Political Correctness = Cultural Marxism

If someone got fired for sexual harrasment or gets punched in the face by a black man for calling him names, would you have sympathy for that person or would you say they got what they deserved ?

 

I agree. Like the Supreme Court said (I wish I remembered the name of the case, but I dont want to look through old school notes to find it), they ruled that such hate speech laws are attacking the thoughts of those being prosecuted, not the physical crime they committed. It wasn't just a hate speech law, but if you were found to have done a crime that was motivated by racial hate and it could be proved that you were indeed motivated by hate because of something you said before the crime was committed, you could get an extra two years in prison or some such shit.

You attack hate speech by using homosexuality as an insult. You really had to think that one out, eh?

 

Put your thinking cap on....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1699763&page=1
A hispanic girl insulted a black bouncer, he raped and murdered her. Did she get what she deserved???

Crickets chirping....

 

In my opinion, there's a difference between being un-politically correct and just spouting hate speech.

I think that if you want to say something not "politically correct" in jest, just as a joke, then that's fine whether it's about race, gay people, whatever. But when people say in public things like, "I hate black people. Niggers are useless to America" then you're out of line.

 

why is someone out of line for expressing an opinion,after all opinions are like assholes everybody has one

 

I do not agree. If you silence vocal sentiments of hate, you dont eliminate them, you merely censor them. It's still there. This is why hate speech laws are Orwellian. Being polite to a person who is rude to you is a socially accepted manner of being civil. People police themselves. No legislation is required for people to be polite. What if in your mind you want to kill the guy who cut you off... Is that a hate thought? What's next, thought crimes will be punishable like in the movie "Minority Report' once they figure out how to read other's minds?????

 

Toplom - you might be interested in this article by Henry Makow, about the sham which is "diversity." It's an excellent article and is really spot on.

http://www.savethemales.ca/001589.html

It's always an easy way for governments to get the people behind their own enslavement by portraying things in a positive, peace-loving, love-yer-brother kind of light.

I mean, after all, isn't hate bad?

It might not be good to hate, but people have the right to hate, and they have the right to say whatever they want, without persecution. When you have a brainwashed society such as we do, people never think of underlying agendas because all that's there is emotion. People don't think, they react based on whatever their conditioning is, and they have been conditioned that hate is unnatural and needs to be eliminated, regardless of what it might entail, which is the loss of their freedoms and civil liberties.

Not only are the universities responsible for promoting the PC agenda, but so is corporate America and its interlocking Tavistock-controlled think tanks. There is not a major corporation in America that isn't pushing "diversity" (reeducation).

It's all about social engineering and destroying everything that was once considered normal in prepartion for the major changes that are to come.

Also, Toplom, check out some of the posts in the "Politics" forum that people have written lately. I'd like to see your response to some of them.... especially the one about paper money and the FED.

 

I agree 100% with you. People are emotionally conditioned to respond a certain way. When they encounter an idea or concept out of line with their intentionally flawed paradigm, they recoil and experience cognitive dissonance which is a state of conflict between the new idea and the old idea. Ideally, the elites want the masses to deal with the problem of cognitive dissonance by ignoring the new conflicting idea.

 

Unlike you, I am capable of giving a straight answer. No absolutely not, she in no way, shape or form deserved what she got. What I am gathering is, you feel someone who gets fired from thier job for sexual harassment or gets punched in the face for using racial slurs, also do not deserve what they get. Is that correct ?

 

Oh, wait I see, what you are driving at is that she didnt deserve to be raped and killed, but if she was assaulted, was near death but survived, then it would be ok and she would have deserved it, because she used racial slurs right???? Where do you draw the line? Violence in response to words should never be acceptable. Free Speech should be unlimited. The two ideas work in tandem to communicate a set of consequences to those who engage in violence based on verbal provocation...

 

If whatever you have to say is worthwhile then the consequenses will also be worthwhile.

 

that is a pretty dubious and halfwitted thing to say. What you essentially said was this:

1.If a black guy calls a white a cracka and the white guy retaliates by beating him half to death, then this beating is a worthy consequence of a worthy insult.
2. If a white guy calls a black guy a nigga and the black guy retaliates by beating him half to death, then this beating is a worthy consequence of a worthy insult.

Are you even thinking???? Anyone home upstairs???? Are you retarded???

 

Only the Patriarchal EGO is insulted when latent homosexual motives are exposed.

After all, in hyper-competitive hierarchies, the EGO works over-time hiding its psycho-sexual motives from its competitors.

