The Ancients on Why Saying “Radical Islamic Terrorism” Isn’t Trivial, But Fundamental

 

Did he say it or not? “Trump called on Muslims to confront ‘the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamist and Islamic terror of all kinds.'” Peepul, peepul, peepul; It counts, ok? He effectively said it.

We’re coming up to the one year anniversary of the Pulse night club attack, which weighed heavily on our minds during the election campaign. Now here we are with President Trump delivering his first foreign speech, on Islam, in the Arabian capital. As Larry Arn likes to say, something fundamental is afoot (just look at the travel itinerary). Recall DJT’s statement after the attack in Orlando:

“Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.

“In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam’. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.”

To which President Obama replied:

“Let me make a final point, for a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’. That’s the key they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islam.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish and what will it change? Will it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring more allies for military strategy than it is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

President Obama committed two sleights of hand that reversed the truth. First, he made it seem like he had no problem saying the words by saying them in a consequence and implication free context. He did not say it in relation to a threat we face, but in relation to what someone else said about him. Thus, it’s meaningless. Second, he was the one who insisted that calling the threat by a different name will make it go away.

The obvious question was: if it doesn’t make a difference then why not just say it? The answer: it does make a difference.

Every society that has either faced serious threats or produced any lasting wisdom has grappled with this question. In ancient Greek philosophical circles there was the idea (attributed to Socrates but hard to pin down exactly) that “the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” In Indian philosophy everything in existence is categorized into padarthas. Padartha is pada (word) and artha (meaning). So, to understand anything it has to first be categorized and named correctly. The oral Vedic tradition stresses the right pronunciation of words.

In the Bible what is the very first thing God does? He labels things. He calls things what they are by giving them words and pronouncing their names. When He does, He is then able to make the judgement “it is good”, thus implying that there is evil and that it is distinct and has its own set of correct words.

In ancient Rome, Marcus Aurelius wondered during one of his many military campaigns, “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what is its causal nature or form? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?” In his pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, and in dealing with Rome’s enemies, he knew that first he must call things what they are.

In the annals of American philosophy we have “calling a spade a spade”, “keeping it real”, and “it is what it is.” And of course, “the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.” (Oh yeah this, too.)

But the man who best tied this to statecraft was Confucius. In his “Rectify The Names” passage, he says,

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done goes undone. If this remains undone, morals and mores deteriorate. If morals and mores deteriorate, punishments will not be properly awarded. If punishments are not properly awarded, the people will stand in helpless confusion. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”

This recognition of the power of properly naming things led to, among other things, a practice of name taboos for emperors in which he would take several different public names for different settings. Prominent public figures would also take nicknames, noms de plume and aliases and keep their real names hidden. A trait that can be found across cultures is the belief that not using or concealing a person’s real name protected them from curses or evil forces.

You’ll recognize this phenomenon in Harry Potter. Everyone in the magic world refuses to say Voldemort’s name in the beginning, for fear that the very act of pronouncing his name gives him extra power, and not saying his name means everyone can put off confronting his immanent return for just a little while longer. Perhaps if we don’t name radical Islam and name its war on the West, we won’t have to deal with it?

When President Obama refused to say radical Islam is our enemy and that we are at war with it, he violated deeply embedded, ancient rules of human perception, knowledge and the ability to act accordingly with them.

“Hindrance to the perceptions of sense is an evil to the animal nature.” Marcus Aurelius says. That is, any living creature that denies what its eyes perceive will face harm or death as a result. “Hindrance to the movements is equally an evil to the animal nature. And something else also is equally an impediment and evil to the constitution of plants. So then that which is a hindrance to the intelligence is an evil to the intelligent nature.” When a Muslim commits an act of mass murder and himself says he does so in the name of Islam, and pledges allegiance to a world wide Islamic movement, you are not only insulting my intelligence to insist otherwise, but you are doing evil to intelligence itself. (Yes yes yes but NAXALT, man.)

