robmull Loc: florida

It's interesting how our American government was sending our military forces around the world fighting c*******m awhile back, 700, while slithering into that same government. Apparently there are some 187 "card-carrying" (D) c****es in Congress, currently. And these days it's radical Islam "WE" are fighting in the Middle-East, and exactly who's slithering into our {country} and government NOW??? Hummmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT "45" DONALD J. TRUMP. "DRAIN THAT {RADICAL SECULAR LIBERAL "REGRESSIVE" LEFTY} SWAMP!!!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

PC is nothing but culture c*******m wrapped up in pretty paper and a bow!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

dross: Back into your pc mud hole with the rest of your ilk!!!!

Dr.Dross

Yes and no and not easy to decipher. There are no terms in English to describe a promiscuous male, such as there are for women, such as s**t, b***h, whore, bimbo, c***, tramp, d***-teaser, and so on. If a woman is referred to in any of these derogatory terms or others, no matter her sexual activity, it is wrong, period. Not politically incorrect, just wrong. Holding people accountable for denigrating comments against women is not being politically correct, it is basic decency.

R****ts, rapists, bigots of all stripes, and the reprehensible escape in the fog of mocking PC. Calling an autistic child a "r****d" is fine, just freedom of speech, in this fog. PC is not meant to curtail freedom of speech but to make speech more responsible and accountable. It was meant to be about enhancing sensitivity in speech and writing. Both sides have distorted this end. The ones who must object to PC want the freedom to be abusive and hurtful in their language, or why else object to increased sensitivity? What is the price to freedom to speak respectfully and decently to others? The Left screws this up by heaping judgment and condemnation on their perceived abusers of "sensitivity." Instead, this should be an opening to rapport about the opposition's use of such words, terms, or phrases that can be considered "politically incorrect." The Left is trying to make the enforcement of PC as a cultural norm; this is bad. It is about community, not an agenda. Too often, we each say the wrong thing to another or a group. A rule of proper speech ties our hands in coming to some accord.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Durp!

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Durp, say what you mean, mean what you say has been correct speech. You can never please all.of the people all of the time , has been well understood, until these prissy new ager l*****t decided they need to be happy 100% of the time and anyone not abiding had better learn how to speak the way "I want them to speak" has been the Pc.
You know damn well that Pc is by design speech oppression and intolerant to speech that defines opposing views.

You can play stupid in order to defend your position, but is obvious to all the amount of horse shi# your shoveling.

Wake up out of your delusion, there are enough facts posted on Pc if you only took the time to rationalize the evidence

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Durp....Durp!

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

There is much talk, and much to say, about what ails America, but one problem, certainly, is political correctness, which along with "tolerance" has become entrenched in daily life. Tolerance and its cousin diversity have become hegemonic in society, a dominant narrative which undermines dialogue with respect to t***h. It's one thing to be civil and to strive for compassion, and quite another to deem it offensive to judge behavior, regardless of whether that judgment is sound.

Eric Holder called us "a nation of cowards," and as much as it pains me, I agree (don't tell anyone!). His use of "coward" is telling because not only is it politically incorrect, but it describes what politically correct citizens become. We are cowards, both in our discussion of race, as he specified, and our discussion of life... When it comes to t***h, we shrink from dialogue, cowering beneath "tolerance" as a personal badge.

Take immigration. How is it that loudly opposing a culture-changing influx of people who brazenly challenge our sovereignty is offensive? Political correctness is how. The unwillingness to aggressively pursue scofflaws is cowardly. In today's feel-good culture, there exists a bigot-card for defined "victim classes" -- the brown and black people, the homosexual, and the Muslim. I*****l i*********n is hurting this country, and it's an insult to taxpayers; yet year after year, illegal Mexicans crowd jails, upset the teaching process, and increase the cost of medical services. A sane society would act, but "tolerance" precludes sanity, making action untenable. I use "Mexicans" here because the t***h of the matter is that they are the problem -- not Peruvians, Bolivians, Austrians, or Scots. T***h should not take a back-seat to guilt, nor to empathy, and the reason this "sounds" offensive is an indication of the oppressive power of P.C.

Political correctness erodes "wrong-and-right." I, as a native-born Caucasian, am increasingly disgusted with bilingual signage. I speak English and expect those who commerce in America to learn our native tongue. Why are taxpayers shouldering the accommodation of Spanish speakers so they "feel at ease," when clearly it's right to promote our native language? The argument that some "legals" speak Spanish is flawed, because legal status isn't relevant to bilingualism. Immigrants who learn English live better, earn more, and are better-educated than those who don't. Forcing them to learn English is the right thing to do, for them and the culture, but instead we accommodate and enable d******eness. Celebrating "diversity" on one hand, we fail to see on the other that people with fewer options may ultimately commit crime, aim lower, and burden society. The question, then, is what do we want: people who assimilate into a shared and vibrant culture by overcoming lingual challenge, or people who remain mired in the past and are ill-prepared to thrive?

