Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Let's be clear, by objecting to the vilification of all Palestinians, I in no way endorse their tactics. I never said they were moral. I did quite openly empathize with them, however, as what is an occupied people to do? (but suffer occupation, as you have suggested. Great. Look what peace has gained the Tibetans)
Haven't read a bit of Chomsky on Vietnam, so don't know what his opinions are.
As for the "validity" of any particular tactic, I suppose that depends on what you mean by validity. To the desperate victim of occupation, I suspect that anything that is effective is "valid". To those trying to enforce international law, clearly many effective things are not "valid" (and yet even as a neutral observer in many conflicts, it seems patently obvious that the laws of war favour the side with the upper hand, if one has it). And to a participating side that has obvious advantages, nothing but strict adherence to code is "valid".
Well, we've seen what the States thinks of international law when the bully takes the wildly unexpected blow. Like any bully, they go a little crazy and overcompensate and the innocent suffer along with the guilty. The States has never in modern times been faced with the kind of desperate choices faced by many other peoples in war. Americans can talk glibly of "collateral damage" never having been the invaded rather than the invader. Judging from their behaviour when they have the upper hand, I would make no assurances whatsoever about their respect for the laws of war were they not to have it.
I'm not sure I would consider revolution to be the same situation as fighting an occupation. And what may have been even remotely even-handed has become wildly one-sided with American backing (back to Palestine-Israel). Last I heard, Israel had tested a robot capable of a pinning a suicide bomber. Not that I expect people should be eager to greet one in the flesh, but it does chill me to think that it has become so one-sided that not even human opponents may be faced. We stopped counting the suicide as one of the "victims" of any tragedy a long time ago. They never even factor into the body count anymore, like what they threw away was worthless, because they must be mad, not simply desperate. I hope that we in the fortunate west need never find out what desperation can drive us to do. Rational, privileged people do seemingly crazy things like join charisma cults. Occupation, murder, and war would drive us to what ends?
I simply dislike the visualization of Israel-Palestine as one-sided morally. That seems to be the brush you want to paint me with, but I only see one of us painting it that way.
I was good enough to go "amateur" pro, and I can honestly say that it isn't because I whacked the hell out of those pins. It surely seems one sport where precision counts as much. Well, there's curling, I suppose, or pool. They segregate chess, then, don't they?
Not sure about incest being the next frontier, though. Even in progressive circles, it's... well, it's still got a full-force taboo going. Rational debate about genetics (or lack of procreation) won't take away the distaste of a world-wide taboo that clearly must have arisen for some originally functional purpose, whatever that may have been.
You make me imagine an interesting scenario, though it's doubtful one so clear will emerge. Educated, level-headed, conservative (just for maximum effect) brother and sister face charges for incest. They make, not an impassioned, but a reasoned plea: tell us what we did wrong, and why, and we'll repent. Well, it's just wrong says society and the court. But why? Well, it just is -- I mean, ick. But why?
An underground fetish? Really? Well maybe if not the next frontier, one not too far along... Was just reading a Dan Savage bit about a brother and sister who for one reason or another ended up in bed, and after so much time together, sex just hasn't been as good with anyone else, so what are they to do? If it makes it into mainstream consciousness at all, it will be demonized for some time before anything else, I think. America particularly seems to have no bones about violence, but sex of even the Puritan kind...
Hell, there are far worse examples than this, and while the Supreme Court (Canada) likes to use "demeaning human dignity" as some kind of objective-person-test, it is obviously a crapshoot. I don't know how many cases I've read where the Court is talking about some marginalized immigrant and saying, basically: "If I were you, (speaking as a member of the majority), I wouldn't be offended."
So as I said, what usually ends up happening is division along historical lines -- and quite explicitly, here, on the side only of groups historically subject to disadvantage. So as a fellow was saying to me today -- what is your dignity worth as an individual. Not much unless we can slot you into one of various groups. So again, what is it worth as an individual?
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, I study the law of war as part of how I make my living, and "dual use" has as long a history as "illegal combatants" -- that is, the U.S. makes convenient use of terms to avoid what historically would be defined quite differently.
It is unfortunate that you buy the party line hook and sinker. Attacking water supplies and electrical grids are not "dual use" because the military also depends on these things. If that were the case, nothing would be purely civilian, would it? The modern army knows that these are the surest ways to break a civilization, but that is not supposed to matter. They are supposed to be off-limits. In Sarajevo, historical sites were bombed in a similarly illegal fashion. Great demoralizer. Completely illegal.
