The Unexpectedly Chronicles: Redefining Words Schadenfreude Edition

Readability

The Unexpectedly Chronicles: Redefining Words Schadenfreude Edition

[The two priests arrive at the scene of the fight between Sean Thorn­ton & Red Will Danaher]

Father Paul: Father, shouldn’t we put a stop to it now?

Father Lon­er­gan: [Smil­ing, mak­ing fight­ing move­ments] Ah, we should lad, yes we should, it’s our duty. Yes, it’s our duty... [Smiles as a punch is heard]

The Quiet Man 1952

4th Doc­tor: The very pow­er­ful and the very stu­pid have one thing in com­mon. Instead of alter­ing their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views…which can be very uncom­fort­able if you hap­pen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

Doc­tor Who: The Face of Evil Pt 4 1977

A long time ago on my radio show I did an hour on the rede­f­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage and the deficit. This was back in ancient times when Barack Obama had for polit­i­cal rea­sons not “come out” for gay mar­riage and thus one could still pub­licly argue against it the entire media /​left defin­ing you as a racist, sex­ist bigot homo­phobe for stat­ing facts that had been true for mil­len­nia. (For the record I stand by my argu­ments against gay mar­riage that I made 10 years ago here)

Now you might think these two top­ics are as unre­lated as you can get but I pointed out on my show that the insis­tence that there was noth­ing wrong with redefin­ing mar­riage opened up huge pos­si­bil­i­ties for solv­ing the deficit.

All we had to do is rede­fine what a “deficit” or a “bal­anced bud­get” or even “debt” was and viola sud­denly deficits would be a thing of the past and we would be able to look for­ward to bal­anced bud­gets for the rest of our days.

The pos­si­bil­i­ties were end­less and the best part of it was peo­ple wouldn’t have to vary their spend­ing or bor­row­ing habits one bit and if any per­son hold­ing a debt objected why they were just not as enlight­ened as the rest of us.

The entire point of that mono­logue was to not only point out the insan­ity of redefin­ing mar­riage but to also point out that once you decide you can rede­fine one word for the sake of one’s per­sonal advan­tage you can rede­fine another. Or as Kurt Schlichter prophet­i­cally put it a few years later

Lib­er­als May Regret Their New Rules

I thought of that when I saw This piece by Stacy McCain about the con­flict between les­bians and the Trans­gen­der com­mu­nity:

Les­bian fem­i­nists are being attacked as “TERFs” (trans exclu­sive rad­i­cal fem­i­nists) because they don’t want to date men in dresses, nor do they want to cede con­trol of the fem­i­nist move­ment to men in dresses. Trans­gen­der activists are insult­ing les­bians as “vagina fetishists.”

and they just can’t under­stand why this is hap­pen­ing to them.

The answer is in fact very sim­ple. The peo­ple who had no prob­lem redefin­ing the word “mar­riage” to sat­isfy their own nar­cis­sism and then tried to drive those who fought them from the pub­lic square (ask your­self why the Catholic Church is no longer allowed to deal with adop­tions in Mass­a­chu­setts) are now shocked Shocked that other nar­cis­sists would choose to rede­fine word “woman” and by exten­sion “les­bian” and bring the same pub­lic social and legal oppro­brium upon them that they glee­fully and self right­eously applied to oth­ers who dared sug­gest that words actu­ally mean things.

You see, once one real­izes that in one fell swoop by the act of redefin­ing words one can:

sat­isfy one’s narcissism

turn one’s pro­cliv­i­ties into virtue to be celebrated

turn men­tal ill­ness into courage

and silence one’s ene­mies by both cul­tural and legal censure

you’re not like to let sim­ple things like biol­ogy or objec­tive real­ity stop you.

Now Stacy McCain who has been the tar­get of rad­i­cal fem­i­nists and Christo­pho­bic folk for dar­ing to take his protes­tant faith seri­ously is right when he stand up for those rad­i­cal fem­i­nists, who despise his very exis­tence, on con­sti­tu­tional grounds

By the way, a con­ser­v­a­tive need not endorse homo­sex­u­al­ity to believe that les­bians should not be insulted as “TERFs,” etc. What is at issue here is a mat­ter of basic lib­erty. The First Amend­ment, which guar­an­tees both free­dom of speech and free­dom of reli­gion, like­wise safe­guards the prin­ci­ple of free­dom of asso­ci­a­tion. In guar­an­tee­ing “the right of the peo­ple peace­ably to assem­ble,” our Con­sti­tu­tion expresses this prin­ci­ple. A woman who chooses to avoid inti­macy with men is exer­cis­ing her basic lib­erty and, while we might lament her choice, the friends of lib­erty can­not in good con­science com­pel her to do oth­er­wise. Forc­ing cit­i­zens to asso­ciate with oth­ers against their will is not “social justice.”

