|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 15, 2016 14:36:24 GMT -5
Ah, never mind--I finally took my own (usual) advice and Google-tracked the bumperstickers to Scott Adams, whose buy-in to the alpha-beta-male notion marks him as a source-to-be-approached-with-care. Unless he's just trolling the universe, in which case there's no need to engage him or pay him any attention at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 16:12:51 GMT -5
Mirian Webster will do for me. It doesn't blame it on anyone but defines it adequately. By this definition, it could be applied to anyone who would cool speech for political reasons regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum.
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.
I would add as in matter of sex or race but not exclusive to those things. Conservatives, like Chris Christie, may not like to hear anyone say that pot is relatively harmless, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jan 15, 2016 16:35:07 GMT -5
Alignment beats paradigm
Paradigm beats analytics
Analytics beats strategy
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jan 15, 2016 16:38:05 GMT -5
Jeff: What you mean "our," Paleface? Ah, never mind--I finally took my own (usual) advice and Google-tracked the bumperstickers to Scott Adams, whose buy-in to the alpha-beta-male notion marks him as a source-to-be-approached-with-care.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 15, 2016 16:40:03 GMT -5
Constitutional conservatives believe that you have a right to offend and you do not have a right not to be offended.
I like Chris Christie. He's as blunt as Trump without the bluster. Some New Jersey Democrats came to actually like him. He's too centrist for the far right but he's been governor of a blue state.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 15, 2016 17:15:25 GMT -5
Constitutional conservatives believe that you have a right to offend and you do not have a right not to be offended. Well no wonder you’re always lashing out at everyone. I’d be in a pissy mood too if I was required to be offended at at everything.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 15, 2016 17:24:26 GMT -5
OK, Jeff, let's say someone refers to an opinion piece that appears on a site carrying iconography suggesting affiliation with or sympathy for a fairly recognizable and well-defined ideology or group--cross, hammer-and-sickle, rainbow flag, whathaveyou. Might that not suggest that the opinions offered there will skew in some well-defined and recognizable direction? A picture might be worth a thousand words, but the words themselves, particular kinds and styles of argument, are just as easily spotted. If a historical analysis includes, say, the phrase "so-called Holocaust," might one not be justified in bracing for antisemitism? Not immediately and without examination asserting its presence, but not being surprised if it were to appear?
We all navigate by a process of successive approximations, and the more curves we have faired through data-sets, the more accurate our approximations are likely to be. In music, this is called "having an ear."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 15, 2016 17:45:01 GMT -5
Alignment beats paradigm Paradigm beats analytics Analytics beats strategy Alignment beats the steering wheel pulling to the side Paradise beats Hell Analytics beats Me
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 15, 2016 17:54:45 GMT -5
Constitutional conservatives believe that you have a right to offend and you do not have a right not to be offended. Well no wonder you’re always lashing out at everyone. I’d be in a pissy mood too if I was required to be offended at at everything. You, sir are easily offended. I don't get offended. I fire back. It's my right.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jan 15, 2016 18:07:23 GMT -5
I remember back in the 60s when the lefties were pro free speech now they are anti free speech. And the righties are only pro free speech if it annoys the lefties.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 15, 2016 18:10:42 GMT -5
I remember back in the 60s when the lefties were pro free speech now they are anti free speech. And the righties are only pro free speech if it annoys the lefties. Annoying lefties is a constitutional right. Use it or lose it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 18:24:06 GMT -5
Constitutional conservatives believe that you have a right to offend and you do not have a right not to be offended. I agree to a point. While you may have the right, I don't think it's a bad thing to be polite and going out of your way to offend doesn't win any fans but, on the other hand, not being able to even discuss certain things due to the possibility that it might offend or having the ability to feign offense or play the offense card in order to prevent the truth being told or to prevent a discussion taking place, should be offensive to everyone. What elephant?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 18:36:22 GMT -5
Alignment beats paradigm Paradigm beats analytics Analytics beats strategy Alignment beats the steering wheel pulling to the side Paradise beats Hell Analytics beats Me Alabama beats Clemson Carolina beats Seattle Nothing beats chocolate Piano beats saxophone
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 15, 2016 18:40:52 GMT -5
Sunbeam beats Eggs Tortoise beats Hare Ringo beats Drums
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 15, 2016 18:41:40 GMT -5
I agree to a point. While you may have the right, I don't think it's a bad thing to be polite Oh shut up, fathead.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jan 15, 2016 18:48:22 GMT -5
Now, now, that's "plus-size head." Or maybe "big-boned." Yeah, that's it, "Hush, now, big-boned head."
