The Index

It would be helpful if some guy would post a list of all the true things you’re not allowed to say. With localized versions: specific things you can’t say at company X, say McDonald’s or Google. I’ve seem people from other cultures slip up on this, and it hardly seems fair. Whoever wrote down the list would of course be immediately fired, but surely someone is willing to suffer for the greater good.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to The Index

  1. You’re not allowed to say “guy” when you mean “man.”

    • Frau Katze says:

      A chi-rho symbol for your avatar? I like it. But most commenters wouldn’t like it (if they knew what it meant).

      • Peter Lund says:

        Complete with alpha and omega, even!

        • Frau Katze says:

          Noticed that too. I’ve cross-stitched the complete thing on some birth announcements.

          For my grandchildren, their parents wouldn’t permit such a thing, I didn’t even mention it. I found some photos of stylized palm leaves (very common in the ancient world). They look good too.

      • Zenit says:

        Indeed, everyone knows this comment threads are full of traditional Romans, still furious over usurper’s Constantine betrayal of ancestral Roman gods.

        • Frau Katze says:

          That’s what I was thinking too! They’re always commenting about ancient gods.

          They might be more into the Teutonic gods, though.

          That was the nice about polytheism, there was room for more.

  2. Cantman says:

    “It would be helpful if some guy would post a list of all the true things you’re not allowed to say.”

    I laughed out loud. You have a way with words.

  3. benespen says:

    I’m sure if you ran an word-cloud on your blog that would be a pretty good start.

  4. Cloudswrest says:

    The name/word for this is “mokita”.

  5. Frau Katze says:

    You can’t have the list because the PC crowd denies that they’re true.

  6. Rosenmops says:

    Specific to my locality and place of work (but probably true in a of places)

    You are not allowed to mention that First Nations people have a tendency towards failing out of school, alcoholism, other addictions, violence and criminality (unless in the same breath you blame the problems entirely on racism and residential schools.)
    You may not say that there is a correlation between Islam and terrorism. Don’t you dare notice that!
    Don’t even think of noticing that, on average, women might not be as strong in math as men. (I am a female math teacher but would not dare point this out –could lose my job)
    Better not to notice that things such as alcoholism and intelligence involve genetics. If you mention this you are basically Hitler.

    • Frau Katze says:

      Most readers don’t know what “First Nations” means.

      • Cs says:

        It’s two lies in two words.. neither first, nor nations.

        • Ivan says:

          Not first, but why not nations?

          • CS says:

            In Canada I think the best term is tribes, not nations. There was no organization into “nations” as there was in, say, the Inca empire. Instead, they remained tribes – roughly, a group of people related by family (clans) in a well-defined area, self-sufficient, with optionally a political organization under chieftains.

            Nothing like a nation, which is a more abstract concept — from Wiki “a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests”.

            In Canada the “First Nations” claim a ‘nation-to-nation” relationship with the Federal Government, but do not act like any other kind of nation.

            Consider as an example, drinking water. Almost every community in Canada has self-financed sources of safe drinking water. The financing is down by taxing the property in that community, in combination with one-time grants from the provinces. Provincial regulations are enforced by provincial regulators, who ensure compliance.

            Compare that to “First Nations”, which rely 100% on Federal funding to build treatment plants – they do not self-finance or self-tax for this. And, once built, these “nations” do not have the social or regulatory structures to maintain those plants — allowing them to fall into disrepair. When this happens, they then demand more funding. And the liberal media immediately start denouncing the Federal government for its lack of care..

  7. Rosenmops says:

    “I’ve seem people from other cultures slip up on this”

    This reminds me of the time an Islamic organization in Canada put links to stuff about David Duke and his view on Jews. This caused problems for them, needless to say. But no one cared if they put links to George Galloway and his views on Jews.

    How are newcomers to Canada supposed to figure out which white anti semites are politically correct?

    • Nomen Est Omen says:

      How are newcomers to Canada supposed to figure out which white anti semites are politically correct?

      It’s easy, because Duke and Galloway aren’t “anti-semitic” in the same way. Duke came to his anti-semitism by being pro-white and racist, Galloway to his anti-Zionism by being pro-Palestinian and anti-racist. In any case, the accusation of “anti-semitism” was the foundation-stone of the PC Lubyanka. All the other blasphemies are modeled after it. This blog is racist, sexist and homophobic, for example. To progressives, no more need be said, because the whole point is to avoid a debate. Similarly for those who call David Duke an anti-semite. The accusation evades the question of whether his views are true or not.

    • Philip Neal says:

      An important metarule applies to non-Christian religions including Islam: if Islam teaches something that you are not allowed to say, you are not allowed to say that Islam teaches it.

  8. pyrrhus says:

    But the Index would need constant updating, or it would become hazardous. Who knew a few years ago that using the word “trannie” for a transsexual would make you worse than literally Hitler?

    • Rodep says:

      It’s quaint to see someone so out of the loop that “trannie” is the example they use. “Trangendered person” vs. “Transgender person.” “trans” vs “trans*.” If you call a literal, acknowledged transvestite a “transvestite,” you will be put on a watchlist for even having the word in your vocabulary.