The Chris­t­ian is as free to eschew asso­ci­a­tion with non-​believers as the homo­sex­ual is free to eschew the com­pan­ion­ship of the oppo­site sex. For decades now, the Left has accused Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tives of seek­ing to “impose their moral­ity” on oth­ers. But what is it that trans­gen­der activists are attempt­ing to do now? Aren’t they attempt­ing to com­pel oth­ers to do their bid­ding, and to silence their critics?

And my friend Cyn­thia Yockey, the con­ser­v­a­tive les­bian is doing yeoman’s work in shed­ding light on this insan­ity, you really should be read­ing her blog and finan­cially sup­port­ing her efforts to fight back.

But while I agree with Stacy McCain’s first amend­ment argu­ments defend­ing the rad­i­cal fem­i­nists tar­geted in this effort, applaud Cyn­thia Yockey’s efforts to make this fight on behalf of her fel­low les­bians who refuse to rede­fine what a les­bian, man or woman is and , as a faith­ful Catholic have sym­pa­thy for folks like Julia Diana Robert­son for the abuse she and other fem­i­nists, both straight and gay are get­ting for these actions, I can’t help but think that the shock that rad­i­cal fem­i­nists and les­bians have as they sud­denly find them­selves vic­tims of the ter­ror they helped unleash must be the same that Max­im­i­lien de Robe­spierre felt just before blade of the guil­lo­tine that he had used to elim­i­nate so many “ene­mies of the rev­o­lu­tion” beheaded him.

This is one of the dis­ad­van­tages of think­ing that the lessons of his­tory are all just the rav­ings of a patri­ar­chal past that have no appli­ca­tion for the present, you don’t real­ize that rev­o­lu­tions always eat their own.

I’m sure there will be a few in the Chris­t­ian right who will join the fight like Stacy McCain who closes his piece saying;

It is truly astound­ing to find myself defend­ing les­bian fem­i­nists against trans­gen­der totalitarians.

Like I keep say­ing, peo­ple need to wake the hell up.

and will will speak up for the like of Ms Robert­son and com­pany, but I sus­pect that the vast major­ity of Con­ser­v­a­tive Catholics and Protes­tants who have spent the last decade being told they are beyond the pale from the likes of them and their allies and have had the full force of both cul­ture and gov­ern­ment brought against them will watch their oppres­sors with Schaden­freude for a while more as this verse from Proverbs comes to pass

Those who trou­ble their house­hold inherit the wind,

Per­son­ally I think that the same rule from the Cat­e­chism of the Catholic Church on homo­sex­u­al­ity applies to our trans­gen­der friends who like gays and les­bians are chil­dren of God whose sins Jesus Christ died for.

2358 The num­ber of men and women who have deep-​seated homo­sex­ual ten­den­cies is not neg­li­gi­ble. This incli­na­tion, which is objec­tively dis­or­dered, con­sti­tutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, com­pas­sion, and sen­si­tiv­ity. Every sign of unjust dis­crim­i­na­tion in their regard should be avoided. These per­sons are called to ful­fill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Chris­tians, to unite to the sac­ri­fice of the Lord’s Cross the dif­fi­cul­ties they may encounter from their condition.

And remem­ber the same peo­ple “trig­gered” by this blunt state­ment of the teach­ing of the Catholic Church “hate speech” would be trig­gered by this movie clip too:

Aren’t we so lucky to be ruled by the val­ues of the most nar­cis­sis­tic gen­er­a­tion vs the val­ues of the great­est one?

[The two priests arrive at the scene of the fight between Sean Thornton & Red Will Danaher]

Father Paul: Father, shouldn’t we put a stop to it now?

Father Lonergan: [Smiling, making fighting movements] Ah, we should lad, yes we should, it’s our duty. Yes, it’s our duty... [Smiles as a punch is heard]

The Quiet Man 1952

4th Doctor: The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views…which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Pt 4 1977

A long time ago on my radio show I did an hour on the redefinition of marriage and the deficit.  This was back in ancient times when Barack Obama had for political reasons not “come out” for gay marriage and thus one could still publicly argue against it the entire media / left defining you as a racist, sexist bigot homophobe for stating facts that had been true for millennia.  (For the record I stand by my arguments against gay marriage that I made 10 years ago here)

Now you might think these two topics are as unrelated as you can get but I pointed out on my show that the insistence that there was nothing wrong with redefining marriage opened up huge possibilities for solving the deficit.

