Everything Nac

Chris Herrington decided years ago that his reality was much more fun…

and he’s ready to tell you why.

Sit back and relax.
It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Speaking Out with Purpose

     When people say that they think that being “politically correct” is weak, I automatically think that they mean to say that they simply do not want to be bothered to take care to be socially conscious. Ironically, these same people are usually the first ones to become self-righteous and morally outraged by the comments of others concerning their favorite religion, country, politics, or personal agendas. Their moral outrage falls on deaf ears as far as I am concerned; if you are telling others not to get upset and be so sensitive over what you tell others, then I certainly think that calls for you to be loyal to your own personal philosophy: “Give a lick; take a lick.” What’s the matter? Can’t stand to be told that you are insensitive? Maybe you are overly sensitive to your being otherwise insensitive!

     In the field of argumentation, the basic winning premise is to dominate the other side by so well defining the subject in your own terms that the argument is ended before it has even begun. It is evident by this positioning that the opposing side has as its preoccupation the necessity of re-defining the topic such that the original side could not have had a clue as to what it was saying and must therefore be abandoned, case closed, and argument won. To bring up a specific word in debate is to initiate a full scale attack on the meaning of the word in question. There is no need to attack the character of the other side, unless an argument is weak and needs to offset that weakness by attempting to disrupt the thinking processes of the opposing side. Even then, it is a well-known tactic used to turn the tables on unsuspecting foes.

     What we need is real discussion and full scale debate. All of this meandering, whimpering, and sullen pseudo-disenchantment makes for half-baked politics and poor religion, both littered with mindless sheep. Serious debate with real structure will cure a lot of this head-bobbing and shoulder-weaving that now, as tripe, passes for an intellectual offensive against the ills of our country and the losses we have incurred at the hands of those who slipped one by us while we were asleep at the wheel. The subject is at hand. The definition needs sharpening. Saying, for example, that I am sick and tired of PC speech is a whining all its own. IF whining is the objectionable thing, then let’s talk about whining about whining! Stop whining at all then. Of course, no one wants to curb his appetite for being crude and unfeeling; that’s the natural state of being a free speaker, right? Put in those terms, it seems ridiculous to say that being politically correct is at all objectionable. If we have to offend our opponent to make our case, our evidence must be weak or built on character assassination and moral outrage over our own hyper-sensitivities, which is in effect the kettle calling the pot black, isn’t it.

     If, using a popular example, we take the case of, for or against, these Godless liberals we hear some much about, we see unfolding a SNAFU of clustered dimensions. The inference here is that those speaking about the godless must themselves be in fact godly, right? I can assume, from her status as a historically unmarried woman, that Ann Coulter is a virgin, right? She has never been married. To then say anything of any validity concerning the morals of anyone else, she herself must be a shining example, hopefully not of the Nicholson kind, okay? I can assume that she has led someone to Christ, her having been a godly woman who follows the edict that we are to go into all the world and preach the gospel. In fact, I myself would be willing to go on international TV and have her lead me to Christ right in front of her flock, but I have serious doubts that she would take me up on this offer to have her lead me to a faith that she indicates would redeem my soul, simply because I have even more serious doubts of her having the vocabulary and the wherewithal to even lead someone in a prayer that she herself probably could not even in all honesty fully subscribe to given her own broaching of the subject. She never, as far as I can tell ever mentions that end of it at all! That she belies all liberals as godless, and that this is her case for her being an expert witness for Christ, is absurd. When asked about her point of view not being necessarily supported by Fox News, she simplistically pointed out that she welcomed the use of Fox as a news source of reputation and worth, a clear abuse of the argument made, which was she was not supported by Fox. She skipped that part of the argument by simply re-defining the subject. Never mind the truth of question, let’s simply evade the topic by starting a new one. That’s how “godly” she is, and yet she has the audacity to fire across the lines and point out the godlessness of others. In her decades of “godly” activity, is there anyone out there in pundit-land who would be willing to testify that she has led them to Christ? I am not a liberal; nor am I a conservative. Both monocles have been loaded with so much baggage as to become incapable of floating, regardless of the ballast used, as far as I am concerned.

     The breadth of the notion of what it means to be Christian, for another example, is so inclusively exclusive that even those who call themselves Christians often accuse their fellows, not only denominationally, but even within the same church, of not being true believers. This modern day inquisition is merely more whining. Constantine put them all, regardless of persuasion, into a single room and had them sign a document that swore them to alignment within a single statement of faith. If this were put forth today to the various sects of Christianity, they would have a veritable breakdown. The Catholics and the Baptists? And yet we collectively look at the 1.8 billion Muslims and often accuse them of ALL being terrorists; kill’em all and let God sort it out, eh? This is why we have this raging discussion about political correctness, folks. Let’s bring all the dirty laundry out and put it on the dining room table with the good china. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, and if you can’t argue your way out of a paper bag, stay off the front lines.

     (The examples here are merely for illustration and do not harbor any ill-will towards Ms. Coulter or any sects of any religion. Any number of metaphors or personalities could have been used; Ms. Coulter is tough and has heard far worse, I am sure. That whining was done that I am in fact attacking her character was due to my ploy to prove a point; to take up a cross on her behalf was for you to operate with political correctness, which in the end means taking up an offense for those you believe need to be defended under any circumstance, enough said.)