This is nothing but an extention of rhetoric the likes of which took place regarding Pearl Harbour - an attack on a military base which nonetheless is attacked uniformly in the states as cowardly and against the "code" -- and punishable by two atomic bombs killing civilians and military alike. This is what happens when definitions do not fit the bully's position; they get redefined. Try looking beyond the party line and obvious rhetoric. I would have thought them obvious enough.
As for the "evil of the Palestinians" -- way to smear an entire people. How many brothers or sisters would you lose to murder before you became a zealot? Not many, I would guess. There's a reason why Israeli officers were refusing to serve in the occupied territories, unofficially confirming some of the worst fears about treatment there, and it had nothing to do with proportioned reponses to military personnel. One of the evils of terrorism is that it blurs the line between military and civilian, intentionally, but that makes it easy for opponents to paint a broad picture of military means and use, the way it was done in Vietnam, the way it was done just now in your response. But expecting anything else from the Palestinians at this point is like expecting something different from the VC. If they could wage conventional war, if they had the means, you think they'd be making human bombs instead? Terrorism is the last resort of the hopelessly desperate. Sooner or later they were going to realize that throwing rocks at well armed soldiers was not doing the job. If you read even a little Chomsky (and check his facts of course), you'll know that over the last few decades, the Palestinians have on numerous occasions made offers along the lines suggested by various neutral bodies, and that these offerings were roundly rejected (and if you believe some reports, followed by greatly increased bloodshed) by Israel. Why? You tell me. It would appear that they do not want the existence of Palestine in any form and are willing to continue the killing to prevent it.
But I have no wish to get dragged into a Middle Eastern debate with you. Too easy and too deep a hole. There is no point in arguing over what is a reprisal for what (though you no doubt will think this is an admission that this is an argument I cannot win -- because as you say -- the Palestinians are EVIL).
I suppose you think that Guantanamo works according to international law, when if you knew even a bit of the international conventions, you would surely know that the benefit of the doubt goes toward the status of prisoner of war, as explicitly stated.
As for the Palestinians, of course they're not following the laws of war. There is no doubt in my mind, in many minds, that they are using terrorist tactics. When has someone actually argued differently? They are fighting an occupation. What occupation in all of history could be fought with conventional means, please, enlighten me.
I don't know -- dismissive two-example-and-that-settles-it-obviously attitude plus "ponder that for awhile" did it for me, AC. I did read it again.
Re:My pet peeve's taboo subject: Statutory rape
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Here's another.
In Canada, at least four years ago when I learned this in class (it may have changed, but I doubt it), alcohol could vitiate consent -- for females, but not for males. SO, man and woman, age of majority, get drunk and have sex (oh, that never happens)... she did not legally consent!!! If it goes to court, you could (depending on how reasonable your random judge is) be completely fucked. This strikes me as Charter fodder, but such a case has yet to be decided. Until then, danger Will Robinson.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but such words are no longer strictly attached to their original meanings.
Does the U.S. attack civilian infrastructure, counter to international instruments on the law of war? Yes. Does this fall within the traditional meaning of terrorism? Yes. Is it considered terrorism? Not by the administration -- and most U.S. citizens. Imagine any act being carried out by the U.S. administration and them admitting that what they had done was a "terrorist" act. If you are incapable of imagining that scenario as I am, you will see that words have fully become tools of propaganda. "Our intentions are good" = "not terrorist". "Their intentions are bad" = "terrorist". There really isn't anything more to it than that. Israel is no exception. You can't honestly believe that Palestinians would rather use themselves as human bombs than fight a conventional war, if only they too were fortunate enough to be backed by a major power. If you do believe that, than you live wholly in the realm of rhetoric.
Many unfashionable statements are unfashionable precisely because they are wrong.
Of course, but the majority of human disagreement, and some really vehement stuff, is about stuff that has no objective right or wrong, so labelling and denigrating really does not have a place. The author cops to this, by the way, but notes that the interesting stuff -- the stuff he's talking about, by the way -- is where something is true or possibly true (and thus, still open to debate) but denigrated and stimatized anyway.
I find the "some things are simply true" argument most often used by people who would rather not allow counter-arguments to be considered in issues where the argument is far from settled. This is exactly the author's bailiwick.
The only way out of the cycle is education - but not facts and figures, instead the freedom to think and postulate, debate and conclude. The sort of education that we (at least in the UK) tend to reserve for the 18+ year-olds who go to college.