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jan 15, 2016 18:53:05 GMT -5
Constitutional conservatives believe that you have a right to offend and you do not have a right not to be offended. I agree to a point. While you may have the right, I don't think it's a bad thing to be polite and going out of your way to offend doesn't win any fans but, on the other hand, not being able to even discuss certain things due to the possibility that it might offend or having the ability to feign offense or play the offense card in order to prevent the truth being told or to prevent a discussion taking place, should be offensive to everyone. What elephant? I agree with you Tom, up to a point. I like open discussions. Of those who usually shy away from freely discussing touchy subjects, most, IMO, are simply smarter than you and me. They know where most of those conversations lead. They don’t lead to agreement, they may or may not lead to understanding, and they often lead to bitter arguments. That won’t stop you and it won’t stop me, but I have wondered why I can’t follow their example and just keep my thoughts to myself. Add to that that people have different opinions on what is acceptable for public discussion, both in subject matter and the terms used. (Do you want to talk to your mother about your sex life or post details of it on Facebook? Do you want to hear the guy at the restaurant table next to you discussing the quality of his bowel movements as you’re trying to eat? Using the N-word in public? Using the N-word on the south side of Chicago?) It’s one thing to talk about sensitive subjects in public, watching for clues that you’ve offended someone, then trying to adjust and better explain yourself based on the feedback you’re getting. It’s something else altogether when you’re broadcasting sensitive comments on public forums or in the media. In those cases, you either have to be sensitive to possible reactions before you even get started, or live with the consequences. All things considered, I think claims of non-PC behavior are a good thing. Some of them are frivolous and should be ignored, but many are not. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being sensitive to other people’s feelings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 18:54:39 GMT -5
I agree to a point. While you may have the right, I don't think it's a bad thing to be polite Oh shut up, fathead. Hey, I'm Canadian . We're nothing if not polite. I remember being kidded for thanking the waitress for bringing the cutlery ... er ... utensils.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 19:00:26 GMT -5
I agree to a point. While you may have the right, I don't think it's a bad thing to be polite and going out of your way to offend doesn't win any fans but, on the other hand, not being able to even discuss certain things due to the possibility that it might offend or having the ability to feign offense or play the offense card in order to prevent the truth being told or to prevent a discussion taking place, should be offensive to everyone. What elephant? I agree with you Tom, up to a point. I like open discussions. Of those who usually shy away from freely discussing touchy subjects, most, IMO, are simply smarter than you and me. They know where most of those conversations lead. They don’t lead to agreement, they may or may not lead to understanding, and they often lead to bitter arguments. That won’t stop you and it won’t stop me, but I have wondered why I can’t follow their example and just keep my thoughts to myself. Add to that that people have different opinions on what is acceptable for public discussion, both in subject matter and the terms used. (Do you want to talk to your mother about your sex life or post details of it on Facebook? Do you want to hear the guy at the restaurant table next to you discussing the quality of his bowel movements as you’re trying to eat? Using the N-word in public? Using the N-word on the south side of Chicago?) It’s one thing to talk about sensitive subjects in public, watching for clues that you’ve offended someone, then trying to adjust and better explain yourself based on the feedback you’re getting. It’s something else altogether when you’re broadcasting sensitive comments on public forums or in the media. In those cases, you either have to be sensitive to possible reactions before you even get started, or live with the consequences. All things considered, I think claims of non-PC behavior are a good thing. Some of them are frivolous and should be ignored, but many are not. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being sensitive to other people’s feelings. You must know that's not what I'm talking about. Simply being boorish is something pretty much deplored by everyone. However, if anyone actually believes that there are people who get mad enough to kill over a cartoon rather than that being a premise to excuse violence or put certain subjects beyond discussion, I have a bridge to sell them.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 15, 2016 19:05:31 GMT -5
|
|