Hollaback Video

[GHS]

Does anyone here know the origin of the term "politicaly correct"? Serious, I'm not baiting anyone. I have the definition from my attorney, a soviet citizen for 30 years and not proud of it. Lives here, moved from Brighton Beach NY for a little more space. Ex soldier, car salesman, radio station dj. One of the toughest men Ive ever met but honest, takes care of his older mother, loves cats and fast cars. Quite a character. No, he cant play a note.

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by seannx

I also have the impression that some people don't agree with you. But I don't think calls for banishment are totally due with disagreeing with your opinions, it's more about the way you often express your opinions, as well as the degree of reflection and critical thinking that underlies them. I believe that if you could give more context and examples about how you reach your conclusions, it would provide more insight and information for consideration. Maybe there wouldn't be any opinions changed, but there could be more understanding.

How I would DEARLY love to. It would make it so much easier to completely destroy their positions. But forums rules make that a dangerous practice. I often fear that I'm going too far as it is. And what difference would it make anyway when we both know that the 1st thing they'll do is dismiss the source. As a discussion forum, the best I can do is offer my opinion and why I have come to it "as best I can" within the boundaries.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by GHS

Does anyone here know the origin of the term "politicaly correct"? Serious, I'm not baiting anyone. I have the definition from my attorny, a soviet citizen for 30 years and not proud of it.

Your "former soviet" attorney is probably describing how it was use in Stalinist Russia. Which is in fact not the origin of the term, which actually was used as least as far back as 1793 in a law suit decided by the US Supreme Court.
Arguably neither usage is very closely related to currant usage, just to clarify.

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Your "former soviet" attorney is probably describing how it was use in Stalinist Russia. Which is in fact not the origin of the term, which actually was used as least as far back as 1793 in a law suit decided by the US Supreme Court.
Arguably neither usage is very closely related to currant usage, just to clarify.

Arguably indeed.

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

How I would DEARLY love to. It would make it so much easier to completely destroy their positions. But forums rules make that a dangerous practice. I often fear that I'm going too far as it is. And what difference would it make anyway when we both know that the 1st thing they'll do is dismiss the source. As a discussion forum, the best I can do is offer my opinion and why I have come to it "as best I can" within the boundaries.

It's not about conversation, exchanging opinions, learning from each other, etc. No.. It's about destroying someone's position. Wow. I think that explains quite a bit, very enlightening.

If I may also add, it sure appears to me you use the no politics rule quite a bit to justify making quick hit posts. It's not hard to make a point without discussing politics for most people. Seems like a cop out for me.

I for one have no problem with anyone's opinion being expressed. I do have a problem with the trolling and I have a problem with the need to destroy people's opinion.

[FluffyDog6]

Deep cleansing breath... Wasn't that soothing?

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by Psalad

It's not about conversation, exchanging opinions, learning from each other, etc. No.. It's about destroying someone's position. Wow. I think that explains quite a bit, very enlightening.

If I may also add, it sure appears to me you use the no politics rule quite a bit to justify making quick hit posts. It's not hard to make a point without discussing politics for most people. Seems like a cop out for me.

I for one have no problem with anyone's opinion being expressed. I do have a problem with the trolling and I have a problem with the need to destroy people's opinion.

Of course you do. Because there is one fundamental difference between what I say and that of those who oppose me. I post what I honestly believe is the truth from my point of view which is from what I see. And I might remind you that in many instances polls suggest that my opinions reflect those of the majority of American's.
But they spend an incredible amount of time trying to convince us that what we see isn't really whats happening. And lay a whole lot of it off on supposed "science" that we're just too stupid to understand. But of course that they understand fully. Don't believe your eyes. Don't trust common sense and logic. BELIEVE WHAT WE TELL YOU. We're here to guide you, the simple minded uninformed public, to what is best for you. Because you don't have the intellectual ability to decide that for yourselves.
And I'm not lemming enough to fall for it. And that terrifies them and makes me target #1 that must be eliminated.
You have not ONCE heard me calling for their banishment. Who's trying to destroy who? I'm not the enemy. The truth is.

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

Of course you do. Because there is one fundamental difference between what I say and that of those who oppose me. I post what I honestly believe is the truth from my point of view which is from what I see.
But they spend an incredible amount of time trying to convince us that what we see isn't really whats happening. And lay a whole lot of it off on supposed "science" that we're just too stupid to understand. But of course that they understand fully. Don't believe your eyes. Don't trust common sense and logic. BELIEVE WHAT WE TELL YOU. And I'm not lemming enough to fall for it. And that terrifies them and makes me target #1 that must be eliminated.
You have not ONCE heard me calling for their banishment. Who's trying to destroy who? I'm not the enemy. The truth is.

