The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Nimh writes


No way. I do not advocate pulling punches just because some socio/politico/ethnic group doesn't want to hear it. And I do have a very good bullshit detector and can recognize hypocrisy and/or double standards when I see them.

The radical Christian right has no mainstream media outlet so they make telephone calls. It was a dumb thing to do and they should have known better--it did nothing but make them look more wild eyed, reactionary, and foolish as well as presumptious. But my point was showing how they were doing only what many of you in other countries presume to do with the USA; i.e. tell us what you think we're doing wrong or how we are supposed to do it, etc. How many of you have commented on this forum on the issue of gay marriage and how you can't understand why some object to that and how wrong you think that is. Those nutty Christians were just doing the same kind of thing and they of course look just as presumptious.

And I will continue to protest when any person or group is unfairly or unnecessarily or mean-spiritedly or incorrectly bashed for all the wrong reasons. That isn't PC. That is expression of my personal belief in what is unfair and inaccurate.

I'm still marvelling at the idea that discussing something on a discussion board is the same as phoning a member of government in another country to tell them how they should vote.

It seems like rather a different thing to me.

<scratches head>

I dont think this is ever going to get across.

Fox, the people you accuse of being "PC" would in their defence say exactly the same thing. They're not being PC at all, no, they're just "protesting when any person or group is unfairly or unnecessarily or mean-spiritedly or incorrectly bashed". They speak up against TV series thats got too many unsympathetic-looking black folks because they believe it to be mean-spirited or incorrect black-bashing. They'll try to get some product off the shelves that they believe is woman-bashing, b/c it portrays women as dumb or whatever. They'll complain about a joke posted on a campus by some yokel about how fat people should just take the stairs (to just take an example from a heated thread here recently), b/c they believe it to be "mean-spiritedly bashing" fat people.

Folks like Bill will then speak up about such ridiculous "hypersensitivity" and how you cant just say anything anymore nowadays - its just PC! But when you do the same when you feel that Christians, say, are "mean-spiritedly bashed" - when you put up another post complaining about the scandal that is the continuous God- and Christian-bashing by liberals on TV and whereever - then that's not PC, its just fairly speaking up for whats right?

All I can see is how it's just each other's mirror image. Sometimes I sympathise, sometimes I dont. But I can see how its borne of the urge to "stop the incorrect or mean-spirited bashing" of a certain group, either way - or, in its degenerate form, of a cowardly fear of being associated with anything that could be seen to be doing so - and also how it can all too quickly lead to clamping down on anything that might make someone tut-tut about it.

I guess those on either side who are caught up in their own righteous fervour about how the thing they speak up about, thats just different, its not PC to protest against that because that is just wrong (unlike the stuff other people get their panties in a bunch about, of course) - that they will never recognize themselves in the mirror that the activists from the other side pose to them ...

Too true!

Cycloptichorn

"No way. I do not advocate pulling punches just because some socio/politico/ethnic group doesn't want to hear it"

I am genuinely puzzled.

Your last few posts have been complaints re foreigners daring to comment on America. And you complain that Americans criticising US policy is "Un-American".


Last time I looked the US was a socio/politico grouping.

Huh?

It is indeed.

And - I also roundly condemned the extraordinarily stupid campaign run in some countries - including mine - where idiots telephoned Americans to ask them not to vote for Bush.

Dlowan writes


Have I done that? Or have I simply been saying what Nimh accuses me of not saying

let's sing another song, this one has grown old and bitter.

Well, Fox, you have been complaining here of non-Americans commenting on American affairs - (and interestingly misinterpreted my earlier comments in relation to that) and over on the Fox news thread you were commenting on "un-American" news sources, such as Salon.com - un-american presumably because they are quite often critical of conservatives?

(I don't know what Ninh said you were doing - I will have to read up!)

Yes - I think you often say that the US, or its conservative government (since you have no problem in criticising non-conservative US politicians and policy , or non-conservative Americans) ought not to be criticised.

If the likes of me and the Canadians have no right to comment, and anti-conservative comment is "un-american" what else are you doing, in all reason, other than saying (without coming right out and saying it) that your people ought not to be criticised?

I think that is exactly one prong of what you and Bill like to call "hyper-sensitivity" and political correctness.

I think - as I said - that the new PC anti-PC-crap is just that - ie that it is hilarious that people like Bill (and you sometimes Fox) love to criticise others for political correctness in a totally nouveau politically correct way - but that is by the by, and just a source of ongoing ironic pleasure to me.

As I said - I think you ARE behaving in a way that you would call in others PC. I am highly unimpressed with that as a criticism - I think it is just a knee-jerk thing to say for the right, generally, at present. I would - as I have said ad nauseum - rather simply draw your attention to the illogic of your position - the drawing your attention to the PCness of it is a bit of frustration with the right's tactics.

I think the response we all have to being criticised - or having entities to which we are deeply cathected criticised - is a natural and normal one. It doesn't mean we have to give into it.

It would also be natural for me to wee in the streets if I were desperate - but I have learned not to for the sake of civilisation and such.

I cannot think of a reason, except that atavistic prickle response to it, not to comment on or criticise the behaviour of other countries. As I said earlier, stupid and ill-informed comment deserves correction, and warrants annoyance if it is done wantonly and without attempt to be informed, or to learn from reasoned and knowledgable rebuttal. (like the recent spate of anti-jewish propaganda that has soiled the board) But to object to comment - and critical comment - in and of itself? Not defensible in my view.

You're right.

