Monday, January 20, 2014

A Newspeak Vocabulary Lesson

When the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) want you to accept some concept that violates your common sense, they never really argue about it, they just change the name.  For example, if your city government wants to use your tax money to feed and clothe and house bums, and maybe give them a little pocket money, they don't try to convince you that it's a good idea.  No, they change "bums" to "homeless," and then it sounds all right to you.

And when they want you to approve their idea that it would be cool to let homosexuals "marry" each other, they call it "marriage equality," which also sounds way cool.

And this just came up on another forum, where a post criticized Martin Luther King for his compulsive fornication.  I was told that pointing the fact out amounted to "Prudish slut-shaming," which does indeed sound like an awful thing to do, with words like "prudish," "slut," and "shaming" involved, the way they are. It makes you feel like you've done something hideous, while MLK was just behaving normally, or  even admirably.

One of the latest innovative vocabulary items is more subtle. Time was, if we were imprisoning, say, Ruritanians for public intoxication at a much higher rate than anybody else, we'd naturally conclude that, probably, Ruritanians tend to be publicly intoxicated at a much higher rate than other people, and therefore we lose some of our esteem for them.  But now, we must conclude that these nasty laws against public intoxication have a disparate impact on Ruritanians, so the Ruritanians go from being a nuisance to being victims that deserve our respect and advocacy. A little more on "disparate impact" HERE.

Over at "Just Not Said," John Craig extrapolates:

How long before "disparate impact" is applied to all crimes?

Eric Holder has now decreed that the doctrine of disparate impact must apply to school discipline. This means that no matter how much more blacks and Hispanics misbehave, punishment must be equally allotted between the races. This is at heart, of course, an extremely racist policy: it means that an individual's race must be taken into account when discipline is meted out.

But as Thomas Sowell asked, "Does any sane adult really believe that there cannot be any difference between the behavior of black boys and Asian girls, for example?"

(Sowell's observation raises another question: should we insist that punishments for classroom fighting be distributed equally between boys and girls, regardless of who does the fighting?)

The question is, how long will it be before criminal laws are enforced this way? Right now roughly 50% of prison inmates are black. (Hispanics are also overrepresented among the inmate population.) Is this not just as "racist" as a school discipline policy which disproportionately penalizes blacks?

Will the greater rate of incarceration of blacks for rape and murder and armed robbery be deemed racist by the Holder Justice Department? How long before Holder cites this as an example of racial injustice and says that criminal laws must be enforced "fairly," i.e., unfairly. Will the DOJ insist that the racial makeup of our prison population reflect the makeup of the population as a whole?

This of course seems absolutely absurd on the face of it.

But it's no more so than Holder's recent edict about school discipline.

Eric Holder has turned MLK Jr. on his head: he doesn't want students to be judged on the "content of their character," but by the color of their skin.

1 comment: