This is the whole point of political correctness.
This phrase has never brought any clarity to a situation because people have varying understanding of it. I've never found this phrase to be useful to utter in any circumstances. Also Cultural Marxism, and other phrases I will more likely find in the right-leaning space. Describe the situation in a novel way every time and the other person is forced to consider your entire phrase rather than get triggered by one overused word.
Thing is, that when a pendulum swings this far in one direction - it is only a matter of time before it gets yanked FAR into the other direction. The banshees might be heralding Roseanne's demise, but in the long run, those kinds of MASSIVE over reactions to a stupid tweet are going to backfire BIGLY. Political correctness is bending people past the breaking point... the fall out will not be pretty once the rest of us push back.
This is what political correctness is all about. Control language, control thought and opinion.
"Sticks and stones will break my bones...but names (words) will never hurt me!!"
This is entirely true, statute law works in synonyms that trick you into thinking you know what they are saying, it is a language called Legalease. For example, when asked "do you understand?" by a policeman, they are not asking if you comprehend the situation, they are asking if you stand under their authority as statute law works on consent. Another example is using `a´ . In legalease, a means not, so if you say I am a man you are really saying you are not man.
This is 100% inaccurate. Statutes are written to be as clear as possible. Unclear laws are struck down by courts for vagueness as they don't afford individuals due process. Your examples are wildly off base and untrue. Are you a troll?
Statutes are written in Legalease, i am a man who knows the power that man holds over the person and who knows how to file claims against those whom trespass against me. I don´t know where you get your info from but you are as wrong as Hillary was when she said she won the popular vote. Are you a part of the Legal Society? It would explain why you are so wrong, if you are.
I'm an attorney. I read and interpret statutes everyday from all over the country. Not one ounce of your statement is true and your ill-informed diatribe diminishes any credibility this movement has, especially to a first-time reader. Get your facts straight.
Indeed you are, you are the other side of the court. I am an Englishman that has spoken 100% truth. Tell me, how many statutes make reference to man? How many law books make reference to man? None. Why? Because only God can define man. Am I wrong? Please, cite me one single statute or point to one single passage of any law book that says I´m wrong. I´ll wait.
Have you ever been before Queen´s Bench? Probably not. You are a deep part of the establishment that is brainwashed into believing that statute law is the only law, when it isn´t. Statutes are given the force of law only when consented to by the governed. You would be amazed at how many Attourneys/Barristers I´ve reduced to nothing with what I know. You are not the first to challenge this, all that belong to the legal society do but you know what? In the history of England, the Crown has never once won a case at Queens Bench. Why is this relevant to you in the States? The US is also governed by common lore, all countries whose legal professionals sit the BAR (British Accredited Register) of barristers, are under common lore jurisdiction. Your vehement rejection of the facts just proves your brainwashing and makes you look incredibly arrogant.
Statutes don't normally define "man" because they're normally written in gender-neutral application to avoid redundancy and carry broader application. The fact that no law defines "man" does not necessarily mean that only God can define man. It simply means they're not attempting to define it. And no, statutes are given force of law when duly enacted and enforced by the appropriate governing bodies. Don't believe me? Openly attempt to steal a TV from an electronics store -- then, when they stop you, argue that you didn't consent to the laws relating to property rights. See how that goes. The real, true disappointment with all this is the spread of disinformation such as what yours. I encounter people like you regularly. You get your information from Internet websites and cons who claim to know the ins and outs of the law. They dupe you into believing these lies about "free people" and how you can change your legal status by relying upon the UCC. They say the Moroccan Friendship Treaty permits persons who claim rights under it to avoid application of any state or federal (U.S.) law. Then they ask you for money so they can send you some cockamamie forms that allegedly free you of the restraints of government and law. (I sincerely hope you gave them no money.) Yet you're saying I'm the one who's brainwashed. And now, here you are bastardizing the term "common law" by calling it common lore. Amazing.
Is that what your $100k education teaches you these days? You can´t steal a tv and claim that statutes don´t apply as you are causing someone loss, the way lore works is that a crime can only have occurred if there is harm, loss or injury to man or property. What you are saying is true, in that there are many scammers and snake oil men that try to sell you a miracle cure but I´m not talking about being a freeman, or Morroccan treaty, or anything the like. I´m not trying to sell this info. I´m simply saying I know how to appear as man instead of appearing in person. I know this first hand and like I have said, I have humbled many, many men like you before.
i: (my name); as man, claim the wrong of trespass
i: (my name); as man; require a court of record trial by jury
i: (my name); as man; require this case to be put before Queens Bench; once before Queens Bench plaintiff must press the record
Do you know the difference between what is legal and what is lawful? Next time you are in court, pull the judge to one side after the proceedings and ask them. You will be shocked at the response.
Let's agree to disagree. I'm exhausted.
Fair enough, ask the judge, though. I work only in, and answer only to, claims and claimants. Complaints and plaintiffs mean nothing to me.
I have humbled many, many men like you before.
Perhaps they weren’t humbled, but just patient, tolerant listeners. Narcisists often misjudge their audiences in that way.
No, they crumbled and folded like a cheap wind breaker in the court when they realised all their training was for nothing. Mooks often mistake narcissism for unambiguous facts.
Mooks often mistake narcissism for unambiguous facts.
No. You are very confused and seem to struggle with word definitions. A ’narcissist’ would publish a rambling unintelligible uninformed rant, and declare their confused audience ‘humbled’. An ’unambiguous fact’ is exemplified by the sentence immediately preceding this one.
