ToDaZeD Seize Teh Language!

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. “Flungpoo™” *bwahahahaha*
    [wipes pipe ashes off shirt]

    What we’ve got heah is failyuh t’communicate.
    Of course, that’s one of the objectives of Newspeak.
    The target audience will eventually change their language in order to continue to communicate with the revolutionaries, rather than insist on previously accepted, clear terminology.
    (see: Template™, Narrative™, slang)

    Comment by DougM (flawed) — April 21, 2017 @ 11:26 am

  2. So, according to Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton should be brought up on charges for calling me “deplorable” ? When a college punk calls me a “racist” at the next rally, I grab a cop and insist the kid is arrested for hate speech?

    Comment by Holger — April 21, 2017 @ 11:31 am

  3. ThanQ!, DM
    *curtsies*

    The target audience will eventually change their language in order to continue to communicate with the revolutionaries, rather than insist on previously accepted, clear terminology.

    Nope.
    Speak clearly or I ain’ta stickin’ around to hear ya out.

    Good luck with that Holger — like grabbing a handful of wet hornets.

    t’other day I was having a conversation with a very nice young woman – a member of one of those PDs. They’re madder than a nest of wet hens that they’re not allowed to do actual policing at these violent outbreaks of violence prooootests — like protecting people and property.

    Then we got on to policing theory and how Detriot died due to the theory that it’s “best” to stand back and allow the prooootesters to set fires and beat people. She wes …concerned, to say the least.

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — April 21, 2017 @ 11:56 am

  4. My favorite part is that this

    In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm

    is not about the Democrat media/entertainment complex.

    Introspection is just too hard for the ‘tubes.

    Comment by Veeshir — April 21, 2017 @ 1:17 pm

  5. Yep, they can string a bunch of words together with no understanding of what the words mean. That’s why I call those places institutions of higher vegetation.

    Comment by Max Redline — April 21, 2017 @ 5:15 pm

  6. We are soaf hucked.

    Comment by Buzz — April 21, 2017 @ 5:45 pm

  7. There’s a “You can’t handle the truth!” joke there somewhere.

    Comment by Daemon — April 21, 2017 @ 6:05 pm

  8. Claire, “Word Salad with Flungpoo™ dressing” is priceless.

    I’m going to see if I can find a mailing address for those “other than white” dickheads and throw some light their way.

    Between 152 and 155 years ago, fifteen white people in my family died so that they could be dickheads without fear of being flogged. Thanks to my family guys and four or five hundred thousand likewise dead-before-their-time white guys, the black/brown/beige/tan/coffee/tea/mahogany/Negro/African-American/people-of-color dickheads only have to fear the reality of having to fend for themselves out in the real world, and being offended.

    They won’t admit it, but I suspect it’s more the former fear than the latter that eats at them. Sharpton and his ilk have raised their hopes for a lifetime free ride to comfort them in their affliction, if only they’ll raise the racist oppression banner.

    Speaking of badly learned history, they should read Founding Father Evil White Slave Owner George Washington’s will, especially the clause on his slaves:
    ⟨Ite⟩m Upon the decease ⟨of⟩ my wife, it is my Will & desire th⟨at⟩ all the Slaves which I hold in ⟨my⟩ own right, shall receive their free⟨dom⟩. To emancipate them during ⟨her⟩ life, would, tho’ earnestly wish⟨ed by⟩ me, be attended with such insu⟨pera⟩ble difficulties on account of thei⟨r interm⟩ixture by Marriages with the ⟨dow⟩er Negroes, as to excite the most pa⟨in⟩ful sensations, if not disagreeabl⟨e c⟩onsequences from the latter, while ⟨both⟩ descriptions are in the occupancy ⟨of⟩ the same Proprietor; it not being ⟨in⟩ my power, under the tenure by which ⟨th⟩e Dower Negroes are held, to man⟨umi⟩t them. And whereas among ⟨thos⟩e who will recieve freedom ac⟨cor⟩ding to this devise, there may b⟨e so⟩me, who from old age or bodily infi⟨rm⟩ities, and others who on account of ⟨the⟩ir infancy, that will be unable to ⟨su⟩pport themselves; it is m⟨y Will and de⟩sire that all who ⟨come under the first⟩ & second descrip⟨tion shall be comfor⟩tably cloathed & ⟨fed by my heirs while⟩ they live; and that such of the latter description as have no parents living, or if living are unable, or unwilling to provide for them, shall be bound by the Court until they shall arrive at the ag⟨e⟩ of twenty five years; and in cases where no record can be produced, whereby their ages can be ascertained, the judgment of the Court, upon its own view of the subject, shall be adequate and final. The Negros thus bound, are (by their Masters or Mistresses) to be taught to read & write; and to be brought up to some useful occupation, agreeably to the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing for the support of Orphan and other poor Children. and I do hereby expressly forbid the Sale, or transportation out of the said Commonwealth, of any Slave I may die possessed of, under any pretence whatsoever. And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my Executors hereafter named, or the Survivors of them, to see that th⟨is cla⟩use respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed to take place; without evasion, neglect or delay, after the Crops which may then be on the ground are harvested, particularly as it respects the aged and infirm; seeing that a regular and permanent fund be established for their support so long as there are subjects requiring it; not trusting to the ⟨u⟩ncertain provision to be made by individuals.2 And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which ha⟨v⟩e befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, whic⟨h⟩ shall be independent of the victuals and cloaths he has been accustomed to receive, if he chuses the last alternative; but in full, with his freedom, if he prefers the first; & this I give him as a test⟨im⟩ony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — April 21, 2017 @ 6:26 pm

