The Selective Liberal Dictionary

Have I said how much I hate liberals lately?  They are hypocrites of the highest order, at least the ones I tend to debate.  Recently, the story of Ben Carson calling African slaves “immigrants” came out and, of course, the liberal whine parade had to run around screaming that the sky was falling.  Slaves can’t be immigrants because it wasn’t voluntary!

So I pulled out the dictionary and presented the definition of the word:  a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.  Nowhere in that definition does it describe the circumstances under which a person comes to live in a foreign country, it just says that they do.  It’s a perfectly accurate term to use, whether the illiberal left likes it or not.

You’d think these people don’t know what dictionaries are.  Of course, we know they do, they trot them out whenever the definition fits what they want to claim, like feminism, but when it doesn’t, they shrug and say “what’s a dictionary?”  Words only mean things when it helps them. They’re a bunch of hypocrites.

But why is this?  Because they have no actual arguments, they are just constant rage machines.  They don’t think, they just react.  They’re looking for something to get upset about, even if what they get upset about makes no rational sense.  This is what happens when emotions are used in place of intelligence.  The left has become the ideology of virtue signaling.  They want to look moral so they get upset at anything and everything that they can justify to themselves just might be bad, even if it isn’t. It’s why we see so much political correctness and censorship on the left, because they have to be higher and mightier than you are, even if they’re really not.

Please people, before you go screaming about some word that made you feel bad, go look up what that word actually means in the dictionary.  It might stop you from looking like an idiot, or at least it might make you look less like an idiot before you open your fool mouth and confirm everyone’s suspicions.

9 thoughts on “The Selective Liberal Dictionary

  1. The right wing is even more reactionary, based off fear and hate for those different to you. Whether its people with different gender identities, liberals or black people. You force an us vs them scenario that shouldn't even exist. There are shitty people on both sides, you are an example of a shitty right wing person. The majority of liberals are fairly reasonable people.

    1. How am "I" forcing anything on anyone? I'm arguing for just "us". Not a black us and a white us. Not a gay us and a straight us. Not a male us and a female us. Just us. I'm not the one trying to separate people and paying attention to color, gender or orientation. I'm the one arguing that people ought to be just people. If that's shitty, you've got a weird definition of the term.

  2. Slaves were not even recognised as people so cannot be considered immigrants. The definition says 'comes to live'. Slaves did not come to live, they were traded as property to work for their new owners.

    Liberals get mad when slaves are called immigrants as it is a form of historical revisionism, generalising slavery as immigration devalues the experiences of slaves and their ancestors. Slavery of African Americans was a horrendous crime that should not be forgotten, to describe it as immigration makes it seem less severe.

    Arguing for just 'us' is ridiculous and undermines the experiences of disenfranchised people. Ignoring the experiences of different groups causes even more division, you can see how many people have reacted negatively to Carson's generalisation.

    Yes you do force an us vs them scenario as you describe the 'illiberal left' as an 'ideology of virtue signalling'. It is unwise to paint an entire political ideology with once colour, yes that is a black and white division. If you really wanted an 'us' then you would just point to certain people rather than the other side of the political spectrum.

    "They want to look moral so they get upset at anything and everything that they can justify to themselves just might be bad, even if it isn’t. It’s why we see so much political correctness and censorship on the left, because they have to be higher and mightier than you are, even if they’re really not."

    ^ Seriously that is the biggest generalisation I have ever heard. I am left wing and I am against censorship and political correctness. Characterising slaves as immigrants is its own form of censorship, changing the details to fit the right wing political agenda.

    You may think that you are all rational and objective but objectivity is impossible for us humans. The difference is that your subjective view of this is harmful as it devalues the experiences of slaves, my view does not therefore is the better viewpoint.

    1. It's not revisionism, it's reality. I presented the definition of the word used. It fits perfectly, even if the individuals were not willing to come. Now I think Ben Carson is a dick, but this is one case where what he said was factually correct, it just went against the narrative of the left.

      1. If ISIS came into your house, kidnapped you and your entire family and took them over to Syria to work as slaves, killing a few of them along the way, you would be understandably pissed off if the media said that you were 'immigrants who came to Syria'. Immigrant is a term that is generally used to describe voluntary movement therefore is a much less fitting definition than slaves.

        Yes it is revisionism as he describes the slaves as having 'a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land'.

        I really doubt any of the slaves were thinking that, living conditions were fucking horrendous and they were not even considered real people by slave traders. The reality of the situation was that slaves suffered terrible conditions as they were taken from their homeland. Carson is being revisionist as he is trying to portray the conditions of slave life in an almost positive light.

        1. No, it would be an accurate description. I wouldn't be a willing immigrant, but I absolutely would have immigrated. The word means "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." It says nothing whatsoever about the circumstances under which it occurs. If you have an argument, take it up with the dictionary.

          1. Um nowhere did I say that it was accurate, merely that it was a less fitting definition as it does not convey the situation properly. The word 'immigrant' is used as a euphemism for slave by Carson.

            Learn to read and actually respond to my points, idiot.

          2. Um no but he is portraying it in an almost neutral light, romanticising their experience by describing how they have 'a dream' to fulfil. They definitely did not want to come to America so it is ridiculous to hint towards that.

            The fact that he is black has nothing to do with it, revisionism can come from anyone, there are jewish people who deny the holocaust for example. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Paul_Eisen

            Just because you don't like the left doesn't mean they are always wrong…

Leave a Reply to Cephus Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)