Is Anti-PC Really Just A Way to Not Get Punished For What You Said (claim, thesis)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well we know what they wrote in their personal correspondence. Even when they were critical of their contemporaries or opponents in public letters, they would use pseudonyms, but even then their word choices were tactful.
Who knows what they said at home?... but PC is not about what you say at home. It's about what's said in public accommodations - workplace or school.
Although Andrew Jackson came pretty close to Trump, but Jackson ran on an anti-intellectual platform.
Although Andrew Jackson came pretty close to Trump, but Jackson ran on an anti-intellectual platform.
Yes and most of the Founder generation who survived long enough to see that were disturbed by him. Thomas Jefferson was alive long enough to see the beginning of the rise of Jackson and found him deplorable. James Madison lived long enough to see most of Jackson's presidency and felt the country would not survive the "rise of democracy," although he was generally publically quiet about political affairs in his later life.
Last edited by redguard57; 09-12-2016 at 09:34 AM..
Yes and most of the Founder generation who survived long enough to see that were disturbed by him. Thomas Jefferson was alive long enough to see the beginning of the rise of Jackson and found him deplorable. James Madison lived long enough to see most of Jackson's presidency and felt the country would not survive the "rise of democracy," although he was genearlly publically quiet about political affairs in his later life.
No doubt AJ being from what would be considered a sub-standard social order compared to those mentioned.
Certainly politicos look at Trump in the same manner being an outsider to the Repub. Party.
No doubt AJ being from what would be considered a sub-standard social order compared to those mentioned.
Not that. Not all the Founding Fathers were from "upper" social orders...but all of them respected intellectualism and gained a great deal of knowledge through self-study, such as Franklin. Jackson's populist claim to fame was an abject and deliberate rejection of intellectualism.
Not that. Not all the Founding Fathers were from "upper" social orders...but all of them respected intellectualism and gained a great deal of knowledge through self-study, such as Franklin. Jackson's populist claim to fame was an abject and deliberate rejection of intellectualism.
I know but AJ stayed in his social level deliberately to court a different vote and present himself a man apart.
So your throwing the "o" word because I'm merely disputing your opinion? There you have it. This is a very common tactic of those who don't want to be challenged.
Your "arguments" are quite riddled in logical fallacies. A common tactic of the dishonest.
Please point out these fallacies. Back up your point if you can instead of throwing around buzzwords.
I'd be obliged to.
I'll also add that the "offended" comment was intended as satire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
Have you read CD? Feminism and most certainly religion is criticized and scapegoated all the damn time on here.
We talked about how this is moving the goalpost before (to which you completely ignored).
You deliberately changed the criterion of the argument to be specific to CD, when in fact it never was.
You actually don't have to look far for examples of attempts to suppress free speech with "Political Correctness".
After the attacks on Charlie Hebdo the Pope said: It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others
Google Feminism, Google people like Thunderf00t, google "Trigger Warnings", google "Micro Aggression". Google Black Lives Matter. Really, the only excuse for not realizing that people don't think religion and feminism should be criticized is ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
So apparently people aren't even allowed to criticize your opinions on a public website like youtube. Yes I've talked about this earlier in this thread. Your opinion should never be criticized or challenged. People shouldn't have that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
So your throwing the "o" word because I'm merely disputing your opinion? There you have it. This is a very common tactic of those who don't want to be challenged.
Psychologist's fallacy The psychologist's fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when an observer assumes that his/her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. Circular Reasoning Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with
Here's where things get interesting. You presumed the objectivity of your stance, which is "You don't think people should criticize your view" without any sort of support or evidence.
Then you used that to form another logical fallacy; circular reasoning.
So you state "You don't want your view criticized". Then if I don't say anything, you say "aha! I win!". If I criticize your argument, you say "aha! Evidence for my conclusion!" (A little hypocritical, no?)
It's the exact same sort of argument Black Lives Matter and Feminists use.
What it comes down to is that if you make a baseless assertion, you should expect to get criticized. That is a good thing. The idea is that eventually fallacious or otherwise illogical positions will become harder and harder to hold because the holder will be subject to criticism everytime they voice their opinion.
Again, I want to point out that you are attempting to criticize me and I am okay with that. I don't think much of anything you've said holds water yet; but it's important that views are questioned.
If you want to suggest that I think I am above criticism, please demonstrate how instead of making baseless assertions.
I'd be obliged to.
I'll also add that the "offended" comment was intended as satire.
We talked about how this is moving the goalpost before (to which you completely ignored).
You deliberately changed the criterion of the argument to be specific to CD, when in fact it never was.
You actually don't have to look far for examples of attempts to suppress free speech with "Political Correctness".
After the attacks on Charlie Hebdo the Pope said: It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others
Google Feminism, Google people like Thunderf00t, google "Trigger Warnings", google "Micro Aggression". Google Black Lives Matter. Really, the only excuse for not realizing that people don't think religion and feminism should be criticized is ignorance.
So you're saying that I am moving the goalpost by pointing out that Feminism is criticized on CD? Did you ever think that maybe I was using CD as an example of how your theory about the criticism of Feminism is off. It's one of many examples I can draw from to demonstrate that your opinions are not being censored. Oh and BTW, I never said that Feminism and Religion shouldn't be criticized. Talk about moving the goal post.
Quote:
Psychologist's fallacy The psychologist's fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when an observer assumes that his/her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. Circular Reasoning Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with
Here's where things get interesting. You presumed the objectivity of your stance, which is "You don't think people should criticize your view" without any sort of support or evidence.
Then you used that to form another logical fallacy; circular reasoning.
So you state "You don't want your view criticized". Then if I don't say anything, you say "aha! I win!". If I criticize your argument, you say "aha! Evidence for my conclusion!" (A little hypocritical, no?)
It's the exact same sort of argument Black Lives Matter and Feminists use.
What it comes down to is that if you make a baseless assertion, you should expect to get criticized. That is a good thing. The idea is that eventually fallacious or otherwise illogical positions will become harder and harder to hold because the holder will be subject to criticism everytime they voice their opinion.
Again, I want to point out that you are attempting to criticize me and I am okay with that. I don't think much of anything you've said holds water yet; but it's important that views are questioned.
If you want to suggest that I think I am above criticism, please demonstrate how instead of making baseless assertions.
So you tell me what is the truth of what's going on and your experiences. You've been very vague so far in expressing who is trying to censor your opinions and how they've managed to do it. All I can gather from your posts is you hold ideas such as Feminism, Religion and the BLM movement in contempt. This isn't what this thread is about. After all you yourself have yet to provide any concrete proof or examples of how Feminism, Religion and BLM are above criticism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
