Left-wing Speech Control
Any reason to change the name?
But if the formation resembled a white man and it were called "Crackerhead Rock" nobody would raise an eyebrow ....right?
didnt think so.
Well, incidentally, here is a picture of Crackerhead Rock.
eudaimonia
Sea Gull
Joined: 8 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 208
Location: trailing off in mid senten...
Agreed.. I do not understand, however, how language control is a partisan issue. Both sides carefully calculate the language they use, and people's speech reflects this.
One unfortunate victim of Leftist Language Control (LLC) has been Princess Tigerlilly and her band of Indians
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk[/youtube]
So many subsequent movies and cartoons featuring Peter Pan, Captain Hook and Tinkerbell, but not one that included Princess Tigerlilly nor any members of her tribe. This is an outrage!
I did learn a lot about Indians from the song "What Makes the Red Man Red?", but my instruction concerning American Indians has since ground to a pathetic halt. Now, all I continue to learn about are pirates and fairies.
I have to say I find the comparison of "political correctness" to prohibitions of same-sex marriage and bans on abortion to be grossly disproportionate.
For one thing, self-censorship is, at its root, a personal decision. You choose whether or not to comply with the form of speech that will avoid public opprobrium. You are still free to say Merry Christmas, and to apply whatever perjorative language to people who are different from you that you like. And people who don't like it are free to say so. How can you make a meaningful complain that your free speech is being curtailed by other's right to the same free speech?
Why should historical usage privilege us to use language that offends people? Surely the respectful treatment of all people--suggests that "Redskins," is nothing more than rude.
Now, when that restriction on speech becomes the subject of compulsion, we get into a more meaningful area. But that leads us into the realm of private and public space. If you want to study at a private university, then part of the deal when you pay your tuition is that you obey the rules.
_________________
--James
By Dennis Prager, Tuesday, February 1, 2011
A woman may reveal as much of her body as she wishes. But if a man is perceived by a woman as looking too long at what she reveals, or if he comments on what she reveals, he may be fired from his job and/or sued for "sexual harassment." A woman may wear a miniskirt and crop-top, but a man may not have a calendar of women wearing miniskirts and crop-tops on his desk at work. That constitutes sexual harassment and a "hostile work environment."
It actually goes both ways. Meaning, if a man doesn't respond to a woman who goes out of her way to appear sexy, he can also get himself in a heap of trouble (but, in most instances, still less trouble than if he does his level best to try to ignore them). Also, by far the raunchiest magazines for sale in the grocery stores, with pictures of very sexy women and titilliating titles, are those aimed at women. A man dare not glance furtively within.
Graphic torture and frontal nudity may be shown on screen, but smoking cigars or cigarettes may not. A Churchill museum in London has removed the cigars from wartime Churchill photographs, FDR has had his ubiquitous cigarette holder removed from his photographs, and the cigarettes have been removed from the Beatles' hands in the famous photo of them crossing Abbey Road.
I'm all for frontal nudity, but I can do without the graphic torture and the smoking.
And, lest we forget, "the Left is on a Noble Crusade to outlaw the word crusade."
Is this part of a "pro-smoking" campaign? I will not be subjected to second-hand smoke, and, to affirm my masculinity, will exercise my second amendment rites against anyone who smokes anywhere near me.
If we don't, that line in "The Star-Spangled Banner" will go the way of "Merry Christmas."
Well, the Star Spangled Banner really isn't that great of a song (and the high notes are a bit of a strain for a lot of voices). And, you're right, "bombs bursting through air" isn't quite the imagery we want in a song that is supposed to be emblematic of a civilized nation. Maybe we could get Miley Cyrus to write a new national anthem, that would be played repeatedly by radio stations. At least then we could get kids to sing it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk[/youtube]
So many subsequent movies and cartoons featuring Peter Pan, Captain Hook and Tinkerbell, but not one that included Princess Tigerlilly nor any members of her tribe. This is an outrage!
I did learn a lot about Indians from the song "What Makes the Red Man Red?", but my instruction concerning American Indians has since ground to a pathetic halt. Now, all I continue to learn about are pirates and fairies.
Uh I fail to see how that song is offensive, it is actually kind of funny. I'm part Native American and I really don't find it offensive. It doesn't imply Native Americans are in any way inferior to whites at all.
Maybe so. "Redskins" is a derogatory term for American Indians. A silly name for a football team in our nation's capital. Especially after what our nation did to the "redskins."
Lo, lo. Derogatory. Was there ever a name for any group not one's own that was NOT derogatory? Face it - those Green Monkeys are evil, dumb, shiftless, sneaking, avaricious and not like us at all.
