Quantcast

Is Political Correctness out of control?

mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/06/18 15:49:49
Yes
No
I don't know
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Watch this video. I almost fell off my chair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZHnB3jyrHI
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Katherine 2012/07/09 01:33:54
    Yes
    Katherine
    +1
    As discussed earlier, we progressives have abandoned God's commandments as the relics of the judgmental, pre-deconstructionist, patriarchal culture they so obviously are. We reject your father-knows-best fascism in all its manifestations, and this most definitely includes those silly rules that Moses allegedly brought down from Mount Sinai, the better to found a monstrous conspiracy known as "monotheism" and thus make our lives difficult thousands of years later.

    Okay, not exactly abandon them, but edited them, replaced them with a couple of simple rules that have served us well, if only as protective coloring, in our war against you. Just as a yellow dog who knows he's about to be seriously eviscerated by a bigger, meaner canine rolls over on his back and shows his belly and his balls -- his most vulnerable bits, as it were -- in the hopes that the Big Dog will take that as a sign of surrender and thus spare him, so have we perfected the art of pretending to surrender when, every so often, you finally rouse yourselves to call us out over one trivial provocation or another, all the while planning and plotting to live and stab you in the back another day.

    Yes, I know this makes us sound like the cowards we are, but that's exactly why you find it so hard to fight us. *You can...









    As discussed earlier, we progressives have abandoned God's commandments as the relics of the judgmental, pre-deconstructionist, patriarchal culture they so obviously are. We reject your father-knows-best fascism in all its manifestations, and this most definitely includes those silly rules that Moses allegedly brought down from Mount Sinai, the better to found a monstrous conspiracy known as "monotheism" and thus make our lives difficult thousands of years later.

    Okay, not exactly abandon them, but edited them, replaced them with a couple of simple rules that have served us well, if only as protective coloring, in our war against you. Just as a yellow dog who knows he's about to be seriously eviscerated by a bigger, meaner canine rolls over on his back and shows his belly and his balls -- his most vulnerable bits, as it were -- in the hopes that the Big Dog will take that as a sign of surrender and thus spare him, so have we perfected the art of pretending to surrender when, every so often, you finally rouse yourselves to call us out over one trivial provocation or another, all the while planning and plotting to live and stab you in the back another day.

    Yes, I know this makes us sound like the cowards we are, but that's exactly why you find it so hard to fight us. *You can't hit a girl*. And, basically, we're all girls -- not that there's anything wrong with that. "You're a lonely, ugly arsehole, and you must accept it," says Tony to Colin in Richard Curtis's brilliant script for *Love Actually*. "Never. I am Colin, God of sex," replies his friend. And you know--he was right! As long as you buy into our transparently phony posturing and premises--because you *want* to believe, because not to do so would be rude or, worse, bigoted in some fashion--we have you at our underdog mercy. *We* are the gods of sex, and you are the lonely, ugly arseholes, instead of vice versa.

    One of the reasons we pretended to be horrified by what happened on 9/11--why we had to endure ll those tedious candlelight vigils outside the Capitol, feigning horror at the senseless loss of life, when deep down we were secretly thinking: *We deserved it! Hit us, Berber, one more time*--was that, as usual, we had to conceal our true feelings so that we wouldn't let the mask slip, and reveal how much we despise you and your unwarranted, overbearing, tiresome pride in your own country. This is what we have done to your culture: where once real men used to take it outside and settle it like, well, like real men, today we while, we cry, and, if all else fails, we sue. Think of us as Bernie Bernbaum in the Coen Brothers' greatest film, *Miller's Crossing*, falling on his knees in sheer crocodile-tear cowardice and begging the Irish gangster, played by Gabriel Byrne, for his life. "Look in your heart, Tom!" he cries and whines and whinges and weeps and well. . . to his everlasting regret, Tom lets him go. Like the aliens in *Independence Day*, we're using your own weapons--your strength, your decency, your sense of fair play, and your laughable compassion--against you.

    Because while you wingnuts are busy getting bogged down in the house-to-house fighting of *Rahmbo v. Rushbo*, or whichever clownish side show we have managed to distract you with this month, the larger point of what's happening to you is sailing right over your fat heads. You're letting yourselves get bogged down in minutiae--when you should really be seeing the Birnam Wood behind Dunsinane's trees. For, in the end, our Cold Civil War against you conservatives and your institutions is not really about personalities, or even policies: it's about *principles*. Meanwhile, you would rather discuss policies.

