The Fog of political correctness

I just stopped in here for a second.. I was a the range where Men go... I came here and saw 17 responses from what appears to be a bunch of pimple faced kids,. typing with one hand and stroking their Johnson with the other... No mature comments just like what the review said... you guys hang out here on a beautiful fall afternoon playing GI joe.. and showing off your internet muscles... much like what children do...water seeks its own level in this forum and the level is about ad low as it can get... Shut the Shut the **** up....? sound like something a high school kid would say... I wasn't wrong and either were the reviewers... It IS a BoysClub... no place for a man...
.
Nevertheless, your expressed opinion and proposal are unfit for any MAN who values his liberty and the liberty of others, and unfit for any MAN who values the constitutional republic that was adopted for the express purpose of securing the blessings of liberty for “ourselves and our posterity.” Your OP gives a nod (and a wink?) to the police-state tactics which have of late become woefully all too frequent in our country (see: Meet the New Serfs: You | National Review Online), to the immediate peril of our condition as a free people. Such policing has been espoused by every third-rate banana republic dictatorship/autocracy in history. I can agree that there are any number of laws that are currently unenforced due to “political correctness” and its underlying agenda, and that their enforcement with due process could enhance public safety. What you seem to propose however is not to just call a thing what it is, but to empower and excuse the state to run roughshod over fundamental rights. No thanks.
 
I just stopped in here for a second.. I was a the range where Men go... I came here and saw 17 responses from what appears to be a bunch of pimple faced kids,. typing with one hand and stroking their Johnson with the other... No mature comments just like what the review said... you guys hang out here on a beautiful fall afternoon playing GI joe.. and showing off your internet muscles... much like what children do...water seeks its own level in this forum and the level is about ad low as it can get... Shut the Shut the **** up....? sound like something a high school kid would say... I wasn't wrong and either were the reviewers... It IS a BoysClub... no place for a man...

Then please, for heaven's sake, go somewhere else and get the hell out of our sandbox.
 
I always like the quote from Martin Niemöller when it comes to this type of thinking:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Don't speak out, go along, it's only a little inconvenience, it makes us "safer", I have nothing to hide... these are the new versions of the same old capitulations that he was talking about... the more freedom you give up, the more the State takes... and never gives back.
 
A little more than two years ago, tcox4freedom may have pegged ET long before he ever got here when he posted this from another forum:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist



1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather,they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.



2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either
applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of
opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to
directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any
success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.



3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally
with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation
in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise
tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were
likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the
reason.



4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementarypacks or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.



5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy
theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed
by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists,
do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on
conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of
everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or,
one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions
in going out of their way to focus as they do.



6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually
thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of
overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence
community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything,
and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo
artist is that emotions can seem artificial.



Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity
throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining
the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their
usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and
they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a
communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face
conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation
one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.



With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them
from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo
patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that
they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what
others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance,
and so forth, or simply give up.



7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their
true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or
it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root
for the side of truth deep within.



I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information
which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed
to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar,
incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware
of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed
no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand
knowledge of it.



8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the
response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE
response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people
to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO
IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or
the visitor may be swayed towards truth.



b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email,
DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay.
This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect,
and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain
of command.



c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns
are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach
in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their
comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal
truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

There's more interesting stuff, some of which may apply to a recent registrant(s?). Click on the link at the top of this post if you're interested.

Blues
 
Has anyone noticed that it is usually a majority of the "element of surprise" people who preach, "No one should ever know you are carrying" are also the ones who promote telling a cop about your permit and gun at every opportunity?
 
It has been my experience in life that real warriors and real adult men do not need to put down other people. Grown men and real deal bad ass warriors don't go around trying to impress other people about how big a bad ass they are simply because their egos don't need to be stroked. Just as the adult man doesn't engage in childish put downs the real deal warrior does not engage in braggadocio. There is no need for them to do so because they are secure and confident within themselves.

