Re: Just playing Devil's Advocate for a second...gentlemanjAugust 27 2006, 19:52:43 UTC
Hmm...well, actually, I was under the impression that the term "politically correct" was a term of approval used by Stalinists, originally; but I mean it in its current meaning of "acceptable to 'Progressives' and all other right-thinking folks." In other words, a form of jargon that is smug and defiantly self-righteous, like "womyn," a word I hate. It smacks of the Maoist rhetoric used by the SDS and Weather Underground--which used to be the Weatherman(a reference to the Bob Dylan song, remember?)until someone decided the term was sexist...but I digress...
I don't keep company with Trotskyites or Neocons, as you well know, any more than you associate with Stalinists. That's a cheap shot, and patently silly. 'Heterosexist privilege' is the kind of sloganeering term Orwell was always cautioning writers not to use, because it makes one sound like a Marxist parrot.
If you mean that opposition to gay marriage is a conscious defense of heterosexuality over homosexuality, may I point out that heterosexual polygamy and polyandry is also illegal? And that civil unions are recognized for legal purposes in many states?
Change takes time, and what we are dealing with is culture shock. As for the 80% figure, I am frankly guessing, but don't misquote me. I was not saying that 80% are conservatives. I am saying that probably 80% fall into one of the three categories of Christian, Conservative, or uncomfortable with gay culture. I suspect the number is higher than that.
Moderates and liberals are not necessary in lockstep on this subject, either, any more than they are on the subject of abortion. As I said, you must be patient. Attempting to impose radical change too soon will get a violent reaction, which is the last thing people need.
Re: Just playing Devil's Advocate for a second...baal_kriahSeptember 7 2006, 19:50:42 UTC
I was going to let this pass, but recent posts have me disinclined to. It's my damn journal, I WILL have the last word!
'Heterosexist privilege' is the kind of sloganeering term Orwell was always cautioning writers not to use, because it makes one sound like a Marxist parrot.
This phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism, nor does your misstatement of Orwell bolster your position. He objected to using words disingenuously ala Newspeak, but where did he say that the reason to avoid it is "because it makes one sound like a Marxist parrot"? That's your own muddleheaded distortion AFAIK.
As I said, you must be patient. Attempting to impose radical change too soon will get a violent reaction, which is the last thing people need.
Perhaps you are too young to know this, but I vividly remember people saying this exact same thing to Dr. King when he started the bus boycott and began using passive resistance tactics. I agree that violence is usually counter-productive, but no advance in human rights has ever happened without confrontation and struggle. I guess some people think that without the Civil Rights movement the "white" supremacists would have just stepped aside by now and African Americans would be welcomed as equal members of our society, and that all the racial turmoil we still experience are the result of the actions of Dr. King and his colleagues. I think such people are ignorant fools who totally misread history.
I don't keep company with Trotskyites or Neocons, as you well know, any more than you associate with Stalinists. That's a cheap shot, and patently silly. 'Heterosexist privilege' is the kind of sloganeering term Orwell was always cautioning writers not to use, because it makes one sound like a Marxist parrot.
If you mean that opposition to gay marriage is a conscious defense of heterosexuality over homosexuality, may I point out that heterosexual polygamy and polyandry is also illegal? And that civil unions are recognized for legal purposes in many states?
Change takes time, and what we are dealing with is culture shock. As for the 80% figure, I am frankly guessing, but don't misquote me. I was not saying that 80% are conservatives. I am saying that probably 80% fall into one of the three categories of Christian, Conservative, or uncomfortable with gay culture. I suspect the number is higher than that.
Moderates and liberals are not necessary in lockstep on this subject, either, any more than they are on the subject of abortion. As I said, you must be patient. Attempting to impose radical change too soon will get a violent reaction, which is the last thing people need.
Reply
'Heterosexist privilege' is the kind of sloganeering term Orwell was always cautioning writers not to use, because it makes one sound like a Marxist parrot.
This phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism, nor does your misstatement of Orwell bolster your position. He objected to using words disingenuously ala Newspeak, but where did he say that the reason to avoid it is "because it makes one sound like a Marxist parrot"? That's your own muddleheaded distortion AFAIK.
As I said, you must be patient. Attempting to impose radical change too soon will get a violent reaction, which is the last thing people need.
Perhaps you are too young to know this, but I vividly remember people saying this exact same thing to Dr. King when he started the bus boycott and began using passive resistance tactics. I agree that violence is usually counter-productive, but no advance in human rights has ever happened without confrontation and struggle. I guess some people think that without the Civil Rights movement the "white" supremacists would have just stepped aside by now and African Americans would be welcomed as equal members of our society, and that all the racial turmoil we still experience are the result of the actions of Dr. King and his colleagues. I think such people are ignorant fools who totally misread history.
Reply
Leave a comment