and technical reading, as well as the writings of the Founders and Framers of this country.  And I need to get a new one, because this one has failed me completely.

Allow me to explain.  This dictionary is superb.  I couldn’t ask for a better guide to the English Language.  It is a book that has done for my vocabulary what my Bible has done for my soul.  It is invaluable when explaining various aspects of thought and the world around us.  There are few tools finer for understanding all that is.  And that’s the problem.  It is not a helpful lexicon for trying to talk to liberals, progressives, or Leftists, because they spend so much time in the elaborate constructs of whatever the approved outlook and nomenclature is this week. 

Whether it is out of a concern that a word might offend, or the motive that will always be tied to the use of a word, or the need to reject the plain meaning of a word and replace it with something different, conversations with any member of the above-named group can seem like a Twilight Zone experience until you realize that you only think that you are speaking the same language as the other speaker.

Because I like to help peoples’ understanding, I thought that in the midst of yet another “controversy” where laying blame, finding ways to vilify specific people, and increase government control over more areas of our lives is an apparent goal, it might be helpful if I recap what I have learned of the Left’s familiar, yet completely alien lexicon in order to reduce what would otherwise be an inevitable frustration.

Marriage:  A term that gays and lesbians in monogamous relationships simply must have applied to their relationships, despite centuries of the word specifically describing a formal, often meretricious relationship between a man and woman, which gave children legitimacy and a stable home life, as well as for the man and the woman themselves, thus providing the bedrock upon which society was built.

Hate Speech:  Speech of conservatives that leftists consider to be offensive.  [While this sounds like a reasonable standard, keep in mind that for most leftists, merely questioning, let alone opposing what they propose, is offensive, and it only goes downhill from there.]  Despite the protests and alleged evidence of such speech from the Left, this is indeed a myth, as everyone knows that only conservatives can use hate speech.

Violent, Vitriolic Rhetoric/Political Speech/Political Discourse (or a similar variation thereof):  Spirited Political Speech and/or Expression engaged in by Conservatives.  It may evoke physical imagery, perhaps violent, perhaps hyperbolic, but purely a means of expression by Conservatives.  It is considered dangerous, and a “threat to democracy”, because of the well-documented and catalogued propensity to violence in people of conservative leaning, and the equally well-documented and catalogued inability of conservatives who hear such speech to restrain themselves from acting on the violent imagery presented in such speech.  Because of these remarkable phenomena, conservative icons must be held to the highest standard, and whenever a high-profile violent act is committed, all such icons are expected to apologize for their guilt, which is the result of having engaged in such an exercise of what they mistakenly believe to be a fundamental right of citizenship.  Despite the protests and alleged evidence of such rhetoric from the Left, there simply is no corollary.

Tolerance:  The idea that no matter what belief a conservative might hold based on their faith, their experience, or history, they cannot oppose an idea they do not like, and must entertain the practices, observations, speech, and conduct that may offend them, because they do not have the right to offend others.  Tolerance may also require conservatives to suppress their own ideas, practices, observations, speech, and conduct, out of deference to that of others, simply because to do otherwise is deemed intolerant.

Inclusive:  Not just allowing, but celebrating beliefs, practices, attitudes, and behaviors of anyone but conservatives.

Diversity:  The concept that all cultures and viewpoints have exactly the same weight and social value, and therefore, maintaining a “diverse” balance in the public sector, in various professions, in higher education, and virtually everywhere that it can be enforced by government (outside of the media, of course) is higher social imperative than merit and hard work.

Liar:  Someone who tells the truth, especially if it is contrary to the narrative or meme the leftist wants to discuss.

General Welfare:  Government entitlements and benefits for some paid for by the few who actually pay taxes.  These run the gammut from Social Security to mohair subsidies to grants to study the flow rates of different kinds of ketchup to midnight basket ball for innercity youth who should be at home sleeping so they can get up bright and early the next morning and go out and look for a job.  In otherwords, whatever the leftist politician says it is.

Taxes:  The duty imposed upon those in society who take the risks and become successful to provide for those who lacked the courage to do the same or the initiaive to at least get a job and tend to their own needs and wants themselves.

