Six Words the Left Twists to Silence You
I have discovered, while politely debating my friends on the Left, that we speak the same English language, but some of the same words have vastly different meanings.
I used to think that since we spoke the same language, we agreed on the meanings of our shared vocabulary, and all I had to do was marshal enough facts and logic to persuade them that their idea was incorrect. However, it has dawned on me over the past few decades that logic and facts are not as powerful as I thought when dealing with the Left, since we have very different definitions for simple, basic words.
The following is a brief list of six words the Left twists and redefines to further their agenda and silence you. I have also supplied some helpful information on good strategies to employ when discussing or debating issues with our friends on the Left.
As I was growing up I was always taught that tolerance meant allowing something (that was the definition in my Webster's dictionary). You didn't have to agree with the action or idea, but you wouldn't try to stop it, either. You tolerated it. You let it happen as long as you were not being harmed or prohibited from doing what you want to do. Live and let live. Free speech for all, and that includes people with whom I have severe differences.
Not today, however. In some of my recent discussions I have been personally introduced to the political "tolerance" of the day. (I've seen this new idea of tolerance on TV and videos, but I had not personally experienced it until recently.) Here it is: unless you agree with me and endorse what I believe and embrace it and love it, you are an intolerant bigot. You must do everything I tell you to do, or you are intolerant. No kidding.
I was discussing President Trump's latest executive order, in which medical personnel in hospitals are free to withdraw from procedures that they find consciously objectionable (such as abortions or sex change operations). I thought this was very reasonable. After all, our country has a time-honored tradition (sometimes violated, I know) of honoring the will of people who are conscientious objectors. Should we honor the deeply held convictions of people of faith, or should we compel people to perform abortions or sex change operations?
A few people said such an executive order is an example of intolerance. It is intolerant to refuse to do abortions or "gender reassignment" operations. Since we don't know what these people are going through, to refuse to do such an operation is intolerant, I was told.
I responded with logic: since they did not tolerate my supposed intolerance, that made them intolerant as well. That went over like a lead balloon.
I was then instructed that it is perfectly fine to be intolerant of intolerant people like myself.
We weren't talking about fighting Nazis or jihadists, we were talking about people of faith (Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Mormons) who simply believe it is wrong to perform an abortion!
It's not like there's a shortage of abortionists in our country. I'm sure there are plenty of abortion providers or sex change surgeons who will be glad to take your money. But no, because I think peaceful people should be able to opt out, I am intolerant.
This sort of nonsense is what we see going on all over the country. If you are a Christian baker or photographer and refuse to work at the wedding of a same sex couple, you are sued in court for your intolerance and fined.
Of course, the politically correct mob would NEVER go after a Muslim baker for refusing to make a same sex wedding cake. Or for, say, refusing to draw a picture of Mohammed on the cake. Here is Steven Crowder asking just such a question:
Can't we use our reasoning skills, and remember that tolerance can only mean you live your life and leave me alone to enjoy mine? Apparently not.