The list of ‘dumb phrases’

James Madison University gave its incoming freshmen a list of 35 ‘dumb things well-intended people say“. The list was based on a book by a Dr. Maura Cullen,  which describes such phrases as things that ‘widen the diversity gap’, and which work against the all-important goal of creating a ‘safe and inclusive environment.’

Some of the ‘dumb things’ which allegedly might make certain protected groups feel ‘threatened’, (as in ‘unsafe’) include phrases like:

“I don’t see color,” “I’m colorblind” and “I don’t see difference. We’re all part of the same race, the human race” were all advised against. “If you are going to live in this country, learn to speak the language” also made the list.”

More of the potentially offending or threatening to feelings of ‘safety’ or included-ness were phrases like the following: ‘Some of my best friends are…’, or ‘What do your people think?’ and ‘You speak the language very well.’

I agree with the stupidity of many of these statements on the list — but for different reasons than those given by the Social Justice Warrior makers of the list.

For years the ‘some of my best friends are... [fill in the blank with some ‘special’ group] phrase has been ridiculed as an example of White, straight liberal hypocrisy — but is it always? Some people actually do have good friends (or at least people they believe to be good friends) from among some ‘protected’ group or other. It’s likely the people who use this phrase are naive or foolish but they are not necessarily being hypocritical or condescending; in many cases they honestly consider such people from various races, ethnicities, or religions their ‘good friends’, and genuinely harbor amicable feelings towards these people. However I would never use that phrasing or make any such attempt to ward off accusations of bigotry or ‘racism’ or whatever-phobia — not because it might offend some delicate feelings but because I know it’s wasted effort to try to appease or protest against the label they are trying to pin on you.  The appeasers should save their breath. Nobody should feel a need to apologize for not having a ‘diverse and inclusive’ list of ”friends”; we are still, in theory, free to associate with people of our choice, without regard to whether they represent some fantasy cross-section of every ethnicity, religion, race, ‘gender’ and sexual predilection known to man.

Another phrase which is condemned: ‘I don’t see race; I’m color blind.’ I also condemn that phrase — but because it is just plain stupid and worse, it panders to the liberal/lefty race denialists. It concedes the left the prerogative to control the terms of the discussion.

Anybody who seriously believes that race does not exist or that it is a ‘social construct’ is in need of help; they are deficient in normal human powers of observation as well as so weak-minded as to believe all the shallow, self-contradictory propaganda out there.  But no matter how  many times the White leftists and their minority mascots sneer at the protestations of the ‘color-blind’ Whites, the Whites never get the message, and can only flail around in response, saying ”the Liberals are the real racists! It’s not fair!

Another condemned statement:  ‘I never owned slaves.’ What’s wrong with that sentence? It is absolutely true for every White person living today, as well as our parents and grandparents and so on for generations back. Why then can’t we say the plain truth? Well, though it’s factually true, I object to people saying it because again, it is playing their game by their rules. It does not matter to them that you or I are not guilty of owning slaves personally, and even less does it matter to the lefty ideologues that no black American today was ever a slave, nor that their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on were not slaves. It.Does.Not.Matter. The idea is to emphasize generational guilt, racial guilt, racial ‘karma’ — because most lefties are New Agers who subscribe to the Hindu/Buddhist idea of karma; you inherit bad karma from your forebears. It is a burden you are born with. You carry racial guilt and karma in your DNA and your skin color is the signifier of your bad karma, your guilt, your ‘karmic debt’ as they put it. There is no escape for you, Whitey; no amount of ‘colorblindness’ and adopting children Of Color or going on missions to Africa can wash you clean of your genetic/karmic guilt. So don’t bother protesting weakly about how you never owned slaves, and that your ancestors were poor people who never owned slaves (unlike those rich Cavalier plantation-owners — collect reparations from their descendants! Not me!) or that your ancestors fought to free the slaves in the Civil War or that your forebears were poor Irishmen who arrived long after the Civil War. It won’t absolve you. We’re all in this together, kinsmen, and we have to learn solidarity.

One more ‘dumb phrase’ is the frequently-used ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin.‘ Many Christians are fond of this one; it sounds virtuous, at least in the liberal sense. After all, what’s more virtuous than being ‘non-judgmental’ towards transgressive people?  Being non-judgmental brands one as more-virtuous-than-thou. And there are still Christians who actually believe this statement is from Christ himself, or that it is in the Bible somewhere. But it is not in the Bible, nor was it said by Jesus Christ, or any of the Apostles.

