The journey from there to here

This morning, in a not unusually pensive mood, I was mulling over Barak Obama's impending presidential candidacy and what it would mean for the aspirations not only of his for presidency, but of Hillary Clinton's. As I considered the possibilities, it struck me as ironic that basically two different camps of political correctness would effectively be doing battle here: eg, the feminist movement vs. the Civil Rights movement. My mind started reaching for analogies that I could fit inside an article headline.

The first analogy I have to repeat even though it does draw this thread off track somewhat. I thought of the basic stoner philosophy (why am I always thinking of stoner philosophies? But I digress...) that asks, if cats always land on their feet and bread always lands butter side down, could we create a perpetual motion machine by strapping a piece of bread butter side up on the back of a cat? The thought was that Obama and Clinton would create some kind of mind draining collision between these camps. Now you have just a glimpse of how my mind works. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Anyway, to the point. In reaching for an analogy that was not terribly confusing or vague, I finally settled on "PC Vortex". While the metaphor worked, it was not my first choice. My first choice was a pretty good one, but would have pretty much resulted in varying websites on the Internet burning me in effigy.

You see, without thinking, the first analogy I drew was "Obama vs. Clinton will create a Political Black Hole". I no sooner than typed it into the headline window before I KNEW that this title was pretty much a pre written guarantee of charges of hate speech. I mean, if my flaming of one Fred Harteis (to all newbies: LONG story. Ask me to tell it to you sometime when it WON'T detract from an article like this; in the meantime, google "Fred Harteis and you MIGHT find the genesis of all of this. It's kinda funny in a train wreck sort of way. But again with the digressing) netted flame articles on websites of his acolytes, can you imagine what a headline talking about a "PC black hole" and using Obama in the same title would do? I shudder to think of it.

And this, of course brings me to my point (I, um, DO have one, I swear)...

The fact that I even had to think about self editing a good, appropriate analogy because of fears it would be clipped by the PC police and haunt me as long as I choose to run for public office is, in a word, quite frightening. I wasn't thinking of an adjectival overlap (did I just invent a word there?) when I thought of the title, I was just thinking of a title that would be brief enough to sum up the thoughts I was having on the matter. Nothing more, nothing less.

But there's a whole camp of race baiters out there who would rush to put a Klan hood on my head and a swastika armband on my arm for merely THINKING about the analogy. And I'm inclined to think that such thoughts are to THEIR shame, not mine.

In exactly this manner, political correctness has shredded and made a mockery of the first amendment. We must weigh our words ever so carefully, and double and triple check for double meanings that might offend this or that class of people. And as we do so, our rights become sacrificed on the altar (whoops, that's anti-animalism!) of such political correctness, and our true feelings are suppressed. Ironically, I believe that this works against the aims and goals of political correctness, as people who have such feelings and are unable to express them are more likely to act on them. And actions always, ALWAYS hurt far worse than words.

"
Comments
on Jan 18, 2007

It is very true about PC.  A black hole is a scientific theory (or fact - I dont know if they have been proven yet), yet use of color is now verbotten.  So I guess we go with the million dollar term - quantum singularity.

As for Hillary and Obama, that will be fun to watch - in a train wreck sort of way.  At least on the democrat side, this election season is not going to be dull or full of Kumbaya.

on Jan 18, 2007
And yet if I used the title "Obama vs. Clinton will produce a PC Quantum Singularity", the blog article entitled same would itself be a "quantum singularity", now, wouldn't it?
on Jan 18, 2007
I find the whole PC movement quite ironic in a way. THEY are the ones that will lash out at any word or phrase that might in some way be offensive, and will try their hardest to show how it is. Sane people don't give such things a second thought...yet the PC crew seems to just love trying to find things that can be taken as an offense so that they can bitch about it later. I hate having to watch the words I use...I'm not racist, sexist, or anything of the sort...but you trip up and say something without thinking and BOOM here comes a storm of crap from these idiots. Feelings are not protected by law...I don't know why people keep trying to make it so...

~Zoo
on Jan 18, 2007
It depends on how far you take it. Like everything it is going to be the hardest on the people who don't want to cause offense, since the people who do will work to cause it regardless. I don't believe it is the concept itself that is the real danger as much as it is enforcement.

So long as you are just judged abstractly, people are left to make up their own minds. You may hesitate about the "black hole" thing, but in reality it is a narrow minority that is really going to be offended, and a lot of those would be seen immediately as just using it as a backhanded political response. The real worry is passing "hate speech" laws that actually threaten people who offend.

Like the religious people in Canada now that can't preach against homosexuality for fear of fines or jail. Like the man who simply posted an image of two male stick figures holding hands with a line through them, accompanied by a scripture book, chapter, and verse. He found himself with a hefty fine.

