You're talking about the term. I'm talking about the thing itself, which predates the stupid politically invented slur. That isn't really a correction.
Except that skin colour is the most obvious indicators of race. It's not 100% definitive, but it does give a lot of information.
Note: I'm not trying to call you racist, but please note that this, is in fact, a subtle judgement of people on the basis of their skin color. Whether you intended it or not, it's there. It's this kind of thing that PC language is attempting to draw attention to and avoid.
I won't argue that words aren't complex. But there being neutral words associated with the color black doesn't alter the fact that the definitions of the word black, in the English dictionary, includes this entry: connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil. That's a hell of a thing to attach to a whole group of people, even incidentally. There's also more than just connotations to consider, though. That was only part of the idea that I happened to bring up for the sake of brevity. It also reduces the cultural notion race to an approximation of skin color.
Also, if Assad wanted balanced coverage, maybe he should have let reporters into the country to cover things. Stonewalling and only providing "official reports" makes it look like you have something to hide.
I've tried watching RT's coverage of things, and if you thing Western media is biased, you ain't seen nothing yet. They called the uprising against (unelected) president Assad an anti-democratic rebellion payed for by the U.S. over a year ago.
And during the presidential election(after the primaries), they treated Ron Paul as a front-running candidate. It was bizarre. Beyond bizarre.
Watching Al Jazeera or BBC gives you a clear sense of a non-american perspective on things, some bias but on the whole attempting to report honestly, but RT is like Cold War era Pravda in video form.
Yeah, even clever twitter hacks that post satire of the kind of thing the original account posts doesn't sway those already in agreement with it. This blandly shouting about how wrong the BBC is is just boring. It's a phone call to twitter HQ and a password reset away from being resolved too.
No really. That seems like the sort of thing that, in the U.S. might just happen to have a constitutional limitation that the courts might just invoke. I'd love to see a court case where a judge ruled that "non-PC" speech was somehow a violation of a federal or state statute.
I'm not saying it wouldn't ever be brought up in court: It could be relevant character evidence in another crime, so I'm not looking for examples of that, but of any sort of standing conviction that isn't completely made up.
It's not really though. The original intent of political correctness was to provide a way for people to be self-critical about the subtle biases that they engage in when they speak.
When you say "black" as a description of someone, for example, your description carries with it connotations that aren't necessarily true, especially since in western culture the word black is historically associated with evil(i.e. black magic, black death, black mark, blacklist, etc.). Political correctness has never been legally forced on anyone, and it's a straw-man to call it "forcing" people to do things. The social judgement people get for failing to be politically correct is no different than the judgement that people get for being rude.
I won't say political correctness has never been about people being offended, because many people invoking the concept have as poor an understanding of it as you do, but that's not the point.
I was just reading up on corruption of blood the other day. There's one exception that been approved by courts to be constitutional, though it's only in place in Texas: if you kill someone, neither you nor your progeny may inherit from that person.
But we're not North Korea, and we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents(other than the crime of being poor).
That's true, but only because it helps them maintain their ability to sell the processed results of that data: your ad target-ability. If their partners knew what they knew, there's no reason to keep using adsense, you could go to any internet advertiser.
I keep saying this, but it was officially recorded in the Republican platform in 2000 that invading Iraq was something they wanted. If anything 9-11 delayed their plans. Only people who weren't paying attention didn't know it was going to happen.
Then again, it was harder to pay attention when the party platforms weren't just something you could grab off the Internet.
Your criticizing 2(Egypt, Tunisia) successful peaceful changes of power to fledgling democracies on the grounds that there was another that wasn't peaceful and another that wasn't successful or peaceful?
Or are you angry at the results of democracy in Egypt?
Something more specific that I'm missing?
It's hard to compare that to Iraq where every major claim the Bush administration(and the media) were making turned out to be quite literally the opposite of reality.
You may not remember these claims that were common by war cheerleaders: Claim: "It will pay for itself." Reality: The war cost 6 trillion dollars Claim: "It will take less than a week." Reality: 9 years Claim: "Actively pursuing chemical weapons." Reality: not even a hint of evidence to that effect Claim: "Collaborating with al qaeda." Reality: Hussein was actively suppressing islamist movements in Iraq. Claim: "Greeted as liberators." Reality: A few staged photo shoots to that effect.
I mean, I can't think of a single true thing that was said by a pro-war speaker before the war, with the exception of one thing that stuck with me that bush said the night of the Invasion, slightly paraphrasing from imperfect memory: "This won't be like the wars Americans are used to. American soldiers will die." Fucking dead on for once.
"Member of slashdot terrorist organization involved in rocket terror attack on local police more at 11. Police say subject resisted arrest by repeatedly pepper spraying himself"
Slashdot Mirror
My work blocks adblockplus. For who knows what reason.
I'm given to understand taxes are of no value to balancing budgets.
If you don't shell and shoot reporters, who are you going to shell and shoot? I mean besides your own disenfranchised people.
You're talking about the term. I'm talking about the thing itself, which predates the stupid politically invented slur. That isn't really a correction.
Boring. Troll more interestingly next time.
Except that skin colour is the most obvious indicators of race. It's not 100% definitive, but it does give a lot of information.
