Rice - getting away from "Punish France, ignore Germany..."?

Foxfyre wrote:

Pretty much the PC code can be wrapped up in Larry Elder's book, "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America." The ten chapters are headed:

Random example...:

Quote:

Thats suppposed to be an example of "things you can't say in America"? Its the hoariest subject alive! Its not a taboo, its a cliche! People go on and on saying that, writing columns about it, ploughing through interminable threads about it, whining about it on talk radio shows, forever and ever and ever.

Nah. Thats not PC - as in, you're not allowed to say it - its almost what you're supposed to say, if you want at all to be taken seriously right of, I dunno, Lieberman.

More:

Quote:

These are supposed to be "things you can't say in America"? I've heard them all the freekin time! They're the staple diet of conservative columnists, and #8 of columnists left and right!

Nah. His list of topics is a programme of points he agrees with, and will find a lot of people who disagree with him on. And? <shrugs> Lot of people disagreeing with you and saying they disagree with you dont make for PC police - it just makes for people who speak their mind just like you spoke yours. (And in the case of point #3, you'd actually have to go to I dunno, A2K to get people falling over you in disagreement - if you join a talk radio show or appear on Fox, everybody will fall all over you, all "PC police-like" in this definition, if you would dare insist there isn't a media bias.)

You gotta wonder what the liberals would actually need to do to stop the self-victimising whining about PC. Repeat your talking points after you? Cause every time they say, "thats bullshit", you'll go, "see! PC!" Eh, no. Just disagreement.

In fact, I'm going to thank Lash for making my point exactly in her reply to McTag: Just because the Larry Elder approved version isn't in the New York Times--the US doesn't have a free press?

Now, try saying that, I dunno, legislated euthanasia is a necessity and the refusal to allow it is heartless - or, you can use speed or coke and not get addicted, many people just stop again, too.. and then you'll stand a fair chance of the mic being turned off and being shooed off (if Clint Eastwood's latest pic hasn't changed the 1st one).

0 Replies

And you all completely missed the point of Larry Elder's list.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Pretty much the PC code can be wrapped up in Larry Elder's book, "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America." The ten chapters are headed:

Random example...:

Quote:

Thats suppposed to be an example of "things you can't say in America"? Its the hoariest subject alive! Its not a taboo, its a cliche! People go on and on saying that, writing columns about it, ploughing through interminable threads about it, whining about it on talk radio shows, forever and ever and ever.

Nah. Thats not PC - as in, you're not allowed to say it - its almost what you're supposed to say, if you want at all to be taken seriously right of, I dunno, Lieberman.

More:

Quote:

These are supposed to be "things you can't say in America"? I've heard them all the freekin time! They're the staple diet of conservative columnists, and #8 of columnists left and right!

Nah. His list of topics is a programme of points he agrees with, and will find a lot of people who disagree with him on. And? <shrugs> Lot of people disagreeing with you and saying they disagree with you dont make for PC police - it just makes for people who speak their mind just like you spoke yours. (And in the case of point #3, you'd actually have to go to I dunno, A2K to get people falling over you in disagreement - if you join a talk radio show or appear on Fox, everybody will fall all over you, all "PC police-like" in this definition, if you would dare insist there isn't a media bias.)

You gotta wonder what the liberals would actually need to do to stop the self-victimising whining about PC. Repeat your talking points after you? Cause every time they say, "thats bullshit", you'll go, "see! PC!" Eh, no. Just disagreement.
How weird. She didn't write the book. She was summarizing some points.
In fact, I'm going to thank Lash for making my point exactly in her reply to McTag: Just because the Larry Elder approved version isn't in the New York Times--the US doesn't have a free press? Do you know what a free press is? It isn't precluded by Political Correctness.
You have fallen off your rocker. How are these two things related? You seem a bit desperate to argue. At least start off with a point of contention...

Now, try saying that, I dunno, legislated euthanasia is a necessity and the refusal to allow it is heartless - or, you can use speed or coke and not get addicted, many people just stop again, too.. and then you'll stand a fair chance of the mic being turned off and being shooed off (if Clint Eastwood's latest pic hasn't changed the 1st one).

Don't you think we should at least read it before we tear it apart? It was a brief summary-- and those are things that cause a great deal of angst and heated arguments between liberals and conservatives---such as you reveal.

Fox-- I hope you haven't lumped me in "you all." I think nimh's swinging wide.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And you all completely missed the point of Larry Elder's list.