I have met some adult men and I've met a few real deal warriors and not one of them demanded respect from others nor did they put other people down. Quite the contrary since they were all extremely respectful of others and did not cut other people down but went about their lives knowing they didn't need to prove anything to anyone.

However... it has also been my life experience that those who are NOT mature adults nor the real deal warrior, who have low self esteem, who need to put down others in order to elevate themselves, who demand respect without giving any, who need to tell all and sundry how big a bad ass they are, are not bad asses at all nor have they matured into an adult but merely have a desperate childish need to have their egos stroked just to feel good about themselves.

And it has been my internet experience that there is no shortage of keyboard commandos who come to forums and shout loud and long about their exploits, about how big a bad ass they are, about how they should be revered and respected just because they have deigned to grace the internet with their most excellent selves, about how lowly everyone else is in comparison to their magnificence.

But just as the internet keyboard commando and the braggart in real life are annoying both, in my opinion, are to be pitied for the poor souls are in constant torment trying to impress others hoping to shore up their own low self esteem.
 
Here's yet another, recent, example of why it is such a good idea to let law enforcement have even more search powers... hey at least this time they didn't put anyone in the hospital...

Link Removed
 
An actual answer to the real problem of political correctness... and most certainly not any call for more police ********.

Not My Problem
Not My Problem | The Price of Liberty
By MamaLiberty

Not my problem. I’m sure a lot of people would consider that a harsh thing to say, but if you’ll stay with me a bit you should easily see that it is the only real answer to the whole “politically correct” thing sweeping this country and, incidentally, the world.

“You made me mad. You didn’t make me happy. I’m offended.” You can probably add a hundred more such phrases people use to control what you do, say and even what you believe. That’s exactly what happens when a few people can choose any word or object, assign a specific (often NEW and ugly) meaning to it, and then demand that nobody use that word or object because it “makes them feel”… whatever.

Let’s look first at the premise that someone can actually “make” another person FEEL anything. How does that work, exactly? Vulcan mind meld? Is it not a fact that each person simply REACTS to outside stimulus, and the perception of sad, mad, happy, etc. is actually their own response? That response can most certainly be painful, even harmful psychologically in vulnerable people, but the person who supplies the stimulus is not, therefore, actually responsible for the feelings because he/she has no control over what another person perceives or what their response will be. The person with the feelings is actually the responsible person and, to a great extent, chooses the response based on their own beliefs and preferences. History is replete with every kind of race, tribe and ethnic conflict, but none of it can shift true responsibility from the person with the feelings to someone else.

A great many people have lost sight of that fact, and the new privileged classes have managed to politicize their hurt feelings into actual laws, criminalizing the words and actions their feelings and perceptions find objectionable. Criminalization of ordinary words and inanimate objects does not seem like a good path toward a polite and peaceful society. Recent history seems to support the more rational conclusion that attempting to force people to do and say things results in escalating resentment and even hatreds.

But of course, the shoe does not fit at all on the other foot. I think it is clear to most people how many screeds and threats come from the mouths and pens of certain “protected” persons (and those who shill for them) against anyone they perceive as not obeying their demands. Somehow, it is impossible for them to be “racist” or “hateful,” and their written and spoken threats are never seen as damaging to those they say should be caged, murdered or worse.

For some reason, the privileged one believes he/she should be able to dictate how others speak or act, yet totally rejects any limitations on their own behavior. How does that work? If mere words are seriously harmful, why doesn’t that work both ways?

I never have, and never would, deliberately say or do anything intended to harm, insult, demean or harass any other person, always seeking to be courteous and non-threatening. I simply don’t ever intend to have someone else define that for me… especially with threats and violence under color of law. I absolutely refuse to accept any false guilt for speaking my mind, especially when that false guilt is predicated on things my long dead ancestors did, or might have done.

Seems to me that responsibility for “feelings” has to be handed back to the people who actually own it.

