The psychology of political correctness

Evidence has to start with the witness who collected it. Of course you can stay in the dark if you like, and obviously you like.

No Faith, and that is why you are so often wrong. Evidence is independent of individual that collected it.

No more than I have the freedom avoiding seeing you wearing a cross while you are here. No more than I have the freedom to stop you saying 'Wearing skirts is sinful'. I doubt your grandsons will be thinking of grandma when someone is flirting with them. You know there are ways to settle conflicts like this.So what's your freedom? The freedom to not see people wearing clothes you disapprove of as you walk through their neighbourhood.Mine is the freedom to wear basically whatever you like.So let's see, in your world every single human's personal sensibilities would have to be taken into account. We'd have to be always politically correct in your fashion so as not to take anybody's freedom to not see clothes they disapprove of. Even if you travel to another country. The only way to do this is for us all agree to wear the most blandest unisex clothes in grey or brown or something. In this world, if I wore a pink tunic instead of the grey one, that might be construed as denying another citizen comrade of their freedom and be penalized accordingly.Courting might be tricky. We'd need rules as to which members of family (or close friends) need to be consulted before interactions can occur. These close family members will all list all of the things that would offend them and this is passed back to the potential suitor. Until then all interactions between the two parties must be staid and inoffensive small talk no more than a few minutes in length. Once the instructions have arrived and the suitor knows how to court in a familiarly correct fashion it can go ahead. Although maybe there is a Patriarch of some kind? A religious head that needs to be involved in the decision, to make sure everything follows the party line, I mean is in accordance with God.Sounds pretty much like a parody of Communism.In my version, you can wear a T-shirt that says 'Transvestites are Marxists' and I can wear a skirt. You can wear a cross and I can wear a crimson 'A'. You can stick your tongue out at me and I can bite my thumb. W00t. We disagree with one another but neither of us entered into a power struggle to force the other to conform.You really prefer your freedom to take priority? It doesn't seem to lead us anywhere good.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The mental gymnastics performed by leftists to avoid learning something they don't want to know about is really quite impressive. If the evidence happens to be in the possession of the memory of a single person then that person's testimony IS evidence, whether it is the perfect evidence you require or not. But since it isn't perfect and you don't want to know about it anyway you just find ways of throwing it out so you have no evidence at all rather than the imperfect evidence that might actually lead you to some very useful knowledge. So, as I said, you prefer to be in the dark. So enjoy.

Oh we could argue this to death I'm sure. Suffice it to say you have the revisionist Marxist definition of freedom and I have the traditional definition. I think a sane society should operate by rules that govern public exposure of course, which would eliminate everything "liberated" by the Sin Liberation Front. But obviously the Marxists have won and that's that.

Human memory is known to be unreliable and that is why some other form of evidence is desireable. And when the memory as reported is simply unsupported assertions and innuendo, it really does have very little value.

Why are you conflating what happens between consenting adults with crimes against children?

As I said you dispense completely with imperfect evidence although it is the only evidence available, so you end up with a total blank where you might have learned something about the unconstitutional interference of the big Foundations in American life. You treat anyone as a liar who tells you something you don't happen to know. Wonderful way to keep yourself in the dark. So enjoy your ignorance. I'm sure there is other evidence to be had but it may not be publicly available. Perhaps you could talk the Carnegie foundation into letting you study the minutes of their meetings as they allowed Catherine Casey to do.

Because that is the next move by the Sin Liberation Front. They've been working up to it for years now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed"That's my definition. I'm pretty sure that this predates Marx as a principle. Sane rules. Like a man can wear a short piece of material that wraps around both legs, or he can wear material that wraps around each leg separately as he prefers. And women are afforded that same right.The fact that I find white socks and sandles distasteful is no basis for forbidding it. It's your stupid constitution's fault. Article 3 gives me my right to wear a skirt in the USA. In short it says my right to pursue happiness outweighs your right to not be offended by how I pursue my happiness.It cuts both ways. So I can be upset about it, but if I was there's not a damn thing I can do if you teach your grandsons that homosexuality is evil. Your actions would offend me, but your family and your right to pursue happiness and your liberties outweigh anything I've got.Win-win.
Apparently you'd prefer win-lose.

Faith, I can examine evidence, evidence far beyond unsupported assertions and innuendo.How could any big or small foundation unconstitutionally interfere in American Life. That's just nuts, an utterly stupid assertion.Even if the Carnegie Foundation rewrote all the textbooks (pretty much impossible to do since the Christian Cult of Ignorance religious nuts in Texas seem to be the ones in control of content) it would not be unconstitutional.Even if the Carnegie Foundation hired each voter and told them how to vote it would not be unconstitutional unfortunately.If there is evidence then present it; unsupported assertions and innuendo are not persuasive.That is not a matter of "Politically Correct" but rather of fact.

You have the Marxist revisionist interpretation of our Constitution too of course.Homosexuality is a sin like all sins, not "evil," but some expressions of sins ARE evil if only because they encroach on others' freedoms.

The history books have been rewritten already, since the 1920s or so, according to Dodd's interview.

Guess what Faith; I've owned textbooks from the 1920s and even you can still buy them. And they are full of misinformation and downright falsehoods as well as sometimes actual information. We've learned a lot in the last hundred years.But that is still not evidence to support your or Dodd's assertions.Nor is there anything unconstitutional about revising textbooks.

You are the LAST person I would trust to tell me what's misinformation or falsehood,