    And what--besides Blame America First--are those principles? What are our greatest commandments? Not being congenitally Christian, we of course reject the message of Jesus, who boiled the patriarchal laws of Moses down to two nifty aphorisms: Love God and Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. When you get right down to it, that's pretty much all Christianity is, if you leave out the racism, sexism, homophobia, school prayers, cucumber sandwiches, dancing with your maiden aunts at weddings, drinking at funerals, and, of course, the Spanish Inquisition.

    Our strictures, however, have a much more positive spin that the dreary List of Don'ts inscribed upon Moses's tablets, and they're much more modern than Jesus's goody-two-shoes bromides. You probably already know what they are, but in case you don't, here we go:

    Fairness and Tolerance.
    (more)
  • Katherine Katherine 2012/07/09 01:42:26
    Katherine
    (con't)

    Sure, they're not in any Bible, Torah, or Koran that I know about, and naturally, being an Atheist and all, I'm hard-pressed to cite a scriptural reference for any of them, except for maybe *The Prophet* by Khalil Gibran, which was all the rage in my dad's day. You don't want to know how many times he scored with a few lines from this Age of Aquarius precursor written by a Lebanese Maronite Christian who was raised in Beantown's South End. Suckers!

    And what do we mean by Fairness and Tolerance? Not, of course, what you think. As should be clear by now, we never use a word with a uniform meaning that's clear to both sides when we can use one with a double meaning, one of which is invisible and inaudible to you. As Churchill said of Britain and America, the Left and the Right in America today are two nations separated by a common language. We dwell on a one-way street, in which the traffic goes the way we say it goes, and it is no small measure of our success over the past half-century or so that yo have never been able to figure that out.

    Take fairness. Sounds unexceptionable, right? That's exactly what we want you to think. Who could possibly be against Fairness, except for maybe Ayn Rand and the *Atlas Shrugged* kooks. In our view, everything in modern America is unfa...
    (con't)

    Sure, they're not in any Bible, Torah, or Koran that I know about, and naturally, being an Atheist and all, I'm hard-pressed to cite a scriptural reference for any of them, except for maybe *The Prophet* by Khalil Gibran, which was all the rage in my dad's day. You don't want to know how many times he scored with a few lines from this Age of Aquarius precursor written by a Lebanese Maronite Christian who was raised in Beantown's South End. Suckers!

    And what do we mean by Fairness and Tolerance? Not, of course, what you think. As should be clear by now, we never use a word with a uniform meaning that's clear to both sides when we can use one with a double meaning, one of which is invisible and inaudible to you. As Churchill said of Britain and America, the Left and the Right in America today are two nations separated by a common language. We dwell on a one-way street, in which the traffic goes the way we say it goes, and it is no small measure of our success over the past half-century or so that yo have never been able to figure that out.

    Take fairness. Sounds unexceptionable, right? That's exactly what we want you to think. Who could possibly be against Fairness, except for maybe Ayn Rand and the *Atlas Shrugged* kooks. In our view, everything in modern America is unfair if it results in the slightest disparity in income, lifestyle, job description, or the availability of Chicken McNuggets at your local fast food place--which we'll soon be shuttering in the interests of the People's Health, no further need to call 911. And we are more than willing to sacrifice everything you have in pursuit of this social justice.
    (more)
  • Katherine Katherine 2012/07/09 01:55:55
    Katherine
    Sure, it will make you ad for a while as we "looters" systematically sack your homes, smash your pianos, and turn your spare rooms to the wretched of the earth, but after a while you'll come to accept it, and even embrace it. Shared misery--what could be fairer? *Vsya clast sovyetam*: "All power to the Soviets!" If I were you, I'd get used to wrapping my lips around that particular phrase, because if we have our way you're going to be shouting it at rallies in Times Square, Pershing Square, Union Square, and from the balcony of the Drake Hotel if you know what's good for you.

