Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
<sigh>
I mean, is anyone in the media actually bothered that they've ran big fat headlines that are patently ludicrous? Do they care about telling their readers that "Oh hey, that's actually the opposite of the truth."
-
The core problem is that we have an opposition who are really terrible at communications.
Open question: What would happen if my blog post was sent out as a press release from Goff's office? How much traction do you think it'd get?
-
1) That doesn't make the a measure of prosperity
2) Surely that happened because Winston manged to hitch super to the most inflated measure he could.[Like]
-
And I'm sure someone will nerd-fu my arse on this, but hysterical media and English over-egging the pudding aside is it such a bad thing if we're slowly (and painfully) getting off the debt-fuelled consumption crack?
No, but the ideal scenario is that we become more productive and export more, so that we can earn more money and save more. Not consuming because you've been fired doesn't really help our debt situation.
-
I'm thinking Keith is wrong saying "cunt" because its always loaded to ladies ,it means vagina, let's not beat around the bush.
Yes, but as much as we think vaginae and penises are wonderful things, I'm not sure if anyone thinks - or should think - that it is flattering to *be* a vagina/penis/both. (Or to have a vagina/penis for a face.)
We can have a positive view of people with vaginae, and a positive view of vaginae themselves, while still using "cunt" as an insult. Whereas we can't use "gay" as an insult if we have a positive view of people who are gay.
(Yes. I've been thinking through this issue for the past week.)
-
But you know, this is one of the few times that I've used "cunt" in prose intended for public consumption.
I usually try to stick to gender-neutral swearing. I love Deadwood, but shy away from using "cocksucker" in general discourse.
Recently, I've started to question the concept of politically correct obscenities. It's trying to be generally and indiscriminately offensive, without being specifically offensive. Kinda "fuck you all, but strictly equally".
Perhaps I've given too much thought to this.
-
I suspect there's one or two feminists who'd be serving fresh hot "shut the fuck up" pies at their stalls in response to that notion.
Craig: Despite what you think, sometimes, "cock" just isn't enough.
-
Just don't defend those personal attacks as being the marketplace of ideas in action.
Of course my argument isn't *actually* "Paul Henry is a cunt". My point is that "Paul Henry is a cunt" and Paul Henry's comments have the exact same status.
Both are stupid personal attacks, but freedom of speech applies equally to both. The marketplace for ideas doesn't discriminate between rational, constructive ideas and batshit insane ad hominem attacks.
You can't judge whether ideas are worth protecting or not. They need to be protect - that's why it's important to use those same avenues to challenge them.
-
you believe in the tooth fairy. or santa. this whole "i believe" thing kind of gives me the shits
Well, I believe that freedom of speech is a good thing that should be protected at a constitutional level by the state.
-
But ... you didn't get the memo about Public Address Newspeak, where hereafter "cunt" => "twatcock"?
Truth be told, I am a conservative swearer. Liberal, perhaps, only in quantity.