A challenge to ALL of you whining about P. Dean's firing

[Pogo]

So, you agree that the poster trying to say she was not a Democrat so he could impune the Right was a red herring?

Actually I've been saying that trying to assign a political registration to a freaking television cooking show is a red herring since the very first post I made on this idiotic topic. It was my immediate reaction and it's been the theme of most of my commentary.

However, knowing the poster who made that original comment, I don't think that's what he was saying. Actually I'm not sure what he was saying but it's all irrelevant, as a TV cooking show is in no way related to politics.

It just stupefies me to see some wags stretching the bullshit that far for the sake of making cheap political points on a message board. Especially when they pretend their self-serving bullshit is somehow "concern" for Paula Deen or for social mores. Just racking up cheap points on an imaginary scoreboard, and that's all it is.

Ok, then answer me this. If someone using a racial slur is grounds for firing 20 years later, would the same be true of someone admitting to illegal use of drugs after a similar period of time?

I don't believe either would be grounds for firing, no.

And just to clarify again, Paula Deen wasn't "fired". They declined to renew her TV show, which like most is on a finite contract and either gets renewed or not. And the Food Network AFAIK never indicated the drop had anything to do with this deposition or with her use of this word. That's a myth-ball a lot of people choose to run with but it has no basis.

People get all kinda crazy when they're running on emotion instead of facts.

 

[hunarcy]

I don't believe either would be grounds for firing, no.

Good enough. I agree.

 

[peach174]

You got that right Pogo.
Although I do think that they did not renew her contract because it did have something to do with the trial.
The woman is suing her brother and her for sexual harassment and racial slurs.
I don't think that Paula Deen is a racist at all, like the woman's lawyer was trying to make her out to be.

 

[kwc57]

Sometimes we are overly PC - of course.

But with regards to this case, would you rather it be the case where society was more accepting of public white figures using the word n**ger in a derogatory fashion?

What's your point?

Paula Deen DID NOT use the word in a derogatory fashion when she used that word. It was a perfectly acceptable word used in a perfectly acceptable fashion when it was used.

I forget that America has become so stupid that the resignation of a university professor was demanded for saying the word "niggardly".

Katz- wasn't referring to the use of the word "niggardly"; never heard this was the root of the scandal.

From what i gather she called a black a n**ger specifically and admitted to it.

Actually no. She said she referred to a black man who held a gun to her head during a robbery as a ****** to her husband in private.

 

[Pogo]

OK, time for comic relief.

The way to defuse a loaded word is to wear it out. We did it with "****" (a work in progress) and we can do it with "******".

Dave Chappelle (who is a freaking genius) is doing his part. Watch this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I7JJChM6IQ]Chappelle Show: The Niggar Family - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KevinWestern]

Paula Deen DID NOT use the word in a derogatory fashion when she used that word. It was a perfectly acceptable word used in a perfectly acceptable fashion when it was used.

I forget that America has become so stupid that the resignation of a university professor was demanded for saying the word "niggardly".

Katz- wasn't referring to the use of the word "niggardly"; never heard this was the root of the scandal.

From what i gather she called a black a n**ger specifically and admitted to it.

Actually no. She said she referred to a black man who held a gun to her head during a robbery as a ****** to her husband in private.

Yes, she called a black a n**ger and admitted to it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sometimes we are overly PC - of course.

But with regards to this case, would you rather it be the case where society was more accepting of public white figures using the word n**ger in a derogatory fashion?

What's your point?

Paula Deen DID NOT use the word in a derogatory fashion when she used that word. It was a perfectly acceptable word used in a perfectly acceptable fashion when it was used.

I forget that America has become so stupid that the resignation of a university professor was demanded for saying the word "niggardly".

Katz- wasn't referring to the use of the word "niggardly"; never heard this was the root of the scandal.

From what i gather she called a black a n**ger specifically and admitted to it.

But, when she did it, the word was an accepted word of every day use! It wasn't a bad word, it wasn't a perjorative or derogatory. It was just descriptive.

You have no idea what words you use today that in time to come will be the new "bad" words.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is little new under the sun.....Marxists have used Political Correctness before and are using it today....

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms *******, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.

The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition. (See the law of reverse civilization) As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints that genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

•Dissembles the real nature of the claim
•Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
•Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name


For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

•Different cultures are compatible.
•People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
•People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.


The Inevitable Result Of Political Correctness
By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust. Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.

Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History.

An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

The origin and nature of political correctness (24/2/2013)

 

[Pogo]

There is little new under the sun.....Marxists have used Political Correctness before and are using it today....

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms *******, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.

The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition.

I put the operative words in red for ya so you might begin to understand how this works.

Now, do you see any politician anywhere passing a law against saying "******"? Do you see any such law on the books? How about "coons"? "Dagos"? "Sheilas"? THAT would make it related to politics. As I said before, we're talking about cultural values; social mores. Not laws, not politics. "Community safe-guards" -- not laws. "Dictates of the mob" as opposed to "common law methodology".

The rest of your paste is replete with fallacy. I'll chew on that separately as it's unrelated here. For now, thanks for confirming what I told you in the first place.

And not an iota of any of the above has anything to do with "Marxism". Or for that matter "communism", "socialism", "liberalism", "conservatism", "libertarianism", "botulism", "astigmatism" or any other political "ism". Mores are the standards set by a culture for itself on the boundaries of good taste. That is completely independent of politics. They cannot be legislated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Katz- wasn't referring to the use of the word "niggardly"; never heard this was the root of the scandal.

From what i gather she called a black a n**ger specifically and admitted to it.

Actually no. She said she referred to a black man who held a gun to her head during a robbery as a ****** to her husband in private.

Yes, she called a black a n**ger and admitted to it.

And you have a problem with that? He held a gun to her head...

You voted for Obama, dinja?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is little new under the sun.....Marxists have used Political Correctness before and are using it today....

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms *******, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.

The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition.

I put the operative words in red for ya so you might begin to understand how this works.

Now, do you see any politician anywhere passing a law against saying "******"? Do you see any such law on the books? How about "coons"? "Dagos"? "Sheilas"? THAT would make it related to politics. As I said before, we're talking about cultural values; social mores. Not laws, not politics. "Community safe-guards" -- not laws. "Dictates of the mob" as opposed to "common law methodology".

The rest of your paste is replete with fallacy. I'll chew on that separately as it's unrelated here. For now, thanks for confirming what I told you in the first place.

of course "society" is changing......but you fail to realize the reason why it is changing the way it is changing.....that it is the Marxist POLITICAL Left that is targeting our SOCIETY....they have moved the battlefield from tanks and rifles to schools and media outlets...

you fail to recognize that it is the Left along with the help of the leftist media that is rousing up the dictates of the mob and promoting a new set of values and changing the traditions of community....it is the Left that promotes racism by promoting this kind of nefarious story...it is the Left that creates PC rules for each group that it supports in order to balkanize America...to destroy free speech....to destroy our Constitution....and turn America into a socialist red country like the old USSR or today's Red China...

 

[Pogo]

For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

•Different cultures are compatible.
•People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
•People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

Bullshit. The slogan "Australia is Multicultural" makes no such value judgements. Those are all read in after the fact by the writer. It's not in the slogan. It's neutral.

All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.

The false conclusion this guy just made up is such an attack, yup.

The Inevitable Result Of Political Correctness
By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust.

Not even remotely close, and dangerously asinine. The Inquisition was a power play by organized religion (thus a political act) to persecute those who refused to submit to its "authority", and then confiscate their property. Its power derived from the pyre, the Iron Maiden, the Malleus Maleficarum and the collusion between the Church and the State that enabled it. The Holocaust, same thing, different source, with more modern technology.

In both cases this is power on one side intimidating populace on the other -- nothing to do with the collective cultural standards of the populace that is what drives social mores. An outside force.

Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.

Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History.

Again, specious beyond description. The Soviet suppression of speech worked via laws and law-enforcers --- not via the consent of the people. Again, the direct opposite of what the writer's trying to pass off as rumination here.

An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

And this just confirms what I just laid out. The intimidation would come from the State -- not from one's peers. And the peer that turned you in didn't do so because he believed some cultural value; he did so because he feared that same pressure from that same State -- the outside force.

Laws = outside force - on the people from above, with or without consent;
Cultural mores = inside force - from the people themselves; by definition with consent

Know the difference.

 

[Pogo]

There is little new under the sun.....Marxists have used Political Correctness before and are using it today....

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms *******, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.

The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition.

I put the operative words in red for ya so you might begin to understand how this works.

Now, do you see any politician anywhere passing a law against saying "******"? Do you see any such law on the books? How about "coons"? "Dagos"? "Sheilas"? THAT would make it related to politics. As I said before, we're talking about cultural values; social mores. Not laws, not politics. "Community safe-guards" -- not laws. "Dictates of the mob" as opposed to "common law methodology".

The rest of your paste is replete with fallacy. I'll chew on that separately as it's unrelated here. For now, thanks for confirming what I told you in the first place.

of course "society" is changing......but you fail to realize the reason why it is changing the way it is changing.....that it is the Marxist POLITICAL Left that is targeting our SOCIETY....they have moved the battlefield from tanks and rifles to schools and media outlets...

you fail to recognize that it is the Left along with the help of the leftist media that is rousing up the dictates of the mob and promoting a new set of values and changing the traditions of community....it is the Left that promotes racism by promoting this kind of nefarious story...it is the Left that creates PC rules for each group that it supports in order to balkanize America...to destroy free speech....to destroy our Constitution....and turn America into a socialist red country like the old USSR or today's Red China...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Again there is no law that declares you can't say "******". There is no proposed law that says you can't say "******". There is no way for the Left, or any other political entity, to "write what the PC rules are". We the People do that, collectively, and it isn't even written down. It can't be. We get one vote each, and the majority prevails, and those rules then vary from town to town and region to region. It's not something that is quantifiable or manipulatable by any single entity. By definition.

And there's certainly no way for a political entity to "promote this nefarious story". You know who's promoting this nefarious story?? WE ARE. We do that with these three thousand posts in six different threads talking about a stupid TV show contract non-renewal that doesn't amount to the proverbial hill of beans. The media leads, we follow. And it's not a "leftist" media or a "rightist" media; it's a sensationalist media. They know what sells, and we follow along like freaking puppies.

Sorry but your fantasies about the Big Bad Left coming to poison your children with dangerous mind chemicals are the stuff of comic books, and that's where they need to stay. Cultural mores are established by the people. Collectively. Independent of politics. Politicians follow social mores -- they don't lead them. Far from it. If that were the case, no one could connect Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Anthony Weiner, Mark Foley or Eliot Spitzer with "scandals". Mores lead; politics follow. Not the other way round.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

•Different cultures are compatible.
•People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
•People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

Bullshit. The slogan "Australia is Multicultural" makes no such value judgements. Those are all read in after the fact by the writer. It's not in the slogan. It's neutral.

says you

All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.

The false conclusion this guy just made up is such an attack, yup.

according to you...big whoop

Not even remotely close, and dangerously asinine. The Inquisition was a power play by organized religion (thus a political act) to persecute those who refused to submit to its "authority", and then confiscate their property. Its power derived from the pyre, the Iron Maiden, the Malleus Maleficarum and the collusion between the Church and the State that enabled it. The Holocaust, same thing, different source, with more modern technology.

In both cases this is power on one side intimidating populace on the other -- nothing to do with the collective cultural standards of the populace that is what drives social mores. An outside force.

so says the disingenuous who doesn't realize the Left is an 'outside force'.....

Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.

Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History.

Again, specious beyond description. The Soviet suppression of speech worked via laws and law-enforcers --- not via the consent of the people. Again, the direct opposite of what the writer's trying to pass off as rumination here.

and firing Deen for breathing the word ****** wasn't the work of leftist PCness....? calling a homo a *** isn't considered 'hate speech' by the Left....? wake up bro...

An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

And this just confirms what I just laid out. The intimidation would come from the State -- not from one's peers. And the peer that turned you in didn't do so because he believed some cultural value; he did so because he feared that same pressure from that same State -- the outside force.

