Friday, 21 December 2007 Why would someone look to someone else and ask if its OK to say what you want to say ? We are a free people. Nobody decides what is proper to say. The European socialist may control language ( can even over rule what you name your child ( Italy) ) but here we have a Constitution with the Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech, but we have no right not to be offended. One should not be afraid to offend someone with their speech because of what others will say, but only out of personal respect and consideration for that person. Not a group.
In America we are all individuals. All people are free and different. When someone allows someone else to speak for them they give-up their freedom and any chance of success as a person. No person can speak for others. What may offend one may compliment another. When someone says they speak for a race, a sex, or any other group , they are, in effect disrespecting those in that group as individuals and stripping them of their own personal power of opinion. When, those in that group start believing what is being represented about them their own initiative is devolved and they become slaves to the group leaders opinion. Their lack of personal power and self respect hinders them from obtaining, self respect , jobs , relationships and yes even respecting the law. Its only in the state of no self respect can one be offended.When we find these “ Personal Power Thieves “ who claim to speak for others we should prosecute them for theft but, instead we glorify them as great leaders ( i.e. jessie jackson, ) and when we recognize them as such we commit a crime against those they claim to speak for.I have some friends who describe themselves as Black, one who is Negro and yes some who are Colored, Dutchman, Hillbilly, Crout, White and African American but all are proud Americans only. When one considers if what he may say is politically correct, he to has fallen into someones controlled group and loses his individual respect.Remember that only in socialism are there divisions and to " Divide and Conquer or Control ” is whats being attempted here as evident when questioning ones own speech.And That's The National WordTechnorati Profile
I posted a comment - and then realized that expecting the comment to stay - or even appear - was silly. Not when such a disagreeable post had nothing but dittos following it. So I decided instead to respond here.
My response to this post and to the majority of the commentators is "horseshit."
The term "political correctness" is being used here in the usual sense - by stupid people who think they are "rugged individuals" just like all other "Right-Thinking Americans." They are trying to use arguments crafted by their betters for the protection of significant speech intended to provoke debate between citizens to justify the right to offend others.
There is, indeed, no right to not be offended. But there are words for the act speaking in ways intended to offend large numbers of people with the potential of provoking violence and making debate pointless.
Stupidity. Verbal Assault. Hate Speech. And quite possibly - "Death by Misadventure."
These "rugged individualists" all seem to band together, with the same sets "Evil Others", like "Socialists" and "Liberals" and Mexicans. Such obvious unintentional irony seems to be the hallmark of the New Right - and would embarrass the HELL out of Saint Barry G.
They are crying out that people are attempting to suppress their literal right to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater. Well, yes, some people are.
When you wish to disturb the peace and have the clearly insane belief that you should get away get away with it, a little suppression is in order. It may be technically illegal - perhaps even "wrong" in some sense to leave you bleeding and whimpering in a corner as the consequence of your actions. It's perhaps even against the Darwinian ideal to prevent that from happening, as stupidity really ought to be it's own reward. Nonetheless, there are may reasons why we prefer the rule of law to Lex Talonis and disapprove of those who would try the patience of others with stupidities intended to provoke what they fondly believe will be futile, choked, impotent outrage. Sensible people do not wish to be anywhere near such a deserving recipient of Karma. Karma ain't all that precise.
Me, I actually DO support their putative "right" to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater in the depth of darkest Harlem, but I also support the long-neglected "fighting words doctrine."
That is to say, should you be fool enough to do that, the law should hold those so deliberately provoked harmless, and the consequence of such damnfoolishness should be listed as "death by natural causes," or possibly "aggravated pesticide," while any damages resulting should be assessed against your estate.
Real Rugged Individualists assume that other people are also individuals - Equally honorable, just as touchy and probably armed.
Therefore, they are courteous!
Courtesy does not even imply agreement. It means that one refrains from stupidly and needlessly insulting ones whom one does disagree with. It means treating others with respect - and especially those with whom you disagree.
I deplore the concept of Political Correctness myself - but the author is deliberately confusing it with attempts to distinguish between disagreeable protected speech and Hate Speech. So I need not confuse matters by speaking about Political Correctness. This ain't that.
This is about the putative "right" to hold stupid, uninformed, racist opinions without consequence. This is an insistence on the right to form and maintain a lynch mob to attack and suppress all the ideas they don't want to hear, or which cause them to doubt the validity of their own pinheaded self-righteousness.
It's a position that should (and quite possibly does) embarrass people who sincerely believe in the superiority of the white race, and who really do try to support that view with evidence and argument they think persuasive.
I do not agree with the conclusion, or much respect the quality of the reasoning, but I do respect the willingness to play the game at long odds.
