The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Lash wrote:

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

Speaking as a silent observer of this thread over the last weak, I agree so far.

Lash wrote:

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.

I have no opinion so far.

Lash wrote:

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

This is definitely false. Several people on the 'left' side of this issue have shown that they do understand your argument about explaining gay to young children. They just see no reason to believe that it's true. In particular, Sozobe has supplied evidence from observing her own daughter, indicating that your point is false.

Lash wrote:

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

I'd like to offer the following definition, courtesy of Wikipedia: "Political correctness is the alteration of language to redress real or alleged injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense. The term most often appears in the form politically correct or PC, and is generally used mockingly or disparagingly. One stated aim of politically correct language is to prevent the exclusion or the offending of people because of their differences or handicaps."

I am a 'differently skinny' (aka 'fat') person who approves of what the RNC calls Social Security 'choice', or 'individualization', but never 'privatization'. So I'm in a position to tell that neither side of the fence has a monopoly on politically correct speech.

0 Replies

"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."

You're certainly assuming.

It was the sentiment you appeared to be expressing - that foreigners ought not to comment negatively on the US - that I was objecting to.

I actually don't think in those ridiculous PC terms. I am just enjoying calling you folk on it when you do.

I will be back later to comment, Fox - My computer is out of commission - and I am using my old one - which barely works - posting is a nightmare. If I can, I will look at some other stuff and get back. If I don't - it is because I can't wait for the universe to form every time I try to open a new window/post!!!!! - not because I don't have more to say.

You can IMAGINE the frustration for someone as verbose and as fast a typer as I, no?

Heehee - I guess I am working out karma! Ommmmmmmmmm.......

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Oh, we're as interested in our own politics as in yours, or more so of course - the problem is, you arent. When a thread is about America, non-Americans will show just as much interest and eagerness to learn as Americans and thus the thread rattles along like a truck on a freeway; but a thread about German or Australian or Latin-American politics will usually die a quick death because most Americans appear to be thoroughly uninterested and un-eager to learn about any of that, and there's just not enough non-Americans here to keep it going and lively.

There's a few exceptions, fersure. I've had a thread on Dutch politics up, and McG posted another, that have attracted consistent serious interest from a handful of American posters, even conservatives (notably JW). And the "Following the EU" thread does as well as always thanks also to the input of Americans like Georgeob1, though the thread has also been kept alive by the usual America vs Europe bashing, which is at least as much about US as EU politics. But those are the exceptions. Look at the Aussies' thread on their politics. Hardly an American joined. French politics, German politics? Americans on the board, both liberal and conservative, are mostly uninterested. International News threads are likely to attract dlowan, Walter, Francis, fbaezer - but with just a sprinkling of Americans and this being an 80%-American board, nothing much ends up happening. I've resorted to inserting some kind of US angle in thread titles (Bush proposal on Africa AIDS policy; US ally Uzbekistan, terror or insurgency?) to haul in at least some folks.

I would reverse the question. Its no wonder we are engaged in threads about US politics: as deb says, you're "big, important and pushy". But since its the rest of the world you want to be important and pushy to, whence the striking disinterest of most Americans in threads about other countries? It's always the same few Americans who show up.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
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.

Oh, we're as interested in our own politics as in yours, or more so of course - the problem is, you arent.

I agree, and would explain it with self-selection. A2K is mostly an American forum. Consequently, interest in American affairs is a given here, but interest in European affairs is not. I'm sure there are many Europeans on the Web who have no more interest in American affairs than the average American has in European affairs. But they will be inclined to frequent forums of their own nationality, and perhaps their own language, instead of coming to A2K.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

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

I believe we all understood your point, accepted it, and addressed it by pointing out that the episode under discussion didn't require an explanation -- especially if you chose to turn it off.

But I agree that there is a divide in the way members think, and that it does appear to go right down ideological lines.

0 Replies

Nimh and Thomas' posts (both great) really, really surprised me. I have always been blown away by their knowledge of the politics and social issues involving the US and I've always been a bit flattered by it, not to mention appreciative of their participation and efforts to be objective and equitable in their assessment of most issues.

It's sometimes difficult to join in the discussions of the politics of Europe without seeming to be critical, given today's current events. Rather than become mired in the back and forth insults and bashing, maybe some of us have decided to just follow (as best we can through internet means) the daily progress and only occasionally react.

McG posted a comment last night about Italy paying its citizens to have babies and my only response was a smiley face. I've been following the depopulation issues in Europe for months, but instinct tells me any comment would have only been seen as derogatory.

Nimh, I've been following the news of the trial closely (found a great website translated into English), but refrained from comments on the thread you reference because you once said the details surrounding the murder of Van Gogh and the subsequent atmosphere it created made you sad.

