A modest proposal to engage in violence

'cedarford:


commenter retorted: “There’s no way an American would use the word ‘Jap’ to describe a Japanese, or ‘Chink’ for Chinese.” Good point. One observes that, as with the condensation of “Pakistani” into “Paki,” both “Jap” and “Chink” have the effect of abbreviation, and perhaps there is a derogatory intent implied in depriving these groups of an extra syllable or two.

No way an American would use words like Jap, Flip, Chicommie, NORK, frog, russkie, Mex, beaner, canuck, nip, limey, raghead? Please, what planet are you on…

Rich Johnston - And while indeed some groups reclaim terms of sbuse, if you were to walk through Brick Lane in London shouting “Paki” at people you walked past… well, you might not get to the end of the street.

Time and time again, we are told that the demand to not use a “hurtful word” is reinforced and made morally correct by the possibility the “aggrieved, offended” might respond with violence. So we all best watch what we say, or we might be injured or killed by the angry insulted.
That sort of reminds me of the homosexuals who thought it was safe to Mormon-bash in their street theater of outrage, but go nowhere near anti-Prop 8 black and hispanic churches and neighborhoods.
If violence works, then we should be ready to accept both sides employing the threat of it. I walk down Brick Lane in London Metro and say Paki all I want and the Pakis keep their knives put away because they know 2 years before that they tried stabbing a couple of skinheads to death for saying it and the skinheads pulled out shotguns and wasted 8 followers of Allah. After that, all violence, or threats of violence seemed to abate about “Paki”.
Same in the USA..if black women started killing Niggahs for calling all black ladies bitches, ‘hos, and skank sluts…black male rap and street lingo would rapidly get modified.
And if in Canada, some person that ran afoul of the Human Rights Councils on PC responded by killing a few Canadian “activist lawyers” - PC prosecutions would become a lot rarer.

Hate to think it, but your free speech rights may be substantially improved if they are backed with a threat of violence, just as speech is intimidated by the other side attacking you physically, through the legal system, threatening your job. And people using PC to assault those they disagree with, like the homosexuals…appear greatly deterred by the possibility of violent backlash against them.

Food for thought.
Like - How much would men’s rights in PC Family Court be improved with a few salutory feminist, judge or lawyer shootings? I think it would only take a half dozen men screwed out of their kids, home, most of what they saved, and half their income for the next 15 years to “take one for the team…” to have a big effect on court fairness.

Free speech is influenced by violence. PC is influenced by the lack of violence it meets in efforts to attack offenders and punish them through courts, employers, even threats or actual physical violence.'


Jan 12, 2009 - 5:27 am
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-prince-harry-a-bigot/2/

This comment is well worth thinking about. I have been bemused over the last couple of weeks by the extreme difference in the attitude of the lefties and the media (often the same people) to words spoken by those on the right, and to words spoken by their protected groups. In the same week that Prince Harry is hauled over the coals for a bit of light-hearted banter in an army barracks, numerous people have stood in the streets of our large Western cities and called for Jews to be taken to gas chambers to be murdered. The first, we are told, is inexcusable insult, which will cause great anger and possibly violence. The second, we are told, is rhetorical flourish, a bit like saying 'I really hate chillies'.

How are we to explain this discrimination which goes far beyond normal hypocrisy?

I think cedarford is right. We may not be happy that he/she is right, but the evidence is hard to refute. As we have pointed out over the years, there are vastly more Christians and Hindus in Britain than muslims but try finding a story about either of those religions in the papers or on TV. The public profile of muslims is striking, and how did it get that way? Violence and threats of violence.

Human beings learn, and often not the lessons we think in the best of all possible worlds they should learn. How far in the future do we have to look before everybody learns the lesson? In our hotly contested cultural landscape, how do you get to be in the hot-seat? Murder some people, 'martyr' them for your purposes. The huge lengths that Britain, the Netherlands and many other countries have gone to try to placate murderous muslims shows that this is really the way to get your agenda advanced.

Do we put the Britain-haters, the Jew-haters, the Christian-haters on the first plane home to whichever shitty hole they came from? Er, no. We ply them with money, homes, incentive schemes and work placements. That'll show 'em! What do they learn from this? More violence will mean more goodies, more grovelling, more attempts to 'understand the other'.

Do the liberal elite and the 'great and good' of this country think they will not reap the whirlwind? I hope, for all our sakes, that we DON'T learn the lessons currently being taught, but I'm not that optimistic.