Opponents? Is this a game show where you earn points by proving people wrong now? You don't have any opponents. You have people who disagree with you sometimes, about certain issues. Why the chip on the shoulder?

Not much to say about the rest though for some reason you seem to have the mistaken view that you and you alone are capable of logic. Such self aggrandizing rhetoric. Yes you need to carry on for truth justice and the American way. . Thank you so much for your service to humanity.

Anyway sorry for the diversion but it needed to be said.

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by Psalad

Opponents? Is this a game show where you earn points by proving people wrong now? You don't have any opponents. You have people who disagree with you sometimes, about certain issues. Why the chip on the shoulder?

Not much to say about the rest though for some reason you seem to have the mistaken view that you and you alone are capable of logic. Such self aggrandizing rhetoric. Yes you need to carry on for truth justice and the American way. . Thank you so much for your service to humanity.

Anyway sorry for the diversion but it needed to be said.

Well I haven't called anyone a troll and called for their banishment. It would appear that I'm much more accepting of others rights to their viewpoints. Even if I disagree with them. And you are very wrong that I think I am the only one capable of logic and common sense thinking. I'm counting on and very much believe that others see it as well. And that the common sense truth will prevail. Again I remind you that polls suggest that my opinions often reflect the majority of Americans. I'm not the one telling you that I'm smarter than 2/3 of the American public.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by Psalad

It's not about conversation, exchanging opinions, learning from each other, etc. No.. It's about destroying someone's position. Wow. I think that explains quite a bit, very enlightening.

If I may also add, it sure appears to me you use the no politics rule quite a bit to justify making quick hit posts. It's not hard to make a point without discussing politics for most people. Seems like a cop out for me.

I for one have no problem with anyone's opinion being expressed. I do have a problem with the trolling and I have a problem with the need to destroy people's opinion.

In black and white.

Why is someone who admittedly wants to destroy other people's positions allowed to be on the AGF? Does that not violate the Be Nice Rule at the very core?

No wonder so many threads circle down the drain here.

Are there others here for the same reason -- destroying someone's position?

max

[mjz]

Originally Posted by Fatstrat

Well I haven't called anyone a troll and called for their banishment. It would appear that I'm much more accepting of others rights to their viewpoints.

If you were much more accepting of others' rights to their viewpoints you would not be trying to "destroy other people's positions." Trying to destroy others' positions completely negates the ability for respectable enlightening conversation.

I consider you to be a troll because you fit the definition.

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

And I believe you just confirmed the condition by stating that you seek to destroy other people's positions.

max

[Fatstrat]

Originally Posted by mjz

If you were much more accepting of others' rights to their viewpoints you would not be trying to "destroy other people's positions." Trying to destroy others' positions completely negates the ability for respectable enlightening conversation.

I consider you to be a troll because you fit the definition.



And I believe you just confirmed the condition by stating that you seek to destroy other people's positions.

max

How about this. I might consider you a troll as well. But I haven't attempted to get you banned. And I think any mildly interested person can see that you and your bud are doing exactly the same thing to me. And even worse by trying to eliminate and prevail by default. The only real difference is that once again I am the only one who is being honest. It must be a horrible feeling to live in fear of being found out.

[GHS]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Your "former soviet" attorney is probably describing how it was use in Stalinist Russia. Which is in fact not the origin of the term, which actually was used as least as far back as 1793 in a law suit decided by the US Supreme Court.
Arguably neither usage is very closely related to currant usage, just to clarify.

Thanks. I just cant remember how it was used in the old country. Not pleasant I think.

[Xtremca]

Originally Posted by mjz

If you were much more accepting of others' rights to their viewpoints you would not be trying to "destroy other people's positions." Trying to destroy others' positions completely negates the ability for respectable enlightening conversation.

I consider you to be a troll because you fit the definition.



And I believe you just confirmed the condition by stating that you seek to destroy other people's positions.

max

An uneccesary post just because someone doesn't agree with your viewpoints. Why continue to add fuel to the fire considering you've already removed posts earlier that we're getting heated. We need to respect and accept the opinions of other even when they don't agree with ours, otherwise examples such as this come off as trolling as well. It's ok to simply agree to disagree while remaining civil to one another.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Psalad

I for one have no problem with anyone's opinion being expressed. I do have a problem with the trolling and I have a problem with the need to destroy people's opinion.

How do you feel about somebody who starts to hyperventilate at the mere mention of Fox News, claiming that one is MIS-informed if one watches/reads the news there?