When I was writing my dissertation, my dissertation chair complained (seemingly) endlessly about my use, misuse, and (too often, flagrant) abuse of scare quotes. As it happens, she was right: dissertations are not really the place for the challenging of accepted ideas with such a simple device–actually, as it turned out, dissertations are not the place to challenge ideas accepted by leftist loons at all (but that’s another story for another day). However, snapping on some scare quotes is fun for the snarky and, as far as I’m concerned, mandatory for tweeters (particularly snarky tweeters like me). While I can’t seem to write complete blog posts at the moment (several half-started, half-hearted drafts languish in my Drafts folder), I am rather active on Twitter where expressions must be succinct (140 characters or less) and still make sense.
This is actually a wonderful exercise for me because I tend to be verbose to the point of rambling incoherence. Okay, maybe not incoherent, but I can rock a simple stance into several pages with little effort. Scare quotes are my saving grace on Twitter because I can say so much with only two additional characters: “”. Hard not to love that . . . even as it makes me think of that Friends episode in which Joey tried so hard, and with hilarious results, to understand “sc-air” quotes (when you wave your fingers on both hands in the “quotation” gesture to undermine, question, or otherwise lampoon the word, term, or phrase being “sc-aired”).
“Gun control”–It’s never ever about controlling crime; it’s always about controlling people. Leftists create gun-free zones and then are shocked (shocked, I say) that lunatics hell-bent on mass casualties “hit” these gun-free zones. That makes sense how?
“Marriage” (when used in conjunction with the word “gay”)–there is no such thing as “gay marriage.” Marriage is what it is, and government plays exactly no role in its definition. As long-time readers of this blog know, I was not always opposed to “gay marriage”; however, once it became clear that this was not about equality (civil rights–a term that never worked on me in this context) but about undermining religion, I realized just how wrong I was.
“Religion” (when used in conjunction with Islam)–Islam is not and never was “simply” a religion (woot at the scare quotes). It is, and always has been, a complete economic, political, religious, and socio-cultural dictate. And it is, and always has been, a vehicle for barbarism, even evil.
“Compassionate Conservatism”–this one is SO annoying. It means being a great big big-government leftist in faux-conservative clothing. And yes, I do mean George W. Bush (his dad was, arguably, even worse because he was responsible for Agenda 21 in America).
“Progressive”–I always mean “regressive” because that’s what they are. They anchor themselves in a destructive, regressive past that is fantastical (and/or evil: segregation, slavery, prohibition, eugenics, etc.). For example, in the midst of the Great Depression, lunatic regressive FDR paid farmers NOT to farm. People are starving, particularly in the South, and the government limits farmers’ crops or flat-out bars them from growing much-needed food. This is not evil how? FDR has earned his place among the worst presidents this country has ever had the misfortune of electing, and it’s no accident that the Constitution was amended (22nd Amendment) upon his death (he was barely cold in his grave before Americans ensured that two terms as president was quite enough).
“Conservative”–as expected, when I use scare quotes on this term, I mean establishment GOP (the big government “compassionate” conservatives–the “c” in “compassionate” more aptly stands for “communist”). When I speak of Rubio, Christie, and/or Ben Carson, I use scare quotes. These men are not conservatives. Rubio is a corrupt little toad who used the state campaign credit card for his own personal use (yes, he repaid it, but not until he was caught . . . two years later), who claims that conservatives who oppose his amnesty idiocy are not “true conservatives,” and who refused to join the Senate TEA Party caucus (keeping in mind that he would have lost his race in FL if it weren’t for the TEA Party). Christie, omg where do I even start? He’s pro-Islamist (calls anyone who questions anything about Islamfascists “ignorant fools”), pro-big government “solutions,” and pro-Obama on far too many issues for my liking. As for Carson, I love love loved him because of the prayer breakfast beat-down of 0, but he’s said that he thinks that the Second Amendment should only apply to people in rural areas. Sorry, he’s lost the plot by too much for my comfort (or support).
“Feminist”–Okay, back to my dissertation director (she was a renowned “women’s and LGBT” scholar. And, in case you were wondering, that’s worth exactly crap.). She would get near-hysterical and down-right eye-bulgingly irate if I dared to mention anything that even remotely evoked what she sneeringly called “’80’s feminism.” This was the so-called third wave of feminism, and as far as she was concerned was too pedestrian and intellectually barren for the would-be progressive academic she was intent in building (i.e. me).
I didn’t get it then. But I do now. “Feminism” had to change (to regress) to accommodate the new view that things like burqas and female genital mutilation (and honor killings, etc.) were actually–somehow–suddenly–okie dokey. That being “tolerant” about these things was somehow more sophisticated, more intellectual. You know, somehow.
I type that, and I see how insane it is, but these loons who still have the audacity to call themselves “feminists” (all the while actually hating women as women) actually defend such practices on the grounds of “tolerance.” So feminists who once denounced female genital mutilation (as but one example) now look the other way when stats tell us it’s on the rise right here in America. A few of these faux feminists have even defended the practice. All of this was anathema to me as an academic, a feminist, an American, and a woman.
So I’m bumbling along in my grad “training” to be a consummate Marxist; this just means that I wrote what was expected: Marxist crap painted willy-nilly on every thought, word, and deed. It was so easy, so mindless, that I didn’t even bother with it too much and would slap out a 25-page Marxist lunatic “analysis” in two hours . . . to rave reviews. (Yes, it was really that pathetic.). It’s hard not to be good at manufacturing/ferreting out “inequality” in even the simplest prose; once you learn the basic premise, you see it everywhere . . . even though it exists exactly nowhere. It’s like the hypochondriac who reads about the symptoms of a disease and immediately becomes convinced s/he has “it.”
“Mainstream”–let’s face it, “mainstream” actually means the 8-10% of Americans who are Obots (including, of course, the “mainstream” media). What is actually mainstream is dismissed as “extremist” and lately as the behavior/thoughts of a “potential terrorist.”
“Racism”–One of the great travesties, I think, of leftism is the crazed notion that race is the root of any dissent. This does nothing to advance debate and serves only, purposefully, to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with 0’s job-killing, middle-class-robbing tactics.
I used to feel insulted when some leftie accused me of racism for the simple act of verbalizing my dissent. “You just hate him because he’s black,” was the accusation. Um, well, I hated the same policies under Carter and some (NCLB) under Republican presidents. Does this mean that I’m a sometimes racist? That I hate all white, Southern men? It’s nuts; conservatives have nothing to prove here. We’ve already lost the trenches; we’re evil, hate people, want them to die, blah, blah, blah. If we don’t have “enough” black republicans, we’re racist. If we have too many, we’re racist and only pandering. The truth, of course, is harder for them to grasp. Conservative values and principles actually empower people; less government intervention is GOOD for people of all races.
As I noted, I’ve actually felt guilty in the past for my views on 0’s destructive, disastrous policies. He’s killing our economy, and he’s doing it on purpose. This has zero to do with race and everything to do with policy (I hate what Reid and Pelosi are doing, too. Does that make me a hater of white men or women? Of course not.). But for scrambling, fearful leftists, it’s always–always–about race. Even when it isn’t. Even when the people don’t think about or care about race.