Democrats Attempt to Alter Our Language in Real Time in Order to Scorch Amy Coney Barrett

Charles Krupa

 

Outlets upset over the use of an ‘offensive’ phrase are oblivious to their own use of the same words.

It sounds like an Orwellian comedy routine that would be a better fit on a cable comedy network, except for the disqualifying detail that we are instead watching this play out on C-SPAN. The Democrats, in a grasping-flailing attempt to shake the monolithic countenance of Amy Coney Barrett, are so lost on harming her based on her record that they are resorting to redefining English in order to find a way to score a hit on her character. The desperation has spread as far as rewriting the dictionary. Yes, literally.

The issue first began to percolate on social media early Tuesday when MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin stipulated that when ACB used the term ‘’sexual preference’’ she was employing an outdated and offensive term. Soon others in the media were echoing this charge, once again displaying the contemporary resistance from our press members to engage in the once-common practice in journalism known as ‘’research’’. 

This accusation took root to the extent that by the afternoon, as the confirmation questioning continued, Senator Mazie Hirono latched onto the outrage. She challenged ACB on her use of this newly christened offense, forcing a tepid apology from the judge, but in so doing kicking off another firestorm on social media. As more people latched onto the movement it became all the more ridiculous. How was it that a term that as of this past weekend was considered commonplace and innocuous had somehow been morphed — literally overnight — into an epithet?

The answer: Sheer partisan desperation.

The Democrats and the media had been incapable of shaking ACB on the stand so they had to invent an offense out of whole cloth. The problem with this new social offense is that it withers under the barest of introspection. If this is so offensive then how is it that Joe Biden was not on the receiving end of corrective outrage when used the phrase this summer? In speaking at a video roundtable with the African American representatives from the state of Florida, in May, he said:

  • ‘’I’m going to need you to help this time rebuild the backbone of this country, the middle class, but this time bring everybody along — regardless of color, sexual preference, their background — just bring everybody along…’’

Take a look at just some of the outlets that are supposed to be ‘’in the know’’ when it comes to LGBTQ sensabilities, yet have relented on using the exact phrase that Coney Barrett is being strung up for uttering. Slate, The United Nations, and even a LGBTQ network Logo TV have been in on it. This is not a case of delving back decades to find stray examples; these outlets have used the term this year.

The farcical charge was most roundly revealed when the nation’s largest and longest running LGBTQ magazine, The Advocate, weighed in on the matter. In a column covering ACB’s verbal controversy, headlined, Amy Coney Barrett Blasted for Anti-LGBTQ+ Term ‘Sexual Preference’ it went on to describe what was said.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett spent much of Tuesday’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee trying to avoid stating how she would rule on marriage equality, abortion rights, and the Affordable Care Act. She also used the outdated term “sexual preference” in saying she would not discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.

A strong stance, declaring the phrase to be an ‘’outdated’’ and ‘’anti-LGBTQ’’. Which calls up one profound question for the editors of The Advocate : If sexual preference is such an abhorrent term for anyone to use, why did you include it in a recent article…from 19 days ago? This has become something of a contemporary hallmark in the media — ignorance of their own prior positions. How is it editors from The Advocate could rush into the hysterical maelstrom of the moment without a shred of self-awareness like this?

Once caught with using the very term they were declaring to be off-limits from being used they attempted to save face, but failed.

  • To those who are curious: (We were not, we already had the fake outrage figured out.) 
  • 1) We’re quoting a gay man who came out in 1972, (That is, someone who should certainly know of anti-LGBTQ language.) in an interview about a TV musical. (How any of these details excuses anything is a mystery.) 
  • 2) The outdated term “sexual preference” is more concerning coming from a 48-year-old SCOTUS nominee (Since you showed ZERO concern prior, this means very little.) who may soon rule on the legitimacy of marriage equality. (Being outraged about something that has not happened seems right in line with outrage over a phrase you have just used yourselves.)

The desperation reached all the way to the dictionary. As Brandon Morse detailed earlier, the Merriam Webster Dictionary had altered the definition of the phrase in order to suit the narrative of the day. What this actually illustrates however is that Amy Coney Barrett was actually correct when she used the phrase. All the bleating and finger-pointing at her cannot alter the fact that the dictionary was altered after she spoke the term in her response. 

This is such a reactionary response that so many involved in the charge are getting caught up in their own accusation. The only reason for this is the unthinking, emotional desire to score a political  hit on ACB. These players, while they have the dictionary in their lap, should look up the definition of ‘’Desperation’’.