Has Political Correctness kickstarted a new Orwellianism?

It meant something to those currently clothed in orange jumpsuits and staring at bars.

 

Who?

 

We will never get Trumpleton's to admit to what was in Mueller's report since Billy the Bagman said it wasn't there.

 

Why has this thread plummeted down the rankings and is now half way down page 2?

This thread is still receiving lots of replies. It might bounce back with my own reply as the starter of the thread but I can't help thinking the algorithms have a downer on any debate whatsoever on political correctness.

 

Yep. After the last several months of "Trump is lying about the vaccine", now that the election is over, my state's democratic governor is like, "Yes, we will have our first shipment in the state before the end of the year". Amazing how reality changed in just a couple weeks.

 

What did it mean?

 

When I wrote Post #1 at the start of this thread I suppose I had the UK in mind first and foremost, as this is where I live. The situation in the US I have heard is very similar but probably not exactly the same. However the phenomena to a large extent may have originated in the US. It all seemed to start with 'the Piizza equivalent of Watergate' and the Democrat Party. (By the way the Wki page on the subject seems to have the affair taking place during the 2016 presidential debate but I myself have it as way before that, say 2014 at the latest.)

We even heard about P---gate in the UK. Okay, sometimes it happens that concerned parents express their concerns between themselves on social media but exactly how bad is this and should these people all be classed as fake newsers? It's an open point but the affair seemed to trigger a whole number permanent bannings on social media.

However the "new political correctness" theme seems to have taken on a life of its own in the UK.

 

Well I wouldn't deny it was a controversial case but it's difficult to say it was completely groundless. And why did the Wiki page get the year wrong, it wasn't 2016?

Another thing they are doing is "fact checking". You only need to have one small inaccuracy within a larger post causing a large warning sign to appear making it look as if the content of the entire post is invalid. Sometimes opinion is divided as to what is "fact" and what is not anyway.

 

Yeah, I love the implications as well:

"These people want to say whatever they want!"

 

Browser?

Yeah, I noticed that myself. Held back on replying about conspiracies.

 

Crimes were committed. The investigation was based on reality, not conspiracy theories.

 

Was the story of Russian interference in the 2016 US election a conspiracy theory? It's an open question.

 

It's not a story. It's a series of reports from our IC and Senate Intelligence Committees. And it's not an open question; all the reports concur.

So no, it's nothing at all like a conspiracy theory. It's a reality. No one can force anyone to accept such realities, but reality cares not about human frailty.

 

At the time there was plenty of comradery between the Clinton's and the Russians, so why would they want Trump in the White House instead of Hilary Clinton? They were poor losers.

Look at the following story in the Daily Mail:

FBI was surprised but took no action after Bill Clinton took $500,000 from Russian bank while Hillary decided on American uranium deal