Policing our language…

Screen Shot 2012-12-06 at 10.07.41 AMBack in 2005 I edited a blog (TNIV: Stealth Bible) set-up by WORLD magazine to continue their good work of opposing the bowdlerization of the English Bible, particularly the work of Zondervan and her Committee on Bible Translation (creators of the TNIV and now NIV11). One of the posts drew attention to the gender-neutral language policies that have become commonplace among institutions of “higher learning,” state bar associations, and government institutions. What is common to all of these policies is their authors’ abhorrence of words like “he,” “him,” “his,” “brother,” “man,” “mankind,” when used as a representative–as God did when he named mankind Adam. Here’s the original post (…sorry, but I haven’t taken the time to check the integrity of the old links…):

The TNIV’s Bedfellows 04/27/2005

As I come across inclusive language policies I will be posting links. It is an interesting study to see what institutions are enforcing gender-neutral language and what they say about it. The TNIV comes from the same stock…

Calvin College
University of South Australia
The University of Western Sydney
The University of Newcastle (Australia)
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
University of Dayton (Religous Studies Department)
University of Maryland, College Park
The University of Alberta
McMaster University
The University of Sunshine Coast (Australia)
Coolamon College
The University of Saskatchewan
Moravian Theological Seminary
Canadian Auto Workers
University of Maine
Takoma Park Presbyterian Church
Asbury Theological Seminary
Rainbow Families
Western Illinois University
Presbytery of San Jose (PCUSA) pdf
Drew University
Wright State University
Iowa State University
Hartford Seminary
The University of Montana – Missoula
The Law Society of British Columbia
University of Illinois Board of Trustees
Virginia State Bar pdf
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

A quick search today reveals more policing:

UNC (my alma mater or pater; they’ve even stopped using “freshman“)
Sarah Lawrence College
CQ University Australia
The University of Sydney
Marquette University
Canadian Government (with a quiz to check your usage!)
Canadian Department of Justice
American Philosophical Association
New Mexico State University
Iowa State University
Seattle Pacific University
St. Bonaventure University
University of Notre Dame, Department of Theology
Asbury Theological Seminary
New South Wales Parliamentary Counsel’s Office
United Nations
United States Supreme Court (this article laments the court’s lagging behind but, in the conclusion, praises Justice Alito for his use of gender-neutral language)
U.S. State Department (the gender-neutering of our passports)

For more reading on the loss that will come to our culture and, particularly, to our Bible translations by the continued policing of generic masculines and anything that smacks of masculinity, take a look at Vern Poythress’s good work here.

TNIV: The Seeker-Friendly Translation

Originally posted at Stealth Bible: TNIV

Gilbert Bilezikian, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College and trailblazer for all things feminist, describes the TNIV as a “seeker-friendly translation.” I believe he’s hit the nail precisely on the head.

Given that one of the characteristics of the seeker movement is to cut the role of the Word of God in worship; given that the seeker movement hopes to present the Word of God in such a way that it will avoid offense; given that the seeker church is addicted to image and images and is willing to forgo verbal communication for visual communication, Bilezikian is oh so right to make the connection.

Look at the endorsements page at the TNIV site…seeker church after seeker church lauding the remarkable achievements of the TNIV’s CBT. Seeker churches, churches like Willow Creek, have despised the Word of God for some time (arguing for the rights of sodomites, steering clear of sermons calling for repentance, pushing for egalitarianism inside and outside the church, importing idols into the worship of God)…and they’ve now got a Bible project to fit their ideology. It’s newly cleaned up with offense freshly removed and ready for the seeker who knows perfectly well what he wants and the pastor who knows perfectly well what he doesn’t want.

Nowhere Person

Originally posted at Stealth Bible: TNIV on 3.17.05

The Beatles were hopelessly patriarchal in their use of language, so we present here a translation of the Beatles classic Nowhere Man for today’s 18-34 year old.

You’re a real Nowhere Person,
Sitting in your Nowhere Land,
Making all your Nowhere plans for nobody.
Doesn’t have a point of view,
Know not where you’re going to,
Aren’t they a bit like you and me?
Nowhere person please listen,
You don’t know what you’re missing,
Nowhere Person, the world is at your command.
You’re as blind as you can be,
Just see what you want to see,
Nowhere Person can you see me at all?
Nowhere Person don’t worry,
Take your time, don’t hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else,
Lends you a hand…

Nowhere Person please listen,
Nowhere Person, the world is at your command.
You’re a real Nowhere Person,
Sitting in your Nowhere Land,
Making all your Nowhere plans for nobody…

John 2:4

Originally posted at Stealth Bible: TNIV on 2.27.05

ESV: And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

TNIV: “Woman, d why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

d 4 The Greek for Woman does not denote any disrespect.

