Chris Clarke and I have sparred from time to time, but there’s no doubt he’s an intelligent man, and in his “Open Letter To The Progressive Blogosphere,” he makes many of the arguments about today’s “Progressive” movement that I’ve made here and elsewhere— and for which I’ve been chided, chastised, and demonized by many on the left side of the blogosphere, Mr Clarke (at times) included. Writes Chris:
There are people whose Ideal Left consists of lots of outwardly diverse people all saying the same thing at the same time, an online Worker’s World march with all the banner slogans written in the same hand, and those people fancy themselves the ones best suited to determine what those banners say. But I like my diversity more than skin-deep. I want a world with both subtlety and slapstick. Anger and reflection. Deep importance and trivia.
And I want a world where people are willing to try to remember that one person can indulge in all of the above.
You know one of the things I like least about my blog? The fact that I felt compelled to add “satire†to my list of categories. I thought it a necessary evil: for every person who gets a joke, there’ll be twelve who think I think professors are all Maoists. It’s tempting to just sit back and snicker at people who don’t get the joke. Still, I’ve always been suspicious of in-groups without an open admission policy, and making a sense of humor a prerequisite sets a bar too damned high for some people to jump.
But one of the common assertions made by the mob of torch-wielders demanding Brittney Gilbert’s head was that their failure to comprehend her intent was a mortal sin on her part. Sure, part of writing well is making one’s intent clear when appropriate. I’d probably have made my disgust for that link a little clearer, especially as I’ve been burned by people’s incomprehension more than once. But as in everything else in life, balance between competing interests is important. Explaining that jokes are jokes will help the pathologically humorless avoid embarrassment, but it ruins the jokes for everyone else. Saying that every time one discusses a bad thing, one is obliged to point out that it is a bad thing, and that bad things are bad, and that failure to point this out every single time is an offense punishable by witch hunt, firing, ostracism and the like? Fuck that noise.
I recognize that some of the very Progressive Bloggers who most need to read those last two sentences will likely have missed them because their eyes have glazed over in the absence of blink tags to denote the important points of this essay, so let me repeat them in bold type for the clue impaired:
Saying that every time one discusses a bad thing, one is obliged to point out that it is a bad thing, and that bad things are bad, and that failure to point this out every single time is an offense punishable by witch hunt, firing, ostracism and the like? Fuck that noise.
Given a choice between  on the one hand  retaining membership in good standing in the Progressive Blogosphere by writing to the lowest common denominator or  on the other hand  not insulting the intelligence of the kind of reader for whom I prefer to write, I pick that second thing there.
So let this function as a courtesy notice. If your reading this blog, or linking to it, or liking it, is based on what I actually write, you’ll notice no change. But if it’s predicated on my loyal membership in the Progressive Blogosphere, you may want to update your blogroll to include me out [underlined text added post-publication for that all-important clarity]. Have a nice day. I mean that sincerely. And that. Etc.
Let me be perfectly clear here—and in the process, allow Chris some wiggle room to distance himself from my grudging admiration for his post, which most assuredly poisons it by association: I think Clarke’s politics are antiquated and naive—and I disagree with the policies he advocates to correct social problems he believes need correcting.
But I consider that a difference in strategy. And while I think that the progressive strategies of Clarke’s era have proven disastrous, I don’t believe they are born of bad faith.
Sadly, though, I can’t (and won’t) make the same allowances for today’s New Progressive—the very people who have busied themselves getting Brittney Gilbert fired, and who are now busy taking on another “apostate,” Scott Kaufman, in their latest attempt to throw overboard those ideological crewman who presume to rock the good ship Progress.
I find it at once touching and sad that Kaufman is maintaining that this attempt at getting him canned merely for challenging the officially-sanctioned narrative is something of an unrepresentative gambit— that it is an individual vs individual scenario that doesn’t speak to larger problems within the progressive movement—even as he’s witnessed firsthand how pernicious is a world view that privileges the incorrect decoding of a particular interpretive community over the (since established) intent of the utterer, and then gives that interpretive community permission to ascribe to the original utterer the product of the community’s own (often cynically self-interested) interpretive intent.