    I realize that, to you, "fairness" means treating all people equally, giving everyone the same chance, putting aside the old prejudices in favor of a color-blind society. To us, though, it means exactly the opposite. Just as, in Islam, "peace" means one thing to the formerly and thankfully no longer "Christian"--what are you going to do with all those empty cathedrals?-- world and quite another to the *ummah*, so simply means we win, you lose, no matter what the rules of the game. Are we perchance in the minority in Congress? Very well then, simple proportion to our numbers; otherwise, we will simply roll over onto our backs and show you our belly until you accommodate us. And in those joyous happy days w...



    Sure, it will make you ad for a while as we "looters" systematically sack your homes, smash your pianos, and turn your spare rooms to the wretched of the earth, but after a while you'll come to accept it, and even embrace it. Shared misery--what could be fairer? *Vsya clast sovyetam*: "All power to the Soviets!" If I were you, I'd get used to wrapping my lips around that particular phrase, because if we have our way you're going to be shouting it at rallies in Times Square, Pershing Square, Union Square, and from the balcony of the Drake Hotel if you know what's good for you.

    I realize that, to you, "fairness" means treating all people equally, giving everyone the same chance, putting aside the old prejudices in favor of a color-blind society. To us, though, it means exactly the opposite. Just as, in Islam, "peace" means one thing to the formerly and thankfully no longer "Christian"--what are you going to do with all those empty cathedrals?-- world and quite another to the *ummah*, so simply means we win, you lose, no matter what the rules of the game. Are we perchance in the minority in Congress? Very well then, simple proportion to our numbers; otherwise, we will simply roll over onto our backs and show you our belly until you accommodate us. And in those joyous happy days when we have lied, wheedled, and cajoled our way to power, and have been by some miracle of obfuscation voted into the electoral majority by the American people who would far rather be watching *Dancing with the Stars* on their giant flat screen TVs than having to think about politics, well then "fairness" means what it used to mean back when men were men and tort lawyers got punched in the face in the back alleys behind bars, took it and liked it, lest they get the crap beaten out of them again and again until they stopped threatening to financially beggar a man with whom they had some slight disagreement.

    And so to Tolerance. For decades, we have been provoking you, goading you, mocking you, denigrating you, challenging your faith in God and country and yourselves--while at the same time demanding that you tolerance us. For us, there is no greater virtue than tolerance, since our definition of it means accepting not the best of a group with whom you might differ, but the worst.

    Remember that, for us, there is no goal but your destruction, and tolerance is perhaps our favorite weapon, especially when blended with incrementalism. At the beginning of our effort to break down your society we, quite reasonably, noted the disparity between your professed beliefs and how you actually lived your lives, how you treated other people. What happened next was a bit of an intellectual trick, but once we fooled you with it--well, the results are evident all around you.
    (more)
  • Katherine Katherine 2012/07/09 02:11:49
  • Katherine Katherine 2012/07/09 02:49:56
    Katherine
    (con't) Amazing to think they had been here all this time, right under our noses but, being Democrats, we had been turning those selfsame noses up at them, which is probably why we missed them. We don't call the Democratic Party the party of Slavery, Segregation, Secularism, and Sedition for nothing--it's a title we've proudly earned practically since the day the party was founded as (what else?) the Anti-Federalist party, skulking under the name Democratic-Republicans, like that was going to fool anybody. Yes, you read that right: although the history is a little complicated, we modern Democrats basically are the descendant of the men who opposed the party of George Washington (the Ronald Reagan of his day) and, especially, John Adams (the George H. W. Bush of his day), not to mention John Quincy Adams (the George W. Bush of his day). (personal note: I take offense to the Bush comparisons just a bit)

    Being a party with its strongest roots in the Old South, Democrats back then were fervently in favor of slavery, and opposed all efforts of modify or end it. I don't want to bore you with the involved and complex history that resulted in the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution (in which black slavers were counted as three-fifths of a human being for apportionment purposes,...



    (con't) Amazing to think they had been here all this time, right under our noses but, being Democrats, we had been turning those selfsame noses up at them, which is probably why we missed them. We don't call the Democratic Party the party of Slavery, Segregation, Secularism, and Sedition for nothing--it's a title we've proudly earned practically since the day the party was founded as (what else?) the Anti-Federalist party, skulking under the name Democratic-Republicans, like that was going to fool anybody. Yes, you read that right: although the history is a little complicated, we modern Democrats basically are the descendant of the men who opposed the party of George Washington (the Ronald Reagan of his day) and, especially, John Adams (the George H. W. Bush of his day), not to mention John Quincy Adams (the George W. Bush of his day). (personal note: I take offense to the Bush comparisons just a bit)

