Leftists Taking Language Instruction from Corporations

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, is enjoying some measure of fame and its attendant notoriety for boldly coming out in support of common sense. He’s even steadfast enough to continue his support when it conflicts with edicts from the leftist Speech Police.

This would be courageous at a US university, but it becomes almost foolhardy at a Canadian college.

Peterson believes in self–reliance and responsibility. And just as he wouldn’t allow aggressive strangers to choose his pants, he’s also not allowing aggressive strangers to choose his pronouns.

Columnist John Stossel writes that when asked about an entirely hypothetical — for now — law that “would require everyone to call people by the pronoun they prefer — pronouns like “ze” instead of “he” or “she”, Peterson said he would refuse to obey.

I’m with Peterson on this. I can’t even get my relatives and fellow Baptists to call me by the correct proper name of ‘Michael,’ instead of ‘Mike,’ so why should strangers have the power to compel pronouns by force of law?

Peterson’s reasoning is sound. “I don’t care what people want to be called. But that doesn’t mean I should be compelled by law to call them that. The government has absolutely no business whatsoever ever governing the content of your voluntary speech.”

I would assume for Peterson that includes ‘hate’ speech and ‘he’ speech.

Naturally this perfectly reasonable position tripped the outrage alarm on his campus. Hundreds of easily–herded academics signed a petition calling for Peterson to be fired by the university. And students who are happy to extend toleration to any ideology with which they agree and condemn any they dislike, now bring bullhorns to Peterson’s speeches to drown out his impure thinking.

I’ve been giving some thought to where these fascists got the idea it was permissible to control someone else’s language and I’ve come to the conclusion they are merely aping their corporate overlords.

Monkey see, monkey say, if you will.

In my opinion the seed for this preposterous language control was planted in 2006 when Nintendo introduced its new gaming system, the Wii. Starting with the product rollout Nintendo caused controversy in my house as I displayed a Peterson–like resistance to corporate control of my vowels. Standard English pronunciation rules dictate ‘W–i–i’ is pronounced ‘W–eye’, with both ‘i’s being long.

Not so, according to Tokyo. Wikipedia informs us the Japanese decided ‘W–i–i’ was to be pronounced “W–ee” and the wikis even had the gall to use the preexisting English word ‘wee’ (meaning small) to illustrate how Nintendo wanted the name of their authoritarian Wii to be mispronounced.

Nintendo’s excuse for butchering the pronunciation of the language and fomenting disrespect among my children was the “two lower-case “i” characters are intended to resemble two people standing side-by-side, representing players gathering together…”

Instead, it looks to me like two intimidated customers cowering under the baleful glare of the boss–like Big W.

Even today when I use standard English pronunciation for ‘Wii’ I’m either instantly instructed to mispronounce the name or given an indulgent smile while my wife is asked if I display any other symptoms of Old Timer’s Disease.

Evidently, I should have made a bigger stink in 2006. Possibly held a demonstration in front of the Japanese embassy in Washington. Claimed Nintendo was “wii wii–ing on our language.” Enlisted the help of English teachers and speech therapists.

Now it’s just a short step from “Wii” control to “ze” control. I can understand how deluded people, who feel they are a woman in a man’s body, might live with a certain level of anger. It’s not like they can return to the customer service desk at the hospital and demand a new body.

What I don’t like is taking out their frustration on the rest of us and recruiting a pack of braying donkeys to make us conform.

Dragooning pronouns into a ginned up political controversy to give abnormals more power over normals will either push the culture one step closer to a not so soft totalitarianism or add more velocity to a potentially dangerous backlash.

Anthony Esolen, an author I admire, recently remarked on the class of individual that seeks to bend the culture to its constantly proliferating set of rules and regulations for the leftist life: “The politicization of everything makes human life unlivable. These people are a hundred times worse than what they believe Joe McCarthy to have been: they are censors without self–restraint, Puritans without God, libertines without pleasure, and eternal politicians without the least sense of what a polis really is. I would not call them a nest of vipers, because vipers are at least respectable in their straightforward malignity. They are a seething mass of poisonous worms.”

