Changing definitions to control debate and opposition. An unsettling trend.

I am starting to see it more and more. It’s getting to the point that it is almost comical. They wall off the limits of their thought, and public debate by changing the definition of what is “publicly acceptable”

It comes with subjective definitions like “hate crime”. What does a “hate crime” law exactly outlaw? Well that depends on what ever the people in power want to call a hate crime at the time. That is the terrible danger of such laws. They almost beg to be abused.

I saw that problem coming from a long way off. But that is just the starting point. The comical part is where they literally start redefining age old definitions to stifle debate. You have seen it on many media outlets, and websites, including this one. You know the definition I am talking about.

If you bring up a specified religion, and the problems with it, you are automatically labeled a racist. You see it on the news and everywhere. The implication that discussion of a religion is racist, is subjectively asinine. Yet I see such implications almost every time the subject is brought up.

When I turn on France24, they talk about the Turk protest. They have a whole segment on the protest, but they can’t even objectively detail why the protest is even happening because the walls they have built in their perception prevent them from even understanding the situation.

It is designed to control the type of argument that your opposition can use against you in the court of public opinion, and in the court of law. For, if telling the truth is a hate crime, then how can you defend your side in the court of law?

It is OK to classify groups of people as “worthless uneducated inbreeds” when you are talking about “worthless southerners” or “stupid Christians” or those “evil nationalist”. That goes for almost any other religious or cultural group. If you are a part of those groups, then it’s perfectly OK to classify all of the group based on the actions of just one or two of that group.

Yet, there is a limited set of protected groups, that can have their members do almost anything, and yet you can’t use those actions to judge the rest of the group. It if is a pot smoking hippie, or a mad screaming jihadi, that goes on a killing spree, then it’s just a poor disturbed individual. If you say different then you are a racist that is trying to incite racial hatred.

But if a flag waving bible reading man shoots someone in the name of god, then it’s a sign of how extreme the religious right wing has become.

To see where that leads look at France.
They want to prosecute the opposition leader for racist hate speech, when the statement she made was not racist in any working definition of logic. They don’t like what she is saying, but what she is saying doesn’t break any laws. So just change the definition of the law to make it illegal.

The irony in that situation is they are saying that her comments about a group of people based on what they believe is racist, and reflect on how bad the group of people is that she is a member of. So, in one breath, they do the exact same thing they are accusing her of. Yet, what they say is perfectly fine, and what she said is illegal. The cognitive dissidence in that situation just makes my brain hurt.

All this is very dangerous. The reason is the people implementing it thinks it will continue to work without any limits.

The problem is, there is limits. People at large know what is happening but they are just ignoring it because it is easer that calling it out. But there is a limit. The plant analogy comes to mind. You can try to teach a plant how to live without water. It seems to work good at first, it continues to work great…. Right up until the time the plant dies.

You can change definitions so far before everything breaks down. Reality becomes so distorted that people can’t handle it any more. Even the stupidest people in the country can see how the laws and the application of those laws are completely asinine.

When you reach that point, then you create a condition like that, you create a powder keg. When you make the peaceful resolution of a problem impossible, then you make a violent resolution inevitable.

You make the peaceful resolution impossible by making it illegal to even discuss the problem. Pretty soon, the laws become so insane that the population will revolt against those laws.

The imposition of the ever tighter choker of political correctness on public speech will inevitably lead to violent conflict. It is a natural logical progression.

That is why I see the continuing trend to be very unsettling It’s result is obvious, and deadly..

Nothing new here.

Orwell called it newspeak.

It was propagated by the Ministry of Truth.

It was enforced by Thinkpol (the Thought Police).

Orwell wasn't warning us. He was thumbing his nose at us.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


Try being critical of the Obama Administration.

Freedom of expression has become a joke anymore.

reply to post by Mr Tranny

To see where that leads look at France. They want to prosecute the opposition leader for racist hate speech, when the statement she made was not racist in any working definition of logic. They don’t like what she is saying, but what she is saying doesn’t break any laws. So just change the definition of the law to make it illegal.

Your one specific example isn't even sourced, and I can't find what they actually said.

While yes, PC is definitely getting a little out of hand. You have to look at history. White Christians have had an easy ride and have been in charge, and still are, for a long time. There's a difference between poking fun at them, versus targeting a minority group with hate filled words.
I don't think you people realize how much of a stain on history racism really is. That's why saying things about certain ethnicities is much different from making fun of some of the stupid things christians do.

