Some of you may recognize my name. That may have been what brought you to my site. If you are unfamiliar with me, I have been an avid blogger for many years on many sites. I have made many controversial comments. Some I am proud of; some I’m embarrassed about. Oh well. Such is the human condition.
Over time I hope to at least weekly address issues that are of importance to regular Americans, and for that matter, level-headed people throughout the blogosphere. Now, I’m not going to present news stories. There are a million people better at that than I am, and I don’t want to be a witty pseudo-intellectual pseudo-journalist. I think that horse has been ridden quite enough. What I would like to accomplish with my prose is to give the world a view of itself through the eyes of someone who is no one special. That’s me; no one special to you. I’m special enough to my God, Mrs. Pax, my children, my dog and my cat (Ok. Maybe I’m just hired help to the cat.) that I am secure in myself without the exterior validation. It is my sincere hope that once all of us Baby Boomers are gone, that someone will look back and find at least some snippets of wisdom to allow the country that I love so very much to continue.
With the pleasantries now dispensed, I’d like to address some of the incendiary phrases or words that adversaries have used (incorrectly, I might add) to pigeon hole me and others like me into the perceived lunatic fringe. Many of you have probably had these words hurled at you in either the verbal or written form at one time or another. I’d like to answer each one individually, and offer some instruction to those who like to fling these linguistic “Molotov cocktails” willy nilly…..
Racist. This is probably the most brain-disengaged, mouth-opened inflammatory word used in the English or any other language. Screaming it aloud or dropping it like a bomb in a sentence is used strategically to close the minds of the witless to the merits of what the person was trying to purvey. It is meant to label myself and others as a narrow person, who hates another person solely based upon the amount of melanin in someone’s skin, or other specific characteristic. I found its use amusing, as the perpetrator of the noxious condiment had no idea that I have a black brother-in-law that I dearly love, and who cares for me as well. The term “racist” contains of course the word race, and the almost never correctly used suffix “ist”. This word should actually be defined as, “one who hates racing”, or “one who hates Nascar”. Well, you get the idea. If one is trying to portray another as a person who hates another just because of the color of that person’s skin, then shouldn’t the correct term be “melaninist”? And what about people who hate Semites because of their purported big noses? Shouldn’t they be called, “physiologists?” If that’s the case, then The AMA had better start recredentialing doctors now! It’s that blasted suffix “ist” folks! It’s confusing. I’ve been called a creationist (even though I’m not) which I now have to surmise means “one who hates creation.” Likewise, a Darwinist would be a person who hates Darwinism. I have made public my disdain for Islam and all it stands for, and have been labeled a racist on more than one occasion. Islam is a race now? Who knew? These geniuses need to call me by what I am – a “theist”; a person who abhors a theological line of thought. By the way, word flingers, please, even though I have no racial hatred for anyone, please refer to me as a melaninist. You’ll sound just as silly, but at least you’ll be closer to your own presupposed ideas about me.
Homophobe. Until recently there was actually no such word, even though it is incorrectly used to indicate a person who has a phobia against homosexuality. Homophobia would technically be defined as, “an irrational fear of one’s self”. Actually, the gay community might just want to stick with “gay” because in this context a homosexual is a person who has sex with them self, which conjures up uncomfortable mental images. But then, we already know that you who are gay are confused…at least genetically…don’t we? You can’t call me “homoloathic” because I don’t hate myself. I love me. Besides, a phobia is an irrational fear. I don’t know of one person who is against the gay agenda that is afraid of gays. Embarrassed, ashamed, or appalled maybe, but never afraid. Do me a favor, just call me intolerant, or a gay basher, or some other incendiary term that actually exists. Just remember, if you’re gay, I’m praying for you.
Which brings me to my final two words: intolerant and bigot. Intolerant is used way too much. It means unwilling to tolerate or endure. I guess my questions to those linguistic terrorists and wordsmiths out there is this: at exactly what point did it become ALL bad to be intolerant? My dog is intolerant of baths. She still gets them, but I’m not going to shoot her in the head or send her to the pound because she is intolerant of them. A zookeeper doesn’t feed the penguins to the lions just because they are intolerant of the heat. So exactly, just what is your point for slinging this word about? You have no tolerance for me (well, some of you smart people reading do). Aren’t you “intolerant” of me? Actually, for being so intolerant, I have never touched a hair on a leftist-liberal-loony-amoral-socialists head. To me that sounds rather…tolerant.
And of course the word bigot. It rolls off the tongue with such venom nowadays, that the purveyor can be a total lying whack-job and it’s too late- the damage has been done. A bigot is defined as “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics, and is intolerant of those who differ”. Hmmmm. So let’s say I’m a green person walking towards two crowds; one purple and one green. I have to go to one. I know that if I choose the purple crowd, then I’m just being PC; a poser; a token. But, by this very definition, if I go with my natural gravitation towards my own kind, I have actually shunned the purple-folk, thus deserving the moniker, “you leaf-skinned bigot!” being hurled at me. Do you see how silly that is? Let me give you another example; If I want mandatory punishment for pedophiles, I am a bigot against pedophilia. I have no tolerance for it. Is that a bad thing? Now I’m not saying that there aren’t true bigots out there, but that some of you word terrorists have watered down its use quite a bit to the point that its use is shrugable at best.
So, before you linguistic rock-throwers start hurling your poorly crafted, ill-defined descriptive adjectives and phrases in the comments section, could you do me a favor? Could you please include a legend of exactly what you are trying to convey with the use of any of the aforementioned words, because your conflicting meanings are confusing this poor little homowhateveric-melaninist-intolerant-bigotted-theist.
