|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 12, 2013 16:10:23 GMT -5
We all know John went through his famous "radical chic" period. And I think its fair to say that John leaned left of center for most of his life. But I was wondering where John would have ended up politically if he were still alive in the year 2013. I know this is an impossible question to answer. Especially considering John's tendencies to make unexpected 180 degree turns. But I wonder. . .
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 12, 2013 16:25:17 GMT -5
Of course this is a loaded thread.
I have always said that we never know, because John often changed his opinions and ideas. There is a chance by now he would have gotten fed up with all this PC bull, and veered more toward what is called "The Right".
But then you have to consider that Yoko is still alive and very much still a staunch liberal. So there is in all likelihood a chance that John would be even more to the left than ever before, if he were still living and still joined with Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 12, 2013 16:50:38 GMT -5
The right is just as full of crap as the left. "PC" is lazy shorthand for wanting your own way.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 12, 2013 17:45:13 GMT -5
As I said, this is a loaded thread (topic) ! To me, "PC" is about having to cater specially to certain groups of "special people", but with a "who cares??" toward anyone who is not exclusively on the current list of the privileged. (ex: Recently it was okay to call the "large"* NJ governor Christy an "elephant" on the cover of TIME, yet those same hypocrites would cry "foul!" if anyone insulted certain other types on a magazine cover in such a manner). (And don't mention the Redskins football team!) * (Wait -- Did I just sugarcoat my comment by saying "large" instead of "fat"?? I'll need to check the current PC HANDBOOK .... No... not required..... I don't believe overweight people are on that special list as of 11-12-13 .... it's still just "fatso", "tubby"... or "elephant")
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Nov 12, 2013 18:40:01 GMT -5
I didn't mean to "load" the topic (who, me?). I guess I referenced "PC liberals" because most Hollywood celebrities (certainly including Paul and Yoko) are knee jerk PC. So I was just wondering if John would have been a "faithful follower of fashion" or a trend-bucking iconoclast. Because he certainly had both of those sides.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 18:43:32 GMT -5
PC started as a way for politicians to state certain answers to questions so that it would not offend elements in the particular groups. I.E., say Native American instead of Indians because it offends some individuals in that group. It's safer to say it one way than another.
You don't say people are fat, you say they are overweight. That still offended some individuals so it became weight challenged.
Every vote counted. You didn't want to offend anyone.
Why regular people began thinking PC applied to them, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Nov 12, 2013 19:14:10 GMT -5
Lots of people decry the "PC" meme though because they want to be able to hurl racial epithets, demean women, oppress members of racial minorities, etc without penalty.
Why not just ask:
Would John be a liberal or a conservative in 2013?
Without the bias of the "PC" rant.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 19:52:21 GMT -5
PC started as a way for politicians to state certain answers to questions so that it would not offend elements in the particular groups. I.E., say Native American instead of Indians because it offends some individuals in that group. It's safer to say it one way than another. You don't say people are fat, you say they are overweight. That still offended some individuals so it became weight challenged. Every vote counted. You didn't want to offend anyone. Why regular people began thinking PC applied to them, who knows. That said, it turned out to be a good thing, in my opinion. Some people need popular opinion to tell them that their stand on many issues is offensive to others.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 19:55:47 GMT -5
Lots of people decry the "PC" meme though because they want to be able to hurl racial epithets, demean women, oppress members of racial minorities, etc without penalty. Why not just ask: Would John be a liberal or a conservative in 2013? Without the bias of the "PC" rant. I don't think "Liberal" would be considered a slanderous word like it is now. Lennon was proud to be a free thinker, a liberal. I think he would want change now more than ever. Of course had he lived, things might have been a lot different.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 20:23:37 GMT -5
We all know John went through his famous "radical chic" period. And I think its fair to say that John leaned left of center for most of his life. But I was wondering where John would have ended up politically if he were still alive in the year 2013. I know this is an impossible question to answer. Especially considering John's tendencies to make unexpected 180 degree turns. But I wonder. . . That whole "radical chic" expression is a meaningless cliche invented to demean a certain brand of politics that don't align with the users own politics. If John was radical, it wasn't because he was trying to be chic. Really, you think Lennons beliefs were driven by a desire to appear chic? Really , do you?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 20:25:28 GMT -5
PC started as a way for politicians to state certain answers to questions so that it would not offend elements in the particular groups. I.E., say Native American instead of Indians because it offends some individuals in that group. It's safer to say it one way than another. You don't say people are fat, you say they are overweight. That still offended some individuals so it became weight challenged. Every vote counted. You didn't want to offend anyone. Why regular people began thinking PC applied to them, who knows. That said, it turned out to be a good thing, in my opinion. Some people need popular opinion to tell them that their stand on many issues is offensive to others. Hear, hear! There's nothing wrong with going out if your way to avoid offending others. Don't call it political correctness, then. Call it civility.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 20:35:07 GMT -5
