Link "Let me explain that I regard political correctness as worse than a lie. " by Jeffrey Miller April 18, 2009 written by Jeffrey Miller April 18, 2009 John C. Wright with a worthy rant on political correctness and the justification “language changes. 3 comments 0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest Jeffrey Miller previous post Chapel of St. Ignatius next post Covering religion usually means trying to cover up religion You may also like Meditations from Carmel June 12, 2006 Faith and reason September 21, 2006 Conclave resources April 15, 2005 Apparently God does things in his own way... April 26, 2007 All in a blog name October 17, 2006 In Toon With the World August 9, 2005 Blogroll Maintenance April 6, 2005 Omission? March 21, 2007 Reversing headlines November 22, 2004 Killing Pro-Life cartoon characters is protected by the... August 10, 2005 3 comments Foxfier April 18, 2009 - 2:38 pm Might want to add: a very wordy rant. Well worth the time, but make sure you have time to do it justice! Reply Dino April 19, 2009 - 10:02 pm The folicularly challenged writer rants well. I think he has done an “exceptional” job, except that the PCers have co-opted that word to mean exactly the opposite of what it once meant. As a former journalist, the PC types were the bane of my existance. As an editor, one of my reporters was upbraided for referring to the elected body of the city as “City Councilmen” a legal term in the election code. One of the people on the council was a woman. He thought referring to the “City Councilmen and Councilwoman” was awkward, and suggested a neutral “Councilthings”. As for persons in this country without proper documentation, it seems to depend upon the origin: some arriving on our shores or slipping over our borders are “illegal aliens” while others are labeled “refugees” of some kind. Has anyone determined what the meaning of “is” is? Reply Donna April 20, 2009 - 9:20 pm (WARNING ! Depraved subject matter mentioned !) The one thing that does seem odd to me is his insistence that a woman raping a man is ‘physiologically impossible’. It may be vanishingly rare, but, since the male sexual response is not entirely controlled by the will, it would certainly seem possible – given strong enough restraints and direct stimulation of the genitals. I seem to remember reading that one pagan official, back in pre-Constantine days, found the Christian insistence that men should be chaste particularly amusing. He had a teenaged Christian boy stripped, bound, and thus assaulted by a prostitute. The offical then gloated that now the boy’s god would hate him, since he had had intercourse outside of marriage, so he might as well sacrifice to the Emperor. The poor kid flung back that his God knew that it was against his will, and that he would never betray Christ, whereupon the enraged official had him martyred. BTW, I tried to comment there, but it won’t let someone w/o a Livejournal account comment. Reply Leave a Comment Cancel Reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.