Conservatives adopt the identity politics they once scorned

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nimh, you are substituting Political Correctness for PC Police. Not the same thing. The Police is the part that makes it different. Al Sharpton was indeed using political correctness as his weapon of choice. But, does that make him the PC Police?

Well, eh - does the article actually make any kind of reference to anything called the "PC police"?

Or have you, ever, for that matter, used that term here before? (According to the search function, no.)

So - eh - and? The relevance of the proposed terminoligical distinction to the point the article (or any of us) is making is ...?

I, for one, herewith solemnly pledge that when I used "PC Police" first, on the first page here, I meant it as synonym for "the politically correct". There. Hope that's sorted that, then.

Now, back to the matter at hand. How are the Christians the article references (or their counterparts here on A2K, for that matter) not engaging in their own brand of politically correctness? Because that's what you were arguing right, that the article's claims were "bunk"? That it was not the same thing, because what the Christians were doing - as opposed, I suppose, to what Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or I don't know where you draw the line was doing - was just legitimate self-defence?

Basically: how's the Christians' "Oh my god you cant say that about us" different from the Afro-American (or womens', or whatever) political correctness? Or isn't it?

0 Replies

"PC-Police defend virtually every downtrodden group there is; gays, woman, Muslim, black, you name it... accept, seemingly, the Christian Right. "

Bill - I am not spending yet more time on the weary PC/anti-PC PC debate - our positions are so oft explained we could doubtless write each other's scripts - so I have no interest in debating most of what you wrote with you - and I certainly have no interest in yet more stuff about what you think is wrong with the Democrats etc. No offence to you - this is just not a topic I can be bothered debating right now - I was happy to put my thoughts down, and anyone who likes can pick on 'em, or pick up on them - whatever - I don't care.

You did say something which interested me, though - and I have quoted it above.

Assuming you meant "except" - I assume you were pointing out some perceived hypocrisy, right? That, if we defend the downtrodden, we ought to be defending christian fundies?

If your apparent charge of hypocrisy (which I think is an odd one anyway - would we also be expected to defend Islamic fundies? Personally, I despise all religious fundamentalism - but hey) is to be supported, it would require the christian right to be downtrodden in the same way as the other groups you mention are - right?

My question is - do you think they are? If so, I would be interested to see you defend that view. Were other religious groups able to put floats in the parade, eg?

Again: ""PC-Police defend virtually every downtrodden group there is; gays, woman, Muslim, black, you name it... accept, seemingly, the Christian Right. ""

I would think the quote of yours above would stop your "have you stopped beating" analogy in its tracks. I do not ask it without a reason based on your own words. You appear to be both saying such defence is wrong, and saying "we" are wrong for NOT similarly defending the christian right. The logic of this is making me ears spin -but, hey.

Do you think that defence of down-trodden groups is wrong? I ask because you constantly say how much you dislike PC police, and this is something you say this hated group do.

If you don't want to answer the questions, fine - fair is fair - as I said, I don't have any interest in debating most of what you wrote, either.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

But in all the different guises I've seen the word, whether scornfully or defensively, come by, I've never heard the "if it's about yourself, it's not politically correct, it's something else" distinction before.

Not true. From our conversation last night:

Last night I wrote:

I'll laugh at an off-color joke if it's funny. I think Chris Rock is hysterical. As is Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor. If they tell a joke about black people, I laugh. Same if a white guy tells it. "Okay, so you got this White guy, a Jewish guy and a Black guy all going up to St. Peter at the pearly gates, right?" Why should I give a rat's ass what color the comedian is? He tells the jokes to get laughs. If they're funny, I laugh. Chances are no one is offended anyway and how offended should a person be by a joke anyway? Enter the PC police. Now you if there was any offense it's only going to be prolonged by the further discussion of it anyway. And, it's my belief that the hypocritical concern over whether the speaker was the right color to make the joke helps perpetuate the real racism. The hateful kind the kind that matters.

I mean, c'mon. Al Sharpton going on about how everyone who is not for affirmative action is a racist, isn't that political correctness in its worst form? Some Afro-American academic who insists that if you call him just "black" rather than "African-American", you are, say, "perpetuating the cycle of racial demonisation" and thus "yourself guilty of the racist powerstructure" - wouldnt that kind of nonsense be typically something you'd ordinarily have derided as overly politically correct? Or, wait a minute - I got a better one still - a group of blacks trying to get the word "negro" out of the dictionary - I've read about it, it happened! - wouldn't be anything to do with politically correctness, because it's about themselves?

