screeetch... Ugh, their homes? Really? First of all I never heard her say that and secondly that would be illegal so if Waters actually encouraged such actions she would have made headline news and she would be in some trouble. Also in the video I saw, Waters was referring to Republican lawmakers not private citizens. So are you sure you're not exaggerating a little bit? That tends to happen with partisan politics.


*sigh* OK, look even if that did happen (which I kinda doubt) I'm pretty darned sure it's NOT what Waters encouraged. People have been known to take encouragement way past it's intentions.


Well, that may be the case if what you say is actually true. But I don't see any evidence that it is.


No, you just need to get your facts straight (or not, I really don't care) but Pelosi never said that. She DID once say this... "We have to pass the bill, so that you can find out what is in it — away from the fog of the controversy.”

She was referencing Obamacare and more specifically, all the lies that Republicans were saying about it. Her point was that the Republicans will obscure the truth about the bill for as long as the debate continues, which suggests that the people won't really know unless it gets passed.

Of course the Republicans took the quote out of context and tried to turn it against her. Now it appears someone is trying to recycle the lies by replacing Obamacare with Impeachment.

It's amazing how utterly ridiculous the GOP has become.

But in reality, it's more like this...

1. The Dems win by a field goal in the final 2 seconds of the game but the referees call a foul and the game goes to the Reps instead.

2. Dems are shocked but they deal with it.

3. days later reviews show that it was actually a bad call, possibly influenced by a bribe.

4. Dems try to address the corruption issue so it doesn't happen next season.

5. Reps try to interfere because they know they NEED to bribe the the refs to to win so they start acting like the Dems are attacking the referees AND the crowd AND ripping up the field AND raping all the children AND killing all the puppies.

6. Dems are like... say whaaat?

;)

So... This afternoon I took the time to investigate the history of the term politically correct and I'm going to admit that I underestimated the significance of the term when I said it was the same thing as being polite.

It's not a term I've ever paid much attention to and as you can see by the definition I took from Britannica it basically calls it a way to avoid offending people, which is basically polite behavior. I didn't realize the term was used as far back as the 1930's to describe a strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies within politics until this afternoon. So, it appears you are correct.

Now here's the interesting thing about what I learned today... The term as it is used today is apparently far more pervasive in right-wing circles than it is in liberal circles where it is hardly mentioned, except in jest. So, I bet there are a LOT of liberals out there that are clueless as to what you are accusing them of when you pull the PC lever. Just so you know.

Also, when I say "right-wing" circles I am not referring to classic Reagan-style conservatism that I was once a part of. I am referring to what you find to the right of the WSJ, to the right of the National Review even. I'm talking about the land of Breitbart and InfoWars which is an area I find plagued with waste-of-time conspiracy theories so I don't spend much time there... and it's apparently where the term PC is in constant use.


I disagree. Civility does change. I've had conversations with each of the individuals you've mentioned. All of them maintained civility in some of the conversations while some of them lost their civility in other conversations. Keep in mind that if your viewpoints don't bother them as much as mine do, they won't be pushing the limits of their civility as much either. (Slatten and Permafrost, who I rarely disagree with, are not among those who ever lost their civility with me).

I also disagree, based on YOUR definition of PC, with the assertion that none of these posters you mention are PC. In fact some of them are VERY PC - I know... because I spend most of my efforts on this forum challenging what others are saying and on numerous occasions (with several of the individuals you mentioned) I have presented data or logic that they saw as a threat to their ideology and they dismissed my argument sometimes, with less than a civil tone and yes, these were conservative posters.

Which brings me to this... What exactly makes you think a theologian's unwillingness to accept anything that threatens his Biblical narrative is functionally any different than political correctness?


I don't dismiss anyone's viewpoint Kyle. In fact I'm one of those "wackos" that think reality is relative. What I do is I challenge them. I point out what I see as flaws, I introduce conflicting data, I learn lessons if I am wrong and if they simply refuse to consider my counter argument, I just disagree with them.


Now your just taking one of my recent responses on this thread out of context. Kyle, I thought you were better than this.


Oh, c'mon!


depending on the context, the situation and the mode of conversation.


Kyle, that was me drawing a parallel between the offenses taken by the use of dirty words and the offenses taken by what I thought were politically incorrect expressions. I am fully aware of the forum rules and it has no bearing on my argument.


I dare you to find any poster that asks more questions than I do in order to learn where someone is coming from.


Here's where I DEMAND you provide some proof.


No offense was intended. I didn't know you were that easily offended. From now on I will refer to you as Canuckus Deploracus.


Yeah professor, I see, but I'm getting tired of your arrogance, your shallow assumptions and your passive aggression.


Yeah, you're wrong about a lot my friend. I'm 58 - not exactly young.