George Bush was guilty of the same thing. “The War on Terror” was a fundamental mis-naming about which Donald Rumsfeld said “Saying we were in a war on terrorism was like saying we were in a war against bombers or we were waging a war on tanks…”

It goes further. Our refusal to name the enemy is getting people abused and killed. From the Fort Hood shooting, to Chattanooga, to the Boston Bombing, to the Rotherham sex ring, to San Bernardino, to Orlando – in all of these situations there was a point when someone wanted to say something but didn’t for fear of being accused of some form of bigotry. The result is a mound of bodies and fractured lives.

Roughly half the country refused to correctly identify what happened in Orlando. Thus, we had the embarrassing spectacle of House Democrats holding the world’s dumbest sleepover party. Or as Guy Benson put it, the ugly sight of a civil rights hero (John Lewis) going full circle and participating in Congress’ first anti-civil rights sit-in. It’s enough to make you want to shout reality at their faces.

According to the left, to say “radical Islamic terrorism” is offensive and only serves to radicalize even more otherwise moderate Muslims to want to commit violence. But, what to make then of the fact that the rulers of Arabia and Islam’s holiest cities so heartily and lavishly welcomed the man who insisted on saying those words? What are the billion+ Muslims who watched all this thinking?

Confucius made his rectify the names remark when China was split into numerous rival states. He was asked to advise one of the new emerging states on what they had to do to rule successfully. The first thing he said in his diagnosis was that the old dynasty had lost touch with reality by coming up with all sorts of convoluted names for things (workplace violence, overseas contingency, Department of War Department of Defense, quantitative easing).

The very first order of business was to call things what they are, then the warring states could be united again.

​”Something fundamental is afoot”, and a rectification of names has come not just to the culturally warring states of America, but the world.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    This is an excellent summary of why wisdom would have us call things by what they are.

    A is A.

    Well done.

    • #1
  2. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    ChrisFujita: Did he say it or not? “Trump called on Muslims to confront ‘the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamist and Islamic terror of all kinds.’” Peepul, peepul, peepul; It counts, ok? He effectively said it.

    I agree he effectively said it, but it would have been better if he actually did that way people couldn’t complain at all. Especially since he had previously said that Obama must use the term  ‘Radical Islam’. Well, one might ask if terrorism is really only for radical islamists. Nowadays that seems questionable but we can have hope that it will be again only the radicals. That is besides the point however as it would have been even better if he had just used to term to be done with it but it doesn’t matter since it is not the words themselves but rather the meaning they convey that is important.

    ChrisFujita:But the man who best tied this to statecraft was Confucius. In his “Rectify The Names” passage, he says,

    “If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done goes undone.

    Indeed, this is a real issue that affects more than just terrorism.

    ChrisFujita: It goes further. Our refusal to name the enemy is getting people abused and killed.

    I this is good to say, but incomplete. It is not the name, but the meaning that the name contains. Which is why this next statement is so important.

    ChrisFujita: Roughly half the country refused to correctly identify what happened in Orlando.

    This is the issue. The reason Trump not using “radical islam terror” and instead using “the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamist and Islamic terror of all kinds. ” is just not important is that the meaning is correct. The name is unimportant without the meaning.

    The meaning of a ideological worldview predicated on violence and world domination is what we should “correctly identify ” rather than sitting around worrying about which name was used.

    • #2
  3. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Excellent writing and I get to disagree with it? Truly a Mitzvah. In essence, I have your thesis at sugar-coating terminology fundamentally alters risk perception — which is something I absolutely agree with and believe we should take great effort to be accurate in our words.

    Still, mandatory words and definitions rankle me a bit, not only as a shell-shocked former Lefty who despises PC-culture. And my argument against is still the same here: language shouldn’t be forced in any manner, especially as a measure for security. Because rather than sacrificing ethics for safety, you are in fact doing just the opposite by handcuffing language and thereby limiting the specifics which bring about the only real measure of safety provided by language: detail.

    Risk perception, without going into a full yawner about Heuristics, is a complex and shifting psychological processing of immense data that goes into assessing danger. From our own experiences of reward and penalty from risk to what we learn to avoid or fear — speculative threats are naturally the most unnerving. As they undermine our confidence in navigating the accepted risks we must participate in daily to survive, like driving to work. Its natural to want to stick a definitive label on such an abhorrent danger like what happened in Orlando or San Bernadino — we feel we’ll be able to handle it when we are able to identify it — thus making it an acceptable risk.

