There are no words


That faint thudding you can hear is the sound of my forehead connecting with my desk. I fear that I may concuss myself shortly, so this will be a short post. Suffice to say, racist bigot and Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly must be the most un-self-aware person in existence. Seriously, the man never, ever learns – all you have to do is stroke his ego a little, utter the right stock phrases and you have him slobbering out of your hand.

It’s with this in mind, that I presentThe Conservative Dictionary Project… “designed to fight the liberal redefinitions and secularized language that liberals have been attemping (sic) to creep into the language. The project is centered on the idea of the best of the public’s ability to provide better insights than experts.” I have a feeling that as will all things Conservapedia, this project will either a) wither and die, especially when Andy loses interest in it, as he’s done with everything else, or b) Become a parody magnet, ignored by the sysops, but which will bolster Conservapedia’s soaring reputation as a hotbed of wing-nut insanity.

I’m probably giving it too much attention, just by blogging about it on my lowly space on the web… but you have to admit, that’s a damned clever headline, begging to be used!

Fortunately, there aren’t many words at the moment, but here’s a brief sample of a couple:

infanticide
Date: 2004
True Conservative meaning – A much more accurate term for abortion or the killing of an unborn child.

lawn
Date: 14th century
True Conservative meaning – an area of grass in front of one’s house

lamestream media
Date: 2009
True Conservative meaning – the incompetent mainstream media

Clearly things like nouns, verbs and adjectives are nasty liberal inventions and don’t belong in a dictionary. I’m also dying to know what conservatives call the area of grass behind the house – I do hope they finish the dictionary soon. Anything to put those nasty liberals in Oxford out of work.

Update:

It’s official – the project gets Schlafly’s seal of approval, as he announces it to the world the 3 people who read Conservapedia, in typical Schlafly style:

The Conservative Dictionary Project begins! And the game of unchecked redefinition of words by liberals is over.

Presumably because Schlafly and the parodists are now taking over the redefinition of words. Schlafly further endorses the project by adding four words to the collection. Problem is, it’s just the words he adds. Maybe somebody needs to explain to him just what a dictionary is all about.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to There are no words

  1. Ann Pedant says:

    Er, that should be ‘wither and die’

    • PsyGremlin says:

      Indeed! Thanks for picking that up.
      (Of course, the official line is that we leave things like that in, to check if our readers are paying attention 🙂 )

  2. Robbert says:

    A new project! Exciting stuff. Even though I’m still not entirely sure how the Bible can be both inerrant and badly in need of a rewrite at the same time, I have a lot of time for CP’s more ambitious endeavours. Though this does leave me wondering:

    1) So if a conservative kills a baby that’s already been born, it isn’t infanticide?
    2) What the heck does Aschafl Y. think the liberal meaning of ‘lawn’ is?

  3. Remaggen says:

    My test for sufficient conservatism in dictionaries is to look up the word ‘clever.’
    A good, solid conservative dictionary will note that its use pertaining to livestock and especially draft animals will mean ‘obedient’ or ‘easy to control’ rather than ‘ingenious.’
    The proper conservative dictionary will thereby CORRECTLY espouse that animals are chattel: things to be bought, sold, owned, commanded, controlled, traded, used, and dispatched by Man – and having no inherent rights.
    The absurdity of the notion of animal ‘rights’ is exposed by the philosophical position (within Western European philosophy, of course) that rights inhere responsibilities – a right cannot exist without its corresponding responsibility. Since an animal is not a seat or repository of moral responsible agency, it cannot have any responsibilities. Therefore it also cannot have ‘rights’ as we know them, since an animal is incapable of choosing to act from among the available *good” acts. That distinction is the difference between freedom (to choose from the available good) and license (to choose from among all things one is able to do.)
    As an example, if two bowls of dogfood are placed before a dog, it may do any of 4 things: to not eat at all, to eat of the one, or of the other, or to eat of both foods. Its decision may be based on instincts on how hungry it is, or the scents of the foods may indicate some trace elements which it is lacking, but it will never choose to eat or to abstain For the Good of Dogdom.
    When a dictionary correctly includes English usage which explains that the purpose of all things in the universe, such as animals, or the materials we may discover in the Earth – are given to us by Providence to be USED for Mankind’s best benefits, then that dictionary is deemed acceptable for the promulgation of our culture through its exposition of our language.

    PS: Also check for a correct distinction of gendered words such as ‘blonde’ vs ‘blond,’ and the correct distinction between ‘gender’ (a grammatical concept) and ‘sex’ (a physical, biological attribute.) A man and a woman differ by sex; when one speaks of ‘gender’ one should be speaking of grammatical traffic signs such as when a word ends in ‘-ette,’ or why ‘olde’ (or ‘blonde’ as above) gets an ‘-e.’
    Lastly, of course, a correct English dictionary will reject the use of the plural pronoun ‘they’ as a singular, and obdurately explain that the masculine gender subsumes the feminine gender, and so a sentence such as ‘Every engineering student must bring his calculator to the lab’ is completely acceptable usage even when the students are of both sexes.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      “When a dictionary correctly includes English usage which explains that the purpose of all things in the universe, such as animals, or the materials we may discover in the Earth – are given to us by Providence to be USED for Mankind’s best benefits, then that dictionary is deemed acceptable for the promulgation of our culture through its exposition of our language.”

      Oh dear. Yet another idiot who can’t equate “rights” with “responsibilities.” Let’s rape the planet! Yeah! Who cares if we fuck it up, because the rapture’s coming soon.

  4. Remaggen says:

    Apologies for the triple post; I was trying to edit a few spelling mistakes.
    Please delete the redundancies.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      No problem! Thanks for commenting 🙂 I’ll delete the first post then. And don’t worry, unlike Andy Schlafly we won’t discount your comments because of a few spelling mistakes 🙂

Comments are closed.