↓
 
Home » At least leftist radicals of the 60s didn’t care if their feelings were hurt

At least leftist radicals of the 60s didn’t care if their feelings were hurt

The New Neo Posted on by

In the comments to Saturday’s post about some AI at Blogger flagging a 17-year-old piece of mine for very very little, and attaching a warning to it, one commenter wrote that Blogger is the least of his concerns and the FBI knocking is of greater concern.

I think just about everyone here might agree.

But the two are somewhat linked in that they are both steps in the process of weaponizing mere political disagreement, including speech. Also, in the case of the Blogger warning, it didn’t even involve political disagreement; the old post appears to have been flagged merely because of a passing, fleeting mention of the existence of this story that was in the news way back when. That post is now – nearly two decades later – considered “sensitive” content that could hurt feelings or religious sensitivities (in this case those of Muslims). It is especially ironic since the story in question involved allegations by Muslim detainees at Guantanamo against the actions of staff there.

The whole thing started me wondering when this all began – that is, this expectation by the left that no one (at least no one in a group defined as downtrodden in some way) would ever feel the need to experience hurt feelings or crushed sensitivities. I certainly don’t recall such things being demanded by the leftists during the Sixties or earlier. Early leftists tended to be tough cookies and expected the fight to be harsh, even though some Sixties leftists were from what might be called “privileged” backgrounds. But somewhere along the line – and by the time I attended grad school in the early 90s it had already occurred – the standard for behavior now included protection for the feelings of those oppressed groups from the ravages of speech, and those ravages would be defined by the supposed victims.

I can’t remember a transition time, either. One moment that standard wasn’t there, and the next moment it was. That doesn’t mean it actually happened overnight. During the transition years of the 70s and 80s I was busy with my young adult life and then with being a mother, and probably not paying a whole lot of attention. One thing of which I’m pretty sure is that the change happened first in the universities.

Comments

At least leftist radicals of the 60s didn’t care if their feelings were hurt — 48 Comments

  1. “Safe spaces,” “speech is violence,” “my truth;” all gifts from the education/indoctrination complex. Later gifts are pronouns, gender confusion, and “*” privlidge?

  2. Ah, but don’t forget: “silence” is ALSO “violence”….
    Everything is relative; that is, it all depends on WHO is the “victim” at any particular moment (or, more precisely, who is the highest “victim” on the totem pole of “victimhood”)…
    …and who is the “victimizer”. (A la Humpty Dumpty—turned on his head, since today, the greater the victim, the greater the POWER!)
    And since “I” am always a bigger victim than “You”, “I”—citing the “privilege of victimhood”(TM) can treat you like the POS “You” are.
    Simply (and perversely, according to the perverse “logic” of contemporary “victimology”) because “I” am Victim(TM) and “You” are Victimizer(TM)—by definition (i.e., “My” definition)—hence “You” deserve every ounce of opprobrium (and worse) you get….while “I” can make off like gangbusters.
    And deservedly so (once again, by definition).

    If Richard Hofstadter, in 1964, could win a Pulitzer for his “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life”, then a contemporary socio-historian would most likely be able to win it today for something called “Anti-Rationalism in American Life”….
    (Not that a Pulitzer means that much any more, alas…)

  3. I’m not sure when the change you’re describing actually happened either. It seems to have been slow at first. Perhaps it was percolating in faculty launges of higher education sometime in the late 80s and early 90s? But it seems like it was greatly accelerated in recent years with the rise of social media. An idea can behave like a virus. In fact some people refer to wokism as a “mind virus”.

  4. To try and pin down the timeframe in the Midwest (anecdotally), there was no culture of this at my undergrad small college (in Indiana- class of 1981) but there were hints of this emerging (with more indicators of this with female faculty than with male).

    I started law school in 1989 (in Minnesota). This new type of culture was firmly underway, and resistance to it was a sure way to be marginalized by a majority of the faculty (male and female). A higher percentage of students than faculty were willing to questions this, but even that was likely well under 5% (guess-timate based on Federalist Society affiliation).

