The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Careful Where You Talk


For John, BLUFPolitical Correctness is not just run amok, it blinds us to the truth.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



A Mr Scott Ott, from Pajama Media, confesses.  "To Head Off Another Republican Speaking Scandal, I’m Confessing Now that I Spoke to This Group"

What can I say?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

3 comments:

Craig H said...

Really?

You're going to flog a piece conflating your political opponents with white supremacists?

And then snark it up at the top with a jab about "truth"?

Not your best work...

C R Krieger said...

Once upon a time my opponents were white supremacists, until LBJ teamed with Republicans to change direction.  There was a flap abut a Republcan Congresscritter who was in the near occasion of, but did not actually speak to, a white supremacist group.  My opponents tried to capitalize on it.

Political Correctness is running amok when a local college Pres has to back down for saying all lives matter, because the meme of the day is Black lives matter.  Of course Black lives matter, but so do Asian and Hispanic lives.

Of course having to further explain it means I did a poor job on the first pass.

Regards  —  Cliff

Craig H said...

I don't disagree there's a problem, but compare the rhetorical hyperbole to which you linked to, say, the fact-oriented piece it itself linked before it went straight down the path towards Godwin's Law. (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/david_duke_adviser_kenny_knigh.html)

Guilt by association is a time-honored political technique used as gleefully by Republicans (Bill Ayers, Willie Horton) as anyone else. Being sensitive only when it's used against you is hypocritical and, speaking as an impartial observer in the perennial D vs R mud fight, only makes you look like the more extreme idiot. ("Never argue with idiots lest the bystanders have trouble telling the difference").

Useful might be comparing the smear to others in the other direction, and pointing out the ethical issues with the tactic. Even just refuting the slander with the facts is better than nothing. But going straight to proof that one side is as bad as the other is completely redundant in our world of partisan commentary attempted daily to be passed off as "news".

Like I said, not your best work.