Why, then, is it used as if it were Scripture? Because Christians/Churchians have absorbed the spirit of the Age, and they don’t know their Bibles as they should. I confess that I said it myself in the past until someone gently reproved me and told me that it wasn’t a Biblical command, and it’s not in the Bible. Further investigation showed that it apparently came from Mohandas Gandhi.

So yes, I object to that phrase being used, as it usually is, to avoid a charge of ‘homophobia’ or some ‘phobia’ or other.  The subject deserves a blog post of its own, but suffice it to say I would like to see that quote avoided by Christians or ‘conservatives’. But the SJWs want it to be stopped because, I am guessing, they think it implies that, say, homosexuality and abortion are sins. They believe those acts to be the ‘right’ of everyone, and they don’t want any moral judgment applied to those people who practice those things. In fact they seem to think such things are positive goods, and that homosexuality is proof of ‘courage‘ on the part of the practitioner. Homosexuals ‘coming out’ in churches — in churches, mind you — have been greeted with applause and standing ovations! Such bravery! So perish the thought that such behaviors are sins, or the doers, sinners. No; they are brave and courageous.

Maybe this wrong-headed list of ‘dumb phrases’ can be turned to some good after all, if the ‘conservatives’ and churchians who are guilty of using those phrases realize that these efforts to appease and to dodge condemnation are just backfiring on them. And maybe they might stop and consider that appeasing never works. They might try honesty and integrity for a change, standing by their convictions rather than trying to protest their innocence of these invented ‘crimes.’

7 thoughts on “The list of ‘dumb phrases’

  1. Excellent, VA. When will our people ever learn that you can’t win if you accept your enemy’s rules and premises? First and foremost, we must pull down the leftist idol of equality. It has noting to do with morality. It is an evil principle, driven by the lust for power and envy, which pulls all humanity down to the lowest common level–often of death. From the French Revolution to the Soviet Gulags to the Killing Fields of Cambodia, more human beings have been murdered in the name of equality than for any other cause.

    What we stand for is true life-enhancing diversity tempered by equity and justice. Here we can claim the moral high ground. Equality destroys all values, all excellence, all achievement and all quality.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Good points, VA.

    How do you deal with the reproach that race isn’t a real thing, because genetic differences between certain groups of people is nil?

    Liked by 2 people

    • That’s flat out not true. The only groups of people with nil genetic differences are monozygotic (identical) twins, triplets etc.

      If two people are genetically similar enough that they can’t be identified as different races, that’s because they are the same race.

      A few years ago, a study of European individuals had a high rate of success in identifying where, within about five miles, each subject’s parents were born. Not as accurate in identifying the subjects’ birthplaces, due to greater mobility in recent years.

      I was born in South Africa, of European colonial stock. I expect that DNA sequencing would identify me as European. I devoutly hope and trust that it would not confuse me with an African.

      I think the people who are telling you that, because some groups are not distinguishable by their DNA, that proves that all groups are the same, are getting confused by Lewontin’s Fallacy, which says that there is more genetic difference within races than between races, therefore there are no races. As the linked article explains, this is a fallacy.


  3. Nick, good question. But is that factually true? I am no expert on genetics; I’m not “HBD Chick” obviously, but from what I do know, there are enough distinctions that it can’t really be said of many groups that there is no difference genetically. Some of my family members have had DNA testing done and the different groups in our family line (English, a little French, a little Dutch) can be identified. And yet it’s said that the Dutch, especially the Frisians are the closest genetically and linguistically to the English.
    Sorry I don’t have a more informed answer to offer.
    But you might look at genetic maps of different races and ethnicities and see how it looks in that format.


  4. VA, excellent post. I think you inferred the real reason behind their not wanting perversion named as a sin, which it is. Naming perversion as a sin is Christian Privilege.

    It occurs to me the phrase, “I never owned slaves” might also lead to an inquiry of who did own slaves and who traded them. That would lead back to the SJW’s own ancestors. If you have a chance to look up Radhanite you will get a real eye opener on their ancestors.

    The Radhanites were running a massive White slave trade right out of Europe to Moslem lands from the Dark Ages onwards. They are the real slave dealers of history. When America was discovered, it was an expansion of their existing slave trade in Whites with their existing Moslem partners in North Africa.

    This never makes it into SJW curricula. Instead, they are busying saying how they were the victims in Spain. Victims who had been running a slave trade in Whites out of Spain since the Moslems got there.

    Other points on the list at the link also reinforce what stereotypes and what truths the SJWs don’t want exposed.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. OA, thanks for the comment and for the information. I confess I was not familiar with the Radhanites although I did know some facts about who many of the slave dealers were (they were not Europeans in most cases from what I know.) So that’s something I learned from your post.
    Yes, the SJWs do want certain stereotypes perpetuated and spread while others they want suppressed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s