For postmodernist libtards, words do not refer to reality, but language creates reality. If libtards want to evade the truth and reality of the evil of mohammedanism, they will use language that accomplishes that goal.
Exactly. Liberals use words and change meanings all the time to control the narrative.
Yes, as Orwell knew well.
That is why I refuse to use either “gay” or “homosexual” when referring to homoerotic persons.
“Gay” is a wonderfully evocative word, used by writers like Tolkien and found in songs like “Deck the Halls,” that has been destroyed by leftists.
“Homosexual” is an ersatz word from the Nineteenth century - when Christianity was being actively displaced by the self-appointed (and self-anointed) intelligentsia.
There is in biological fact no form of functional human sexuality that involves two members of the same sex (of which there are - wait for it - exactly two, as in binary).
It was not so long ago that the very kind of atheist academics who now support the expression and fulfillment of so-called LGBT love were then scoffing at the very concept of love at all: They taught that evolution and biology only cared about spreading genes in an ever-widening and -deepening gene pool, and that love was a chemical illusion, a mere means to an end: Sex, they said, was only about sexual reproduction. Now this kind of professor says that sex is about anything but sexual reproduction, which they despise and discourage via contraception and abortion.
What two such persons experience, no matter how intense, is the eroticization of intimate physical contact between them. It is not sex.
(This, by the bye, is why the GLSEN/NAMBLA agenda is so dangerous. Homoeroticism can be inculcated. They know this, and want access to our vulnerable, innocent children in order to accomplish this: “Get them by eight, or it will be too late.”)