“Shut it Down!”: Reuters Orders Cameraman to Kill Positive Trump Footage
A shock example of anti-Trump media censorship was caught on tape when Reuters ordered its cameraman to cu... more“Shut it Down!”: Reuters Orders Cameraman to Kill Positive Trump Footage
A shock example of anti-Trump media censorship was caught on tape when Reuters ordered its cameraman to cut live footage of Trump receiving praise from African-American Bishop Wayne T. Jackson in Detroit.
The word 'phobia,' upon which the suffix '-phobe' is based, is itself based on the Greek word 'Phobos' (meaning fear or the personification thereof). The dictionary (an... moreConsider:
The word 'phobia,' upon which the suffix '-phobe' is based, is itself based on the Greek word 'Phobos' (meaning fear or the personification thereof). The dictionary (and popular understanding) has the definition of 'homophobia' as the fear OR hatred of homosexuals. (We'll just assume the same rules apply in regard to 'Islamophobia.' I haven't looked it up. :-))
Fear and hatred are two wholly distinct emotions requiring equally distinct responses from society, so how is either term accurate (or fair) for both of the 'phobias' each is used to describe? (Maybe the wholesale manufacture of nonsensical neologisms is why people are getting so sick of the clear tyranny of political correctness?)
Let's use myself for an example. While I do not fear or hate homosexuals, I definitely DO fear Islam--as any rational person would--and I certainly do not hate Muslims. Why, in my case, should I be considered a 'hater' when I 'hate' no one? Why should anyone? Why do people have such a hard time differentiat... less
The term "liberal" had me confused for quite some time, especially since in Australia the Liberal Party is the right wing equivalent of the English Tories.
My confusion dissolved,... moreThe term "liberal" had me confused for quite some time, especially since in Australia the Liberal Party is the right wing equivalent of the English Tories.
My confusion dissolved, a while ago, when I looked up the history of how it first developed in England and then later in America.
It turns out that there are separate strands of political and or moral liberalism.
A person can embrace one but not the other on logically consistent and sound premises.
Many people are left without being in the least morally liberal.
Many are ethically laissez-faire and abhor the left.
And yet a substantial proportion of liberals embrace both the leftist politics and various degrees of philosophical position on liberty.
The positions on how to best create freedom range from anarchy at one extreme to the proactive assertion of equal rights and non-discrimination at the opposite pole - with most people sitting somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
On aM, it seems to me that people often don't seem to realise that they are ... less
"High and dry" originally pertained to a ship that was left grounded so as to be entirely above water at low tide". It is also used to mean stranded or abandoned.
