Going to hit the ground running today and plow headlong into another word that will probably be controversial, but as should be obvious by now, my answer to whether something is too controversial to address is “nuts to that.” Our word for today is another one the left loves to sling around because they know how it sounds more than they really understand what it means. Today’s word is “survivor.”
Starting off with the Merriam-Webster definition, “survive” is a verb meaning “to remain alive” or “to continue to exist or prosper despite” when used as a transitive verb (which is the part of speech it is when you speak of “surviving” an event). Survivor therefore means someone who continues to exist or prosper despite the occurrence of an event. For it to have any significance whatsoever, then, there must be an actual event that takes place, and the person who “survives” it must have been impacted by it in some direct and meaningful way. It would be ludicrous to say that a Kansas farmer who never set foot on an oceangoing vessel in his life “survived” the sinking of the Titanic, for example, or that residents of Stockholm, Sweden who never so much as vacationed in Hawaii “survived” the bombing of Pearl Harbor, just as it would be absurd to claim that anyone “survived” the opening of a hole in the ozone layer centered over Los Angeles or the explosion of a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island, because neither happened. By a strict reading of the definition, you COULD say that someone survived an event that had nothing to do with them simply by virtue of remaining alive, but that is not what people are meant to hear or interpret when you call them a “survivor” of something. Calling someone a “survivor” is meant to give them a degree of credibility, a way of saying “I was there, I experienced this, so I know better than you do.” In many cases, this is valid and accurate, which is why the left likes to appropriate this term in situations where it is neither.
When this word first made its way onto the WTLSNU list, I was thinking along the lines of the infamous “Mattress Girl” (whose real name I will not use). “MG” as I will call her was hailed as a “rape survivor” after she pursued a guy, got rejected, took it badly, made an accusation that was so fake that even a leftist university kangaroo court said there was nothing to see here, and proceeded to drag a mattress around campus with her for the remainder of her college career as a performance art protest. For this display of mental instability and grotesque dishonesty, she has been hailed by feminists and bogus-stat promoters nationwide as a “survivor…” of something that never happened. But she lugged a mattress around on her back for a couple of years and continued to smear the guy who she falsely accused so that makes her strong and powerful and credible or something.
In the wake of the recent events in Florida, however, the other half of the definition comes into play. Among the numerous narrative-destroying details that have surfaced in the days since the massacre and the CNN pillorying that followed, it’s been revealed that at least one of the loudmouthed halfwitted spelling-challenged spokespawns who has been trotted out as a “survivor” of the shooting wasn’t even in the same building as the shooter. The school in question is a large multi-building campus and the shooting went on in just one of these structures. Claiming that this kid is a “survivor” of the shooting is like driving by an accident scene and claiming you “survived” a car wreck. So in addition to being an easily-led mouthpiece for dishonest fascists who is auditioning for a job with the fake news, this kid is in no way a “survivor” of this terrible event any more than I am. Meanwhile actual survivors who came under fire (like the JROTC students who protected others with kevlar blankets) are being ignored. So tell me again why we ought to listen to a know-nothing child raised by activist parents with a pre-loaded agenda?
Tune in next week for another word.