It is one thing to call a stranger “woman,” as Jesus does in Luke 13:12, but quite another to address your own mother in this way. When Mary and the Apostle John stand at the foot of His Cross, Jesus says to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26). Jesus is not speaking with disrespect but His form of address arises from His work. He–the eternal Son of God–is bearing the sins of the world, including the sins of this woman standing before Him. The Son of Man hanging on the cross at that moment is not simply Mary’s boy, but God Himself dying for His people’s sins. And though there is tenderness in His instruction to John to provide for and protect her after His death, his addressing her as “woman,” indicates the supreme authority He had over her, being both her Creator and Redeemer.

But to state categorically that the Greek word ‘woman’ never has any connotation of disrespect, and to give this reassurance each time the term is used as a noun of direct address, is an indication either of ignorance or timidity on the part of the TNIV’s translators.

In the above John 2 passage, Jesus is rebuking His mother, and His addressing her “Woman” is central to that rebuke. But the TNIV’s footnote blunts the force of Jesus’ words, reassuring the reader that “The Greek for Woman does not denote any disrespect.” One response might be to say, “Well, maybe this use of ‘woman’ doesn’t denote disrespect, but it certainly does have a connotation of something approximating disrespect. But the TNIV’s translators are too busy reassuring their readers to allow this truth to shine through.

Thankfully, our fathers in the faith (and readers today possessing a modicum of good sense) easily understand what the translators of the TNIV tried to hide. For instance, here’s John Calvin’s comment on this text:

“Woman, what have I to do with thee?” Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ…

It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of woman, and not even deign to call her mother? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.

How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and–what is worse–they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him.

In our day of only tepid concern over the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, it’s not surprising we would footnote this text with soothing reassurances carefully calculated to keep from offending our apple pie and motherhood culture. But then, one of the Reformation’s war horses reminds us that when Almighty God speaks it sounds like thunder and the mountains quake.

Essentially Literal versus Linguistic Antinomianism

Originally posted at Stealth Bible: TNIV on 2.8.2005

I offer the following somewhat lengthy quotation in order to address some of the comments on previous posts. Yes, translation involves interpretation–but form (words, grammar, syntax) must constrict and inform meanings. Leland Ryken and Jack Collins, recognizing this, call for “essentially literal” translations…

Leland Ryken’s excellent book The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation has a chapter describing seven fallacies about Bible translation. The first fallacy he addresses is the common assumption that the work of a translator is to decipher and transfer meanings, rather than words. The translators of the TNIV make this very claim in their preface titled “A Word to the Reader”:

The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures.

Ryken writes…

No principle has been more central to the dynamic equivalent project than the claim that translators should translate the meaning or ideas rather than the words of the original. Eugene Nida has been the definitive exponent of this view, nowhere more clearly than when he writes about the priorities that should govern translation. Among Nida’s priorities is “the priority of meaning…. This means that certain rather radical departures from the formal structure are not only legitimate but may even be highly desirable.” A corollary to this principle is a relative disparagement of words themselves, as in Nida’s statement that “words are merely vehicles for ideas,” a view of language that A. H. Nichols stigmatizes as “docetic.”

Once we are clued into this context, the prefaces to dynamic equivalent translations say more than most readers think, partly by virtue of what they omit. When these translators claim to give “the meaning of the original” (GNB) or “the thought of the biblical writers” (NIV), they signal that the translators were committed to translating what they interpret the meaning of the original to be instead of first of all preserving the language of the original. The premise is that “a thought-for-thought translation…has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately that a word-for-word translation” (NLT).

The fallacy of thinking that a translation should translate meaning rather than the words of the original is simple: There is no such a thing as diembodied thought, emancipated from words. Ideas and thoughts depend on words and are expressed by them. When we change the words, we change the meaning. An expert on Bible translation has expressed the matter thus:

Language is not a mere receptacle. Nor does the Bible translator work with some disembodied ‘message’ or ‘meaning.’ He is struggling to establish some correspondences between expressions of the different languages involved. He can only operate with these expressions and not with wordless ideas that he might imagine lie behind them. Translators must not undervalue the complex relationship between form and meaning.