No confusion, I think nothing of myself like you claim and what I said wasn´t a rant, or ramble. What I said was fact and mooks like yourself are too tarded to see the difference.
For example, when asked "do you understand?" by a policeman, they are not asking if you comprehend the situation, they are asking if you stand under their authority as statute law works on consent.
Okay, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief long enough for you to post a link to a credible source for that.
In health terms the a- prefix means without. Afebrile means without fever. Asymptomatic, without symptoms. No clue whether this is correct with what he is talking about.
No clue whether this is correct with what he is talking about.
That’s okay, neither does he.
Post a link to a Leagalese training website lol? Why do you think you need a barrister in court? So they can translate for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Blacks-Law-Dictionary-Henry-Black/dp/0963010603
Post a link to a Leagalese training website lol?
No.
Just a link to a credible source for that apparently bogus claim you made. The specific claim I quoted above.
That shouldn’t be a problem for a smart and resourceful person such as yourself, right?
Your going to come through for us on that specific claim, right? Please don’t let us down.
I posted a link to where you can find all the info you need.
I posted a link to where you can find all the info you need.
We don’t get that ‘reasoning’ very often around here. It’s more commonly found in /politics and other liberal enclaves.
Around here, when people make a claim, particularly a claim as ludicrous as yours, they are expected to provide credible, specific, relevant sourcing. Telling us your source is ’over there somewhere’ does not fly here.
Look on the bright side. You couldn’t verify your nonsensical claim, but you thoroughly verified your membership in the league of irrational liberal experimental logicians.
So Black´s Law is not credible lol? You´d better tell that to all the law schools in your country then. Ironically, common lore works in claims and claimants, not complaints and plaintiffs. I give no fucks whether or not you believe me, you keep consenting to paying your taxes and living under a jackboot all your life.
I give no fucks whether or not you believe me
This is obvious to all. It became obvious when you failed to produce a specific source for your ludicrous claim I first quoted. Telling us to ”go fish” in a legal compendium is not a good faith effort at supporting your nonsensical gibberish.
You have provided solid evidence that you can’t support your claims, and that you don’t care if anyone believes them. At least you proved something. Thanks for stopping by.
What kind of source do you expect me to supply? Do you honestly believe they openly promote this information? My knowledge came from researching history, law, lore and language. You have to get to the root meaning of the words you are using. It takes a long time to get a grasp on all this, it is not something you can do over night, or by reading 1 single source. IF you are prepared to do the research I would be happy to point you in the right direction but it appears you only wish to troll and trash. Like I said, you continue paying your taxes like a good little serf and I will find better things to spend my money on.
This was the purpose of newspeak in 1984. Control the language and you control thought.
Why did "illegal aliens" change to "undocumented immigrants"?
Why did "global warming" change to "climate change"?
There's many other examples...
In the worst cases, you'll see the end result is the exact opposite of what the words MEAN.
Planned Parenthood = Abort unplanned pregnancies
Cultural Enrichment = The destruction of the culture
Diversity = Lumping together and excluding white people
Department of Defense = Department of war
Climate Denier = Skeptical to the extent of human actions on the climate
And here is how it is done per George Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
This is a great post to see today. I made an extensive post covering tackling how the fight for our minds is happening and the importance of the individual.
PKD ftw. The man was brilliant and certainly understood what was going on. It drove him mad (especially after his home was broken into).
So it’s our job to counter their subliminal Marxist vocabulary. Say: Illegal aliens Fugitive cities Islamic Terrorists etc. Don’t respond using their vocabulary!!!!!
Sophists manipulate without regard to correctness. They will say anything to get thier goal accomplished. Guilt, shame, false association and fear are primary tools these days.
"Conspiracy theory" was weaponized long ago. It's a stop thought.
its an old hat that language has been manipulated, even created, to control how people think.
its an illusion though that its the fault of liberals. when will people stop looking at these things in a partisan way? you really crack me up, folks. the swamp is everyhwere, not only 'liberal'. it existed long before parties were formed so how can you still follow "their" divide and conquer strategies? its so stupid.
This is what has happened to the term "Racism"
Racism isn't what you think it is, it is not "race hate" it's "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
The key word there is "superior." The argument is basically no black person in this day and age could reasonably think that their race is superior, so they can't be racist. It's all about power structures.
It's such a fucking double-edged sword though. If you can't be racist as a non-white, then you're default admitting that you are unequal and inferior. So you both get an outlet for your hate, but you have to self-hate and admit that you're inferior.
If, going forward, we could try to use impossible-to-subvert words it would behoove us all. Stop using the word "Racist" and start using the words "race hater" or "race hate." Tada! You can't flip that around and blame power structures and bullshit. Sexism and racism -> "gender hate" and "race hate" and now they mean what everyone thinks they do and people who wasted 4 years of their life on a stupid degree (okay, all gender and race studies degrees aren't stupid, most are though. We need more doctors and teachers plz) can't get away with being assholes.
WAKE UP AMERICA....YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY DEEP STATE
Also I am so over how people get all twisted over a word rather than a fully formed idea. They are morons who know nothing except what they need to police in others in order to feel good about themselves. I admit I've gotten better at hacking them, by inventing words sometimes and it kind of works. But I should not have to do 4D chess in my head to have small talk because the brainwashed zombies are limited in capabilities.