Advertisements

Surprised a Degraded Culture Produces Depraved Individuals?

gun control signLast Friday was evidently International Maniac Congruence Day. In Newtown a 20–year–old loser — whose newspaper photo bears a striking resemblance to the SS Totenkoph insignia — shot and killed 20 elementary school students and six adults. While in Chenpeng, China another maniac stabbed 22 children and one adult in an elementary school.

Yet there has been no outcry in China for more cutlery control and CNN International has not been broadcasting remote from outside the Henckels’ knife factory. In fact there has been scant coverage of the Chinese attack.

The obscure, knife–wielding Chinaman proves it’s not a weapon problem — it’s a maniac problem. For where there’s a maniacal will, there’s a maniacal way.

So in the wake of Newtown, I’ll endorse the first politician who designates schools as “maniac–free zones.” You may scoff, but this law will be just as effective as “gun–free zones” and has the added advantage of directly addressing the cause of the problem.

Banning “assault weapons” is a knee–jerk response from ideological jerks. It’s like treating a drunk for difficulties with his equilibrium, rather than talking about alcohol. What’s more, “assault weapons” have been banned in Connecticut since 1993 and a fat lot of good it did at Sandy Hook Elementary. The Bushmaster rifle used there was registered and legal. The only measurable effect discussions of an “assault weapon” ban have is increased gun and ammunition sales.

Another liberal bright idea is establishing a bag limit for mass shootings like we currently have for ducks. Duck hunters are often limited in the number of shells their shotgun magazine can hold. This encourages hunters to obey the law specifying the maximum number of ducks one is allowed to shoot.

The same logic applies to the limit on “high capacity magazines.” Unfortunately, limiting magazine size just means the shooter needs bigger pockets. Many semi–automatic pistols thoughtfully let you know when the magazine is empty by locking the slide back. One simply has to drop the empty and slap a full one in — a process taking under two seconds. Besides, I am unaware of any spree killing that ended prematurely because the gunman ran out of ammunition.

In 2011 there were 32,367 automobile deaths — more than three times the number of firearms murders. Based on gun control logic, we should also ban automobiles that look like racecars, because sleek design encourages drivers to go too fast.

No one bothers to ask why we have a rash of these mass killings now and not in the 60’s when there were no background checks and you could buy a handgun through the mail. As anti–gun legislation has become more pervasive so have spree killings.

An early WaPost article said the motivation for the murders remains a “mystery.” Maybe it’s a “mystery” for liberals, but not for those with common sense. If you’re a disaffected, disturbed loser, who wants the nation to feel his pain, you follow the template written by media vultures and go to the nearest sitting duck zone and start shooting.

The same saturation coverage that validates dollar store teddy bear memorials, validates the violence that inspires misguided bystanders to leave a mylar balloon as close to the bloodstains as the yellow police tape will allow.

An inconvenient element young spree killers have in common is violent, sadistic video games. Only a few years ago video game makers usually had a “gore filter” that a player could engage if he didn’t want to wallow in video dismemberment. Now popular and violent games have no way to turn down the violence or the language.

The only restraint the video game industry displays is a reluctance to design a “Columbine Shootout” game with a “Virginia Tech” add–on.

Bans on guns and magazine size are displacement activity. The Newtown shooter did not want for anything materially, but he was empty inside. These secular, suicide terrorists turn their video game room into a personal murder madrassah.

Liberals say censorship or even societal disapproval of violent video games is unnecessary because the vast majority of players simply use the games for fun and companionship — a justification that equally accurate when applied to the “assault weapon” owning community.

At its base this is a mental health problem and requires a mental health solution. Liberals aren’t afraid of crazy people, as long as they are confined to Occupy camps, but they are afraid of guns. In the 80’s liberals tried to ban the sale of cheap “Saturday night specials.” Now it’s expensive “assault weapons.” This demonization of guns transforms firearms into symbols of power, which only serves to attract the mentally unstable.

We live in a society where it’s now popular to take personal responsibility for carbonating your own beverages, but liberals demonize conservatives who wish to take responsibility for their own defense. If Mrs. Lanza had locked her guns away from her disturbed son, Newtown doesn’t happen.

All the liberals and all their laws can’t force people to exercise common sense.