The first is the trustee of Mark Twain’s estate trying to improve the readership of some of the best-loved American literature of all time by improving its relevancy for today’s children by removing some inconvenient words. To be sure, coming from a long, storied Southern hunting breed, like I do, there are lots of words and phrasings used in the 1880’s that we wouldn’t use today, but that’s true of the 1980’s as well. Let’s censor the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, and every Judge Reinhold movie, in retrospect, before Twain. (more to say on this later unless I fall asleep)
The second is that all of the hateful, violent speech towards abstract tea party ideas recently reminded me of the admonition (from the same people!!) that vile acts in Arizona should lead us to “tone down the rhetoric.” Most of the talking heads at the time said one of two things. First, “of course, incendiary rhetoric could lead someone to the edge, just look at
Both are feline (sorry for cursing) ways of saying “No, YOU shut up.”
The people saying the first thing should quote specific rhetoric, and refute it explicitly and logically, not by an emotional appeal or some ridiculous call for “civility.” This, primarily, from the same crew who would allow the SEIU to ensure “civility” at a polling place. No thanks, in either regard. I’ll take my chances weeding through all the arguments looking for actual truth. The people saying the second thing should say, “Yeah, but EVEN IF they were inciting or doing something else that makes me feel queasy personally, I hope you’re not seriously suggesting that we limit their rights to expression, which for political purposes, especially, should be pretty close to absolute, are you??”
Both are cowards, so you'll never hear either.
Democracy is messy. Ideas are messy. Truth is simple and universal in math (not even there, but close enough for anyone silly enough to be reading my rants...). Everywhere else, its complex, local and context sensitive, which is why federalism was genius. It’s messier than my yard. Aristocracy (internally, and on the surface) and autocracy (externally) appear genteel. Again, no thanks.
I love nothing more than a loud, ignorant supporter of someone I disagree with. I’m best served, usually, by handing them a megaphone, or ½ hour on MSNBC.
Freedom of speech is explicitly for controversial or ideologically out of the mainstream thoughts. It’s only response is a better counter-argument. If a better counter-argument (like “cats are delicious with a demi-glace” or “lower tax rates factually increase revenues, we have a spending problem”) don’t convince your opponents, they’re not looking for the truth. Take what enlightenment you can from them (even ignorant people have experience, learn from every available source), but don’t waste your breath trying to convert them.
Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Always has been. Control of language and speech = control of thought. It’s probably too late for you, but teach that truth to your kids.
Yeah, I may be a dog, but I do read. You should start with The Federalist Papers, or A Theory of Justice. Or both. Plus, what else I got to do all day. The books are just sitting there – no humans to play with most of the time – it keeps me busy...
I mean, Bark. There. Arf could be construed as shorthand for “Accost Remaining Felines”, or something else sinister. Regardless of whether I actually mean that (I do, actually, want cats dead), but not typically when saying “Arf”. I’m a dog. It’s about all I can actually say.
Intent is all a speaker has. All words have meaning. Precise usage is the only way to get an idea from my mind to yours. If listeners are allowed to be offended outside of the intent and context of the user, no-one will be free to say anything, or more accurately, they’ll be too scared of saying anything meaningful - which is the real intent of political correctness.
Arf.
There, I said it. Bite me. (if you're human, sue me... see how context informs intent...)
