Racism and political correctness have much in common – igf culture watch electricity merit badge worksheet answers

##########

In 1964, the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” in Harper’s Magazine, and maybe that set it all in motion. “In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers,” Hofstadter wrote. “But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.”

Conservatives weren’t pleased with the diagnosis, and they were perhaps even less pleased with being coolly diagnosed. “Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders — a ‘paranoid style’ of politics rooted in ‘status anxiety,’ etc.,” my colleague George F. Will remarked in a reproachful 2008 column. “Conservatism,” he said, “rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.”

First, an example. When the now-famous Reuters photograph by Kim Kyung-Hoon of a mother and children fleeing tear gas at the San Ysidro point of entry appeared online Sunday, liberals quickly began sharing it along with demands for humane treatment of migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico. Some conservatives adopted what Hofstadter would doubtlessly characterize as the paranoid style, arguing that the photo had been intentionally selected to misrepresent the situation at the border. year 6 electricity Others argued that, pitiful as the depicted events were, they were necessary and not all that different from those used in the Obama era. And a third set celebrated the photo, hamming up their delight with tweets like “I’ve found my Christmas card photo. #Caring,” and “Watching the USA FINALLY defend our borders was the HIGHLIGHT of my Thanksgiving weekend.” This last category of response exemplifies the triggering style.

The triggering style isn’t really about convincing anyone of anything; it’s a rhetorical method that speaks to the other side, but without interest in persuasion. Indeed, the triggering style doesn’t even aim to reinforce onlooking conservatives’ view that liberals are wrong. Instead, the triggering style attempts to shatter that calm, intellectual satisfaction that annoyed Will and earned Barack Obama such wide conservative resentment. By intentionally trying to cause liberals maximum emotional upset, the triggering style strives to compromise liberals’ most valued attributes: placid objectivity, moral certainty, intellectual strength, powers of analysis capable of theorizing and responding to opposing political viewpoints. You’re just screaming and yelling and calling names, now, the triggering style says. electricity cost calculator You’re no better than what you say I am.

In the Atlantic, Adam Serwer speculated that, for many of Trump’s most dedicated followers, cruelty against people they already despise is the reason for their support, not an unfortunate, unavoidable side effect. And that’s reason enough to nod along with Trump and cast another vote for him. electricity notes But the exaggerated, highly publicized display of such pleasure seems like another effort altogether, one that is related to the victims of Trump’s policies but only incidentally, one that’s really about liberals and their tears, as the kitschy coffee mugs advertise. It’s about resentment, a rejection of argument, a deliberate renunciation of any kind of moral common ground.

The triggering style thrives on cable TV and social media, and it is deployed by ordinary people and high-powered politicians. It’s hard to know precisely how to respond to it, because it’s hard to know exactly what effects the rhetoric has, or what sort of response would do anything other than aggravate those very effects. The best response may simply be to focus on politics and less on rhetorical exchanges, especially in venues where the triggering style flourishes. electricity sound effect Because when the triggering style locks on a photograph like the one from San Ysidro, the people in the photograph — Maria Meza is the woman’s name — become transparent, and its gaze pierces through to the viewer on the other side, hungry for proof of a wound.” Reply

That sounds like an excellent example of the opposite principle, and it is there I would think to look. Think of where we find do-gooders who think the rules are wrong exerting power. There are sanctuary cities, where DOJ ambushes illegal immigrants in courts. In the courtroom, where sympathetic but irrelevant information is kept from the jury’s ears to prevent jury nullification. In the doctors’ offices in my state, where information about sex and pregnancy by minors cannot be shared with parents (although that one could be read either way). Laws against lynching protect criminals from those who would take the law into their own hands–as a black woman in California who ran off with an inmate found out about a year ago. An honorable sheriff would have to guard or even hide the prisoner from the mob.

You’re talking about people taking the law into their own hands. grade 9 electricity module If the truth were that people of a certain race had to be terrorized, that would at least be an honest motivation. But when the rules change example by example, it’s people taking the law into their own hands, and who can tell in the moment whether that is right or wrong? There’s a quote for that I read, of in the film “A Man for All Seasons”: “…Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety’s sake.”

Yet many of those most radical critics of the United States will insist they are simply fulfilling their patriotic duty. But how far does this logic go? Is a spy giving American military secrets to foreign governments simply fulfilling a patriotic duty? What if the spy earnestly believes that America is an evil nation and what he is doing is for the best?

Some might wish to be able to attack and assault and accuse with moral impunity, seeking refuge in platitudes about the great democratic tradition of dissent, but this noble tradition does not shield them from culpability. If they actively pursue ends that harm this nation, the fact that they are engaging in a great American practice does not make them great Americans. Free speech, which encompasses the right of dissent, is a sacred American right, but no sane person would argue that any exercise of free speech is a patriotic act. The evaluation is contingent upon what is said.

When Ted Kennedy gets up and says on an international stage that “shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management-U.S. management,” he is not exercising the dissent of a patriot but that of a traitor. electricity around the world It’s of course true that such egregious comments are not legally treasonous, but when you lie about your country, slander the troops serving overseas and compare our military with that of one of the world’s worst dictators, you have betrayed your nation and are morally guilty of treason.

When Cindy Sheehan calls the same Iraqi terrorists that slew her son “freedom fighters” and argues that George W. Bush is “ten times worse than Osama Bin Laden,” she’s not engaged in morally defensible dissent. She’s supporting our enemies and lying about the true nature of our country’s military activities. Not once has Bush ever deliberately targeted innocent civilians. year 6 electricity worksheets It is impossible to validly argue that Bush is a terrorist. Sheehan’s rants qualify as unpatriotic dissent of the worst kind.

Islamic terrorists have declared holy war on the United States. They have declared a death sentence on every man, woman and child living in this country. They are actively seeking, with the assistance of radical Muslim despots, weapons that would permit them to execute hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single attack. America, under the leadership of George W. Bush, is doing its best to protect its citizens, defeat its enemies and prevent the unthinkable from occurring.

There are profound political forces within and without the United Sates that would like to see us stand down, concede defeat to Zarqawi in Iraq and cease the post 9/11 strategy that has kept the terrorists on the defensive and prevented a second attack inside our borders. Every American has the right to support a policy of retreat and capitulation, and, as so many leftists do, they also have right to lie and slander the country and the president to further this agenda.

All Americans-Duke students among them-who have compared Bush with Hitler, falsely accused our army of some of the worst human rights violations in history, against all evidence claimed Iraq was a war for oil and praised or supported the motivations or activities of the terrorists in Iraq or elsewhere are in fact dissenting in a legal and protected fashion. But this legal protection cannot shield their hands from the possibility of someday being stained with the blood of the innocent Americans whose country they betrayed.