  9. I would love to ask these people if they truly believe there is no objective truth and then ask them if they are ready to prove their assertion by jumping off a ten story building.

    I will then step back as they try to flounder their way back and tell me there is truth and “truth.”

    But only if I’m in the mood to waste a bunch of time.

    Comment by Blake — April 22, 2017 @ 5:56 am

  10. So, according to Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton should be brought up on charges for calling me “deplorable” ? When a college punk calls me a “racist” at the next rally, I grab a cop and insist the kid is arrested for hate speech?

    Um. I’m a frayed knot. You see, you (us) don’t get to define “hate speech”, the other side (them) does.

    Comment by rickn8or — April 22, 2017 @ 6:59 pm

  11. “Welp, free speech, whose whole point is so we can speak up to those stronger than us without getting beaten down into the dirt, has now become a way for those same stronger folk to encourage each other to beat us down. But they could always do that, anyway, on account of how they were strong, so what’s the goldarn point of free speech, anyway? Now, if we’re here at this hootenanny all together to sort out what’s what, it sure ain’t proper that the stronger folk just get to tell us what’s what and then act like they’ve done us an education. Kinda like that Columbus feller who came to a place with a buncha injuns already living there and everyone still says he discovered it. Pomona cannot have its cake and eat it, too. Now you all either shape up and make rules that let the weak stand all equal-like against the strong and stop pretending there ain’t no difference, or we’re gonna have to ditch your rules and stand up for ourselves as best we can without them.”

    “Now, way I see it, when two people look at a thing, and each of ‘em sees something different, it’s probably going to be the bigger, badder one who gets to say what he sees is what the thing is, and the other one’s gonna walk away being wrong. And we sure have got plenty of examples in history where the bigger, badder fellers with better guns and ships and whatnot still got things hella wrong. Maybe on some matters it’s better if you’ve got one or more truths sitting side by side, instead of insisting that we all look for one big truth that’s like as not gonna be the strong folks’ truth.”

    Comment by Yarbouti — April 23, 2017 @ 3:41 am

  12. “Welp, free speech, whose whole point is so we can speak up to those stronger than us without getting beaten down into the dirt [as I recall, the whole point is so that the .gov doesn't have total control over what is said -- with a side benefit of everyone hearing/able to consider ideas they might not have heard before or otherwise], has now become a way for those same stronger folk to encourage each other to beat us down. [who is beating whom down, Yvette?]

    Now, if we’re here at this hootenanny all together to sort out what’s what, it sure ain’t proper that the stronger folk just get to tell us what’s what and then act like they’ve done us an education. [*cough*MSM*cough*]

    If by this: “Pomona cannot have its cake and eat it, too. Now you all either shape up and make rules that let the weak stand all equal-like against the strong and stop pretending there ain’t no difference, or we’re gonna have to ditch your rules and stand up for ourselves as best we can without them.” you mean this: “Free speech … has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. …” that’s just silly. The people not “allowed” to speak are not the “downtrodden,” but the so-called Masters of Teh Universe. “recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions” wtf does that even refer to?!?

    Now ya got people hitting the streets prepared to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with their silly ideas — which have never worked anywhere, anytime — and calling those who disagree with them “NAZIs”??!? Who’s the ‘facist’, then?

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — April 23, 2017 @ 9:10 am

  13. If by this: “Pomona cannot have its cake and eat it, too. Now you all either shape up and make rules that let the weak stand all equal-like against the strong and stop pretending there ain’t no difference, or we’re gonna have to ditch your rules and stand up for ourselves as best we can without them.” you mean this: “Free speech … has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. …” that’s just silly.

    Nah, that one was “Either you support students of marginalized identities, particularly Black students, or leave us to protect and organize …” Clearly, despite all these years of ethnographic study, I need much more practice before Das Kapital for Kowpokes becomes a reality.

    Still, the argument does scan well enough without relying on post-modern jargon.

