Sometimes it's hard to tell with these folks, if they actually understand the difference between banning words to obstruct hate speech and banning words to obstruct the flow of critical information or if they intentionally ignore that context.

I'll tell ya one thing I know from first hand experience though, right here on this site. It's the conservatives that get all worked up when I use offensive words, not liberals. The admins have actually removed a post because I used the word "stupid" It wasn't even a direct insult, I was describing an idea not a person. The other poster I was responding to denied the suggestion that he reported me, but it's hard to believe that the admin would just happen to see that I used the word "stupid" and removed the post.

These people can be pretty weaselly when it comes to double-standards. They make such a big deal out of politically-correct censorship acting like liberals are some great obstruction to free-speech, but every legislative effort toward censorship that I have EVER encountered is pushed from the right, not the left.

...and this isn't surprising. The right-wing is always focused on exclusion. The left wing, always focused on inclusion. You can find this pattern anywhere in the world. ISIS in the middle-east for instance is focused on excluding all cultures but their own. They are a right-wing culture, with all the typical motives, such as the appeal to God, the claim to land and the unchecked use of guns. The American right of course confesses an intolerance toward ISIS but that isn't surprising either... If you had ten groups that can't tolerate each other they would all be right-wing advocates of exclusion. So "left/right" isn't so much a matter of "sides" as is it a contrast in the "approach to others".

Hitler, as always, provides a great example... One of the reasons he hated Jews so much is because of their association with communists, which he saw as a major reason for the German defeat in WW1. He saw the communists in Germany associating with the communists in Russia, which he felt compromised the German front against Russia. So while the leftist communists were chanting "workers of the world unite" nationalist Hitler was calling that a violation of national integrity and of course this led to the Gleichschaltung... a right-wing effort to exclude all but one culture.

Getting back to banning words... if the left has a problem with specific words, you can be assured the concern is over the some form of offending or excluding "others". I would say that any form of censorship designed to obstruct the flow of ideas and even facts are intended to exclude "foreign" perspectives and are therefore the exclusive domain of the right.

Sometimes it's hard to tell with these folks, if they actually understand the difference between banning words to obstruct hate speech and banning words to obstruct the flow of critical information or if they intentionally ignore that context.

I'll tell ya one thing I know from first hand experience though, right here on this site. It's the conservatives that get all worked up when I use offensive words, not liberals. The admins have actually removed a post because I used the word "stupid" It wasn't even a direct insult, I was describing an idea not a person. The other poster I was responding to denied the suggestion that he reported me, but it's hard to believe that the admin would just happen to see that I used the word "stupid" and removed the post.

These people can be pretty weaselly when it comes to double-standards. They make such a big deal out of politically-correct censorship acting like liberals are some great obstruction to free-speech, but every legislative effort toward censorship that I have EVER encountered is pushed from the right, not the left.

...and this isn't surprising. The right-wing is always focused on exclusion. The left wing, always focused on inclusion. You can find this pattern anywhere in the world. ISIS in the middle-east for instance is focused on excluding all cultures but their own. They are a right-wing culture, with all the typical motives, such as the appeal to God, the claim to land and the unchecked use of guns. The American right of course confesses an intolerance toward ISIS but that isn't surprising either... If you had ten groups that can't tolerate each other they would all be right-wing advocates of exclusion. So "left/right" isn't so much a matter of "sides" as is it a contrast in the "approach to others".

Hitler, as always, provides a great example... One of the reasons he hated Jews so much is because of their association with communists, which he saw as a major reason for the German defeat in WW1. He saw the communists in Germany associating with the communists in Russia, which he felt compromised the German front against Russia. So while the leftist communists were chanting "workers of the world unite" nationalist Hitler was calling that a violation of national integrity and of course this led to the Gleichschaltung... a right-wing effort to exclude all but one culture.

Getting back to banning words... if the left has a problem with specific words, you can be assured the concern is over the some form of offending or excluding "others". I would say that any form of censorship designed to obstruct the flow of ideas and even facts are intended to exclude "foreign" perspectives and are therefore the exclusive domain of the right.

I found it interesting that when I saw the title, I used IM Translator to get the word's meaning in English. This is what the translator says it means: "DC circuit!”

While the same information can be communicated in other words, the censorship has achieved the desired effect because just as the wordsmith can say he didn't mean any of those words, the reader now has to infer that this is what was meant. Brevity is clarity; the use of circumlocutions introduces confusion and uncertainty in the reader and impedes effective communication. This is the intent; forbidding the use of certain words is a major step in controlling truth. Big Brother is tightening the noose; reality is what the government says it is.

Is it not remarkable that there is no single person who can be assigned responsibility for issuing such an order? How do the researchers know that penalties will be imposed if they don't follow the dictates? Where are the guardians of the constitution who say you cannot suppress free speech?

This issue is not the same as the Trump administration doing all of these freedom-suppressing actions. I would suspect that this is exactly what Trump does not want. Instead it is the entrenched bureaucracy, imposing leftist political correctness, on other government agencies. There is an evil in this imposition of thought control but it is by no means certain that Trump is behind it. The man is a blunt instrument; he is hardly likely to espouse speech suppression.

Salty I really can't buy into what you are claiming about Trump. I have been in supervisory and managerial positions for many years of my working career and the biggest problem I had was in subordinates sugar coating or supressing bad news. Nothing ever goes as planned because we are not omniscent. When people keep information from you it leads to making bad decisions as to what course of action to take. I tried to impress on my people that we could fix any problem but first we had to know what the problem was.

Invariably, some weenie would take it upon himself to conceal information until we had a disaster, usually to cover their asses. Corporate policies being what they are, I had to build a case over a years time, documentuing every infraction and failure to complete assignments in proper time. It was distasteful, a royal pain and a lot of work but without it I couldn't get rid of perpetual morons. The simpler way was to lend the guy out on a permanent basis to some other unsuspecting manager, which is how I got most of my losers in the first place.

This is probably the reason why there are so many complete idiots in the Federal Buraucracy. Civil Service regulations make them immune to dismissal unless their moral behavior is egregious. After a few years they become masters at CYA and effectively retire on the job. In the meantime they hide every problem possible to avoid the work of fixing it and to avoid guilt.

I'm not going to look it up, but I'm sure the Germans have a phrase or expression for people so obsessed with sex in all its perverse manifestations that they use it as a political weapon.

I don't suppose it would be politically correct to mention the long list of words, phrases, and expressions that liberal academics have banned in public schools and universities. Such as "crazy," "insane," "retarded," "gay," "tyranny," "gypped," "illegal alien," "fag," "ghetto", "raghead," "I want to die," "that test raped me", "skill set," "enhanced interrogation," "derp," "lame," "invalid," "Mr.," "Mrs.," and "Ms," "freshman," "girl," "MAN", "policeman," "fireman," "mailman," congressman," "mankind," "man-made, " and other compound words that include "man". This is the short list.

Then there are the bans on "Bible", "Jesus," "Christian," and praying in school except for ablutions and oblations to Allah. If you have a Qu'ran and a prayer rug, you are cool, if you have a Bible and a crucifix, you are a dangerous extremist.