Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Bigot Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (240)	7/16/2004 10:52:31 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 740

Tell me why you disagree with it. I asked you if that's what you believe: Message 20316575 I didn't voice disagreement; I'd asked a question, which went unanswered. Society uses language to categorize things. I'd say that, fundamentally, people use language to define and explain things. 'Society,' 'groups,' 'categoriz[ation],' etc., come along subsequently. Secondarily, even. Theft is only theft because people decided it was theft and call it that- and define it in a certain way. If only that were the case, though. Instead, you've delineated the problem, as I see it; as those "certain ways" of defining things are increasingly taught as malleable (and expressed similarly), the implications can be sweeping. In particular, when there are groups who - by influencing, even controlling, the direction of that incremental redefinition - stand to reap gains from doing so. It seems so obvious to me[.] I don't doubt that for a moment. [W]ith what, exactly, do you disagree. I'm specifically opposed to moral relativism, a major tool of which is coercive semanticism. That includes, but (certainly) isn't limited to, both the efforts and realized effects of "political correctness." LPS5