    My guess is that my small college in Indiana was lagging behind the trend and the law school in Minnesota was pushing the trend. The seeming lack of dismay among the law students (from all over the country, but mainly Minnesota) led me to believe that their undergraduate schools (most would have graduated in the late 1980s) had pushed this trend such that it was an expectation when they arrived at law school.

  6. Isn’t much of this sensitivity to criticism really just an attempt to escape the vestiges of conscience?

    When Adam and Eve sinned, their response was to hide from God.

    With the newfound power of the left, they no longer need to hide. They now can just muzzle the truth. No longer an absolute truth, truth and reality are fungible.

    So I would say it began in the garden. The 60’s radicalism was fighting American culture, of which christianity was still a core element. Small c, in the sense of a morality without recognizing the source of the morality.

  7. Messianism run amok (i.e., without God, IOW without the governing/limiting/controlling presence/guidance of the Deity—or God-based Constitution of Laws).
    IOW, humankind unbound, which mouths religious/moral platitudes but—without God—attempts to accrue all power, i.e., to assign all power to itself.
    IOW a cult.
    IOW a kind of totalitarianism disguised as humanism (or “democracy”); a totalitarianism, perhaps benign in theory, that must enforce and coerce adherence “for the common—or greater—good”. That must destroy all opposition.
    IOW a warped, twisted, uber-intellectualized, perverse, anti-human monstrosity…where power is everything; where everything is informed by power….

  8. I think that the political views of neo and the commenters, including me, pretty much align with each other.

    About 8-10 years ago a contemporary and now former friend of mine told me that he was “personally offended” by my political views. I’m pretty sure that the word had gone out as it does among leftists to express to their friends just how “hurt” they personally felt to know someone with non-leftist views.

  9. The only just riposte to such a comment would be to suggest that the interlocutor “grow up”; that people do happen to disagree; that adults should be able to handle disagreements in an adult-like fashion.
    However, such a response would no doubt be perceived as a vicious, even fascistic, attack on said interlocutor, whose position on everything has to be perceived as correct, as unassailable. As virtuous.

    And so the problem is, how can one—how does one—tell an intellectual infant to “grow up”….?

    The answer is that this may no longer be possible in the uncompromising, tribal, Manichaean reality in which we find ourselves.

    Where everything is perceived in terms of power.

    Foucault’s revenge indeed… (There’s a reason why he held Ayatollah Khomeini in such high regard…) But who was he able to essentially mesmerize entire academic elites?
    (And what does this say about academia…whose elite masses can no longer claim, with the history of the USSR behind them, that “We didn’t know how such a ‘nirvana’ would turn out….”)

  11. OTOH, another—perhaps better—way to respond to such a person would be to ask WHY that person felt offended. That is, to open up the discussion.
    But one would likely need a lot of patience to pursue this….and it assumes that the other person would be able to discuss things reasonably calmly, i.e., not be entirely driven by emotion or subsumed by the mantras of the Narrative(TM) and/or its many sound bites.
    Nonetheless, arriving at a point of “agreeing to disagree” would be a definite “victory” of sorts, i.e., assuming it were possible….

  12. For most of those who read Neo’s blog, it’s not news that ChatGPT is an AI (artificial intelligence) application that offers natural-language conversations with a computer. Microsoft will soon make ChatGPT part of the Bing search engine.

    The search engine for the Brave browser has already integrated an AI chatbot called YouChat:
    https://you.com/search?q=who+are+you&tbm=youchat

    I tested YouChat with Neo’s question. Its answer demonstrates the utility of AI chatbots for generating blog comments. I’ve always said “everybody’s replaceable.” You won’t have Cornflour to kick around anymore.

    Neo’s question:
    When was the beginning of the Left’s expectation that no one in a group defined as downtrodden would ever feel the need to experience hurt feelings?

    YouChat’s answer:
    The expectation that no one in a group defined as downtrodden should ever experience hurt feelings began to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was likely due to a greater awareness and understanding of the various forms of oppression and discrimination experienced by marginalized groups. It likely led to an increased emphasis on protecting the feelings of those who have been historically disadvantaged or excluded from mainstream society. This can be seen in the rise of political correctness and the greater emphasis on creating an inclusive environment in which everyone is respected and able to express their opinions without fear of judgement or retribution.

    _______________________________________________________

    Postscript

    My question: What is sarcasm?

    YouChat’s answer: Sarcasm is a form of verbal or written expression that uses irony to mock or make a point. It often involves a person making a statement that is the opposite of what they actually mean in order to emphasize a point or to make a joke. It can also be used to express disdain or disapproval.

  13. Another postscript

    My question:
    Does YouChat understand sarcasm?

    YouChat’s answer:
    Yes, YouBot is able to understand sarcasm and detect when someone is being sarcastic. It is able to process the context and tone of the conversation and respond accordingly. In addition, YouBot is able to generate its own sarcastic responses when appropriate.

    My question:
    Are you being sarcastic?

    YouChat’s answer:
    No, I’m not being sarcastic.

  14. Your next question to YouChat should have been:
    “Am I being sarcastic?”

    File under: “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

  15. As Barry Meislin said earlier, it’s all a question of who is being “insensitive” to whom. Speaking as a white heterosexual married woman and a traditionalist Christian believer, people offend my “sensitivities” every day online and in print. People need to grow up and learn to live with civil disagreement. This is all an effort to suppress unfavored speech.

  17. Censoring, blocking and cancelling opposing opinions is how the Left rolls. Hate speech is pretty much anything the Left doesn’t like.

    The Left can’t compete – or doesn’t want to compete – in the marketplace of ideas so it cancels the opposition.

    This is astounding to me and profoundly unAmerican.

  18. This can be seen in the rise of political correctness and the greater emphasis on creating an inclusive environment in which everyone is respected and able to express their opinions without fear of judgement or retribution.

    Just how wrong is this statement. People now all the time fear judgement and retribution if they make a “wrong” statement. Not inclusive environment but restrictive environment.

  19. “One thing of which I’m pretty sure is that the change happened first in the universities.” neo

    Snowflakes are more easily manipulated.

  21. Another view of the same mindset is this nonsense:

    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1147828006/childhood-obesity-requires-early-aggressive-treatment-new-guidelines-say

    The American Academy of Pediatrics is now endorsing the idea of giving fat 12-year-olds weight loss drugs and fat 13-year-olds weight loss surgery.

    There’s a desperate hunger for control. Whether it is suppressing speech or medicalizing EVERYTHING, it stems from the need to have someone in charge. That “someone” used to be God and even if He didn’t exist, it was a useful cultural fiction that assuaged fear and anxiety. Without God, then all there is is YOU and whatever temporal authority to which you bend the knee. And if you bend the knee, everyone else has to as well.

    Mike

  22. “Sunstroke,” a 2018 Russian movie, addresses the issue of how and why Russia turned, over the period of just a few years starting in 1917, into a murderous totalitarian state. The story is told in flashbacks by a White Russian officer of Wrangel’s army in Crimea, now a prisoner of the victorious Red Army. It is not a war movie and is rather elegiac in tone and outlook. It is mostly focused on a pre-world war pleasure cruise down one of the big rivers in Russia and the officer’s affair with a beautiful but doomed Russian noblewoman. The sun is bright, the scenery is gorgeous, the journey is idyllic if fraught with passion and affairs of the heart. Later, in his straitened circumstances as a prisoner of the Reds, the officer cannot grasp what really happened. Sure, he understands the how and why of the Bolshevik seizure off power and the civil war that followed, but he cannot fathom the depravity and destruction these events precipitated. He struggles unsuccessfully to identify the point when the process of societal change went off the rails to become a full bore ongoing catastrophe. Neo’s post reminded me of this movie. It’s available free to Prime members on Amazon Prime video. A haunting, deceptively brilliant movie.