Laws = outside force - on the people from above, with or without consent;
Cultural mores = inside force - from the people themselves; by definition with consent

Know the difference.

what a twit....how do you think those laws come into existence in the first place....?

the Left is working steadily against the First Amendment....just what do you think 'hate crimes' that they managed to put in the law are all about....? a crime is hateful in itself....but now we must recognize special hates....which is what this Paula Dean thing is all about....racial hatefulness (as promoted by the Left) in the workplace....

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

of course "society" is changing......but you fail to realize the reason why it is changing the way it is changing.....that it is the Marxist POLITICAL Left that is targeting our SOCIETY....they have moved the battlefield from tanks and rifles to schools and media outlets...

you fail to recognize that it is the Left along with the help of the leftist media that is rousing up the dictates of the mob and promoting a new set of values and changing the traditions of community....it is the Left that promotes racism by promoting this kind of nefarious story...it is the Left that creates PC rules for each group that it supports in order to balkanize America...to destroy free speech....to destroy our Constitution....and turn America into a socialist red country like the old USSR or today's Red China...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Again there is no law that declares you can't say "******". There is no proposed law that says you can't say "******". There is no way for the Left, or any other political entity, to "write what the PC rules are". We the People do that, collectively, and it isn't even written down. It can't be. We get one vote each, and the majority prevails, and those rules then vary from town to town and region to region. It's not something that is quantifiable or manipulatable by any single entity. By definition.

And there's certainly no way for a political entity to "promote this nefarious story". You know who's promoting this nefarious story?? WE ARE. We do that with these three thousand posts in six different threads talking about a stupid TV show contract non-renewal that doesn't amount to the proverbial hill of beans. The media leads, we follow. And it's not a "leftist" media or a "rightist" media; it's a sensationalist media. They know what sells, and we follow along like freaking puppies.

Sorry but your fantasies about the Big Bad Left coming to poison your children with dangerous mind chemicals are the stuff of comic books, and that's where they need to stay. Cultural mores are established by the people. Collectively. Independent of politics. Politicians follow social mores -- they don't lead them. Far from it. If that were the case, no one could connect Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Anthony Weiner, Mark Foley or Eliot Spitzer with "scandals". Mores lead; politics follow. Not the other way round.

there doesn't need to be a specific law against saying '******'.....it just falls under 'hate crimes'....you know those crimes that have a special 'emotion' attached.....or in the workplace just saying it is considered hateful behavior....bye bye free speech...and sanity....

 

[Pogo]

For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

•Different cultures are compatible.
•People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
•People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

Bullshit. The slogan "Australia is Multicultural" makes no such value judgements. Those are all read in after the fact by the writer. It's not in the slogan. It's neutral.

says you

No, says the laws of logic. Read it. Or point out what I missed.

The false conclusion this guy just made up is such an attack, yup.

according to you...big whoop

Same as above...

Not even remotely close, and dangerously asinine. The Inquisition was a power play by organized religion (thus a political act) to persecute those who refused to submit to its "authority", and then confiscate their property. Its power derived from the pyre, the Iron Maiden, the Malleus Maleficarum and the collusion between the Church and the State that enabled it. The Holocaust, same thing, different source, with more modern technology.

In both cases this is power on one side intimidating populace on the other -- nothing to do with the collective cultural standards of the populace that is what drives social mores. An outside force.

so says the disingenuous who doesn't realize the Left is an 'outside force'.....

Number one, "disingenuous" is an adjective, not a noun. I can't be "a disingenuous". There's no such thing.

Number two, to use that adjective you'd have to prove I'm lying, and since opinion can't be a lie, you can't do it. What you could do is counter with a contrasting opinion, but you'd have to make somewhat more of a case than "says you".

Number three, since I just said cultural mores do not come from an outside force, "the left", or any other political force, is irrelevant. Unless, again, you can show how it works a different way. You didn't.

Anything else?