So, on the rare occasion when someone tells me that the sight of the gun on my hip “offends” them, or makes them “uncomfortable,” my reply – in the softest, kindest tone I can manage is: “That’s not my problem. I am not responsible for how you feel. ”
 
I just stopped in here for a second.. I was a the range where Men go... I came here and saw 17 responses from what appears to be a bunch of pimple faced kids,. typing with one hand and stroking their Johnson with the other... No mature comments just like what the review said... you guys hang out here on a beautiful fall afternoon playing GI joe.. and showing off your internet muscles... much like what children do...water seeks its own level in this forum and the level is about ad low as it can get... Shut the Shut the **** up....? sound like something a high school kid would say... I wasn't wrong and either were the reviewers... It IS a BoysClub... no place for a man...
Ahhhhh, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Oh jeez, stop. You're killing me. :haha::sarcastic::jester:
.
No real man would give-up his rights.
 
Let's condense the liberal/progressive/leftist argument, that they don't want anyone, except themselves or their bodyguards to have firearms. Let's also condense the proponents of firearms beliefs, to keep this post balanced.

Leftists:

I have the need/right to feel safe, so I abhor anyone who owns firearms, and I'm willing to destroy the Constitution/Bill of Rights to feel that way.

Enlightened Realists:

I have the need/right to feel safe, so I own firearms, and abhor anyone who is willing to destroy the Constitution/Bill of Rights to keep me from feeling that way.

==============================================

OP:

No compromises, no illegal searches, no "common sense" gun control lies from the left, no lies the leftist MSM spout every day, no vilification because some of us have chosen to protect ourselves from harm, and do it legally, no "the sky is falling", hand-wringing lemmings who cannot think for themselves, and most important of all; no government intrusion into law-abiding citizens' beliefs in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and God given rights.

No compromises. None.

Does my post sound like I've been typing with one hand, and stroking my Johnson with the other, as you claimed many did in an earlier post?

Begone.
 
I've been on this board for a couple years. I'm more of a reader than a poster but will jump in from time to time. There are a number of good posters on here that I have come to respect for their well-though-out and reasonable opinions. Bikenut, Firefighterchen, NavyLCDR, Bluestringer, and OldGrunt are a couple that come to mind. There are many others. What we all share is first and foremost a dedication to protecting our 2A rights. Secondly we generally adhere to a conservative political viewpoint. No big news there.

I feel like we are all sitting around a table having a nice conversation with like-minded people when all of a sudden here comes ET. He's drunk, kicks the door open, starts screaming a bunch of liberal BS, pushes people around, and calls us all stupid when he doesn't know the first thing about us. The dude really needs to dry out or get some people skills or something. Or if he hates this board so much, I don't know why he sticks around. Probably just for trolling purposes. I guess he is entertaining in a train-wreck kind of way, though.
 
I feel like we are all sitting around a table having a nice conversation with like-minded people when all of a sudden here comes ET. He's drunk, kicks the door open, starts screaming a bunch of liberal BS, pushes people around, and calls us all stupid when he doesn't know the first thing about us. The dude really needs to dry out or get some people skills or something. Or if he hates this board so much, I don't know why he sticks around. Probably just for trolling purposes. I guess he is entertaining in a train-wreck kind of way, though.


I would equate ET to more like a drunk making a prank phone call....

"Hello?"
"Heh, heh, heh, your stupid!"
"ET, is that you?"
<CLICK>

how_to_prank_stewie.gif
 
I feel like we are all sitting around a table having a nice conversation with like-minded people when all of a sudden here comes ET. He's drunk, kicks the door open, starts screaming a bunch of liberal BS, pushes people around, and calls us all stupid when he doesn't know the first thing about us. The dude really needs to dry out or get some people skills or something. Or if he hates this board so much, I don't know why he sticks around. Probably just for trolling purposes. I guess he is entertaining in a train-wreck kind of way, though.
Pete, I think for these types the action IS the juice. They get-off on it.
 

New Threads

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,692
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top