It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The American of today, in fact, probably enjoys less personal liberty than any other man of Christendom, and even his political liberty is fast succumbing to the new dogma that certain theories of government are virtuous and lawful, and others abhorrent and felonious. Laws limiting the radius of his free activity multiply year by year: It is now practically impossible for him to exhibit anything describable as genuine individuality, either in action or in thought, without running afoul of some harsh and unintelligible penalty. It would surprise no impartial observer if the motto “In God we trust” were one day expunged from the coins of the republic by the Junkers at Washington, and the far more appropriate word, “verboten,” substituted. Nor would it astound any save the most romantic if, at the same time, the goddess of liberty were taken off the silver dollars to make room for a bas-relief of a policeman in a spiked helmet. Moreover, this gradual (and, of late, rapidly progressive) decay of freedom goes almost without challenge; the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights and to the minute regulation of his conduct by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that he no longer makes any serious protest. The American Credo: A Contribution toward the Interpretation of the National Mind (1920)
originally posted by: Diderot
Political correctness has long been a weapon of the left to attack the right. Speech codes at universities, for example, have punished traditional viewpoints, and have stifled long held ideals. It might mean that any given insurgent minority is now fighting for dominance, and dominance means the suppression of the weak. In 2014 it seems that things have changed, and there are now others who fly the banner of political correctness. Who are they? They are those on the political right who might be offended, or outraged by the suggestion that their opinion might be colored (pardon the pun) by matters of race. Since our venue is ATS, it is not reasonable for me to accuse any poster of being a racial bigot. I have seen no poster that convinces me of that. Back to the point. In 2014, it now seems politically incorrect to accuse anyone on the right of possibly being racially biased. Progress can be measured by the fact that today every bigot strives to show that he is not a bigot. My question to those on the right, is whether you admit that you are being just as PC as those on the left.
p.s. I understand that this is somewhat of a Molotov cocktail.
big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\ : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
tautology, noun : needless or meaningless repetition in close succession of an idea, statement, or word
Let's be honest about political correctness
originally posted by: Diderot
My question to those on the right, is whether you admit that you are being just as PC as those on the left.
originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: MarlinGrace
You're probably right about the nuclear potential of my thread, but we all know how important it is.
The issue of pay disparity in the WH stems from an inaccurate comparison of job positions. Also I am not aware of any female employees that have spoken out, or have sued under the Lily Ledbetter law. As far as there being a political war on women, I think that it is helpful to see how women vote. A majority of women in 2014 vote against the Republicans.
What really gets me about the whole PC thing is that whomever is "called out" for being offensive (or non-PC), usually starts crying like a baby, wailing about "free speech", as if the government is making laws against their opinions. As if they should be able to say WHATEVER nasty thing they like in a diverse society and suffer no consequences whatsoever.
We ALL have the right to be offensive! We all have the right to be mean or say things that are less than polite. And when someone calls us out, we should take it and own it, instead of crying about PC or free speech. If you want to be nasty and offensive, go ahead! But there WILL be people who will point it out. There will be consequences. If you speak in public in a derogatory manner against black people, you MAY lose your job. That's just the results of living in a society of people where courtesy and politeness are still valued.
originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: MarlinGrace
A WH disclosure agreement might serve to muzzle dissent, but these statements are now the law of the land. By that I mean that they are everywhere, in every institution public and private, and they are the creation of lawyers. Also I believe that if there is or was a significant issue of pay disparity in the Obama WH, then you would see at least one ex-worker talking about it. I don't think that any disclosure agreement would stop them from going to Fox News. I may be wrong, though.