    Being a party with its strongest roots in the Old South, Democrats back then were fervently in favor of slavery, and opposed all efforts of modify or end it. I don't want to bore you with the involved and complex history that resulted in the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution (in which black slavers were counted as three-fifths of a human being for apportionment purposes, lest the slaveholding South wield political power all out of proportion to its eligible voters), the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which regulated the admission of new slave states into the Union along geographical lines), and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and opened up slavery for a vote in new territories (which sent Bloody Kansas into paroxysms of violence). No wonder we're always advocating compromise! It was in response to the violence that the modern Republican Party was founded that same year in Ripon, Wisconsin, making it its mission to oppose the slavery-loving Democratic Party at each and every turn. Six years later, they elected the first Republicans President, Abraham Lincoln, whom we still have to pretend to like. So when South Carolina fired upon Fort Sumter to start the Civil War, it was in effect a war declared by Democrats on Republicans, and from that moment on the strife has not lessened, and black people have been caught in the middle ever since. You didn't hear much "tolerance" noise out of us in those days.

    In the meantime, we fought a rearguard action against civil rights. We formed the Ku Klux Klan, to suppress Republican voter turnout and fight not only against civil rights for blacks, but, later, against Jews and Catholics as well. We had cheered the *Dread Scott* decision in 1857, when Chief Justice Roger Taney--a Democrat, appointed by a Democrat, Andrew Jackson--described black people as "an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race" and rules that, being private property, they had no civil rights. When *Plessy v. Ferguson* came along in 1896, we cheered again when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of "separate but equal," endorsing the Louisiana court's ruling.

    African-Americans found few friends among the Democrats of the Solid South, where Democratic politicians such as George Wallace, the governor of Alabama; Lester Maddox, the governor of Georgia' and Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, led the charge against them. In 1954, in the wake of the historic *brown v. Board of Education* Supreme Court decision that overturned *Plessy*, Governor Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the integration of Little Rock Central High School, only to be outgunned by his Commander in Chief, the Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower. As a Democrat, Lydon Johnson fought for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the Republicans supported it in much higher percentages than the Democrats. And who, you ask, let the filibuster against it? Why, none other than Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., a close friend and confidant of Armand Hammer, one of the Soviet Union's best and most effective agents against the U.S. during his long lifetime. And Senator "Sleepin'" Sam Ervin, later elevated to hero status by the Left for his pursuit of Richard Nixon during Watergate. And the late Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan himself, the longest-serving senator in American history, the king of West Virginia pork, Robert "White N----rs" Byrd. (personal note: censor by me) What a swell crowd, and really something for all us progressives to be proud of!
    (more)
  • Katherine Katherine 2012/07/09 03:32:50
    Katherine
    (con't)

    And then, something magical happened. We made all y'all forget our racist past by the simple expedient of not only erasing it, but tossing all the previous accomplishments of our newly adopted Victim Groups down the memory hole too. Gone was the Democrats' irremediably racist past--hey! Sorry about that!--and in its place came the Part of Compassion, looking at its colored brothers in all their pathetic inability to do anything at all without a bunch of us guilty white liberals assisting them, and then helpfully improving their lives as we brought the formidable powers of our Ivy League training to bear on the N--ro Problem. (personal note: censor by me, and I really hate this guy)

    We are nothing if not all or nothing; full-throttle is how we roll in Progressiveland. Where once we hunted black people down, strung them up on trees, returned them with all the power of the state to their slave masters, and kept them riding in the back of the bus, we now showered them with our tender mercies. It began during the selfsame civil rights movements that Robert Byrd, Sleepin' Same, and Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., had tried to stop, when Northern liberal Democrats headed below the Mason-Dixon Line to confront their Southern brethren. Suddenly, the personal was not only political, it ...