Again, specious beyond description. The Soviet suppression of speech worked via laws and law-enforcers --- not via the consent of the people. Again, the direct opposite of what the writer's trying to pass off as rumination here.

and firing Deen for breathing the word ****** wasn't the work of leftist PCness....? calling a homo a *** isn't considered 'hate speech' by the Left....? wake up bro...

Number four - "firing Deen" has nothing whatsoever to do with the point quoted about Soviet strongarming.

Number five - Paula Deen wasn't "fired". Her show contract was not renewed. Happens in broadcasting every season. Contract expires; both parties may or may not write a new one. Food Network chose not to, which is their prerogative as a private business. There's no law that commands them to renew her, nor should there be.

Or do you think the State should step in here, comrade?

Number six - no one called a 'homo' a '***'. Does not apply. But as a side note your blithe substitution of one discouraged euphemism for another demonstrates you don't understand what we're even talking about.

Number seven - the Food Network made no connection between the present case and the non-renewal of the show... which again, even if they did it would be their prerogative as a private business.

An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

And this just confirms what I just laid out. The intimidation would come from the State -- not from one's peers. And the peer that turned you in didn't do so because he believed some cultural value; he did so because he feared that same pressure from that same State -- the outside force.

Laws = outside force - on the people from above, with or without consent;
Cultural mores = inside force - from the people themselves; by definition with consent

Know the difference.

what a twit....how do you think those laws come into existence in the first place....?
the Left is working steadily against the First Amendment....just what do you think 'hate crimes' that they managed to put in the law are all about....? a crime is hateful in itself....but now we must recognize special hates....which is what this Paula Dean thing is all about....racial hatefulness (as promoted by the Left) in the workplace....

.[/QUOTE]

Once again, there is no law in play in this case. Paula Deen broke no law by using "******". Does not exist. The First Amendment, and the Constitution where it resides, is quantifiable and inviolable. Nobody's ever taking that away. And the non-renewal of a TV entertainment show, where no laws are applied or broken, has no relationship with that.

And number eight - there is nothing "left", "right" or "center" about a ******* television cooking show. There is nothing even vaguely political about a ******* television cooking show. FOOD is not political. It's universal.

Again, number nine, you're going to have to come up with more of a case than "what a twit".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

•Different cultures are compatible.
•People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
•People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

Bullshit. The slogan "Australia is Multicultural" makes no such value judgements. Those are all read in after the fact by the writer. It's not in the slogan. It's neutral.

says you

No, says the laws of logic. Read it. Or point out what I missed.

not all different cultures are compatible....take Iran for example....do you think its culture is compatible with the USA....? hardly....

i'd like to know what 'laws of logic' you go by....

Same as above...



Number one, "disingenuous" is an adjective, not a noun. I can't be "a disingenuous". There's no such thing.
oh gosh...

Number two, to use that adjective you'd have to prove I'm lying, and since opinion can't be a lie, you can't do it. What you could do is counter with a contrasting opinion, but you'd have to make somewhat more of a case than "says you".
your opinion is shit....howz that for a substitute...?


Number three, since I just said cultural mores do not come from an outside force, "the left", or any other political force, is irrelevant. Unless, again, you can show how it works a different way. You didn't.
Outside force is the goal of the Left...

Anything else?

Number four - "firing Deen" has nothing whatsoever to do with the point quoted about Soviet strongarming.
public outcry and fear of lawsuits is why...now who engendered that strongarming i wonder.....?

Number five - Paula Deen wasn't "fired". Her show contract was not renewed. Happens in broadcasting every season. Contract expires; both parties may or may not write a new one. Food Network chose not to, which is their prerogative as a private business. There's no law that commands them to renew her, nor should there be.

Or do you think the State should step in here, comrade?
don't try to pull that nitpick crap...we all know she wasn't an 'employee' of the network....in fact she was a huge star on the network....

Number six - no one called a 'homo' a '***'. Does not apply. But as a side note your blithe substitution of one discouraged euphemism for another demonstrates you don't understand what we're even talking about.
many people have called homos fags....obviously the statement went right over your head...

Number seven - the Food Network made no connection between the present case and the non-renewal of the show... which again, even if they did it would be their prerogative as a private business.
huh?....i'm not disputing their private rights....the network has the right to protect what it perceives it must protect....

An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

And this just confirms what I just laid out. The intimidation would come from the State -- not from one's peers. And the peer that turned you in didn't do so because he believed some cultural value; he did so because he feared that same pressure from that same State -- the outside force.

Laws = outside force - on the people from above, with or without consent;
Cultural mores = inside force - from the people themselves; by definition with consent

Know the difference.

what a twit....how do you think those laws come into existence in the first place....?
the Left is working steadily against the First Amendment....just what do you think 'hate crimes' that they managed to put in the law are all about....? a crime is hateful in itself....but now we must recognize special hates....which is what this Paula Dean thing is all about....racial hatefulness (as promoted by the Left) in the workplace....

.

Once again, there is no law in play in this case. Paula Deen broke no law by using "******". Does not exist. The First Amendment, and the Constitution where it resides, is quantifiable and inviolable. Nobody's ever taking that away. And the non-renewal of a TV entertainment show, where no laws are applied or broken, has no relationship with that.
guess you you've never heard of Title VII...

And number eight - there is nothing "left", "right" or "center" about a ******* television cooking show. There is nothing even vaguely political about a ******* television cooking show. FOOD is not political. It's universal.
i'd say Michelle Obama makes food somewhat political....and i'll bet she or Mayor Bloomie don't like Paula Dean's butter-saturated food one bit.....and of course we know for sure her husband is politically interested in the food supply....did you know that the food supply is one of the first things the enemy wants to control in order to control a country....? ...yes i'd say food can be political...

Again, number nine, you're going to have to come up with more of a case than "what a twit".
i see....you can't explain how those hate laws came into existence....twit stands....

don't you have a number ten or maybe you can't count that high... [/QUOTE]

.

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit. The slogan "Australia is Multicultural" makes no such value judgements. Those are all read in after the fact by the writer. It's not in the slogan. It's neutral.

says you

No, says the laws of logic. Read it. Or point out what I missed.

not all different cultures are compatible....take Iran for example....do you think its culture is compatible with the USA....? hardly....

i'd like to know what 'laws of logic' you go by....

Same as above...



Number one, "disingenuous" is an adjective, not a noun. I can't be "a disingenuous". There's no such thing.
oh gosh...

Number two, to use that adjective you'd have to prove I'm lying, and since opinion can't be a lie, you can't do it. What you could do is counter with a contrasting opinion, but you'd have to make somewhat more of a case than "says you".
your opinion is shit....howz that for a substitute...?


Number three, since I just said cultural mores do not come from an outside force, "the left", or any other political force, is irrelevant. Unless, again, you can show how it works a different way. You didn't.
Outside force is the goal of the Left...

Anything else?

Number four - "firing Deen" has nothing whatsoever to do with the point quoted about Soviet strongarming.
public outcry and fear of lawsuits is why...now who engendered that strongarming i wonder.....?

Number five - Paula Deen wasn't "fired". Her show contract was not renewed. Happens in broadcasting every season. Contract expires; both parties may or may not write a new one. Food Network chose not to, which is their prerogative as a private business. There's no law that commands them to renew her, nor should there be.

Or do you think the State should step in here, comrade?
don't try to pull that nitpick crap...we all know she wasn't an 'employee' of the network....in fact she was a huge star on the network....

Number six - no one called a 'homo' a '***'. Does not apply. But as a side note your blithe substitution of one discouraged euphemism for another demonstrates you don't understand what we're even talking about.
many people have called homos fags....obviously the statement went right over your head...

Number seven - the Food Network made no connection between the present case and the non-renewal of the show... which again, even if they did it would be their prerogative as a private business.
huh?....i'm not disputing their private rights....the network has the right to protect what it perceives it must protect....

And this just confirms what I just laid out. The intimidation would come from the State -- not from one's peers. And the peer that turned you in didn't do so because he believed some cultural value; he did so because he feared that same pressure from that same State -- the outside force.