Remember, EGO's job at the hub of our psyche is to mobilize our psycho-energy towards survival and reproduction,

And, in hyper-competitive social-environments, a social-primate's most effective survival and reproductive strategy is deception.

The more competitive our social-environment, the more deceptive our EGO.

EGO deceives its competitors by deceptively gratifying its psycho-sexual impulses indirectly using the accepted drapery of Politics, Business, and Religion.

The Patriarchal EGO is embarrassed when the drapery is pulled aside and naked anal-preoccupations are exposed.

More than embarrassed, one's sexual status within the competitive hierarchy of deceivers is diminished.

Politics seems awesome, because Politics is Sex by Other Means.


Hate-Speach has always been used as a psychological weapon to induce stress and undermine mental health.

Historically, Hate-Speach is used to undermine the identity of large groups of individuals belonging to a different class, race, religion or sex.

Hate-Speach is a totalitarian weapon of mass mind-control.

The impulse of mass mind-control is a neurotic, fear-gripped anal impulse.

Institutions like universities and corporations have slowing come to recognize the counter-productive destructiveness of Hate-Speach, and now regulate it.

Regulation however, is a mistake.

Exposing the hidden psycho-sexual motivations behind Hate-Speach on the other hand, completely eliminates its usefulness to the Patriarchal EGO.

Unfortunately, regulation simply gives EGO one more red-herring in which to disguise its true motivations.

Regulation allows EGO to drape its true motivations behind the banner of Free-Speach.

We should end regulation and strip the Patriarchal EGO of its fig-leaf.

 

No, thats not what I said at all and it is sad that I have to explain it. It goes like this, if you feel that what you have to say is SSOOO important that we all NEED to hear it, then it should be worth the risk of saying it. If it is not worth the risk of saying it, then maybe its not worth saying at all. In the above examples you gave, did the white guy know how the black guy was going to react and vice versa ? certainly they understood and they said it anyway, so they must have felt that calling the other person a name was worth the risk of a beating, if it was not worth the risk, then why did they say it ? Certainly Jesus understood this, as did the Founding fathers, the Abolitionists, the Sufferagettes, the Union workers in the early 20th centry, Rosa Parks and Martin Luthor King. They all understood the risks they were taking and took them because what they had to say was important. The question you have to ask yourself is, is what you have to say, worth the risk ? Do you have something genuinely insightful to say (even if it is unpopular) or do you just want to use racial slurs and hide behind the 1st amendment ? One of those is worth a beating, the other is not, I will leave it to you to figure out which is which.

You just proved exactly what I thinking about you. This has nothing to do with Free Speech, what you really want is to be offensive without consequences.

 

freedom of speech is so important, it is important that people feel free to speak their minds. what is also important is that human beings are free to live without fear of violence and discrimination. the fact of the matter is that many people - mostly some women, and members of ethnic, religious or sexual minorities - have not been afforded this basic human right. hate speech laws have been implemented to protect people, all people, from persecution.

 

Ummm... freud was completely discredited LOL!!!

 

Of course everyone knows this has everything to do with free speech. This is a law based society, and you dont have a legal right to physically assault someone no matter what they say to you. Free speech IS DESIGNED to protect offensive speech. That's the whole point and the overwhelming majority of people wholeheartedly agree with me.

 

Well, there are no hate speech laws as of yet. See, you are thinking in terms of a victim group, and if you're part of a minority this is an inherently racist way of thinking because we are all just individuals. There should be no organizations that cater to special interest groups because invariably, racist groups such as "La Raza", "Naacp", Nation of Islam", "Adl" and the "white pride groups" foment division in society.

 

I'm not asking anybody to stop thinking hateful things - even though it would be nice, what I'm saying is that if you are racist, you have no right to go up to somebody and start telling them what a piece of crap they are. In my mind, that's harassment. Also, I don't think anyone has any business spouting hate speech to large groups of people or on national television unless you're having a debate, so you are giving a reason for feeling the way you do about whatever the issue in question is.

So basically there's a difference between speaking your mind and harassing people and making peoples' lives miserable.

 

Translation: you dont support free speech unless it fits your criteria. You're not tolerant, unless something fits your criteria. You support censorship. You're probably the type who would support free speech by fundamentalist christians, yet denounce the homosexual political agenda as inherently hostile to straight people and would like to silence them accordingly. You would have been one of Stalin's willing executioner's if you had the chance... I am sure of this.