Canuckus Deploracus, I have been on this site 5 years longer than you have. I'm not always here because of the nature of my work so, I am off and on. When I returned a month ago from a long absence I got private messages from a fair number of other posters welcoming me back. This is because they see me as a positive contributor who puts a lot of thought into what I say and because I've been known to work past indifferences and even joke around.

Look, I can play rough too and not everyone can do that without getting offended. So I adjust my style to the mode of conversation. I remain civil when I'm conversing with a civil participant and if it seems I am conversing with someone who is playing rough I reciprocate.

Why do I think it's okay to play rough? Because A) I'm not easily offended and B) my personal rule of conduct is that I do not insult people directly, even when I am playing rough. I might have things to say about specific stereotypes that some people take offense too, but generally don't insult people directly.

This is why I "demanded" that debeda link to where she said I directly called her stupid (which notice she hasn't done, probably because her accusation is false). I have found that a good number of posters here are very easily offended. They need to understand that if your going to express your opinions on a political web site like OPP, they are going to face opposition.


Times have changed Canuckus Deploracus. It's possible you are getting it wrong. There are a lot of reasons why America is so divided now compared to a generation ago. It's possible the behavior of those millennials is a reflection of the current climate and not the other way around as you seem to be suggesting. My kids are both in their early 30's and I worry too.


What exactly did I say to warrant the absurd accusation that I am in a PC hole? Man, you really, really don't know me.


And that's fine... I'm sure she's a wonderful person, but that doesn't change the fact that she has tried to insult me directly and then had the audacity to falsely accuse me of the insulting her directly.

Feel free to browse the conversation for yourself, it's all there, you will find the first thing she said to me here https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=3060432&t=170144... (see how that works?)

Fortunately, like I said, I do not get offended easily. Apparently, the same can't be said for her, maybe she shouldn't engage with me because when she tosses out insults like that, I think she's just playing rough, so I play rough back (only without the direct insults). Next thing I know Canuckus Deploracus is playing hero and running to her defense.


I'm sure Maximus is a great guy, but does that mean I can't poke fun at his tirade of unfounded accusations and insults about the witnesses in the impeachment process? Does your little cliche have a PC problem with that?


Not all differences of opinion are the same Canuckus Deploracus. You are obviously more ideologically aligned with the two you mentioned than I am. So it's possible they are more tolerant of your differences. When you climb off your white stallion maybe consider that.


I'm sure there are, but that's less likely to happen if you're compelled to respond to my views with ad hominem attacks, right?


No, you don't know me Canuckus Deploracus. But you can learn more about a person by paying attention to what he writes before turning the conversation into a condescending counsel on his character. Also, I've been around the block a few times, I know passive aggressiveness when I see it. You've made some unfair assumptions about me that I don't appreciate but don't worry, it's not a big deal. My world view is uncommon so I'm quite used to being misunderstood.


I appreciate your olive branch and perhaps on another day we can have a little fun but what I would like you to understand in the meantime is that this is ultimately an open forum for political discussions and that is primarily what I come here for. I am among other things an activist and a writer, so participating in these discussions, even if confrontational, is a form of constructive exercise for me. Also, my political position all but guarantees that I am going to piss some folks off, especially among the less tolerant people on the right. So I'm not arguing just for sake of argument I'm just being honest about my views but I can bridge that and otherwise get along fine with those same people. Heck I play banjo in an Irish band with a bunch of Trump supporters... The question is can you folks do that?

I don't think so deb. Don't forget, you can always link to my quotes so that being the case, I'll assume you're just lying until you do.

And don't assume that just because you're programmed, everyone else is too. My opinions are my own, arrived at through my own analysis. I might agree with political narratives to one degree or another but I am certainly not programmed nor do I blindly subscribe.

When people are programmed deb, they don't have explanations for their conclusions, which is often why their posts tend to be brief and not elaborate as mine usually are (which I know is the reason why some of you go off on this "he thinks he's so smart" bullshit). But that's what happens when you converse with someone who DOES think for himself. Not used to that are you?

Also, when I challenge someone to explain their view and in return I get insults, or nothing at all well, it's pretty obvious who the programmed poster is. So you might want to think about that. In the meantime, say it all you want if it makes you feel better but I'm just going to read it an empty insult which says more about you than it does me.

Absolutely!

I think the GOP is so deeply fragmented that it depends on elevating the outrage against Democrats to distract their constituents from their own dysfunctions. I don't think the Democrats are any less fragmented but they seem to be handling it a little better, perhaps because they've been fragmented for longer (and they are probably more accustomed to diversity)

The current field of presidential candidates kind of illustrates what I am saying. The Democrats are presented with a number of paths that more-or-less represent their sub-cultures. Biden for the status quo, Warren and Sanders for the socialist revolution, Yang for the realist view of the future. For the GOP there's... Trump. (wow... that's sad. Kinda like a refrigerator with nothing but one bowl of 3-day old noodles.) But again, this is where that outrage comes in, so people don't notice how limited their own options are.

It's too bad because I think there are a lot of different interests being bagged together in the GOP that could be better served with their own agendas. For instance, the true conservatives that wish to preserve the integrity of the Republic vs the "Freedom" Caucus that wants to gut the Republic and turn America into a dictatorship.

The problem is that we are in this Mexican stand off where neither side wants to give up their share of voters until the other side does. 2016 was a great example of what can happen if one side splits their votes, ie., Clinton vs Sanders. A lot of Democrats wrote Sanders in their ballots as a form of protest and that allowed Trump to come close enough to take the EC.

I wonder what would happen if in 2024 both the main parties were simply not allowed to run... Just for one election. How would the field look and how would people vote?

LOL - what makes that so hilarious is how close to the truth it is.

My bad, when you said "My forte lies in the mechanical and electronic world." I just made that assumption. So... you're the guy who makes things happen by following instructions the engineers give you, got it. ;)

I'm not familiar with anything Waters or Pelosi said that intentionally encourages violence or would put another person in jail if they were to say it. Perhaps you can provide a sample?

Well, I suppose I enjoy a good insult here and there, but they are always in response to someone else's insult. I never use insults as a way to escape an argument I can't counter, so I guess that means I do better than you. ;)


Yeah, I'm pretty used to that mischaracterization. I've never suggested any such thing, nor is that what I think but it seems a common response on this site from people who disagree with me... For some reason they can't just say "I disagree" they have to go into this "you think I'm stupid" nonsense.

So... you think PC is specifically a left-wing process of shutting down alternate opinions. Well, as best I can tell, that's a distortion of the truth caused by that all too familiar "I'm a victim of mean liberals that tell me what to do" syndrome.

Here's the definition found on Britannica...

Political correctness (PC), term used to refer to language that seems intended to give the least amount of offense, especially when describing groups identified by external markers such as race, gender, culture, or sexual orientation.

That's pretty much all there is to it, which in my opinion is just being polite. When people have a problem with PC it means they don't want to be told it's wrong to call black people niggers or gay men faggots, etc... OR they lost track of what PC actually means, which I think may be the case for you and Canuckus.

Britannica goes on to say...

The concept has been discussed, disputed, criticized, and satirized by commentators from across the political spectrum.

At this point it's almost a meaningless term.


One of perhaps millions of differing opinions on what PC means. Nevertheless, this does explain YOUR view on the matter, so I'll just address it as such...

First of all, your use of the word VERBOTEN is misplaced. PC culture is NOT enforced by the law. If you want to talk about niggers you might be asking for a punch in the mouth or a rash of insults but you are not going to be punished or shutdown by the government. So it's pretty simple - you can choose to be PC or you can choose not to - it's up to you.

Also, a civil culture has ALWAYS been characterized by self-imposed limits on language, which I will simply call politeness. That doesn't mean subject matters are off limits, it just means offensive insults are avoided which in many cases leads to more open discussions.

As for shutting down alternate opinions, PC has nothing to do with that unless the opinion has no redeeming value other than to insult a demographic. There is no reason for any true argument to be insulting. Every constructive opinion in existence can be expressed within the confines of PC language and that includes opinions on the right.

Yes, alternate opinions are routinely shut down by people on all sides. My views are constantly dismissed by the right-wing on this site, usually with unimaginative insults, absurd suggestions or both. It's not a big deal - if that sort of thing bothered me, I wouldn't be here. But not once have I ever blamed someones dismissal of my opinion on being PC.

Honestly, I think you folks are just looking for things to blame and your version of PC takes a lot of your intangible frustrations and puts it in a nice target to shoot at.

OK, so a suggestion from a candidate on a campaign trail... And how is maximus calling this a law? Or did he just not expect anyone to actually call him out on his claim?


Of course not.

Oh, so now the republic is great eh? Then what's with the MAGA hats you Trump turds are always wearing that suggests the republic needs work to be great again? Do you just change your mind depending on your conversation or do you just spew words without really knowing what they mean?

I tell ya what - all banter aside, why don't you tell me what YOU think made our republic so great, I'd LOVE to hear this.

That doesn't explain the difference between being polite and being PC deb. That's OK, I'll just wait for the Canadian to respond, I get a feeling he will have a little more to offer than stupid insults.

How ya doin eagle? 'looks like you haven't graduated from insults to actual thinking yet. What happened? Too much beer and gay porn?

BTW, not that I have any reason to be an expert seeing that I grew up American, but the UK is a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy. Ooooh - snap!

Have another beer big boy.

So you can't respond to my serious posts but you can respond to my one line jokes. I guess I got your level now.