    Problem is, Radical Islam doesn’t define the events that transpired to bring about the tragedies in Boston, Orlando, or San Bernadino. While it may work for what they ended up being, it is problematic, even dangerous to conceptualize it as Radical Islam in identifying its development or even seeing it coming. In all three tragedies, there was a process of radicalization in the terrorists and while they carried out their atrocities in the name of ISIL, their targets were motivated by resentment and aggression they developed prior to radicalization. Its possible it was the motivation to radicalization.

    As for ISIL, naming them Radical Islam is not only not helpful, its giving them exactly what they want. They are a bizarre distortion of the religion called Wahhabism an anti-Sunni, anti-Saudi Arabia sect that continues to get more insane in every permutation. Their goal is to purge Sunnis by desecrating their faith and status until inciting a World War that brings about endtimes. They are less Radical Islam than they are Satanic. But calling them Radical Islam and homogenizing their beliefs with traditional Sunnis or Shiites for that matter, is exactly their goal. By perpetrating vile, cowardly attacks and searching for recruits — probably using the same type of psychological profiling I did in my work with violent youth.

    Which says a lot about their relationship with the Islamic faith. They know their only path to uniting all Muslims is inciting the West to name Islam as its enemy in War.

    Great piece. Got me thinking. Thanks.

    • #3
  4. TheRightNurse Member
    TheRightNurse
    @TheRightNurse

    It is not something I have done much or really ever before, but I am a bisexual single mom.  The Pulse nightclub attack was important not just because it was terror, but because it was an attack against the expression of sexuality in a free country.  People may judge, people may not approve.  But people may not kill.

    Islamic extremism not only states that killing is right, but that it is necessary.  People like me and others should not live a life in a peace, but should be destroyed.  We should not be converted (the horror!), but should die painfully, rather than live in a civilized society where people can exist one another, side by side, right and left, enjoying the glory of alcohol.

    I always feel odd saying anything.  Conservative bisexuals are like unicorns: we’re really not supposed to exist, but it’s a lovely idea, right? But ultimately, I do still exist.  Calling things what they are clarifies and identifies them.

    I am.

    And that should be enough for our country to protect my God-given rights.

    • #4
  5. TheRightNurse Member
    TheRightNurse
    @TheRightNurse

    JLock (View Comment):
    Still, mandatory words and definitions rankle me a bit, not only as a shell-shocked former Lefty who despises PC-culture. And my argument is still the same here, language shouldn’t be forced in any manner but especially as a measure for security. Because rather than sacrificing ethics for safety, you are in fact doing just the opposite by handcuffing language and thereby the specifics which bring about the only real measure of safety provided by language: detail.

    So then what?  We use wishy-washy words to define it with feeling phrases?  I assure you, the terrorists involved in fundamental Islamism, do not care if we feel for them or not.  So we should then, not define it…for safety?

    How does that work, exactly?  Because if we don’t know what it is…we…can…what exactly?

     

    • #5
  6. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse
    • #6
  7. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    When we are defining knowledge as weakness, we are truly lost indeed.

    • #7
  8. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    Still, mandatory words and definitions rankle me a bit, not only as a shell-shocked former Lefty who despises PC-culture. And my argument is still the same here, language shouldn’t be forced in any manner but especially as a measure for security. Because rather than sacrificing ethics for safety, you are in fact doing just the opposite by handcuffing language and thereby the specifics which bring about the only real measure of safety provided by language: detail.

    So then what? We use wishy-washy words to define it with feeling phrases? I assure you, the terrorists involved in fundamental Islamism, do not care if we feel for them or not. So we should then, not define it…for safety?

    How does that work, exactly? Because if we don’t know what it is…we…can…what exactly?

    It’s not about specific terms, it’s about using whatever the best, most descriptive terms are. What is the difference between saying terrorist versus jihadi. I think the latter is more descriptive. So, it is not necessary to use the term terrorist. Saying jihadi should do just as well I think. Especially since, as was pointed out, creating a war on terror just isn’t going to work. But maybe a war on islamic jihadis might.

    So, I am with @jlock when he says he doesn’t like manditory words. I agree. Lets not constrain ourselves to the terms we use currently so that if ever a better term comes along, we can adept without arguing that we didn’t use the right term.

