Prinn’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
I could not be more in agreement with you, Prinn. On this very page, one clearly sees the compactification, not merely of words, but of thought. "Free speech equals right-wing" (just to paraphrase one poster); "right-wing equals racist, bigot; therefore free speech equals racist/bigot." Whether the target individual has actually even addressed these social issues, let alone express any extremist view of them, is irrelevant. This is what de-programmers know as a "thought-stopping technique".
To take that one step further- as some posters here clearly do- "extremist" itself is compactified, since opinion is not a spectrum. An idea is either "correct", or "un-correct". Thus all but the most rigid and extremal ideations are "extremist".
Prinn, I see your point and I agree completely with your argument. However, it is good to remember that political correctness, in most countries, is encouraged but not enforced by law. In fact, in some countries, the people who favors it go out of their way to promote it via argumentation (or, explaining why they think it's the right way to express oneself), to convince others to use it.
And Prinn, I appreciate your thoughts on this, thought I do contest that Political Correctness if attempting to "force" people to change their thinking. The purpose of this was to address how certain forms of speech could be insensitive to others, and how these were the results of being uninformed or ignorant towards others points of view.
But of course, in its worst manifestations, its become a sort of enforced code of liability - like in the workplace where management will insist people not talk about certain issues or say certain words for fear of being sued. Much the same holds true of sexual harassment laws, which began as a means of preventing abuse of power and demanding sexual favors from female colleagues or employees. In some hands, it has degraded to the point where no inter-office romance or affection of any kind is tolerated at work. But the aim was still noble.
The only time right-wingers are associated with free speech is when they are defending their rights to hate speech, Glenn, as you've so often proven. There is no "compactification", which is not even a word by the way, to make one thing mean another. If anyone is guilty of that, it's you. You're argument is a cascading chain whereby political correctness = censorship = liberal fascism. It's entirely based on inherent assumptions and political ideology.
It's quite amusing that you could possibly accuse anyone else of being closed minded or hateful considering how much of your thought comes down to bitter reactionary behavior, or how you lash out at people who don't hold your views. If you really want to know why you're characterized the way you are, examine your own behavior first and stop scapegoating things you don't understand.
@Matthew: you hear nothing that is said to you. You keep reiterating the same slogans and deninciations. Really, you are consummately boring.
You feel it is okay to go around throwing accusations of "bigot" and "racist" like confetti. And you know what? That's your right. But I do not have to accept THE CONTENT of what you are, ad nauseum, repeating.
You know what really bothers me about you? Of course I cannot know, but I possess a strong suspicion, that I have done more to help people and society more in any given month than you have in your entire self-centered, self-serving existence.
If I'm wrong, then good for you, and shame on me. But I don't think so.
Because the persona you project- Captain Conformity, the defender of majority consensus, keeping the lawless white trash in their place- reminds me overmuch of people who are over-compensating for a life devoid of altruistic works.
As to knowing why I'm characterized the way I am (by you): you may not comprehend this. But I'm not unduly interested in what people think of me. I notice, you do tend to hide yourself within the fold, using the collective "we" and often appealing to what others have said and expressed. Anyway, your slogans and denunciations, irrelevant and out of context as they are, are getting really repititious and annoying. I do wish you'd change your tape.
Oh, and Matthew, yes: "compactification" is a word. It's used a lot in mathematical physics. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.
Am I'm to believe you knew that, or did you simply use a word in a feeble attempt to appear smart, look it up afterwards and luck out with an entry in Wikipedia? Considering that you're a man who has demonstrated such a pale and feeble grasp on facts, I would say it's the latter. Seriously, Glenn, every point you've made here only served to deepen the fact that you have no grasp on reality and suffer from a paranoid mindset in which you - an obvious bigot - think you're somehow the victim. Your accusations of discrimination and your attempts at self-martyrdom have been nothing short of a sad joke. So like Laura, I'm done with you. You're out of your league and an embarrassment to yourself.
OK. I leave you with your infinite and never-ending anger. Eat it, drink it, sleep it, breathe it, roll in it. Have fun.
"The purpose of newspeak was to erase a thought. If you can't signify it, you can't think it." Unfortunately, the brain doesn't work that way. Language is not required in order to think, or even to reason. In addition, language is evolutionary: words are constantly invented ("internet") or re-purposed ("literally") as needed in order to refer to new discoveries or concepts. This is why Newspeak is doomed to fail; it is also why PC is not that big of a deal. The PC vocabulary merely exchanges some words ("less offensive") for others ("more offensive"). If the less offensive words impede communication, they will be replaced in common (though perhaps not media) usage.
Interestingly, one sees that in the fields of mental health and human services, where "more offensive" nomenclature is replaced by "less offensive" til the new terms become "stigmatized by usage", i.e. come to connote quite what the older terms conveyed because the thing itself referred to, hasn't changed.
Like "developmentally disabled" instead of "retarded"? In many cases the new terms are more descriptive in addition to being less perjorative. it is interesting when this happens entirely *because* a word has become perjorative. A good example is "differently-abled" replacing "crippled" which is, if you'll excuse me, absolutely retarded. I suspect that it all boils down to being able to "call somebody an X": you can call somebody a cripple, and you can call somebody handicapped, but it is quite difficult to call somebody "differently-abled" and not sound rather prudish. Maybe that's the point of all these lexical gymnastic: to force us to use insults which do not refer to any sizable of vocal community. A fool's errand; we'll just make new ones.