The whole dynamic equivalent project is based on an impossibility and a misconception about the relationship between the words and meaning. Someone has accurately said that “the word may be regarded as the body of the thought,” adding that “if the words are taken from us, the exact meaning is of itself lost.”

Further on in the chapter, Ryken concludes:

Dynamic equivalence shows its weakness partly in the variability that stems from the theory. Proponents of dynamic equivalency need to do more than defend their preferred dynamic equivalent translation. If it is the theory itself that proponents wish to endorse, they need to offer a defense of the variability that stems from their theory, or formulate controls on the wide-ranging renditions that typically characterize the dynamic equivalence tradition. Until they can produce such controls, the far-flung variability that we find in dynamic equivalent translations constitutes a linguistic antinomianism, with every translation committee a law to itself in the sense that once it decides what the meaning of a passage is, the translators are free to express that meaning without attention to the words of the original.

Mozart in the House!

Originally posted at Stealth Bible: TNIV on 6.25.05

Back in the late ’80s and early ’90s director Peter Sellars’ stagings of Mozart operas were all the rage. Sellars took the 18th-century Classical music and plopped it down in a 20th-century American setting (for example, The Marriage of Figaro is set in Trump Tower, Fifth Avenue).

Questions about such productions arise, especially about how the new visual context will amplify or destroy the original Da Ponte libretti. How does one, with any seriousness and integrity, make a 20th century gangster in Harlem sing, “She is to meet me in the arbour to-night; Hush! There’s odour, th’aroma sweet of woman-kind…”? (Don Giovanni)

Well, you say, I’ve never known an opera that didn’t make me suspend reality for some or most of the time. Nothing different here. And I say to a certain extent you are right, but why import a plethora of unnecessary incongruities that will produce neither good 18th-century opera or good 20th-century stagecraft? The dissonance added in Peter Sellars’ staging is not just a minor distraction; it is downright destructive and results in hilarity. Make ten men dress up as Medieval knights, have them play basketball, and you’ll see what I mean. With Sellars’ indelicate touch, Don Giovanni becomes Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

Sellars is still working, too…just a few summers ago, he made Idomeneo become George W. Bush. The reviewer agrees with my assessment.

When modern contexts are given more influence upon a production than original contexts, the results will be all mixed-up. Mozart opera in which the man is wearing breeches and singing under an arbor speaks more powerfully than the gangster singing the same melodies in a diner.

The same dissonance results when one attempts to create Scripture versions for particular 21st-century contexts (like the feminized 18-34 year-old demographic). One is constrained to make an ancient text conform to a particular modern American dialect and ideology. Now, don’t hear what I’m not saying…translation must take into account the language into which it is being translated; but, the original context in all its fullness, must have a distinct influence upon the end result. When a translator forces his sophisticated modern sensibilities (i.e. feminism) upon the original text and removes the residue of patriarchy, he’s committed the same error (though more heinous, of course) as Peter Sellars: forcing the now upon the then .

6,461,054,577 New Translations Needed

Visit the Zondervan site, and you’ll notice the old NIV being touted as “the best combination of accuracy to the original texts and readability for the contemporary reader.” Now, it very well could be that Zondervan has not updated their site in a long time and is simply trying to figuring out how to market the NIV given the emergence of the NIV’s twisted sister, the TNIV. But there’s a bit of a contradiction here.

On one site they call the NIV the most accurate and on another site they call the TNIV the most accurate. You see, the scholarship behind the TNIV is deemed to be the best around, yielding the best results. From the FAQ page at www.tniv.info we get this: “…the TNIV is more precise in its language [than the NIV], creating a highly readable Bible for today’s generations that reflects the most recent advances in biblical scholarship.”

They fudge a bit, though, and explain the TNIV as the most accurate Bible for 18-34 year-olds: “The TNIV is the most accurate translation for 18- to 34-year-olds because it is written in today’s language.”

There you have it; that clarifies the issue! For 0-17 year-olds and 35-80 year-olds the most accurate translation remains the NIV because it retains the antiquated dialect of English 1984 (and shall always do so because of Zondervan’s unflinching commitment to publish the NIV unchanged). For 18-34 year-olds, the most accurate translation is now the TNIV.