The right is just as full of crap as the left. "PC" is lazy shorthand for wanting your own way. Yeah, like shutting down the government because one does not like a particular law that was passed as the law of the land a long time ago. Like whittling away with the Voter Rights Act because the guys who voted for the other guy would not vote for you and it's easier to make harder for them to vote than to make your arguments stronger. "Radical, chic, PC, knee-jerk." Yup, no bias around here, except for the person who said that the right is as full of crap as the left. Although it's probably more accurate to say the extreme right is as full of crap as the extreme left, I get the point. But, at the same time, we need the extremes. We need them to move the center. A stationary center is flawed, as well. In order to get any kind of political, social, artistic, economic, etc movement, the edges are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 20:37:30 GMT -5
The right is just as full of crap as the left. "PC" is lazy shorthand for wanting your own way. Yeah, like shutting down the government because one does not like a particular law that was passed as the law of the land a long time ago. Like whittling away with the Voter Rights Act because the guys who voted for the other guy would not vote for you and it's easier to make harder for them to vote than to make your arguments stronger. "Radical, chic, PC, knee-jerk." Yup, no bias around here, except for the person who said that the right is as full of crap as the left. Although it's probably more accurate to say the extreme right is as full of crap as the extreme left, I get the point. But, at the same time, we need the extremes. We need them to move the center. A stationary center is flawed, as well. In order to get any kind of political, social, artistic, economic, etc movement, the edges are necessary. I don't know. I really miss the center.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 20:44:03 GMT -5
Did you hear that Sarah Palin was disappointed with the Republicans for caving on Obamacare and the shutdown?
She's really got her finger on the pulse.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 20:52:46 GMT -5
I really miss voters who were critical thinkers. I really miss people who keep open minds. I really hate media outlets that cater to the opinion viewers already have.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 21:10:30 GMT -5
Walter Cronkite, Huntley / Brinkley...etc., they got labeled by the right as the liberal media. Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley .... Yeah, they were kind of Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 12, 2013 21:29:49 GMT -5
Lots of people decry the "PC" meme though because they want to be able to hurl racial epithets, demean women, oppress members of racial minorities, etc without penalty. . I think the problem is, with PC it remains okay to still hurl those same "negative type" sentiments at others, while only some special groups get PC- protected. How is that fair? How is it equal? It's okay for women to slap men, and maybe call them unflattering names -- just because their sensitivities are not part of whatever current "Menu Du Jour"?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 12, 2013 21:38:13 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with going out if your way to avoid offending others. Don't call it political correctness, then. Call it civility. Common sense tells you that this is an impossibly losing situation, because in many cases you can't tell what someone will get all sensitive about. So now we're hearing that the Redskins team name offends people after 100 years (or whatever it is; I hate football). We already know that the "N Word" is just plain wrong, that's not a problem to realize ... but there seems to be something new every day. Do we change The Cleveland Indians next? Or only when a handful of sensitive babies make some noise over that, too?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 21:38:21 GMT -5
As I said, this is a loaded thread (topic) ! To me, "PC" is about having to cater specially to certain groups of "special people", but with a "who cares??" toward anyone who is not exclusively on the current list of the privileged. (ex: Recently it was okay to call the "large"* NJ governor Christy an "elephant" on the cover of TIME, yet those same hypocrites would cry "foul!" if anyone insulted certain other types on a magazine cover in such a manner). (And don't mention the Redskins football team!) * (Wait -- Did I just sugarcoat my comment by saying "large" instead of "fat"?? I'll need to check the current PC HANDBOOK .... No... not required..... I don't believe overweight people are on that special list as of 11-12-13 .... it's still just "fatso", "tubby"... or "elephant") Wrong. Time is coming under heavy criticism from the Left and the right for their very questionable use of the phrase Elephant in the Room, and the unflattering picture. No one's saying that's politically correct or otherwise ok. It's wrong and most people acknowledge it's wrong, it's all over the media because it is inappropriate. Little more PC correctness from Time would have been welcome, right?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 21:44:01 GMT -5
As I said, this is a loaded thread (topic) ! To me, "PC" is about having to cater specially to certain groups of "special people", but with a "who cares??" toward anyone who is not exclusively on the current list of the privileged. (ex: Recently it was okay to call the "large"* NJ governor Christy an "elephant" on the cover of TIME, yet those same hypocrites would cry "foul!" if anyone insulted certain other types on a magazine cover in such a manner). (And don't mention the Redskins football team!) * (Wait -- Did I just sugarcoat my comment by saying "large" instead of "fat"?? I'll need to check the current PC HANDBOOK .... No... not required..... I don't believe overweight people are on that special list as of 11-12-13 .... it's still just "fatso", "tubby"... or "elephant") Wrong. Time is coming under heavy criticism from the Left and the right for their very questionable use of the phrase Elephant in the Room, and the unflattering picture. No one's saying that's politically correct or otherwise ok. It's wrong and most people acknowledge it's wrong, it's all over the media because it is inappropriate. Little more PC correctness from Time would have been welcome, right? Yeah, my wife and I (both very liberal) thought it was wrong, insensitive, and in poor taste. Even though we got that they were really meaning the elephant to be the Republican Party, the pairing with Christie was fucked up.