In undergrad (psych), I remember us learning about a test for fascism. I forget the name of the test, because it was counter-intuitive. Single letter, but not "F" -- like the M-test, or something. Anyway, it measured the degree to which people like to either a) enforce compliance, or equally, if bizarrely, b) be subject of enforced compliance. That sounded a bit sado-masochistic, to me, but today it stands for me as a leading observation about human nature: fascists like command structure, regardless of where they fit in.
Anyway, this had been measured widely over time, and not too surprisingly, despite our "open-minded" modern world (ok, this was 1989 -- not more innocent but a little less jaded), that the scores on this test were rising. People respected authority regardless of what that authority was, and the educational system -- especially pre-university, you're absolutely right -- promoted this kind of blind adherence all the more.
Were I to chuck my career away and ingore money concerns and possibly sanity, I'd love to teach a high school class on critical thinking in a world of closed-minded compliance; a sort of anti-media survival course. I doubt many school boards would welcome it, however.
How do Jews become powerful in every country they have moved to?
For one thing, marginalized peoples usually stick together. This tends to increase dislike by outsiders because those in the group are given "advantages" by each other as their clout grows. The mainstream is too busy competing amongst themselves.
Sure it does, but wouldn't it be great if we could do away with push-button emotional manipulation and actually argue perceived truths?
It's the cousin to the ad-hominem argument. Attacking the arguer by labelling their argument and then imputing some motive or moral defect to the arguer without saying so explicitly. Whether the particulars change or not, I think we could do without it altogether, as it is ever a mechanism of control from above.
I can't say where I work, ah, evilviper, but we're discussing policy issues of the kind you mention. Believe it or not, there are enclaves of sensible folk in government who just want to unravel the bs and make things work fairly. Well, we've been discussing insurance discrimination, and have basically decided that stigma is all historically-based. Sure, new terms/distinctions come into disrepute, but usually these fall along historical lines only. There is no sense to be made of why-this-distinction and why-not-that-one. The courts, too, look at what "demeans human dignity", and this typically is simply a matter of history. Those of us who would like to see away with the sanctification of certain types of discrimination face this as the prime obstacle.
It's not a forbidden word; the meaning has changed. Connotative and denotative meanings are separate and equally valid. If you were unaware of that, you would likely have a difficult time speaking comprehensible English.
Jeez, this is partly what the article was talking about. "Titanic" doesn't mean "immense" to most people anymore. Swastikas are no longer a Buddhist sign of good fortune to many.
Get with the program, holmes.
Re:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were heroes!
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
How about that bullies create vindictive and sometimes violent tendencies in their victims?
Not that the backlash is somehow "ok", but that it wouldn't have happened without the original bullying?
With me so far? Ok, now how about applying that to 9/11?
Indeed, we are all becoming "mixed race". One major issue in aboriginal redress in Canada is who is aboriginal? Do the Metis count? What about a Native uncle on my mother's side? Certainly, skin colour is not the issue.
Wow, you're right. In this discussion of labelling and stifling of dissent, you've certainly closed this complicated issue with your two words of wisdom. Thanks for respecting the other guy's argument.
My uncle had a Volkswagon and it sucked. Therefore, all Volkswagons are bad. Ponder that for awhile, you pompous twit.
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but calling it "reverse" discrimination does make it more acceptable, and this is why they use it.
Hey, whoah, just thought of a doozie that may take your taboo even farther: incest.
My old anthropology prof made a few factually backed-up observations which are not part of popular culture:
1. most cases of incest are consensual brother-sister situations, worldwide 2. the "inbreeding is genetically bad" is actually quite false, and the pigheadedness of the argument probably stems from the taboo, not reasoned debate or observation. He noted that several isolated tribes that had been inbreeding for centuries had the purest genes because malformations did occur with multiplication of genetic flaws... and then those people died off, leaving very few carriers of genetic anomalies. Why do we never hear this argument and evidence?
Therefore 3. Since evolution is not necessarily 100% genetic (ideas can be passed on, too, especially if made rigid customs -- or taboos), the taboo may serve the purpose of idea movement as well as genetic. ie: the spread of new ideas promotes survival.
So, several science fiction authors have imagined futures where incest is not a taboo. Indeed, if not, then it would be some kind of insult to not have sex with family members. Of course, to even imagine it, you have to shed the taboo, and this is even harder than it sounds. You sleeping with your sister? (*thinks about it*) Well, maybe. Me sleep with my sister? No way!!
