What liberals do to words ought to be a crime. They debase them–as they’ve done, for instance, to “justice”–and then turn them on us. They know they’ve won when they hear us misusing the word as they misuse it.
For some time the use of the word “partner” instead of “husband” or “wife” has raised my hackles. Today I figured out why.
In a little news item about some actor and his “partner,” we saw the word denoted his girlfriend with whom he was shacked up without benefit of marriage or even a pretense of marriage. But it could have been another man, an inflatable doll, or a tubful of squid. Because “partner,” after what the libs have done to it, can now mean anyone or anything.
What “partner” does–and what we do, when we break down and use it–is to imply that all sexual relationships are morally equal and, indeed, indistinguishable from one another–and anyway you must be a Biggit if you even try to distinguish one from another. The same word covers ’em all with the same blanket of acceptance.
I will try never to use that word in that sense anymore.
First they poison the language, then they poison the culture.
In the picture above, the phrase ‘jumped the broom’ is one I thankfully had never heard. In fact, I really don’t understand it in this context at all. Call me dense, but it just doesn’t compute.
Is it anything like “jumped the shark”?
I really have no idea whatsoever.
“Jumping the broom” refers to an old marriage custom among some communities, in which the bride and groom literally jumped over a broomstick. I’ve read different reasons for this: establishing domesticity, sweeping away the past and starting anew (cf. “a new broom sweeps clean”), and even establishing a marriage where there are no ministers to do the ceremony.
This is just more weirdness. Actually, I am surprised that they can even spell these words. I have read two documents in the last two days that
had some of the simplest words mis-spelled. These are, no doubt, college educated whiz kids. uggghh.
The substitution of the word partner is just another example of diluting the culture by diluting the language. A truly sad state of affairs.
An annoying side effect of these assaults on the language is that the true meaning of the abused word is no longer available, or, at the very least, the word becomes so ambiguous as to be virtually unavailable. With “partner,” it’s impossible to tell whether the reference to someone’s “partner” in a startup business is a spouse, a sex partner or a business partner. And note that I didn’t say “lover” rather than “sex partner,” because there’s precious little “love” in some of those “partnerships,” and anyway, even the sexual connotation of “lover” presumed a liaison outside of marriage or even live-in arrangements. So there’s another word ruined.
I also lament the unavailability of the word “gay.” There simply is no substitute for the old word “gay.” (Think: “Don we now our gay apparel,” for example.)
Look what they’ve done to the word “smart.”
Yeah, they’ve confused smart with the imbecilic actions of a programmed piece of equipment. Nothing related to computers is truly smart. Computers process information, but they have zero judgment and no ability to employ intuition, both of which are traits needed for true intelligence.
One other abuse of the concept of smartness is the confusing of what passes for formal education as a substitute for true understanding of a subject. Many of today’s graduates seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
And of course there’s “smart growth”–a euphemism for corrupt politicians and amoral developers wrecking your town.
In a similar vein (the jugular, perhaps), “common sense” has been abused so badly that whenever I hear someone talk about needing a “common sense law” for something, I know I’m about to hear an emotional, irrational proposal for an unnecessary or even tyrannical piece of legislation.
Not to mention, “If it saves just one life [or whatever], this law has to be passed!”