Last night I wrote:

To me, it really is the intent that matters. French-bashing is as normal to me as Bear-Fan-bashing (Chicago Football Team). When I do it, I don't do it to be mean. I do it to have fun. Is that politically incorrect? Of course. Is PDiddie right about it being akin to racism? well, yes and no. The fact that the ignorance is only feigned and there's no malicious intent, defines it differently for me. In other words, I know it's wrong but I don't care. When I've driven after drinking beyond the legal limit, I knew it was wrong, but I didn't care (bad example, the chances of someone getting hurt was too high so I don't do it anymore). Better example: Speeding is wrong but I frequently don't care. Depends on what's going on around me whether I think it's okay to speed. Know what I mean?

Notice there is no denial of the statement in question being Politically Incorrect. "Of course it is" is how I answered my own question. Now go back to the quoted paragraph above and read what it says about PC Police...

nimh wrote:

Nonsense. In none of the times I've seen you rail about or ridicule the so-called "PC police" or any of that, have I seen you make this distinction.

Highlighted portion of the first paragraph again. Confused

nimh wrote:

It looks suspiciously like a whatchamacallit - there's some nice Latin term for that one too - a making up or at the spot modifying of a discussion's parameters, in order to make them fit the argument you're making about them.

That's insulting Nimh. That's akin to calling me a liar... Plus, I busted my brain studying them whatchamacallits earlier today... and I believe I've outlined the reasons that one applies. I assure you I was looking specifically for it when I found it.

Just now seeing you posted again. Does the article really not say police? Shocked

I'll re-read it. You'll notice my argument has from before the the time I read the article, so it aint new new to me... I hope... no, it aint... I'd have wagered the article accused the Religious Right of being the new PC Police... but maybe that came from another argument. I'll read it again.

0 Replies

Didn't see your new post before either, D. I might be nuts... might not. I'm doing 3 things at once so give a spell to respond.

0 Replies

Lol - oh damn - re your "They're defending THEMSELVES!" thing - can you defend that? Are ALL the righties crying foul on behalf of the fundies fundies themselves???? Surely Republican and fundy aren't synonymous!????

must keep out of useless arguments....must keep out of useless arguments......

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

nimh wrote:
But in all the different guises I've seen the word, whether scornfully or defensively, come by, I've never heard the "if it's about yourself, it's not politically correct, it's something else" distinction before.

Not true. From our conversation last night:

Last night I wrote:
I'll laugh at an off-color joke if it's funny. I think Chris Rock is hysterical. As is Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor. If they tell a joke about black people, I laugh. Same if a white guy tells it. "Okay, so you got this White guy, a Jewish guy and a Black guy all going up to St. Peter at the pearly gates, right?" Why should I give a rat's ass what color the comedian is? He tells the jokes to get laughs. If they're funny, I laugh. Chances are no one is offended anyway and how offended should a person be by a joke anyway? Enter the PC police. Now you if there was any offense it's only going to be prolonged by the further discussion of it anyway. And, it's my belief that the hypocritical concern over whether the speaker was the right color to make the joke helps perpetuate the real racism. The hateful kind the kind that matters.

Huh?

Are we reading the same posts?

How's any of that to do with what I was asking?

Your point - as far as I got it when I thought I got it - seemed to be: speaking up for other people if they are insulted is "PC police" stuff, and therefore bad, whereas if it is a perceived offence to your own group you're speaking up about (like those Christians are), that's not "PC police", thats something else - something not bad. Self-defence.

Did I get that right?

OK, so in reply to that I noted that I had never heard that distinction before. I mean, people like Al Sharpton or those black activists trying to get the word "negro" out of the dictionary, and so on - they're being accused of political correctness all the time, right, and they're speaking up about their own group? I mean, those women insisting that the word "chairman" is scrapped and replaced by "chairperson", wouldn't you have called that PC (police or otherwise), normally? Whereas they were speaking up about themselves too ... So where did that distinction suddenly come from, was what I was asking?

I'm totally lost as to how the quote you offer here is to elucidate anything about that. In fact, if anything, you seem to be saying in it that it is irrelevant who belongs to what group in the exchange.

So basically, I am lost here, by now. Lemme check. A white person speaking out against a black-people joke is PC Police = bad. A black person speaking out against a black-people joke is not PC Police, but is being politically correct - which is good, bad? Or is he not being politically correct either? Whereas a Christian person speaking out against a Christian-people joke is neither PC Police nor politically correct, because ... because why? I lost you, I think.

Rephrase?

This might be a good place to start, I guess ...

nimh wrote:

Now, back to the matter at hand. How are the Christians the article references (or their counterparts here on A2K, for that matter) not engaging in their own brand of politically correctness? Because that's what you were arguing right, that the article's claims were "bunk"? That it was not the same thing, because what the Christians were doing - as opposed, I suppose, to what Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or I don't know where you draw the line was doing - was just legitimate self-defence?

Basically: how's the Christians' "Oh my god you cant say that about us" different from the Afro-American (or womens', or whatever) political correctness? Or isn't it?