As a somewhat sheltered child -- and the opposite of what Mr. Graham suggests, that I would be the holder of my society's stereotypes and taboos -- I think many would recognize that their own naivete as children allowed them to question these things -- I always wondered why it made any sense to segregate sports like bowling in the finals. I mean, ok, women supposedly had an advantage for swimming, and we're not going to make women and men complete in weightlifting, but bowling?
It's the double-speak and excuse-making that makes the counter-argument/observation so revelatory, however. That were men and women to complete equally, together in most sports, there would be few awards handed to women, and all of sports would be labelled sexist for that reason alone, because if there are unequal results, then what you've set up must be discriminatory, rather than realizing that there actually exist differences and it may mean that certain groups are better at certain things. Oh no, can't say that.
Freud is another automatic danger zone, but people in the field recognize (or at least have been forced to study and at some time probably admit) that the man had a plethora of ideas, that his most absurd ones arose early in his career and were revised -- how many theorists really do this? -- over time, and that he came up with many ideas that are taken for granted now but seldom credited to him aloud because his name is so synonomous with absurdity or worse.
He also came up with the, still controversial, idea that children are sexual creatures, too -- borne out in human behavioural studies, not old men on park benches, ya suspicious lot.
I was going to agree with the nudity post, above, but of course you pointed out the more fearful underpinning.
That's exactly what I find, misanthrope. And, as a humourous aside, while I find no moral difference between women-haters and man-haters (as indeed, there should be none), a female friend of mine that I like a great deal was making some negative comments and I called her on it. She said that I was a good bit in a bad lot, and I asked her if she meant men. No, no, she says. She meant people. That, misanthrope, I did not find offensive at all. I mean, it wasn't discriminatory.
Communism is another intentionally emotionally-laden word. Growing up in Canada, it seemed to me that it was synonymous in the U.S. with child abuse, and I wondered if people there even knew what it meant.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be clear, by objecting to the vilification of all Palestinians, I in no way endorse their tactics. I never said they were moral. I did quite openly empathize with them, however, as what is an occupied people to do? (but suffer occupation, as you have suggested. Great. Look what peace has gained the Tibetans)
Haven't read a bit of Chomsky on Vietnam, so don't know what his opinions are.
As for the "validity" of any particular tactic, I suppose that depends on what you mean by validity. To the desperate victim of occupation, I suspect that anything that is effective is "valid". To those trying to enforce international law, clearly many effective things are not "valid" (and yet even as a neutral observer in many conflicts, it seems patently obvious that the laws of war favour the side with the upper hand, if one has it). And to a participating side that has obvious advantages, nothing but strict adherence to code is "valid".
Well, we've seen what the States thinks of international law when the bully takes the wildly unexpected blow. Like any bully, they go a little crazy and overcompensate and the innocent suffer along with the guilty. The States has never in modern times been faced with the kind of desperate choices faced by many other peoples in war. Americans can talk glibly of "collateral damage" never having been the invaded rather than the invader. Judging from their behaviour when they have the upper hand, I would make no assurances whatsoever about their respect for the laws of war were they not to have it.
I'm not sure I would consider revolution to be the same situation as fighting an occupation. And what may have been even remotely even-handed has become wildly one-sided with American backing (back to Palestine-Israel). Last I heard, Israel had tested a robot capable of a pinning a suicide bomber. Not that I expect people should be eager to greet one in the flesh, but it does chill me to think that it has become so one-sided that not even human opponents may be faced. We stopped counting the suicide as one of the "victims" of any tragedy a long time ago. They never even factor into the body count anymore, like what they threw away was worthless, because they must be mad, not simply desperate. I hope that we in the fortunate west need never find out what desperation can drive us to do. Rational, privileged people do seemingly crazy things like join charisma cults. Occupation, murder, and war would drive us to what ends?
I simply dislike the visualization of Israel-Palestine as one-sided morally. That seems to be the brush you want to paint me with, but I only see one of us painting it that way.
I was good enough to go "amateur" pro, and I can honestly say that it isn't because I whacked the hell out of those pins. It surely seems one sport where precision counts as much. Well, there's curling, I suppose, or pool. They segregate chess, then, don't they?
Excellent observation, Joe.
