Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Chloe asks the question — rhetorically, we must assume — “how do I shake off the condescenders, the patronizers . . . how do I convince them that as a black human being I want to be, I must be, judged by the same standards as everybody else?” But of course she already has her answer — the only answer, a product of her demanding treatment of herself.
Paraphrasing the Dr. character in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” who is talking to his father:
“You think of yourself as a black man. I think of myself as a man.”
Also, I’d like to end the use of the word “discriminate” as being associated with racism. We all discriminate. We have to. Otherwise we could never make any decisions.
Discriminating between red and green traffic lights is important.
Also, I’d like to end the use of the word “discriminate” as being associated with racism. We all discriminate. We have to. Otherwise we could never make any decisions.
It’s a good point, cranky-d.
Such conventionally facile, lazy, or sloppy speech is indicative of the sloppy thought intimately related to the sloppy thought of unwarranted prejudicial judgment. Careful thinkers and speakers won’t use this term ‘discrimination’ in the sense of identity to racism. These latter will be in an minority for the simple reason that the majority of people aren’t careful thinkers and speakers, nor particularly desire to be.
Self-awareness, she should look into it.
I’d like to end the use of the word “outrage”. When everything is an outrage, nothing is.
I think she needs to learn how to play “Name That Party”, and see if she learns any faster than Joshua at the end of WarGames.
“Careful thinkers and speakers won’t use this term ‘discrimination’ in the sense of identity to racism.”
Why not? If one divides according to quality, one has discriminating taste. If one divides according to crude racial stereotypes, one has discriminatory tendencies. In either case, one is making distinctions; the only question is what one is basing one’s distinctions upon.
We’re able to mark the subtle difference between the adjectives “discriminating” and “discriminatory,” but we don’t seem to have a similar choice when it comes to the verb or the noun. It would be lovely if we did, but until then, we’ll have to get by on context clues.
Why not? The simple answer is that they can easily say in substitution for the mere and misleading term discrimination the words “crude racial stereotyping” or the words race prejudiced judgment or any other number of specific terms to convey their intentions.
Red, I’ve taken to telling people, “Check your outrage.”
Okay. Because using circuitous phrasing to talk around a verboten word has always been the trademark of “careful thinkers and speakers.” I suppose you’d also have me forgo the use of the masculine singular pronoun, lest I set off trigger alarms in those prone to see sexism in everything?
Seems to me the simplest way to distinguish “bad” discrimination is with an adjective — and the expectation that one’s audience has two brain cells to rub together.
And those who argue as if the adjective doesn’t matter can therefore be ridiculed as lacking that second brain cell. And for being undiscriminating.
Gee Squid, I think I’ve written poorly if you think I’ve somehow suggested in Cherman phrasing no less that the word discrimination is forbidden. But then you know me, I’m as loose and pathetic a communicator as walks the earth.
I guess my real problem is that whenever you hear the word “discriminate” it immediately connotes racism in some form. The word has been, in a sense, hijacked.
WH: historically cold winter to blame for weak GDP https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/04/29/advance-estimate-gdp-first-quarter-2015 …
WH: we’re having hottest year in history https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu/d72a0dd0083e7436b265b847b4e368b9 …
>The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.
Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.<
link
Funny thing about humans, we’re lazy. Even in speech we like to shorten everything to fewer syllables. Nick’ it all. Hijack the meaning of the word “liberal” and then those who are, as the original meaning is, have to use more syllables, phrases, sentences now to name that which their politics is. That makes them disappear from discourse or be renamed as something not quite what they are.
So too what was originally called, and even then not a real accurate description for something which needed sentences to say, “racial discrimination” gets shortened to discrimination, discriminate and “dis.” And the word loses it oringinal meaning and now to express the original thought is hard and becomes but a ghost fading out. The original thought/idea drifts away and the meaning of old texts is now like reading Old middle English.
>If an entire district town is plastered with slogans that no one reads, it is on the one hand a message from the district secretary to the regional secretary, but it is also something more: a small example of the principle of social auto-totality at work. Part of the essence of the post-totalitarian system is that it draws everyone into its sphere of power, not so they may realize themselves as human beings, but so they may surrender their human identity in favor of the identity of the system, that is, so they may become agents of the system’s general automatism and servants of its self-determined goals, so they may participate in the common responsibility for it, so they may be pulled into and ensnared by it, like Faust by Mephistopheles. More than this: so they may create through their involvement a general norm and, thus, bring pressure to bear on their fellow citizens. <
link
The Who Quadrophenia Full Album
McG, I’m willing to check everything at the door, including my 96% British isles/Ireland privilege (according to ancestry.com). Everything except my firearms.
havel exposes twitter 1977
But then you know me, I’m as loose and pathetic a communicator as walks the earth.
Seriously, dude. You’ll really have to put in some work if you expect to be taken seriously by this crowd!
And that wouldn’t have been obvious from being mistaken as supporting some sort of fascistic language policing, as opposed to merely supporting the discussion of a velleity expressed by a friend? Knock me over with a feather.