It was fun while it lasted.
Way back in the 17th Century there was a philosophical revolution. This revolution is commonly known as “The Enlightenment” or “The Age of Reason.” Sadly, the Age of Reason is dead. It has been replaced by “The Age of Fee-Fees.” (For those who don’t know, “fee-fees” is slang for feelings.) Enlightenment thinkers talked about objective facts and universal truths. They applied logic to the facts to reach conclusions.
The Enlightenment coincided with dramatic advances in science and technology. These advances allowed Western Civilization to literally conquer the world. Our Founding Fathers were steeped in Enlightenment philosophy. Thomas Jefferson was an Enlightenment philosopher, but he did something few philosophers were ever able to do: He successfully turned his ideas into reality.
In The Age of Fee-Fees, facts don’t matter. There are no universal truths, and words mean whatever you want them to mean.
The entire concept of race was invented by a white man. So was the concept of racism. The words are in English, which is the predominant language of white people. If white people can’t define racism, who can?
Can Merriam-Webster define racism?
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principle
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
I agree with most of that, but definition #3 is problematic because it asks us to determine motive and intentions. Not only that, but it allows one person’s feelings to interpret another person’s words and actions. Feelings become facts. That is how Congresswoman Donqui-Chomperes can get away with a statement like this:
“In the last facility, I was not safe from the officers,” she told CNN’s Natasha Chen on her way into the Clint facility.
This is my imaginary cross-examination of Rep. Donqui-Chomperes:
Did they attack you? “No.”
Did they make threats to you? “I felt threatened.”
But did they say or do anything that was objectively threatening? “No, but I could tell by the look in their eyes I could tell they wanted to rape me.”
To a Democrat jury, “I felt threatened” is proof that she was threatened.
Whenever there is an allegation of a “racist” incident, listen to the language that gets used. Take, for instance, President Trump’s “racist tweets.” Objectively, there is nothing racist about them. Obviously, if Trump had used the “N” word or if he had said that “The Squad” was intellectually inferior because they have brown skin, that would be racist.
What he said is objectively neutral on the issue of race. There are only two ways that I can think of to make those tweets racist:
1. Change the definition of racism to include those tweets
2. Use subjective criteria (feelings, emotions) to determine they are racist.
Redefining words ex post facto is cheating. It is not logical. It is basically asserting that “It’s racist because I say it is.”
But using subjective criteria is not Enlightenment thinking. It’s not post-Enlightenemt either. It is pre-Enlightenment. It appears that the Progressives are regressing. It’s like they read Orwell’s 1984 and thought it was a DIY manual. They don’t want to free minds, they want to enslave them.
Anyone who tells me that “enslave” is racist is gonna get a midnight delivery of zucchini.