I don't think it's possible to understand US foreign policy without making oneself aware of the policies and events driving those countries with which we (the US) are intimately involved. It's not so much a "PC" thing with me, as it is just a natural aversion to making negative comments concerning another's country. Of course, I have, but not without feeling just a little queazy lest someone take it personally. Doesn't mean I'm not interested in what's going on in the world and I'd guess I'm not alone in this thinking.

0 Replies

I have greatly appreciated your input on McG's Dutch thread, JW. Of course we will disagree on, well, most everything ;-), but I was so glad you showed up and brought in your POV that I once got really nervous about seemingly having chased you away by perhaps all too sharp a rebuke.

The thing is, what I have liked about that thread is to have the odd non-European in there who put forward a distinctly different perspective, without it somehow being some forcible regression into the tired conservative/liberal parameters of American politics. I do get annoyed when Americans (of either side) come into a discussion about non-American affairs only to identify asap who the libs and the cons are, who is for/against Bush, and then base some rhetorical argument on that (eg, reducing the Chavez problem to Bushite oil-hungry imperialism, or noting about Eurosceptics that they must just also 'not want to be ruled by those impudent, cowardly French'. Yawn.) But still, interest is interest, and the more the interest is genuine rather than an alternate venue to fight out domestic arguments, the better.

And of course, if we think you're being stupid, we will say so. But you wont hear any "what are you commenting on our issues for anyway"'s from me.

0 Replies

Oh, I imagine there are one or two things we'd agree on Smile

Maybe not in this lifetime, though LOL.

0 Replies

Unless especially moved to do so, I intentionally don't comment on European/Canadian politics/affairs after being told in various ways that my opinion was 'uninformed' and 'unwelcome' and I should focus on those things with which I actually know something. So I did. Like JW I don't mind in the least and am appreciative that others take an interest in American politics though I lump a few of the 'fer-in-ners' in with the American liberal radical left in that they are incapable of appreciating anything uniquely American, especially conservative American values. I figure it's an equal opportunity board. Smile

But just take Dlowan's response to my question re Canadian input into American politics. She took immediate offense even though it was a question seriously asked. And she isn't even Canadian. And yes, it was a loaded question intended to illustrate that both sides presume to advise the other. Smile

Personally I don't think agreement is as important as making an honest, nonjudgmental effort to understand the other person's point of view. That can't be accomplished very well when no clarification is asked but assumptions are immediately drawn and/or when the rhetoric is flaming and insulting. When the dialogue is respectful and is honestly an effort to both understand and be heard, occasionally we see something productive happen.

I don't think people can be both PC and nonjudgmental, however; ergo I refuse to be PC.

0 Replies

Fox-- You and I have the same opinion about PC.
-------------
dlowan--

(and I think Thomas, Freeduck...)

If you understood why I chose to raise my children past preschool age without bringing up Gaydom, you wouldn't accuse me of homophobia of any sort or degree.

Since this was the prevailing "explanation" of the issue from your cadre, I very clearly see that our opinion is not understood.

0 Replies

Quote:

Since this was the prevailing "explanation" of the issue from your cadre, I very clearly see that our opinion is not understood.

Hellllllo....... Lash,

Understanding is not your problem here. It's agreement you're having trouble with. I don't care how you raise your children. They'll enter the real world someday and make up their own minds, whether you like it or not.

0 Replies

Responding to Thomas--and by proxy, Freeduck, et al...

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

This is definitely false. Several people on the 'left' side of this issue have shown that they do understand your argument about explaining gay to young children. They just see no reason to believe that it's true. In particular, Sozobe has supplied evidence from observing her own daughter, indicating that your point is false.
-----------
Thomas, you're mistaken. Please show me where one of 'the left' showed an understanding of my position on this issue. I wasn't trying to change anyone else's opinion--I was going for them understanding mine. They wound up assigning me the motive of homophobia. This is clear proof to me they never understood.

And, nothing soz's child did or does has any bearing on my point.

ehBeth is the only one, who even though she didn't agree--gave some validation to a different opinion, without assigning some sinister motive.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

If you understood why I chose to raise my children past preschool age without bringing up Gaydom, you wouldn't accuse me of homophobia of any sort or degree.

Since this was the prevailing "explanation" of the issue from your cadre, I very clearly see that our opinion is not understood.

This is patently false. Nobody here accused you of homophobia. The prevailing "explanation" from my "cadre" was exactly the same one I just reiterated. You have the remote, you can turn it off.

<edit> There was also the argument made that just seeing two gay people does not necessarily prompt a discussion of "Gaydom".

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
Since this was the prevailing "explanation" of the issue from your cadre, I very clearly see that our opinion is not understood.

Hellllllo....... Lash,

Understanding is not your problem here. It's agreement you're having trouble with. I don't care how you raise your children. They'll enter the real world someday and make up their own minds, whether you like it or not.