Thanks in advance.
Pax
Over time I hope to at least weekly address issues that are of importance to regular Americans, and for that matter, level-headed people throughout the blogosphere. Now, I’m not going to present news stories. There are a million people better at that than I am, and I don’t want to be a witty pseudo-intellectual pseudo-journalist. I think that horse has been ridden quite enough. What I would like to accomplish with my prose is to give the world a view of itself through the eyes of someone who is no one special. That’s me; no one special to you. I’m special enough to my God, Mrs. Pax, my children, my dog and my cat (Ok. Maybe I’m just hired help to the cat.) that I am secure in myself without the exterior validation. It is my sincere hope that once all of us Baby Boomers are gone, that someone will look back and find at least some snippets of wisdom to allow the country that I love so very much to continue.
With the pleasantries now dispensed, I’d like to address some of the incendiary phrases or words that adversaries have used (incorrectly, I might add) to pigeon hole me and others like me into the perceived lunatic fringe. Many of you have probably had these words hurled at you in either the verbal or written form at one time or another. I’d like to answer each one individually, and offer some instruction to those who like to fling these linguistic “Molotov cocktails” willy nilly…..
Racist. This is probably the most brain-disengaged, mouth-opened inflammatory word used in the English or any other language. Screaming it aloud or dropping it like a bomb in a sentence is used strategically to close the minds of the witless to the merits of what the person was trying to purvey. It is meant to label myself and others as a narrow person, who hates another person solely based upon the amount of melanin in someone’s skin, or other specific characteristic. I found its use amusing, as the perpetrator of the noxious condiment had no idea that I have a black brother-in-law that I dearly love, and who cares for me as well. The term “racist” contains of course the word race, and the almost never correctly used suffix “ist”. This word should actually be defined as, “one who hates racing”, or “one who hates Nascar”. Well, you get the idea. If one is trying to portray another as a person who hates another just because of the color of that person’s skin, then shouldn’t the correct term be “melaninist”? And what about people who hate Semites because of their purported big noses? Shouldn’t they be called, “physiologists?” If that’s the case, then The AMA had better start recredentialing doctors now! It’s that blasted suffix “ist” folks! It’s confusing. I’ve been called a creationist (even though I’m not) which I now have to surmise means “one who hates creation.” Likewise, a Darwinist would be a person who hates Darwinism. I have made public my disdain for Islam and all it stands for, and have been labeled a racist on more than one occasion. Islam is a race now? Who knew? These geniuses need to call me by what I am – a “theist”; a person who abhors a theological line of thought. By the way, word flingers, please, even though I have no racial hatred for anyone, please refer to me as a melaninist. You’ll sound just as silly, but at least you’ll be closer to your own presupposed ideas about me.
Homophobe. Until recently there was actually no such word, even though it is incorrectly used to indicate a person who has a phobia against homosexuality. Homophobia would technically be defined as, “an irrational fear of one’s self”. Actually, the gay community might just want to stick with “gay” because in this context a homosexual is a person who has sex with them self, which conjures up uncomfortable mental images. But then, we already know that you who are gay are confused…at least genetically…don’t we? You can’t call me “homoloathic” because I don’t hate myself. I love me. Besides, a phobia is an irrational fear. I don’t know of one person who is against the gay agenda that is afraid of gays. Embarrassed, ashamed, or appalled maybe, but never afraid. Do me a favor, just call me intolerant, or a gay basher, or some other incendiary term that actually exists. Just remember, if you’re gay, I’m praying for you.
Which brings me to my final two words: intolerant and bigot. Intolerant is used way too much. It means unwilling to tolerate or endure. I guess my questions to those linguistic terrorists and wordsmiths out there is this: at exactly what point did it become ALL bad to be intolerant? My dog is intolerant of baths. She still gets them, but I’m not going to shoot her in the head or send her to the pound because she is intolerant of them. A zookeeper doesn’t feed the penguins to the lions just because they are intolerant of the heat. So exactly, just what is your point for slinging this word about? You have no tolerance for me (well, some of you smart people reading do). Aren’t you “intolerant” of me? Actually, for being so intolerant, I have never touched a hair on a leftist-liberal-loony-amoral-socialists head. To me that sounds rather…tolerant.
And of course the word bigot. It rolls off the tongue with such venom nowadays, that the purveyor can be a total lying whack-job and it’s too late- the damage has been done. A bigot is defined as “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics, and is intolerant of those who differ”. Hmmmm. So let’s say I’m a green person walking towards two crowds; one purple and one green. I have to go to one. I know that if I choose the purple crowd, then I’m just being PC; a poser; a token. But, by this very definition, if I go with my natural gravitation towards my own kind, I have actually shunned the purple-folk, thus deserving the moniker, “you leaf-skinned bigot!” being hurled at me. Do you see how silly that is? Let me give you another example; If I want mandatory punishment for pedophiles, I am a bigot against pedophilia. I have no tolerance for it. Is that a bad thing? Now I’m not saying that there aren’t true bigots out there, but that some of you word terrorists have watered down its use quite a bit to the point that its use is shrugable at best.
So, before you linguistic rock-throwers start hurling your poorly crafted, ill-defined descriptive adjectives and phrases in the comments section, could you do me a favor? Could you please include a legend of exactly what you are trying to convey with the use of any of the aforementioned words, because your conflicting meanings are confusing this poor little homowhateveric-melaninist-intolerant-bigotted-theist.
Thanks in advance.
Pax
2 comments:
Good Job Pax
Thank you for your support and indulgence. I hope others will visit as well. This is actually a very cathartic experience for me.
Post a Comment