But these people - they don't have that degree of self-respect. And because of that, they do not understand that courtesy is not a concession to the "tender feelings" of others but rather evidence of one secure enough in their own selves and the validity of their own position that they need not be rude, discourteous or dismissive, even toward those those they despise. Hate speech is properly seen as verbal violence that can easily lead to literal violence.
Oh, people who confuse "your" and "you're" should really invest in a spelling and grammar check - especially when deriding institutions of higher learning.
It's little ironies like that that suggest to intelligent folks of all political hues that everyone holding these opinions are as dangerously stupid as their communications make them seem. Should it become common enough to seem stereotypical, - well, one of my favorite ironies of the ages is a grumpy quotation from WWII:
"This Hitler fellow has made it impossible for a gentleman to be an Anti-Semite."
Let me hit that nail again: If the general perception becomes that everyone holding a particular set of views holds them for reasons as evidently disreputable, superficial and for reasons that reasonable people will assume to be at least partially racist, whatever validity the positions may have becomes quite irrelevant.
At some point it just becomes too damn embarrassing to be seen holding the views you do in public, at least. So in one generation, or two at the most - the intellectual justifications for the core idea are gone. There are only those who think it's stupid - and those stupid enough to not understand how stupid they appear.
And - here's the kicker - opportunities to breed are allocated on just such perceptions.
When the contents of a post are highly congruent with an evident absence of factual understanding of the history and economic factors involved in various important cultural and economic issues, while being nearly word-for-word the views of known and famous liars, such as Limbaugh, Malkin and O'Rielly, it's likely a waste of effort to take you seriously enough to respectfully consider your opinions.
Courtesy is a requirement for civilized society. It requires a certain level of social skill, a certain minimal concept of polite language. It is advantaged by at least verbal literacy. If one wishes one's ideas to be heard and considered, the ability to speak without spitting is a minimal requirement.
I certainly have no reason to respect someone likely to mislabel me as a "kraut" AND misspell the slur. I certainly do not consider them to have the same right to an opinion as do I - and if it turns out that they are agreeing with me, using the same arguments as I might, I will do well to reassess my position.
By the way, I'm an Antiathoritarian Libertarian, and for damn sure an individualist; certified by the NRA as a marksman before I was able to drink legally.
To do that, you have to put a .22 round in a target the rough size of a human eyeball five times out of five at 25 feet, using a fifteen pound rifle and NO optics, prone, braced, kneeling and offhand.
Not only can I shoot a deer, I can skin it, butcher it and probably cook it better than most. And given a forge, tools and a stack of old rebar, I can make and edge tools good enough for those tasks.
I grew up near a small resource based town, on the land, and I bet I've shovelled more literal shit than most people have ever seen. I've driven a tractor, groomed horses and knocked domestic rabbits in the head so I could eat them. That last, by the age of five. I could field-strip most any rifle without looking at the directions - but I'm not that dumb.
In other words, this arrogant bastard is exactly the sort of redneck most suburban rednecks pretend to be.
I've never gone to Harvard - OR Yale. Or any university. I have two years of community college, and I learned how to learn and think for myself pretty much in spite of my education. I'm naturally very conservative of things worth respecting and conserving, such as the Constitution, momentum, credit and capital, cause and effect, the good opinion of others and every word of The Art of War.
I've read the Good Book from front to back - and formed my own opinions. Which are, by the by, nobody's business, but I know it well enough that I don't need someone else to tell me what it "Really" means.
But from the dull, turgid and depressingly conformist prose dropped by such twaddlepates, like so many individually indistinguishable rabbit droppings, these fake "real Americans" still think you need some form of "permission" to be an individualist - and that requires that you all nod in the same places when the same damn-fool things are said.
Right may be Right, but only if it's factually correct. And these days, if you are able to read and write on the Internet, there is no excuse for being factually challenged, no matter what your politics.
Please note that I have not said anything whatsoever to indicate what I might actually think on anything said above. I've only stated my opinion of the "reasoning" expressed. It would be particularly stupid to assume from that, or from the fact that I write in a particularly high-falutin' way that I'm some "liberal" or "socialist."
I AM an intellectual. So was Barry Goldwater. So was Henry the K. So was Nixon. And (as much as he tries to hide it) so is Bill Clinton. As is Ron Paul and his good buddy Dennis Kucinich.
None of them would agree on much, overall. And not one would be unwilling to back up their views with facts. Nor would any of them, to the best of my knowledge, WHINE about having to be accountable for their words - indeed, all of them are or were willing to be tried in the court of public opinion based on how well their ideas worked out.
Not so with the folks at The National Word, so deep in their dittohead groupthink that they are incapable of perceiving the irony in calling those who disagree "socialists," thinking that the definition of "socialism" is putting people into groups and making them think alike. It's an hilarious case of the National Socialist calling the Christian Democrat black.
Especially if his name is Sven.