But as Clarke’s essay spells out (however tentatively), the problem is far more widespread than Kaufman would like to admit—and indeed, for my part, I’ve come it see it as systemic, following naturally from an interpretive paradigm that of necessity culminates in competing narratives vying for established “truth” based entirely on the power and tenacity of an advocacy group’s insistence.
I could be wrong, of course. But I long for the days when someone would argue how this is so, rather than labeling my thinking “hate speech” and hoping that the mere accusation does enough to scare me off.
That the latter is so is easy is, I suppose, what accounts for its appeal among the intellectually lazy and the terminally impatient.
And with that, I’m taking a vacation.
At least for a few hours.
phwew!
There needs to be a disclaimer to any future mention of the Brittney/NIT fiasco.
The progressive blogosphere did not -I repeat- DID NOT “get Brittney fired”. She was contemplating resigning for several months due to the fact that the original person who hired her resigned from the station (Mike Sechrist), and the person underneath him who supported NIT was fired (Steve Sabato) after Mike left. This doesn’t mean that they weren’t a part of the process, but they didn’t “get her fired”, she resigned. And she resigned for a number of reasons, including the verbal assault she took from the “progressive” blogosphere.
This however, doesn’t or shouldn’t change the point of Jeff’s post. I’m just tired of people making these blog hacks from the left out to be some sort of grand entity able to get people fired at a moments notice. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Maybe we can get Christine in here so she can dance for you while you relax.
That vacation crack scared the heck out of me…When I took a month off, I might have disappointed all of 2 or 3 readers. You, however, might inspire a pitchfork and armadillo wielding mob.
Tman, so more like “the straw that broke the camel’s back”?
MJ,
Yep. Or “the last several straws”. She was tired of being accused of being a (shock!gasp!horrors!) right wing pundit along with the insults that followed not just from that one post but from several preceeding others. This had been going on for a while.
But again, the blogosphere did not get anyone fired in this case. They just made it unappealing enough that she decided not to fight to keep her job with the new bosses that had just come in. And this is important to note: as admirable as WKRN News2 has been in embracing the blogosphere, it did nothing for their bottom line. They are still the lowest rated newschannel in Nashville, so the experiment from a business perspective is a failure.
Tman – point taken. The piling on and the near hysteria exhibited by some was/is remarkable. The genesis of the dispute with SEK may be the most remarkable aspect of this whole kerfluffle, ot twatwaffle, merely for pointimg out that the intent and context were being ignored.
And, Kyoto.
OT, but Genarlow Wilson is almost a free man.
“Bowels no move!”
— Chief Dan Dog Bowels, just before the BIA forced him to eat 10 lbs. of Ex-Lax. For his own good.
I don’t know what’s going on with the permalink for this post (where it says 10:57 am), but it’s taking me to the post for non-English speakers and test scores.
And all professors aren’t Maoists?
Amen, Chris.
Tman,
It’s the fact that they try which is so telling. If he’s a man of his word, patriotboy is currently being disappointed by my ISP. Along the lines of this policy, but without the use of multiple IP’s:
As if my double dash of snark on public webspace is going to move an IP to do anything but ignore him…
This is who they are, and this is what they do. It’s Marcotte’s Revenge. There is a truth which must be served. Dissent will not be tolerated.
Karl, from the link:
The DA should be ashamed.
Twatwaffle House.
I don’t know about you guys, but I noticed Clark made the “you’re/your” typo and as such cannot be considered a true progressive…
Because they HATE that.
Ah, yes, the eternal fascist, dictatorial, reactionary left.
Yeah, but at least he spelled his name right.
Nope. That’s a possessive. The sentence reads “If your reading this blog, or linking to it, or liking it, is based on what I actually write, you’ll notice no change.”
If I’d said “If you’re reading this blog, or linking to it, or liking it, based on what I actually write, you’ll notice no change.” then that would have been a mistake. But that “is” before “based” makes the difference.