Oh, OK. I havent read the book. Tell me, how's the ten statements he's headed the respective chapters of his book "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America" with, not actually meant to represent "ten things you can't say in America"?

Cause if the assertion is that those ten chapter titles are indeed "Ten Things You Can't Say in America", I cant see how you can maintain that with a straight face ...

(edited to make clear whom i was replying to)

0 Replies

Nimh--

I don't know what's wrong with you--or maybe I do-- but I'm sure you've read books that weren't literal in their titles or chapter headings.

What is the literal meaning? Is it illegal? Will the words not form? Will you immediately die? Will you be fired? What does it mean to you?

Jesus Christ.

0 Replies

Nuance.

It could mean several things.

0 Replies

It all comes down to those 'trgger' phrases that being objections from one quarter or another. Just look at the reaction when somebody says the media is liberal here on A2K. You can't do that and be PC; it is considered bad form, stupid, ignorant, etc. etc. etc.

America actually has a pretty good free speech policy. It is an exaggeration that 'you can't say them' but that's how Americans say that such things 'just aren't said' (if you want to be PC.)

0 Replies

Bear in mind, heads roll here in some quarters if you are not PC.

0 Replies

Apparently the same is true in some places in Europe:

Quote:

Indeed, they think that the world will be saved if America becomes more like Europe, whereas I think that Europe will be saved only if it becomes more like America. But that is an opinion which no one in Europe is allowed to have. Those who do, get peed upon.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/276vsdtv.asp

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:
You gotta wonder what the liberals would actually need to do to stop the self-victimising whining about PC. Repeat your talking points after you? Cause every time they say, "thats bullshit", you'll go, "see! PC!" Eh, no. Just disagreement.

How weird. She didn't write the book. She was summarizing some points.

Huh? Her post laid out the case (sorry, summarized the case) about that oppressive PC stuff thats led to "things you cant say in America", summary courtesy of Larry Elder. Now we've heard the whining about PC ad nauseam here, in particular from Fox, and so I wondered, what would the liberals actually need to do to placate it? It seems to me, by now, that nothing short of the NYT repeating those conservative talking points Larry Elder's chapter titles summarised would "help". Because as long as we (yes, we leftists, liberals, whatever wide category you prefer) listen to those talking points but also respond that we personally think they're bull-****, the reproach of "PCness" trying to stifle dissent will keep on flying.

I'll illustrate. Thing is, there's a difference between "I think that's bullshit" and "I dont think you should be allowed to say that", which Fox in particular, and those incessantly complaining about the terror of PC in general, do not seem to be getting. When a dozen of us librul folks honestly express our opinion that an opinion she stated is bullshit (usually in more polite ways), Fox has tended to feel that she was victimised by PC (and say so).

But look, Fox, at your latest post: "Just look at the reaction when somebody says the media is liberal here on A2K. You can't do that and be PC; it is considered bad form, stupid, ignorant, etc. etc. etc." There's the problem in its core. What if we do think it's "stupid and ignorant"? Should we then not say that, because if we say so, you will see it as an admonishment that you havent been "PC" enough? (Rather than just as what it is - namely, our opinion that the assertion is stupid or ignorant?) And isn't it kind of PC itself to say that a certain kind of reaction ("I think that's stupid/ignorant") should be refrained from because it's - eh - "bad form", which seems to be your complaint here?

This is the flaw of logic that Craven has again and again addressed, before he finally gave up. I'm sure I won't succeed where he failed. I suppose we'll have to live with the logic that when a conservative calls a liberal's statement stupid, it's him daring to speak up, while when a liberal calls a conservative's statement stupid, he's just being PC.

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:
In fact, I'm going to thank Lash for making my point exactly in her reply to McTag: Just because the Larry Elder approved version isn't in the New York Times--the US doesn't have a free press?

Do you know what a free press is? It isn't precluded by Political Correctness. You have fallen off your rocker. How are these two things related?

Ehm ... OK, lessee. The contention about PC here, to all appearances, was about "things you can't say in America anymore", because of that darndest PC. But thats nonsense. You can say it in a spate of places: radio stations, journals, TV station, webzines. No, the NYT probably will not reprint your conservative talking points. Does that evidence that PC has taken away your freedom to say certain things in America anymore? No, it just means that a medium that doesnt believe your talking points are productive, wont post them; just like the Washington Times or the Weekly Standard is unlikely to publish a Deaniac's ten-point programme of populist statements in its op-ed pages. What that has to do with PC or the freedom to say certain things is still wholly unclear to me.