  23. Speaking for myself, I fully object to the censoring, and even “flagging”, of so-called sensitive content. Your response to speech you object to is fully within your control. If you disagree you should argue, point out the mistakes, inaccuracies, and objectionable content. In other words, grow up and act like an adult.

  26. I first noticed this BS infecting Silicon Valley sometime around 2014 at GitHub. The driving ethic switched from the pursuit of excellence to the seeking of equality. But I think Google got there first. That said, the people who carried out the transition must have come by their ideas earlier. It is probably a generational thing, like drugs and anti-war movement in the mid 60s.

  27. The Sixties radicals were quite arrogant in the beginning. They were convinced that they were going to change the world. But if you look at the few who remained committed members of the movement after it fizzled out, they were quite guilt-ridden. The White radicals were convinced that they were only supporting the Black radicals and foreign revolutionaries in their more important struggles. The men had to confront the fact that the women didn’t idolize them and weren’t going to take direction from them. “Struggle sessions” of the sort that happened in Mao’s Cultural Revolution were a feature of Weatherman’s later days, and came back into fashion with CRT.

  28. THANKS for the movie recommendations, sdferr and IrishOtter.

    I did hear about “Sunstroke” back when it came out.

    But it’s a film I’d forgotten — pandemic intervened, perhaps. Impeachments and stolen elections, also.

    And then our Decline and Fall.

    Recently, I reviewed a memorable and prescient review from August 2010 by a reader at Amazon. It’s on a short book-length manifesto by the Weather Underground (authors including Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, el al).

    The title “Prarie Fire” was a tribute to a quotation in his “Little Red Book,” a stunningly jejune quote, that a single spark can ignite a Prarie fire. (Duh.)

    The points the review was to draw lessons from those serious times and suggest that Obama’s Presidency was the realisation of this little, forgotten manifesto.

    This review shaped my decision to not vote in the 2012 Presidential election.

    Re-reading it now confirms that judgement. But, how does that same review foretell our cascading Evil Times today?

    Too well, me thinks.”The Weather Underground’s 1974 Blue Print for a Communist Revolution.”
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3G4CHIP5L22D4/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000EEGAYM

  29. Here’s a taster, before the writer draws specific parallels out between the manifesto and Obama’s reign:
    “The book is a love letter to collectivism, violent revolution, the psychopath Che (his portrait takes up an entire page near the beginning of the book) and communism in general. It’s peppered with quotes from Fidel Castro, and other communists.

    “The book is an America-hating screed that blames the US, correction – white Americans, for the world’s ills. Much of the book enumerates these “crimes”. It’s heavy on Vietnam, as would be expected given it’s publication date, but it, along with Saul Alinsky’s works, will fill in some gaps for those wondering, “What is going on in this country since Obama took office?”

    The last chapter, “Against the Common Enemy” is a call to revolution….armed revolution. “Our final goal is the complete destruction of imperialism, the seizure of the means of production and the building of socialism.” (See: GM, banks, health care)

    It is heavy on “community organizing” haha. “Organize poor and working people. Go to the neighborhoods, the schools, the social institutions, the work places. Agitate. create struggle. (See: ACORN, SEIU)

    See if any of these tactics sound familiar…”

  30. @ Nonapod > “It seems to have been slow at first.”

    “Gradually, then suddenly.” – Hemingway

    @ steve walsh > “If you disagree you should argue, point out the mistakes, inaccuracies, and objectionable content.”

    Ah, but most of the speech they disagree with is not mistaken or inaccurate, and is only objectionable to them because it is true.

  33. I’m impressed with the YouChat answer that Cornflour posted. It is similar but less pointed than what I was going to say about this topic.

    SHIREHOME’s point is true now, but what we see now is the current endpoint of a decades long progression that started somewhere under a different guise. The guise of political correctness which was supposed to be about increasing people’s awareness and sensitivity to the communities around them. Or so they said.

    I recall being surprised by a rather trivial section in a Newsweek or Time magazine way back in the late ’70’s (maybe). It was a definition of “political correctness” that shocked me a little. They came right out and stated something to the effect that it was a means of social persuasion with a political objective. A moving of the Overton window without using those words.

    1) I was dumb enough at the time to think that being PC was about being nice.
    2) I was surprised at the honesty.
    3) Newsweek and Time were great purveyors of PC think. Why were they pulling back their curtain?
    _________

    The reasons the left give for their actions and agendas are rarely the real reasons. The very latest: We are now supposed to get rid of all nat. gas cook stoves. Why? Because of the poor asthmatic children. Sure.

  34. Re: 60s radicals

    I’ve started watching videos by this thoughtful guy on politics. He feels that political language and debate has become too loose (me too), so he books himself on primary sources, reaches his balanced take on the matter, then lays it out on YouTube.

    Here’s one on the 60s radicals and how they got that way.

    –Ryan Chapman, “The 60’s Radicals America Forgot”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHYpcXWCkUM

    Among other things Chapman explores a question which has long bothered me. How are today’s leftists Marxist? (I recall debating long ago with FredHJr on the point on this blog.)

    Yes, I can see the division of oppressor/oppressed class divisions and the history connecting the two, but I’ve never known anyone on the Left reading Marx and today’s leftists don’t like the working class unless there is an intersectional angle.

    To me it’s like saying Christians are Jews. To be sure there is an important relationship between the two and there would be no Christianity without Judaism, but much is lost in that simplification.

    Chapman sees sixties politics in terms of the tension between Reform (Liberalism) and Revolution (Marxism). He explores the source documents from that time and shows things were quite fluid between those two poles.

    For instance, SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) went from Reform to Revolution (and had to drop Nonviolent from their name!).

    Clearly the side for Revolution has won over Reform in our time,

  35. neo:

    You might find Chapman interesting. His approach reminds me of yours — careful, clear and thorough.

  36. There is a Bloom County cartoon that goes something like this:

    [Opus stands by a group, near a bus stop]-

    Random man- “You know, you penguin-types offend me.”

    Another guy- “Yeah! And meeting needlessly, grumpy people in public offend me!”

    Random woman- “Those pictures of women in bikinis offend my WOMANHOOD!”

    Random man- “Yeah! And those people doing public-displays-of-affection offend my MANHOOD!”

    The whole crowd, together, without Opus the Penguin shout like a Greek chorus:

    “Oh MY gosh! …LIFE is OFFENSIVE!”

    (The crowd, minus Opus, then runs off…doing semi-hysterical yelling.)

    Opus then turns to the reader, and then says, in a learned voice- “Offense-sensitivity!”

  38. Well, I can’t really justify it by anything but a reasonable extension of concept, but I think it is a straightforward development of the (not unreasonable) feminist complaint about men catcalling women as they pass by, and also men making unsuitable jokes in the presence of women.

    The behavior is, in general, boorish, and was increasingly socially unacceptable as the 70s and 80s wore on, but then they took the notion even larger and more extreme by classifying it as “sexual harassment”, which made it a tortable (even if only in civil law) behavior.

    I would say it’s not a huge step to go from “being offensively rude to women’s sensibilities” to “being offensive in a more general sense”.

    As with so many other things, they took a good idea (men not being boorish) and took it and ran straight off the end of the earth with the idea.

    This is fully speculation, but it does seem reasonable.

  39. No one has mentioned cultural marxism and its quest to destabilize American society. Whether devised as a scheme by marxists, the effect of “microaggressions” certainly has had a chilling effect in the workplace.

    “…The first time coworkers commented on how unpronounceable they found my “exotic” name, I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I felt uncomfortable. They insisted it was a compliment.

