Top Overused Words Of 2005
Moral High Ground
If you start bitching about it, you don't have it. Period. End of story. If you think you have it and the rest of the world disagrees, it's not their problem -- it's your problem. When you get old and die and go to Heaven, you'll get jewels in your crown for doing the right thing even if everyone on Earth said bad things about you. Just remember, though, that it cuts both ways. Just because you can find ((population / 2) + 1) people to agree with you doesn't mean God does.
The (insert group of choice) Agenda
Gay. Radical Right. Socialist. Secularist. American Taliban. Fundie. Liberal. Whatever, people. Every group has an agenda, and capitalizing it doesn't make it any more ominous. There are three questions I care about when someone gets frothy about So-And-So-Group's Agenda. First, does the group actually exist as an entity or is it just a convenient stereotype? Second, is the summary of the aforementioned agenda accurate, or does it grossly misrepresent the group's goals and vision for cheap rhetorical points? Third, to what extent do I believe this agenda is beneficial or dangerous? If you can't deal with those questions clearly and honestly and calmly, go away.
Culture Of (random noun)
You don't know what it means, and you haven't bothered to tell anyone else, either. Suck it up and learn to communicate without your bumper stickers, kids. If what you really mean is "A world where a majority agrees with me," go back to writing Left Behind fanfic.
Theocracy
Yes, there are a lot of people out there who believe in God and think that The Bible is God's word. A large chunk of them believe that God's ideas are good ones. You may disagree with them, and you may find them inexplicably goofy, even insane. This does not mean that they desire a theocracy. Look the word up. Think about it for a moment. A religious person being elected to high office does not make the country a theocracy, any more than a woman being elected President makes American culture matriarchal.
Aiding and Abetting
This phrase, specifically as applied to terrorism and "The War On Terror," has been broadened by rhetoric to the point that it's meaningless. Opinions are not treason. Expressing opinions is not treason. Vocally disagreeing with the actions of the US government is not treason. Even vocally disagreeing with the US government in ways that our military enemies might enjoy hearing is not treason. This line of reasoning gives us the national equivalent of the dumb boss who demands that people support his asinine office polices because "conflict hurts the company."
Everyone's dishonest.
A craven, cowardly cop-out by those who can't defend the actions of those they hold up as heroes. Trusting a leader you've never know and never met because of their character and then brushing off their public misdeeds as "what everyone else does" is pathetic. If you think (insert random misdeed) doesn't matter as much as other peoples', then explain WHY instead of pretending you're a cynic.
Because (group) Hates (value)
Terrorists hate freedom. Christians hate knowledge. Gays hate God. Atheists hate marriage. Liberals hate America. Conservatives hate the poor. Pro-choicers hate babies. Pro-lifers hate women. This generic statement is a frothy blend of straw-man and false-dichotomy, misrepresenting the real motivations of the group in question. It also pressures the listener to jump to the defense of whatever mom-flag-and-apple-pie value is supposedly under attack without considering the real motivations and concerns of the group in question. It's for the children!
Whatever
Your assessment is unfortunately true in many instances. However, hate is real and a fiendish ploy of those who wield it is that they ply their trade with gossamer stealth - the result of which is a band of well-intentioned folks who end up insisting such hate in the minds and hearts of actual people and groups doesn't exist.
Grasping the blade
Sure -- that's the party line of the gay rights movement. Christians -- indisputably -- hate women and gays. There's no other rational explanation for their steadfast opposition to basic human rights and the history of misogyny. All the 'moral values' tripe is just a smokescreen, and anyone who looks behind the curtain can see it.
(ahem)
See how easy it is? And -- let's be honest with ourselves -- it's just as true for Christians on issues like that as it is for any other group we get worked up about.
When it gets right down to it, 'so-and-so hates blah-blah-blah' is content free syntactic sugar. What are the real goals of a given group, or person? Weigh them on their merits, weigh their actions on their merits. In the case of Al Qaeda, the stated goal is the overthrow of corrupt mideast regimes and the re-establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. Their methods? Targeting western governments that prop up those regimes for acts of terrorism, and polarising the Islamic world against the West by baiting us into disproportionate violence. That's a goal and a set of methods that we, collectively, cannot abide by given the repercussions it would have in our own world. Simplifying it as 'hate', though, is worse than useless -- it turns people with a set of goals, a set of motivations, a set of tactics, into nothing more than moustache-twirling villains.
That makes effectively fighting them more difficult. If that kind of second-grader ovresimplification is what our country 'needs', then perhaps we don't deserve to have a democracy anymore.
No, but thanks anyway.
"...that's the party line of the gay rights movement." Uh, what's the party line?
"it's just as true for Christians on issues like that as it is for any other group we get worked up about." Thank you for making my point even stronger.
You can offer all the analysis and surface excuses you care to while downplaying the usefulness of the distllation to this bedrock motivation. That bedrock motivation is as old as the war in cosmos diabolicus and we, just as much as anyone else, actually do hate things. We need to hate things that need to be hated. Perhaps you find it more useful to contextaulize it, but at the end of the day- a phrase, by the way, that should have made your list (c; - it's still hate.
I agree that it's easy to jump to that generalization, but as my original post stated, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist no matter the fancy rhetorical justification.
Okay...
...I guess I don't see the point. What group are you talking about that's "motivated by hatred?" What group am I making rationalizations and offering justifications for?
I'm just saying that the 'They attack us because they hate freedom' or 'They make fun of us because they hate God' or 'They want to stop abortion because they hate women' simplifications are nothing more than evidence of laziness and an unwillingness to engage or understand. The higher the stakes, the LESS willing we should be to accept silly fluffy answers like that.
Okay. Hatred exists. Bad people are motivated by hatred -- just as all bad actions are motivated by the sin nature, etc. At this point, 'hatred' just become a rhetorical foil, though -- useless as an explanitory tool. The only purpose it serves is making us feel better about ourselves and making counter-hatred of others more acceptable.
I have the feeling we're talking past each other on this issue...?
I think history is replete
I think history is replete with groups that believed one or another other group simply had no right to exist. Sure they had (and have) all kinds of justifications that contextualized there beliefs, but seeing past these to the energizing force brings me face-to-face with hate.
Cain towards Able
KKK...(you know, towards other letters of the alphabet (c;)
Nazis toward Jews
Pharisees and Saducees toward Jesus
Jews toward Death Camp Overlords
Sox fans towards Cub fans (TIC)
And one that gets at the idea thast some things are worthy of hate:
Me toward those proclivities that hinder me from knowing God more fully...like hatred of any group or person.
I disagree that it's useless. While it may be useful to try to be more specific about what motivates a group's disturbing behavior I also think can be dangerously naive to think that just because one satisfies that group's alledged needs, their disturbing behavior will cease. (Hitler was going to stop with Austria, then with Poland). In the movie Independence Day, when asked what they wanted us to do, the alien responded "Die". Likewise, I believe that is the only thing that will "satisfy" some groups. The energy behind their actions is Hatred at its malevolent, and cunning worst. To call it anything other than hatred, seems a waste of time.
On a totally unrelated topic - Did you see the front page of the Sunday Sun Times? - Rob Bell story. Excellent info about Noomas.
You are loved!
Post new comment