Orwellian Censorship Promotes Control & NWO

"first cousin"?

How in the blessed name of Elvis is that a gendered term?

It's not.

I'm glad you mentioned it, it made me curious about the original wording. The text in this meme was taken from a right-wing news site, I can't find any official document that shows the list shared here.

It looks very much like this is speculation rather than fact, I'm absolutely willing to be proved wrong.

If I'm right, all this drama is over a Conservative making a fuss over nothing; I'm I'm wrong, all this drama is over people being inclusive.

I like your reply. I don't mind being proven wrong either. Accuracy and truth are what's important.

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion though. I don't think people in general (regardless of political ideology) have any kind of an issue with being inclusive. Stereotypically, it seems to me that people believe liberals are more of that mindset than conservatives. I consider myself neither, and I can say anecdotally that I've seen liberals treat people differently based on their use of identity boxes (as I call what liberals do when they lump people together by traits that don't necessarily mean people are the same) far more than I have conservatives. So that's just my sense of how that shakes out.

As far as it being conservatives making a fuss over nothing, yes, that could be the case. Maybe not, but it definitely could be the case. Everyone is prone to over-reacting, imo.

Is "Idiot" offensive, or are we still allowed to use that about the likes of Nancy Pelosi?

I literally had to laugh out loud at your comment as it was so smack on, Montresor! Unfortunately, the left has no sense of humor.

Humor 101 for Democrats...

My meme is about offensive language and Montresor brought up a question about whether useage of the word "idiot" is offensive? JR fell right into the trap and the rest is history. I guess everything is pretty much 'offensive' to liberals when the words "mother and father" set them off.

Montresor, they are long overdue for a reality check & thanks for your great comment. 😂😂😂😂

Unfortunately, I believe JRBobDobbs knows exactly what I mean but chooses to deliberately "misinterpret" it in order to start an argument where he intends to wear me out so he can claim "victory". He has a history for that kind "discussion" technique here on Imgflip.

You have to ask if calling someone an idiot is offensive?

That explains quite a lot about the right-wing.

I suppose it is only offensive if it is not the objective truth.

Does her education and career suggest idiocy to you?

It is not a matter of education and career. It is a matter of the way she acts.

If somebody claims that terms like "mother", "father", "son", "daughter", "sister", and "brother" are offensive and shouldn't be used, I automatically make the assumption that the person in question is mentally deficient.

Of course there is the possibility that this person has made the conscious, deliberate choice to not think.

So the question is whether Nancy Pelosi actually IS an idiot, or whether she CHOOSES to act like one. I find the first option forgivable - nobody is obligated beyond their abilities. The second option is not forgivable in my book.

Idiot: noun

A person of low intelligence.

Intelligence has no bearing on education and career history? Seriously?

"It's a matter of the way she acts".

Disagreeing with someone's behavior doesn't mean that that person's behavior is stupid; you know that right?

Where did she specifically say those terms were offensive?

Making language more inclusive is not a personal attack on anyone, it makes you look a bit insecure and hypersensitive when you claim that it is.

The left-wing: Let's make sure people feel included.

The right-wing: We feel personally attacked because even though the language used includes us it doesn't exclude other people. Waahhhhhh.

This is absolutely not about you feeling left out, it's about you wanting other people left out and you don't even have the backbone to admit it.

Thanks for clearing that out. So, from her education and social position we can conclude she is not an idiot, she is acting like one. I have to say, that makes her one hell of a actress.

For the record I don't think you are very inclusive or tolerant. You are far less tolerant of people with opinions different from your own, than any conservative I ever met.

"Thanks for clearing that out. So, from her education and social position we can conclude she is not an idiot, she is acting like one. I have to say, that makes her one hell of a actress."

Or we could conclude that she is neither an idiot nor behaving like one.

"For the record I don't think you are very inclusive or tolerant. You are far less tolerant of people with opinions different from your own, than any conservative I ever met."

Based on what exactly? Be specific.

"Or we could conclude that she is neither an idiot nor behaving like one."

I can't make that conclusion. I don't make that kind of excuses for people.

"Based on what exactly? Be specific."

Your comments on Imgflip.

"All I have done is hold up a mirror. If you don't like what you see, that is your problem, not mine."

Making a demonstrably untrue statement is not holding up a mirror.

Would you even be right-wing if you didn't stubbornly ignore evidence though? ;)

"You mean my answer is "unsatisfactory"?"

Just intentionally vague, you made a claim and are clearly incapable of backing it up with an example.

Actually I backed it up quite nicely. You counted it yourself: 4023 specific examples of deliberate provocations, put-downs, snide attacks, "misinterpretations" of what people say - all with the intention of provoking others into taking up a "discussion" with you so you can drag the "game" on.