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 21:53:24 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with going out if your way to avoid offending others. Don't call it political correctness, then. Call it civility. Common sense tells you that this is an impossibly losing situation, because in many cases you can't tell what someone will get all sensitive about. So now we're hearing that the Redskins team name offends people after 100 years (or whatever it is; I hate football). We already know that the "N Word" is just plain wrong, that's not a problem to realize ... but there seems to be something new every day. Do we change The Cleveland Indians next? Or only when a handful of sensitive babies make some noise over that, too? Actually, and you'll be surprised, I'm okay with the Indians and the Braves (although "Indians" should be changed since the word is based on a historical inaccuracy). They are different than "Redskins." "Redskins" is the same as "slanty-eyes," "darkies," "yellow race," etc. The real problem with the Indians and the Braves are their stupid logos. At least the Redskins have a noble logo. You know, if long ago they named themselves the "Braves" or the "Warriors," with that logo, people would be okay with it, I think.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 21:57:15 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with going out if your way to avoid offending others. Don't call it political correctness, then. Call it civility. Common sense tells you that this is an impossibly losing situation, because in many cases you can't tell what someone will get all sensitive about. So now we're hearing that the Redskins team name offends people after 100 years (or whatever it is; I hate football). We already know that the "N Word" is just plain wrong, that's not a problem to realize ... but there seems to be something new every day. Do we change The Cleveland Indians next? Or only when a handful of sensitive babies make some noise over that, too? It's not impossible, and worth a little effort. are you a member of an ethnic group, and if so, aren't their expressions that have been used that you would prefer not be used?
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 21:58:38 GMT -5
gee whiz, 750 posts and still considered very clean. What with all the mud thrown, it seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 12, 2013 21:58:58 GMT -5
Yeah, like shutting down the government because one does not like a particular law that was passed as the law of the land a long time ago. Like whittling away with the Voter Rights Act because the guys who voted for the other guy would not vote for you and it's easier to make harder for them to vote than to make your arguments stronger. "Radical, chic, PC, knee-jerk." Yup, no bias around here, except for the person who said that the right is as full of crap as the left. Although it's probably more accurate to say the extreme right is as full of crap as the extreme left, I get the point. But, at the same time, we need the extremes. We need them to move the center. A stationary center is flawed, as well. In order to get any kind of political, social, artistic, economic, etc movement, the edges are necessary. I don't know. I really miss the center. The center is boring. Middle of the road is unexciting. Remember, popular music pre-Beatles was straight down the center. Back in the day when there were only 3 networks, most television was in the center. Then, a Laugh-In or All in the Family would come around and shake things up a bit. I'll take chocolate and caramel syrup with nuts and a banana to go with my vanilla, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 22:02:16 GMT -5
I don't know. I really miss the center. The center is boring. Middle of the road is unexciting. Remember, popular music pre-Beatles was straight down the center. Back in the day when there were only 3 networks, most television was in the center. Then, a Laugh-In or All in the Family would come around and shake things up a bit. I'll take chocolate and caramel syrup with nuts and a banana to go with my vanilla, thank you. Good government may be boring but leaves us safer and more prosperous. I'm good with that kind of boring.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 22:03:55 GMT -5
gee whiz, 750 posts and still considered very clean. What with all the mud thrown, it seems unlikely. You have to break 1000 to go up. I got knighted and didn't even know when it happened!
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 22:05:43 GMT -5
gee whiz, 750 posts and still considered very clean. What with all the mud thrown, it seems unlikely. You have to break 1000 to go up. I got knighted and didn't even know when it happened! Smirked mccartney
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 22:08:32 GMT -5
So where are the radicals now? Hillary and Obama are often called radicals but apart from health care legislation they're both pretty much like Nixon politically. Really, who is out there now that would have been considered a radical in, say, 1972?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 12, 2013 22:08:48 GMT -5
Wrong. Time is coming under heavy criticism from the Left and the right for their very questionable use of the phrase Elephant in the Room, and the unflattering picture. No one's saying that's politically correct or otherwise ok. It's wrong and most people acknowledge it's wrong, it's all over the media because it is inappropriate. Little more PC correctness from Time would have been welcome, right? Yeah, my wife and I (both very liberal) thought it was wrong, insensitive, and in poor taste. Even though we got that they were really meaning the elephant to be the Republican Party, the pairing with Christie was fucked up. Time has a message inside the cover saying the cover was not a comment on Christie's weight. But me think white man speak'em with forked tongue.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Nov 12, 2013 22:11:45 GMT -5
Gotta sell the mags. It's just like rolling stone glamorizing terrorists on their cover.not easy to respect, but I guess there's no Newsweek to compete with anymore.
|
|