What is the most politically correct thing you have heard?

Nodin · 20-11-2013 12:20AM

jank wrote: »

Why? Because you think so? Get over yourself Nodin. Reading a book doesnt make the supreme oracle on a subject. The above should be reserved for the playground. "My daddy is richer than your daddy" That is the seed of your arguement.

No, it's a declaration that I am somewhat read on the subject and can thus say with some authority that it's simplistic juvenile cherry picked crap.

For example - a US republican party conference - loads of rhetoric, nationalism, patriotism, "traditional values", lauding the military, flag waving = "O look, they're just like the Nazis". It's a nonsense.

Nodin · 20-11-2013 12:21AM

jank wrote: »

I dont even know what you are even trying to say here. Get the grass out of your mouth and say what you want to say more clearly. Are you saying Hitler was a libertarian? Cause he wanted to rule Europe?

It was a joke, but I forgot who I was talking to. My bad.

jank · 20-11-2013 12:31AM

Nodin wrote: »

No, it's a declaration that I am somewhat read on the subject and can thus say with some authority that it's simplistic juvenile cherry picked crap..

Eh, but you are not an authority, you are some random bloke on the net with an opinion that is different to others. Just cause you claim to have read all the books in the world regarding the subject doesnt mean that you are more right or less wrong. So you are engaging in the usual falllacies that you often claim and stand against. Its kinda funny really how irrational you are about this.

Nodin wrote: »

For example - a US republican party conference - loads of rhetoric, nationalism, patriotism, "traditional values", lauding the military, flag waving = "O look, they're just like the Nazis". It's a nonsense.

Well you have many that claim the Tea Party are just the same as the Taliban.... have a guess what side of the political aisle those claims are made from?

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 12:34AM

jank wrote: »

Hitler was very much an interventionist regarding the economy so that would classify him as a socialist in today’s world or what have you, he also believed in authoritarian measures against individual liberties, some may classify that as right wing. The jist I think is that Fascism is not only a tenant of the right, its more nuanced than that. He was definitely not a libertarian

Nope, I'd agree with you on that. I think the typical left/right linear classification is too simplistic. Economically Hitler was more left wing than today's mainstream parties favouring government intervention to ensure workers rights but socially he was much more authoritarian.

jank · 20-11-2013 12:35AM

Nodin wrote: »

It was a joke, but I forgot who I was talking to. My bad.

Postcount++ so.

Nodin · 20-11-2013 12:37AM

jank wrote: »

Eh, but you are not an authority, you are some random bloke on the net with an opinion that is different to others. ..........?

Actually, I'm with the broad consensus.

jank wrote: »

Well you have many that claim the Tea Party are just the same as the Taliban.... have a guess what side of the political aisle those claims are made from?

Some people think the world is hollow and used as a base for aliens.

jank · 20-11-2013 12:40AM

Nodin wrote: »

Actually, I'm with the broad consensus.

That Hitler was not interventionist regarding nationalist economic matters? You are sounding more like biffo at every post.

Nodin · 20-11-2013 12:43AM

jank wrote: »

That Hitler was not interventionist regarding nationalist economic matters? You are sounding more like biffo at every post.

You should read the thread, which provides sufficient context to interpret what I posted.

P_1 · 20-11-2013 03:20AM

I'm not too sure on the whole Hitler being left wing economically argument, yes under his rule there were elements of classical socialism (collective working, the Autobahn, the people's car etc) but they were more often achieved by promoting one company over others rather than a program of mass nationalization.

Iwasfrozen · 20-11-2013 03:29AM

P_1 wrote: »

I'm not too sure on the whole Hitler being left wing economically argument, yes under his rule there were elements of classical socialism (collective working, the Autobahn, the people's car etc) but they were more often achieved by promoting one company over others rather than a program of mass nationalization.

There are two ways a government can extract profits from a company while maintaining the basic premise of the market. They can either allow competition to continue or they can give one company monopolistic powers. The latter was seen as more tolerable to Hitlers economic left wing outlook as competition places extra burden on the worker.

This is common corporatist thinking typical of European fascists at the time.

Diemos · 20-11-2013 03:35AM

Nino Brown wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep still tops it for me

[puts on best John Cleese voice] Now they're having a go at the gays!

Femme_Fatale · 20-11-2013 03:36AM

Wasn't baa baa rainbow sheep debunked?

A lot of people who go on about PC going mad, seem to really want that stuff to be true, despite apparently being so incensed by it. Looking for examples of PC gone mad and looking for things to be offended by are just two sides of the same coin.

osarusan · 20-11-2013 04:34AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Wasn't baa baa rainbow sheep debunked?
.

It did happen (or at least some smoke that produced a fire) a decade ago. The argument was that it was to introduce more adjectives to the vocabulary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4782856.stm

In 2000, a warning that the nursery rhyme Baa Baa black sheep should not be taught in schools because it was "racially offensive" was scrapped.

The guidelines by education chiefs at Birmingham City Council were dropped after black parents condemned the advice as ridiculous.

pickarooney · 20-11-2013 09:32AM

old hippy wrote: »

Mixed race is acceptable. My American cousin calls her daughter "bi-racial" rather than mixed. But it could be an American thing, I hadn't heard it until a year or so ago.

