Political Correctness,

[SilverDNA]

Political Correctness is a worn-out concept that's been taken way too far, way too often.

 

And I love tomato's conundrum too. I think it would be fun to apply it to politicians--you know, the guys who came up with the whole idea. When a politician says "hispanic" but is in his mind thinking "wetback" ...that's dishonest. I think it'd be best if he actually said "wetback" when he's thinking "wetback" and let his constituents sort out whether they care that he used a racial slur or not.

 

Also I wonder what Bill O'Reilly would talk about every holiday season if it weren't for "political correctness." :teehee:

 

Yep you have the freedom of speech, but (now comes the relativation) you have to take the consequences for every word that leaves your mouth.

A less know German saying goes like this ( sorry it loses a bit of the rhythm and in the translation)

 

"For thinking no one can be hung,

but for say often hit in the face."

 

Political Correctness is some times used to oppress if it is that what you liked to say i can agree in basic. Hopefully political correctness is used against those guys that missus them to gains and profits of the weak and oppressed by it's missuses.

Edited April 24, 2011 by SilverDNA

[Sync182]

Political Correctness is a Social Engineering tool whereby the Silent Majority, in their enforced desire to not discriminte against Vocal Minority groups, end up being discriminated against. Edited April 24, 2011 by Sync182

[BlackBaron2]

It's funny when the majority, who have the power and get the special dispensations cry "oppression" and "political correctness gone mad" just because we're making progress and treating different people as people. Straight, white, rich people (mostly guys) with mainstream political opinions need some frakkin' perspective. Try a roleplaying exercise--pretend you are a person in one of those groups you think have "uppity" members who need to shut up and be OK with being treated like they're Unpeople. You don't have to act in a stereotypical way, just think about how it would feel if you were constantly called "breeder", "pig", "evil", "abomination", "freak" or "cracka", blamed for everything, forced into low-paying jobs because you're a straight white guy and generally having your life made hell.

 

Sure, free speech is free speech, but it's not OK to treat people unfairly. It should not matter, in the eyes of the law, who you love, what you believe, what colour you are, what sex you are and what gender identity you have.

 

As for the subject of "hate speech", that's not something that should get someone into legal trouble. However, morally speaking, a person who is hateful, is in the wrong. If they're being hateful at work or school then I think they should be subject to the institution's disciplinary procedures for bullying or trying to incite such behaviour--note that I never said they should be arrested.

[darkfox85]

“I hadn't noticed anyone in this thread wishing us back to the Victorian age. I had noticed, and rolled with ironic laughter, at some typical political correctness. Darkfox85 complains that if you are politically correct you are *sneered* at and then goes on to sneer at and to stereotype Daily Mail readers” – ginnyfizz (and my marks)

 

Hmmm

I missed this

 

My words are being twisting. And the biggest twist is on the word that is marked.

 

If I am sneered at, I don’t mind (not really anyway) but being dismissed without being allowed to state my opinion, this is what angers me, and this is what our self-proclaimed champions of free-speech do (now THERE’S something to “roll with ironic laughter” to.) But still, it’s not a nice thing to even imply. I apologise for such behaviour. It’s hard to remain cool as I’m sure we can all agree. I also agree that common sense should never be understimated, but I’m reminded of Einstein stating “common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

 

I still stand by my post. People who cry PC are just dismissing their opponent with no real argument and don’t understand the basic tenants of free speech. When people criticise your views, this is not a violation of your free speech. You are not being “oppressed.” Get over yourself. But I won’t deny there are some measures are going out I strongly disagree with, and many of my own views might be regarded as politically incorrect, but I don’t whine about political correctness because there are better ways to argue!

 

Grrr!

[ginnyfizz]

Oh, so I guess you never sneeringly referred to Daily Mail reading abominations from Mothership Zeta? You know darned well that you did, it's there in black and white. That is the problem with political correctness, it often comes with a large dose of "Like to dish it out but can't take it."

 

People who defend political correctness seem to have a common theme to me. This remark from BlackBaron2 for example;-

 

"Straight, white, rich people (mostly guys) with mainstream political opinions need some frakkin' perspective. "

 

That is as clear an instance of prejudice as I have ever seen and is a disgrace. I am straight, white, not rich or male, but I do have mainstream political opinions. Oh, shoot me now, especially since I am also a churchgoer. I am not starting a religious debate, merely stating the fact that the particular denomination I belong to means that I do not need any "Frakkin perspective", as I already know what it is like to be discriminated against. You can't complain about discrimination against one group and then slag off people for being straight, white, middle class, whatever. That makes you as guilty as those you accuse.

[darkfox85]

What’s “there in black and white” is me referring to an isolated incident. I apologised for the implication therein and corrected myself accordingly. If you’ve finished congratulating yourself and attaching grotesque meaning to such a triviality would you care to debate? I can’t believe such an issue is being made out of that – much less on calling me out personally. Furthermore, it seems to me that in decrying this detail that you are doing everything you are rebelling against. Perhaps instead of focusing on nasty words, you’d like to attack the meat of my argument. And I have a good feeling you can do that. So, by all means...

 

“That is the problem with political correctness, it often comes with a large dose of "Like to dish it out but can't take it."” Well, if this isn’t the pot calling the kettle a deservedly questioned racial slur then I don’t know what is.

 

But okay, cards down. I’m a 26 year-old, white, heterosexual male with mainstream political views, but I hate (hate) being called politically correct: partly because the concept of political correctness doesn’t exist and even if it does exist (in an abstract sense,) it has no meaning and lets my opponent avoid whatever I have to say, and partly because I have many views that people who need the concept of “political correctness” to support weak positions, would describe as politically incorrect. This is especially true regarding immigration, the police, certain business practices, and one particular issue that I understand we’re not allowed to talk about (I’ve seen the locked threads – I’m sure no one wants that.)

