Posted on November 15, 2021



So You Say You Oppose

Speech Codes


Daniel Clark



Politically correct collegiate speech codes are often ridiculed, and rightly so. One of the most recent ones, from the University of Pittsburgh, purports to prohibit the use of the word "freshman," because it has the word "man" in it. Of course, so does "woman," but the point of a speech code is not consistency; it's control. Well, it's one thing for megalomaniacal liberal blowhards to assume control over the speech of impressionable college students, but the rest of us would never stand for it, would we?

It turns out that when there's no arrogant authority ham-handedly challenging our autonomy, we are far more likely to abide by speech codes, perhaps without even realizing it. If you think about it, there are probably certain words and phrases that you find yourself saying, even though they are in diametric opposition to what you know to be true. These are not merely innocent idiocies such as "I could care less." Instead, they are euphemistic expressions that have been deliberately invented by liberals to change the ways in which you speak and think, with the ultimate aim of converting you to their unreality-based belief system. Rather than being directly ordered to use them, you may have passively accepted their introduction to you through television, or through the language of friends, family and neighbors. To find out if this is true, please see the following examples, and ask yourself if you ever use this terminology, and if so, why:

"women's groups" -- This designation treats a tiny, shrill, hateful smattering of impossible-to-please people as if they represented 51 percent of the population. A handful of screeching feminists who obsess over female genitalia and compare the family unit to slavery is not a women's group. When Ashley Judd stands at a podium and graphically discusses menstruation, railing against it as if it were the result of a policy imposed on her by some dastardly Republican, she speaks for practically nobody. Yet far too many otherwise sensible people, both men and women, have passively agreed to refer to the purveyors of such lunacy as women's groups.

"misgendered" -- In order to enforce the bogus concept of gender as a social construct, liberals have deliberately concocted a misnomer, designed to pressure people into saying what they plainly know to be false. In this new, narcissistic era of ours, in which people "have preferred pronouns," referring to a person with actual, applicable pronouns (e.g., referring to a man as "he"), instead of that person's preferred pronouns, is called "misgendering," and treated as an offense akin to racism. Of course, it is the man who prefers feminine pronouns who is misgendering. The alleged offender is merely making proper use of the English language.

"biological sex" or "biological gender" -- Is a person's sex determined in any way other than biologically? Of course not, so why qualify it? One of the ways in which liberal linguists create chaos is to turn actuality into a mere subcategory of itself. To refer to one's sex as one's "biological sex" is a tacit endorsement of the presumption that there must be some other kind. One must wonder, based on the success of this tactic, and the growing movement to normalize pedophilia, whether the introduction of the phrase "biological age" can be far off.

"traditional marriage" -- Just as in the previous example, the truth has become but one among multiple options. The institution of marriage was founded on the understanding that a man and a woman have different, complementary characteristics, such that each needs the other in order to be made whole. However else one might characterize a relationship that does not fit this definition, it cannot be a marriage. Nevertheless, our society has started calling it one, thanks in no small part to lots of people who surely know better saying, "I'm for traditional marriage." Since the use of this phrase already concedes that other forms of marriage exist, who cares whether the speaker is in favor of them? The truth is thus mischaracterized as one person's intolerant opinion.

"migrants" -- perhaps because it's less obnoxious than "undocumented immigrants," this term seems to have been settled on as if it were some kind of compromise. It's not. The word "migrant" does not typically refer to illegals, which is why it is used to obscure the illegality of their presence in our country. Most commonly, the word "migrant" doesn't even mean someone seeking residence in another country, but instead refers to someone who moves on a seasonal basis to find work, such as picking apples or working on a fishing boat. The use of such a benign word to describe people who have broken the law by sneaking into our country or overstaying their visas rather misses the point. Still, the accurate and legally correct term "illegal aliens" seems so provocative.

"assault weapons" -- Liberals use this term not so much to describe certain types of guns as to slander the people who own them. As Shane said, a gun is a tool, as good or as bad as the man using it. Labeling them "assault weapons" instead assumes a sinister motive on the part of the user that is absent in the vast majority of cases. In spite of the intentional inaccuracy of the phrase, it is now commonly used by well-meaning people as if it and the word "rifles" were interchangeable.

"abortion rights" -- Advocates of abortion tend to deal with the indefensibility of the act by burying it under a steaming heap of euphemism. When use of the a-word becomes unavoidable, though, they divert attention from its meaning by turning it into an adjective. Not only does this change the subject of the conversation from abortion to "rights" (and who could oppose those?), but it short-circuits the whole debate about whether such rights exist, and instead just assumes that they do. The entire point of this nomenclature is to spare the pro-abortion side from having to deal with the reality of the issue, but for some reason, conservatives can't seem to resist saying things like, "The Supreme Court has decided to take up the issue of abortion rights." For the literal sake of humanity, why would anybody who opposes abortion rhetorically presume the existence of a right to it?

"homophobic" -- This incorrectly constructed word is sometimes applied to people who are irrationally hostile toward gays and lesbians, but is more often used to smear anybody who disapproves of the gay lifestyle and/or political agenda. A phobia is an irrational fear, but "homo" means "man," so if such thing as homophobia exists, it must be an irrational fear of man. This may apply to environmentalists who view nature and humanity as being irreconcilably at odds with each other, but it does not describe somebody who thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

"global climate" or simply "The Climate" -- How would you characterize the climate of the earth? You probably wouldn't bother trying, because there is no such thing. By definition, "climate" is a regional set of characteristics. The idea of a singular climate that encompasses everything renders the word meaningless. The Sahara Desert, the Himalayas and the Amazon basin do not share a climate. The idea of a global climate makes about as much sense as a global ZIP code, but the concept had to be invented in order to make everything everybody does the business of the "international community." Or, as Barack Obama put it, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want, and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that every other country is going to say OK." Bet you didn't think your personal living habits were the business of every other country, but they will be, once the self-appointed saviors of the nonexistent global climate have gotten their way. So what's the big deal? All they want is to impose a global system of wealth redistribution, abolish the whole concept of property rights, diminish the production of energy and food so that the citizens of prosperous Western nations are forced into lives of deprivation, and generally continue to wage all-out war on the human individual. What could be the harm in playing along?

One thing that's for sure, however, is that we can be counted on to stand up to those daffy collegiate liberals and their speech codes. When watching college football games, we even use the word "freshman" without giving it a second thought.

Guess we showed them.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar