Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on December 03, 2002, 07:47:39 AM
-
If you hate the way political correctness is used as a way to destroy conservatives, you will want to read this.
link (http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_how_i_was.html)
-
Unbelieveable....oh wait...VERY believeable. :rolleyes:
-
A book I would suggest for all of our libereral friends is "Radical Son" by David Horowitz
lazs
-
This particular piece really stood out as I have observed in daily life:
As the brilliant black social critic Shelby Steele observes, there is in this country a pervasive “adherence to good racial manners,” which dictates, among other things, that on matters of racial sensitivity blacks hold the moral upper hand; and that even when whites feel themselves blameless, the appropriate response to such a challenge is to defer, retreating in sober self-reflection, if not outright apology. In fact, for an increasing number of us, this is a key part of the problem—and one that should be called by its rightful name: condescension. Far from helping us address the many morally complex and deeply divisive issues involving race, it has the opposite effect of silencing those who question the liberal orthodoxy and otherwise cutting off meaningful dialogue.
-
A couple of books I would recommend for our conservative friends is "No Logo" by Naomi Klein and "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser.
They discuss how multinationals are taking over the world and betraying the american middle and lower classes specifically.
-
"fast food nation seemed a little hysterical and the author seemed to be in over his head.... like a guy who had an idea and then formed a book around it.... How did you like "radical son" thrawn... I lived in those times in the bay area.. It sure seemed accurate to me. I was a biker... just like a hippie but without the soft center.
lazs
-
I'm not sure what this has to do with political correctness. Sounds a lot like hypersensitivity mixed with corporate avarice and journalists anxious to sell copy. Stein was unlucky enough to get caught in the middle of it.
Oh... and I've seen the same thing here. Someone on the left can make a comment and someone else on the right will run off on some ridiculous tangent.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh... and I've seen the same thing here. Someone on the left can make a comment and someone else on the right will run off on some ridiculous tangent.
Funny, I see it the other way constantly (See Atheists always starting the Religion threads) and I've also see a few libs use the "beating your wife?" theme too.
-
Sorry Lazs, you read fast food nation?
Why are there quotes at the beginning of your post?
"fast food nation seemed a little hysterical and the author seemed to be in over his head....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Funny, I see it the other way constantly (See Atheists always starting the Religion threads) and I've also see a few libs use the "beating your wife?" theme too.
I don't disagree. Almost finished that post with "and vice versa" but decided to leave it hanging like that... (once a troll always a troll). :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't disagree. Almost finished that post with "and vice versa" but decided to leave it hanging like that... (once a troll always a troll). :D
Hehe!
-
Hmmm... this persecution complex about religion, Ripsnort. It seems you overlook the myriad bashings of Islam and its 'raghead' followers, contained in innumerbable threads over the last few months. Often the people doing the bashing are Christians? A case of 'can deal it, can't take it'?
You yourself seem to be highly sensitive regarding Christianity, but completely apathetic towards when it comes to other religions. Why is that?
Lastly, the 'beat your wife' thing is a very strange comment. Where does it come from?
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Hmmm... this persecution complex about religion, Ripsnort. It seems you overlook the myriad bashings of Islam and its 'raghead' followers, containing innumerbable threads over the last few months. Often the people doing the bashing are Christians? A case of 'can deal it, can't take it'?
You yourself seem to be highly sensitive regarding Christianity, but completely apathetic towards when it comes to other religions. Why is that?
Lastly, the 'beat your wife' thing is a very strange comment. Where does it come from?
You want me to pull up examples of Atheists being the first on the offensive?
You want me to pull up examples of the liberals asking conservatives if they beat their wives?
Examples of both are on this BBS.
-
You want me to pull up examples of Atheists being the first on the offensive?
You want me to pull up examples of so-called Christians showing religious bigotry and intolerance, and also being on the offensive?
You want me to pull up examples of the liberals asking conservatives if they beat their wives?
You want me to pull up examples of conservatives calling liberals communist or un-american or both?
What's your point, exactly? That people can be nasty?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You want me to pull up examples of the liberals asking conservatives if they beat their wives?
Well... do you? :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... do you? :D
I'm the guy that jumped on a bikers back at age 15 trying to be a hero while he beat his girlfriend at a public beach, and subsequently received a beating from the biker, as well as his girlfriend as she too joined in kicking me whilst I was on the ground. ;) Hope that answers your question.
-
You really didn't need to dignify that with an answer. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm the guy that jumped on a bikers back at age 15 trying to be a hero while he beat his girlfriend at a public beach, and subsequently received a beating from the biker, as well as his girlfriend as she too joined in kicking me whilst I was on the ground. ;) Hope that answers your question.
That was YOU!??
Nearly hurt my hand that day ... :D
-
Sandman,...I know, felt compelled though...