Things that make us more careful can only really hurt us if we let them. Otherwise, they help us by making us aware that in order to persuade we want to minimize confusion as much as possible. The real danger of PC mentality is the laws, and thank God we've dodged that bullet for the most part so far.

And lucky for the most-offended groups, because they are ten times more likely to say something offensive about the majority...
on Jan 18, 2007
gid...i really don't see obama's candadicy as a "civil rights" candidacy like jesse's or al's.

i read "audacity of hope" and have ordered "dreams of my father." after reading that, i came away very impressed. the man simply does not play the "conservative vs. liberal" game. the way he thinks is quite different than the trad. washington mentality, even tho it seems the pundits are already trying to "label" him. those of us who have been following his rise laugh when we see that.

and simply looking at voting records aren't gonna give you a clue into who he is. if ya want some more research material whip, go get the books. if ya don't wanna "waste the money" i'll be more than happy to send ya my copy after i am done with my 2nd read of it(which should only be another day or 2). if you are really interested in him, i def. reccomend reading his stuff. if you are just looking to "poke holes" then scouring voting records for perceived inconsistancies" should serve you well.

the man treats his life as an open book, flaws and all.

i also have some video of him on my site if ya wanna check it out. (article :tired of hearing about barack obama? Link ) it's not at all "deep" but it is at least a good glimpse into his life and who he is.

on Jan 18, 2007
Another thing to consider is what we preach to people who complain about "censorship" and blacklisting on our blogs. The First Amendment only really applies to government silencing us, right? We don't have the right to be free from condemnation or the usual whining, because that in and of itself would infringe on their right to condemn and whine.

Like I said above, I think this really only comes into play when we have to deal with laws that silence or punish us. So far, we've dodged that bullet for the most part.
on Jan 18, 2007
Like I said above, I think this really only comes into play when we have to deal with laws that silence or punish us. So far, we've dodged that bullet for the most part.


That is exactly right. We have the right to say what we want, but that does not convey the right to be heard.
on Jan 18, 2007
Another thing to consider is what we preach to people who complain about "censorship" and blacklisting on our blogs. The First Amendment only really applies to government silencing us, right? We don't have the right to be free from condemnation or the usual whining, because that in and of itself would infringe on their right to condemn and whine.


true...our blog is our own "little government" where we can decide how generous or restrictive our own "laws" are. up until recently, i had a "no blacklisting" rule on my own blog. i was persuaded by some on here to consider modifying that and eventually exercized my rights. so far, i believe i have used the power with restraint. but i can see how it can be used much more aggressively and just to "shut up" certain people who simply disagree. but those are struggles every "government" deals with.

but you are right, the standards of the constitution don't apply here just like the standards of a criminal court don't apply in taking a position in an article. of course we all ask questions, ask for more information and so forth...but sometimes people "lawyer" you to the point of ridiculousness AS IF we were in a court. nitpicking every word, getting caught up in details that are off to the side and trying to make them the central point or simply hi jacking the post for their own predetermined agenda. of course, we all can (and have) done exactly that (lawyering) other people's posts...and sometimes a lil "time out" can do a world of good.
on Jan 18, 2007
true...our blog is our own "little government" where we can decide how generous or restrictive our own "laws" are. up until recently, i had a "no blacklisting" rule on my own blog. i was persuaded by some on here to consider modifying that and eventually exercized my rights. so far, i believe i have used the power with restraint. but i can see how it can be used much more aggressively and just to "shut up" certain people who simply disagree. but those are struggles every "government" deals with.


You are correct on making your own rules in your blog. But when you use it because you can't counter the arguement, then it's cowardly act.

See, you can shut me up on your blog. But not others.
on Jan 18, 2007

You are correct on making your own rules in your blog. But when you use it because you can't counter the arguement, then it's cowardly act.

See, you can shut me up on your blog. But not others.


i explained my reasoning concerning you on my blog. you said your peace in your lil article...and i was gonna lift the b/l today since time had passed...but i guess i'll wait as you are still tryin to "get me" and play silly lil games.

and it had nothing to do with not countering your non germaine, irrelevant crap that you wanted to hijack with. and that is after putting up with all kinds of below the belt insults and little senseless cliches thrown at me repeatedly. i ran out of patience and time for you.

See, you can shut me up on your blog. But not others.


see, that's the problem,,,you don't know when to shut up.

grow up miler.

the standards of a criminal court don't apply in taking a position in an article. of course we all ask questions, ask for more information and so forth...but sometimes people "lawyer" you to the point of ridiculousness AS IF we were in a court. nitpicking every word, getting caught up in details that are off to the side and trying to make them the central point or simply hi jacking the post for their own predetermined agenda. of course, we all can (and have) done exactly that (lawyering) other people's posts...and sometimes a lil "time out" can do a world of good.