    This was at a time when “diversity” referred to the progress of upper-class white women and when addressing racism in the workplace was taboo. In 2007, Derald Wing Sue, a psychologist, brought the term “microaggressions” — coined in the 1970s by Harvard University professor Chester Pierce to describe the subtle, everyday ways that Black people experienced discrimination from their white counterparts — back into the public consciousness. In 2016, use of the term became more widespread, relating mostly to how college students of color were navigating these subtle everyday putdowns, insults, or offensive remarks from well-meaning white peers and faculty.

    “Microaggressions” finally captured the essence of how I was feeling. I did feel slighted, but the real issue was the cumulative effects of hearing something about my difference as a woman of color called out every day, in seemingly benign ways.”

    I know this doesn’t answer a fundamental question, why the person internalizes any perceived slight. In the case of the author’s uneasiness when co-workers found her name unpronounceable, she could have just as easily transferred the question as a form of cultural stupidity on the questioner.

    There is also the distinct possibility that the example is just a form of status and power seeking in the workplace. In some instances, it’s a convenient way to pass the blame/emotion onto the other person, which is a technique that also goes back to the Garden.

    It’s possibly a self-reinforcing attribute, where we don’t want to offend others, and when called out for some offense without clear understanding of what’s permissible and what’s not, we become more sensitive. Great psychological tool for intimidation/control.

    https://hbr.org/2022/03/we-need-to-retire-the-term-microaggressions

  40. TR:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cd/af/ca/cdafca88e59f5dd62fc35f4141dc6e88.jpg

    Says it’s from 1982, which seems likely because Opus changed notably after the early years, and that’s closer to his “early look” in the first panel.

    If you just search on “bloom county offensensitivity” and click on “images” there is usually a color and a B&W version of it in the first one or two.

    And yeah, I’ve used it to accompany social media posts many many times.

  41. }}} There is also the distinct possibility that the example is just a form of status and power seeking in the workplace.

    I would argue it is almost always this. Hence the constant change in the “proper” term for black people — “colored” is bad, negroes is good… negroes is bad, black is good… black is bad, African-American is good… and so on. It keeps you off-base and on the defensive all the time, responding to whatever slight they decide you have made and get you fearing them and walking on eggshells.

    There are other similar things. Some jackwad gave me crap about 2 decades ago for referring to someone as a Jap. Not in a vaguely pejorative way, just as a shorthand for “Japanese”. I asked him what the Japanese word for “foreigner” was. “Gaijin”. I asked him what other things it translated to. “Barbarian”. So anyone who is NOT Japanese is being insulted de rigueur in the Japanese language. Chinese is even worse. To the Chinese, “foreigner” translates to “devil”. You are not only from somewhere else, you’re EVIL. I will never use any of the actual pejorative words, but this crap is waaaaay over the top in every way.

    It’s a means to keep people — especially white people — off balance and defensive. Because if it was really, really offensive to hear, then they’d stop using the “N” word amongst each other, as well.

    P.S., this is particularly clear when it comes to the names of Sports Teams. Sports Team names are NEVER meant as an insult or derogatory manner to anyone involved.

    Look at the names — other than a few exceptions (Akron Zips, the UCSC Banana Slugs) derived from 60s collegiate disapproval of “collegiate sports”, no team is named in a derogatory manner — the typical team name is always in some manner a name meant to inspire — fear and wariness is typical — Tigers, Lions, Bears. “Owls” does both — they are raptors also associated with wisdom.

    Even some of the more “silly” ones — Beavers, Golden Gophers — are meant to suggest industriousness or a determined work ethic.

    No one ever named any team the “Nashville N*****” because you don’t do that. Period..

    Q effin’ E effin’ D… Any team named “The Redskins” or “The Chiefs” or anything like that is because of the depiction of Indians as fierce warriors worthy of respect and consideration when facing them. It’s not a freaking slur, and never ever was, in that context. Not for a moment.

    SMH.

  42. }}} (Not that a Pulitzer means that much any more, alas…)

    Well, it would mean a lot if you’re Jeffrey Toobin.

    😛

  43. Hi OBloodyHell,

    Thanks for finding the Bloom County cartoon, for me.

    I can use it as a handy reference. 🙂 🙂

  44. Jonathan Haidt, the psychologist, makes a strong case that Gen-Z has been raised as children by “safetyism” and become dangerously fragile. Thus the concern with “hurt feelings” compared to earlier generations.

    He sees three interlocking Bad Ideas explaining Gen-Z’s political responses:

    (1) Damage is always permanent and can’t make you stronger.
    (2) Always trust your feelings
    (3) Life is a battle between good people and evil people.

    –Jonathan Haidt, “3 great untruths to stop telling kids—and ourselves” (6m long)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzGH97DQzA4

    In the longer talk below to a university audience Haidt says the same thing and supports it with data:

    –Jonathan Haidt, “The Three Terrible Ideas Weakening Gen Z and Damaging Universities and Democracies”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5IGyHNvr7E

    I’m persuaded Haidt has put his finger on a big piece of the puzzle.

  45. OBloodyHell on January 10, 2023
    “There are other similar things. Some jackwad gave me crap about 2 decades ago for referring to someone as a Jap. Not in a vaguely pejorative way, just as a shorthand for “Japanese”. I asked him what the Japanese word for “foreigner” was. “Gaijin”. I asked him what other things it translated to. “Barbarian”. So anyone who is NOT Japanese is being insulted de rigueur in the Japanese language. Chinese is even worse. To the Chinese, “foreigner” translates to “devil”. You are not only from somewhere else, you’re EVIL. I will never use any of the actual pejorative words, but this crap is waaaaay over the top in every way.”

    The J thing is much earlier than 2 decades. Back before i went in the Army in 1966, I was taking a class, and in discussing the battle of Midway used the “Jap” abbreviation in a presentation, I was just copying Samuel Eliot Morison ‘s “History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II” usage. But in the short time between 1945 and 1965 the J word had become seen as pejorative, not to be used. Actually in WWII, there was hatred of the “Japs”. So in the 50’s when we needed them as allies, it was smart to not use what had been a pejorative.

    Political correctness is very old. The left has used words for a long time as weapons. 1984 was written in 1948. So “new speak” is an old game. This is just a way to push propaganda. A tool to fight the mostly peaceful current civil war. The left, like most totalitarian systems needs to energize their supporters, by demonizing those who oppose them. To “other” them, so when the line is crossed, people want to kill the other.

  46. In the late ‘80’s a woman I’d recently met wanted me to use the phrase “not working outside the home” or some-such to refer to her status as a homemaker, the previous circumlocution we used to describe a housewife, the term used in my youth. She was from San Francisco and of course, a progressive, a different circumlocution we use to describe a raving, leftist, authoritarian. But I repeat myself.

  47. @ TommyJay > “The reasons the left give for their actions and agendas are rarely the real reasons. The very latest: We are now supposed to get rid of all nat. gas cook stoves. Why? Because of the poor asthmatic children. Sure.”

    That one was debunked almost immediately.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/10/no-new-study-does-not-link-gas-stoves-with-asthma-in-children/

    The mocking took a little longer, but has momentum.
    https://notthebee.com/article/biden-admin-is-considering-banning-gas-stoves-in-your-kitchen-to-keep-you-safe

    You can have my gas stove when you pry the skillet from my cold dead fingers.

  48. How about this? It’s all lies. The left has figured that if they pretend to be about to collapse into a pile of angsty glop, the powers that be will pretend to believe them and then enforce whatever the left wants, in order to “protect” them. So after a conservative speaker is banned from campus–or any other similar issue–the two parties wink at each other and await the next opportunity.

    Unaware normies, seeking to be polite and accommodating in a spirit of good faith, go along with it. Fools.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