Please Follow us on Gab, Parler, Minds

Last week, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats proposed new rules for restricting language including banning the use of “gendered terms” and substituting “more inclusive” words. Among the banned words are “he,” “she,” “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, [and] granddaughter.” It’s not understandable to me why terms that more specifically reference a person and that person’s familial relationship should be banned, why this should matter when our country is struggling with so many serious internal crises, and how this does not violate the First Amendment.

In yet another act of gender-neutral idiocy, Democrat Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) concluded the daily congressional prayer with the words "amen and awoman.” The word “amen” originates from Hebrew, a congregation’s approval of a solemn prayer, and has no relationship to gender except that the letters “men” appear in the word. Of course, the word “awoman” is totally made up and has no meaning whatsoever.

The University of Michigan's IT department also recently put out a list terms that are offensive and must be avoided so as not to offend people. This isn’t completely unexpected in today’s progressive world, but this list is strange even by today’s warped standards. For example, according to the list, the word “picnic” should be replaced by “gathering.” The explanation seems to be that there is a rumor on social media that the word has its origins in the lynching of African Americans. This isn’t true; its actual meaning derives from the 17th-century French word "pique-nique," which was used to described social gatherings in which attendees brought food. However, people could still have heard the false origin and take offense, and so anything that might cause offense in any person, even a stupid one who is badly misinformed, needs to be avoided.

Another term on the list, “brown bag,” should be replaced by “lunch and learn.” No one is really sure about this one, but “brown” could refer to someone’s skin color and thus make someone uncomfortable. For example, this phrase might invoke the image of a racist who hates brown-skinned people and the term “bag” could refer to the bag placed over a person’s head before a hanging. I’m just guessing, but you can see how this could be triggering to a really stupid, misinformed person who is looking for reasons to be upset.

In reality, those who are offended by terminology will certainly find other words and phrases at which to be offended because they are actually utilizing language restrictions to advance and enforce their own power by restricting others. This language war is succeeding, as government, businesses, and academia now ostracize and excommunicate those who “misuse language.” The Founding Fathers understood this problem well and created protections against it in the very first amendment to the Constitution. However, many Americans have now forgotten or have capitulated to this power play and, in doing so, allowed others to gain power over them.

So in the interest of satire, I’ve decided to start my own list of grievous terminology that must be banned from our language. There are many words that can be triggering to people who have a lot of time and little sense. My list is below. I suggest we all keep adding to the list until every word in the English language needs to be banned. Then we can simply grunt and growl at each, while we make sure that our fires are lit, we have time to scrounge for our roots and berries, and our caves are clean and welcoming places to all people, regardless of gender, race, or species.

• The Republic Has Fallen – Trump Fails In Duty To Protect American Public From Chinese Communist Control
• No One Told The Founders It Was All Going To Be Okay