Hello:
As a lib, I'm confused about political correctness.. I thought it meant using words that didn't offend, like saying woman instead of broad, or like saying black man instead of n**. But, KILL??
Somebody said it doesn't have that much to do with speech, but more to do with identity politics.. Frankly, as a lib, I'm confused about what identity politics is too.. What is IT, exactly??
excon
Ah!
So if I pass a black man on the street it's perfectly OK for me to say "what up, my nigga" as a friendly greeting?
Not insulting anyone. I'm just telling the truth and you think it's an insult to you (as you're apparently one of those "sensitive" cupcakes).
But no one is saying it's nice to insult someone, only that it's legal to do so so and should, contrary to liberal thinking, remain so. In some instances it puts the person making the statement into legal jeopardy via slander/liable laws, but it's still legal.
As to remaining calm about liberal encroachment on the 1st Amendment . . . I hear libs wanting to restrict free speech all the time. Even the assumed Democrat candidate for President wants to introduce a Constitutional amendment to restrict free speech. So your actions as a lib are quite contrary to what you say.
Hello again, Red:
Of course, you DENY you call people names.. Do you really think anybody BUYS that shit? You know, stuff IS archived here for ANYBODY to look at.. Are you banking on us being too lazy to do that??? You KNOW I will, and I'll post it all... Keep on pretending you're really the polite one.
excon
It's not. It's just what idiots who think saying the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" will solve all of the world's problems say.
Name calling? Where did I call anyone a "name"? That wouldn't be "politically correct". I'm trying to engage in civil discourse. You appear to be the one taking the low road.
Feel free to do that research and post away!
Nice catch with the spelling. You get a gold star on the calendar for today, your first one this year.
It sugar coats the truth, causes political diabetes.
No trying to have a debate with you, would not try to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person.
But I do find it interesting that it's OK for a black person to call another black person by that epithet, but not for someone of a different RACE to do so?
That in and of itself is racist in addition to being a double-standard . . .
Hello again, Red:
Turns out this isn't AB, and I can't access your posts.. But, we all know what you are.
excon
Have trouble recognizing sarcasm too, I see.
So, you have . . . nothing, other than you "liberal" hatred of people with views counter to yours?
You'd be out of luck anyhow. I don't (or didn't) have any posts on "AB", whatever that is, or was.
In addition to failing to recognize sarcasm (something that the liberal set uses all too frequently on this site) I see that you're having trouble with spelling and grammar today as well. That should be "all too well", not "all to well".
Asking for facts wasn't empty bluster, don't know why you would think otherwise. You're still welcome to post some (or some links) to back up your assertions. Haven't seen any from you so far, only your "empty bluster".
Sigh, it seem we need to go through this again.
"Political correctness" is the quasi-magical talisman which people who want to say bigoted unsupported offensive things invoke to try to deflect criticism and other social sanction they might receive for saying bigoted unsupported offensive things. For example:
A: All Lower Elbonians are thieves and liars.
B: You have no justification for that claim. You're a bigot!
A: No, I'm just not "politically correct"
It's only other use is as dog-whistle code for "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!" (e.g. "The forces of political correctness are ruining this once great nation....").
It DID have a meaning in totalitarian societies where certain aspects of reality could not be acknowledged because those "inconvenient truths" did not fit in the existing justification for the totalitarian political framework, but that has almost nothing to do with how it's flung around in democratic societies.
It is a continual source of fascination to me that people will invoke and/or fall for rhetorical flourishes and think those flourishes validate a particular claim, even when the claim is unsubstantiated or, as in this particular case, utterly nonsensical.
"Political diabetes?" WTF does that even mean?
S&P~ While it may be ok for a mother to say something about her offspring, it certsinly will not set well if someone else does it. Same difference in the equation being discussed here.
You had me up until the last sentence.
Just AI's sad attempt to be edgy.
