Merriam-Webster Joins the Fight for Social Justice

seethruedu - paper  blog

 

This spring marks a revolutionary step forward in the Social Progress of the English language. Merriam-Webster has recently announced over 1,000 additions to its Eleventh Edition Collegiate Dictionary. These include lingual innovations such as “weak sauce” and “throwing shade.” These new words do more than streamline and simplify. This edition would not be “inclusive” or truly progressive without its two most important new words: “micro-aggression” and “safe-space.” Perhaps the greatest triumph of the Eleventh Edition is its boldness to incorporate political correctness into its database.

Merriam-Webster has demonstrated remarkable courage with the release of its Eleventh Edition. The scholars behind this edition swam against the cultural current in the name of progress. They know now what everyone will know one day: Social Justice is more important than debate.

Ironically, while Social Justice trumps rationality and common sense, debate over Social Justice often sparks these dangerous intellectual habits. However, it is comforting to know these debates ought not to continue for much longer, as Merriam-Webster has already issued a new, inclusive definition of the equality sought by Social Justice warriors: sameness. The old definition of “equality”—the idea that all persons, though they may differ in gender or ethnicity, share a common human nature and possess God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—will soon happily be obsolete. In fact, universities across the country are now employing Bias-Response Teams to alert the administration of anyone propagating speech rendered useless, such as this antiquated notion of “equality,” which also went under the oppressive title, “equality of opportunity.”

In order to achieve victory over the old definition of equality, one must fully embrace Merriam-Webster’s new definition of equality as sameness. This may be difficult at first. As Americans, we are tempted toward individualism, and we generally rebel against uniformity. However, individualism is just a gateway to freedom of speech, and freedom of speech allows for racism, misogyny, and white privilege.

Skilled manipulation of language is a direct result of racism and the oppression of the minority. For this reason among many others, Merriam-Webster’s bold step toward the simplification of the English language is laudable to say the least. Since rational thought (racism) is a requirement of meaningful debate, and equality—as—sameness should triumph over free speech and debate, it follows that very few—if any—ideas are worth debating. As one of the greatest champions for the simplification of language—an English fellow by the name of Syme—once said: “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime [sic] literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”

We are now moving toward the day when we can recognize our highest standard for the English language itself is subjective emotion. Diction will one day reach a point of malleability wherein it can bend, modify, and even disappear on command in order to support love and safety. We are planting the seeds of a glorious Chestnut Tree. Soon, it will be impossible to use any word or grammar that has not been approved as multiculturally-sensitive, nonsexist, inclusive, inoffensive, nondiscriminatory, nonracist, diplomatic, gender-free or non-biased. We have—with the help of our friends at Merriam Webster—already eliminated gender-exclusive pronouns. (I will not list those pronouns here, lest they reenter the public vernacular.)

Indeed, perhaps this is the most comforting aspect of the destruction of language. It does not merely forbid the free exchange of complex and potentially offensive ideas. Rather, it erases the language necessary to create these ideas, rendering this free exchange impossible. We must welcome this progress. We must welcome our future. In so doing, we will all come to love Big Brother.

Read more articles:

by author