We're choosing the latter. Not being politically correct, I oppose this -- not because I'm a h**eful bigot, but because, rationally, I want them to succeed. The politically incorrect, non-diverse course of action is to make it difficult to be here. It saves, in the long run, money and frustration. But political correctness thinks short-term.

It's politically incorrect to voice one's opinion, as well, if that opinion is "offensive," a redundant cry in liberal quarters. We loathe being challenged, h**e being informed that what opinions we hold -- Islam is a "religion of peace"; CO2 is a polluting gas -- may result from lies. In lieu of debate, ignorance is preferred over rational assessment and having, potentially, to alter one's opinion. People gravitate toward like-thinking others, and those who challenge, who threaten the Club, are subject to pressure which ultimately stifles alternative points of view.

Even as I breathe, I fail to comprehend how citizens angered that 40 million infants have been aborted by Planned Parenthood can be labeled "extreme" and against "women's rights." How conservatives who point out that inner-city welfare programs undermine prosperity are somehow "r****ts." The T***h, it seems, is hard to swallow, so shattering that rather than embracing it and working toward solutions, we insist on ignoring the "elephant in the room." "Go along to get along" is another way of putting it, but the problem with "going along to get along" is that it's dangerous.

If the data behind g****l w*****g is misleading and manipulated -- which I believe it to be -- then suppression of alternative data is evil. If calling a******n "reproductive freedom" ends the argument for devaluing babies, then that, too, is evil. If practicing the "soft bigotry of low expectations" in black communities is fine just as long as unions can extort tax dollars, then what is the cry "for the children" but evil?

Evil thrives under political correctness. Notice how even the mention of the word -- trotting it out in mixed company -- creates a backlash against its use. It doesn't "feel good," it makes people think, it calls into question inherent morality. The irony of political correctness is that while it aims for "acceptance" of every subset of humankind (save conservative males), it eng****rs decay. Because it fails to define right and wrong, and to confront, or even to acknowledge moral hazard, it erodes society while professing to save it.

This is obvious to clear thinkers, less obvious to drones. In deference to the latter, we mistakenly censor ourselves in social settings. Barack Obama was raised by Marxists, speaks fondly of Marxists, and worshiped in Marxist pews. Andy Stern, former head of the Service Employees International Union, is a frequent White House visitor. William Ayers, a terrorist with Obama ties, is as well. These men are Marxists, true believers -- yet to label the president such, to utter "Obama is a Marxist," is to open oneself to ridicule. People would rather dismiss than hear t***h, would rather live a lie and suffer its consequences than puncture their self-affirming façade.

This attitude extends to religion. Fail to give a pass to Muslims, and the Moonbat Brigade, led by Jonathan Alter, Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne, will label you an Islamophobe addled by bigotry. Change the subject, in other words! Inherent in free speech, protected (for now) by the First Amendment, is debate; yet liberals prefer, and insist on, "toleration." No matter that Islam is a political force. No matter that the goal of Islamists is a global Caliph**e (world domination) and that Sharia, their instrument, is demonstrably evil. How many "progressives" know the fate of Saudi women, that they're prohibited from v****g, speaking out, or even walking alone, and that violators are flogged?

Where's Gloria Steinem? Where are the feminists who rail against Mama Grizzlies? How many liberals, because it makes them uncomfortable, aid the stoning of "whores," honor-k*****gs, and clitoral m********n, bringing these realities closer to their reality?

It may be news to the Left, but bumper stickers notwithstanding, you cannot "coexist" with those who seek to k**l you, and you cannot "tolerate the intolerant" without abetting danger.

Fort Hood exemplifies this myopia. The military's posture toward Major Hasan, who the FBI knew was dangerous, led to thirteen graves, slaughtered G.I.s, borne not of terror but "man-caused disaster," a thousand miles from Manhattan. Rather than offend Hasan, the military allowed him to k**l while aggressively making sure it didn't "leap to conclusions." The only leapers, it seemed, were those who plunged from towers, publicly dying, on a bright September morn.

Unfortunately, those images no longer resonate. People can choose to trust what they see and to forcefully resist the accommodation of evil, or they can choose danger. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said, "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not find us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

Bonhoeffer was part of the German Resistance. In April of 1943, he was taken into custody. Two years later, in 1945, he was hanged.

Thanks for chiming in, "Dr.", but I'll continue to speak, and continue to act. For if I don't, we may end up in the kind of world you want; no thanks.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa