Whoever controls the language controls the debate. Whoever controls the debate controls the laws. Whoever controls the laws controls the people.
Defining and redefining words are important to move along new social, cultural, and political trends for the purpose of empowerment. Liberals have a long history of picking the right words to make pig slop look like a masterpiece. 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.
“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. None of the following designations actually define 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.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com