What IS it that draws all of us back to this thread so endlessly???


Mebbe because it has been, by and large, a fairly civilised thread to try to hammer out ongoing frustrations and annoyances between people on the right and left who, overall, quite like each other - and where we have, generally speaking, not resorted to name-calling and long cut and pastes?

As you can see - the right's nouveau-PC anti PC has me hopping!!!!! Grrrr - but I need to get over it...........

Dlowan write


I have not. I said you guys had done it. It was not a complaint and I defy you to show that it was. I have never said you should not comment. I get a little tired of some the arrogant, snotty superiority demonstrated sometimes--not by you my friend--but I have never suggested commenting on US politics was inappropriate, especially on a politics forum I have been somehwat bemused that everybody seems to be so much more interested in the US politics than they are in their own, but that was not a complaint.

I responded to quite uncomplimentary and judgment opinions about some U.S. citizens, fundamentalist Christians, who have presumed to try to influence Canadian politics through the only avenue they had to do that. My only comment was in the interest of fairness--they may be idiots, but they aren't the only idiots out there and they were doing only what just about everybody else does.

I've noticed a few real divisions in the way members think--and it goes straight down political ideological lines.

So far--it seems we have completely different understandings of what defines Political Correctness. You think we don't understand your definition--and we know you don't understand ours.

The "explaining gay to young children" thing is another--but I understand your point--none of you understood ours.

I wonder if everybody could offer a concise--one or two sentence-- definition for political correctness?

I think you guys focus on result, when we focus on intent. I refuse to focus on result, because many people will jerk you around--and try to guilt you in to changing your language--just because they can.

Anybody else?

don't hit, play nice, share your toys.

duplicate

". You think we don't understand your definition--and we knowyou don't understand ours."

Lol. I see. There it is an a nutshell, no?

". But then what moves some of you Canadians to presume to tell USA Americans how we should vote or how we should be running our country? "


Sorry? That sounds like a complaint to me.

Well, if I do hear your explanation--and understand it--then I do. And, if you and the others in the conversation talk all around what we're trying to say to you--but never actually acknowledge it or say anything to show an understanding of it--I think it's quite safe to say you don't understand it.

"especially on a politics forum I have been somehwat bemused that everybody seems to be so much more interested in the US politics than they are in their own, but that was not a complaint."

That is an interesting point - however, I think I answered it in the post you are responding to.

We ozzians natter happily amongst ourselves on Oz politics threads - but only a few others join. I have commented on the general lack of interest on this board in countries other than the US. But, as I also said, you will generally not hear me whinging about it - except inside me head, when what I think is fascinating news about Africa, or modern day slavery, or South America goes almost unnoticed. I am - after all - posting on an American board. Shrugs.

I imagine the Europeans here feel the same - I follow their threads - as much as I can - cos I am inteested in foreign affairs.

I get enough Oz politics in my daily life - embedded as I am in a generally very political group - I am frankly more interested in international politics - and I cannot say how much I have learned here and elsewhere about such matters.

As for the interest in the US - like I said - you're big, important and pushy.

I think, as I have said ad nauseum, that you get a lot of crap you don't deserve because of that - you know, projection and all that - but you also get stuff that you DO deserve.

Like we do in our smaller way in our region.

Heehee - Malaysia's Mahathir used to delight in bugging us the way the US gets bugged - though Malaysia being a much bigger economy than ours this always seemed a little odd. I guess being a largely white relic of colonialism in Asia - and having had (and still having) some utterly appalling policies, attracts approbrium. Though we felt Malaysia's human rights record etc made the criticisms a bit unfair, and often felt we were getting it for the British Raj - which we were a colony of, not a perpetrator of, dammit! But - such is life. Lol. At least we get to be SOMEBODY'S elephant, as it were. Usually we feel like a mosquito!


You guys should be flattered.


(A couple of satires on Oz as a Very Small Country:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=581440#581440

And this much better, professionally written, one: http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml )

Lol - nah - I was actually saying it was a nutshell of the whole dilemma.

BOTH sides think that way. I was laughing at all of us.

Dlowan writes


I accept that it sounds like a complaint to you and I think it does because the language I used you do not see as politically correct. It wasn't a complaint though. If it was a complaint I would have worded it "I think it presumptious and arrogant to presume to tell USA AMericans how we should vote. . . ."

The phrase I used however was in a direct response to negative opinions expressed by some of US citizens calling Canada to suggest how they should vote. It was one of those questions, that if accepted and answered as the question it was, was intended to show that these idiotic wacko Americans were really no different than anybody else in wanting their views to be made known.

But it was the language I used to which you object, I think. I can't know for sure but I am presuming. To you I was un-PC in the language I used.

My definition of PC is the expectation of what language, phrases, subject matter, expressions, words are acceptable with which to express oneself and use of any other language or holding any other opinion is deemed unacceptable or objectionable.

Example: A requirement (by some) to say Native American instead of Indian; Ms instead of Miss or Mrs., African American instead of Negro or Black whether or not this person has even heard of Africa, much less has family roots there. It is un-PC, to some, to suggest that men are inately better at some things than women, to display the Confederate flag or in some cases the American flag, or to object to gender neutral language in the Bible. Many other examples could be cited.

PC not only dictates which words or phrases are proper and which are unacceptable, but it requires that a particular point of view is the only acceptable point of view and any other automatically makes a person racist, sexist, chauvenist, homophobic, or some other -ist.

Okay that's my definition. I'm sure others have their own.