Anyhow, thank you, Jeff, for the kind words and the wiggle room both.
Chris,
Any chance of getting us a group discount for tickets to your auto da fe? Field level upwind would be nice.
PS – Excellent post.
Wow. I disagree with you on a lot of stuff Chris says but would be happy to buy him a beer. Give me a halfway civilized smart old school leftist any day, than a power-worshiping punk neolib with a mean streak and a keyboard. Welcome to neo-condom Chris. It’s better than the old condom.
(Just kidding. I know you’re still a pinko, but that’s cool, I can live with that, knowing you’re on board with the whole honesty and being civilized thing. I was just joking about that neo-condom thing. Nobody wants to be in a condom.)
Just in case anyone was going to argue that this is an isolated problem, it isn’t.
Heh heh heh—good for Chris.
Just in case anyone was going to argue that this is an isolated problem, it isn’t.
George will traces the elitist impulse of the Democrats back to Adlai Stevenson who, when an aide told him he had the vote of every thinking person in America, responded yes, but he needed a majority.
Applauding liberals for intellectual honesty is like applauding South Africa for its commitment to human rights.
I don’t get that, but if it was the SATs, that’s the one I’d go with.
Please, somebody do something about those Nearly Me Gaff underwear on the right! Make them go away! I am having nightmares about them, of Pale Green Pants proportions. And it turns out that Jesus’ General is commanding them!!!
Depends on why you’re in the condom, and what’s about to happen.
Man. Is their gonna be a pop quiz later? Cuz i unnerstood their would be no math.
Gerunds and tigers and bears, oh my!
The way I and my English teacher wife, who makes my life challenging, see it: if the sentence need such analysis, it needs rewriting.
I know. I’ve written many bad sentences.
The viscious attack on a member of their own tribe reminds me of horrible stoning death of the Kurdish girl in Iraq last month. In the NIT case, an angry online mob meted out punishment to one of their own in a way that was shocking to her and the outside world.
I am tired of the unfounded statement that this kind of ideological purging also occurs on the right side of the blogosphere. A lot of us on the ‘right’ were cast out of the Left for not being pure enough long ago.
Well said! Doesn’t this partly explain why the Democrats continue to front their party with Seventy and Eighty year olds? (Mondale, Reid, Byrd, Lautenburg, etc.) The next generation of Leftists aren’t ready for prime time if you ask me.
These attack dogs are scary on a keyboard and behind an anonymous nom de guer. In the real world, they’re not so scary, just pathetic.
Just in case anyone was going to argue that this is an isolated problem, it isn’t.
No, it sure isn’t. And here’s another case of it happening to David Broder. I almost hate mentioning it because it feeds into their strategy of defamation of people they don’t agree with. Google “David Broder” rapist and see what you get. You can follow the links back to the original post at a blog called Mercury Rising, from where it was linked at FDL and elsewhere.
I don’t think that Jeffâ€â€who, I should add, never (ahem ahem) thanked me for the books I sent himâ€â€may overestimate my naiveté here. I know unstable elements plague both sides. However, I’ve received incredible support from those among JG’s commenters who think his behavior as despicable as it is.
Once I had the courage to check my email tonight, I found that many of the people who participated in that thread had outed themselves to me in order to express their disdain for both Casper’s actions and the General’s attempt to shelter him. I don’t believe decency more prevalent on one side of the aisle than the other. Decent folk abound on both.
I pride myself on being civil, on listening to people no matter their ideological affiliations. This is what makes me such a superb
indoctrinatorteacher of impressionable youths.But use of the gerundive as above should not need re-writing.
It is an essential element of being able to write English concisely.
Sorry to go OT here, but am I the only one who noticed that the name of Genarlow Wilson’s lawyer – you know, the guy who was sentenced to prison for 10 years for receiving consensual oral sex from 15-year-old girl, a “crime” which has now been reclassified as a misdemeanor in Georgia, the state where said act took place – is B.J.??
