maybe there should be.

I shouldn't be embarrassed by having to google him to have any idea who you were talking about but I am a bit.

Airwave's trolling efforts are as phoned in and lazy as omni's

Thanks spank for explaining.

The weird thing is that Alex is literally driven to multiyear long fits of apoplectic rage over seeing literally anything get called racist or by people noting that the Confederacy was not a legal secession(again, that's Alex's stated position that he is UNWILLING TO MODIFY IN THE FACE OF ****ING SCOTUS PRECEDENT AND ALSO EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE) that was invaded by the tyrant Lincoln or whatever, but he's suddenly way more chill when it comes to judging people who just happened to own slaves. You know, like you do. Who among us wouldn't?

But I'm the ******* for drawing any conclusions from that.

Like, this is the sort of **** we're dealing with:
http://thedissolve.com/reviews/1092-...of-lost-shoes/

This relentless myth of the benign slavemaster that Alex intentionally and voluntarily promotes goes back decades and does very real and very serious damage.

That **** is racist as **** and Alex should arguably be banned for his posts on this subject.

I think the idea that slave owners shouldn't be judged too harshly kind of implies that slave owners just kind of admitted they were wrong and everyone moved on instead of acknowledging those same slave owners (and then their children) then became the largest and prolific terrorist movement for the next 70 years who attempted and succeeded in rolling back the minimal gains that African Americans and whites who believed in general common humanity had gained. And they did it through murder, death, torture, assassination, rebellion, sabotage, out right treason, extortion, and intimidation.

lol, Flookie. Can't stop lying.

It's too bad you aren't smart enough to participate in adult conversations.

It seems as if you are considering that the people who object to things such as racially biased posts are wielding PC like it's some kind of tool. As others have also mentioned, it's the people complaining about the "PC police" who are actually wielding that tool. Instead of defending their racially biased opinions, they just complain about the "PC police," or the "panty wearing liberals," or the "Oprahfication of America." This changes the subject from their racially biased opinion to some kind of problem with the objector.

I find it condescending of you to talk about people being, "unthinkingly PC," and getting it right on accident. This feels like the "mob" accusations to me again. (They're just on the side with the numbers, even if they don't know why?) This also again goes back to the question of which side is really wielding a PC tool. The group pointing out the racism is not wielding the tool imo.

What PC cause? There is no PC cause for the sake of PC imo. (Or at least it's very limited.) Look at this forum. There was a wide range of people who objected to BruceZ's posts as being racist, yet really no unified opinion whether he should have the right to those opinions. Few were trying to shut him up, which I think would be how you consider wielding PC as a tool. (I had a 2+2 rules based argument for why the posts shouldn't be allowed, but jj's posts convinced me otherwise in short order.)


This "being PC" stuff is weird. Most people are not pro PC: they're just anti racism or anti sexism or whatever.

As far as he worst thing of all, that is racism. (In the context of this discussion.) The second worse thing is people providing cover for racism while being intellectually dishonest about it. The third worse thing is people providing cover for racism because they're dumb. Somewhere way down the list is the problem of people making sport out of being mean to racists, even if the don't know why they're doing it.

When I mentioned that the post was polarizing I just meant that your opinions where so contrary to mine that it seemed unlikely there was any common ground at all. I didn't mean that your post was contentious or mean-spirited in any way.

We are going to struggle here because I am but we seem to be talking about different things.

is what I have in mind.

So it doesn't require having a racially biased opinion. PC could object to what someone says even if they don't have racially biased opinions. I mostly advocate PC for people/organisations who aren't racist though that's debatable.

We can get to the rest later if we clear that up. Its a very tricky subject to handle imo but its not condescending, it just sounds condescending. It doesn't depend on the definition of PC that much but I can't face it based on a misconception from the start.

Why can't political correctness be the attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage, while excessive political correctness occurs when you are excessively careful?

We could do that except PC often seems to use the word excessive in its definition. I changed my post because I think it's confusing.

This might help:



Just because some racists throw around the concept in a negative light (to bitch and moan that they can't say just any old idiotic thing without people calling them out on it) doesn't mean it isn't a good thing. It probably means it is an excellent thing.

Zikzak had a pretty decent post up thread about it.

chezlaw do you understand now why I was so confident in stating that Lee and you disagree? Because of how he's a typical socially conscious and historically informed liberal, while you're just as typical an example of an ill-read grievance nursing socially awkward white guy on the internet?

Like, all the people who were telling you that Bruce's Lost Cause noble slavemaster bull**** was racist didn't need to google Nat Turner, you understand that, right?

It is, and I realize this may be contrary to your personal experience, but it is possible to know what the **** you're talking about. Not everyone is just pulling bull**** out of thin air and trying to retroactively justify that bull**** with facile "logic"

Yes I did and I still do.

Now go away unless you care.

I am in tears from laughing so hard. I almost wet myself which was a bit disconcerting.

The last time this happened I was reassigned to work under a freudian psychoanalist as punishment for not being sufficiently professional.

It is fine to be not upset about slavery. It's history and not what is going on today. A detached demeanor about it is not patently racism or anti-human. It is not the same thing as trying to sanitize history, like I have heard some high schools in Colorado are trying to do. Mass student walk-outs has been a response. Welcome to today.

There is still a lot of slavery going on today.

Colorado doesn't exist.

Not to change the subject but, a recent quote from somebody named Ted Nugent was "Think of ISIS in these terms: If you had cockroaches in your home, would you try to kill just a few of them, or would you hatch an extermination plan to kill them all?"

PC or not PC?
Racist statement against Islam or not?

It's an existential state, as well as, an existential State.

Islam isn't a race. Ted should take his meds.

Turd Nug is a prejudicial instigator. Gives guitar players and outdoors folks a bad name. He is also a stereotype playing racist. Everything he says is dished up to be provocative to bigots and lampooned by anyone else. If you know his routine and role, nothing he says is worth taking seriously.

If I had a Ted Nugent problem in my house, I would definitely exterminate it.

In a bass ackward way, he reduces racism.

Still, it would be fun to punch him in the face.