We can make fun of these groups, because there's not a history of hate towards them. Making fun of groups that have had a history of hate towards them looks very wrong if not done perfectly or by a comedian.

Do you understand the difference now?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Try being critical of the Obama Administration.

Freedom of expression has become a joke anymore.

I know right? You can't call someone a "Kenyan Marxist" without being called a racist in turn.
It's such a hard-knock life, for us!

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Try being critical of the Obama Administration.

Freedom of expression has become a joke anymore.

I know right? You can't call someone a "Kenyan Marxist" without being called a racist in turn.
It's such a hard-knock life, for us!

Thank you for providing a perfect example of knee-jerk hyperbole.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Your one specific example isn't even sourced, and I can't find what they actually said.

It isn’t hard to find…
www.dw.de...

Last year, prosecutors from France's eastern city of Lyon asked the EP to override Le Pen's right to immunity - which is traditionally granted to all members of parliament - in light of a case claiming that she had incited racial hatred in a speech.

An anti-racism group is seeking charges to be brought against Le Pen for remarks she made at a 2010 rally in which she had compared the Muslim presence in France to that of the Nazi's in the early 1940s.

It may incite hatred, but not racial hatred. There was nothing racial about it.


It is kind of like what they are talking about on ATS live right now.

They are systematically grouping everyone in the EDL under one big roof and condemning all of them as racist bigots, yet, if they swapped the word EDL with Muslim, then they would be saying hate speech.

Notice how they are using a particular distinction. Just isolated people in Islam, while it’s all of the EDL that are bad.
That is what I mean.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

Try being critical of the Obama Administration.

Freedom of expression has become a joke anymore.

I know right? You can't call someone a "Kenyan Marxist" without being called a racist in turn.
It's such a hard-knock life, for us!

hardy har har har.... you had to throw in the kenyan part didn't you....?


If you accept repression of speech as just one of those hard knocks in life that you have to accept because of your skin color or religious group, then you are accepting the chains that they give you to wear. You are accepting your oppression

They use the pretense of you oppressing people to force you to accept being repressed so you don’t feel like you are being racist.

And, speak of the …. They are cutting down the racist southern rednecks on ATS live again. While talking about people being racist against a religion…. The irony, it burns.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


OP. Have you noticed the growing attitude of "It's for thee, not for me" mentality growing globally?

As an example; I am critical of Obama. I have been since my guy Alan Keyes ran against him in the Illinois Senate.

I've written numerous articles and op-ed pieces in various places.

Initially I was called a racist. They refused to argue issues and attacked me for attacking the (then Senator) Obama because he was black.

Later I was "outed" as being Mulatto, yet the name calling went from "racist" to Uncle Tom, House ********.
No debate on the issues.

In Germany, in some areas, if you were against the EU, names were called. Anachronistic, militant.

It's seems as if it is the globalists or large party folks that have free reign on name calling and it is the minority ( ) who get called out if they even attempt to categorise.

reply to post by beezzer


Yes... It’s called “using the sensibilities of your enemy against them”

You know they take such charges seriously. Their moral compass will restrict them from doing such things for fear of being “evil”

But you have no such compunction. So you use the threat against them, but you have no inhibition from using those very same generalizations you accuse the others of. That is because you reject such an idea of a moral compass. For everything is subjective to you. You think their adherence to such a moral compass is stupid, so you will use their own “stupid” sensibilities against them.

You use those tactics to maximum effect while preventing your opponent from using those same tactics. It’s hard to lose in such a situation.

You can either do it knowingly. Or you can do it out of habit because the double standard has been learned as “normal” because of being around the people that knowingly do it. It’s double think at it’s finest.

If they say "Muslim", it is not racist, just prejudicial.

If they say "Arab", that is indeed racist.

When one is trying to infer one term by using the other, that is ignorance. Unless they are referring to only Arab Muslims, in which case they should state that and use both terms - they are not synonymous.

(And seriously, did she just Godwin the topic of immigration? )

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
When one is trying to infer one term by using the other, that is ignorance.

Ignorance can only be claimed until you are properly told the difference. The thing is…. Even after they are corrected, they will still fall back to the racist argument and just act like they didn’t hear your correction in the first place after a little bit.

That tells me that it’s not ignorance, it’s intentional.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


Yes, willful ignorance.