What, did Howard Stern start writing the script for reality?
TW: force15
Oh, come on. Stop it now.
cynn,
yeah, those adds are a bit repellant to me too.
SEK,
Heh. Very good indeed.
Yesss, I’m drunk again!!! Just wondering what SEK is talking about. I must have missed a huge contretempts.
Oh, there is a gnat on my screen. I thought it was the cursor.
Danger, Will Robinson! Uncertain antecedent!
Has the Sultan of Civility, the Swami of Sockpuppetry, the Former of Formulaic Posts, the Idealogue’s Idealogue, GG, weighed in on these matters yet?
Scott —
I never received the books. Seriously. Thought you forgot again.
Saying that every time one discusses a bad thing, one is obliged to point out that it is a bad thing, and that bad things are bad, and that failure to point this out every single time is an offense punishable by witch hunt, firing, ostracism and the like? Fuck that noise.
Oh, stand up and cheer and cheer and cheer. I absolutely hate the fact that every remark must be preceded by a litany of disclaimers and “of courses” and stuff. An obligatory garlic necklace to ward off rhetorical vampires. Wastes breath (pixels) and constricts the range of discussion when you know your audience is looking to jump on any lapse on your part to fully protect yourself.
They need to make oratory mandatory in schools again, along with a course in logical fallacies.
Daleyrocks, that was hyperfunny, You guys get major Green Stamps for that.
I think Salon has him on a word limit, which, well, is practically crippling.
And exactly like censorship.
Agreed, dicentra.
And while we’re at it, I’m happy that I never gave in to pressures to mark posts “satire.” I figured that those who didn’t get it were either were in the wrong place, or else would eventually learn the site’s grammar should they stick around long enough.
Ironically, one of the big problems I had with this was with a Shannon Elizabeth post aimed at Jill at Feministe, to which Ilyka took great offense.
At that time, my intent didn’t matter to her. Glad to see she’s found her way over to the camp where intent does indeed matter. Saves me the trouble of spending time explaining and deconstructing the jokes— which is difficult to do here because so many of them rely on the readers’ familiarity with the entire tone of the site.
As with these Jesus haikus, though, I’m always astounded when I find that someone is so offended that they simply cannot visit here any longer.
Those haikus have about as much to do with Jesus as the Martha Stewart diaries had to do with Martha Stewart.
I am a Christian, and I have no problem with the Jesus haikus. I’ll bet He thinks they’re amusing, too.
[Look, is there any doubt that The Almighty has a dark sense of humor? Is there?]
Look, I just don’t want your religion jet-blasted into my face. Thanks.
So that wasn’t really Martha talking about playing Rizzo in the prison production of Grease?
Man, the world just doesn’t make sense to me anymore.
NOOOOOO! N-Oooooo…. oh, he’s back.
OK then.*
*Not meant to cast any aspersion on Dan Collins, BRD or any of the other contributors. They rock.
It’s just that who else can get away with a Haiku of Jesus as a T-rex?
As I stated earlier, I am reminded every time I look in the mirror.
Yet … this is different from coffee cups with Warning, contents may be hot or hair dryers with Warning, do not use while in the bathtub … how?
The amorality (and avarice) of PI attorneys has seeped into the very fabric of society.
When I was an youngster, during the age of Firesign Theatre, National Lampoon and Monte Python, etc., it was the left who reveled in irreverent humor and considered absolutely nothing off-limits. When the hell did that all change?
When we became the real liberals, B Moe.
Hell, I’ve now met, through this site, social conservatives with a better sense of humor than many on the left. Who have a sense of humor—just not when something’s aimed at them.
I’m with dicentra, for the record. But I’m strongly in the “man is that he might have joy” boat, so I take funny where I find it.
The more I think about it, the more I think this bears repeating and emphasizing:
This is distilling it down to the essence, I think. The failure to understand this is why I am branded a disingenuous “ustabee” on almost every progressive site I try to engage in serious discussion. Most of them seem unable to accept that people can honestly disagree with their tactics without also disagreeing with their goals.