    (con't)

    And then, something magical happened. We made all y'all forget our racist past by the simple expedient of not only erasing it, but tossing all the previous accomplishments of our newly adopted Victim Groups down the memory hole too. Gone was the Democrats' irremediably racist past--hey! Sorry about that!--and in its place came the Part of Compassion, looking at its colored brothers in all their pathetic inability to do anything at all without a bunch of us guilty white liberals assisting them, and then helpfully improving their lives as we brought the formidable powers of our Ivy League training to bear on the N--ro Problem. (personal note: censor by me, and I really hate this guy)

    We are nothing if not all or nothing; full-throttle is how we roll in Progressiveland. Where once we hunted black people down, strung them up on trees, returned them with all the power of the state to their slave masters, and kept them riding in the back of the bus, we now showered them with our tender mercies. It began during the selfsame civil rights movements that Robert Byrd, Sleepin' Same, and Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., had tried to stop, when Northern liberal Democrats headed below the Mason-Dixon Line to confront their Southern brethren. Suddenly, the personal was not only political, it was regional, and FDR's coalition began to break apart as Bull Conner battled Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman for the soul of Yawnapatawpha County, or wherever.

    Then came our best trick of all; some disaffected Southern Democrats began to switch parties. It began when Strom Thurmond, the governor of South Carolina (that pesky state again) ran for President in 1948 on the Dixiecrat ticket, garnered more than a million votes, won several states, and collected thirty-nine electoral votes; later, elected as a senator on the Democrat ticket, he switched parties and became a lifelong Republican, as did such other stalwarts as Trent Lott . . . and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and . . .

    I dunno exactly, there must have been millions of them, but even if it was only a few, not counting crazy Arlen Specter, it meant that we were now able to write off the whole Southern wing of the party--you know, the one that had been in existence since, oh, Thomas Jefferson, and therefore claim that the Southern Democrats had really been *premature Republicans*! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you jettison your entire racist past in one easy lesson. It's so easy an amoral, sociopathic child could do it!

    The next step was to strip African-American of all the accomplishments of their stories past. For us, you see, the world begins anew whenever we get involved with it, and it could not be that black Americans had ever achieved anything notable in our racist society. Without our help--impossible!

    So out the window went black achievement. Sure, we managed to contain some of it in the February ghetto known as "Black History Month," where it could be presented through the prism of "stolen patrimony." The leftist media always needs a narrative frame in which to present its propaganda, and in this case by segregating the rich history of African-American accomplishments in the New World for the past half-millennium, we can pitch it as "the stuff white America doesn't want you to know about your own history," when in fact *we're* the ones who don't want you to know. But I'll never tell!

    And so we merrily sorted through Black History's five hundred years, keeping Crispus Attucks--after all, he was one of the First Black Victims--but short-selling Austin Dabney, a slave in Georgia who took up arms against the British during the Revolution and, for his bravery, was rewarded with his own land and a federal pension at a time when blacks were forbidden to own property. We kept W.E.B. Du Bois, the scion of a prominent mixed-race family in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, who founded the NAACP, became a communist, and eventually returned to Africa, dying in Ghana at the age of ninety-five (personal note: didn't he also help Margaret Sanger with her kill pre-born black babies project?), and jettisoned Booker T. Washington, the bastard child of a white slaveholder and a black slave woman, who pulled himself *Up From Slavery*, dined with a Republican President," Teddy Roosevelt (personal note: wasn't Teddy a regressive republican and a bigot?), in the White House (in an event that infuriated the Southern Democrats), and founded the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, where he eventually worked himself to death in his lifelong struggle to better black America through education and hard work. We kept Michael Jackson, a self-mutilated child molester (personal note: incorrect, just some greedy people taking advantage of a rich guy w/serious Peter Pan problem) of whom it was once said that "only in America could a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white woman," and disappeared Scott Joplin, one of the most important figures in the history of American popular music, and the man who not only invented ragtime but memorialized the meeting between Booker T. and T.R. in an opera, now alas lost, called *A Guest of Honor*. Joplin invented or adumbrated every single strand of what evolved into American popular music of the twentieth century, and it is certainly safe to say that without him there would have been no Michael Jackson--which I suppose is the only bad thing you can say about a man born to a freed slave, educated in the bordellos of the Mississippi River, and who forged a synthesis of American and European musical strains to create something unique: the voice of modern America.

    Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong, Jesse Owens, James Baldwin and Richard Wright and Frederick Douglass . . . That just begins to call the honor roll of black achievement in America, which of course is as long and glorious as any other group's, and was accomplished under unmatched strictures. And they did it all without *us*. And I can hear you now: In a rational world, *that* would be our focus, wouldn't ya think?