 

By the way; although from what I’ve read of BlackBaron2 I agree with (minus one or two things) I think his argument is more sophisticated than you give it credit for and I’m sure he’ll have something to say about it.

 

Let’s not make such straw-men out of our opponents

[greywaste]

This is one of the big problems with it :

 

just because we're making progress and treating different people as people.

 

progress? :blink: We just compartmentalise and divide people into 'those who absolutely can't have anything even remotely disagreeable said to them' and :

 

Straight, white, rich people (mostly guys) with mainstream political opinions

<- 'those who are less important on the Offense scale'.

 

Sure, free speech is free speech, but it's not OK to treat people unfairly. It should not matter, in the eyes of the law, who you love, what you believe, what colour you are, what sex you are and what gender identity you have.

 

Agreed 110%

 

However, morally speaking, a person who is hateful, is in the wrong

 

That's debateable, even morally. But I'll concede that most of the time I'd agree.

 

 

If they're being hateful at work or school then I think they should be subject to the institution's disciplinary procedures for bullying or trying to incite such behaviour--note that I never said they should be arrested.

 

It really isn't that simple trying to define Hate and the application of it... What about dislike? prejudice? distrust? Does a racist necessarily hate other ethnicities? Feeling that somebody is inferior or displaying a predjudice towards them isn't necessarily hate. Ignorant sure..

 

Using threats to prevent people saying things you don't want to hear is flat out Authoritarianism and is one of the hallmarks of places we are thankful we aren't living in every day.

 

Respect, politeness and consideration are things that need to be taught, encouraged and rewarded. Given modern society's usual fixes for all it's problems (outlaw it or throw yet more taxpayers money at it) then we can safely forget it :rolleyes:

[ginnyfizz]

Well there you have it, darkfox85. Political correctness as a concept does exist and, as greywaste has already stated, it could be called authoritarianism when backed up with threats to prevent people from saying things that might be unpalatable. It exists when we are allowed to have job advertisements that particularly welcome applications from this group or that group "as they are currently under represented in our workforce". Says who? Some set of arbitrary statistics that say because such and such a group apparently form a certain percentage of the general population but not of that workforce, we MUST take affirmative action to correct it. If you like, political correctness is a form of extreme control freakery, grown out of the blame culture that we have that says there must always be a definite cause of anything bad. It manifests in the situations where we have present day politicians required to apologize for the sins of the fathers, for example, there was a movement to require the present day political leaders of Liverpool and Bristol to apologize for their cities parts in the slave trade. To what purpose? Yes, the slave trade WAS an abomination. But why carry on the blame generations later? What purpose can that serve exactly?

 

Political correctness, positive discrimination, affirmative action, it's alive and kicking, how you can say it doesn't exist as a concept baffles me. Called it received wisdom, whatever, it is still there. There has been a very prominent case of political correctness goes overboard in the British media of late, but we can't really discuss it as it involves the R word.

[BlackBaron2]

Nobody said they were for affirmative action. I do not support it at all, however, I do support helping people to get out of bad situations and making an effort (on the part of the system) to not forget about minorities like we don't exist.

 

Ginny, I was not slagging anyone off, just saying not to cry "PERSECUTION" if you're privileged and feel some of that privilege slipping away. Being told you should not treat other people badly for not being like you is not persecution. You are extremely unlikely to be at all persecuted for being white, at least in the UK and US. I said the straight, white, rich mainstreamists need some perspective because they're the first to cry "persecution" and blame their misery on those "uppity" (insert minority here) when they get told it's wrong to slag someone off for not being like them.

 

If I'm wrong for wanting to be treated like a person as opposed to some kind of space demon, then I definitely don't want to be right. My weight and orientation do not indicate my character in the least, and they certainly do not make me worth less than any other person, so don't be surprised that I would prefer if it wasn't acceptable for people like me to be demonized and treated like garbage!

 

greywaste, by being hateful I meant actually harrassing or intimidating someone who is "different". Putting up posters in the school corridor that say "Go away you fat, impure dog" (albeit less politely than I've said it, by far) about a female student, for example, would be bullying and shouldn't be treated as acceptable behaviour (even in the sense of saying "Oh, they were joking and don't mean anything by it").

[darkfox85]

Well alright, now we’re debating, rather than “laughing.”

 

Affirmative action is affirmative action. Calling it “political correctness” brings all sorts of emotions and presupposed arguments that make the issue tricky to cut into. It should be treated as separate from the miasmic spectre of “political correctness.” And frankly I’m undecided on the issue. I think the means only very rarely justify the end (applied to AA and everything else) and it seems only the result is being addressed rather than the cause. But then again I don’t know the precise effect of AA, and the percentage between general pop and workforce is nothing to get worked up over, but until I know better I’ll say I’m against AA. But I won’t retard the issue by whining about this illusive “political correctness,” nor will I make hysterical accusations of anti-fascism-fascism.

 

Reparations: well, the obvious and shamefully overlooked purpose is a reminder of history, and this is something of great importance. After all, slavery still exists. But indeed, a few centuries have passed and I’d like to hope the people are different now. Besides, funds should be used for the future not the past. But sometimes reparations are a good thing. President Roosevelt imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbour and repossessed their property. Despite President Reagan’s apology, there are people alive today who have not had a cent of compensation. I’d like to hope no one sees that as “political correctness gone mad.”

 

There’s no such thing as “blame culture.” Like “broken Brian” and “victim mentality” these are just empty slogans made up by the Daily Mail that mean nothing but personal attacks. And, *anything* “could be called authoritarianism when backed up with threats to prevent people from saying things that might be unpalatable.”