0 Replies

It was perfectly legal for Marge Shott to joke about her "million dollar niggers' but it cost her a ball team. It was perfectly legal for Jimmy the Greek to say that black people are so proficient in athletics due to their breeding, but it cost him his job and banned him from sportscasting forever. It was perfectly legal for Rush Limbaugh to say that a certain quarterback was overrated but that the media was wanting him to succeed because he was black--that cost Rush his ESPN commentary spot. It was perfectly legal for Trent Lott to tell an almost 100-year-old Stom Thurmond that he would have made a great president, but it cost Lott his position as Senate Majority Leader.

And those are just the legal but un-PC comments re race,

You can't say that gay people are more susceptible to certain kinds of diseases than are straight people and be PC.

You can't say that boys are better than girls at much of anything and be PC.

You can't say that working mothers shortchange their children and be PC.

But it is legal to say every bit of all that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Bear in mind, heads roll here in some quarters if you are not PC.

Foxfyre wrote:

Apparently the same is true in some places in Europe:

Quote:
Indeed, they think that the world will be saved if America becomes more like Europe, whereas I think that Europe will be saved only if it becomes more like America. But that is an opinion which no one in Europe is allowed to have. Those who do, get peed upon.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/276vsdtv.asp

Here, we have a perfect case in question.

(First, let me say that I personally think those stickers are a tasteless, adolescent joke, and that the Socialists would have done better repudiating them altogether - but thats my opinion.)

OK, now. Who is "peed on" in Belgium?

The Weekly Standard writer asserts, literally, that it is those who "think that Europe will be saved only if it becomes more like America" who "get peed on". But that is nonsense, of course. It wasn't the author's face on the sticker. Noone's face has been "peed on" for "thinking that Europe [should] become more like America". In fact, although the author asserts that he personally can't find work anymore because he thinks so, I've seen articles in De Standaard arguing exactly that.

No, its a straw man. Bad taste or not, the only man who was "peed on" (or his image, anyway) is George W. Bush. Not for thinking that Europe should become more like America. But for whatever crimes against the world the protestors deem him guilty of, the Iraq war, the abduction of foreign citizens to interrogation camps, the imminent escalation of global warming, whatever.

Here's the irony. The author thinks that is outrageous. That's his right of course, I think it's stupid too. The author quotes in approval "a complaint with the Belgian judiciary" about it - fair enough, it's his right to think those activists shouldnt have been allowed to distribute those stickers. Yet the point he chooses to make about it is that the stickers evidence them trying to silence people like him.

I should post this one on Lola's thread.

0 Replies

And you completely missed the point of his piece I think Nimh. Smile

It is perfectly obvious to me you don't quite grasp the concept of PC-ness. But it is no doubt un-PC of me to say so.

0 Replies

Ok - help me to understand your concept, Fox. I understand the term perfectly, as it was initially defined. But I do get confused about the use of it by some here on the right.

Here is a case I would love to hear theoretically dissected.

Here, on this thread, there was a great deal of concern on the part of some on the right that Rice was described in a way that was translated into English as "coquettish". It appeaers the translation was untrue in nuance - but let us take it as it reads in English.

So - it is wrong to describe her as coquettish. (I agree, actually - in English, certainly - but this is irrelevant.)

Yet it is apparently perfectly ok to constantly slam Hillary Clinton for the fact that she is a middle-aged woman - and looks it. Or Helen Thomas because she is an older woman, and looks it.

What is the permissible right PC policy/theory on how one may concentrate on the appearance/flirtatiousness/sexual desirability or otherwise of women in the public eye for reasons other than their looks/gender/sexual desirability?

I hope nobody is thinking of moving into "you're a hypocrite" mode here - and not discussing the point. I have been savaged by the left here for protesting when Ann Coulter's appearance/gender/sexual habits were used as a basis for abusing her - not her writing - and equally savaged for protesting when an equally vicious attack was made (as it continues to be made) against Helen Thomas for HER appearance and not her writing.

I am happy to reference several instances of this abuse here, if people would like me to.

0 Replies

Dlowan writes

Quote:

What is the permissible right PC policy/theory on how one may concentrate on the appearance/flirtatiousness/sexual desirability or otherwise of women in the public eye for reasons other than their looks/gender/sexual desirability?

