[by XLS]

Rather than “correct thinking” – a hackneyed and unfounded expression – I now invite you to prefer the term “orthopensée” which shares the same prefix as the words “orthographe” or “orthopédiste”. This has the advantage of emphasizing that it is not so much a question of appreciating the rigor of a thought as its conformity to a rule, in this case moral. We can conjugate: J'orthopens.e que… Tu orthopense.es… Or amalgamate: “cesser de dysorthopenser” To which we will respond: “je transorthopense, damn, quoi: respecte moi”

Let me now introduce you to the verb “orthopiner”, which etymologically means: “to opine in a manner consistent with the rule”, “to have a fair opinion”. It elegantly replaces all the variants of the dacadent expression: “I think that”. From now on, we will no longer say “I think that Raoult is a swindler” but rather, in a way that displays the conformism of our opinion that is governed by the best intentions: “I orthopine that Didier Raoult dysorthopense*”. Or we will no longer say: “It is not possible that inclusive writing is not imposed in the administration” but rather: “I orthopin.e”. “Orthopinion” will therefore allow us to introduce the beginnings of a constructive orthothought. We will orthopin as much as possible in comments to BFM articles, if possible in groups so that orthoopinion is imposed by force as long as dysorthopensives continue to orthopinate wrongly that they could orthothink by themselves: which would be paradoxical. We will conjugate the verb on the model of its close cousin: “I orthopin.e, you orthopin.es…”; “that you orthopinass.es, that he orthopînat.e” Don't thank me.

There is no need to elaborate at length on “orthocroire” and “orthocuider” which, being less commonly used, are now out of use due to the collapse of the system of religions in Western Europe. But let us bet that the planned emergence of a universal religion of “Love for all” will very quickly make these two French products useful at a time when the first auto-da-fé, so quick to revive the faith of the most faltering, will be rekindled. But enough of this idle blah-blah – I will come back to these notions later. For now, let us return to the system of negation in the universe of orthocuidances and their link with criminogenesis. To understand this well, we must first imagine what denying means in language. Indeed, in logical science, “denying” means “reversing the truth value of a statement”. For example, stating that “the earth is flat” (a positive but false statement – ​​yes, I know, it’s stupid) is to reverse the truth value of the statement “the earth is not flat” (which, although negative, is true). To assert that the “earth is flat” is therefore, in logic, to DENY the truth value of a statement that is nevertheless negative – but true: “the earth is not flat, banana”. We obviously sense that the reality of the language does not cover the logical mechanism: in language, asserting “inclusive writing is an opportunity for the world” is not perceived as an element of assertion negating the previous statement: “inclusive writing is not just nonsense, it is also an aberration”. To say: “I only eat priests” is not the inversion of the truth value of the underlying statement: “a priest is not edible” and it is difficult to still imagine the functions of negation in noun phrases designating the poor in spirit such as “He is a [non] understanding”. In short, I will stop there – but you get the problem: negation in French (for the verbal system as for the lexical system) is not based on any logical foundation: it is a complex syntactic operation in its description – particularly in French because of the adverbial correlation of the bitensive system (in writing: yes, in writing, the bitense system. Not in speaking. Well, not for everyone).

How can we reconcile such laxity in the representation of negativity, which is so essential for all orthothinkers who love to explicitly throw anathemas so that everyone becomes orthopinous? Saying “boo, the nasty bad guys” must be understood by everyone as a healthy salutary operation guiding the people on the paths of freedom, and not as a vulgar insult… Especially since at the same time, the orthobeliever knows very well that speaking ill is not good! And so, saying that people who do not think like them are “non-orthobelievers” or “non-orthothinkers”: this is loading the statement with a contradictory negativity that could lead one to think that its speaker is not in the camp of good and morality – causing the myth of orthocuidance to collapse immediately! Horrible double bind! Which naturally results in the elimination of verbal negation from the discourse of orthocuidants.

First it's complicated, and then: it's negative, the negation.

The verbal system of orthocuidance cannot tolerate its negativation by the adverbs traditionally assigned to this role in the French of yesteryear, so it will be a matter of replacing the old system with an increased use of semantic negativation carried by prefixes which have the advantage 1- of showing that the speaker is open-minded to any form of speech emanating from others 2- that the “m.â/al(e).orthopensant” is nevertheless an enemy to be defeated. We will therefore always propose positive statements and we will never say: “This imbecile does not orthothink”, which would be too aggressive and would generate a feeling of sadness in the interlocutor, but rather: “he m.â/al(e).orthopense” or “ielle dysorthopense”.

Indeed, by using the prefix, we can easily introduce a gradation in verbal negativation: it is obvious that a man – in the biological, binary, terf, cis and non-racialized sense – who does not orthothink is necessarily in the greatest of errors and his feelings being of little value, we can assign him the prefix “ma/â.le” which would be the acme of negativation: “il m.â/al(e).orthopine, l’outrecuidant!” will for example be very appropriate in a university integration evening in the city center. While a non-binary, non-cis citizen can more easily “dysorthothink”: that is to say, already register in a process of repentance or redemption with regard to forgiving orthopensance. “Ielle dysorthopense when Ielle says that inclusive writing is exclusive of disability!”. It now remains to have the transposition of these mechanisms accepted in law so that the crimes of mal/al(e).orthopensance or dysorthopinion are admitted to the register of incivilities in the first instance, because their expression is offensive to the majority minorities of the orthobelief system.

We will see later for a criminal qualification of these dyspensations, which are in fact violent actions for the sensibilities of all, that is to say violent gestures in fact, that is to say exactions: crimes in other words. Crimes that we will have to be able to punish in proportion to the extent however with which we will have tolerated them until then. We will have warned you.