      Imagine a minefield laid in quicksand.

  9. Paul Bunyan says:

    The index would also need to have each forbidden concept/word to be dated so we can see how much of a ratchet effect they are applying over the years. Something tells me that this is a permanent revolution and that the list will be ever changing and ever growing.

  10. Surely no-one should make any of these comments until we know their precise location?

  11. Maciano says:

    From a control perspective, it’s great these rules aren’t clear or lineated; it gives more power to punish innocent people considered a nuisance. Just accuse them of something, retroactively considered a hate crime, and you get them out of the way. Maintain status quo and rule like a king.

    • Rich Rostrom says:

      Also, having the list secret has great intimidating power. Since people don’t know exactly what’s on the list, they avoid saying anything that might be on the list, self-censoring. This expands the de facto forbidden space – a positive feedback process which ends when all speech that is not compulsory is prohibited.

  12. Nomen Est Omen says:

    You can construct the list from first principles. Saying anything true and positive about WHAMs (white heterosexual able-bodied men) and traditionalist Christianity is BAD. Saying anything true and negative about non-WHAMs and non-trad-Xtians is BAD. Denying the absolute Psychic Unity of Mankind is BAD, as is questioning the sacred task of Striving for Equality. But when progressives talk about Equality, they mean it in the Orwellian sense: “All humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than others.”

    More simply still, ask: “Do Those-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named accept this truth?” If they don’t, it’s on the list. See S.J. Gould, J. Diamond, The Culture of Critique, etc.

  13. JerryC says:


  14. Here is a guy from another culture who got it wrong.

  15. dearieme says:

    In the classrooms of my secondary school the custom was that the teacher put the dimmest pupils at the front, the brightest at the back. So one sweeping glance taught you rather a lot. And that was in a stream where the minimum IQ for entry was 118. That raises the possibility of another incorrect list: photos that you’d better not show in public.

  16. Wency says:

    It’s worth differentiating between what is forbidden by the law and what is forbidden by “polite society”.

    That Asian immigrant in Australia couldn’t keep up a sign that said “no 14-18 year-old blacks allowed”. But neither could he put up a sign that said “no whites allowed”, at least in the U.S., even if the press and others would show more sympathy for the latter.

    It is obvious and true that men present a much greater threat of harassment and physical attack against women than other women do, by perhaps two orders of magnitude. You’re even allowed and encouraged to say this in polite society, so long as you don’t go too deep into the biological basis of sex differences. Yet the Uber-for-women startup fell through when it was determined you weren’t allowed to say “No men allowed”.

  17. Anon. says:

    If everyone knows the shibboleth it’s no longer a shibboleth. The ever-shifting and uncertain nature of what you can’t say is a feature, not a bug.

  18. J says:

    Maybe you can get the ADL to compile a list of “hate facts” for you.

  19. Parzival says:

    Preferably with severity ratings: categorize things into eye-rolling, fainting couch, and lynch mob. If only there were some sort of half-trillion dollar enterprise out there dedicated to organizing the world’s information; I bet they could pull it off.

  20. Greying Wanderer says:

    the media lied about what the guy actually said which shows there are two layers: the things that the media think the public will accept as reasonable heresy i.e. saying “all women are biologically inferior at tech” and the things they won’t i.e. “fewer women want to go into tech.”

    this illustrates that the media are 1) the enforcers of PC heresy and 2) shameless liars

    and given that the media is owned by a handful of billionaires and corporations this means they must want PC heresy enforced – so why would billionaires and corporations want to impose PC ideology?

    they want an unlimited labor supply to keep their workers “flexible” (aka desperate).

    • Sandgroper says:

      Media is a plural word. The singular is medium. Therefore, you should not say “the media is”, but rather “the media are”. Your English lesson for the day.

      • Greying Wanderer says:

        ty – my education mostly involved avoiding getting stabbed by gangs that the media are said didn’t exist

  21. RCB says:

    Coincidentally, Julia Galef, a minor Facebook public intellectual (or science popularizer?) (or maybe she’s just pretty) is currently collecting a List of Unpopular Ideas. A lot of them are silly and inconsequential, IMO. As far as I can tell, she doesn’t have the #1 most unpopular idea of them all. But she’s taking suggestions.

  22. helenahankart says:

    Asking for such a list identifies you as one of those “pro-rationality extremists” Greg. Immediately report yourself to your nearest re-education camp citizen!

  23. helenahankart says:

    The Japanese have a specific term for this. Tatemae (teh things you now privately to be true) and Honne (the things you are allowed to admit of publicly). Woe betide he (or shklee) who mistakes one for the other.
    In previous eras it was easy–we put all the crap that wasnt true in a thing called “religion” and left it there. Its got tougher now.

  24. Yudi says:

    The sad thing about discussion of offensive truths today is that so few Westerners are bi- or trilingual. The last time that offensiveness was weaponized in the name of civilization, the Victorian Age, educated people could simply switch to Latin to drop inconvenient truths, with few repercussions.