    The problem to look out for is when some people use terms that aren’t as descriptive or as well known in order to confuse, hide, or misdirect attention from what people need to identify as truth.

    • #8
  9. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    JLock (View Comment):
    ISIL’s sect wants us to recognize them and Islam together.

    What is the right term? I think you used Wahhabism but I have also heard Islamism or Islamist as a catch for all the ideologies that pursue Islamic world dominance?

    • #9
  10. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    ModEcon (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    ISIL’s sect wants us to recognize them and Islam together.

    What is the right term? I think you used Wahhabism but I have also heard Islamism or Islamist as a catch for all the ideologies that pursue Islamic world dominance?

    I have no idea. And I think that’s part of their plan. I’m not going to lie — its an exhausting exercise to keep all this crap properly sorted. But its the leverage they have as an eschatological sect with suicide missions and internet outreach.

    Perhaps its easier to just say that by defining it all as Radical Islam, that is only what we look for — and by that time its far too late.

    • #10
  11. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    JLock (View Comment):
    Wishy-washy is the reverse, I want to be direct and clear because from that comes detail. Saying Radical Islam merely as an exercise of opposition is not only useless, its dangerous, and the right’s version of PC-culture.

    I agree that using words as labels or as posturing is the opposite of clarity.  Our goal should be to clearly identify facts and state them in a way that is clear.

    • #11
  12. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Excellent post!  But just identifying doesn’t go far enough.  It’s not just identifying Islamic terrorism that is needed.  Leaders need to point out the texts and theology on which this ideology is based and to either challenge the Islamic leaders to reform Islam or persuade Muslims to convert.  The world leaders need to draw out the language inside the Koran and the other Islamic texts that is evil and light must be shined on that evil.

    We have similar posts; mine is here.

    • #12
  13. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    JLock (View Comment):
    They are a bizarre distortion of the religion called Wahhabism an anti-Sunni, anti-Saudi Arabia sect that continues to get more insane in every permutation.

    That must come as news to the Saud family since it is the official sect of the kingdom. Most of the clerics in Mecca are Wahabbists. Which is a huge part of the problem.

    Bernard Lewis wrote that the Saudis were funding a strain of Islam (the Wahhabists) that was analogous to the funding of the KKK in Christianity.

    • #13
  14. Franz Drumlin Inactive
    Franz Drumlin
    @FranzDrumlin

    “I will call them from now on losers, because that’s what they are. They’re losers. And we’ll have more of them. But they’re losers. Remember that.”

    Those of us who criticize Donald Trump are beholden to praise him when he gets it right, and his response to the atrocity in Manchester has been heartening. He is not the most eloquent of speakers but the moment does not call for eloquence. It demands, apropos to this excellent post, that our leaders describe what they see before them. Very few have, President Trump has. Well done, sir.

    • #14
  15. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Wendell Berry  said: the world is babbled  by the divorce of things from their names.

    Some recent celebrity divorces: Marriage. Woman. And yes, radical Islamic terrorism.

    I really have to laugh about this thing with “they’ll think we’re their enemies!”

    And then what?  They might start killing us in large numbers? How much worse could things get?

    • #15
  16. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Yeesh, talk about thread-jacking. Where did Chris say anything about mandating that “Islamic terrorism” be used? I think his point was, it’s significant that the President of the United States used it, especially in this context. I consider it no less important that he used “good” and “evil” and “decent people” and “drive them out…”

    I’m guessing the intellectual word obsessives among us mostly consider DT inartful when he’s not being inarticulate, but I find his bluntness and honesty refreshing. Especially in comparison to the last eight years of oleaginous obsequiousness, but, even prior to the O, American presidents have mostly failed to speak with such candor.

     

     

    • #16
  17. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Clavius (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    Wishy-washy is the reverse, I want to be direct and clear because from that comes detail. Saying Radical Islam merely as an exercise of opposition is not only useless, its dangerous, and the right’s version of PC-culture.

    I agree that using words as labels or as posturing is the opposite of clarity. Our goal should be to clearly identify facts and state them in a way that is clear.