Laws = outside force - on the people from above, with or without consent;
Cultural mores = inside force - from the people themselves; by definition with consent

Know the difference.

what a twit....how do you think those laws come into existence in the first place....?
the Left is working steadily against the First Amendment....just what do you think 'hate crimes' that they managed to put in the law are all about....? a crime is hateful in itself....but now we must recognize special hates....which is what this Paula Dean thing is all about....racial hatefulness (as promoted by the Left) in the workplace....

.

Once again, there is no law in play in this case. Paula Deen broke no law by using "******". Does not exist. The First Amendment, and the Constitution where it resides, is quantifiable and inviolable. Nobody's ever taking that away. And the non-renewal of a TV entertainment show, where no laws are applied or broken, has no relationship with that.
guess you you've never heard of Title VII...

And number eight - there is nothing "left", "right" or "center" about a ******* television cooking show. There is nothing even vaguely political about a ******* television cooking show. FOOD is not political. It's universal.
i'd say Michelle Obama makes food somewhat political....and i'll bet she or Mayor Bloomie don't like Paula Dean's butter-saturated food one bit.....and of course we know for sure her husband is politically interested in the food supply....did you know that the food supply is one of the first things the enemy wants to control in order to control a country....? ...yes i'd say food can be political...

Again, number nine, you're going to have to come up with more of a case than "what a twit".
i see....you can't explain how those hate laws came into existence....twit stands....

don't you have a number ten or maybe you can't count that high...

I'd be tempted to smack your logic down yet again but you're doing a fine job on your own here...


Let's just peel off a couple of easy pickins:

Number four - What "threat of lawsuit" does the Food Network invite by renewing Paula Deen's contract?
(A while back Redfish posted that Deen should sue them, I asked him "on what basis" -- he never answered)

Number seven, just to note, you've contradicted yourself in Number five, but who am I to argue when you've got both sides...

Number eight, I've gotta quote the whole thing, this is a treasure trove of fallacy:

i'd say Michelle Obama makes food somewhat political....

And how does Michelle O'bama "make food political"? What did she say or do?

and i'll bet she or Mayor Bloomie don't like Paula Dean's butter-saturated food one bit....

How do you know what "Mayor Bloomie" likes? And what does it have to do with ... well, anything?

.and of course we know for sure her husband is politically interested in the food supply....

We do huh? Was her husband there? And if he's interested in the food supply, why isn't he using his magic telepromter to make sure Deen stays on the air to do his bidding?
I dunno, looking at O'bama, he doesn't look interested in any food supply. Now if the president were Chris Christie, you might have a point.

did you know that the food supply is one of the first things the enemy wants to control in order to control a country....?

No, I don't know that; the first thing an enemy wants to control is the media. That's a truism I have heard of.

So-- you want to control the media by forcing Food Network to keep Paula Deen so she can do Obama's bidding? Is that it?

...yes i'd say food can be political...

Finally, one thing I can agree with. Food can be political if, say, a POTUS perpetuates the Washington revolving door by appointing a Monsanto executive to the FDA. That is political, and worth getting worked up about.

But this is a TV cooking show. A TV cooking show. A TV cooking show..

Thanks, that was fun.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, says the laws of logic. Read it. Or point out what I missed.

not all different cultures are compatible....take Iran for example....do you think its culture is compatible with the USA....? hardly....

i'd like to know what 'laws of logic' you go by....

Same as above...



Number one, "disingenuous" is an adjective, not a noun. I can't be "a disingenuous". There's no such thing.
oh gosh...

Number two, to use that adjective you'd have to prove I'm lying, and since opinion can't be a lie, you can't do it. What you could do is counter with a contrasting opinion, but you'd have to make somewhat more of a case than "says you".
your opinion is shit....howz that for a substitute...?


Number three, since I just said cultural mores do not come from an outside force, "the left", or any other political force, is irrelevant. Unless, again, you can show how it works a different way. You didn't.
Outside force is the goal of the Left...

Anything else?

Number four - "firing Deen" has nothing whatsoever to do with the point quoted about Soviet strongarming.
public outcry and fear of lawsuits is why...now who engendered that strongarming i wonder.....?