You are far less subtle than you think.

"Actually I backed it up quite nicely. You counted it yourself: 4023 specific examples of deliberate provocations, put-downs, snide attacks, "misinterpretations" of what people say - all with the intention of provoking others into taking up a "discussion" with you so you can drag the "game" on.

You are far less subtle than you think."

Just in the last few weeks I have 'commented' with the image of RDJ laughing in response to funny things people said.

The majority of my comments are making arguments backed up with evidence in response to people's statements.

Disgusting accusations and exclusionary behavior is the forte of the right-wing.

The claim that I've made "4023 deliberate provocations, put-downs, snide attacks, "misinterpretations" of what people say - all with the intention of provoking others into taking up a "discussion" with you so you can drag the "game" on." is demonstrable horse shit.

Are you getting tired or lazy?

All I have done is hold up a mirror. If you don't like what you see, that is your problem, not mine.

If you don't like the impression I have got of you over the last few months, you should not have given me that impression.

"Your comments on Imgflip"

Dude, I said be specific; I made 4023 of them.

You mean my answer is "unsatisfactory"?

How surprising...

Seems like this would be a win-win. Quiet the people complaining about gender while also making the law more concise. All of these terms are already defined and understood by the general public anyway, right? I'm curious when the law would even mention a specific gender anyway, since things are supposed to be equal. I suppose there are specific laws around mothers though, such as mothers being given more legal rights over their children than fathers due to the fact that they physically carried them. In this case they would obviously need to continue using the word "mother" though, otherwise it would change the meaning, so I guess I'm still confused what specific instances they are planning to change. Any links?

I'm sorry but I just cannot embrace SJW behavior against family and the sexes. I believe in free speech and think we should respect people and their preferences....to each his own as long as they do not hurt others. But this is "insanity" to me to even think of changing our language to pacify gender enthusiasts. The reason behind all of this agenda is to nullify "family" because generally leftists do not believe in nuclear families. You can see what has been done to take husbands & fathers out of our homes and replace them with Uncle Sam. It is well known that BLM opposes the nuclear family.

Also, IMO, liberalism embraces "diversity" but sacrifices "unity" by doing so. For example, when people marry, they generally commit to a person who thinks similarly about raising a family, finances, morality, religion, hobbies, etc. It matters not if the people are of the same race as different races share the same interests and similar personalities so let me take the race card off the table as people are so much more than just a skin color. So, in marriage, diversity is a 'negative' force that often destroys unity and leads to divorce. This principle can be extended to the subject at hand.

MOST of our population is attracted to the opposite sex. Liberalism again embraces diversity to the point that we are now amending the English language to pacify the minority. Years ago there was a popular comment worded similar to 'being gay at first was tolerated, then encouraged and then became mandatory'. It almost seems that the tongue-in-cheek statement is becoming reality...

https://rules.house.gov/press-releases/pelosi-and-mcgovern-unveil-details-rules-package-117th-congress

https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/01/proposed-house-rules-gender-terms/

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/01/01/nancy-pelosi-proposes-replacing-gendered-terms-like-husband-and-daughter-in-new-house-rules-n1298002

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/1121

yeah that is way to much work for me

So nice of you to say!

Fair enough. Thanks for the links, they add some helpful context.

No problem, acuity12. Another person just asked me to show a source for a different meme I posted yesterday on the same subject so I had the links here ready to go! I told him I honestly didn't blame him for asking for sourcing as it seems so unbelievable and ridiculous!

1/
Ah, someone who seems to be honest! Let's begin.
I'm sorry but I just cannot embrace SJW behavior against family and the sexes.
>> Okay the first issue here is that this resolution is not against you, it is about etiquette and how one conducts one's self in the House of Representatives. Also, the term "SJW" has a negative connotation as those who are extremists pushing radicalized issues. Applying gender nuetral terms to a place of legal, political, and official discussion is not a radicalized idea. Many different languages use gender neutral terms for things (and even people).

"I believe in free speech; we should respect people and their preferences. To each his own as long as they do not hurt others."
>> Excellent, so this proposal should not offend you. This proposal ensures that there are no "slips" when refusing to acknowledge someone's identity. I am sure you're aware, we have a trans-sexual in congress now. There are those in politics would make use of the free speech amendment to identify them as their identity at birth to disrespect them, and then continue to say that it was a slip. This proposal cuts out the uncertainty. Yet, in your sentence, you say "To each his own." This is implicit sexism as it implies women are not part of congress. To put it bluntly, when you think about speaking of gender rights, you think of men.