American Exceptionalism:  Myth of American achievement based on merit, an unreasonable work ethic, ingenuity, and the economic system that provided the incentive for individuals to aspire and labor toward it.

Terrorist:  Any government or individual that is willing to use force against ideologies bent on kidnapping, maiming, or killing Americans. 

George W. Bush:  Hitler/Terrorist.

Dick Cheney:  Hitler + Eichman/Terrorist.

Al Qaeda:  Freedom fighters.

Rush Limbaugh:  detestable reich wing ideologue and head of the Republican Party.

Glenn Beck:  A crying charlatan and threat to liberty (and no, you can’t have any further explanation).

Sarah Palin:  Threat to reproductive freedom and embodiment of all that is vile, wrong, and disgusting about conservatism.  Namely, belief in God, using and bearing firearms, loving animals because they taste good, especially grilled to medium rare, having children instead of aborting them, staying married to the same person longer than a few weeks, and putting a family before a career, and still managing to be successful.   Also notable because her political speech is the reason why schizophenics snap and try to assassinate politicians that they have been stalking for years.

The Rich:  People who make more than $200,000.00 a year. They must be vilified because they don’t pay enough taxes.

Capitalism:  Economic system that makes all good, honest, hardworking people poor as church mice while “The Man” enjoys every conceivable excess that the labor of those hard-working people can afford to buy.

Corporations:  Evil capitalist constructs forced into existence in the 1950’s whose sole purpose is to rape Mother Gaia, take advantage of the working man, poison the bodies and souls of the average person, completely crowd out all political speech that is not their own, and make their rich fat cat executives even richer, fatter, and cattier.

Private Property:  Everything earned by the labor of the poor that the evil rich keep them from having.

Communism/Socialism:  Everyone gets what they need, and everyone pays what they can…except for our leaders, who deserve more than everyone else, but they’ll make it work this time, really, they will.

Judaism:  A made-up ridiculous religion of evil Zionists who control the currency and have designs on controlling the world.

Christianity:  A made-up religion of fundamentalist zealots, which threatens important societal institutions like abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, the hypersexualization of children, and the exploiting of them through these means by opposing them, and saying so out loud.  It is undeserving of Constitutional protection, and no effort should be spared in stamping out any public expression of it.

Islam:  A peaceful religion that is harmless to western society, in contrast with those evil, disgusting, and vile Christians and Jews.

Political Correctness:  The unwritten moral code by which the above-defined is enforced in society.  For those who refuse to self-censor in accordance with its parameters, there are many who will enforce it, despite the fact that no one asked them to, and despite the fact that some may truly resent their meddling and insistence that we abandon all we hold dear to “do it their way”.

In addition to these definitions, you should also keep in mind that the various types and applications of double-standards, and changing defintions of goals when conversing with a Leftist.  These will most often be manifested in conjunction with a presentation of facts and evidence to demonstrate whatever point you are trying to make.  Instead of becoming frustrated with a technique that they would never left you use with them, think of it instead as an opportunity to gauge just how far removed from reality they really are.  If a calm rebuttal and recitation of a few easily provable facts is met with shouts of “CHIMPYMCBUSHCHENEYHALIBURTON!!!!”  or “HATEYMCHATEYHATER!!!!!111!!!” or a quick change in the direction of the conversation or the end goal of whatever is being discussed, reasonable dialogue is probably not going to be the end result of your foray into their world.  In that case, you can choose to seek assistance from someone else, or continue to gauge your own tolerance for useless endeavors.

There are certainly more defintions that could be added, and I welcome your submissions to this lexicon, as it may end up being invaluable in trying to communicate and have a dialogue with these people than we share a continent, but no longer a common culture with.  Some day, we might even help some of them to rejoin reality.

Advertisements

Tucson Tragedy Link Round-up: Pushing Back Left-Wing Lies

The mugshot

The first reaction of normal Americans upon hearing the news of the horrific Tucson massacre was shock and sadness. Six people are dead, including a federal judge and a nine year old girl. A United States congresswoman was shot in the head at point blank range, and is struggling to recover after being initially reported dead. Eighteen people were injured. Such gut-wrenching, and heart-breaking news deserves a moment of  silence in the political sphere. Although it had the appearance  of political violence, having taken place at a political event, with the target of the shooter being a politician,  common decency should have prevented pols from pointing fingers of blame.