All we had to do is redefine what a “deficit” or a “balanced budget” or even “debt” was and viola suddenly deficits would be a thing of the past and we would be able to look forward to balanced budgets for the rest of our days.

The possibilities were endless and the best part of it was people wouldn’t have to vary their spending or borrowing habits one bit and if any person holding a debt objected why they were just not as enlightened as the rest of us.

The entire point of that monologue was to not only point out the insanity of redefining marriage but to also point out that once you decide you can redefine one word for the sake of one’s personal advantage you can redefine another.  Or as Kurt Schlichter prophetically  put it a few years later 

Liberals May Regret Their New Rules

I thought of that when I saw This piece by Stacy McCain about the conflict between lesbians and the Transgender community:

Lesbian feminists are being attacked as “TERFs” (trans exclusive radical feminists) because they don’t want to date men in dresses, nor do they want to cede control of the feminist movement to men in dresses. Transgender activists are insulting lesbians as “vagina fetishists.”

and they just can’t understand why this is happening to them.

The answer is in fact very simple.  The people who had no problem redefining the word “marriage” to satisfy their own narcissism and then tried to drive those who fought them from the public square (ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no longer allowed to deal with adoptions in Massachusetts)  are now shocked Shocked that other narcissists would choose to redefine word “woman” and by extension “lesbian” and bring the same public social and legal opprobrium upon them that they gleefully and self righteously applied to others who dared suggest that words actually mean things.

You see,  once one realizes that in one fell swoop by the act of redefining words one can:

satisfy one’s narcissism

turn one’s proclivities into virtue to be celebrated

turn mental illness into courage

and silence one’s enemies by both cultural and legal censure 

you’re not like to let simple things like biology or objective reality stop you.

Now Stacy McCain who has been the target of radical feminists and Christophobic folk for daring to take his protestant faith seriously is right when he stand up for those radical feminists, who despise his very existence,  on constitutional grounds

By the way, a conservative need not endorse homosexuality to believe that lesbians should not be insulted as “TERFs,” etc. What is at issue here is a matter of basic liberty. The First Amendment, which guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, likewise safeguards the principle of freedom of association. In guaranteeing “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” our Constitution expresses this principle. A woman who chooses to avoid intimacy with men is exercising her basic liberty and, while we might lament her choice, the friends of liberty cannot in good conscience compel her to do otherwise. Forcing citizens to associate with others against their will is not “social justice.”

The Christian is as free to eschew association with non-believers as the homosexual is free to eschew the companionship of the opposite sex. For decades now, the Left has accused Christian conservatives of seeking to “impose their morality” on others. But what is it that transgender activists are attempting to do now? Aren’t they attempting to compel others to do their bidding, and to silence their critics?

And my friend Cynthia Yockey, the conservative lesbian is doing yeoman’s work in shedding light on this insanity, you really should be reading her blog and financially supporting her efforts to fight back.

But while I agree with Stacy McCain’s first amendment arguments defending the radical feminists targeted in this effort, applaud Cynthia Yockey’s efforts to make this fight on behalf of her fellow lesbians who refuse to redefine what a lesbian, man or woman is and , as a faithful Catholic have sympathy for folks like Julia Diana Robertson for the abuse she and other feminists, both straight and gay are getting for these actions, I can’t help but think that the shock that radical feminists and lesbians have as they suddenly find themselves victims of the terror they helped unleash must be the same that Maximilien de Robespierre felt just before blade of the guillotine that he had used to eliminate so many “enemies of the revolution” beheaded him.

This is one of the disadvantages of thinking that the lessons of history are all just the ravings of a patriarchal past that have no application for the present, you don’t realize that revolutions always eat their own.

I’m sure there will be a few in the Christian right who will join the fight like Stacy McCain who closes his piece saying;

 It is truly astounding to find myself defending lesbian feminists against transgender totalitarians.

Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.

and will will speak up for the like of Ms Robertson and company, but I suspect that the vast majority of Conservative Catholics and Protestants who have spent the last decade being told they are beyond the pale from the likes of them and their allies and have had the full force of both culture and government brought against them will watch their oppressors with Schadenfreude for a while more as this verse from Proverbs comes to pass

Those who trouble their household inherit the wind,

Personally I think that the same rule from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality applies to our transgender friends who like gays and lesbians are children of God whose sins Jesus Christ died for.

 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

And remember the same people “triggered” by this blunt statement of the teaching of the Catholic Church  “hate speech” would be triggered by this movie clip too:

Aren’t we so lucky to be ruled by the values of the most narcissistic generation vs the values of the greatest one?