If the state claims the authority to revise the meanings of words like marriage, male, and female, where will it stop? It will call “hatred” or “bigotry” a woman’s discomfort at having to share a bathroom or locker room with a male who says he is a female. It says that a man may make up his own definition of female and that you have to respect his definition and not impose your own. But it’s not your definition; it’s the common definition of generations.
Language predates state. But when the state insists it can overturn our common language and impose its own, that’s a power grab, a dangerous form of totalitarianism, is it not?More.
Reality check: For many years, people have argued whether Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World would be our final dystopia. When I studied the matter, I found that the answer is, both.
The main reason is a change Orwell didn’t foresee plus one Huxley didn’t foresee.
Orwell did not foresee a future where government did not need proles (automation plus foreign labour greatly reduces the need for workers here). Huxley didn’t foresee the need for huge crackdowns on traditional rights and freedoms (because his population was genetically and environmentally programmed not to need that).
So we get Brave New World’s population ruled by 1984’s Big Government. Look around you.
See also: Bloomberg rips campus political correctness yet he himself sponsored the war on soda pop As long as someone is bossing you and me around on even the most minor decisions, it may as well be him, right?
Follow UD News at Twitter!