0 Replies

The TNR writer points to something that's been obvious to some of us for quite a while, and I've written here about it on a number of occasions. That is, the portrayal of one's self or one's group as victim. In many cases, this may well be actually believed by the speakers, but that's likely because the 'meme' has been spread broadly and persistently.

The religious right (or parts of it) are using this strategy to effect and have been for several years. Evidence that it is to effect is Bill.

But the technique or strategy was actually adopted earlier by legal people on the right, notably Clint Bollick at the Institute for Justice (previously worked for and still aligned with Bork), in their legal maneuvers to rid America of racial quotas. In these cases, they portrayed some white fellow as a victim of racism. The following book will tell you part of the tale.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005BJYY/104-4959890-4662354?vi=reviews

Added note: the model being used is civil rights legal arguments AND civil rights rhetoric (Bollick had been a civil rights lawyer).

0 Replies

Take your time anyway, I know how frustrating it is when posts keep piling up while you're still answering the previous one ... and besides, I gotta go sleep now, anyway (not to mention not spending my time at work tomorrow on A2K again like I did today (shame on me) ...)

0 Replies

Quote:

PC-Police defend virtually every downtrodden group there is; gays, woman, Muslim, black, you name it... accept, seemingly, the Christian Right.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-05-12-yearbook-quote_x.htm

Quote:

Abby Moler, a 2001 graduate, was among students asked to offer their thoughts for Stevenson High School's yearbook. Her entry included the verse, Jeremiah 29:11: '"For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'"

School officials told Moler at the time that her quote was deleted because of its religious nature. The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced the settlement Tuesday. Utica Community Schools officials declined to comment.

The ACLU said that under the terms of the settlement, the school district agreed to place a sticker with Moler's original entry in copies of the yearbook on file at the high school; ordered current yearbook staff to not censor other religious or political speech; to train its staff on free speech and religious freedom issues; and to write Moler a letter of regret.

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42

Quote:

ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways
January 8, 2002

BOSTON--The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and a local attorney today filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) for removing subway advertisements promoting the views of a local church and refusing to sell additional advertising space to the church.

One of the controversial ads, paid for by The Church of the Good News, said that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas or "believe in lies about Santa Claus, flying reindeer, elves and drunken parties." A second ad, which was rejected by the transit authority and never posted, said, "There is only one true religion. All the rest are false."

"The transit authority has lost at least three other cases involving its refusal to display various ads because of their content or viewpoint," said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "We are confident that the court will preserve the principles of religious liberty and free speech and rule in favor of our client."

The church, represented by the ACLU and Boston civil rights attorney Harvey Schwartz, seeks an injunction ordering the transit authority to sell them advertising space and prohibiting officials from using a vague advertising policy to filter out ad campaigns it finds objectionable.

http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8657&c=162

Quote:

Defending the Jehovah's Witness, Watchtower:

http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=9285

Quote:

Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy
Source: Associated Press
December 29, 2000

:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130

Quote:

LAS VEGAS, NV -- Under pressure from local religious and civil rights leaders, Clark County Clerk Shirley Parraguirre said yesterday she is shelving new licensing regulations that would have required police background checks for ministers who perform marriages.

"I just put out these regulations last week, and I am amazed at the controversy it has created," Parraguirre said, adding that she'll ask the American Civil Liberties Union and religious leaders to join a panel to study the issue.

The ACLU of Nevada, which was the first organization to express opposition when the new regulations were announced last week, said it looks forward to working with county officials to address the constitutional questions surrounding the plan.

Defending Jerry Falwell:

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLibert...?ID=10147&c=142

Quote:

In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate
April 17, 2002

Defending Witchcraft:
http://www.witchvox.com/cases/lincoln_high.html

Defending Rush Limbaugh:

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14698&c=27

[Edited all these times trying to get the link to work.]

0 Replies

Oh crap. Where to begin... OCCOM BILL is a pompous a$$ with poor reading comprehension and worse manners. Embarrassed

I'm sorry Dlowan and Nimh for my uncalled for attitude. (I hate it when this happens). Some how, some way when I read that article very late last night I got this out of it:
The Christian Right has taken over as the PC Police. Yes, I know, that's not in it and I'm sorry but I can't explain how I got it. Confused

I could throw a feeble multi-tasking excuse out there, but who isn't doing other things constantly? Somehow, I convinced myself that was the point of the article. Maybe Rove's better than I thought. Shocked

Now, after rereading the article and the thread, most of the questions all look different since I'm no longer imagining someone trying to pin the moniker PC Policeman on me because I'm defending the Religious Right. Shocked

Yes, I know, no one did that either, but from the moment Deb arrived on the thread; between my absurdly false memory of the article's focus and a hangover of information from our conversations last night, I started shadow boxing. A horrible case of talking past each other ensued, one hundred percent my fault, and embarrassingly you both handled it with more grace than I did. Confused

I'm very sorry for behaving like a total jackass..

