Are you a student by any chance?
I skimmed through what you had to say, which was difficult as you write
utter nonsense.
Humpin Jake wrote:
> "Thatcherite" <ryan_byrne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1162380018.284974.180030@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Since Labour were voted into Government in 1997, steps have been made
> > to make it ridiculously difficult for any other party; namely the
> > Conservatives to enter the corridors of power. I subcribe to the
> > opinion that political correctness has been used as a weapon, to turn
> > British politics into a popularity fest in which the politician who
> > offends the least people wins.
> >
> > There have been many bi-products of this ridiculous process, the loss
> > of our nationality and Sovereignty (do you feel particulary British
> > today?). The way that equality seems to have turned back on itself.
The
> > way that many Brits feel that they are punished increasingly by Gordon
> > Brown, simply for wanting a beverage after a long weeks work.
> >
> > Why should we be punished by this Governments scheme to be rid of all
> > rival parties?
> > Why should we have to pay a ridiculous price to fill up our tanks or
> > for a few drinks after a hard days work?
> >
> > Why should politics have to adapt to the labourite vision that is
> > political correctness.
> >
> > They say we have freedom of speech, but it is counter-acted with
> > political correctness. In which any of us that have anything to say
are
> > silenced by this blairite regime.
> >
> For somebody to assert that something is 'politically correct'
> then they, as an individual or a body, must have:
> a) a policy (their policy)
> b) their notion that said policy correct
> In other words 'they' simultaneously ASSERT
> policy and ASSERT correctness. Not truth, fact, accuracy
> opr reality note, but pure assertion. The content of policy
> and it's accuracy are mere matters of opinion.
>
> They attempt to control definition and language - so just reject
> such assertions MAKING SURE TO USE YOUR OWN
> LANGUAGE AND NOT THEIRS.
>
> If you control the language,. you control the conception and ideation,
> so jsut reject PC as the bollocks it is, noting this as you do:
>
> 'Human beings do not live in the objective world
> alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as
> ordinarily understood, but are very much at the
> mercy of the particular language which has become
> the medium of expression for their society.
> It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts
> to reality essentially without the use of language
> and that language is merely an incidental means
> of solving specific problems of communication and
> reflection.
> The fact of the matter is that the "real world" is to
> a large extent unconsciously built up on the language
> habits of the group.'
> [This famous passage from the American linguist and anthropologist
Edward
> Sapir (1884-1936)'s 'The Status Of Linguistics As A Science', written in
> 1929, demonstrates the dominating thought of what has come to be called
by
> all sorts of names including the 'Sapir-Whorf hypothesis']
|