The half caste term is reprehensible. I like this poem which gets to the heart of it

Halfe–Caste by John Agard

Excuse me
standing on one leg
I'm half-caste
Explain yuself
wha yu mean
when yu say half-caste
yu mean when picasso
mix red an green
is a half-caste canvas/
explain yuself
wha u mean
when yu say half-caste
yu mean when light an shadow
mix in de sky
is a half-caste weather/
well in dat case
england weather
nearly always half-caste
in fact some o dem cloud
half-caste till dem overcast
so spiteful dem dont want de sun pass
ah rass/
explain yuself
wha yu mean
when yu say half-caste
yu mean tchaikovsky
sit down at dah piano
an mix a black key
wid a white key
is a half-caste symphony/
Explain yuself
wha yu mean
Ah listening to yu wid de keen
half of mih ear
Ah looking at u wid de keen
half of mih eye
and when I'm introduced to yu
I'm sure you'll understand
why I offer yu half-a-hand
an when I sleep at night
I close half-a-eye
consequently when I dream
I dream half-a-dream
an when moon begin to glow
I half-caste human being
cast half-a-shadow
but yu come back tomorrow
wid de whole of yu eye
an de whole of yu ear
and de whole of yu mind
an I will tell yu
de other half
of my story

No text please please.

Gyalist · 20-11-2013 09:44AM

pickarooney wrote: »

No text please please.

That isn't text speak - it's Guyanese Creole.

pickarooney · 20-11-2013 09:57AM

What's wrong with "Happy holidays" exactly? It's just shorthand for "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year". It has nothing to do with including festivals from other religions, such as Hannkkah and Ramadan/Eid, which are not contemporaneous with Christmas. Unless you count made-up feasts like Kwanzaa and Festivus or the pagan rituals and the combined eleven people who celebrate them while eschewing Christmas and getting upset if you leave them out.

Optimalprimerib · 20-11-2013 09:59AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

This thread is slowly descending into the 'how racist/sexist can I be and get away with it' thread. Whatever about some ridiculous PC terms, people just use it as an excuse to say whatever the hell they like without consequence.

I find your point of view very discriminatory. You are up on your pedestal gloating and I am afraid of heights

Karl Stein · 20-11-2013 10:11AM

jank wrote: »

Hitler was very much an interventionist regarding the economy so that would classify him as a socialist in today’s world or what have you,

I'm not so much responding to you as I am to the audience because I think you're FOS but, anyway, Hitler's rise to power was facilitated by the business/corporate class of Germany who were afraid of the rise of Communism. Hitler would never have got near the reigns of power without their complicity.

The rise of Nazism did not deter US corporations like Ford and GM who continued to expand their presence in Germany industry. Obviously whatever brand of socialism Hitler was espousing was not viewed as a threat to corporate ambition.

"Speaking in 1931 to a Detroit News reporter, Hitler said he regarded Ford as his "inspiration," explaining his reason for keeping Ford's life-size portrait next to his desk. Steven Watts wrote that Hitler "revered" Ford, proclaiming that "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany," and modelling the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the Model T.

Wiki.

"General Motors was far more important to the Nazi war machine than Switzerland," said Bradford Snell, who has spent two decades researching a history of the world's largest automaker. "Switzerland was just a repository of looted funds. GM was an integral part of the German war effort. The Nazis could have invaded Poland and Russia without Switzerland. They could not have done so without GM."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

GalwayGuy2 · 20-11-2013 10:20AM

Hmmm, I don't think PC brigade is even the right term. A lot of the people who could be called this are simply another form of racism/class-ism/ sexism.

As in, they think the above need to be 'educated' or 'protected'.

jank · 20-11-2013 11:15AM

Nodin wrote: »

You should read the thread, which provides sufficient context to interpret what I posted.

You are refuting a point that nobody is making and ignoring the actual point that people are making. Classic whataboutery.

jank · 20-11-2013 11:22AM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm not so much responding to you as I am to the audience because I think you're FOS but, anyway, Hitler's rise to power was facilitated by the business/corporate class of Germany who were afraid of the rise of Communism. Hitler would never have got near the reigns of power without their complicity.

The rise of Nazism did not deter US corporations like Ford and GM who continued to expand their presence in Germany industry. Obviously whatever brand of socialism Hitler was espousing was not viewed as a threat to corporate ambition.

That is all well and good but it still all points to an nationalistic interventionist economic model, which by todays political compas is left wing. Nobody is really disputing this central point but plenty of strawmen being built.

Cool Mo D · 20-11-2013 11:35AM

jank wrote: »

That Hitler was not interventionist regarding nationalist economic matters? You are sounding more like biffo at every post.

"Interventionist", which is a ridiculously broad word, and I cannot think of a single country or leader that could not be described in that way. During wartime, every economy comes under a large degree of economic control.

However, whatever else you might say about him, Hitler was not a socialist.
The most basic tenet of socialism is that the people should directly own the means of production, and the ensuing profits. Hitler absolutely did not believe in this.