I am reminded - I have told the story before - a student of mine. Took offense when someone - not me - used a traditional descriptive term for an certain ethnic group. THAT IS DEROGATORY, you must call them ___ [name withheld].
Thing is, the "derogatory" term was simply descriptive - like redskin, black, or white [please refer to me NOT as "white" but as IndoEuropean-American]. The "correct" term was - like Eskimo, Samoyed, or Welsh - a derogatory term originally given them by their neighbours.
Note - there was NEVER a native-created cover term for ALL Amerinds, ALL Caucasoids, ALL Asians, ALL Austrailan Aborigines. It has always been US [often simply "people"], Green Monkeys [the shockingly uncouth tribe next door] and aliens [the guys on the other side of the ocean.
I have two examples where the Left have gone too far:
Tampering with the Declaration of Independence in History books.
Tampering with Mark Twain's works to make the PC.
changing "men" to "people" in the declaration of independence seems like something we could waste a few hours on, in congress, to amend the actual document to do. changing it in the history books is kind of stupid. i'm with you there. what they've done to mark twain is slightly different. personally, i'm offended that they replaced all the instances of the word "n****r" in huck finn. twain wasn't racistly mocking black people, he was satirically mocking people who used the word "n****r".
it's not surprising, though. it doesn't take too long, historically speaking, before great satire is misunderstood and condemned. i mean, can you believe there are actually idiots out there who think that machiavelli wanted to promote the idea that "the ends justify the means?"
good thing conservatives pushed back in texas, or kids might have to hear politically incorrect terms like "the slave trade" as opposed to the more acceptable "atlantic triangular trade."
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
I have two examples where the Left have gone too far:
Tampering with the Declaration of Independence in History books.
Tampering with Mark Twain's works to make the PC.
changing "men" to "people" in the declaration of independence seems like something we could waste a few hours on, in congress, to amend the actual document to do. changing it in the history books is kind of stupid. i'm with you there. what they've done to mark twain is slightly different. personally, i'm offended that they replaced all the instances of the word "n****r" in huck finn. twain wasn't racistly mocking black people, he was satirically mocking people who used the word "n****r".
it's not surprising, though. it doesn't take too long, historically speaking, before great satire is misunderstood and condemned. i mean, can you believe there are actually idiots out there who think that machiavelli wanted to promote the idea that "the ends justify the means?"
good thing conservatives pushed back in texas, or kids might have to hear politically incorrect terms like "the slave trade" as opposed to the more acceptable "atlantic triangular trade."
Declaration of Independence is a historical document, you'd be tampering with historical documents for PC sake. Why not deface a national landmark while you're at it...
And so that makes you an expert to declare stuff offensive or not? What are you? The Native American version of Jesse Jackson?
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
And so that makes you an expert to declare stuff offensive or not? What are you? The Native American version of Jesse Jackson?
Okay, what in that song implies Native Americans are inferior? The fact that they blushed seeing a hot girl, and that's why their skin is red? Or, the idea that white people are white because a guy saw his mother-in-law?
Seriously, it isn't derogatory at all, silly yes, but it does not imply any inferiority at all.
I have two examples where the Left have gone too far:
Tampering with the Declaration of Independence in History books.
Tampering with Mark Twain's works to make the PC.
changing "men" to "people" in the declaration of independence seems like something we could waste a few hours on, in congress, to amend the actual document to do. changing it in the history books is kind of stupid. i'm with you there. what they've done to mark twain is slightly different. personally, i'm offended that they replaced all the instances of the word "n****r" in huck finn. twain wasn't racistly mocking black people, he was satirically mocking people who used the word "n****r".
it's not surprising, though. it doesn't take too long, historically speaking, before great satire is misunderstood and condemned. i mean, can you believe there are actually idiots out there who think that machiavelli wanted to promote the idea that "the ends justify the means?"
good thing conservatives pushed back in texas, or kids might have to hear politically incorrect terms like "the slave trade" as opposed to the more acceptable "atlantic triangular trade."
Declaration of Independence is a historical document, you'd be tampering with historical documents for PC sake. Why not deface a national landmark while you're at it...
well, yeah.... that's kinda what i was saying. we'd be lying to ourselves and our children if we were to pretend we had the same exact ideals, today, as we did several centuries ago. we've grown up a bit, since then. it'd be like changing the history books to say that the mid-20th-century civil rights movement wasn't about minorities or saying that america was founded as a christian nation. so, yeah. i completely agree with you. we should change how we move forward, not lie about where we came from.
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
Inuyasha, even though I disagree with you on most things I have to agree with you here. You have a sense of f***ing humor - a lot of people don't have one.
_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre
READ THIS -> https://represent.us/
