Archive for ‘political’

April 26, 2016

Politically Incorrect language

by eirenehogan

On the theme of ‘political correctness’.  I think from now on we should not say to people, ‘please use politically correct language’, we should go back to the meaning of what PC language is and say, ‘please do not use sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, language.’  Those who are in control of society, who have never been on the receiving end of prejudicial language, have taken control of the term and trashed it.  By getting control of it themselves, they have managed to demean it and make it seem a negative, instead of a positive.  Those who are victims of prejudicial language can no longer request that people use politically correct language, because they will be immediately vilified.

 

So – I intend to use politically incorrect language to describe those very types who vilify the term.  According to them, I have every right to do so.  Here is an example:

 

I was reading an article from someone the other day, the writer was male, professional, white, heterosexual.  He was a stuck up, selfish, white trash prick, whose brains is in his dick and who sees women as sex toys and nothing else.  Oh, please don’t tell me he was offended by my statements, no offence was intended, it was just humour, and it is the language I am used to using, so I believe I should be allowed to use it.   Poncey git.

Advertisements
April 17, 2016

Why political correctness is CORRECT

by eirenehogan

This is a comment to an article about Stephen Fry, on International Business Times, ‘Stephen Fry is right about our infantilised outrage culture’, By , April 13, 2016.

You can find it here, that is if you can wait long enough for it to download.  I tired to add the comment on the page but it just wouldn’t download enough for me to do so.  Conspiracy?


 

This is yet again an older generation complaining about political correctness.  What is a person saying when they say they do not want to use politically correct language?  They are saying, ‘I want to offend people.’

 

He is now a member of the ‘older generation’ who is not adapting to the changes in society, and see those changes as a negative and destroying of society.  Yes, it is destroying the society that Stephen Fry grew up in, but it isn’t destroying society as a whole, it is merely evolving.  He is complaining that he cannot use the same language he used to use, and is blaming ‘the others’ for the change in language.  He wants to still use that language and refuses to open his mind to the ways in which that language is – and most likely always has been – offensive to others.  He talks about how he should be allowed freedom of speech, meaning he should be allowed to offend someone and it is their fault if they are offended, not his.

 

He claims, due to ‘freedom of speech’ he should be allowed to express these opinions that perhaps offend people.  Certainly Mr Fry, you are allowed to express those opinions, but the reverse of that is that people are allowed to be offended by them and are allowed to complain about you saying them.  You cannot claim a right to say them under ‘freedom of speech’ then deny the right of others to complain about them.

 

This is such a common complaint by people who are not among the class of people who have had to deal with the negative abusive language, or behaviour; who cannot see how it is offensive, and therefore claim their right – as a member of society that has not experienced the offence – to use it.  It has occurred throughout history, as society changes.  We no longer live in a society controlled politically by a small group of the privileged class.  We are a democracy and that means society is finally allowed to speak up and say that there are groups in society who have always found such language and behaviours offensive and no longer want to put up with those groups in the society who think they are allowed to say what is allowed and what is offensive and what is freedom of speech.  It is not up to the ‘others’ to say ‘you should not be offended by this language’, it is up to those who are the ones who feel offended to say if it is offensive or not.

 

This is ironic coming from someone who is gay and has defended gay rights.  Let us go back to the pre-70s when it was fine to call someone a poof or faggott.  ‘Hey, I didn’t mean to be offensive, it’s just a common phrase, I wasn’t accusing you directly.  Wow, man, that’s your problem if you find that language offensive, not mine.’

 

Would Mr Fry agree to that?

 


 

February 19, 2016

Why ‘I was only joking,’ isn’t good enough

by eirenehogan

‘I was only joking.’  Is that an acceptable explanation for an offensive prejudicial jibe at someone?i was only joking

 

Presumably you say it because you feel upset that the other person thinks you are a bigot and you feel you aren’t.  But instead of examining your own language and ideas, trying to understand their perspective, and learning something from the incident, you reject their comments and views and emotions.

 

You think your feelings are more important than theirs.  You then tell them how they should feel, that they should not be upset and that you should be allowed to say offensive things to them.

 

You are acting like you are the one in control and you are controlling the other’s actions, feelings and thoughts.  You are acting like a bigot.

 

Instead you should listen to the other person, realise you made a mistake in saying the comment. Yu should try and see it from their point of view. Even if you felt it was a joke, they did not.  If any joke upsets someone, then they are fully entitled to feeling that emotion.  If any comment upsets someone, then there must be something in that comment that is upsetting, whether you had intended it to be or not.

 

You are the one who has made the mistake.  You should acknowledge your mistake and apologise.  If you feel you are not a bigot, then do not say things that others may interpret as prejudicial.

November 2, 2015

How radicalization happens.

by eirenehogan

IN REGARDS TO THE SO-CALLED ‘RADICALIZATION’ OF YOUTH IN AUSTRALIA

When a new culture comes into a land, those of the old culture feel uncomfortable, because this new culture is strange and different to their own.  They feel fear.  That fear turns into hatred.

The obvious current example is the fear of those of Islamic religion.

By expressing that hatred and anger at Islamic people (or any minority group) you make them feel unwanted in our country and that they are not allowed to be part of our country and our culture.  They are then forced to live only within their own culture.

They also feel fear, from your unwelcoming attitude, and they resort to finding solace within their own culture – because that is the only one you are allowing them to be part of – to help deal with that fear.

In time this fear can also turn to anger and will be expressed against those who have not welcomed them into this country.  And that leads to “radicalisation”, and racial violence against you; the very thing you feared in the first place.

The irony is, if you show acceptance and interest in their culture, then they will feel accepted in our country, be peaceful and nice, and are more likely to adapt to our culture.

June 23, 2015

Christians do not own marriage

by eirenehogan

Whatever attitude some Christians have to marriage equality is irrelevant.  The issue is not what the Bible thinks of it, it is about what our society, our Nation, thinks of it.  It is a secular issue and Australia is a secular country; that is within our constitution.  Some Christians try to claim Christianity owns marriage, that somehow their god ‘invented’ marriage, which is just ridiculous.  Marriage is – and has been – in all societies, long before Christianity came along, and before the Jews too, and within all non-Christian countries around the world.  The Egyptians married, and their civilisation began 2,500 years before Christ.  The Asians marry, the American Natives marry, the Australian Aborigines marry, the Pacific Islanders marry, the African natives marry.  Christianity does not own marriage.  These people are entitled to their views, and they do not have to choose to marry same-sex if they don’t want to, but they have no right to impose their views on non-Christians and onto Christians who don’t agree with them.

Osiris and Isis

Osiris and Isis

April 22, 2015

On this day 100 years ago … or more.

by eirenehogan
ANNIVERSARIES OF EVENTS 100 YEARS AGO OR MORE …
1915 April 25 Anzac landing, Gallipoli. World War I
1215 June 15 signing of Magna Carta, King John of England.
(Julian Calendar.
It  would be June 8 by Gregorian Calendar)
1815 June 18 Battle of Waterloo, against Napoleon
1415 October 25 Battle of Agincourt, the 100 Years War (England and France)
(St Crispins Day)
(Julian Calendar.
It would be October 16 by the Gregorian calendar)

 

January 11, 2015

The countdown till the next federal election in Australia

by eirenehogan

I can’t stand it anymore, I have to count down the weeks until freedom.

The first date til the next federal election can be called without a trigger (double dissolution and such … ) is 6 August 2016.  The LATEST date an election can be called is – wait for it … 14 Jan 2017.  Arrrghhh!!!  Horrifying.

So here is my chart that counts down until the earliest date.  From 1st January there were 83 weeks.

weeks til election

September 5, 2014

The Universal Soldier still has not been stopped

by eirenehogan

We are now on the verge of a war in Iraq and a war in Ukraine, and it reminded me of my youth and those heady anti-war days of the sixties, from the children of the WWII war vets who had heard it all as kids and decided there should be no more war.  What went wrong?

Buffy Saint-Marie

 

“The Universal Soldier”

written by Buffy Sainte-Marie. (1964)

1965 recorded by folk singer Donovan.

 

 

Donovan

He’s the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can’t go on

He’s the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can’t you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.

 

– – – –

 

Here are the full lyrics to the song:

 

He’s five feet two and he’s six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He’s all of 31 and he’s only 17
He’s been a soldier for a thousand years

He’s a Catholic, a Hindu, an athiest, a Jain,
a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
and he knows he shouldn’t kill
and he knows he always will
kill you for me my friend and me for you

And he’s fighting for Canada,
he’s fighting for France,
he’s fighting for the USA,
and he’s fighting for the Russians
and he’s fighting for Japan,
and he thinks we’ll put an end to war this way

And he’s fighting for Democracy
and fighting for the Reds
He says it’s for the peace of all
He’s the one who must decide
who’s to live and who’s to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls

But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He’s the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can’t go on

He’s the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can’t you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Soldier_(song)

 

Historia Incognita

A No.1 Historical Detective Agency : Researching and Writing Forgotten Histories

The Postgrad Chronicles

Medieval History from Alfred the Great to The Battle of Castillon

%d bloggers like this: