|October 28th, 2009||#1|
Tracking Enemy Neologisms, i.e. Semitically Correct New Abusages
NYT dubs man-woman union: 'Opposite-sex marriage'
'Politicization of language is nothing new, but this is particularly disturbing'
October 27, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Many Americans may be accustomed to hearing the term "same-sex marriage" in news reports about homosexual unions, but now the New York Times is also referring to traditional matrimony as "opposite-sex marriage."
In his Oct. 26 news report on a homosexual lawsuit to overturn California's Proposition 8 reserving marriage for a man and a woman, New York Times reporter Adam Liptak described traditional unions as "opposite-sex marriage."
Referring to attorney
Charles J. Cooper, who is pressing the case against recognition of homosexual marriage, Liptak wrote, "The government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, Mr. Cooper said, in order 'to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.'"
Catholic League president Bill Donohue pointed out that the New York Times has used the term "opposite-sex marriage" 10 times in the past, and in a news story only five times. He also noted that the term was used on a few occasions in the 1990s by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Yale Law Journal and the New Republic.
"Is this the start of one more round of corrupting the English language?" Donohue asked in an editorial on the Catholic League website.
He said use of the term reveals a distressing pattern.
"Here's how it will play out in the classroom: kindergartners will be told that some adults choose same-sex marriage and some choose opposite-sex marriage," Donohue wrote. "There is no moral difference – it's just a matter of different strokes for different folks. Not mentioned, of course, will be that some male-on-male sex practices are dangerous. Nor will it be pointed out that only so-called opposite-sex marriages are capable of reproducing the human race.
"In other words, the kids will be lied to about what nature ordains."
While Donahue acknowledged that politicization of language is nothing new, he called the New York Times example "particularly disturbing."
"Marriage means one thing, and attempts to make it a smorgasbord are pernicious," he said.
|October 28th, 2009||#3|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Fake rainbow fag flag heteros now call their girlfriend/boyfriend "my partner" in order to make homos more comfortable when they use the term.
But of course, why doesn't a male queer just say, "my boyfriend" or "my husband" if they believe their equality bullshit? They say "partner" to thin end the wedge and normalize, and the fake rainbow heteros help them.
Whenever you see a so-called "rainbow flag" remember to say, "That's not a real rainbow. Is that the colors of a rainbow you see in Nature? (ask a kid if there's one around, the kid will say no) That's right. That's a rainbow infected with AIDS."
Godzilla mit uns!
|November 12th, 2009||#5|
multi-perpetrator rape replaces gang rape
[hat tip to Starr at Phora]
PC brigade ban police from saying 'gang rape' as it is 'too emotive'
By Stephen Wright
09th November 2009
* Comments (79)
Officers have been advised to use the phrase 'multi-perpetrator rape' when describing sex attacks
Politically correct Scotland Yard chiefs have stopped using the term 'gang rape' because it is too 'emotive', the Mail can reveal.
Instead officers have been advised to use the long-winded phrase 'multi-perpetrator rape' when describing sex attacks involving three or more culprits.
Critics branded the move by the Metropolitan Police an 'affront' to the victims of appalling sex crimes and are preparing to launch a campaign on the issue.
Six years ago the Met was at the centre of a similar row over its choice of language to describe 'gang rapes' after a senior officer referred to them as 'group rapes' during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Some community activists had previously suggested the phrase 'gang rape' had racist connotations.
Details of the latest police terminology are contained in an official Scotland Yard report which reveals a sharp increase in the number of gang rapes in the capital.
New figures revealed there were 93 gang sex attacks in the financial year 2008-9, compared with 71 in 2003-2004.
Meanwhile the age of victims has fallen with 64% aged 19 or younger in the last financial year compared with 48% in 1998-9.
Detective Chief Inspector Mark Yexley admits in his report on 'Multi-Perpetrator Rape and Youth Violence' for the Metropolitan Police Authority that the 'common parlance for this offence is ‘gang’ rape'.