    With a history like that, it's a wonder the black community tolerates us at all.
    (more)
  • Katherine Katherine 2012/07/09 04:11:24
    Katherine
    (con't)

    That's the stuff your bunch likes to talk about, all part of your mindless celebration of American history in general. But that would be judgmental--cheering only the best! What we want you to do is accept the worst--not the heroes but the criminals, not the men and women of all races and classes who helped create the country you live in today, but the men and women who have done everything in their power, whether through malice, indolence, indisposition, or hostility, to ruin it. Tolerance no longer asks you not to judge a man by the color of his skin; in fact, it does precisely the opposite-- it *requires* you to notice the color of his skin and if he's doing anything illegal or destructive to ignore his actions. That is the real meaning of the word "tolerance" today.

    As you can see, we've flipped it, which is always part of our arsenal against you. No sooner have we gotten you to accept a premise--which may in itself be innocuous or, on rare occasions, actually beneficial to everybody--than we start twisting it, revisiting it, modulating it, until by the time we're finished it bears almost no resemblance to what it originally started out as, except in the most superficial way. And by the time you've figured this out, by the time you timorously raise your hand to lod...




























    (con't)

    That's the stuff your bunch likes to talk about, all part of your mindless celebration of American history in general. But that would be judgmental--cheering only the best! What we want you to do is accept the worst--not the heroes but the criminals, not the men and women of all races and classes who helped create the country you live in today, but the men and women who have done everything in their power, whether through malice, indolence, indisposition, or hostility, to ruin it. Tolerance no longer asks you not to judge a man by the color of his skin; in fact, it does precisely the opposite-- it *requires* you to notice the color of his skin and if he's doing anything illegal or destructive to ignore his actions. That is the real meaning of the word "tolerance" today.

    As you can see, we've flipped it, which is always part of our arsenal against you. No sooner have we gotten you to accept a premise--which may in itself be innocuous or, on rare occasions, actually beneficial to everybody--than we start twisting it, revisiting it, modulating it, until by the time we're finished it bears almost no resemblance to what it originally started out as, except in the most superficial way. And by the time you've figured this out, by the time you timorously raise your hand to lodge a small, tiny really, practically infinitesimal objection, it's way too late. Once you've accepted the premise, you're all ours.

    Let's take a sprint through the recent past to see how this works. Remember back in the 1950's, before women entered both college and the workforce in such large numbers that today they constitute the majority of college students (boys are the coeds now) and dominated many fields, including journalism? When Dad put on his hat, went off to work, and Mom stayed at home with the kids, the breadwinner and the homemaker working together in partnership, the children getting the benefit of maternal love and attention, and learning to respect their father for the sacrifices he made in order to provide for his family? Remember that?

    Well, neither do I, and as far as I'm concerned it's probably just one of those phony cultural myths your side derived from television shows like *Leave It to Beaver*. But there certainly must be some reason why, half a century ago, a single man could earn enough money to support a wife and multiple children (not just one designer kid), build or buy a house in the suburbs, like Scarsdale and Pelham and Cleveland Heights and Dearborn and Berkeley and Encino. There must be a reason why, after women went into the workforce in a big way in the 1970s, two incomes suddenly became the equivalent of one, four kids became two kids, divorce soared, and, after *Roe v. Wade* in 1973, two kids became one kids became no kids.

    There must be a reason why crime rates were at historic lows, why kids could play outside during the summer from just after breakfast until the street lights came on, why they felt perfectly safe riding their bikes all over town, taking the subway from Queens to Harlem and back again and hitching rides on the cable cars in San Francisco and hanging off the sides, just for laughs. There must be a reason why wives wore dresses and even gloves, why men wouldn't think to appear in the workplace without a suit or at least a jacket and tie (and this was before the word "workplace" was even invented!), why there were not multiple lawsuits after every water cooler joke. But to ask these questions would be "reactionary"--that's some word, isn't it, and one of our favorites, right up there with "revanchist"--and even racist, somehow. Don't ask me how; we'd find a way, probably in consultation with the *New York Times* op-ed writers.

    I know the answer we'd give you if you were dumb enough to make these assertions in public anymore: what about the civil rights movement? It's the answer we always give every time one of you wingnuts starts getting all weepy for the Good Old Days (which, as we all known, were hell on earth, not that there's anything wrong with that), and begin to reminisce how you shoulda seen the Atlantic Ocean back then, it was some sight. The civil rights movement is the ultimate trump card for all during the Eisenhower administration. And it's such a simple syllogism that even a Young Pioneer could do it in his sleep.

