MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 24, 7:58 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Your White Protestant society is doomed, and you are helpless to
>> > prevent it.
>> > I say we hurry it along with MASS IMMIGRATION of non-White, non-
>> > Christians into the South..
>> What a sad sack you are, MM. I pity you.
>> hl
> Scared of the poor, tired, huddles masses, White Boy? You do know that
> your society is on the verge of extinction, do you not?
But you are the one who is afraid to attach your name to your
statements.
MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 24, 8:50 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > your society is on the verge of extinction
>> MM, you have a strange fondness for turning over in your mind ideas of mass
>> deaths. You are not a normal person.
>> There must be something disturbing about your past.
> You spout the same shit over
How big the "white south " looms in your mind, while to them you are
invisible.
> On Oct 23, 2:44 am, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>> If it produces creatures of PC conformity like [mm]
>> Let me offer a different view.
>> MM imo is not pc. PC people are usually motivated by sympathy for
>> others, esp. those they believe are injured by speech habits of the
>> majority.
>> 9/10 of PC merely tries to persuade the majority to change speech
>> habits.
>> I've never seen MM display any kind of empathy. My suspicion is that he
>> doesn't display any because he doesn't have any; it just isn't included
>> in his pssychological makeup.
>> So, why flame and bait southerners? He enjoys the feeling that he's
>> inflicting distress on this. Or so I believe. The internet has created
>> a scene for some to enjoy this kind of pleasure.
> Edge flames and baits African-Americans. I point this out and shove
> his shit right back at 'im. It's no pleasure. It's called "smashing a
> neo-Confederate"!
Again, making shit up? I actually post very little about blacks (African-Americans, really!!) and that is for a calculated purpose. You're just not smart enough to figure out why, and that drives you nuts.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:44:23 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article <6d1dc625-a259-4788-9558-3f0153201...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Oct 24, 8:50 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> your society is on the verge of extinction
>> MM, you have a strange fondness for turning over in your mind ideas of mass
>> deaths. You are not a normal person.
>> There must be something disturbing about your past.
> You spout the same shit over and over again in a VAIN attempt to
> deflect critiscism where it truly belongs - with the God-Damned White
> South!
> Admit it, your White Christian Patriarchal Society is on the ropes and
> headed for OBLIVION - where it belongs!
>> If it produces creatures of PC conformity like [mm]
> Let me offer a different view.
> MM imo is not pc. PC people are usually motivated by sympathy for
> others, esp. those they believe are injured by speech habits of the
> majority.
> 9/10 of PC merely tries to persuade the majority to change speech
> habits.
> I've never seen MM display any kind of empathy. My suspicion is that he
> doesn't display any because he doesn't have any; it just isn't included
> in his pssychological makeup.
> So, why flame and bait southerners? He enjoys the feeling that he's
> inflicting distress on this. Or so I believe. The internet has created
> a scene for some to enjoy this kind of pleasure.
People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that don't fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't > argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that don't > fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
> >> If it produces creatures of PC conformity like [mm]
> > Let me offer a different view.
> > MM imo is not pc. PC people are usually motivated by sympathy for
> > others, esp. those they believe are injured by speech habits of the
> > majority.
> > 9/10 of PC merely tries to persuade the majority to change speech
> > habits.
> > I've never seen MM display any kind of empathy. My suspicion is that he
> > doesn't display any because he doesn't have any; it just isn't included
> > in his pssychological makeup.
> > So, why flame and bait southerners? He enjoys the feeling that he's
> > inflicting distress on this. Or so I believe. The internet has created
> > a scene for some to enjoy this kind of pleasure.
> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't
> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that don't
> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
That's rich. The White South was/is all about intimidation.
>> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't >> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that >> don't >> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
> To use PC in this way is right-wing PC.
Sorry, correct is a useless word. The only thing that gives the term it's teeth is 'politically'.
And adding 'right-wing' to it proves my point. You can't soft-pedal PC as "motivated by sympathy" then condemn it using the same words. The "PC people" motivated by sympathy may dislike some words, fortunately; it's not their job to pick my words for me.
Disclaimer: Words should always selected with courtesy in mind. As long as said courtesy is returned.
Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:56:31 -0400, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote
> (in article <87y5iu4pv4....@triad.rr.com>):
>>> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't >>> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that >>> don't >>> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
>> To use PC in this way is right-wing PC.