Number five - Paula Deen wasn't "fired". Her show contract was not renewed. Happens in broadcasting every season. Contract expires; both parties may or may not write a new one. Food Network chose not to, which is their prerogative as a private business. There's no law that commands them to renew her, nor should there be.

Or do you think the State should step in here, comrade?
don't try to pull that nitpick crap...we all know she wasn't an 'employee' of the network....in fact she was a huge star on the network....

Number six - no one called a 'homo' a '***'. Does not apply. But as a side note your blithe substitution of one discouraged euphemism for another demonstrates you don't understand what we're even talking about.
many people have called homos fags....obviously the statement went right over your head...

Number seven - the Food Network made no connection between the present case and the non-renewal of the show... which again, even if they did it would be their prerogative as a private business.
huh?....i'm not disputing their private rights....the network has the right to protect what it perceives it must protect....

.

Once again, there is no law in play in this case. Paula Deen broke no law by using "******". Does not exist. The First Amendment, and the Constitution where it resides, is quantifiable and inviolable. Nobody's ever taking that away. And the non-renewal of a TV entertainment show, where no laws are applied or broken, has no relationship with that.
guess you you've never heard of Title VII...

And number eight - there is nothing "left", "right" or "center" about a ******* television cooking show. There is nothing even vaguely political about a ******* television cooking show. FOOD is not political. It's universal.
i'd say Michelle Obama makes food somewhat political....and i'll bet she or Mayor Bloomie don't like Paula Dean's butter-saturated food one bit.....and of course we know for sure her husband is politically interested in the food supply....did you know that the food supply is one of the first things the enemy wants to control in order to control a country....? ...yes i'd say food can be political...

Again, number nine, you're going to have to come up with more of a case than "what a twit".
i see....you can't explain how those hate laws came into existence....twit stands....

don't you have a number ten or maybe you can't count that high...

I'd be tempted to smack your logic down yet again but you're doing a fine job on your own here...


Let's just peel off a couple of easy pickins:

Number four - What "threat of lawsuit" does the Food Network invite by renewing Paula Deen's contract?
(A while back Redfish posted that Deen should sue them, I asked him "on what basis" -- he never answered)

Number seven, just to note, you've contradicted yourself in Number five, but who am I to argue when you've got both sides...

Number eight, I've gotta quote the whole thing, this is a treasure trove of fallacy:


And how does Michelle O'bama "make food political"? What did she say or do?



How do you know what "Mayor Bloomie" likes? And what does it have to do with ... well, anything?



We do huh? Was her husband there? And if he's interested in the food supply, why isn't he using his magic telepromter to make sure Deen stays on the air to do his bidding?
I dunno, looking at O'bama, he doesn't look interested in any food supply. Now if the president were Chris Christie, you might have a point.

did you know that the food supply is one of the first things the enemy wants to control in order to control a country....?

No, I don't know that; the first thign an enemy wants to control is the media. That's a truism I have heard of.

So-- you want to control the media by forcing Food Network to keep Paula Deen so she can do Obama's bidding? Is that it?

...yes i'd say food can be political...

Finally, one thing I can agree with. Food can be political if, say, a POTUS perpetuates the Washington revolving door by appointing a Monsanto executive to the FDA. That is political, and worth getting worked up about.

But this is a TV cooking show. A TV cooking show. A TV cooking show..

Thanks, that was fun.

'it's a TV cooking show' is your big point finale....?

good gawd....you really do live in an alternate universe....to explain things to you would require my writing a book.....no thanks.....say maybe you could learn cooking and take Paula Deen's place.....cuz i don't think you have any future in politics....

 

[kwc57]

Katz- wasn't referring to the use of the word "niggardly"; never heard this was the root of the scandal.

From what i gather she called a black a n**ger specifically and admitted to it.

Actually no. She said she referred to a black man who held a gun to her head during a robbery as a ****** to her husband in private.

Yes, she called a black a n**ger and admitted to it.

Splitting hairs are we? Right or wrong, calling someone a ****** in a private conversation with your spouse in the privacy of your home is a far cry from looking a black man in the face and calling him a ******. Wouldn't you agree.......or are you also concerned with what kind of sex people are having and with who in the privacy of their own bedroom too?