15 01 11 - 20:01The idea that language controls thinking is nothing new. Starting in the 1990s, armed with the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, various busybodies began claiming it was "scientific" to change our thinking by changing our words. The idea was that if we stop using pejorative terms, we'll see the people we were criticizing as humans, and thus live in peace. Obviously, this is a prick move:
- It assumes we have no reasons for our criticism. We just accidentally dislike these people, or got bad information. We didn't think over the situation and make a choice.
- It wants to control language so it can control our minds. While on the surface it's a speech code, underneath it's an ideological brainwashing.
- It assumes it knows better than us.
- It is intolerant of the desire of anyone anywhere to live differently than what our "progressive" overlords deem just; in fact, if those people try to live as they have for centuries with the moral beliefs they have, they'll be told they are ignorant and in will come the state to "re-educate" everyone.
- It belittles its subjects by turning them into political tokens and, by forcing others to "tolerate" them, makes them unsure whether they are actually liked or just grudgingly tolerated (that's the original use of that word).
But don't let that stop the liberal crusade: too many former potato-pickers and do-nothings are now making good money as professional busybodies, rising inside the system instead of on their own merits. They are forces of passive decay.
Luckily, any trend gets most "strong" -- really, most cartoonlike -- shortly before it drops dead from lack of momentum, and that's what is happening with political correctness. When political correctness was in competent hands, no one would have made these missteps. Instead, they've handed it to the incompetents because the smarter people have moved on to the next trend.
Canadian radio station have been warned to censor the 1985 Dire Straits hit "Money for Nothing," after a complaint that the lyrics of the Grammy Award-winning song were derogatory to gay men.
A St. John's, Newfoundland, station should have edited the song to remove the word "faggot" because it violates Canada's human rights standards, according to ruling this week by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
"The decision doesn't really relate to the Dire Straits song at the end of the day, the decision relates to the word in question," Ron Cohen, the council's chairman, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
The ruling comes in the wake of an uproar sparked by a U.S. scholar who decided to publish an edition of Mark Twain's novel "Huckleberry Finn" that would remove the word "n*****" to make it less offensive to some readers. - From Dot-Com Miracle to Penny Stock
Context is dead, as is the need to re-interpret what we consider "truths"; there is now an official truth, and it has been formulated by We The People meaning the most numerous and least engaged in more constructive things, and they're going to force it upon you -- because they fear your ability to see through them, and to see that they are not as smart as they think they are, or have secret degraded habits, or are simply dishonest and hollow plastic people. They want to stop that and so they're on a jihad against people who can know better, and their method is "knowing better" in that nanny-cum-Stalinist sense that makes us queasy but we can't quite identify why.