> Sorry, correct is a useless word. The only thing that gives the term it's > teeth is 'politically'.
> And adding 'right-wing' to it proves my point. You can't soft-pedal PC as > "motivated by sympathy" then condemn it using the same words.
I'm describing, not condemning.
Political correctness is nothing more than the effort to shape community
life, and politics, by shaping the speech used in them. Left-wingers do
it; right-wingers do it.
> The "PC people" > motivated by sympathy may dislike some words, fortunately; it's not their job > to pick my words for me.
They don't pick your words at all, but they can urge organizations to
stop using some words. They can get churches to change creeds, hymn
texts, and so on. They can persuade colleges to stop calling female
students "girls" in their literature. By and by the attacked usages
will start looking outdated, even evidence of bigoted attitudes.
They do it all the time. They can build up social pressure so that
others mock you for your words; or if they are not strong enough for
this, they can roll their eyes, and snicker.
That is what most so-call "political-correctness" does. Righties do it
too. If anything, they are more attentive to terminology than lefties.
The whole attack on PC is itself an effort to shape speech for
right-wing purposes: it is right-wing PC.
>>>> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They >>>> can't >>>> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that >>>> don't >>>> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
>>> To use PC in this way is right-wing PC.
>> Sorry, correct is a useless word. The only thing that gives the term it's >> teeth is 'politically'.
>> And adding 'right-wing' to it proves my point. You can't soft-pedal PC as >> "motivated by sympathy" then condemn it using the same words.
> I'm describing, not condemning.
OK. Then describe the difference in PC and "right wing PC".
> Political correctness is nothing more than the effort to shape community
> life, and politics, by shaping the speech used in them. Left-wingers do
> it; right-wingers do it.
And "shaping community life" doesn't worry you? Having a group of people declare themselves the verbal gate keepers shouldn't be a concern? There was a mechanism for shaping community life at one time, it was called peer pressure. Unfortunately; that was gutted by various "you don't know what they've been through" and "the poor man had a bad childhood" type of bullshit. Don't get me wrong. I understand that some people have had a hard life. That comes under the heading of kindness. It dies not extend to blaming society for bad behavior. That lowers the standards for everyone.
>> The "PC people" >> motivated by sympathy may dislike some words, fortunately; it's not their >> job >> to pick my words for me.
> They don't pick your words at all, but they can urge organizations to
> stop using some words. They can get churches to change creeds, hymn
> texts, and so on. They can persuade colleges to stop calling female
> students "girls" in their literature. By and by the attacked usages
> will start looking outdated, even evidence of bigoted attitudes.
They've tried but it hasn't worked so far. And this doesn't concern you? "Urge" is a rather interesting way to put it. So what's the problem with the term 'girls'. It's been used to describe a female of a certain age group for years. I suspect it's because it removes a way of describing a type of behavior as in: "Quit acting like a little girl". No thanks, I'll hold on to that verbal bomb for dear life. Guaranteed to make anyone that's acting like a hysterical ass straighten up.
> They do it all the time. They can build up social pressure so that
> others mock you for your words; or if they are not strong enough for
> this, they can roll their eyes, and snicker.
I wish them luck on that score. If you disarm yourself to the wishes of the tender and sensitive then you can't argue. You're using their words to make your case.
> That is what most so-call "political-correctness" does. Righties do it
> too. If anything, they are more attentive to terminology than lefties.
> The whole attack on PC is itself an effort to shape speech for
> right-wing purposes: it is right-wing PC.
So arguing against PC is PC? Sounds like some circular logic there. If I use a word that you (hypothetically) or someone else doesn't like and am corrected, then I tell you (hypothetically) or the verbal gate keeper to mind their own damn business, that is restricting their speech in some way? I'm sorry, I can't see it.
That brings to mind the old Dixie Chicks controversy. They got up and spoke their mind. Works for me. Peer pressure took care of the rest. There were some, after their career went to hell, that said 'how can you restrict their free speech' (or something of that nature)? Nope, along with free speech comes responsibility for that free speech. The fans that deserted them weren't restricting the groups free speech, they just didn't agree with it. Some group of gate-keepers saying 'you can't condemn them' don't get it. Being a well paid court-jester (Dixie Chicks) doesn't give you the option of pissing off the king (the public).
Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
> And "shaping community life" doesn't worry you? Having a group of people > declare themselves the verbal gate keepers shouldn't be a concern?