There’s just something different about those 18 to 34 year-olds, and they simply must not be forced to read a translation with – gasp! – generic masculine pronouns. They just don’t get it, man (er…human)!

Hey, Zondervan, will you make a translation for my two and a half year-old daughter who thinks flowers are called tacos. Boy (er…young human) would the Scriptures come alive to her! Oh, I guess it would be easy enough for me to make those changes to Scripture on the fly as I read it to her…

When will Zondervan tell us which one of her “adult” translations is better – or am I being hopelessly modernistic when I demand such an answer? Will I get my answer when sales figures tip in the direction of the TNIV? Or will devotion to reader-response theory bring a relentless barrage of niche translations? Like our growing feet necessitate larger shoes, we’ll graduate from one translation to the next.

At the very least we’ll need 6,461,054,577 new translations.

James 1:12

More from the old tniv.worldmagblog.com website I edited last year.

NASB: “Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”

TNIV: “Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

The TNIV has changed the Greek aner (“man”) to “those” and changed the masculine singular pronouns to plural pronouns. They give this explanation on their “Passages Explained” page:

Our critics are simply wrong in claiming that aner must mean “man” and cannot mean “person” (see Acts 20:30). Especially in proverbial language, such as we have here in James 1:12, the influence from the extensive overlap between the Hebrew ‘ish and Greek aner is very strong. It is, then, the translation “man” that might introduce a change in meaning, since the word is increasingly used in modern English to denote males in distinction from females: an idea that James clearly does not intend.

First, James and the Holy Spirit knew about the word anthropos and could have used it. They did not but instead chose to use the word aner (male).

Second, whoever wrote this explanation states that James clearly did not intend to mean male as distinct from female. How does he know? Is this really so clear? Could it not be that this verse was written specifically to encourage the aners of the congregation? Perhaps even the whole book was written to aners, particularly the male leaders of the church. Wouldn’t this be a simple explanation of James’ and the Holy Spirit’s repeated use of “brothers,” and the lack of specific direction for women, and the discussion of who should become teachers?

The attitude of the TNIV scholars as shown in their ability to discern what the Biblical authors meant in contradistinction to the actual words they wrote defines them as opposed to the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Perhaps they will come up with some sort of new concept: the plenary, dynamic inspiration of the Scriptures.

Soft men protect soft men…

Originally posted at Stealth Bible: TNIV on 3.4.05

We have pointed out that the TNIV is a version of Scripture carefully filtered for the removal of content that’s offensive to our feminized culture and the effeminate men it produces, so it’s no shock to us to find that the NASB’s use of “effeminate” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 doesn’t make it into the TNIV. Who would expect the TNIV to use the word as a pejorative term when the TNIV’s father, the NIV, as well as the ESV, also avoid it?

1 Corinthians 6:9

NASB: “Or do you now know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor *effeminate, nor homosexuals,…”.

*I.e., effeminate by perversion

ESV: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality*,…”.

*The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

NIV: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…”.

TNIV: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals…”.

Nestle 27: ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται

BDAG Lexicon:
μαλακός, ή, όν (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX, Philo; Jos., Ant. 8, 72βύσσος μ.) soft.
1. of things: clothes (Hom.+; Artem. 1, 78 p. 73, 10 ἱματίων πολυτελῶν κ. μαλακῶν; PSI 364, 5 ἱμάτιον μαλ.) μ. ἱμάτια soft garments, such as fastidious people wear Lk 7:25. (τὰ) μ. soft clothes (Sb 6779, 57; cf. λευκός 2, end) Mt 11:8a, b.
2. of pers. soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually (Dionys. Hal. 7, 2, 4; Dio Chrys. 49[66], 25; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 15, 10; Vett. Val. 113, 22; Diog. L. 7, 173; PHib. 54, 11 [c. 245 bc] a musician called Zenobius ὁ μαλακός [cf. Dssm., LO 131, 4-LAE 150, 4]. Sim. a Macedon. inscr. in LDuchesne and CBayet, Mémoire sur une Mission au Mont Athos 1876 no. 66 p. 46; Plautus, Miles 668 cinaedus malacus) 1 Cor 6:9=Pol 5:3.—S. lit. s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης. M-M. B. 1065.*

ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ (Bardesanes in Euseb., Pr. Ev. 6, 10, 25.—Anth. Pal. 9, 686, 5 and Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII 4 p. 196, 6; 8 ἀρρενοκοίτης.—ἀρσενοκοιτεῖν Sib. Or. 2, 73) a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cf. Ro 1:27. DSBailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, ’55. M-M.*

The above versions differ substantially in how they translate the Greek word malakos. The NASB translates malakos as “effeminate” or “effeminate by perversion;” the ESV defines malakos in a note as the passive participant in homosexual intercourse but ignores the term in the main body; the NIV and TNIV translate it as “male prostitute.”

