|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PC Gone Too Far | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
. People are raising issues I didn't originally mention, there's some obvious nuance, and there's a ton of detail that can be interpreted in different ways. I don't think OPs that the describe opposing positions as 'PC Gone Too Far" leave much room for entertaining any disagreement. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: I don't think OPs that the describe opposing positions as 'PC Gone Too Far" leave much room for entertaining any disagreement. You're trolling again, plus your syntax is bad, and you have mismatched quotes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
1.61803 writes: I have been propagandized and indoctrinated as a former soldier so I wont pretend I am not bias in my views. Has the camaraderie of soldiers everywhere, the one embodied by soccer games on battlefields on Christmas 1914, been lost? Has the sense that soldiers on both sides are trying to kill each other not because they hate each other, but because there are forces at work levels above them, been lost. Do they no longer believe that enemy soldiers deserve as much honor and respect as themselves? Don't most soldiers around the world understand that all soldiers are basically the same, that they share a common bond, and that devotion to different causes or countries is a superficial difference?
You claim that PC has gone to far and yet you are here touting that the victors of a particular war must be sensitive to the losers and allow them to venerate,celebrate, pay tribute to them in the form of a public bust/statue/placard/obelisk irregardless of how many it may offend. That is some seriously PC crap if I ever heard it. This sounds backwards. PC is using claims of being offended as political leverage.
I can remember Pol Pot and the atrocities of the Kymer Rouge by going to a museum But I doubt seriously you will find anyone erecting a tribute to him anywhere and there is a reason for that. Well of course we would agree about not memorializing Pol Pot or Hitler or Mussolini and so on. But that's not who we're talking about. We're talking about the soldiers in their armed forces.
I can remember and even feel remorse for the dead soldiers on both sides of the Civil War or WWII without having a huge bronze of Hitler standing in a public park. Because of an earlier misunderstanding I'm forced to state that I haven't said anything that could be interpreted as being in favor of memorializing Hitler in any way. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
Does that apply to the "soldiers" of ISIS?
Don't most soldiers around the world understand that all soldiers are basically the same, that they share a common bond, and that devotion to different causes or countries is a superficial difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
This sounds backwards. PC is using claims of being offended as political leverage. Of course it sounds backwards. PC is only allowed to cut one way. Faith taught us that. The people making the claims really are not offended and have no reason to be? The complaints that motivate them to action are shams? Because that is what "claims of being offended" implies. For some reason it seems impossible for some people to defend their position without resulting to wing nut tactics. If there is no offense then there is no reason to ask for a statute to be moved. I would expect that if someone wanted a statute moved they would cite a reason. So yeah, these requests for the city or state to act are always going to be linked to an offense, and the detractors can always yell PC regardless of the actual circumstance. In short, this thread is about exactly what I have said it was about and continue to say it is about -- a simple assertion that complaints about confederate celebrations, monuments, and building names have no legitimacy whatsoever. That a request to move a monument is by definition PC regardless of its basis. So far it seems that you will acknowledge that a monument to Hitler was inappropriate. But pretty much everything else someone might complain about is apparently just PC whining of no import. I imagine that as usual my message contains some bad syntax. Here is the obligatory mismatched 'quote" But trolling? Not. My message is every bit as sincere as the original post.
and that devotion to different causes or countries is a superficial difference? The soldiers in Kentucky had their choice of sides and the differences between the sides were certainly not superficial. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Even strongly held sincere beliefs can be wrong.
Times change. Someday people might even want to put the statues of Lenin and Marx back up.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Someday people might even want to put the statues of Lenin and Marx back up. Some of them never came down...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
AZPaul3 writes: Tearing down monuments *is* a very effective way of fostering a process of forgetting. Again, with or without Confederate glorifying memorabilia on our public lands, there is no chance in hell of us forgetting what happened, who started, and why there was a civil war. I find this argument absurd. That's strange, because I find ignorance of our history extremely common.
