Loaded Language: Who Owns Words?

The Moral Outrage over anything Palin says continues with her use of a pair of words: blood libel. Apparently these words, when used together, are considered to be the property of an aggrieved group of people, a group not associated in any way with the context of Palin’s statement. A large and loud contingent of saviors for the aggrieved group is condemning Palin, largely and loudly, and analyzing her intent and even her education for anti-Semitism. (A rare opportunity for the consistently anti-Semitic Left to pose righteously in this regard).

While I myself was aware that certain words are considered possessions of certain groups of people, "holocaust" for example, and are not to be violated by their use in contexts unacceptable to the moral guardians of such things, I had not heard the term “blood libel” was in such a category. And I doubt that most people who lead their own lives outside the bastions of perpetual indignation which guard and protect such proprietary phrases had heard the phrase and knew of its protected and sacred status.

Nonetheless, Palin’s infraction by using the protected words has presented the Left with a field day of accusational opportunity.

How do words become sacred, especially in a culture that recoils at the concept of sacredness? Lenny Bruce fought for the right to use any word, the idea being that words do no harm; people do harm. The Left fought hard for that concept, back when the fight was against morality. Now the Left invokes censorship and censure and perpetual moral indignation.

Who owns words? Who owns moral indignation at the use of words? The moral indignation of the Left 4 decades ago had no more absolute, objective basis than does the moral indignation of the Left today, and the reversed position shows it. Their moral indignation is as spurious as the events that trigger it; indignant that Israel defends itself from a hate-deranged neighbor one day; indignant that a hated political opponent uses terms that are sacrosanct and “anti-Semitic” the next day. The flopping indignation registers as focused not on real transgressions, but on enemies of the Leftist Cause.

Moral indignation looks a little silly when it is being screamed by those who eschew moral absolutes and insist on moral situationalism. If the enemies of the Left were to claim ownership of sacred words and phrases, one can only imagine the level of indignation that the Left could achieve from that. (Think, “Constitution”).

I think also of the moral indignation of the Left at the moral indignation of the Right. Which one has proprietership of morality?

Pick a Name.

I am considering not answering comments from anyone who can't identify himself with a false moniker. There are current threads with a number of "anonymous" writers, and I have answered their issues. But it confuses things greatly when a number of people choose the same name - "anonymous" - I presume out of laziness, because you could just as easily type in a fake handle to identify your comments from other's comments.

Please pick a name!

Thanks

Never Waste a Crisis (Why a Crisis Produces Instant Moral Outrage From the Left)

The Progressive narrative, and the drumbeat of the war that supports the narrative, is never so obvious as in a time of crisis. Crisis is when Moral Outrage can win a battle that was not being overtly fought. Crisis provides a temporary change, a lever that can be forced against the ideological opposition. It works like this:

The Progressive narrative is moral, because we, the intelligent, the ethically immaculate, the evolved and superior elite, are moral by definition; it is our narrative, and it is our ethical definition. Never forget the moral superiority of the narrative.

The Progressive narrative demands change because the world is not built to our standards.

Change is moral; opposition to the change which we righteously declare as moral is obviously immoral. There must be a constant battle against the immoral in order to implement righteous change.

Opposition is evil. It must be stopped. We, the righteous, will do whatever is necessary (and possible) to stop those evil enough to oppose righteous Progressive change.

When a crisis occurs it is because the unrighteous, the evil, the demons, have impeded our progress toward a world that is perfect. Therefore, the unrighteous have full responsibility for the crisis. In a perfect world, that which we would create, there would have been no crisis. Thus, those who challenge Progress toward that perfect world, those demons, those evil, immoral impediments, those monsters are fully responsible for all the evil that the imperfect world continues to produce.

It is our moral obligation to gush with moral outrage when a crisis occurs, regardless of the facts of the crisis; the immoral opposing monsters are responsible for all crises that occur in this world, a world that needs us to control it, to provide equal outcomes and social justice under strict supervision and control from our Progressive governing wisdom.

Our moral outrage is not merely justified; it is required because it could advance the narrative or at least protect it.

Instructions from Saul Alinsky in "Rules for Radicals":

"Moral rationalization is indispensible at all times of action..." p 43

"All effective actions require the passport of morality." p 44

"...that is, in one word, your function - to agitate to the point of conflict." p 117

"The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments." p 36

"Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times." p 30

"The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means". p 28

When Irrationality Dominates Your Worldview...

...this is what you get.

The Arizona shooter has been identified, and we know a little bit about him, specifically that he was irrational. But that's not surprising.

Here's what PZ Meyers had to say, before he knew any facts:

I'll take a wild guess here. The scumbag who committed this crime has been caught; I'll bet he'll turn out to be a Teabagger who listens to a lot of AM talk radio. Holy crap. This was Sarah Palin's idea of a clever campaign earlier this year: she had select Democrats, including Gabrielle Giffords, targeted with a gunsight symbol.

What a vile creature. Perhaps she ought to consider not inciting the deranged assholes who follow her.

This is false; the campaign target was on the state, not Giffords. It is also false that Palin had any influence on the shooter. This jump to vile Ad Hominem is not indicative of a thoughtful, rational demeanor. It is Atheo-Leftist hatred and venom let loose before any facts were known.

And from the Corruption of Christianity side of the coin, the Westboro Church celebrates the massacre:

"The Westboro Baptist Church has declared that Jared Lee Laughner, who shot 18 persons, killing 6 on Saturday, was doing God's will.

In announcing that its church members will picket the funerals of those slain, the Phelps clan gave thanks to God for the violence and proclaimed that is is praying "for your destruction, more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner — all."

The Westboro Church is a single famiy of deranged and dangerous and corrupt people who hide behind a false view of Christianity to further their psychotic beliefs. Their views are as false as PZ's, from the opposite end of the political spectrum where vicious irrationality hangs out... at both ends.