I'll go back through again and try to pick out any questions that aren't explained by my idiocy. Damn it.

0 Replies

billy
the above is why we love you...that and your magnificent thighs

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

billy
the above is why we love you...that and your magnificent thighs

Speak for yourself!!!

The man is not poultry!

His thighs have NOTHING to do with it!

(How magnificent are they?)

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Er Bill - any evidence that the christian right IS down-trodden?

Quote:

"PC-Police defend virtually every downtrodden group there is; gays, woman, Muslim, black, you name it... except (switched to the appropriate word... retarded in more ways than one), seemingly, the Christian Right. "

Maligned would have been a better choice of words... say about as bad as fat people. Not a lot of stuff right at em, but backhanded shots from every direction. The fundies are no doubt the target but our Christian friends a Save the Children hear it too. Constantly.

My reaction, as predicted, now that my heads out of my a$$, is tough luck. I like a good Preacher/Priest/Rabbi joke as much as the next guy and they need to be able to take a joke. It is just a curious anomaly; the Christian bashing seems completely off the radar of the PC Police. Replace it with Jewish or Muslim and the sh!t hits the fan pronto.

As for your question that promoted them to fundies, whether it be Christian or Islamic, I agree all fundies can fend for themselves in verbal combat and if they can't that's better still. Have at em. (sheessh did I make a mess of this... this is where I made your ears spin, sorry)

Update: Lola has shown this assumption to be bunk, too. Embarrassed

(having a hell of a day here)

dlowan wrote:

Not sure why you are so unhappy with downtrodden groups being defended, BTW???

That is still a loaded question, but I can hardly blame you. When they need defense, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you. We just have a different threshold for political incorrectness. I consider yours way overboard and apparently you consider mine a little better than a bigot.<shrugs>

nimh wrote:

I, for one, herewith solemnly pledge that when I used "PC Police" first, on the first page here, I meant it as synonym for "the politically correct". There. Hope that's sorted that, then.

Not that it much matters for this discussion, but I don't.
Politically Correct- obviously means non offensive.
PC Police- 1. extra sensitive person who's easily offended by the slightest infraction of above and rushes in to say so.
2. Same as 1. but a fake, frequently a pretentious one at that.

nimh wrote:

It looks suspiciously like a whatchamacallit - there's some nice Latin term for that one too - a making up or at the spot modifying of a discussion's parameters, in order to make them fit the argument you're making about them.

Boy, it sure does now. I'm pretty sure I had it right if my ghost-sentiment was real though. Embarrassed

Blatham wrote:

The religious right (or parts of it) are using this strategy to effect and have been for several years. Evidence that it is to effect is Bill.

Too clever.

Okay, I think simple idiocy explains the rest. If I missed any, let me know. This concludes the apology portion of our program (I hope :wink:).

0 Replies

Damn it, I forgot Freeduck. Sorry Freeduck (last one I tell ya). Listening to you would have ended this idiocy sooner too. If I missed anyone else, consider yourself included, please.

0 Replies

Very good, Bill.......a fine example of eating crow. Something we all should be able to do from time to time. Keeps us from getting too uppity.

All in all, it was a great exercise in knowledge collection. I learned a lot I didn't know about the ACLU. Time well spent on my part. For me at least.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

blatham wrote:
billy
the above is why we love you...that and your magnificent thighs

Speak for yourself!!!

The man is not poultry!

His thighs have NOTHING to do with it!

(How magnificent are they?)

The man is not a man. Nor immortal. bill is best understood as agency. From "The Obillestine Prophesy, an autobiography"...

"And he shall rise from the thighs of Jupiter
upon the high shout of trumpets
to stand astride your continents,
deb"

0 Replies

So guys do I fit your religious right picture? Cool

0 Replies

Dlowan wrote:

Quote:

(How magnificent are they?)

Whether your thighs have anything to do with it or not, O'Bill, how magnificent are they really? Deb and I want to know. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

So guys do I fit your religious right picture?

No Husker, you don't. You seem to be confident about your religious convictions and I've never seen you (that I can recall) try to force your convictions on anyone.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Damn it, I forgot Freeduck. Sorry Freeduck (last one I tell ya). Listening to you would have ended this idiocy sooner too. If I missed anyone else, consider yourself included, please.

Hey O'Bill, no problem, and sorry I came off as so admonishing. And to echo someone else, the above is why we love you.

And don't feel too bad. You're not the only one to misinterpret a thing or two because you're worked up about other conversations. I've taken a ride in that boat a few times as well.

0 Replies

Conservatives adopt the identity politics they once scorned

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know