Not sure about incest being the next frontier, though. Even in progressive circles, it's... well, it's still got a full-force taboo going. Rational debate about genetics (or lack of procreation) won't take away the distaste of a world-wide taboo that clearly must have arisen for some originally functional purpose, whatever that may have been.
You make me imagine an interesting scenario, though it's doubtful one so clear will emerge. Educated, level-headed, conservative (just for maximum effect) brother and sister face charges for incest. They make, not an impassioned, but a reasoned plea: tell us what we did wrong, and why, and we'll repent. Well, it's just wrong says society and the court. But why? Well, it just is -- I mean, ick. But why?
An underground fetish? Really? Well maybe if not the next frontier, one not too far along... Was just reading a Dan Savage bit about a brother and sister who for one reason or another ended up in bed, and after so much time together, sex just hasn't been as good with anyone else, so what are they to do? If it makes it into mainstream consciousness at all, it will be demonized for some time before anything else, I think. America particularly seems to have no bones about violence, but sex of even the Puritan kind...
Hell, there are far worse examples than this, and while the Supreme Court (Canada) likes to use "demeaning human dignity" as some kind of objective-person-test, it is obviously a crapshoot. I don't know how many cases I've read where the Court is talking about some marginalized immigrant and saying, basically: "If I were you, (speaking as a member of the majority), I wouldn't be offended."
So as I said, what usually ends up happening is division along historical lines -- and quite explicitly, here, on the side only of groups historically subject to disadvantage. So as a fellow was saying to me today -- what is your dignity worth as an individual. Not much unless we can slot you into one of various groups. So again, what is it worth as an individual?
Thanks, I study the law of war as part of how I make my living, and "dual use" has as long a history as "illegal combatants" -- that is, the U.S. makes convenient use of terms to avoid what historically would be defined quite differently.
It is unfortunate that you buy the party line hook and sinker. Attacking water supplies and electrical grids are not "dual use" because the military also depends on these things. If that were the case, nothing would be purely civilian, would it? The modern army knows that these are the surest ways to break a civilization, but that is not supposed to matter. They are supposed to be off-limits. In Sarajevo, historical sites were bombed in a similarly illegal fashion. Great demoralizer. Completely illegal.
This is nothing but an extention of rhetoric the likes of which took place regarding Pearl Harbour - an attack on a military base which nonetheless is attacked uniformly in the states as cowardly and against the "code" -- and punishable by two atomic bombs killing civilians and military alike. This is what happens when definitions do not fit the bully's position; they get redefined. Try looking beyond the party line and obvious rhetoric. I would have thought them obvious enough.
As for the "evil of the Palestinians" -- way to smear an entire people. How many brothers or sisters would you lose to murder before you became a zealot? Not many, I would guess. There's a reason why Israeli officers were refusing to serve in the occupied territories, unofficially confirming some of the worst fears about treatment there, and it had nothing to do with proportioned reponses to military personnel. One of the evils of terrorism is that it blurs the line between military and civilian, intentionally, but that makes it easy for opponents to paint a broad picture of military means and use, the way it was done in Vietnam, the way it was done just now in your response. But expecting anything else from the Palestinians at this point is like expecting something different from the VC. If they could wage conventional war, if they had the means, you think they'd be making human bombs instead? Terrorism is the last resort of the hopelessly desperate. Sooner or later they were going to realize that throwing rocks at well armed soldiers was not doing the job. If you read even a little Chomsky (and check his facts of course), you'll know that over the last few decades, the Palestinians have on numerous occasions made offers along the lines suggested by various neutral bodies, and that these offerings were roundly rejected (and if you believe some reports, followed by greatly increased bloodshed) by Israel. Why? You tell me. It would appear that they do not want the existence of Palestine in any form and are willing to continue the killing to prevent it.
But I have no wish to get dragged into a Middle Eastern debate with you. Too easy and too deep a hole. There is no point in arguing over what is a reprisal for what (though you no doubt will think this is an admission that this is an argument I cannot win -- because as you say -- the Palestinians are EVIL).
I suppose you think that Guantanamo works according to international law, when if you knew even a bit of the international conventions, you would surely know that the benefit of the doubt goes toward the status of prisoner of war, as explicitly stated.
As for the Palestinians, of course they're not following the laws of war. There is no doubt in my mind, in many minds, that they are using terrorist tactics. When has someone actually argued differently? They are fighting an occupation. What occupation in all of history could be fought with conventional means, please, enlighten me.
two male friends confess to me that they like thin girls. They find it attractive. They felt the need to confess it, in whispers.