    1. Fact: The Civil Rights Act didn't happen until 1964.
    2. Premise: therefore, this was an evil country until 1964.
    3. Faulty conclusion: ergo, nothing that America did or was until 1964 could possibly be any good, as long as this one monstrous wrong remained unrighted.


    To which, of course, you lot nod your heads and stroke your beards and suddenly shout: My God, Mildred! Don't you see we've been living a lie all these years! Let's kill ourselves in expiation of the sins of our fathers.

    And that's it. You're done! No nuance, no looking at history--heck, not even an acknowledgment that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a registered Republican (as most black people were up to the 1960s). At one argument on our terms, made America's entire history hostage to the legacy of slavery, and cut the legs out from under you, our opponents. And the genius of it is, the argument isn't even about the civil rights movement--about which no one would disagree! The discussion is over, the science is settled, the voters have spoken, and now it's on to Chicago and let's win in November. *Falsus in unum*, and all that jazz.

    This all-purpose reproach allows us to trash just about every icon and institution in the United States. We've turned the all-American dad into a doofus figure of fun. We've gotten you to loathe stay-at-home moms, celebrate pregnant teenagers, cheer on their abortions, and sue the doctors when they botch them. We've convinced you that kids are smarter than their parents; the poor are more virtuous than the rich; and that all cultures are equal. We demanded that you tolerate it--and you did! Chesterton, or some other religious nut, may have said that tolerance is the only virtue left o the man who no longer believes in anything, but so what? Tolerance is the only virtue you need while we cannibalize your culture, and when we're finished, well, you won't need it anymore.

    And so it has fallen to us to right the wrongs of the past two thousand years of the Common Era--thank Gaia that superstitious "A.S." nonsense is a thing of the past, and we didn't even have to sue anybody to get rid of it--by legislating and suing you out of existence. By tying you down with a million petty regulations until everything you do, say, or even think will be subject to prophylactic reflection before you do, say, or think it. We've won. And now you're about to experience the consequences of how much we dislike you.

    Herbert Marcuse was right in *Repressive Tolerance*: the only thing we can't tolerate is you.



    Part One: The Problem
    Chapter: "Fairness" and "Tolerance" page 121
    From Rules for Radical Conservatives
    by David Kahane. (Michael Walsh)
    (more)
  • Anonymouse ~superdoge~ 2012/06/20 17:32:23
    Yes
    Anonymouse ~superdoge~
    +1
    Definitely.
  • Diane Spraggs Yates 2012/06/18 21:30:09
    Yes
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +1
    That IS A BIG HELL YES !!!!!!!!!
  • say what? 2012/06/18 16:46:35
    Yes
    say what?
    +2
    It is destroying the minds of millions.
  • I. Car Rus 2012/06/18 16:16:55
    I don't know
    I. Car Rus
    +1
    I don't know is always the best answer when it comes to immeasurable phenomenon, I mean who can say?
  • Jiorgia 2012/06/18 16:00:42
    I don't know
    Jiorgia
    +2
    I think that there is political correctness and then there is social correctness or if you prefer, social decency.
    Things can be said without any discrimination or offense meant by the words, however some things without meaning to cause offense can be offensive to people.

    Swearing for example, some people find offense in the simplest of swear words while others find no problem with it, does that mean that the people who do find it offensive should just put up with it or does that mean that when you are around those people that do find offense that you should modify your behaviour?

    That is where political correctness comes in, changing your behaviour in order to not offend anyone at all, rather then risking it or telling those that do find it offensive to just put up with it.
    Political correctness does have its merits, but I think that if everyone just put some thought into their words (were socially decent) then there wouldn't be a need for it at all.
  • mk, Sma... Jiorgia 2012/06/18 16:15:18
  • I. Car Rus mk, Sma... 2012/06/18 16:23:53
    I. Car Rus
    +1
    I watched.......first lose the music, its maudlin. Second, while it sounds as though he was illly treated, a smart guy would have read this where it couldn't be seen by co-workers. Now what should the University do? Get sued by the "offended people" for hostile work environment, or get sued by this guy? No win for them.
  • mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/06/18 15:50:20

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/23 01:19:59

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals