Your computer can’t get a virus, you stupid idiot.

I don't believe in computer viruses

I keep getting emails and pop-up ads warning me about computer viruses, and I’m sick of it. There ain’t no such thing, and all of this liberal nonsense-talk has got to stop!

First of all, back in my day we didn’t talk about fancy abstract notions of “viruses”. That’s just liberal Voodoo talk. We just called it being sick. “You sick?!” we’d ask. And if the answer were “yes” then we’d lock you in a room until you either got better, or died. Being sick… now that is a real thing. A biological thing. It’s objective. You can feel it. You can smell it. If you want to talk about “viruses”, it means stuff that makes a person sick. That’s just the reality of it.

Now, people want to go and change the traditional meaning of “virus” so it can mean all kinds of weird and wacky stuff. They talk about “computer viruses” … like that even makes sense. It doesn’t!

Computers aren’t living, breathing things! They don’t cough, and catch fever! You ain’t never got some computer gone hacked up a phlegm globber on your shirt. You ain’t never got a computer that said “Ouch it hurts when I pee.”  That’s the physical, concrete objective truth of what a virus does. That’s reality.

Ain’t no such thing as no “I hurt when I pee” computer.

Look, I’m not a deep scholar or intellectual type, so instead of trying to explain it to you in my own words, I’m going to borrow some words from the noted scholar and deep-thinker, Kevin D. Williamson who writes for a website called the National Review. I’ll just adapt some insightful quotes from one of his recent articles to make my points.

1. A computer virus is not a virus. It just factually isn’t. That’s objective truth, because I know what the meaning of “virus” is and you can’t tell me otherwise.

2. Liberals have some fancy idea that just by using the word “virus” for something in a computer, that it makes is a real virus. That is stupid. It’s voodoo magic talk. It’s nothing more than “a mystical exercise in rearranging words to rearrange reality” (smart-sounding quote, huh?).

3. “A virus has a biological reality, that is not subordinate to subjective impressions.” That’s another good line from Williamson, ain’t it? What he means is that just because you feel like the program in the computer is in some way similar to a virus doesn’t make it a virus. Just because it acts sorta similar, in some kind of abstract analogy, to a real virus doesn’t mean it’s exactly the same as a virus SO STOP USING THAT WORD TO DESCRIBE IT. It ain’t allowed.

4. In fact, If you call that thing in your computer a “virus” your are LIVING IN A DELUSION THAT SEPARATES YOU FROM REALITY. Sorry, bub.  You’re just living in a fantasy world if you use the word “virus” to apply to computer stuff.

 

In conclusion, if you buy into all of this namby-pamby “computer virus” talk, you are probably mentally ill. Get therapy for Christ’s sake.

Now,  truth be told, Williamson’s article, which is titled Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman , is not about computer viruses.  It’s about transgender people. But the arguments are exactly the same: Williamson knows about the objective reality of being a man or a woman;  he is against people using the word “woman” in any way other than what he sees as the “objective” way that he uses it; anyone who uses the word differently than it was used hundreds of years ago is clearly wrong, delusional and probably mentally ill.

And the same goes for the word “virus”!

So like I said: it’s just a question of objective reality. I know what “virus” means, objectively. I know what a REAL virus is, and you can’t tell me now that somehow the meaning is different now, or has changed just because some people use it differently. I won’t stand for it!

No, sir.

The English language has a liberal bias!

Liberally Biased Language

Liberally Biased Language
Rabbi Aryeh Spero points out that words like compassion, fairness, greed and love have a liberal bias. We better just get rid of those words completely.

In an article on some unknown website, Rabbi Spero summarizes his argument this way: “We have allowed the political left to hijack and corrupt the moral language, terms such as compassion, fairness, tolerance, love, social justice, greed, peace. Let 2013 be the start of an era in which we take the language back and infuse it with its original religious and classic meaning.”

This seems like a good and noble idea, but Rabbi Spero is making a terrible mistake. The fact is: these words have always been disgusting liberal demons that infect our minds and society. There is no “taking back” their meanings. Instead, our only option is to eradicate these words completely.

Just a few examples, to illustrate the point:


compassion: This is an Old French word from the 12th century meaning  “sympathy” or  “pity”. It is derived from the Late Latin compassionem, which is in turn composed from the stem parts com- “together” and pati “to suffer”. In other words, the word compassion is rooted completely in the idea of people suffering and doing things together rather than independently. There is nothing more communist than that.

Moreover, even in a religious context, the Bible shows us that the word “compassion” stands for liberal ideas.  For example, in 2 Kings 13:22-23:

Hazael king of Aram oppressed Israel throughout the reign of Jehoahaz. But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.

In this passage it is obvious that even in the original religious context, the word “compassion” means “to be nice to someone even though he is evil and doesn’t deserve it”. That attitude is the very root of liberalism.

fairness: This actually comes from the Old English word “fægernes”  which originally only meant “beauty”.  The use of this word to mean “even-handedness” only started around the 15th century. Whose communist idea was it to link the notion of “beauty” and “even-handedness”?  Obviously, we should just get rid of this word altogether…. except possibly when it’s used in the “fair maiden” sense, of course.  (P.S. We should also bring back the word “maiden”.)

Note: The word “fairness” does not ever appear in the Bible. That’s how you know that we should just get rid of the word altogether.

greed: The word “greed” is a perfect example of a word that cannot be reclaimed because it has no traditional conservative meaning. Everyone knows that, according to conservative philosophy, greed is good.  Unfortunately, even in its oldest forms the word “greed” has meant something bad.

It comes from the Old English word “grædig” which means “covetous” or “voracious”. Coveting and gluttony (i.e. having a voracious appetite) are both sins. So the original religious meaning of the word “greed” already associated negativity with wanting to get lots and lots of stuff for yourself. That is a very un-conservative mind-set.

Every use of the word “greed” in the Bible implies that it is bad. These are obviously liberal mis-translations. The biased word “greed” needs to be eliminated.

love: This is the only word that legitimately seems to have an original conservative meaning that is different from the liberal meaning that it has acquired in society today.

In today’s society, the word “love” has been twisted to mean something like acceptance or to have a close and joyous relationship with someone or something. This is a disgusting liberal corruption.

The original roots of the word “love” come from the proto-Indo-European language root leubh-   which means “to desire”. So, when using the word correctly in its original form, you would use it like this: I love (desire) money, I love (desire) success, I love (desire) orgasm.

The incorrect, liberal ways to use the term include: I love my parents, I love my neighbor, I love humanity.

I mean, that’s just stupid-talk. You don’t desire humanity, do you?  Duh.

 


Clearly, there is something very wrong here.

Far from being able to “take back” some kind of imagined original conservative meaning of these words, I’m afraid the bitter truth is that these elements of the English language have always been deeply, deeply liberal.  (Except “love”, as we have said, which has had its meaning corrupted.)

 

There is just no way around the conclusion: the English language itself must be liberal!!!

We have added the appropriate speech bubble, in the image above, to indicate this fact.