That is one way to look at it....
?Political Correctness Paving the way to Acceptance of Depravity?
- Thread starter bybee
- Start date
That is one way to look at it....
Tinark
Active member
Even the liberal stronghold of San Francisco is embracing bacon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon_mania
Jose Fly
New member
Yep. It was Nixon's Assistant for Domestic Affairs, John Ehrlichman who said:
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar Left, and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black. But by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Okay. So you are saying that the public is stupid, gullible and can be manipulated by whatever political machine happens to be in power?
TracerBullet
New member
You seem to be expressing your opinion just fine
True, here on TOL.
I'm thinking of the Christian baker who may very well lose her shop because she chooses not to bake a cake for a customer with whom she disagrees.
Tinark
Active member
That's not expressing an opinion. That is discriminatorily denying services at a public accommodation. This has been beaten to death many times already.
It has certainly been shown that an opinion contrary to acceptance of anything declared legal is not to be tolerated. Yet not everyone agrees with all that is declared legal. Therefore, if one does not agree one may not continue in business.
Somehow I see a loss of freedom here.
Tinark
Active member
But it's not the expression of the opinion that's illegal. It is the denial of services that is illegal. Why shed crocodile tears over something that's been ingrained into American law since the 1960's with anti-racial discrimination laws?
TracerBullet
New member
You mean the business owner who thinks they are above the law and refuses to serve minorities.
She didn't "disagree" any more than a racist "disagrees" with blacks or an Neo-Nazi "disagrees" with Jews -she chose to discriminate and like any choice her decision to break the law has consequences. Hiding ones prejudice behind the bible doesn't justify discrimination and it doesn't make your actions anything but reprehensible, all it does is soil the image of Christianity.
I never quite get this, politics is a practical profession; it is social mixed with business, and only is this.
Only the young and careless care about the idea of ‘correct politics’; it is a mass produced entertainment, like television game shows. What is real is the business behind politics, and how politics is the representative of business.
I never pay attention to any such irrelevant pseudo-politics, and, as a consequence, I have never understood what it actually means? To me, it is playing; actually it is to monkey around with ideology, which is purposeless.
Funny, though, if a picture I watched about Richard Nixon was at all based in some fact, then he was somewhat neurotic, or mentally disturbed, as it portrayed him being overly concerned by what a bunch of kids thought about him, and his overblown concern about his self image, his need to be liked by people, who were irrelevant to his life. It seemed to me he might have not been forced to resign had he not cared about what did not matter. He should have focused on his deal with China and Russia, and not some nutcase who could never harm him.
My point, being too concerned about small matters can be tragic.
Only the young and careless care about the idea of ‘correct politics’; it is a mass produced entertainment, like television game shows. What is real is the business behind politics, and how politics is the representative of business.
I never pay attention to any such irrelevant pseudo-politics, and, as a consequence, I have never understood what it actually means? To me, it is playing; actually it is to monkey around with ideology, which is purposeless.
Funny, though, if a picture I watched about Richard Nixon was at all based in some fact, then he was somewhat neurotic, or mentally disturbed, as it portrayed him being overly concerned by what a bunch of kids thought about him, and his overblown concern about his self image, his need to be liked by people, who were irrelevant to his life. It seemed to me he might have not been forced to resign had he not cared about what did not matter. He should have focused on his deal with China and Russia, and not some nutcase who could never harm him.
My point, being too concerned about small matters can be tragic.
It ought to work on both sides of the equation.
We all realize that one may not disagree with the Law with impunity.
Personally? I'd bake the cake. Complying with the Law does not imply agreement with the Law.
But what about the right to be true to one's own conscious?
Must that mean the loss of freedom to engage in commerce?
The answer is yes.
To make a buck one must be willing to bastardize oneself.
What a state of affairs!
Tinark
Active member
I didn't see you complaining about the racial discrimination laws in the past. Why weren't you shedding tears for the poor white southerners who are forced to serve black people against their own conscious, having to "bastardize" themselves to make a buck?
TracerBullet
New member
You mean the right to discriminate
I'm pretty much a blanket case now, so, I am not sure what you mean?
Here enough to see you are being a pest