Indeed, Mkfs, "there is nothing new under the sun". I'm all for being sensitive and considerate of others, but painfully tender constructions like "differently-abled" have an offensive quality all of their own. No one likes to feel that their condition is so terrible that others have to pussy-foot around it. That sort of thing is really for the benefit of the speaker, rather than the subject.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Glenn
(new)
Jul 23, 2014 09:37AM
I could not be more in agreement with you, Prinn. On this very page, one clearly sees the compactification, not merely of words, but of thought. "Free speech equals right-wing" (just to paraphrase one poster); "right-wing equals racist, bigot; therefore free speech equals racist/bigot." Whether the target individual has actually even addressed these social issues, let alone express any extremist view of them, is irrelevant. This is what de-programmers know as a "thought-stopping technique".
reply
|
flag
To take that one step further- as some posters here clearly do- "extremist" itself is compactified, since opinion is not a spectrum. An idea is either "correct", or "un-correct". Thus all but the most rigid and extremal ideations are "extremist".
Prinn, I see your point and I agree completely with your argument. However, it is good to remember that political correctness, in most countries, is encouraged but not enforced by law. In fact, in some countries, the people who favors it go out of their way to promote it via argumentation (or, explaining why they think it's the right way to express oneself), to convince others to use it.
And Prinn, I appreciate your thoughts on this, thought I do contest that Political Correctness if attempting to "force" people to change their thinking. The purpose of this was to address how certain forms of speech could be insensitive to others, and how these were the results of being uninformed or ignorant towards others points of view. But of course, in its worst manifestations, its become a sort of enforced code of liability - like in the workplace where management will insist people not talk about certain issues or say certain words for fear of being sued. Much the same holds true of sexual harassment laws, which began as a means of preventing abuse of power and demanding sexual favors from female colleagues or employees. In some hands, it has degraded to the point where no inter-office romance or affection of any kind is tolerated at work. But the aim was still noble.
The only time right-wingers are associated with free speech is when they are defending their rights to hate speech, Glenn, as you've so often proven. There is no "compactification", which is not even a word by the way, to make one thing mean another. If anyone is guilty of that, it's you. You're argument is a cascading chain whereby political correctness = censorship = liberal fascism. It's entirely based on inherent assumptions and political ideology.It's quite amusing that you could possibly accuse anyone else of being closed minded or hateful considering how much of your thought comes down to bitter reactionary behavior, or how you lash out at people who don't hold your views. If you really want to know why you're characterized the way you are, examine your own behavior first and stop scapegoating things you don't understand.
@Matthew: you hear nothing that is said to you. You keep reiterating the same slogans and deninciations. Really, you are consummately boring.You feel it is okay to go around throwing accusations of "bigot" and "racist" like confetti. And you know what? That's your right. But I do not have to accept THE CONTENT of what you are, ad nauseum, repeating.
You know what really bothers me about you? Of course I cannot know, but I possess a strong suspicion, that I have done more to help people and society more in any given month than you have in your entire self-centered, self-serving existence.
If I'm wrong, then good for you, and shame on me. But I don't think so.
Because the persona you project- Captain Conformity, the defender of majority consensus, keeping the lawless white trash in their place- reminds me overmuch of people who are over-compensating for a life devoid of altruistic works.
As to knowing why I'm characterized the way I am (by you): you may not comprehend this. But I'm not unduly interested in what people think of me. I notice, you do tend to hide yourself within the fold, using the collective "we" and often appealing to what others have said and expressed. Anyway, your slogans and denunciations, irrelevant and out of context as they are, are getting really repititious and annoying. I do wish you'd change your tape.
Oh, and Matthew, yes: "compactification" is a word. It's used a lot in mathematical physics. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.
Am I'm to believe you knew that, or did you simply use a word in a feeble attempt to appear smart, look it up afterwards and luck out with an entry in Wikipedia? Considering that you're a man who has demonstrated such a pale and feeble grasp on facts, I would say it's the latter. Seriously, Glenn, every point you've made here only served to deepen the fact that you have no grasp on reality and suffer from a paranoid mindset in which you - an obvious bigot - think you're somehow the victim. Your accusations of discrimination and your attempts at self-martyrdom have been nothing short of a sad joke. So like Laura, I'm done with you. You're out of your league and an embarrassment to yourself.
OK. I leave you with your infinite and never-ending anger. Eat it, drink it, sleep it, breathe it, roll in it. Have fun.
"The purpose of newspeak was to erase a thought. If you can't signify it, you can't think it." Unfortunately, the brain doesn't work that way. Language is not required in order to think, or even to reason. In addition, language is evolutionary: words are constantly invented ("internet") or re-purposed ("literally") as needed in order to refer to new discoveries or concepts. This is why Newspeak is doomed to fail; it is also why PC is not that big of a deal. The PC vocabulary merely exchanges some words ("less offensive") for others ("more offensive"). If the less offensive words impede communication, they will be replaced in common (though perhaps not media) usage.
Interestingly, one sees that in the fields of mental health and human services, where "more offensive" nomenclature is replaced by "less offensive" til the new terms become "stigmatized by usage", i.e. come to connote quite what the older terms conveyed because the thing itself referred to, hasn't changed.
Like "developmentally disabled" instead of "retarded"? In many cases the new terms are more descriptive in addition to being less perjorative. it is interesting when this happens entirely *because* a word has become perjorative. A good example is "differently-abled" replacing "crippled" which is, if you'll excuse me, absolutely retarded. I suspect that it all boils down to being able to "call somebody an X": you can call somebody a cripple, and you can call somebody handicapped, but it is quite difficult to call somebody "differently-abled" and not sound rather prudish. Maybe that's the point of all these lexical gymnastic: to force us to use insults which do not refer to any sizable of vocal community. A fool's errand; we'll just make new ones.
Indeed, Mkfs, "there is nothing new under the sun". I'm all for being sensitive and considerate of others, but painfully tender constructions like "differently-abled" have an offensive quality all of their own. No one likes to feel that their condition is so terrible that others have to pussy-foot around it. That sort of thing is really for the benefit of the speaker, rather than the subject.
