Comments on: Binders full of PC thought

By: NeoConScum

NeoConScum — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 22:25:34 +0000

Shocked am I at the horrendously Un-PC talk about the Human Female here. I’ve long enjoyed telling men of ‘yoot about the African Lions: Those big, husky handsome, scary Guy Lions are stretched out in the shade of some trees overlooking The Great Rift Valley…Yhey’re having a wonderful Guy Time telling stories of Great Hunts and comparing footages of Guy Lion Things. Meanwhile, half a mile away, a lioness bursts from some tall grass and brings down an antelope. Baa-Daa-Bing. Dinner.

That’s it. Questions?

By: Sergey

Sergey — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:37:50 +0000

And Kipling also clearly explained why it is so:
“She is wedded to convictions – in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him, who denies!
He will meet no cool discussion, but the instant, white-hot wild
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
“

By: Sergey

Sergey — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:25:23 +0000

Kipling wrote: “female of the species is more deadly than the male”. He has a point. Who will expect even hint of chivalry from a bunch of ugly, sexually frustrated, disgruntled women when they are loosing their ideological battle? No more than from a company of scorpions in a jug.

By: njartist49

njartist49 — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 19:55:51 +0000

Ahh, but liberals/socialists do not believe in the “slippery slope;” perhaps we should use a term more in line with their “thinking:” “progressive slope.”

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:36:58 +0000

Most people I know are considerate and will not initiate nor favor arguments with a great potential to annoy or offend others’ sensibilities – should a discussion land there anyway, even in a friendly setting, a way out is typically improvised.

This does not apply to such contexts as are set up with a purpose to serve as a platform for such discussions (be it in an academic setting, in an online community, in special-interest groups etc.). It is evident that, by entering there, one agrees to a somewhat different exchange, where general civility is hopefully upheld, but where one cannot pretend to be spared and has to expect at least some, if not much discomfort over the full intellectual force of the arguments and the potential emotional reaction. If one *cannot* take the heat, one should accept it as one’s own limitation and not enter such territories (rather than demand that *they* be changed to be more sparing of one’s feelings).

To me, this binary system seems like a decent compromise – on the one hand, it is not PC and it allows for an honest confrontation; on the other hand, it designates a proper place for some kinds of confrontation and by doing so it abandons an immature pretense that everyone “ought” to publicly discuss such issues as are by their nature more intimate (sexuality, religion, even much politics).

I do not like PC, but I *also* do not like the vulgar sort of “anti-PC” which shoves potentially problematic and highly divisive topics down everyone’s throats with little regard to propriety and to other people’s emotion and conscience.

By: Kerry

Kerry — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:37:44 +0000

If Jonathan Chait or any other was asked, “What are human beings? Why are we here?”, or even just “Why is there something instead of nothing?”, could they answer beyond the explicitly material? We think not. I suggest thinking about this quote from JPII:
“The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decisions disappears.”
–Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus
If, as was written in some other place, “…created in the image and likeness of God”, and “as ye have done it to the least of these, ye have done it to Me”, then all this skin color crap is just nonsense.

By: Beverly

Beverly — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:54:31 +0000

Speaking of moral inversions: anyone else notice the hugely blatant and successful inversion of the beloved movie The Wizard of Oz? with an unambiguously and genuinely frightening villainess, the Wicked Witch?

Well the Lefties have inverted that: they rewrote it so that the Wicked Witch was just a poor, pitiful victim of the REAL villainess: Glinda the Good Witch! and in their usual racist fashion, they make much of the fact that Glinda is a fair-skinned blonde with blue eyes and a white dress. So much whiteness; ick!

Show is named “Wicked.” Which, of course, it is.

By: SCOTTtheBADGER

SCOTTtheBADGER — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:19 +0000

Fourteen years as a Deputy Sheriff taught me that while there are some very, very nasty males out there, for true evil incarnate, you must turn to females.

By: NeoConScum

NeoConScum — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:51:03 +0000

PC is lies, built upon Lies built upon LIES. I hate it more every day. What’s true has become forbidden and what’s false has become unassailable Fact. AGW anyone?

By: Beverly

Beverly — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:41:22 +0000

I love a good Red on Red dogpile.

Heh.

Chait’s article is a good one to post on Faceplant, btw. The libbies might actually read it.

Remember that deprogramming them will be a process of chipping away at the lies, bit by bit.