"The reason behind all of this agenda is to nullify "family" because generally leftists do not believe in nuclear families. You can see what has been done to take husbands & fathers out of our homes and replace them with Uncle Sam. It is well known that BLM opposes the nuclear family."
>> This is a Fox/Trump talking point and the passage is greatly misunderstood and taken at face value. It was "cherrypicked." Perhaps this might shed some light:

"'We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

This is just a verbose way of saying "It takes a village." The message intended (albeit poorly worded) is about inclusivity and tight-knit communities. No where does it say that they oppose it or seek to destroy it. The wording says "We disrupt..." Meaning simply "This dynamic is interrupted within our own community (as evident by the clause) by supporting each other as extended families and "villages."

2/
"Also, IMO, liberalism embraces "diversity" but sacrifices "unity" by doing so. For example, when people marry, they generally commit to a person who thinks similarly about raising a family, finances, morality, religion, hobbies, etc. It matters not if the people are of the same race as different races share the same interests and similar personalities so let me take the race card off the table as people are so much more than just a skin color. So, in marriage, diversity is a 'negative' force that often destroys unity and leads to divorce. This principle can be extended to the subject at hand."

>> So, we need to identify what kind of liberalism you're talking about. Making a blanket statement makes it easy to counter what you're saying. I disagree with what you're saying entirely. The diversity and different approaches to life the my wife and I have are what makes us strong. We compliment each other by making up for each other's weaknesses with our own strengths.

Again, not sure what kind of liberalism you're talking about, but I'm gonna try to follow along. In general the diversity that this liberalism you mention does not encourage marrying cross-race simply for the sake of doing so. I would go so far as to contend that marrying someone just like you who shares the exact same ideas you do breeds stagnation and will easily cause you two to grow apart from each other as changes in personality is inevitable. Thus, comes the "You aren't the same person I married." You also have the same approaches to challenges, so if one of you can't come up with solutions, neither of you can. Diversity rocks.

"MOST of our population is attracted to the opposite sex. Liberalism again embraces diversity to the point that we are now amending the English language to pacify the minority. Years ago there was a popular comment worded similar to 'being gay at first was tolerated, then encouraged and then became mandatory'. It almost seems that the tongue-in-cheek statement is becoming reality..."

>> You see, this is a slippery slope you're making. If you really think that homosexuality will become a mandatory function and part of our lives, you're in need of some serious help. You need to talk to someone who is educated in these matters and help alleviate your paranoias and break this horrible brainwashing you have. Yet, you did in fact say "It almost seems..." What point were you trying to make when you said that? Be honest, it was a scare tactic.

A moderator having a low rated comment is a very rare, if not that legendary in luck, occurence

I consider myself to be a calm, reasonable, and fairly objective person, so I like to test the waters every once in a while in the politics chat.

Fun to see the people whine about what’s true and/or even false. Really gets me a lot

Yup

Ok, I'm personally a democrat but this is the stupidest thing democrats have done since the civil war.

Is this a joke??

"Ignores sanity, morality and traditional marriage & family"

No it doesn't, you are spouting hyperbolic nonsense.

How is this ignoring sanity? Since when were "traditional" family values American values? You have no logical reason to be freaking out about this

How is 'mother' offensive? Every human being on this planet was birthed by a human female. There is nothing offensive about acknowledging this fact.

It's not offensive I never claimed it was. There just isn't anything wrong with saying "parent" and it's no reason to be offended. Some people were birthed by non binary people

There isn't anything wrong with parent, but it desensitizes a very intimate part of our humanity when they try to ban terms that are every bit as fine.

They may have been non binary, but they were still birthed from a human female. Therefore, they had a mother. That is simply the reality of being a mammalian species that reproduces sexually.

I get that but it's not a big deal. It's a weird bill and it's not one I would propose if I was in congress but it doesn't affect anyone

It does though, that's the problem; it's telling us that we shouldn't use such words. I question why anyone would think that's necessary.

I don't think it's necessary but it's not Orwellian as the original post says. I just don't think it's that big of a problem. It probably won't even be enforced. I'm sure congresspeople will still say words like mother and son and they won't get in trouble. The rule is most likely being made because there are non binary politicians and trans people in congress.

Of course they can't pass anything like that; it would be blatantly in contravention of the first amendment, which protects all forms of expression no matter how offensive or outmoded they are.

And they can (and should) ask to be referred to however they feel most comfortable. My entire point is that when you cross the line from requesting equal treatment (which we all deserve) to enforcing "equal" inability to express oneself, as this is trying to do, you have missed the most fundamental part of what it means to be American, and to see such support for that in Congress is rather depressing.