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

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...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...