Which translation is right?

BDAG, the Greek-English Lexicon, shows that the NASB’s “effeminate” captures the nuance of the original Greek. First, malakos, BDAG notes, literally means “soft” and was used to describe soft clothing and, when used to describe persons, meant “soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually.”

Additionally, Robert Gagnon–arguably the foremost Biblical scholar on homosexuality–writes, “Paul used malakoi, literally ‘soft men,’ in the sense of ‘effeminate males who play the sexual role of females.'” Note that he describes these males not simply as sodomites or catamites but effeminate males who overturn the God-given use of the male body. Gagnon lists five points in support of his definition:

a. Its placement in the midst of other terms that refer to participants in illicit sexual intercourse.b. Its position in the vice list immediately before the term arsenokoitai, which clearly refers to the active homosexual partner.

c. The severe penalty imposed for being a malakos (exclusion from the kingdom of God), which suggests a form of effeminacy well beyond the stereotypical limp wrist (contra Martin 1996, 124-129).

d. The use of cognates by Philo of Alexandria to describe men who actively feminize themselves for the purpose of attracting other men (N96).

e. The use of the comparable Latin term molles (“soft men”) in tandem with other terms that refer to effeminate males desirous of penetration by other men: the cinaedi (Gk. Kinaidoi, lit., “butt shakers”) and pathici (“those who undergo [penetration]”; see N97). These designations were not confined to adolescents or cult prostitutes, much less did they imply coercion. In fact, they applied especially to adult males who willingly–whether by innate orientation or not–went to great efforts to feminize their bodies, dress, and manner in order to attract men and thus eradicate the masculine stamp given by nature (N98).

Reading Gagnon’s detailed historical analysis makes it clear the ESV’s passive participant does not capture the nuance of malakos, but even more that the NIV and TNIV’s “male prostitute” completely misses the mark. The TNIV’s translation implies an exchange of money for sex–which, as the evidence above demonstrates, is not the intent of Paul’s use of malakos. Paul is condemning the unnatural character of the effeminate pervert of which his sexual position is just one manifestation. In other words, God is mocked when a man attempts to live as a woman by cultivating an effeminate sexual identity.

What a perfect time to miss this mark, when effeminancy and its modern English counterparts–androgyny and metrosexuality–are chic.

It’s clear how, if the Holy Spirit’s words are allowed to make it into our Bibles, those very words will be “profitable so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17). As the Angel of the Lord gazed on Sodom and Gomorrah sizing up her wickedness, so today the Holy Spirit sees and speaks into the twenty-first century with great precision. ‘Malakos’ is written, then, to condemn effeminacy–the very cultivated feminization of the male so in vogue today. Gagnon points out that the malakoi “went to great efforts to feminize their bodies, dress, and manner in order to attract men and thus eradicate the masculine stamp given by nature.”

In Paul’s use of these two terms, he is designating both passive and active partners in homosex–the catamite and the sodomite. Both BDAG and Gagnon indicate that by Paul’s use of malakoi, he is connecting both personal characteristics of effeminacy and the sexual act whereby one man “plays the woman” in physical intimacy.

Why then does the TNIV translate malakoi “male prostitute”?

There is no justification for this translation–only an explanation.

Translators of the TNIV are in the business of erasing the innate patriarchalism of the Scriptures. A feminized culture is scandalized by Paul’s inclusion of malakos. “Surely, Paul can’t mean effeminate or soft–that is just too broad. Paul shouldn’t stoop to such stereotyping. We don’t need more men who think it’s their calling to be hard and tough. Rather, we need more men who are sensitive and know how to cry, like Jesus.”

The Holy Spirit’s use of malakos stands as an explicit testimony against the enemies of God’s Truth so aggressively promoting their perversion in our culture. Bible translators who hide this word’s denotation and connotation are then conniving at these evils. Soft men protect soft men from hard truths. They’re like the man who looks in the mirror but immediately forgets what he saw…