We are not going to agree on this. We will just go around the horn again. Your thread. I give you the last word. Okay. Expecting average people to rise above their own cultural mores seems unreasonable to me, and visiting judgment upon them for simply being victims of the human condition may raise moral issues of its own. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Someday people might even want to put the statues of Lenin and Marx back up. That's right. And of course no matter how those people complain about not having their statutes, only one of the two sides will be called PC, right? The side opposed to putting offensive statutes back up. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
ringo writes: Does that apply to the "soldiers" of ISIS? And someone else brought up the German SS earlier. I think the question about judging people from different times and places always applies, and more broadly about judging anyone. How many people march out with the intent of doing evil? Obviously some do and make it clear, like Jihadi John. But who wouldn't march out to defend country and way of life, which is probably what most civil war soldiers not only sincerely believed they were doing, but that's what they *were* doing. Is the same true of ISIS soldiers? Not exactly, since they didn't actually have a country to begin with, but in large measure I don't see why not. Certainly they felt a way of life was threatened, since Sunnis were disenfranchised by the US sponsored Iraqi government under Shia control. People everywhere are the same mix of types. The differences stem from environment, and you can't blame people for where and when they were born. Our legal system even takes environmental circumstances into account in sentencing. For example, abuse during childhood cannot excuse crime, but it can mitigate punishment. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes: It is obvious that the detractors are claiming that placement matters to them. It matters because in the current location the monument is in their face and they consider it to be offensive. Okay, you find that answer to be PC. My question is why does it matter to those defending the statue. I don't know why they care, because I'm not a person who particularly cares personally about Confederate monuments.
NoNukes writes: Why does the placement matter to you? It doesn't matter to me. Pragmatism matters to me. I advocate neutrality, and I argue that neutrality is best represented by inertia: only take action when compelling justification is given; otherwise, don't change anything. If Party A wants the statue moved, then the onus is on Party A to justify this action. There is no onus on any other party. It's a "burden of proof"/"innocent until proven guilty" sort of thing. In this case, it feels like Party A has successfully shifted the burden of proof to someone else by doing little more than saying, "I am offended by it and the Confederacy was evil." That's not much of a "burden" of proof, if you ask me: it's not really even an "inconvenience" of proof. I don't feel like shifting the burden of proof should ever be that simple. I guess I just want to know that the system is actually making careful and empirical decisions, and not just responding to the fickle whims of whatever social movement happens to be in vogue this political season.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
NoNukes writes: Of course it sounds backwards. PC is only allowed to cut one way. Faith taught us that. Actually, for Faith PC cut whichever way she needed it to at the time, no matter how inconsistently.
The people making the claims really are not offended and have no reason to be? The complaints that motivate them to action are shams? Because that is what "claims of being offended" implies. For some reason it seems impossible for some people to defend their position without resulting to wing nut tactics. The greater value placed on something, like feelings of being offended, the more there will be. A short while ago Faith claimed she was offended when people expressed skepticism about her religious beliefs, and she wanted it stopped. Obviously her request could not be granted. The politics of being offended must always be rejected. I'm offended that people want to destroy history, but so what. History must be defended on its own merits. That ancient Temple of Bel in Palmyra that ISIS destroyed? Probably offensive to people of earlier religions. Mosques in the US? Probably offensive to many.
In short, this thread is about exactly what I have said it was about and continue to say it is about -- a simple assertion that complaints about confederate celebrations, monuments, and building names have no legitimacy whatsoever. That a request to move a monument is by definition PC regardless of its basis.
I imagine that as usual my message contains some bad syntax. Here is the obligatory mismatched 'quote" But trolling? Not. My message is every bit as sincere as the original post. Well, yes, you're very sincere and very serious, efforts at getting you to lighten up notwithstanding. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
ringo asks:
Does that apply to the "soldiers" of ISIS? not answering this, but just sayin' tonight I go to the Cinco de Mayo evening at the Gardner Ale House and I will attempt to perform Dylan's most appropriate song, Isis. There's even a drizzlin' rain.
Isis, oh, Isis, you mystical child. What drives me to you is what drives me insane. I still can remember the way that you smiled On the fifth day of May in the drizzlin' rain. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually, for Faith PC cut whichever way she needed it to at the time, no matter how inconsistently. Please prove this or take it back. I defined PC by Bill Lind's essay on the subject. It's always been a term that refers to Leftist political positions. That's just the way it is although some keep trying to turn it into an expression that also describes the Right. Historically it doesn't. And I have never used it inconsistently.
The greater value placed on something, like feelings of being offended, the more there will be. A short while ago Faith claimed she was offended when people expressed skepticism about her religious beliefs, Actually that's not true. It was about disrespect and I never said I was offended. I think there should be a rule that you can't talk about somebody who isn't on the thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Please prove this or take it back. If people had to take back everything you claimed they never proved there'd be no science left.
And I have never used it inconsistently. You were employing PC as an epithet at anything you didn't like.
Actually that's not true. It was about disrespect and I never said I was offended. Yes, you're right, what you actually said in Message 45 was, "...to affirm the belief of the unbelievers over the believers is disrespecting the views of the believers." The distinction seems small, an antonym of "offensive" is "respectful," but if you wish to be technical then yes, you said "disrespect," not "offended." --Percy Edited by Percy, : Clarify by adding some quotation marks.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024