Wrong again.

I am having NO problem with agreement. I don't expect agreement.

If you don't care how I raise my children, then I wonder why you bother to enter a conversation you have no interest in. Maybe you can find one which you may have something relevant to say. Or, maybe read this one a little before bloating forth with some off the wall BS.

Of course, it would cramp your usual "contributions" having to base them on reality, rather than your simplistic cardboard cut-outs and half-baked assumptions.

I raised my children to think for themselves--and I'm very pleased with the results.

Freeduck--

You are mistaken...or patently false, whichever you prefer.

It was forwarded by more than a couple of the cadre (left, liberal contingent)---pick a word you feel comfortable with-- that the only explanation for people not wanting to discuss homosexuality with their preschoolers is because of homophobia...negative feelings about gay people...call it by whatever name you choose.

As I said before--I didn't advocate banning the program--but, if you feel cool repeating a stupid line, even though it doesn't apply--knock yourself out.

And, you have a remote. Just turn it off.

0 Replies

Lash wrote

Quote:

It was forwarded by more than a couple of the cadre (left, liberal contingent)---pick a word you feel comfortable with-- that the only explanation for people not wanting to discuss homosexuality with their preschoolers is because of homophobia...negative feelings about gay people...call it by whatever name you choose.

I believe the general routine was to keep coming back with the last word that went something like: "Anyone who had a problem with their preschoolers seeing lesbians featured in a television program for kids must believe there is something wrong with being homosexual."

Here's where the PC part comes in: Some harshly judge anyone who makes a different decision or has a different opinion from those who believe their point of view to be the only righteous one..

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Thomas, you're mistaken. Please show me where one of 'the left' showed an understanding of my position on this issue. I wasn't trying to change anyone else's opinion--I was going for them understanding mine. They wound up assigning me the motive of homophobia. This is clear proof to me they never understood.

Emphasis added ... bla bla ... the self-victimizing just wont ever stop, will it?

sozobe wrote:

Well, one thing more. I haven't called anyone here homophobic, and have on more than one occasion specified that I'm NOT calling anyone here homophobic.

dlowan wrote:

I am not actually saying that you and Lash are really homophobic, Fox - I am especially aware that Lash's posts on this subject have generally impressed me - not that I can remember them all - what I am saying is that your positions make no logical sense unless you do view gayness as in some way not ok.

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Now you liberal types can go right along claiming that any point of view that is different from yours is evil, homophobic, judgmental, oppressive, censorship, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I don't think that's what's happening here. I think that the point that has been made and continues to be made is that the arguments for pulling the show are irrational.

0 Replies

Well, there is what Nimh pointed out - plus the fact that nobody said anything except that people who want to stop EVERYONE'S children seeing such a program has some sort of negative view of homosexuality.

But an end of this - byeee!

0 Replies

And Nimh you selectively (?) failed to pick up the subsequent comments that to oppose this television show being shown (to anybody) suggests there is something wrong with being gay. Nobody here has claimed victimhood other than those thinking gay people are somehow being maligned and I have not seen any anti-gay sentiment expressed by anybody on this thread.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Nimh you selectively (?) failed to pick up the subsequent comments that to oppose this television show being shown (to anybody) suggests there is something wrong with being gay.

Well, what does it suggest if you oppose the show being shown to anybody simply because it shows gay people?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Freeduck--

You are mistaken...or patently false, whichever you prefer.

It was forwarded by more than a couple of the cadre (left, liberal contingent)---pick a word you feel comfortable with-- that the only explanation for people not wanting to discuss homosexuality with their preschoolers is because of homophobia...negative feelings about gay people...call it by whatever name you choose.

As I said before--I didn't advocate banning the program--but, if you feel cool repeating a stupid line, even though it doesn't apply--knock yourself out.

That stupid line belongs to you only so feel free to take full credit for it. You're obviously too peeved about this discussion to remember who said what to whom. Take a deep breath.

If you didn't advocate banning the program then you are in agreement with most people here and I am certain that nobody called you a homophobe.

Let me just sum up the arguments that us leftist commie red bastard san francisco deviant immoral freaks have been making, Lash, and then you can go back and read the thread and see if maybe you're being too sensitive about this.

1) If your preschooler sees a homosexual couple it will not necessarily trigger a discussion of homosexuality with them, and implicitly, force you to explain the birds and the bees at the age of 3.

2) If you aren't comfortable with or willing to accept 1, you don't have to watch the show.

3) If you think that the show should not be aired for anyone to see it is because you think that there is something wrong with homosexuality.

Nimh has offered quotes where the strongest proponents of the show specifically said they were not calling you a homophobe. Maybe you could come up with some quotes where somebody did call you one.

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know