The Language of Politics

So here is my final project. I have attached the maps to this post. If you would prefer to see it embeded in a word document and attached I can do that.

and don't forge to read the footnotes.

you'll notice there is no discussion or conclusion section.. I did that on purpose.

It was nice having class with y'all- I would love to recieve comments but the quarter is pretty much over so I understand...


Hate Speech Codes in the U.S: Freedom, Power, and Political Correctness on College Campuses

I am having difficulties naming one of the groups of arguments in my project.

The basis of this particular argument is that regulating hate speech would be great ideally but would not be feasible in terms of policy implementation or would just create a backlash and thus foster more hate.

This group is set up in opposition to the group called "1st Amendment Absolutists" and has some ideologies in common with the other group in favor of regulating hate speech.

I thought about calling them "realists" or "practicalists" but there are many meanings for those terms and I don't know if that would be "proper" usage. Does anyone have any suggestions?

hi folks,

so I have attached a rough map of one of the sides of the debate surrounding hate speech regulation in the U.S. (be it legislation or just speech codes.) i welcome comments and suggestions! Does anyone know how to embed it as an image on the blog?

note: I know this should be obvious but I do not necessarily endorse anything I post as super-awesome or even "good."

Racial discourse, hate speech, and political correctness

When men open doors for women, they often say with a smile, "I know this is not politically correct but...." The request by groups that the literary canon be expanded to include the works of people of color and women has been denominated an example of political correctness. Efforts to diversify faculty also meet the political correctness charge, and concerns about pornography, hate speech, and sexual harassment are tarred by the same politically correct brush. The now broad usage of the phrase makes succinct characterization problematic, but in general the most serious charge of political correctness is an accusation that one espouses a cramped, narrow orthodoxy, or worse, censorship of free expression. At the extremes, critics of "political correctness" include charges of authoritarianism.

This was on Cnn's website in a recap of the Republican debates this week. I remember my high school history teacher preaching the gospel of Regan. I found this really funny but also disturbing.

"But just because O'Reilly acts like a jerk doesn't mean that Rich, Kurtz and O'Donnell should get a pass to follow suit. Here's a tip for liberals and those who play them on TV: If you're trying to come off as more enlightened than the next guy, it helps not to mimic the very behavior you're going out of your way to condemn."

I find this analysis really intriguing. Offhand I would say I agree; I've been thinking about how liberals get away with a lot of stuff. I hear this type of banter on campus quite often with young white boys especially who think that they have license to say anything just because they hate the bush regime. more later, I am late for the dentist.

Commentary: The hypocrisy of repeating the 'w-word'

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Now that media giants have pulled the plug on Don Imus, the debate has moved to rap lyrics and the limits of free speech. But what we should really address is the hypocrisy of those who blasted Imus for insulting comments about African-Americans and then proceeded to repeat insulting comments about Mexican-Americans.

It's time for a national dialogue on the "w-word." I'll give you a hint: It's an offensive term that is meant to imply that all Mexican-Americans arrived in the United States by swimming across a river -- something that comes across as doubly offensive to immigrants who came to the country legally or those whose families have been here for generations.

You know about the "n-word." And what my gay friends call the "f-word." Most people in the public eye wouldn't dare utter those words in full. In fact, when entertainers have done so, they've paid for it.

And so it's surprising that, lately, there seems to be a rash of media types tossing around the w-word. It's also disappointing given that all this is happening in the aftermath of the Imus affair.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich wasn't all that careful. In arguing that offensive speech shouldn't be censored, Rich wrote that we should "let Bill O'Reilly talk about 'wetbacks.' ..."

Oh, hello. That is exactly how Rich wrote it -- wetbacks. So what that he was quoting someone else. That's no excuse. If that someone else had used the long version of the n-word, you had better believe that Rich would never have printed it in his column.

Read more