Short Take: Explain what the “homophones” of the social justice movement are?

Christians fail to understand that, out of the mouths of social justice progressives, these words are merely homophones.

I had to look that word up there, Ben. That word means it's a word having the same sound but a different meaning. It's like the word new, k-n-e-w, means something different, very different than the word new, n-e-w. That's a homophone.

These words, love, equality, and justice, are homophones. They're words that we think we understand, but that side has completely different meanings to them than, like, a biblical evangelical Christian. You go on to say they conceal crucial definitional distinctions grounded in questions as philosophically bedrock as whether or not human beings have free will or even objective truth exists. So explain this—now I think I would say it's an intentional deception to use words that evangelicals are familiar with and are fond of, and how they are used to persuade evangelicals over to the political left side. It works on everybody because everybody wants to believe they're a good person.

And it works especially well on Christians because our identity is focused on trying to embody the values of Christ, and love and justice especially are pretty important to that. Christians aren't ready to interrogate these words when they hear them. They just assume that they're in agreement. For instance, there was an example pretty recently of a BLM leader in the UK who had a tweet taken down, and the substance of the tweet was something to the extent of the white man will not be our equal, he will be our slave.

And she hashtagged that with no justice, no peace. In this person's mind, it is possible to say that I'm going to enslave another person, and that is justice. And I think most people, if they were to look at it in this way, and they were to see this evidence, they would say, okay, we clearly mean different things. Like, it was wrong of us to assume that this word meant the same thing to both of us. But it's very understandable that people make that assumption, because that's the point of language. The point of language is that we can use a sound and be reasonably assured that both of us are thinking the same thing because of that sound. It's no longer true, and the push to do that has been very deliberate. It comes from a place called post-structuralism. It's a field of study that is very interested in the way that language can be used to shape power. And so it's been studied, it's been kind of dissected, and now academics are able to use what they've learned to load words with more and more ideology that people aren't aware of.