We need more intolerance.

One of the primary tenets of marxism is dialectic materialism. It suggests that one's interpretation is the most valid analysis of reality. In other words, how the observer interprets an event or an idea is the structural basis for reality. Facts don't matter. How one "feels" about something is the true validity. This marxist application is most evident in how liberals/progressives/marxists use language. What one feels about something trumps what "is." They have co-opted much of our present English language by twisting and changing formerly clear consensual definitions into words and phrases that are loaded with distortions.

One such word is "tolerance."

Tolerance used to imply that we give someone the benefit of the doubt before we rush to a hasty judgement about them. Tolerance was encouraged when we would encounter someone different from us, but whose idiosyncrosies took no "skin off my nose." Being tolerant meant that we would be civil...to a point. Now, tolerance is a synonym for license. No behavior (acceptable to progressives) is to be condemned. Any lifestyle choice, personal choice or political preference (if progressives approve) is to be protected from criticism, and the critic is ostracized as "intolerant." If one controls the language, then one writes the rules.

The leftists have in a significant way seized the language. When people of reason and common sense engage lefties in a debate about public policy, the deck is stacked by the twisting and distortion of the language. Either the conservative uses words as they have been historically, or avoids certain buzz-words because the progressives own them. Either way, the conservative arsenal is compromised. In my view, it's time to reclaim the language. The time has come to "call out" the progressives, and fight to restore our language. If we don't, then every piece of legislation and every judicial decision is open to "interpretation."

It seems so petty to be examining language and linguistic contortionism when so many major issues are at stake, but any slight victory will be easily negated by some minor functionary, some bill-drafting staffer, or some gung-ho law clerk. So, let's stop speaking the language of the Hill, and begin with straight monosyllabic unambiguous talk. We must be intolerant of fuzzy defining.