Cognitive dissonance is a two-edged sword ... in some cases it may cause a person to question themselves and seek further truth, and in other (most?) cases it causes them to dig in even deeper.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


I often hear such things discussed in terms of someone being an extremist, fundamentalist Christian, or an extremist fundamentalist Muslim, etc., but rarely have I seen or heard such things perpetrated by an individual or small minority automatically applied to a wide group, except with Muslims and Jews. (full disclosure, I am a Christian myself)

I do understand what you're referring to, and there does seem to be more of a push to describe groups this way based on individual's actions, however, the focus on such seems to be kinda opposite what you see it as.

reply to post by dogstar23


That statement would be funny, if it wasn’t for the media, and the left at large constantly doing just that.
(Blaming the conservative movement at large.)

www.politicususa.com...
“Behind Their Patriotic Disguise The Tea Party Behaves Like The American Taliban”

latftp.com...
“Look At This F###ing Tea Partier”

www.breitbart.com...
“The Usual Suspects: ABC's Ross, Stephanopoulos Point to Tea Party in Dark Knight Shooting”

www.theblaze.com...
“Here are 6 Moments Where the Media has Wrongly Blamed Conservatives (and the Tea Party) for Violence”

And keep in mind, all those major attacks were finally proven to NOT be right wing extremists. Think of how the media would have covered it, if they were right wing extremists.

Just look around the web, you will find countless legions of democrat sites where they are implying the actions of one member is a statement for the whole conservative/republican group.

Like the thread on this very site where they took an interview of one very drunk EDL member and tried to imply that that is the rank and file EDL member.

It’s almost pathetic to even have to point out something so obvious..

reply to post by Mr Tranny


Here's one for ya... spontaneous abortion.

It drives me nuts I tell ya

Thanks for sharing.
It could be said that there is no actual changing of definitions in some cases as alternatives are not provided - not only that, but theyre not needed when the terms are emotionally charged...the more ambiguous the better for the confused 'profits' (aka talking heads) who play them as they are too played!

ALOHA

Originally posted by Mr Tranny


When you reach that point, then you create a condition like that, you create a powder keg. When you make the peaceful resolution of a problem impossible, then you make a violent resolution inevitable.

You make the peaceful resolution impossible by making it illegal to even discuss the problem. Pretty soon, the laws become so insane that the population will revolt against those laws.

Yeah exactly. This. You can only cover up a situation and try to keep it under wraps for so long. In fact, the more you try to get away with doing something, by adding surveillance, or military presence, or drones, etc. etc. the bigger the resulting powder keg will be.

Talking about the issues and solving them is actually a good idea - because that is one of the easier ways to get things done and balanced again. Ignoring that method only takes mankind to the next method.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


The state of complete unknowing is called "nescience." The act of continuing to do wrong after hearing the Truth is the act and state of ignorance, or ignoring. And these controllers are only acting to uphold their control systems because the Sun hasn't shined it's light upon the shadow castles that they have been building, once it has they will know Truly that you can only create with Light (wisdom and truth).

Truth is reality. It is the world we exist in and the common ground that we all share. Any belief made without knowledge of Truth leads directly to the condition of moral relativism that you also mentioned. That is why we need to enrich ourselves, our friends, and our families with True knowledge; and only allow real and natural things into our conscious beliefs. (This doesn't give you the right to abstain from knowing and understanding the darkness of the current human condition either.)

While these controllers haven't learned their lesson yet, you also need to focus on continuing your knowledge of the world around us and knowledge of your inner self. You also have some shadow (artificially constructed or not in Truth) beliefs yourself that need changing. A controlling hierarchy (any popular news or media or even business) that relies on secrets by other controlling hierarchies (government), will never sponsor a message or product based in Truth because it would be unhealthy to their individual and specific gain of external power and control for them and their partner institutions.

Some words that I feel are used wrong socially and in the government controlled media are:

Anarchy = Individuality and freedom, not just chaos that they keep us in fear of.

True Love = Caring enough to actually go out and learn what is Truly Right and Wrong, instead of the popularly romanticized idea of a person so perfect that you will probably never find them in this lifetime.

Government = Mind control (restrict-thought), the only type of government we need is internal monarchy, ruler-ship over our thoughts, emotions, and actions; which is the only thing we have a Right to control!

Slavery = The continual taking of ANY money or property by force or with the threat of violence, no matter how little! Even if it is just a 5% tax, if it is backed by threats to arrest your freedom, then it is slavery; the true form of terror in this world. And it keeps coming back because enough people didn't learn the lesson first time through.

reply to post by beezzer


Well categorizing doesn't always work, atheists for example have a variety of different ideas and opinions and Obama is not necessarily a Marxist. I guess if a group is homogeneous they could be categorized... but if they are not, categorizing would be inaccurate. You would have to criticize individuals.