Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > The Struggle > The Verbal War
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old May 13th, 2014 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,251
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default History: Documenting Earliest Uses of Semitically Correct (Politically Correct) Terms or Usages

From A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power (1964), by J. Evetts Haley, p. 6:

Quote:
The shallow deprecation of "hate" as the cause of national tragedy; the vilification of patriots as "extremists": the preaching of peace while appeasing evil, are dishonest resorts which exacerbate instead of healing the malady.
So we see that the cheap and inaccurate characterization of the opponent as drive by "hate" dates back fifty years. At least.

For just as long save a year, conservatives have been claiming that the utility of 'racism' or 'hate' or '(x)' was wearing out, because the concept was overextended. Conservatives never have been ready for the big time. These invective smears from the left have no reasonable heart; the very conjuring of the term is bogus or overextended, distorted in application. And the left won't stop using them until they stop working. Have they stopped working? Ask Paula Deen. Or Donald Sterling.
 
Old May 6th, 2015 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,251
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The "hate speech" terminology originated with the Soviet Union. http://www.hoover.org/research/sordi...te-speech-laws
 
Old May 9th, 2015 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,251
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[blurring the meaning of violence, just as they do with rape. oberlin college, in relation to speech given by christina hoff summers]

Violence Requires Multiple Definitions
Jade Schiff, Assistant Professor of Politics

May 1, 2015

To the Editors:

Violence, sexual and otherwise, afflicts Oberlin as it does colleges and universities around the world, and our community needs to address it vigorously. But we won’t be able to do so effectively unless we know what we are talking about when we talk about violence. I’m not always sure that we do.

My colleague, Professor Copeland, responded forcefully last week to a previous letter objecting to Christina Hoff Sommers’ campus visit (“Free Speech Not Equivalent to Violence,” The Oberlin Review, April 24, 2015). In particular, he took issue with this line: “Her talk is happening, so let’s pull together in the face of this violence and make our own space to support each other” (“In Response to Sommers’ Talk: A Love Letter to Ourselves,” The Oberlin Review, April 17, 2015). He called this use of the word violence “irresponsible” because it collapses “the distinction between constitutionally protected speech and rape or other forms of sexual violence.”

I think Professor Copeland is missing something, but I also think the letter’s authors didn’t articulate their conception of violence clearly. Constitutionally protected speech can indeed be violent but not in same way that rape, sexual assault and related offenses are violent. While Copeland recognizes violence in the offenses, the letter writers highlight violence in responses to victims. We might call the latter “discursive violence” because it attacks victims’ experiences and their descriptions of and reactions to those experiences. Without lifting a finger, discursive violence rejects theses experiences as inarticulate, unintelligible and illegitimate in the public sphere. Copeland himself points in this direction (though he likely meant it metaphorically) when he refers to “the unspeakable horror of sexual assault.” What makes it unspeakable, in part, is a public sphere that excludes, marginalizes or derides it.

So violence can be physical as well as discursive, and some would say that even this distinction is not very useful because the body is not separate from our experiences and our practices of meaning-making. The point is that there are distinctions to be made, and unless we make them clearly, it is going to be hard to have the kinds of conversations necessary to make Oberlin an even more welcoming, thoughtful and vibrant community.

– Jade Schiff
Assistant Professor of Politics

- See more at: http://oberlinreview.org/8174/opinio....w9PhiR1M.dpuf

[regretted sex can be rape, and opinions you don't like can be violence.]
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 AM.
Page generated in 0.06513 seconds.