Every now and then, in the course of history, it falls to one brave individual to draw a line in the sand. It should come as no surprise that in our age, that individual is David Leyonhjelm: he is after all the man who reintroduced guns as a valid sexual preference in this country. And it is Leyonhjelm who has today stared down the forces of Stalinist mind control and said “No More”, by stating clearly the simple truth that “if it is OK to be white, we should be able to say so”.
As the Senator says, by allowing ourselves to be cowed into not saying that it’s OK to be white, we are letting the white supremacists win. For just as if we make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns, if we make saying “it’s OK to be white” illegal, only criminals will say it’s OK to be white. Is that a future we want, or even understand?
Enough is enough. Already we have lost so many useful, powerful phrases from our once-rich lexicon, thanks to the malign creep of political correctness. For example, it’s now impossible to use the word “gay” to mean “happy”, or the word “straight” to mean “not deviating from a direct course”, or the word “golliwog” to mean “our beloved manservant Arnold”. The irony is that the same people who tell us we’re not allowed to say that it’s OK to be white also say that we’re not allowed to wear blackface. So it’s not OK to be white … OR black? How’s THAT for contradictory?
Ironically, of course, even though everybody would object if the Senate showed up to work in blackface, a Senate motion stating that “it’s OK to be black” would’ve passed with flying colours – pun very much intended (unless wordplay is politically incorrect now, too). Because nowadays we are free to say it’s OK to be black, or it’s OK to be gay, or it’s OK to be disabled, but we get shouted down if we say it’s OK to be a straight white abled-bodied man with a diverse investment portfolio.
We used to be able to say such things. We used to be able to be honest. We used to be free to walk the streets screaming the n-word without anyone assuming malice on our part. That’s all changed, thanks very much, Sarah Hanson-Young. Now we have to scream “people of colour” instead. Now we have to call prostitutes “sex workers” and murderers “immigrants”.
Having so watered down our speech, I thank God someone like David Leyonhjelm has stood up to say what we were all also saying but slightly more quietly. Truth is truth. If it’s OK to be white, let us say so. And if it’s not OK to not be white, let us say that too. It’s called freedom. Look it up, Marxists.
Can I still say ‘poofter’?
Only to the bloke who has taken over Can’tDo Campbell’s title as “looking like a penis in a suit”, making allowances for the extra decades of shrivelling.
One of the awful things about this article is that you can’t be sure it’s intended to be ironic.
Really ???
Often BK’s pieces seem to have been written by Pobjie after locking him in a closet (in that the events & attitudes are so utterly unhinged).
Yesterday’s piece by Pobjie was ominous for those of us hoping that civilisation can survive in Oz as it was indistinguishable from straight reportage.
Yes, David is the liberal leader we’ve all been waiting for. Pity about the slut shaming stuff. He’s all for individual freedoms as long as it isn’t that one.
There’s one other individual freedom David isn’t all that keen about. He’s not too impressed with people who disagree with him or try to demonstrate that something he’s said is wrong. Have a look at his reaction when the ABC’s The Chaser satirized his views on Wicked Campers.
I note this article is under the banner ‘humour.’ Whilst I acknowledge this isn’t meant to be taken seriously, who on earth thought it was funny?
Maybe it wasn’t all that funny but politics, world, business, sport, economy? I guess humour it had to be.
A virtue of modern (on-line) dictionaries is that the (now) include slang as well as legitimate words. I suppose it began circa 1982 with the Macquarie dictionary wishing to be “different”. Almost all of the slang from circa 15th century has disappeared. Cutting to the modern era the Beatnik movement (of circa 60 years ago) had its own vocabulary as did the hippies. The last “real” word to enter modern usage was ‘television’ which is a combination of ancient Greek and Latin. That combination in itself was problematic for some but they have probably died by now.
Irrespective of the location of Ben’s finger (not altogether clear where it is) Jordan Peterson (Ms Razer’s nemesis) makes just these points. Perhaps the word homosexual could have been either (1) left as it was or (2) “converted” to another word of Greek or Roman origin expressing identity or community; either would have done. As to the “n” word as a kid, black cats and dogs – indeed some dark haired horses typically bore that name.
As to a hint to where Ben’s finger might be pointing let’s get a feel for Marx before we attribute assumptions to the school that are just not there. For the Left or for Marxists the “struggle” is ONLY about the distribution of the GDP and initiatives such as a UBI as a close second. Women are deemed equal in Marxist theory BECAUSE ALL labour, providing that it is socially necessary, is equally useful.
The is no feminist divide in Marxist theory. As to other social matters such as sexual identity or crime or punishment etc. they are not deemed relevant to Leftist philosophy. That some Leftist clowns have attempted to include all and sundry that isn’t neo-lib has emasculated the Left; and predictable in point of fact. With any luck these four paragraphs will clear the matter up.
As for the Greek/Latin origins, most women tend to be (Latin) homosexual in that they are sexually attracted to men, as would men who are similarly inclined.
People who are (Greek) homosexual would include Lesbians and the aforementioned men.
In Latin ‘homo’ means “man” whereas in Greek it means “same”.
A bit tortuous & tedious when written but, alas, with the decline in general education (as someone on these threads oft mentions), most people wouldn’t even grasp the difference if the words were spoken – think homogenised milk.
I anticipated replies to the effect of “provide historical examples” which exist aplenty. As to “modern usage” when the Europeans
has the advantage in developing what we recognise as computers the words were of Roman or Greek origin. When the yanks acquired the
upper hand words in English were pressed into utterly new meanings. On this matter Peterson does have a point.
As to trends the nominal incidence of homosexuality is under 3% (about 2.5%) but I did have an exchange with a contributor who sought to
increase the value to circa 5%. For (190/200) thousand years homo sapiens were living in small-ish bands with sophisticated rituals for sharing of
resources and gene pools. For the other 5% of the time (10/200) thousand years we have sustained ourselves on sedentary agricultural-based life styles
with due attention to priesthoods, nobilities, armies, professions and trades (which is not possible in hunter-gatherer societies).
Anything at circa 2.5%, statistically speaking, is negligible but at 5% the matter tends to become real and in Spartan society, where marriage
was compulsory (although so called “free” marriage was permitted; indeed encouraged) an incidence of 1/20 would have become salient. If I had the
writing skills of Palen or Adams I’d attempt a short story concerning a safe (Spartan) Agoge.
Still trying to discredit kyle?
Beyond booring.
Its about facts B.B. nothing more. I have no interest in discrediting for its own sake.
Its about facts B.B. nothing more. I have no interest in discrediting for its own sake.