I don't know -- dismissive two-example-and-that-settles-it-obviously attitude plus "ponder that for awhile" did it for me, AC. I did read it again.
Here's another.
In Canada, at least four years ago when I learned this in class (it may have changed, but I doubt it), alcohol could vitiate consent -- for females, but not for males. SO, man and woman, age of majority, get drunk and have sex (oh, that never happens)... she did not legally consent!!! If it goes to court, you could (depending on how reasonable your random judge is) be completely fucked. This strikes me as Charter fodder, but such a case has yet to be decided. Until then, danger Will Robinson.
I'm sorry, but such words are no longer strictly attached to their original meanings.
Does the U.S. attack civilian infrastructure, counter to international instruments on the law of war? Yes. Does this fall within the traditional meaning of terrorism? Yes. Is it considered terrorism? Not by the administration -- and most U.S. citizens. Imagine any act being carried out by the U.S. administration and them admitting that what they had done was a "terrorist" act. If you are incapable of imagining that scenario as I am, you will see that words have fully become tools of propaganda. "Our intentions are good" = "not terrorist". "Their intentions are bad" = "terrorist". There really isn't anything more to it than that. Israel is no exception. You can't honestly believe that Palestinians would rather use themselves as human bombs than fight a conventional war, if only they too were fortunate enough to be backed by a major power. If you do believe that, than you live wholly in the realm of rhetoric.
Many unfashionable statements are unfashionable precisely because they are wrong.
Of course, but the majority of human disagreement, and some really vehement stuff, is about stuff that has no objective right or wrong, so labelling and denigrating really does not have a place. The author cops to this, by the way, but notes that the interesting stuff -- the stuff he's talking about, by the way -- is where something is true or possibly true (and thus, still open to debate) but denigrated and stimatized anyway.
I find the "some things are simply true" argument most often used by people who would rather not allow counter-arguments to be considered in issues where the argument is far from settled. This is exactly the author's bailiwick.
The only way out of the cycle is education - but not facts and figures, instead the freedom to think and postulate, debate and conclude. The sort of education that we (at least in the UK) tend to reserve for the 18+ year-olds who go to college.
In undergrad (psych), I remember us learning about a test for fascism. I forget the name of the test, because it was counter-intuitive. Single letter, but not "F" -- like the M-test, or something. Anyway, it measured the degree to which people like to either a) enforce compliance, or equally, if bizarrely, b) be subject of enforced compliance. That sounded a bit sado-masochistic, to me, but today it stands for me as a leading observation about human nature: fascists like command structure, regardless of where they fit in.
Anyway, this had been measured widely over time, and not too surprisingly, despite our "open-minded" modern world (ok, this was 1989 -- not more innocent but a little less jaded), that the scores on this test were rising. People respected authority regardless of what that authority was, and the educational system -- especially pre-university, you're absolutely right -- promoted this kind of blind adherence all the more.
Were I to chuck my career away and ingore money concerns and possibly sanity, I'd love to teach a high school class on critical thinking in a world of closed-minded compliance; a sort of anti-media survival course. I doubt many school boards would welcome it, however.
How do Jews become powerful in every country they have moved to?
For one thing, marginalized peoples usually stick together. This tends to increase dislike by outsiders because those in the group are given "advantages" by each other as their clout grows. The mainstream is too busy competing amongst themselves.
No, I'm not Jewish, either.
Sure it does, but wouldn't it be great if we could do away with push-button emotional manipulation and actually argue perceived truths?
It's the cousin to the ad-hominem argument. Attacking the arguer by labelling their argument and then imputing some motive or moral defect to the arguer without saying so explicitly. Whether the particulars change or not, I think we could do without it altogether, as it is ever a mechanism of control from above.
THEIR PET???
"Come along, my pet. We'll get you fixed up soon." Would that be ok?
I don't I like the idea of a suffering loved one waiting while somebody's schnauzer gets a proper diagnosis.
I can't say where I work, ah, evilviper, but we're discussing policy issues of the kind you mention. Believe it or not, there are enclaves of sensible folk in government who just want to unravel the bs and make things work fairly. Well, we've been discussing insurance discrimination, and have basically decided that stigma is all historically-based. Sure, new terms/distinctions come into disrepute, but usually these fall along historical lines only. There is no sense to be made of why-this-distinction and why-not-that-one. The courts, too, look at what "demeans human dignity", and this typically is simply a matter of history. Those of us who would like to see away with the sanctification of certain types of discrimination face this as the prime obstacle.
