Saturday, 28 April 2012

Calling illegal immigrants "illegals" is hate speech, according to US liberals!

I'm surprised they haven't lumped in criminal, murderer, prisoner, terrorist, sponger, workshy, addicted, stupid, lazy, moronic, smug, deluded, idiotic, thick, greedy, childish, unjust, ruinous and detestable - because we right-wingers would start running out of ways of describing the sort of people liberals invariably support, and the ideas liberals come up with.

Likewise, I'm guessing liberals might balk at banning fascist, Nazi, oppressor, abuser, sexist, unfair, elitist, racist, businessman, Republican, capitalist, victim, suffering, injustice, rapist (as applied to all men), sexist, homphobe and terms such as hate crime, non-working mother, conventional marriage and that rilly sucks, because that would rob them of half their vocabulary at a stroke.

One of the many weird things about liberals is that, while they're convinced that the use of obscene language on televison programmes and movies, and the use of vile epithets to describe those with whom they disagree, has absolutely no effect whatsoever on those whose values are being attacked or those being verbally abused, they genuinely seem to believe that most of the words which refer to their pet victim groups - even when the terms are entirely accurate and inoffensive - are evil and wicked and promote hatred.

The truth, off course, is that words matter more to liberals than, well, the truth. They view language as a social engineering tool rather than as a means of conveying facts - ban the word and the concept will disappear, just like one of those communist leaders airbrushed out of official photographs. There'd be no need to do anything about illegals, because, as the advert says, no human being is illegal! How cool is that? Problem solved!

Let's just hope they don't ban the c-word, because, when it comes to dealing with liberal-leftists, I find it often comes in very handy.

1 comment:

  1. Couldn't agree more. The liberals have twisted the word "illegal" and given it a wide reaching general application, when obviously it's meant to refer simply to those who have entered the country illegally, usually from Mexico. No one's seriously suggesting those being are illegal as human beings.

    This twisting of word meanings is quite common particularly in large bureaucratic organisations. I work for such an organisation and a typical example occurred when I was recently put on a performance improvement programme, mainly for bureaucratic reasons and completely against my own wishes. Yet they insisted on calling it "support".

    I think these kind of euphemisms and distortions actually prevent real candour and meaningful debate coming through. Whether positive or negatively slanted they are always part of some wider political gender and detract from what's really important, in the above case simply how best to deal with people who enter the country illegally