Skip to main content

Imprecision Is The Tool Of Emotional Control

“Gay” as a word was coined by early activists and advocates for homosexuality. As you might know, the word already meant “happy,” “pleasant,” associated with warm feelings. It was a good choice for the goal.

Let’s stop for a moment, and talk about the word “homosexual.” You can use it as an adjective, as a description of an orientation perhaps, but even now, it sounds a little dehumanizing as a noun. I’ve seen old documentaries and propaganda films, and using it as a noun sort of “others” people; it defines them by what they do.

I’m naturally obsessed with words and their definitions. “Gay person” is clunky, and drenched in false sentimentality, but the phrase is intentional in that way. Smart people know that the very basis for human rights is the definition of personhood. Someone is hoping that the resonance of the second word in the phrase overrides any possible objections to the first.

That’s why it works. It’s almost impossible to separate the dignity of a person from the quality of their acts in that rhetorical milieu. You’ve pretty much lost, if you accept it.

I can seem a little pedantic by questioning the definition of a word that most people understand, but they probably don’t understand it as well as they think they do.

The Human Rights Campaign is a homosexuality advocacy organization. See how easy that is? Ordinary people aren’t going to want to be against human rights. Human rights helped defeat the Nazis and create the international apparatus to punish them. It’s a loaded rainbow gun, speaking of propaganda.

This is also why activists put whatever label they want in front of “rights.” Because rights immediately puts us in the frame of individuals and their freedom from constraints. “Gay rights.” “Trans rights.” “Reproductive rights.” It’s bite-sized phrasing for low-information thinkers and voters.

And angry fools who picket funerals provide the perfect foils, because it ostracizes everyone who might question the activists as idiots and bigots. If it weren’t evil on multiple levels, I might be impressed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

My Thoughts On The Harrison Butker Commencement Speech

Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that. ...