- This topic has 6 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
This the latest bit of PC chicanery/idiocy I have found. I dont know whether to be amused, angered, or saddened that there are people who think we should self censor in the first place. To be sure I could say the I-word I had to re-read the Constitution and it was right there in the First Amendment.[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I am pretty sure that means I have the RIGHT to say pretty much whatever I want, it doesnt mean anyone has to listen but I can still say it. I am pretty extremist on this whole rights issue thing though. I object to anything that even appears as if it might infringe on my rights.
Not just a 1st Amendment matter; correct word useage… one who has committed and illegal act is an “illegal”… pretty simple.
This fits in with a pattern of what the left seems to do, and I wish that someone would write up a study on this because it's rather interesting (in a social science type of way). I don't think that the right uses these same tactics (or at least not to the same degree), which suggests to me that some of this is rooted in political philosophy. Some of these tactics include: - language alteration- using the word "hate" as a descriptive catchall word for the opposition's motivations- claiming support of the right to free expression while effectively censoring your opponent- claiming your opponent's support is phony (e.g. "astroturf", "corporate") - claiming your opponent is ultimately motivated by greed or racismI'm sure we can think of more but these are some big ones that I see popping up time to time.
This fits in with a pattern of what the left seems to do, and I wish that someone would write up a study on this because it's rather interesting (in a social science type of way). I don't think that the right uses these same tactics (or at least not to the same degree), which suggests to me that some of this is rooted in political philosophy. Some of these tactics include: - language alteration- using the word "hate" as a descriptive catchall word for the opposition's motivations- claiming support of the right to free expression while effectively censoring your opponent- claiming your opponent's support is phony (e.g. "astroturf", "corporate") - claiming your opponent is ultimately motivated by greed or racismI'm sure we can think of more but these are some big ones that I see popping up time to time.
Fully agreed ! However you are styll usyng the hatred "I" ! 😉
This fits in with a pattern of what the left seems to do, and I wish that someone would write up a study on this because it's rather interesting (in a social science type of way). I don't think that the right uses these same tactics (or at least not to the same degree), which suggests to me that some of this is rooted in political philosophy. Some of these tactics include: - language alteration- using the word "hate" as a descriptive catchall word for the opposition's motivations- claiming support of the right to free expression while effectively censoring your opponent- claiming your opponent's support is phony (e.g. "astroturf", "corporate") - claiming your opponent is ultimately motivated by greed or racismI'm sure we can think of more but these are some big ones that I see popping up time to time.
I had not though of it that way before but you definitely have a point. Now that I think about it, it probably is political because if you can shape the terms used in debate then you can shape the debate itself. It probably has something to do with memes. If they can get people to self-censor then they are halfway to achieving thought control. As an example, how many people other than black people would be caught dead using the n-word in polite conversation anymore? Heck, most people have conditioned themselves to say African-American nowadays. Ultimately they may be too successful judging by some of the controversy generated by rap artsts use of the n-word. I hate using that aphorism, it sounds childish. We all know what word I am talking about and there is nothing inherently evil in a collection of letters, it is context and usage that denotes intent not the word itself.
On a related note, I have found the labeling of Native American groups to be especially curious. Sometime (perhaps the 1980s) there was a move away from using the word “Indian” to “Native American”. However, I recall a teacher in high school (who fell on the PC side of this issue) to start advocating the term “Indigenous Peoples” instead. Now, I have heard the term “First Nation” to be used (though perhaps this is not universally used).This is all baffling. What's the deal with all the changes? First, as much as we might think otherwise, a group doesn't necessarily get to determine its own label (think of the terms "Birthers" or the derogatory "tea baggers"). But the fact that society does respect the wishes of a group to label itself does not give that group the right to keep changing that label. Second, it almost seems to me that this is a case of cultural one-upmanship. Just as one label for a group makes its way into society, that group pulls the rug out from underneath everyone else and brings in a new label.So anyway, language, political correctness, and politics can lead to curious situations then they collide.
And don't forget all those high school sport team changes. Can't use Indian in the name anymore. ::)Personally, I am offended by the name "Jets", but that's a different topic.
PC is killing debate and discourse all over the world. The sad part is that too many people go along with it instead of pointing out the absurdity of trying to censor the language. It really is a crude form of thought control.
PC also kills the fun of telling ethnic, gender, and scatological jokes — the most amusing of all, along with great puns.It ties in with the maddening contradiction taught in schools: Never stereotype, but you should respect the cultures of others -- except suttee, binding of feet, female circumcision, sundance ritual, etc. I would have included body mutiltions, but now in the West people do that by choice with piercings and tattooing.One ESL teacher in L.A. was told this at a meeting at the time an influx of Iranians had come to the city. "Cheating and lying are part of the Iranian culture, but never confront Iranian males if you catch them cheating because they are immature and cannot handle criticism."
Stereotypes exist because, at the most basic leve, there is a degree of truth in them.former teacher of mine was elevated to an elected office and had made that statement (caught major grief) and explained... "for instance the stereotype of the Irish as pub owners; that was the easiest way for a man to gewt beyond the dangerous jobs they were religated to in 18th century American. Low overhead... invest in three barrels of beer, a plank, some cheap glasses and you're in business. Expansion comes when the lady of the house makes a nice Irish stew (lunch is served)... good cash flow and expansion is on the way. No more fighting fires, or crooks, or digging ditches. This my friends was the American Dream.Boy did he catch sh*t for that one... but is was true.
I agree stereotypes are true in general. Most people are walking tribal, gender, foody, and generational clich?s whose behavior and beliefs are predictable.We stereotype positively or negatively based on our own biases.
There is at least a kernel of truth to every stereotype. That is why they persist. The funny thing about debating the I-word as they put it is what is someone in the country illegally other than an illegal alien? (that is a forehead slap for the retards that came up with this brain-dead idea)
The dems have modernized the Tamanny Hall approach for votes for an unassailable majority–open border, amnesty to easy citizenship for the uneducated with handouts while keeping out skilled people = eternal dem majority.A numberlesslyeachotherish (courtesy of e.e.cummings) lumpenproletariat demanding entitlements is their goal.
The dems have modernized the Tamanny Hall approach for votes for an unassailable majority--open border, amnesty to easy citizenship for the uneducated with handouts while keeping out skilled people = eternal dem majority.A numberlesslyeachotherish (courtesy of e.e.cummings) lumpenproletariat demanding entitlements is their goal.
Not if the people of America wake as they seem to be doing.