Of course, some of them are just good ole batshit fucking crazy.
Another dream broken. Another illusion shattered.
Chris,
I see my mistake. Hard to see on a phone, easy on the “big screen”.
I’ll get this reading thing down pat by next year.
OK! Geeze. I get it.
I had a dick joke all ready to go about the genitive case but I couldn’t stand another28 comments about what an idiot I am.
B Moe. “Is the Senator dead?”
social conservatives
Sad and demented, but social. Right?
Interesting observation. I have often thought the same thing about conservatives use of the label “P.C.” – that it’s a lazy substitute for actual thought.
Got a parallel for this too:
When discussing Iraq with my conservative friends, I often feel I should begin every utterance with “Of course, Hussein was a monster…” It’s like saying “Mother, may I?” in that game we played as kids. Miss it once, and you lose.
I’ve often thought that PC thinking is a lazy substitute for actual thought.
You realize of course that polically correct originated in the left, and was originally a complement, before it became a term of derision. I thought it was a lazy substitute for actual thought back then, also.
But seriously, the problem I have with your analogy is there is such a thing as hate speech, but like real racism it is very rare and the term is way over-used. Politically correct is a wrong-headed thing to think or say from the outset.
A compliment? I have no recollection of that at all. Must have been that odd, a-sarcastic period we went through. I think I was traveling or something.
Grats to LF for being to first to scream “YEAH, BUT YOU GUYS DO IT TOO!!1!!111!”
Well, of course, we all know how much you actually mean it.
Wait!
That’s not Martha Stewart???!?!?!!!!
PC (as we know it today, not as it was understood in the late 1700s by the US Supreme Court) began as a kind of leftist in-joke, and was used by certain leftists to club less ideologically pure fellow travelers. So in a sense, to be more PC—which translates to being more “inclusive,” in today’s parlance—meant to be a better cultural marxist.
It was when the right began using it as a term of derision that the left backed away from it and changed the terms. Again, now one speaks of “inclusive language,” “tolerance,” and “civility”—but the signifieds are the same. Only the marks have changed.
There are certain liberals who deplore PC speech; and I think that most who don’t find it merely useful as a rhetorical tool to stifle debate.
Culturally, though, there’s no doubt that it has proven quite a scourge—particularly inasmuch as it forces people onto the defensive and shifts the content of the argument away from substance and onto the process of explaining the terms used to craft the substantive points.
See: “tar baby” and “spear chucker” and “articulate” for recent examples.
I think at times, to follow-up on LF’s point, many on the right are too quick to scream “PC”!—but in their defense, they’ve gotten sensitive to being called racist haters, misognynists, and xeno/homophobes all the time, so they are quick on the defensive trigger.
But I agree with furriskey that PC thinking—rather than the identification of PC—is more of a substitute for actual thought, given that it is essentially an easy way to avoid making distinctions that lead to value judgments.
That is, it short-circuits critical thinking in favor of an easy and comfortable relativism, then protects itself by taking the moral highground of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance.”
Take it easy, E and D. I’m agreeing with the author of the original, very thoughtful piece.
That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that the (liberal?) speaker is making a value judgment the (conservative?) listener disagrees with. And, rather than engage the judgment, the listener finds it easier to dismiss it as P.C.
Except the difference in judgment is often expressed in terms of a moral or mental failure. It’s “racism” or “hate” or “homophobia”, rather than “inappropriate”.
And has no other purpose than to shut the conservative speaker down.
None.
So I usually tell the reactionary leftists to fuck off.
I used to do that, Brain, but I got tired of having to draw the diagrams for ‘em…
How do you engage “you’re a racist” for, say, being against race-based affirmative action, LF, without resorting to defending yourself against the charge?
Which of course changes the subject from the efficacy and wisdom of race-based affirmative action to the non-racist bona fides of the accused.
The point being that it tries to disallow certain arguments even from being made. If it is a liberal value judgment, than it is one based on a rather superficial idea about values.
