Guest Post by Eric Peters
Isn’t it insufferable?
The way reasonable aversion to the things being pushed on us – such as mRNA drugs – is framed as being “hesitant”? Implying a kind of doltish, obdurate, low-IQ reluctance to accept something beneficial.
Then there was “mask opposition defiant disorder” – the etymological effort to frame anyone who refused to pretend they were psychologically ill (i.e., a pathological hypochondriac) as psychologically ill!
The pathological specialize in such mind-fuckery. Objective reality is not just turned upside down, you are cat-called for failing to go along with it.
Similarly, this business of range and charge “anxiety.” It smacks of unreasonable timorousness. What are you afraid of? Of a piece with “transphobia” – implying (directly accusing, in fact) people who are annoyed by mentally disturbed men who believe they are women – and mentally disturbed women who believe they are men – are scared of them. So as to frame them as weak-minded and petty. So as to elevate mentally unstable people to a kind of aggrieved nobility,
And so it is with EVs.
“Anxiety” about the limited range of battery powered devices – about the fact that they require you to plan your life around recharging them and waiting for them – is nothing of the sort. It is reasonable aversion to wasting one’s time. Especially when it is not necessary. Especially when it is avoidable. Is the person who avoids a long checkout line in favor a shorter one “anxious”? Or is he just wanting to not stand in line for longer than necessary?
Is the person who object to being pushed into an inferior form of transportation a ninny because he dislikes the pushing? No, silly you. He is merely . . . “anxious.” He will come around in time. Cue gentle pat on the head,.
A key tactic of the pushers of things is to mock those who object to being pushed. It is not a new tactic. It’s been in use for decades. Are you someone who objects to paying your “fair share” in taxes? The shaming implication being obvious. You are wanting to deny others what it rightfully theirs. Never mind that that they didn’t earn it. You owe them a “fair share” of it. That is the predicate for criminalizing the not-handing-over of all of it.
Do you object to legally enforced – that is to say, institutional – policies that specifically favor people of one race over another? Then – assuming you are white – you are a “racist.” If you are black or some other legally privileged minority who defends/advocates such privileges for people who happen to be one color rather than another, you’re not.
“Diversity” works the same way. That is to say, one way.
Do you object to women being given special legal privileges at the expense of men, simply because they are women? Then you are a “misogynist.” You dislike women. As opposed to disliking the idea of giving them the preferential treatment because they are women that women used to object to when it was given to men.
What comes around does not go around.
Are you skeptical about assertions made that the “climate” is “changing”? Why, you must be a denier. With all the ugly connotations that carries.
R. Emmet Tyrrell of the The American Spectator had a word for all of this. He called it the kultursmog – a neologism which means what it sounds like it means, with a German accent. The culture is awash in the etymological smog of the Left; this pollution of language is now so pervasive that it has become the environment in which we swim, without us even noticing we’re mired in it.
Note the way even the putative opponents of the Left regularly use the language of the Left when trying to argue with the Left or oppose Leftism. This makes it much harder to argue with the Left, having already implicitly agreed with the Left. As, for example, “your” mask. The one the Leftist insisted you wear. Well, it’s yours, isn’t it? So put it on! How about “our democracy,” the term currently being emitted by Leftists everywhere? It means their control of the apparatus of government, of course. But if you make the mistake of saying the words you have already agreed with the Left that America is a country in which the majority rules – rather than a constitutionally limited republic specifically designed to prevent the majority from lording it over the minority.
How is a person born in the United States – whose parents and their parents were also born in the United States – who happens to black an “African-American”? He isn’t, of course. So don’t say he is. Just as you would not say a person who was born in the United States – whose parents and their parents were also born in the United States – who happens to be white is a “European-American.”
Call bullshit on bullshit being the lesson here.
And that goes double-plus good for the bullshit about range and charge “anxiety.”
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Administrator
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.theburningplatform.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.