Yes, it was normal and appropriate  for people to wonder about the motives of the assailant, but it  wasn’t normal and appropriate for left-wing bloggers and the MSM (b.i.r.m) to jump in like ghouls, “reeking with the stench of hypocrisy and disingenuity”, assailing the right generally, and Sarah Palin specifically before the shooter was even identified. As more comes out about Jared Loughner, it becomes obvious that he was anything but a tea-partier or Palinista.

Via Michelle Malkin, it turns out that Loughner is a 9/11 Truther, Creep, left-wing psycho nihilist, “never really political”, an apparent grievance-monger against the US military, dream freak, delinquent, and pothead.

That does not fit the profile of a tea partier. It also turns out that Loughner had been obsessed with Giffords since 2007, before Sarah Palin had entered the national stage, and predating the tea party. Most notably,  it turns out that Jared Loughner is severely mentally ill. He’s cracked –  has bats in his belfry… is as mad as a hatter… round the bend…  has a screw loose. In short,  the boy is coo-coo for cocoa puffs, as anyone who’s spent more than 30 seconds watching any of his YouTube videos can attest.

And so are the people who are trying to blame his actions on Palin, the tea party, and/or right-wing vitriol.  It was a sick thing to do before the identity of the shooter was known – it’s even sicker now that it’s obvious that he is a demented madman with no connection at all to the tea party movement, or Sarah Palin.

Never let a crisis go to waste, huh lefties? What we’re seeing here is essentially blood libel against Republicans to score political points. An unnamed Democratic operative even suggested,“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers, just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

The race-baiting strategy that has been in play against the tea party for two years has (along with other things) resulted in “unprecedented white flight” from the Democratic party and a Dem shellacking of epic proportions in the mid-term elections.

Do these cretinous goons really think that insulting  large groups of Americans is an effective strategy?

Bryan Preston, writing at Pajamas Media, thinks, no:

In the world of 2011, President Obama will not be able to get away with politicizing tragedy, as President Clinton did.  It will not work.  Following the advice to politicize Tuscon would be a terrible mistake.

No one, anywhere, on either side of the political aisle, should politically capitalize on Tuscon.  This moment in American history demands real statesmanship and real leadership, not more divisive winner-takes-all politics.

What President Obama does in this moment will tell us much about his character.  Does he put his own political fortunes above the health of the country?  Is he willing to advance a lie, and build on that lie, to save himself and his party?  Will he keep and listen to advisers who think that he should do this?

If President Obama succumbs to the temptation that others on his side have already succumbed to, to blame Tuscon on Sarah Palin’s map or Glenn Beck’s TV show or the tea parties, it will work to his everlasting shame.  It will wreck President Obama’s personal credibility.  It may destroy his already faltering presidency beyond repair.  But more than that, it will further divide the country.  It will poison our politics, and they’re already poisonous enough.  It may damage the presidency itself.

Is President Obama willing to risk all that, just to “reconnect” and give himself a better chance at re-election?  We will soon find out.

There’s no need to wait on how the left-wing blogosphere and the MSM will proceed. They’re running with the anti-Palin, anti-tea party narrative, as if it’s a sound argument to make that Sarah Palins innocuous map crosshairs influenced Loughner.

Read Michelle Malkin’s epic post on what violent political rhetoric really looks like: The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010, and then tell me that it’s right wing rhetoric that is over the top.

Yet, over and over and over again, we see the MSM and the left jumping to the conclusion that  political acts of violence are done by deranged right wingers:

Ace  says, Let us count this all up. The following people have been alleged, with hope in their black hearts, to be white conservative anti-government types:

1. The DC Sniper.

2. The IRS Plane-Bomber.

3. The Discovery Channel Shooter.

4. The Times Square Bomber.

5. The census worker hanged in the woods with the word “FED” not, in fact, written on him.

6. The Fort Hood shooter.

Some lefties have also set up not one, but two fake Facebook accounts for Loughner, showing him to be a  big Fox News fan. Sad, but true.