Well, that was back in the ‘80s.
Though, to be fair, the first time I actually encountered the term, it was actually being used ironically by a conservative to describe a leftist college newspaper editor who—by sheer coincidence I’m sure—reminds me very much of the BDS harpies we see so many of in the blogosphere these days.
But that was still back in the ‘80s,.
From Mudcat:
He said the “God” word in a non-derogatory manner, no chance in hell that he’ll be accepted now by the Left.
BUT…BUT HE INTENDED IT TO BE IRONIC!
Ah, now I see what’s going on. We’re each picturing someone on the receiving end of a brainless charge. I’m picturing, for example, someone stating he is for affirmative action and being accused of being P.C., and you’re picturing someone stating he’s against affirmative action and being accused of being racist. Both statements—“you’re P.C.” and “you’re racist”—are discussion enders. Neither engages the other side.
Very interesting parallel.
I find it interesting that you consider being accused of being PC even remotely comparable to being called a racist.
I’m not addressing whether they’re moral equivalents. I’m saying both are discussion enders and neither engages the other side.
The accusation of “racism” is designed to make the person with a good argument stop. He then must abase himself, go far off topic, and then, possibly, be allowed to return to civil society if he promises never to make that argument again. The mere existence of the possibility of the threat causes people to self-censor.
My suggestion is to tell the accuser that you are aware that 99% of the accusations of racism are manipulative scams and, furthermore, so does everybody else.
The likely reaction is, “I can’t believe you’re saying there’s no racism.”
Don’t get into a discussion of there is or there isn’t.
Simply repeat that 99% of all accusations of racism are bogus manipulative scams, known to be so by the accuser and, unfortunately for the accuser, by everybody else. That horse died.
Now, can we get on with the discussion?
An exercise:
I think you’re right that being called racist is “worse” than being called P.C. But both effectively stop discussion dead in its tracks.
Am I stopping you?
How would being called PC be an indefensible accusation? If you call me a neo-con, for instance, it would be possible to discuss my beliefs and positions and rebut your argument. If, however, we were talking about, say, government-subsidized child-care and I alleged your position was based on you being a child-molester; that would be a comparable argument ender. To even try to defend the charge gives the appearance of guilt, to a degree.
The funny thing is, I’ve never heard anyone accuse someone of “being PC” except in the context of the target already attempting to restrict the discussion. Maybe I’m just lucky.
These things are subjective, of course, and it depends on whose ox is being gored. But, what is the response to being accused of being P.C.? You can say you aren’t. But you can say you aren’t racist too.
Either way, the discussion is effectively over.
I agree that P.C. is “better” than being called either “racist” or “child-molester.” After all, being a moron isn’t morally wrong—but it does take you out of the game for reasons that have nothing to do with whatever is being discussed.
I would say so, unless you’re a conservative or else a liberal who keeps his opinions to himself.
Same as when I am wrongly accused of being a neo-con because I agree with them about some issues, I simply state the many issues on which we disagree, being called PC or liberal or whatever is merely someone trying to fit you into a political pigeon-hole to make their argument more manageable, being called a racist or child-molester is someone attacking your very soul. It is impossible to counter someone attacking your motives on that level, they have basically accused you of being a flawed person, as opposed to simply holding a flawed political position.
I disagree. It’s not like being P.C. signifies membership a club and all the accused has to do is clear up the misapprehension of membership. Such is the case with being a neo-con, where there is at least some objective truth.
In contrast with the “neo-con” charge, being accused of P.C. or racist exists in the eye of the beholder and can be used to stop debate.
IMO, don’t bother saying, “I’m not racist.” That goes along with the attempt to derail the discussion.
Instead, inform the accuser that 99% of accusations of racism are bogus, manipulative scams designed to end a discussion the accuser can’t handle. They might work if the other people didn’t know better, but other people know it’s a scam, too. So it doesn’t work.
Now, back to my point.