Note: I'm not trying to call you racist, but please note that this, is in fact, a subtle judgement of people on the basis of their skin color. Whether you intended it or not, it's there. It's this kind of thing that PC language is attempting to draw attention to and avoid.
I won't argue that words aren't complex. But there being neutral words associated with the color black doesn't alter the fact that the definitions of the word black, in the English dictionary, includes this entry: connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil. That's a hell of a thing to attach to a whole group of people, even incidentally.
There's also more than just connotations to consider, though. That was only part of the idea that I happened to bring up for the sake of brevity. It also reduces the cultural notion race to an approximation of skin color.
The "anti-democratic" part + the unelected part, eh? That's... pretty anti-reality.
Also, if Assad wanted balanced coverage, maybe he should have let reporters into the country to cover things. Stonewalling and only providing "official reports" makes it look like you have something to hide.
I've tried watching RT's coverage of things, and if you thing Western media is biased, you ain't seen nothing yet. They called the uprising against (unelected) president Assad an anti-democratic rebellion payed for by the U.S. over a year ago.
And during the presidential election(after the primaries), they treated Ron Paul as a front-running candidate. It was bizarre. Beyond bizarre.
Watching Al Jazeera or BBC gives you a clear sense of a non-american perspective on things, some bias but on the whole attempting to report honestly, but RT is like Cold War era Pravda in video form.
Yeah, even clever twitter hacks that post satire of the kind of thing the original account posts doesn't sway those already in agreement with it. This blandly shouting about how wrong the BBC is is just boring. It's a phone call to twitter HQ and a password reset away from being resolved too.
[citation needed]
No really. That seems like the sort of thing that, in the U.S. might just happen to have a constitutional limitation that the courts might just invoke. I'd love to see a court case where a judge ruled that "non-PC" speech was somehow a violation of a federal or state statute.
I'm not saying it wouldn't ever be brought up in court: It could be relevant character evidence in another crime, so I'm not looking for examples of that, but of any sort of standing conviction that isn't completely made up.
Oh, you're right. Texas is the exception that doesn't have a slayer rule. I guess that's a lesson about trying to regurgitate things from memory.
It's not really though. The original intent of political correctness was to provide a way for people to be self-critical about the subtle biases that they engage in when they speak.
When you say "black" as a description of someone, for example, your description carries with it connotations that aren't necessarily true, especially since in western culture the word black is historically associated with evil(i.e. black magic, black death, black mark, blacklist, etc.). Political correctness has never been legally forced on anyone, and it's a straw-man to call it "forcing" people to do things. The social judgement people get for failing to be politically correct is no different than the judgement that people get for being rude.
I won't say political correctness has never been about people being offended, because many people invoking the concept have as poor an understanding of it as you do, but that's not the point.
I was just reading up on corruption of blood the other day. There's one exception that been approved by courts to be constitutional, though it's only in place in Texas: if you kill someone, neither you nor your progeny may inherit from that person.
But we're not North Korea, and we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents(other than the crime of being poor).
And, as the article discusses, he was trying to pull them out before the worst of the pointless bloodshed got started.
That's true, but only because it helps them maintain their ability to sell the processed results of that data: your ad target-ability. If their partners knew what they knew, there's no reason to keep using adsense, you could go to any internet advertiser.
Uh, that's an awful long post to not have read the second half of my first sentence.
That's fair. And my hyperbole wasn't entirely warranted.
I keep saying this, but it was officially recorded in the Republican platform in 2000 that invading Iraq was something they wanted. If anything 9-11 delayed their plans. Only people who weren't paying attention didn't know it was going to happen.
Then again, it was harder to pay attention when the party platforms weren't just something you could grab off the Internet.
Your criticizing 2(Egypt, Tunisia) successful peaceful changes of power to fledgling democracies on the grounds that there was another that wasn't peaceful and another that wasn't successful or peaceful?
Or are you angry at the results of democracy in Egypt?
Something more specific that I'm missing?
It's hard to compare that to Iraq where every major claim the Bush administration(and the media) were making turned out to be quite literally the opposite of reality.
You may not remember these claims that were common by war cheerleaders:
Claim: "It will pay for itself." Reality: The war cost 6 trillion dollars
Claim: "It will take less than a week." Reality: 9 years
Claim: "Actively pursuing chemical weapons." Reality: not even a hint of evidence to that effect
Claim: "Collaborating with al qaeda." Reality: Hussein was actively suppressing islamist movements in Iraq.
Claim: "Greeted as liberators." Reality: A few staged photo shoots to that effect.
I mean, I can't think of a single true thing that was said by a pro-war speaker before the war, with the exception of one thing that stuck with me that bush said the night of the Invasion, slightly paraphrasing from imperfect memory: "This won't be like the wars Americans are used to. American soldiers will die." Fucking dead on for once.
Remind me of all the murders Gates is responsible for. I get we don't like Microsoft much.
Owning most of the most successful software company in history?
"Member of slashdot terrorist organization involved in rocket terror attack on local police more at 11. Police say subject resisted arrest by repeatedly pepper spraying himself"
I wasn't trying to contravene your point, just inform.