  25. Tancred says:

    In Germany and Austria, questioning any single detail about WW2 that you’ve heard in school is forbidden by law. They’re afraid of people attacking the new original sin.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Well, the problem is that people want to think well of themselves and their ancestors: they want a usable history. If you’re talking the history of the Second World War, Germans and Austrians aren’t going to get that without lying. Lots and lots and lots of lying. There’s a market for it: at the end of WWII, a big fraction of Germans just couldn’t understand why everyone was so pissed at them… Although some did. There was a guy on public transit in Berlin, wounded and obviously fresh from the front, a couple of weeks before the end, saying wildly to everyone: “You have to stop them. You have to stop them! Because if they even do half of what we’ve done in Russia…”

      Lots of people have a shortage of usable history. If you insist on a history full of shining heroes and nothing else, everybody’s out of luck.

      • Zenit says:

        Simple solution: invent new ancestors and new history , for example, let’s say Tolkien’s stories are true and we are descendants of elves … nope, bad idea. Elves in Tolkien’s ancient history were as-brick-stupid psycho killers.
        We are hobbits, yes, hobbits we are.

      • magusjanus says:

        I see nothing wrong with just lying about history. The point of history is what, to learn? Lol. No one learns. Or rather, few do and those that do are willing to dig deep to make their own opinions as to what matters.

        For the masses? Just give them easily digestible heroes and causes that encourage virtuous behavior that encourages civilisation.

        The prob with what passes for “history” now is not that it’s mostly bs, but rather that the type of bs it is is self destructive to the West.

        The Japanese know better.

        The problem

  26. charles w abbott says:

    The essay “What you can’t say” by Paul Graham is worth pondering.

  27. James Miller says:

    Someone on the autism spectrum could use this. Him: X. College: X is badthink. Him: But X is true. College: even if true still shouldn’t say because disrespectful. Him: I’m bad at modeling what other people consider disrespectful so could you please list all the true things I can’t say.

    But you want to stop the college from defining something as untrue if at least one Phd thinks it is false, so you should ask for a list of things you can’t say that have at least some scientific support.

      • Frau Katze says:

        People with mental problems of any kind are out of luck in our society. They may be left to roam around homeless because putting them against their will in a hospital would be a human rights violation.

        And you can’t completely dismiss that argument. Under Communism, in the USSR, calling people crazy and using this as a reason to lock them up really happened.

        There is no way they can break the speech codes. If they’re not “high functioning” they will be treated condescendingly. People will tactfully try to help them avoid the problem. For their own good.

        If they’re high functioning and defy the speech codes they may be fired or shunned.

        How do we know that if the fired Google employee was on the spectrum or not?

        You have ask yourself why he wrote it. I’m retired now but would not have dreamed of writing something like that at work. Hadn’t he heard of other cases of people being fired?

        Didn’t he notice the atmosphere surrounding such topics?

        • Zenit says:

          The Google guy is now giving interviews, promoting himself and exploiting his five minutes of worldwide fame as adroitly as possible. Not your typical Asperger/autistic/schizoid/schizophrenic person.

          • Frau Katze says:

            Agreed. But the argument above (starting with James Miller’s comment) was more general, it wasn’t about him in particular.

            I mentioned him at the end, before he had started giving interviews, etc.

            He was still stupid to write that memo, IMO. Plain vanilla stupid.

            • Zenit says:

              If he thought he will stay anonymous (if it was his plan A), he was mistaken. But his plan B (hire good lawyers, sue Google, promote himself as “alt-right” celebrity) is going well.
              Five minutes of worldwide fame, if you know what to do with them, are well worth $160k Google job.

    • Frau Katze says:

      I was under the impression that colleges and the other PC types deny the statements are true. That is certainly what they say. I have any number of op-eds in places like New York Times saying the statements are completely false.

      I have yet to read an NYT article there saying the statements are true but forbidden.

      I’m using NYT as an example but the same holds for all news sites.

      Do you have an example?

  28. Howard Holmes says:

    I don’t care about anyone other than myself.

  29. Paul Bunyan says:

    Here is a list of youtube videos they are censoring right now, it looks like most of them are on topics of HBD, which figures:

  30. tublecane says:

    I once had the idea for a short story called “The Compendium,” which would feature a small, isolated society somehow coming into possession of a book containing all possible human knowledge. I don’t know how. Aliens, or something. Anyway, the trick is it’s too big for anyone to read in a lifetime, and skill and intelligence is required to search through it, interpret it, and apply it to practical life. It couldn’t be used for every purpose all the time, and only a limited amount of people could have access at the same time. So a class of people become privileged in its use, and everyone else has to defer to their knowledge of it. These privileged persons would necessarily agree even if they had a page open to argue about, and of course they would develop different bases of knowledge depending upon which parts of the book they specialize in. Some of these people decide to use their privilege for purposes of deception, both of the Noble Lie and regular lie variety.

    Point is, such a list as you recommend compiling would be about as big and complex as the Compendium.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s