In Nazi Germany, the deal with business went like this "Support the war effort and the Nazi party, and you can keep your money and influence." This suited German business owners just fine, and the Nazi's were seen as a bulwark against the German communist movement. The Nazi wartime economy was not run all that differently to Britain or the USA, where all the countries industries were put to work for the war, but remained in private hands.

Compare this to the USSR, where private industry was illegal, every factory, shop, cafe, and farm was owned by the State. Even selling second hand clothes privately could get you sent to a prison camp as a "speculator".

Calling Hitler a socialist is done either by those with an agenda, or those who don't know what socialism actually is.

It's also worth noting that there WAS a somewhat socialist movement within the Nazi party, lead by the SA and Ernst Rohm. Hitler purged this element from the party in the Knight of Long Knives in 1934, killing Rohm, and cosying up to the conservative German establishment in the process.

lazygal · 20-11-2013 11:46AM

When did this thread stop being fun?

MJ23 · 20-11-2013 11:51AM

"Non Nationals", they're foreigners.

It's just like a person who is not a professional golfer. They're not called "non professionals", they're Amateurs.

cantdecide · 20-11-2013 11:57AM

Not really PC but where has all this "passed away" business come from?

Is it even possible to sugar-coat death?

I may one day die but I will never be accused of 'passing away'!

jank · 20-11-2013 12:47PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

However, whatever else you might say about him, Hitler was not a socialist.
The most basic tenet of socialism is that the people should directly own the means of production, and the ensuing profits. Hitler absolutely did not believe in this.

That is communism, if that is the case the Sweden or Norway is not socialist as the people/state do not own all the means of production.... and we all know thats bollox.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Calling Hitler a socialist is done either by those with an agenda, or those who don't know what socialism actually is..

Well clearly you dont as you think socialist = communism which it is not. Nobody said he was a communist, what people are saying is that he favored large state intervention, control and public works programs into the private economy. Something modern left wingers always advocate.

Cool Mo D · 20-11-2013 01:18PM

jank wrote: »

That is communism, if that is the case the Sweden or Norway is not socialist as the people/state do not own all the means of production.... and we all know thats bollox.

Correct, Sweden and Norway are not socialist, they are social-democratic capitalist countries. They are a direct evolution of the European social democracy which always set out to be an alternative to USSR-style socialism.

The UK Labour party in the 1940's would be an example of actually implementing socialist policies when they nationalised the coal, iron, steel and railway industries after the second world war.

And you are wrong about what socialism and what is communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production. Communism is the eventual end-goal of socialism - a utopian society where there is no money or scarcity, the state is abolished, all economic decisions are made directly by the people, and consumer goods are doled directly out to whoever needs them.

The USSR for example was a socialist country. The people who founded it were Communists: not because they believed that the USSR had actually become a fully Communist country, but because Socialism was a step along the road to full Communism, and they saw it as their job to take the USSR all the way.

old hippy · 20-11-2013 01:22PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, I don't think PC brigade is even the right term. A lot of the people who could be called this are simply another form of racism/class-ism/ sexism.

As in, they think the above need to be 'educated' or 'protected'.

LOL; yes - it's all down to the do gooders, oppressing people and being racially offensive :rolleyes:

I tell you, our country's isolation from the rest of the world used to be charming, now it's verging on the ridiculous.

old hippy · 20-11-2013 01:29PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Meh, who cares if he cares about feminism. People disagree with all forms of political theory/ideology. And it is hard to enjoy art that you don't see an enjoyable, or particularly worthwhile.

And the part in bold: Are you hinting he's gay to ridicule or insult him? Who cares if he's attracted to you?

This shows how plenty of people who class themselves as progressives are actually what their complaining about. Eg: Making fun of men who are 'feminine' or 'gay' in videos to try and highlight perceived objectification, or homophobia.

It's a really weird self-perpetuating act

I don't much care for his "mate" schtick and personal comments he's made elsewhere to me. I've asked him to stop, he won't. I'd say the same thing to anyone here of any gender who was annoying me. Being bisexual and all.

jank · 20-11-2013 01:30PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Correct, Sweden and Norway are not socialist, they are social-democratic capitalist countries. They are a direct evolution of the European social democracy which always set out to be an alternative to USSR-style socialism.

The UK Labour party in the 1940's would be an example of actually implementing socialist policies when they nationalised the coal, iron, steel and railway industries after the second world war.

And you are wrong about what socialism and what is communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production. Communism is the eventual end-goal of socialism - a utopian society where there is no money or scarcity, the state is abolished, all economic decisions are made directly by the people, and consumer goods are doled directly out to whoever needs them.

The USSR for example was a socialist country. The people who founded it were Communists: not because they believed that the USSR had actually become a fully Communist country, but because Socialism was a step along the road to full Communism, and they saw it as their job to take the USSR all the way.

Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Communism:
a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

I find it hard to believe that one thinks the USSR was socialist but not communist unless we are talking about shifting goal posts for added affect.

What is the most politically correct thing you have heard?

Comments