It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lola322 What I am talking about is freedom of speech and expression and how one man's liberty so quickly becomes slavery and dictatorship for others. If I were to hate it would be to hate the systematic dismantling of freedom of thought and being able to publicly voice an opinion.
Originally posted by lola322
Why do we allow ourselves to be dictated to rather than think for ourselves? Why do we cheer the dictator in hopes for freedom for all? It cannot does not work that way.
Eastwood thinks political correctness has made society humourless
Fri, Feb 27 01:15 PM
London, February 27 (ANI): Acting legend Clint Eastwood , 79, apparently believes that political correctness has rendered modern society humourless, for he accuses younger generations of spending too much time trying to avoid being offensive.
The Dirty Harry star insists that he should be able to tell harmless jokes about nationality without fearing that people may brand him "a racist".
"People have lost their sense of humour. In former times we constantly made jokes about different races. You can only tell them today with one hand over your mouth or you will be insulted as a racist," the Daily Express quoted him as saying.
"I find that ridiculous. In those earlier days every friendly clique had a 'Sam the Jew' or 'Jose the Mexican' - but we didn't think anything of it or have a racist thought. It was just normal that we made jokes based on our nationality or ethnicity. That was never a problem. I don't want to be politically correct.
We're all spending too much time and energy trying to be politically correct about everything," he added. (ANI)
Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
"What so many people fail to realize or recognize is the truth that as members of society, one man's 'freedom' will always equal another man's 'slavery'. Living within a society, and therefore reaping its benefits, means giving from one hand to receive with the other. Those who wish to practice the idea of 'limitless' freedom should seek it outside of society. That's the only place you're going to find it."
You are very likely right.
"Now I agree with you to an extent and I realize that the ultimate ideal is to achieve a balance that grants as much freedom as possible will limiting the sacrifices we make to as little as possible. But if you'd like to complain about losing your right to be insensitive to people, then I'm afraid disagreement is generally all I can give in return, especially when you are crying out for others to be sensitive to you. So, on the other hand, people also need to learn about not being so sensitive and so easily offended."
I try not to be insensitive to others. I do not believe however that asking for balance and equality for all is unreasonable. There are special priveledges the gov't gives to certain ethnic groups that others don't get like free health care and colledge funds etc but the more these ethnic groups whine for equality the more incensed I get because I have to pay for my kids and myself and my spouse. Most middle class people don't get breaks, but these ethnic groups do and they whine for more equality but they don't really want equality they just want more. And I do agree that people need to be less sensitive but they shouldn't be sheep either.
"As for the specific issue of sexual orientation, I would generally agree with you. Teaching children tolerance doesn't necessarily require that they know particular details. Though your desire to keep it hidden doesn't quite solve the problem either. In that case, I hope you refrain from showing affection to your significant other around your children, otherwise you're breaking your own rule. And if you aren't comfortable talking to them about sex, who do you expect will be? If you don't want the government raising your child, you need to be sure to raise them yourself."
I don't mean to keep general affection hidden but by the term "gay" it defines sexuality. If my young child were to come to me and say Suzie has two moms or two dads living together and why is that I'd tell them that is just the way their family works however if my seven or eight year old asks me what bi-sexual or homosexual or lesbien is then I become uncomfortable because how much does s/he need to know at this age? And why is the media making such a big hoopla about it? Why should anyone else but the people directly involved in the relationship care about who sleeps in whose bed much less have big splashy parades about it?
The gov't doesn't raise my children I do. I am a homeschooler.
cheers,
Lola
[edit on 28-2-2009 by lola322]
[edit on 28-2-2009 by lola322]
[edit on 28-2-2009 by lola322]
Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
So, you take offense or exception to a gay pride parade being held on public property, which every taxpayer contributes to the maintenance of including gays and straights, and wish that sensitivity to be valued and accepted.
While at the same time lamenting the sensitivity of others as impinging on your right to express yourself freely.
Originally posted by lola322
Most middle class people don't get breaks, but these ethnic groups do and they whine for more equality but they don't really want equality they just want more. And I do agree that people need to be less sensitive but they shouldn't be sheep either.
Originally posted by lola322
Why should anyone else but the people directly involved in the relationship care about who sleeps in whose bed much less have big splashy parades about it?
Originally posted by lola322
The gov't doesn't raise my children I do. I am a homeschooler.
Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Step One: Induce fear that whatever one says might be misconstrued as an insult.
Step Two: Further confuse and obscure the matter by making it a "nationwide talking point" under the guise of being a humanitarian issue.
Step Three : Indoctrinate the youth while the adults fight over the details.
Step Four : Watch as the majority of the slave generations become completely unable to effectively communicate with anyone outside of their own demographic and mindset for lack of tolerance of expression.
Step Five: PROFIT from the language barrier.
In other words:
Out with the old and in with the NEWSPEAK.
Welcome to the future.
Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Btw, I'm in the US, so the may be some disparity in our experiences
I'm Canadian
I agree with you. The middle class, seemingly by virtue of being in the middle, seems to have the greatest strain placed on it to pass both up and down. I can also say, having gown up in an area that was predominantly white, and predominantly poor, that seeing ads on television for the UNCF made me question where I was going to get help from.
Grew up in a mixed ethnicity area.
What I would personally like to see would be a removal of ethnicity from the issue. It is certainly true that the largest percentage of poor in the US are from particular ethnic groups, but what does that matter? If racism plays a role in their position in society, I would accuse the same who pass down their welfare checks, not the common people who, I find, generally could care less about the color of a person's skin until the issue is made otherwise.
I agree! Unfortuneately I find so many of them make a bigger deal of it than there should be. I want to ask them why their skin color makes them think they are anymore or less special than anyone else. And the big whigs are just as bad but they i find don't discriminate they want to keep everyone poor and stupid so they can rake in the tax dollars unaccounted for.
I think in fact there could be an entire discussion on how governments perpetuate a sort of 'reverse psychology' brand of racism. Regardless if it's intentional or not, it does feed a victim mentality that is unhealthy and unproductive. It isn't about race but rather means to me. And it wouldn't likely be an issue at all if we didn't live in a society where one's value has little to with contribution and so much to do with perpetuated status. Does a banker really deserve a multi-million dollar bonus while a construction worker gets nothing for his bonus? Who really contributes more to society? At least that's the way I see it.
A banker/ politician/ceo who gets that for little effort ought to be shot especially when they pay most of their workers who do the real work minimum wage or slightly better.
I don't know if it's unreasonable to expect or strive for balance and equality for everyone, but it is difficult. And made more so by those who claim to be above us all. I think personally it's time to shift focus.
Truly. However nothing worth having comes easy.
I agree with you to an extent, though I can't say I'm willing to deny someone their right, regardless of intent, if what they are doing is not doing direct harm to the public at large. It may put some of us out of our way, but to me that is part of the price of living in society.
Yes but it is always having to give up or give way or give in that perpetuates the pc propoganda and slowly strips the rights of everyone else of their rights.
As for children, what you tell them is obviously up to you, and your right. I have no place in that and likely went in a bad direction with some of my response. I've just always advocated openness and find children fairly accepting of the idea that some people are simply different.
No offece taken at all and I do try to be open but there is a lot of TMI in the world today and I find that pc propoganda is one of the worst offenders.
And to that I sincerely say, Bravo.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and welcome to ATS
Thank you very much for talking with me Timetraveller I have quite enjoyed it and thank you also for your nice comments.
lola
Originally posted by whaaa
I think I see what you are doing here. Do you Listen to Rush by any chance?
The Music group?
Who is that
I'll bet my pink slip against yours, that you seldom miss Mr. Limbaugh.