    I did a little research and apparently they hate the designation Wahhabism and prefer other variants listed in the article. If I were in charge, I would monitor for those chosen names, looking for further permutations, while publicly announcing gifts to Sunnis everywhere anytime the Wahhabism Ladyboys misbehave.

    Having worked a long time with idiotic and churlish miscreants, this would return some leverage — but no one ever wants to dig in and try something new when it comes to this stuff.

    • #17
  18. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Hypatia (View Comment):
     

    I really have to laugh about this thing with “they’ll think we’re their enemies!”

    And then what? They might start killing us in large numbers? How much worse could things get?

    Anonymous quote about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. 

    • #18
  19. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    JLock (View Comment):
    Even Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are against them. And also 99% of Muslims around the world who are against all three.

    Where, then, are the Muslim world’s battalions?    Call me when they arrive on the field.

    • #19
  20. JLock Inactive
    JLock
    @CrazyHorse

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    JLock (View Comment):
    Even Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are against them. And also 99% of Muslims around the world who are against all three.

    Where, then, are the Muslim world’s battalions? Call me when they arrive on the field.

    I’m not here to do everyone’s critical thinking just to get piled on some more. You are confusing strategy for sympathy. One of the worst things I had to escape from the ghetto to get into higher learning was the violent beatdowns for being smart. Been there, took my licks, hell gave some back, and ain’t gonna suffer that crap again. Let’s call a spade a spade: do you wanna save lives or be mad?

    One last quote from antiquity before I officially resign from caring about the course of human events:

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

    • #20
  21. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    JL (View Comment):
    You are confusing strategy for sympathy.

    There is an old saying from baseball.    You are the player the back of your baseball card says you are.   You can say “I’m a better hitter than that.” Or “My defense is better than I showed today” you can protest all you want.    But if you career numbers show you hit .215 and averaged 40 errors then you know what?    You weren’t a better player than that.

    Same Thing with the sympathy vs strategy.     They can say “We don’t sympathize with ISIS or Al Qaeda” or whomever.   But until they do some of the heavy lifting against them it’s all just talk.    They are who their baseball card says they are.

    • #21
  22. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    JL (View Comment):
    Their goal is to purge Sunnis by desecrating their faith and status until inciting a World War that brings about endtimes.

    Wow, I think you’re taking liberties by narrowing their motivations. Why would it not be accurate to say they’re hoping to establish a worldwide caliphate and bring about the End Times with the side-benefit of purging their Sunni opponents? Do you have an original source that indicates they’re intentionally desecrating their faith in order to purge the Sunnis? I find that a bit of a stretch.

    Here’s the thing. If Muslim majority societies were pluralistic and tolerant of non-Muslims, if their women weren’t subjugated and abused, if they weren’t scourging gays caught in the act, or stoning rape victims — if fatwas weren’t issued against authors for writing unflattering novels, or if people were free to convert away without fear of having their heads lopped off, I might believe ISIS is a desecration of Islam. But…

    As Drew Klavan says, Islamic supremacist terror is one of two things: it’s either a natural outgrowth of an oppressive ideology (my belief), or it’s a cancer on an otherwise sound religion. Until proven otherwise, I think the evidence supports the former.

    Standard Disclaimer: This does not mean to suggest that all Muslims are wicked oppressors. M’kay?

    • #22
  23. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I remember having a discussion with someone who didn’t like my using the word genocide in Rwanda, because genocide is such a  triggering word. So she suggested that instead I could call it “a situation where a million people were killed in three months.” Makes sense to me.

    • #23
  24. JL Inactive
    JL
    @CrazyHorse

    Apologies to the OP for the muck. Really an excellent post that had a great chance for discussion — but this is the inevitable consequence when you restrict language — no matter the validation.

    See ya!

    • #24
  25. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):
    It is not something I have done much or really ever before, but I am a bisexual single mom. The Pulse nightclub attack was important not just because it was terror, but because it was an attack against the expression of sexuality in a free country…Conservative bisexuals are like unicorns: we’re really not supposed to exist, but it’s a lovely idea, right? But ultimately, I do still exist. Calling things what they are clarifies and identifies them.

    I am.

    And that should be enough for our country to protect my God-given rights.