Midnight, I still have your GF's shoe mark on my left cheek.
-
bork was rejected because of his participation in the attempted watergate coverup (which is why he was nominated - a payoff for loyalty), particularly his participation in the "saturday night massacre". clarence thomas should have been rejected because he is unqualified. i'm surpised bush couldn't have found someone qualified who was one of his guys, but it think he was seeking youth & dark skin, so maybe that narrowed down the field too much
-
liars, damn liars, and liberals
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the brilliant black social critic Shelby Steele observes, there is in this country a pervasive “adherence to good racial manners,” which dictates, among other things, that on matters of racial sensitivity blacks hold the moral upper hand; and that even when whites feel themselves blameless, the appropriate response to such a challenge is to defer, retreating in sober self-reflection, if not outright apology. In fact, for an increasing number of us, this is a key part of the problem—and one that should be called by its rightful name: condescension. Far from helping us address the many morally complex and deeply divisive issues involving race, it has the opposite effect of silencing those who question the liberal orthodoxy and otherwise cutting off meaningful dialogue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHACK
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
This particular piece really stood out as I have observed in daily life:
Hell we've seen it on this board.
-
I know funked, was hoping Midnight would see his own reflection without me holding the mirror up ;)
-
Huh?
I was joking earlier, but you knew that.
What exactly am I being accused of here?
-
Nothing, never mind (sees it flying right over the head) ;)
-
One of the big turn-offs about the '60s for me was what I perceived as the death of civil discourse. Shouting down an opponent is not a reasoned argument. Nor is character assassination or attempts to twist what the opposition is trying to say. The two sides of any argument should be presented in the press without editorial bias. Sadly, that is a virtue that is not seen as a virtue by many of our "talking heads."
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
One of the big turn-offs about the '60s for me was what I perceived as the death of civil discourse. Shouting down an opponent is not a reasoned argument. Nor is character assassination or attempts to twist what the opposition is trying to say. The two sides of any argument should be presented in the press without editorial bias. Sadly, that is a virtue that is not seen as a virtue by many of our "talking heads."
Regards, Shuckins
Goes hand in hand with my "de-sensitivity of the American Culture" posts I've posted about in the past. (Hi Sandman! :) )
-
When it comes to discussion the position of the conservatives and libertarians is often: "The liberals are well-meaning people though misguided".
The position of liberals is: "Those guys totally agree with our theories and views in private (how could those ever be wrong!), but publicly they say lies they do not believe in out of greed or vested interests".
That makes for an easy discussion. "There is no need for me to examine your arguments since I am convinced you are intellectually agreeing with me anyway but just pretend you don't."
So they just concentrate on guessing the reasons you would lie - like being an exploiter, a racist, an opressor, a nature despoiler, etc.
miko
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nothing, never mind (sees it flying right over the head) ;)
lol, naw, I just ducked. :)
Regarding the shouting down, I agree. But please remember that in the 60's it was the reactionary right that used this ploy to discredit legitimate protesters.
One case in point, The inflamatory remarks of the Governer of Ohio prior to the Kent State shootings. Look it up.
-
MT,
Are you saying that it was the Radical Right's fault that the Radical left shouted down opponents during the '60s?!!
WOW!!!!
When you lean to the left you really LEAN don't you! :D
Regards, Shuckins
-
No, I thing the Radical Left shouting down opponents is a much newer phenomenon. Never said they didn't do it and I agree that it is wrong. I just think we should be even-handed in our finger pointing.
-
midnight Target: ...the Radical Left shouting down opponents is a much newer phenomenon...
Really? A. Hitler complained in 1924 of exactly the same disruprive shouting down tactics by the radical left.
Poor guy had to take the dictatorial control of the country and throw the radical left into prison just to be able to discuss politics with his buddies over the beer in peace and quiet... Fortunately most of those left had joined his nazi party by that time.
Seriously, Milton Friedman, J. Sax, etc. dedicate considerable part of their works to carefully and respectfully examining the ideas and views of their ideological opponents - with extensive quotes, etc. I do not believe any of those gentleman ever shouted down anyone in his life.
Same goes for P. Bauer, Murray, Hernstein and A. Jensen. All of them were shouted down and thrown stuff at when they tried to present their formulas, tables and charts in public.
It seems about half of any serious scientific work is dedicated to the opponents of whatever the idea discussed. It would seem the college students, especially those professing tolerance, divercity and rights, would appreciate the chance to get the first-hand knowlege of the opponent's thinking and exercise their beliefs at the same time.
miko
-
The PC movement strikes me as super-Orwellian. Who needs the government always watching to restrict what you think and say when arbiters of acceptable discourse are lurking everywhere? As the linked article illustrates, the PC enforcers carry a big stick--not a legal one (yet), but a big one nonetheless.
- JNOV