Lefties don't want to be taken literally

Only an education bureaucrat would be stupid enough to believe that this harebrained scheme for dealing with school bullies would work.

I started thinking about something else, however, when I read this paragraph:

The "no blame" approach, which was widely adopted in schools in the late 1990s, originated in Bristol as an alternative to directly punishing bullies.

It encouraged the bully to discuss with their classmates the root cause of their behaviour and to find a way forward with the help of a teacher. [emphasis mine]

My response would be: the "root cause" of a bully's behavior is his choice to use or threaten force against others! That answer, of course, is never the kind that is intended by those to implore us to explore "root causes."

Then I realized that there is a whole array of words and phrases like this: not only root cause, but also diversity, sustainability, and proportional response. All of these terms have broad meanings in everyday English. But when used by a leftist, they are actually Trojan horses for a specific worldview.

"Root cause" wears the cloak of reason. After all, what rational person could be against finding the root cause of a problem? The problem is, "root cause" is usually a code word for something on a list of purported causes that have been pre-approved by leftists. Things not on that list, like human choices or philosophy, don't count. Go ahead, just try saying that the root cause of bullying is a bully's choice to use violence. Or that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam. Both are correct, but the self-appointed experts in "root causes" will treat you as either a Neanderthal or a Hun if you say such a thing. (I prefer the latter; it is better to be hated by idiots than to be pitied.)

A literal example of a "proportional response" to terrorism would be: You kill one of us, we kill 10,000 of you. Hey, y = 10,000x is a proportion! But of course, the lefties actually mean a weak, cowardly, and inadequate response. They want y = 0.2x. Any response that asserts America's absolute right to self defense is automatically "disproportionate."

Diversity of viewpoints can be a good thing in many contexts, such as the universities. Leftists instead uphold the value of a "diversity" of skin pigments. They don't tell you that directly, though. People might realize that an obsession with that kind of "diversity" is, well, a bit savage.

"Sustainability" is probably my favorite. It practically defines itself as valuable! Who would work for an unsustainable future? What it actually means is "what a Gaia-worshiping environmentalist, who hates technology and regards running around with a spear and loincloth to be man's ideal existence, regards as sustainable." It's harder to pass that off as an uncontroversially desirable goal, isn't it?

Pointing out these code words may seem silly, but it is important to note that the modern, anti-intellectual left relies heavily upon such stock phrases to get its ideas accepted without debate. It has to, because it has nothing else.

So the next time a granola-muncher throws a lefty catch phrase in your direction—take him literally and uphold the value of reason, individualism, capitalism, and the unhindered growth of technology. Such a proportional response to his nonsense would introduce intellectual diversity sorely needed in the public debate and also identify the root cause of building a truly sustainable future for mankind.