LF. My “Now, can we get on with the discussion.” was not directed at anybody. It’s what comes after the second statement that accusations of racism are garbage.
Well, I gotta tell you I am at a loss here. If being PC doesn’t signify adherence to a set of political rules and ideals, then what does it signify? I have explained exactly what and why I see as debate stoppers, and I just don’t see PC as fitting the bill, what am I missing? What does being called PC signify?
Me: “Racist? What have I ever said to make you think I’m racist?”
Leftist: “Well, you’re implying that—”
Me: “Ah, I see. You weren’t listening to what I was saying, you were just looking for an excuse to call me a name and try to shut me up.”
Leftist: “No, I—”
Me: “Don’t tell me what I implied. Tell me what I said.”
Leftist: “You people use code words so you can deny your racism by denying that what you say means what it means!”
Me: “What did I say that means racism?”
Leftist: <head explodes>
(The above story may be apocryphal.)
Ahh the ever popular “code words” accusation. If there was ever a case of projection, “code words” is it.
Another exercise:
Me: “Cut and run? What have I ever said to make you think I’m in favor of cutting and running?â€Â
Rightie: “Well, it’s obvious you don’t want to stay and fight and complete the mission.”
Me: “Ah, I see. You weren’t listening to what I was saying at all. You think you know where I stand and that’s good enough for you.â€Â
Rightie: “Can I help it if you’re weak on terrorism and love Saddam?”
Me: “Now you’re just pulling it out of your ass.â€Â
Rightie: “You people hate Bush so much it’s a form of derangement!â€Â
Me: “Can we finish this one topic? What did I say that means cut and run?â€Â
Rightie: “Al Gore has a mansion and John Edwards is building one!â€Â
Me: <head explodes>
(The above story is not apocryphal. Except for the part where my head explodes. That hasn’t happened. Yet.)
The problem with the P.C. stinkbomb is that it’s a rhetorical device. It relies on the native shame of the recipient for its power. If I call you “insensitive” then the burden is tossed back on you to defend your position. But if I call you “racist,” then that language triggers contention that ignites and escalates the debate. Both sides are required (or should be) to support their stance. Things get cloudy and ugly here.
It’s like the nuclear option, only wordier.
It means you’re a liberal with tapioca for brains. That’s how I generally hear it used.
What does it mean to you?
I would think that would be a fairly easy charge to dismiss, unless you really do have tapioca for brains.
It means you adhere to a general set of collectivist, multi-cultural, group-identity values. It means offending the other, if the other is a minority or officially recognized victim group, is to be avoided at all costs. It means basically you adhere to the progressive/green/socialist dogma. It really means nothing very specific to me, as you can tell, it is just a generic term for certain leftist tendencies. But all of these are a reflection of political views, not character flaws, and certainly not sinister motivations. All of which can be easily rebutted by a reasonably competent debater who actually has a point to make and defend.
Can a PC call another PC “PC”?
Freely call it a character flaw; I think you suck because you are intrangient and intolerant. You’ll never change because you think you’re the best.
LF, for someone who has explicitly denied that tu quoque is the point of your argument here, that last comment of yours sure looks like an awful lot of effort in that precise direction.
Just sayin’.
Especially since the comment of mine to which yours responded, wasn’t actually directed at anything you were saying.
Unless I was engaging in code words or some such.
a post that mimics an actual blog post, even as it’s meant (meta-secretly) to test certain Word Press functions
From the AP:
District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred Saturday for his “selfish” rape prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players – a politically motivated act, his judges said, that he inexplicably allowed to fester for months…
daxos wykebixi gikma
fage http://vo497509.foirya8.info/sitemap1.html [url=http://gu891628.mmerash.info/sitemap1.html ]reci[/url] foge http://xa159147.mmerash.info/sitemap1.html [url=http://ge772751.skjh1p7.info/sitemap1.html ]hame[/url] rule http://xy849483.foirya8.info/sitemap1.html [url=http://ja456039.fnwfzll.info/sitemap1.html ]rowi[/url] likub