It's not a forbidden word; the meaning has changed. Connotative and denotative meanings are separate and equally valid. If you were unaware of that, you would likely have a difficult time speaking comprehensible English.
Jeez, this is partly what the article was talking about. "Titanic" doesn't mean "immense" to most people anymore. Swastikas are no longer a Buddhist sign of good fortune to many.
Get with the program, holmes.
How about that bullies create vindictive and sometimes violent tendencies in their victims?
Not that the backlash is somehow "ok", but that it wouldn't have happened without the original bullying?
With me so far? Ok, now how about applying that to 9/11?
Indeed, we are all becoming "mixed race". One major issue in aboriginal redress in Canada is who is aboriginal? Do the Metis count? What about a Native uncle on my mother's side? Certainly, skin colour is not the issue.
Two words for you to consider: Michael Jackson.
Wow, you're right. In this discussion of labelling and stifling of dissent, you've certainly closed this complicated issue with your two words of wisdom. Thanks for respecting the other guy's argument.
My uncle had a Volkswagon and it sucked. Therefore, all Volkswagons are bad. Ponder that for awhile, you pompous twit.
Ah, but calling it "reverse" discrimination does make it more acceptable, and this is why they use it.
Hey, whoah, just thought of a doozie that may take your taboo even farther: incest.
My old anthropology prof made a few factually backed-up observations which are not part of popular culture:
1. most cases of incest are consensual brother-sister situations, worldwide
2. the "inbreeding is genetically bad" is actually quite false, and the pigheadedness of the argument probably stems from the taboo, not reasoned debate or observation. He noted that several isolated tribes that had been inbreeding for centuries had the purest genes because malformations did occur with multiplication of genetic flaws... and then those people died off, leaving very few carriers of genetic anomalies. Why do we never hear this argument and evidence?
Therefore 3. Since evolution is not necessarily 100% genetic (ideas can be passed on, too, especially if made rigid customs -- or taboos), the taboo may serve the purpose of idea movement as well as genetic. ie: the spread of new ideas promotes survival.
So, several science fiction authors have imagined futures where incest is not a taboo. Indeed, if not, then it would be some kind of insult to not have sex with family members. Of course, to even imagine it, you have to shed the taboo, and this is even harder than it sounds. You sleeping with your sister? (*thinks about it*) Well, maybe. Me sleep with my sister? No way!!
As a somewhat sheltered child -- and the opposite of what Mr. Graham suggests, that I would be the holder of my society's stereotypes and taboos -- I think many would recognize that their own naivete as children allowed them to question these things -- I always wondered why it made any sense to segregate sports like bowling in the finals. I mean, ok, women supposedly had an advantage for swimming, and we're not going to make women and men complete in weightlifting, but bowling?
It's the double-speak and excuse-making that makes the counter-argument/observation so revelatory, however. That were men and women to complete equally, together in most sports, there would be few awards handed to women, and all of sports would be labelled sexist for that reason alone, because if there are unequal results, then what you've set up must be discriminatory, rather than realizing that there actually exist differences and it may mean that certain groups are better at certain things. Oh no, can't say that.
heh. someone I know pointed out the strange fact that it is acceptable to tell people that you are hungry, but not horny!
Freud is another automatic danger zone, but people in the field recognize (or at least have been forced to study and at some time probably admit) that the man had a plethora of ideas, that his most absurd ones arose early in his career and were revised -- how many theorists really do this? -- over time, and that he came up with many ideas that are taken for granted now but seldom credited to him aloud because his name is so synonomous with absurdity or worse.
He also came up with the, still controversial, idea that children are sexual creatures, too -- borne out in human behavioural studies, not old men on park benches, ya suspicious lot.
I was going to agree with the nudity post, above, but of course you pointed out the more fearful underpinning.
That's exactly what I find, misanthrope. And, as a humourous aside, while I find no moral difference between women-haters and man-haters (as indeed, there should be none), a female friend of mine that I like a great deal was making some negative comments and I called her on it. She said that I was a good bit in a bad lot, and I asked her if she meant men. No, no, she says. She meant people. That, misanthrope, I did not find offensive at all. I mean, it wasn't discriminatory.
Communism is another intentionally emotionally-laden word. Growing up in Canada, it seemed to me that it was synonymous in the U.S. with child abuse, and I wondered if people there even knew what it meant.