No. I suggest you stop worrying about it too, as a philosophical issue.
[ snip ]
> So arguing against PC is PC? Sounds like some circular logic there. > If I use a word that you (hypothetically) or someone else doesn't like and am > corrected, then I tell you (hypothetically) or the verbal gate keeper to mind > their own damn business, that is restricting their speech in some way? I'm > sorry, I can't see it.
Yes. You made it clear earlier that you resist because you have
different political objectives.
> That brings to mind the old Dixie Chicks controversy. They got up and spoke > their mind. Works for me. Peer pressure took care of the rest. There were > some, after their career went to hell, that said 'how can you restrict their > free speech' (or something of that nature)? Nope, along with free speech > comes responsibility for that free speech. The fans that deserted them > weren't restricting the groups free speech, they just didn't agree with it. > Some group of gate-keepers saying 'you can't condemn them' don't get it. > Being a well paid court-jester (Dixie Chicks) doesn't give you the option of > pissing off the king (the public).
So the Dixie Chicks violated your version of PC, and you approve of how
they were made to pay for this. That's how I interpret this para.
From my perspective, you want to make your PC OK, while stigmatizing
lefty PC as bad and unfair, as a general proposition. As I see it, you
also are trying to shape community life by shaping the rules of
discussion.
I don't object to this in principle, because I know that it has always
been going on, on all sides.
And yes, I believe that you like rules that give your side a
greater advantage. Everybody does.
MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Oct 24, 7:58 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Your White Protestant society is doomed, and you are helpless to
>> > prevent it.
>> > I say we hurry it along with MASS IMMIGRATION of non-White, non-
>> > Christians into the South..
>> What a sad sack you are, MM. I pity you.
>> hl
> Whassup, Boy? Don't like them thar "Furriners" ? You are a piece-of-
> shit Presbyterian segregationist.
>> And "shaping community life" doesn't worry you? Having a group of people >> declare themselves the verbal gate keepers shouldn't be a concern?
> No. I suggest you stop worrying about it too, as a philosophical issue.
> [ snip ]
>> So arguing against PC is PC? Sounds like some circular logic there. >> If I use a word that you (hypothetically) or someone else doesn't like and >> am >> corrected, then I tell you (hypothetically) or the verbal gate keeper to >> mind >> their own damn business, that is restricting their speech in some way? I'm >> sorry, I can't see it.
> Yes. You made it clear earlier that you resist because you have
> different political objectives.
I have very few political objectives. There's only one. To see the Democrat party reduced to history. The rest aren't objectives, unless you count as an objective freedom, smaller government and less global adventurism.
>> That brings to mind the old Dixie Chicks controversy. They got up and spoke >> their mind. Works for me. Peer pressure took care of the rest. There were >> some, after their career went to hell, that said 'how can you restrict >> their >> free speech' (or something of that nature)? Nope, along with free speech >> comes responsibility for that free speech. The fans that deserted them >> weren't restricting the groups free speech, they just didn't agree with it. >> Some group of gate-keepers saying 'you can't condemn them' don't get it. >> Being a well paid court-jester (Dixie Chicks) doesn't give you the option >> of >> pissing off the king (the public).
> So the Dixie Chicks violated your version of PC, and you approve of how
> they were made to pay for this. That's how I interpret this para.
Nope. They have a right and freedom to express their opinion. I never liked them anyway. They were a bad example of country music. If you're going to argue a "version" of PC, then you'll have to ask their fans. Or...what were their fans.
> From my perspective, you want to make your PC OK, while stigmatizing
> lefty PC as bad and unfair, as a general proposition. As I see it, you
> also are trying to shape community life by shaping the rules of
> discussion.
I will not admonish you personally, but I do reserve the right to point, laugh and post video. That makes all the difference.
>> On Oct 24, 7:58 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Your White Protestant society is doomed, and you are helpless to
>>>> prevent it.
>>>> I say we hurry it along with MASS IMMIGRATION of non-White, non-
>>>> Christians into the South..
>>> What a sad sack you are, MM. I pity you.
>>> hl
>> Whassup, Boy? Don't like them thar "Furriners" ? You are a piece-of-
>> shit Presbyterian segregationist.
> What is a furriner? Must be Canadian argot.
He must have meant "furrier". You know how them Canadians get all hot and bothered over animal pelts.