    As to its merits, you and I disagree fundamentally on where power lies. For example, I see the Western mainstream media as completely subservient to corporate interests and generally advancing right-wing views. It’s comical to me (especially now that the American right reigns unchallenged as the .gov you revile) that you consider yourself and yours to be the ones trod upon.

    Comment by Yarbouti — April 23, 2017 @ 2:29 pm

  14. Ooh! A flame war!

    (Or what passes for one around here. We’ll have to make do. More popcorn!)

    Comment by Daemon — April 23, 2017 @ 6:46 pm

  15. all these years of ethnographic study

    bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa

    No One studies The Founding Fathers and the original Americans — or Constitutionalists — in Ethnographic Studies. That would be Raaaacist, donchanooooooo. And provide …uncomfortable information.

    I need much more practice before Das Kapital for Kowpokes becomes a reality.

    I’ve known a lotta Cowpokes in my life — even a couple who regularly got outsmarted by their herd — and even they wouldn’t buy that — or this — pile o’ meadow muffins.

    “Either you support students of marginalized identities, particularly Black students, or leave us to protect and organize …”

    I would think giving them admission priorities and then treating them the same as everyone else would suffice. Treating them as special [as in incapable of managing their own individual affairs by themselves] just increases their designation as Other. But with all this competition for Victim Status, I guess being Other, Special and Inadequate is the Noo Success.

    eww.

    “For example, I see the Western mainstream media as completely subservient to corporate interests and generally advancing right-wing views.”

    MSM [which is giant, profit-driven corporations. just sayin...] is subject to the silly whims of its advertisers. Used to be that News was a budget loss thus [sorta] preserving its independence — now? hahahahaha! Advertisers respond to astroturfing social media threats and MSM corporations wet themselves and proceed to shoot themselves in the foot.

    We don’t see ourselves as “trod upon”. We don’t compete to be Victims. We Do Not see Victimhood as a Good Thing. We realize Bad Things Happen [that's Life] and we work to overcome them, using our own agency as Individuals, without whinging.

    What we decry is groups of thugs hitting the streets to use violence a a means of suppressing the speech of others. That sort of activity, when tolerated, has killed cities [Detroit] and severely wounded entire countries [Germany, Russia, China, VietNam... see: History]

    We are suggesting that we — as a country — not tolerate thugs beating up people in the streets for having different views.

    It’s shameful: it only demonstrates that the thugs have no argument for their own views and cannot hold their own in a verbal debate.

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — April 24, 2017 @ 7:08 am

  16. ^ Because the common meaning of debate is not valid to The Left™.
    It’s “If you disagree, shut up!; or I shall call you a racist again.”
    (Note: any currently recognized pejorative may be use in place of or in addition to “racist” as long as it can be flung at an individual as a member of a group — that way it doesn’t have to be justified for use with that individual)

    Rational argument is, after all, a dangerous bourgeois concept that kills-off Marxism’s “Word Salad with Flungpoo™ dressing” by exposing it to the real world (i.e. real history, real biology, real sociology, real economics, etc.).

    Revolutionaries don’t debate themselves into power,
    they “Shut up!” into power and “Shut up!” to maintain power.

    Clear thinkers don’t apply groupism, either. The concept of inherited guilt or virtue denies the fundamental individualism and personal responsibility that are the bases of a free society.

    I don’t give a flying fig which collectivist/totalitarian/authoritarian/supremacist/etc sect we’re talking about. If their argument amounts to “Shut up, you… you group member!” then they’re my enemy.

    Comment by DougM (flawed) — April 24, 2017 @ 9:05 am

  17. …uncomfortable information.

    On that we can certainly agree.

    Treating them as special [as in incapable of managing their own individual affairs by themselves] just increases their designation as Other.

    They are already designated as Other and placed squarely behind the eight ball. They’re perfectly aware of it (as you’ve noticed they set themselves apart explicitly and police their identity vigorously). They want to achieve equality, not homogeneity, and you cannot do that without acknowledging a distinction.

    We don’t see ourselves as “trod upon”. We don’t compete to be Victims. We Do Not see Victimhood as a Good Thing.

    Oh, yes, you do. Everyone is out to get you. The government, the international elites, academia, the media, sexual minorities, immigrants, climate scientists. They’re taking away free speech, the culture, jobs, Christmas, building permits, and every warm feeling ever evoked by a Norman Rockwell illustration. Conspiracies curl about like vines, everywhere.

    You may indulge the self-image of stoic, civilised forbearance, but you are as hot to trot in the victimhood competition as any collection of Berkeley tumblrinas. The message of real America (and England and even, this past weekend, France) under siege from sinister forces is nearly all the right now talk about, and it’s political hot cakes for chancers like Trump, Farrage, Le Pen. It’s what works.

    Only, as competitors, you’re mildly hampered by the fact that you actually do hold all the cards. Numbers, representatives, wealth, laws, social arrangements, even life expectancies.

    What we decry is groups of thugs hitting the streets to use violence a a means of suppressing the speech of others.

    So vulgar of them, yes, to try to suppress free speech by throwing an honest, explicit right cross to the face of a Robert Spencer or his ilk. Everyone knows that silencing contrary views is meant to be done gently and glacially, by writing cheques to the right chaps who will set you up a monitoring group, a few think-tanks, an ‘alternative news outlet’, do a little data mining, target some ads, get the right message out instead of the bothersome one.

    I am with you in that narrow regard; if I were in charge of a ‘campus left’, I would go out of my way to invite every fascist under the sun to debates so that my lot can smash them in argument. But I think you’re not giving the ‘thugs’ sufficient credit. As you can tell by the jargon, they’ve read their Lacan and Foucault. They know that the very act of debate can give a pro-oppression opponent the legitimacy he does not deserve, particularly when sanctioned by an authoritative institution.

    Final thought on my end, though I appreciate the exchange and will check for a response should you choose to give it: if in your analyses you broadened the idea of Government to a more general Power (like in your earlier comment about what free speech actually is) I suspect we would be surprised by how much our views converged.

    Comment by Yarbouti — April 24, 2017 @ 9:28 am

  18. If any part of one’s rationalization leads to this,
    then I will not apologize for ignoring it, dismissing it, or calling it a lie
    until it’s proven otherwise to my satisfaction using facts and reason.

    Comment by DougM (flawed) — April 24, 2017 @ 10:19 am

  19. they set themselves apart explicitly and police their identity vigorously

    …whatever that means. I don’t see the profit in that. I see profit in studying, getting some kind of madd skillz and making …whatever one likes out of one’s Life. I don’t get the point of hunkering down and committing all one’s time and resources on “policing one’s identity vigorously.” That’s putting time and energy into how *other people* see you, thereby putting your payoff into the hands of *other people.* I’d rather put my time and energy into doing things I want to do — or think needs doing. I could thus be not only equal to, but likely better than many at whatever I chose to do.

    “policing one’s identity vigorously.” doesn’t sound …well, very interesting to me. Too dependent.
    Just Me™…

    “Oh, yes, you do.”

    oh. well, since you know me better than I do, there’s really no point in any further dialog, is there?

    hm… wait. that’s just stupid. Moar “Word Salad with Flungpoo™ dressing”. Painting people wth a broad brush, assuming you already know what they think, how they see things and how they feel is just… well, what Proggies accuse their opposites of every day. Also close-minded and ignorant. likely raaaacist, too. nvmnd.

    Because I see things in the world that I think are counterproductive, you call me a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ raaaacist, anti-globalist [ok - that one is true], bla bla bla… pffft. Your condescending, melodramatic sarcasm impresses me not.

    There are a couple of points of view: one holds that the collective is the more important thing and believes that if we all lived as one under one .gov [bureaucratic Power, if you like] Life would be better for more people. Others [like me] believe that not to be the case: we believe The Individual is the more important thing and, given enough freedom, Individuals build more wealth, better opportunities and better outcomes for all.

    Are both ideas fraught with double-edges? With up-sides and down-sides? Hell yeah — as is any human undertaking. Get over it. That’s Life. I think, given the evidence, that the collective solution brings far more misery and waste of Human potential.

    Simple enough. It’s a debate [verbal, written, poetic, danced, whatever without hitting / bombing / setting fire to one's interlocutor ] we ought to be having — long and enthusiastically.

    So vulgar of them, yes, to try to suppress free speech by throwing an honest, explicit right cross to the face of random strangers going to hear ideas spoken aloud. Don’t pretend to me that they’re doing anything noble or heroic. There Are No NAZIs under the bed. Yes. That is vulgar. And thuggish. And unacceptable and un-helpful and destructive and wrong.

    They oughta knock it the hell off, grow a set, and learn to debate using facts and ideas – not rocks and bats.

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — April 24, 2017 @ 7:58 pm

  20. just as I expected

    1. slurs and name-calling
    2. condescending, melodramatic sarcasm
    3. …?
    4. WINNING!!!1!!!! *crickets*

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — April 26, 2017 @ 11:24 am

  21. Not at all. As I wrote previously (‘final thought on my end,’ etc.) I am content to let you have the last word, as per my habit when commenting here. I have read your reply (and your most recent post on this subject) and considered it.

    You win by walkover, if that matters to you.

    Comment by Yarbouti — April 26, 2017 @ 3:11 pm

  22. Ahhh, the Sheik exits a gentleman, as always.

    Comment by DougM (flawed) — April 26, 2017 @ 3:20 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.228 Powered by WordPress