Words Did Have Meanings - Not Anymore

There Are Two Americas

2/1/2018 - Derek Hunter Townhall.com

Remember John Edwards? The former Democratic Senator who was John Kerry’s running mate in 2004 and carried on an affair while his wife was fighting for her life? Yeah, that scumbag. Back before his being a scumbag was confirmed he ran for president in 2008 on the idea that there are “two Americas,” one rich and one poor. He was half-right; there are two Americas, but they aren’t divided by income, they’re divided by a willingness to live in reality.

This division has always existed, there have always been people who only see what they want to see. But those people used to be the fringe, the strange aunts and uncles who never married and every one gave a sigh of relief when they left family gatherings. 

It was fine while they wandered their personal Grey Gardens, but now they’ve entered the halls of power, or at least have become such a large part of the Democratic Party that elected officials are catering to them and demanding legislation to force us all to live in their perverted world. 

Words have meaning. If they didn’t, communication would be impossible. But liberals are now bastardizing those meanings to the point that communication with many liberals simply isn’t worth it. 

“Illegal alien” was the term used to describe, well, illegal aliens. It’s a term used commonly in law because it’s an accurate description. That was deemed “offensive” once Democrats decided to expand their victimhood identity politics stable and pander to Hispanics. It has since morphed from “illegal alien” to “undocumented alien,” then “undocumented migrant,” and now “undocumented resident,” like these illegal aliens are just someone who ran to Home Depot and forgot their wallet. 

“Chain migration” was a common term used to describe, well, chain migration – when someone immigrates to the country and then sponsors various family members they apparently can’t live without…except for the fact that they moved thousands of miles away from them, to another country. Then all of those people can help bring in other family members they can’t live without after moving away from them.

Republicans and Democrats used that term for decades because that is the term that describes it. Now it’s considered racist by leftists, which puts it on par with, quite honestly, everything and anything liberals don’t like. They prefer “family reunification” because it’s a subtle appeal to emotion, which overrides logic in people who don’t pay close attention to things. 

But no one wants to ask a simple question: If someone can’t live without their uncle, their grandparents, or cousins, why’d they move away from them? And why should anyone care that you can’t live without your extended family? You left them. If you miss them so much, why not go back? 

That’s racist to ask, according to our self-appointed moral arbiters on the left…who spent decades vomiting the talking point “You can’t legislate morality, nor should you try,” every time anything related to morals was discussed. But time, as with all things, changed. Now liberals want to legislate based on morality, but only their morality. And that morality demands the meaning of words change to fit what they want them to be.

What once everyone understood is now an ever-evolving mystery with no end. There used to be two genders, now there are dozens and not keeping current with whatever the latest created-on-a-whim term some patchouli-wearing, hyper-sensitive Brooklyn hipster creates to explain how their attention-seeking mind feels on a random Tuesday afternoon is a hate crime.

Words no longer have meaning. And without words having meanings, what does? How can people communicate when they both speak the same language but the words mean different things to them?

The answer is you can’t. 

Maybe the further answer is you shouldn’t? 

I don’t know. Watching CNN or MSNBC is like looking into an alternate universe. I’m sure the same is true when a liberal watches Fox. How can you reconcile with someone who can’t comprehend how you view the world?

How do you compromise with someone who wants the exact opposite of what you want? There’s no middle-ground with someone who wants the government to do something about an issue you believe the government has no business being involved with. 

One side wants an ever-growing government with tentacles into all aspects of the economy, society, and your life. The other side wants the government to be limited to the powers clearly laid out in the Constitution and to otherwise be left alone. There is no compromise between those two desires. It’s a zero-sum game, if someone wins that means someone has to lose. And as words have their meanings changed to suit the political whims of the moment by one side, there are becoming fewer and fewer ways to even talk about it. I don’t know where it leads, or how soon it will get there, but it sure doesn’t look good.