Here are 22  real examples of left-wing violence and intimidation.

And that Pima County Sheriff who was so quick to blame “vitriolic” rhetoric? It seems that he may be trying to deflect the blame away from himself:

Ace: Dupnik’s Report: Yeah, Loughner Did Make Death Threats

I had left a question mark about this element of the charge. But as commenters, and Moe Lane, tell me, Dupnik himself confessed that Loughner had made death threats.

He didn’t say against whom, but I have a pretty good guess that Gabrielle Giffords was one of the targets.

Gateway Pundit: James Taranto: Sheriff Dupnik Is Distracting Public From Looking At His Contacts With Killer Loughner (Video)

Andrew Klavan , after noting the “the real-world failure of leftist policies everywhere”, opines:

But all that might be tolerable to leftists if they weren’t starting to lose control of the one weapon in which they have the most faith: the narrative. The narrative is what leftists believe in instead of the truth. If they can blame George W. Bush for the economic crisis, if they can make Sarah Palin out to be an idiot, if they can call the Tea Party racist until you think it must be true, they might yet retain power in spite of the international disgrace of their ideas. And though they still mostly dominate the narrative on the three broadcast networks, most cable stations, most newspapers, and much of Hollywood, nonetheless Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, and the Wall Street Journal have begun to respond in ways they can’t ignore.

That’s the hateful rhetoric they’re talking about: conservatives interrupting the stream of leftist invective in order to dismantle their arguments with the facts. As for leftists’ reaction to the Arizona shooting, call it Narrative Hysteria: a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents, not merely as racist or sexist or Islamophobic this time, but as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil. Shame on them.

And Marc Theissen concludes his piece in The Washington Post, nicely:

On Sunday, the New York Times published a front-page story, “Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics.” Nowhere did it mention the vitriol hurled at Tea Party activists, who are routinely derided to as “tea baggers” and racists, and now stand accused of incitement to murder. If you want an example of the lack of civility plaguing our political discourse, look no further than this weekend’s shameful efforts to use this tragedy to demonize the Tea Party.

The last two links are via Ace of Spades, who for some reason, is talking like a robot:

SINGULAR HUMAN [THIESSEN: MARC] ACTIVE-VERB WRITES [SIN=OPPOSITE/HYPOTENEUSE] ON [DEFINE FUNCTION=INSIGHT] HYPOCRISY

Finally, Doug Ross has uncovered this curious fact:

Curious: Rep. Giffords’ Official YouTube Channel Subscribes to Only Two People: Rep. Ike Skelton and… Jared Lee Loughner

MORE:

Hot Air: WaPo: Loughner was a registered independent, didn’t vote this year

What, supposedly, makes mentally ill grassroots liberals so innately disinclined to violence that there’s really no reason to worry about any of the stuff in Michelle’s post or the “Bush = Hitler” meme from Dubya’s second term or Olby saying things like “Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda”? Is there a special civility gene that kicks in to calm down a leftist with schizophrenia when he suddenly decides that he’s ready to snap? After the past two days, for Sarah Palin’s sake, I sure hope so.

Oh good lord….tell me you’re joking: Ultimate Hypocrisy: ‘Taliban Dan’ Alan Grayson Blasts Palin, Bachmann & Right’s Violent Speech

Rush Limbaugh’s comments on his show, today – An Embarrassment for the Media and the Sick, Desperate American Left

Part one:

Part two:

Part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9 , part 10.

 

Video: Are Liberals Condemning Political Vitriol Displaying Amnesia? Hypocrisy? Double Standard? All The Above?

You be the judge.

I think it’s always best to assume rank hypocrisy and dishonesty as major factors in any left-wing argument. And the drones have to suffer from amnesia to buy their garbage.

Pam Key of Naked Emperor News threw this together to illustrate the point:

 

[blip.tv http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgprkOQI%2Em4v%5D

Hat tip: The Blaze