The Hypocrisy of the Left Knows No Bounds, as School Reveals New ‘Banned Words’ List – Opinion

One of the critical requirements for remaining a member-in-good-stAnding of the Loony Left™ is keeping up to speed on the latest, ever-growing list of non-inclusive words and phrases — and NeverUse them.

More precisely, avoiding words Prohibited by the left’s word police — for any number of offenses, including lack of “inclusivity,” “racist,” “misogynistic,” or otherwise “triggering” stuff.

While many of the left’s “bad words” and Why? they are “bad” is simply amusing to the sane among us, some of the no-no words could not be more hypocritical — which says a hell of a lot for a nonsensical group of people who take themselves Way too seriousAnd whose hypocrisy has no limits.

Here’s a perfect case in point:

The University of Washington Information Technology Department’s new IT Inclusive Language Guide is chock-full of the latest words and phrases guaranteed to get a left-wing loon (or anyone else, per the left) Cancelled in a hypocritical beat and All of eternity Planet Loony Tunes will be banned

From “plain, non-colloquial language,” to a list of “problematic words and phrases by category,” this baby has got you covered, America — and not a ridiculous minute too soon.

Moonbattery noted that the guide contains the standard, absurd fare.

“Blackout date,” “black list,” “blackbox,” and “black hat hacker” are forbidden because according to establishment ideology, you must never associate “black” with anything bad.

By the same token, “white list,” “white hat hacker,” etc. are off limits because you must never associate “white” with anything good.

Moreover, list creators like these are not likely to make such lists. these geniuses included what the “preferred” alternatives to the above examples and others would be. For example, “black list” and “white list” should now be referred to as “deny lists” and “allow lists.” Far be it from me to nit-pick, but doesn’t the association of “black” with “deny,” and “white” with “allow” sound a bit — dare I say it — “racist,” as well?

One example in the guide of a less obvious “problematic” word is “grandfather,” as a verb or adjective, or “grandfathered.” The University of Washington Inclusive Language Guide ‘splains Why?:

“Grandfathering” or “grandfather clause” was used as a way to exempt some people from a change because of conditions that existed before the change (e.g., we’ve grandfathered some users on an unlimited data plan.”)

“Grandfather clause” originated in the American South in the 1890s as a way to defy the 15th Amendment and prevent black Americans from voting.

Assuming the above “history lesson” is correct, I get the point. Mostly, anyway. But more importantly, do the millions of people who say or hear “grandfather” or grandfathered” on a regular basis associate it with How can black Americans be prevented from voting? I make the report, you take the call.

Next up, we have “first-class,” as in pretty much first-class anything, according to the guide, which admonishes us to instead use “type.” Why so, as I’m sure you’re on the edge of your seat waiting to learn?

Here ya go:

“First-class” implies that this particular value is the best quality or in the highest grade, and thus others under this group are second-class or lower class.

A form of classism involves using cultural hierarchies within people-people relationships in order to signify relationships between objects.

You’re shaking your head, aren’t you? So did I.

Finally, let’s visit the most hypocritical “problematic” phrase in the guide, IMHO: “Lower the bar.”

“This phrase is based on the erroneous idea that a company has to relax hiring standards in order to add people from different racial, ethnic, gender backgrounds,” instructs the guide.

A bit of a narrow definition, given that “lower the bar” has been used to describe far more cases than companies and their respective hiring practices, but here’s the real deal, to which the University of Washington IT Inclusive English Guide completely misses — read: purposely and hypocritically ignores — the boat.

Two words: Harvard University. Specifically, Harvard’s race-based admission requirements.

As reported by Fox News in 2014, Harvard discriminates against Asians who often These aren’t accepted by the crown jewel of the Ivy League, despite having higher test scores and grade-point averages than black and Hispanic students who are accepted.

Princeton sociologists concluded in 2009 that Asian American applicants required a higher score on the SAT to get admitted. A white applicant with similar qualifications needed a score only of 1320 while Hispanic applicants required 1190 and black applicants 1010.

So, let’s revisit not only “lower the bar” but also “raise the bar” — based solely on race. Does this practice work? racist?Yes, that is true. It also implores what it does.

What about the Oregon governor and state legislature? Kate Brown 2021 As we reported in August, the “progressive” governor signed legislation in June eliminating a requirement that high school students prove proficiency in reading, writing, or math before graduation.

Charles Boyle, the deputy communications director from Brown’s office, told The New York Post in an email that the new graduation “standards” [Wait — eliminating standards qualifies as “new standards” how?] will help Oregon’s “Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.”

See: “Lowering (in this case, eliminating) the bar.”

For comment, the University of Washington Information Technology Department could not be reached.

According to The Washington Post’s report, The Supreme Court agreed to examine a challenge regarding college admission requirements that included race considerations. Last Monday, the court said that it will examine admission policies at Harvard University and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. This is most likely to take place in the October term.

Lower courts found both schools had complied to Supreme Court precedents previously set. couldUse it as one factorThe universities may conduct a broad evaluation of potential applicants.

On the contrary, as opined by The Boston Globe in March 2021, “race-based admissions are wrong, and it’s time the Supreme Court said so.”

The Globe highlighted 2019 Pew Research Center results.

The idea of race-blind admissions is not only a controversial one for progressive activists but also appeals to the majority of Americans. Pew Research Center in 2019 found that 73% believe universities should not take into account race and ethnicity when they consider student applications.

It is a belief that holds true across ethnic and racial groups. Majorities of White, Black, Asian and Hispanic Americans oppose using race to determine admissions.

A number of states have passed laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race for higher education officials. Michigan was one such state, and in 2006 it outlawed Grutter’s ability to allow racial preferences.

Let’s get to the bottom of it:

As I said earlier, I report; you decide. As I stated in my headline, the sole basis of this article is the hypocrisy displayed by the left. It is hypocrisy that has gotten us here. Never known bounds — and it never will.

RedState has more information:

Bill Maher Explains How the Left Has ‘Gone Mental’

Princeton Invites Students to National Condom Day and Hosts Contraceptive Arts and Crafts

Report: Students are forced to record their own reactions when confronted by racists, homophobes, or ableists.

Author of 1619 Project Tells Us All Why We Are Bad People for Being Engaged in Our Children’s Education

About Post Author

Follow Us