It's a fair question. I remember I think it was a Peggy Noonan column in which she was quoting a woman commenting on Condi Rice saying "She isn't very feminine" to which Peggy replied, "Neither is Colin."

To be PC, one cannot refer to Condi in any manner that would not also be applied to her predecessor. If you wouldn't refer to Colin Powell as 'coquettish', then it would not be PC to refer to Condi as 'coquettish" as that would be interpreted by the PC police to be sexist. In other words, the only PC way to refer to Condi is in words that could also be appropriate in reference to a male Secretary of State or, in PC terms, ANY secretary of state.

I'm probably explaining it badly, but that's the way I see it in that particular case.

0 Replies

My point - and it prolly isn't fair to make it to you so much Fox, is that, if we assume that PC is bad - as most of the right folk here seem to do - then it was seen as NOT "PC" - but bad - to refer to Rice in that manner. Assuming "not PC" to be good.

I am wondering if the folk from the right who were unhappy re the coquettish comment (as I was a tad - but, since I am part of the "PC police" apparently it WAS PC of me - hence bad - to object a tad - but anyoo...Lol) to differentiate
"coquettish" (which intended no insult) as a bad (but not PC bad - un PC bad) sexist way to refer to a powerful woman - while looking old and ugly is an ok but sexist way to critique to Ms Clinton and Helen Thomas?

(I agree with your reasoning, BTW - but I think the same applies to bagging women for looking older - when generally this is not a criticism applied to powerful political men.)

0 Replies

I think the most irritating aspect of PC is the hue and cry, and organized public censure of people who don't toe the PC line.

Like with Condi. Obviously, the PC mafia didn't pursue the sexist remark made about her. I think, since she is a conservative--it was fine with them. However, let a conservative like Bush refer to a female--especially a non-conservative female-- as 'coquettish'.... There would have been a firestorm.

The PC machine in the US is run by liberal news types, who take it upon themelves to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Fox already gave a small itemized list of people, who were run out of their jobs unfairly by this mob. There are plenty of other identical 'infractions'--and worse--committed by liberals--or non-conservatives--who hardly heard a peep.

I strongly resent who makes these 'rules', and how unevenly they are applied.

0 Replies

Yes - but I would be interested in your response to my question.

0 Replies

You have to find a more realistic example. Ugly is ugly--whether you are a man or a woman.

That's just not sexist.

0 Replies

Dlowan writes

Quote:

My point - and it prolly isn't fair to make it to you so much Fox, is that, if we assume that PC is bad - as most of the right folk here seem to do - then it was seen as NOT "PC" - but bad - to refer to Rice in that manner. Assuming "not PC" to be good.

I am wondering if the folk from the right who were unhappy re the coquettish comment (as I was a tad - but, since I am part of the "PC police" apparently it WAS PC of me - hence bad - to object a tad - but anyoo...Lol) to differentiate
"coquettish" (which intended no insult) as a bad (but not PC bad - un PC bad) sexist way to refer to a powerful woman - while looking old and ugly is an ok but sexist way to critique to Ms Clinton and Helen Thomas?

(I agree with your reasoning, BTW - but I think the same applies to bagging women for looking older - when generally this is not a criticism applied to powerful political men.)

Well here we have a paradox, but first I wish to emphasize that I am NOT a member of the PC police and I think its ridiculous to have to literally lie or bend or omit the truth in order to conform to some current PC code. In all those examples up there--Marge Shott, Jimmy the Greek, Limbaugh, Lott, etc.--I think it ridiculous that they were literally destroyed for speaking an unacceptable word or phrase or not realizing an implication. If they are actually insensitive or crude or whatever and the people they refer to don't mind, then there is no harm done. If the people they refer to do mind then they can say so, or a censure might be in order, but the reaction to all these things was just way extreme.

Regarding references to fat, ugly, old, etc., these could apply to anybody and are not PC terms. To use them might be cruel or insensitive or hateful, but it wouldn't violate PC.

To say men are generally physically stronger than women - accurate and no violation of PC.

To say men are generally smarter than women - that is definitely debatable and it is hugely un-PC.

To say inner city black people make up a disproportionate part of the unemployed - could be accurate and no violation of PC.

To say some black people are more unemployed because they don't speak proper English or have a good work ethic - this may or may not be true but it will almost always be un-PC to say regardless of whether it is true or not.

Now this is the definition/version/explanation of PC according to Foxfyre. Others may have a different view.

0 Replies

Rice - getting away from "Punish France, ignore Germany..."?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know