A week after the Charlottesville protest(s) degenerated in the summer of 2017, I was inspired by the best conservative protest sign ever written to pen a post title stating that
Over at Instapundit eight years later, Glenn Reynolds reports on a new term invented in 2025 by a "Programmer, wandering philosopher, accidental anthropologist, [and] troublemaker for liberty" by the name of Eric S Raymond:
Bludgeonspeak.
Bludgeonspeak is the use of invented terminology, or historical terminology that has been hijacked and corrupted, and then emptied of all meaning except as an attempt at moral blackmail.
Here are some notable bludgeonspeak items in 2025: "racist", "fascist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "islamophobe", "far-right". Also, the term "genocide" might not be quite there yet, but it's being pushed in that direction pretty hard.
HOW SHOULD YOU REACT WHEN BEING CALLED A RACIST?
I have been meaning to return to this issue for a long time, so now is as good a time as any.
What should be your reaction when called a racist? Anger? Fury? Outrage?
No, not at all: you should be happy — be grateful. (No, I am not kidding…)
Remember that whenever you are called "(a) racist", you should always be grateful. Not because there is any truth to the matter. (Au contraire.) But because this means that the Left has run out of arguments.
Indeed, Margaret Thatcher said as much when she mentioned that in being attacked personally, the long-serving PM not only felt grateful but was positively delighted:
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Not that leftists have many — any? any at all? — arguments to begin with. In a recent post on the subject of the Left's Concept of "Talking Points", I mentioned that while the Left complains of such conservative talking points as lower taxes, basic rights, strong defense, patriotism — which are nothing but party policy goals — the question arises, what are the Left's own talking points (or policy goals)?
Indeed, do they have any at all? Don't the only talking points that the left's drama queens have is calling their adversaries, real or perceived, some of the above-mentioned names — racists, sexists, fillintheblank-phobes, a "basket of deplorables," etc…
Then come the "fascist", the "Nazi" insult, most of them words which happen to be just as recent as the "racism" charges and only a few of which (such as socialist) are much older than the turn of the 20th century… (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah>)
Here is how the left works:
HOW THE LEFT'S MIND-SET WORKS
Initially, constant self-praise by calling themselves tolerant and compassionate and humanitarian and generous and sophisticated and forward-looking (progressive) and — last but (certainly) not least — open-minded, more specifically (as they like to put it), open to debate and discussion.
When someone (usually a conservative) disagrees with them, their first reaction is utter surprise, aye, disbelief — disbelief that anyone might… (wait for it) disagree with them.
This was famously described by William F. Buckley as “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
The second reaction is anger (not to mention rage) that somebody has the gall to disagree with them. As Glenn said in a speech 13 years ago, The Left has "established this notion that, somehow, it's impolite to call them on their bullshit".
Their third reaction is… anything BUT debate and discussion. It is to respond by raining down a hail of invective — all of it disguised under a veneer of objective scientific-type descriptions and respectability.
But all of them are invented. In the cases of "homophobia" and "transphobia," it is clear-cut how recent those terms were born. Indeed, Eric S Raymond writes that some bludgeonspeak terms,
like "homophobe", "transphobe", and "islamophobe", were bludgeonspeak from birth.
Where i disagree with him, albeit slightly, is when he says that other
bludgeonspeak terms, like "fascist" and "racist" and "genocide", used to have substantive meanings which have been destroyed by persistent abuse.
I would argue that some of the older (and more generally accepted) expressions — such as "sexism" and "misogyny" and "reactionary" — are mainly made-up BS terms as well.
With the top award going to "racism", which was reportedly thought up around the year 1900 by none other than Vladimir Lenin (you know, the person who also stood behind the term "useful idiots").
There seems to be a veneer aura of respectability behind the term "racist", as if it were an objective description of something tangible and real. Which explains why it tends to anger people so much when they are accused of it.
But racism and sexism and misogyny are simply older terms than homophobe and transphobe and Islamophobe. It is all BS. It is nothing more than a sophisticated way of playground taunts, You're a jerk, He's a retard, She's an idiot.
The advice of Eric S Raymond is that
The only way to win is not to play. When somebody throws bludgeonspeak at you, call it out. State that you will not be controlled by their language, and you refuse to be assigned to a category you reject.
You don't hate women, you miserable misogynist, do you? Correct? Not anymore than you're frightened of gays, you wretched homophobe, are you? Or of Muslims, you wicked Islamophobe? You just don't want to be shamed endlessly in order to be silenced when those groups' wishes are used to become the epitome of national (or local) policy. All the while having those allegedly oppressed victims and martyrs, along with the country's politicians, believe the worst of you.
Be like Maggie Thatcher.
Speaking of which, let us end this post with another smashing quote from the Iron Lady.
Related:
• How I reacted when being
called a c-cks-cker (final section, between the last sccreenshot and the Bill Maher video)