    My goodness, what a post! Thank you for integrity.  I know more than a few conservative bisexuals, homosexuals and polyamorists.  A true Conservative, as opposed to a tax-hating busybody, has no interest in his neighbors’ sexuality so long as private affairs remain  private. A true Conservatives lives and lets live.

    Good for you, RightNurse.

    • #25
  26. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    JL (View Comment):
    So the bastard who perpetrated the Pulse shooting was at first reportedly conflicted about his sexuality, by his ex-wife that claimed he had gay affairs. Several others said he visited the club before, his former friend from police academy said he made a pass at him, and an informant claimed to have had relations with him, saying he exposed him to HIV — provoking his hatred of the gay hispanic scene in Orlando. Although 90% (and likely all targeted) of the victims were Hispanic, he was HIV-negative upon autopsy and the FBI says it didn’t find any credibility in the claims.

    Back to risk perception and accepted risks, this goes into how we call a spade a spade. I’m definitely not advocating gun control but I’m also not going to ignore what could have prevented that tragedy would help prevent future ones.

    Not bringing his Afghani parents to the USA, or not allowing him back in after his terror training in Pakistan would have been true root-cause preventions.   Applies to so many of our terror abominations.

    • #26
  27. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    TheRightNurse (View Comment):
    It is not something I have done much or really ever before, but I am a bisexual single mom. The Pulse nightclub attack was important not just because it was terror, but because it was an attack against the expression of sexuality in a free country…Conservative bisexuals are like unicorns: we’re really not supposed to exist, but it’s a lovely idea, right? But ultimately, I do still exist. Calling things what they are clarifies and identifies them.

    I am.

    And that should be enough for our country to protect my God-given rights.

    My goodness, what a post! Thank you for integrity. I know more than a few conservative bisexuals, homosexuals and polyamorists. A true Conservative, as opposed to a tax-hating busybody, has no interest in his neighbors’ sexuality so long as private affairs remain private. A true Conservatives lives and lets live.

    Good for you, RightNurse.

    Yes, exactly.  I can’t comprehend this manufactured victim hood of some gay or bi people.  No one in this country cares who anyone wants to establish a household with, or have sex with ,or from what position.   They don’t.  Everyone is free to live as he or she desires. That’s basically the conservative worldview.

    But that’s not enough for the Left; acceptance isn’t enough, we all have to celebrate everyone else’s proclivities–and be punished if we’d rather just live and let live.    Nuh-uh.

    • #27
  28. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    A true Conservative, as opposed to a tax-hating busybody, has no interest in his neighbors’ sexuality so long as private affairs remain private. A true Conservatives lives and lets live.

    Hear hear!  Well said.

    • #28
  29. ChrisFujita Inactive
    ChrisFujita
    @ChrisFujita

    JL (View Comment):
    Excellent writing and I get to disagree with it? Truly a Mitzvah.

    Much appreciated!

    Still, mandatory words and definitions rankle me a bit, not only as a shell-shocked former Lefty who despises PC-culture. And my argument against is still the same here: language shouldn’t be forced in any manner, especially as a measure for security. Because rather than sacrificing ethics for safety, you are in fact doing just the opposite by handcuffing language and thereby limiting the specifics which bring about the only real measure of safety provided by language: detail.

    I don’t mean to say that these specific words should be forced or that they are the only ones we can use, I’m just using the ones that have been so hotly debated. Indeed, I think Trump saying ‘‘the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamist and Islamic terror of all kinds” suffices just fine.

    As for ISIL, naming them Radical Islam is not only not helpful, its giving them exactly what they want….But calling them Radical Islam and homogenizing their beliefs with traditional Sunnis or Shiites for that matter, is exactly their goal…

    Like Klavan often says, I’m all for having this debate on whether violence is built into Islam or is an aberration, but it remains a reality that we have a terrorist movement motivated by Islam.

    • #29
  30. ChrisFujita Inactive
    ChrisFujita
    @ChrisFujita

    JL (View Comment):
    Apologies to the OP for the muck. Really an excellent post that had a great chance for discussion — but this is the inevitable consequence when you restrict language — no matter the validation.

    See ya!

    No worries! I’m glad to see the comments – I enjoyed them all. Lots to think about.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.