But he adds: 'This is an emotive term - but it is used widely in the public domain. There have been instances in the past where the term ‘gang’ has come to mean different things - either groups known to each other, criminal networks or peer groups.
'Care has been taken with the definition of the term ‘gang’ in this paper. It is however accepted that there is a public perception/understanding of what this term means.
Recent academic studies have suggested that the term ‘Multiple Perpetrator Rape’ should be used as the overarching term for offences involving two or more perpetrators.
'When examining rapes committed by multiple perpetrators, it should be noted that the number of offenders involved and the methods used by assailants, vary. Analysis on such offending is primarily based on victim testimony and any other supporting evidence, so links to ‘gangs’ cannot necessarily be established.
'These offences are complex in nature, ranging from allegations of consensual sex between the victims and a known party followed by non-consensual assaults committed by associates, to stranger attacks involving large groups.'
Chrissie Maher, founder of Plain English Campaign, told the Mail: 'I am disgusted to my very bones and weep for the victims of gang rape. I don’t usually approve of ‘four-letter words’ but there is no better way of defining gang rape. Ask the public if they need an academic study to work that out.
'Jargon has been used to hide and confuse all sorts of things, that’s why Plain English Campaign was started. But using jargon clean up crime is the last thing I ever expected to see.
'Ask any victim - rape is an emotive crime – it deserves an emotive term not some sterile, politically correct nonsense. This doesn’t deserve a Golden Bull award – this deserves a new campaign to give victims the respect they deserve.'
There have been a series of high-profile convictions of teenagers for gang rapes in the capital over the past year. Two men who assaulted a girl aged 16 and doused her in caustic soda, disfiguring her for life, had their sentences increased on appeal.
In another case a 14-year-old girl was repeatedly raped "as punishment" by nine members of a Hackney gang because she had "insulted" their leader.
A meeting of the MPA, the Met's board of governors, heard levels of gang rape are linked to overall youth violence.
MPA member Jennette Arnold said some offenders are from cultural backgrounds where rape is more common. She said the crime is seen by some as a "weapon of war" and more work needs to be done to get into the minds of culprits.
Mrs Arnold said: 'It has got to be regretted that the increase in black victims has doubled.'
Commander Simon Foy, who leads the Met's homicide and serious crime command, said there is no doubt the "abhorrent" crime of 'multi-perpetrator rape' is under-reported.
He said: 'This is a phenomenon we are all concerned about. There is a substantial amount of this type of offending going on which we do not necessarily know much about.
'The numbers we do have are relatively small. That makes it difficult to understand the trends and behaviours that are going on.'
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the decision to use the term 'multi-perpetrator rape' was made by DCI Yaxley after he saw the findings of academic studies.
|May 14th, 2010||#6|
[First use i've seen of redistribution of speech. The implication being that free speech is like money, and white males are hogging it, and minorities deserve a much larger share. The concept doesn't work logically, but propagandawise it fits established socialist rhetoric. Yet another way to limit and destroy free speech by keeping but redefining the term.]
Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
Applause for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan at the White House on Monday, May 10, 2010. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.
Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”
In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.
In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent.
She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.
The first part of this framework involves restrictions that appear neutral, such as campaign finance laws, but in practice amount to an unconstitutional restriction. Kagan wrote that the effect of such legislation can be taken as evidence of improper motive because such motives often play a part in bringing the legislation into being.
“The answer to this question involves viewing the Buckley principle [that government cannot balance between competing speakers] as an evidentiary tool designed to aid in the search for improper motive,” Kagan wrote. “The Buckley principle emerges not from the view that redistribution of speech opportunities is itself an illegitimate end, but from the view that governmental actions justified as redistributive devices often (though not always) stem partly from hostility or sympathy toward ideas or, even more commonly, from self-interest.”
Kagan notes, however, that such “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” but that government may not restrict it to protect incumbent politicians or because it dislikes a particular speaker or a particular message.
The U.S. Supreme Court (AP File Photo/Evan Vucci)
She argued that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.
Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, Kagan said, because the government’s motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other – unprotected – activity.
She argues in the piece that a law banning fires in public places is not unconstitutional, even if it means that protesters cannot burn flags in public. A law outlawing flag burning protests, however, would be, because the motive is to stop a particular protest.
Kagan also argued that the Supreme Court should not be concerned with maintaining or protecting any marketplace of ideas because it is impossible for the court to determine what constitutes an ideal marketplace, contending that other types of laws, such as property laws, can also affect the structure of the marketplace of ideas and that a restriction on speech may “un-skew” the market, rather than tilt it unfavorably.
“If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action -- which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate -- then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote.
Instead, the Supreme Court should focus on whether a speaker’s message is harming the public, argued Kagan in her article.
While Kagan does not offer an exhaustive definition of ‘harm,’ she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words.
The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.
“The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression,” Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”
Kagan says that government is also prohibited from treating two identically harmful speakers differently. To do so, she argues, would be to violate what she views as the principle of equality -- making the unequal restriction unconstitutional.
“But the government may not treat differently two ideas causing identical harms on the ground that thereby conveying the view that one is less worthy, less valuable, less entitled to a hearing than the other,” she wrote. “To take such action -- in effect, to violate a norm of ideological equality -- would be to load the restriction of speech with a meaning that transcends the restriction's material consequence.”
|April 11th, 2014||#7|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Pay attention to the CNN articles on the missing Malaysian flight. There is a white couple, the woman is waiting to hear word about her boyfriend. Every single article keeps saying PARTNER, instead of boyfriend. That is an ideological word change meant to conflate heterosexual couples with faggots and nothing more. Wordsmithing and control of language by essentially making words go extinct from public dialogue is nothing new for the media. They did this in the 1990s also with when they transitioned from Oriental to Asian. I'm old enough to remember seeing a TV news report stating they were going to switch because activists found it offensive. Since then, the word Oriental is not only gone from the media but nearly all of public discourse as well - specifically due to the media's lead.
This is the kind of control people need to be conscious of and not let them have.
|November 4th, 2014||#8|
conservatives coin term gynecist. first seen (by me) on 11-5-2014.
This week, though, the American Thinker gave us a real doozy, possibly the winning candidate in the informal anti-Wendy Davis essay contest. In a piece titled "Dreams from My Uterus," Deborah C. Tyler pronounces Wendy Davis not a feminist, but a "gynecist." And what is a gynecist, you might ask? We'll let Tyler take it from here:
|September 13th, 2018||#9|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Criticizing "whataboutism" is rejecting reciprocity.
Contrary to these anti-White critics, it's right to ask for proof of good faith before cooperating with people (especially nowadays). For instance: Do you want me to weep over blacks getting shot in Chicago? Then first cry over Whites getting murdered in South Africa. If you do that—if you prove your good faith in that way—then I will spare a tear for the Chicago situation. My attitude is: if you want my cooperation, then offer me something upfront, otherwise fuck off.
"Whataboutism" is what they call our demand for reciprocity upfront, in other words for respect. They are outraged by any suggestion of our equality with them. "How dare you mention your tragedy when I am pointing out mine, which takes precedence infinite times more than does anything you care about," is their position. The reason anti-Whites won't reciprocate—the reason they want it all one way, their way—is that most of them are jews, and jews don't consider Whites to be human. One doesn't reciprocate animals or insects, one just uses them. That's how they see us.
No jews, just right
Less talk, more action
|March 3rd, 2019||#11|
Join Date: Dec 2018
It's not technically a neologism, but about 6-7 years ago, the Canadian government and banks started using the term "newcomer" to refer to immigrants in advertisements on bus stations and billboards. I suspect that this decision came from someone on high because so many organizations started using it all at once. 250,000 annual newcomers sounds friendlier than 250,000 immigrants.
There is a ton of racemixing in Canadian bank ads, too. I think at least 50% of the couples in them are mixed race. I even saw a fagpair in a TD bank ad in a light rail station, and that was almost 10 years ago.