The history of political correctness

Totally wrong.

Try to say that Obama is an idiot. You'd be labeled a racist from the word 'go'.

 

Try to say the man quoted beneath everything you post was an idiot, and you were sentenced to prison for 4 months. Which is worse?

I'm confused here is political correctness institutional or are we just complaining that everyone doesn't agree with what we say, and they say bad things about us for our opinions?

 

I don't know about this. Around here, you're more likely to get called a racist for saying that Obama isn't an idiot.

 

Why would you view the President as being an "idiot"? (Better yet, simply justify calling him that.)

 

LOL!! Indeed.

 

I have an alternative 'twist' to that point. The 'assault' has come from people themselves actually choosing freely to exercise their individual freedoms - those that were supposed to by guarenteed by the formative documents of the USA (and other international equivalents, of course) - freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom to act as an individual and make whatever life choices people want to make, as long as they don't destroy anybody else's freedom in doing so. That is what individual freedom means. It is the people who have freely chosen for themselves that the old model of 'nuclear' family, while it has its merits and is absolutely fine for those who want to choose that way of living their lives, shouldn't be the only possible or allowable way to live life.

People have decided for themselves to live their lives in other ways, but for some reason it often seems to be some among those who shout loudest about 'freedom' who want to prevent them from being able to make such free choices, and to once again restrict them by both law and social conformation dictat to lives that have to conform to one particular path. To quote Metallica (because it is a very good way of putting it), "Freedom of choice is made for you my friend"! We must all be 'free', according to them, and free at all costs, but not so free as to actually be allowed to choose how to live our lives - that must conform to the socially acceptable path which is being dictating for you - you will be heterosexual, worship our god our way, get married, have children, form a proper nuclear family, and know your place in life (and know, of course, which kind of people are 'superior', and which 'inferior', and remain where you are placed on that social scale).

There is, of course, nothing at all wrong with the nuclear family idea at all for those who choose that path for themselves (and indeed, I grew up in such a family, and was happily in that postition myself for many years bringing up my children, although ultimately it didn't work out to be forever despite our best efforts at the time), but the US constitutional documents (and many of their international equivalents, one way or another) are quite explicit about the population having the right to freedom in their lives - that means they must be free to choose other kinds of paths for themselves (as long as they are not harming others of their freedom by doing so). 'Freedom of the individual' without freedom of choice, and social tolerance for people who make different choices for themselves, is really no freedom at all - it is just oppression, just as much as living under an authoritarian government is oppression.

 

Mamooth: "You don't see the Democrats setting any topics as off-limits."

Now, that's amusing. Voter ID? Off-limits. Abortions? Off-limits unless you want to discuss post-partum abortion. Racism in America? Off-limits if it goes one step beyond bashing white folks. Cutting government? Off-limits. Any change in schools other than raising taxes and spending more money is off limits. Any discussion of criminal unions is off limits. Discussing any of the plethora of lies from the left like Republcans want to stop birth control is off limits. Liberals want to shut down media outlets that disagree with them, control the internet to stifle dissension, and eliminate free speech as a right. Get serious, Mamooth.

 

I agree with your fundamental assumption that those on "the left" (whatever that exactly means) equate to and are defined by evilness, and that those on "the right" cannot be evil, despite secretly aspiring to a plutocracy.

 

Because he is following the tenets of Neo-Con interventionism.

Idiocy of the highest order.

 

Absolutely you are correct.

Which is why this republic is doomed.