NationStates Jolt Archive

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

People object to the idea that being an asshat is somehow bad.

I think there was a really lengthy thread on this recently. ;)

As for PC, I think it's just that people don't like to see it misapplied - people fired for saying something the *wrong* way, rather than for what they actually said, etc. Nothing's wrong with politeness, though.

Because it stifles free speech. End of story.

It's a bullshit boogey man label people throw on things when they don't have any legitimate criticism or understanding of whats going on.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.I think it's good to an extent. the concept makes people think twice about what comes out of their mouths. more conciousness is always a good thing. It gets out of hand when humour, casual exchanges, and just silliness is being policed for fear of offending anybody whatsoever.

Because it stifles free speech. End of story.

I would have to disagree, there's a line between free speech and deliberate discrimination. I mean I am sure for a example a gay person wouldn't mind you saying that the Mardi Gras is a quite unseemly display, but he would you saying that all homosexuals must die or something.

I would have to disagree, there's a line between free speech and deliberate discrimination. I mean I am sure for a example a gay person wouldn't mind you saying that the Mardi Gras is a quite unseemly display, but he would you saying that all homosexuals must die or something.

Free speech. As long as the person doesn't say that they are going to personally kill all homosexuals, it's free speech.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

When you forget that black is a colour, and that fairies are a type of mythical creature. You've taken a wrong turn somewhere along the line.

It's a bullshit boogey man label people throw on things when they don't have any legitimate criticism or understanding of whats going on.

I agree for the most part, but I think there's really two uses of the word. One usage is the simple "don't be an ass in public," which no one should reject, and the other is more in reference to the "zero-tolerance" attitude towards people who don't obey political correctness in the first sense. I've seen that some people only really apply the PC label to cases where someone made an honest mistake or got angry - that sort of thing. The whole public apology tour that celebrities end up going on for using a slur, or something like that. :p In that case, it's kinda extreme on occasion.

PC is the biggest strawman ever constructed by Western Society.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

The basic idea of being politically correct--being more polite and respectful--is something I would like to see implemented.

Beyond that? Fuck it. Free speech is a lot more important than protecting someone from being offended.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

Because people hate that they can't say bigoted things.

Because, you know, they're bigoted.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

There number of objectionable points.

My two main objections are 1) that it is a coersive and illigitimate use of government force in an attempt to shape the marketplace of ideas and 2) that it can not acheive it's goals and has actually caused a blowback.

I think it's good to an extent. the concept makes people think twice about what comes out of their mouths. more conciousness is always a good thing. It gets out of hand when humour, casual exchanges, and just silliness is being policed for fear of offending anybody whatsoever.

I agree with this guy. Political correctness is generally a good idea, but sometimes it goes overboard. I can't tell you how many times a business or part of the government has decided to pull the plug on something because they're afraid it'll offend Muslims in the country.

Only to find out that the Muslims they were trying to not offend weren't really bothered by it in the first place. Many actually feel patronised by some of the PC.

There number of objectionable points.

My two main objections are 1) that it is a coersive and illigitimate use of government force in an attempt to shape the marketplace of ideas and 2) that it can not acheive it's goals and has actually caused a blowback.

Well PCness isn't necessarily a government legislated effort. Many attempts at PCness are actually manifested in the corporate marketplace.

Because people hate that they can't say bigoted things.

Because, you know, they're bigoted.

Surely the right to be a bigoted asshole is enshrined in the US constitution though? While I like the idea that everyone should be more polite to each other, I don't like it being required. I quite like my right to free speech.

Surely the right to be a bigoted asshole is enshrined in the US constitution though? While I like the idea that everyone should be more polite to each other, I don't like it being required. I quite like my right to free speech.

Ah, well, good that there aren't many (any?) PC laws then]

Most of the time, Political Correctness is enforced by good, decent American Citizens, not the big bad Government

PC is the biggest strawman ever constructed by Western Society.

Okay, there's your thesis. Supporting arguments?

Free speech is a wonderful thing, and its something il defend until my dieing day

but your liberty end where mine begins - free speech gives you the right to express your opinions, but if your opinions happen to be that you hate black people, or gay people, or anything else, then you deserve to get your head kicked in

Ah, well, good that there aren't many (any?) PC laws then]

Most of the time, Political Correctness is enforced by good, decent American Citizens, not the big bad Government


Who mentioned laws?

I'm refering to the rules enforced by other institutions such as employers.

However the UK does now have legislation in respect of hate speech.

Edit: Another thing, who gave 'good, decent American citizens' the right to decided which parts of the Constitution apply and which don't?

Who mentioned laws?

I'm refering to the rules enforced by other institutions such as employers.

However the UK does now have legislation in respect of hate speech.

Edit: Another thing, who gave 'good, decent American citizens' the right to decided which parts of the Constitution apply and which don't?

1) Employers usually don't enforce PCness strictly unless bigoted speech and actions are creating a problem in the workplace. If bigotry is creating a problem, isn't it a employer's responsibility to correct it?

2) You are free to express a bigoted attitude as much as you want to. Freedom of Speech still exist. People may not want to hear your bigoted attitude though, and thus, may react as they see fit. Thats their right to.

(Not saying you are bigoted, just speaking to actual bigoted people)

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

the phraise "political correctness" was coined by pseudo-conservatism PRECISELY to trivialize the only real morality there has ever been or will be.

=^^=
.../\...

1) Employers usually don't enforce PCness strictly unless bigoted speech and actions are creating a problem in the workplace. If bigotry is creating a problem, isn't it a employer's responsibility to correct it?

2) You are free to express a bigoted attitude as much as you want to. Freedom of Speech still exist. People may not want to hear your bigoted attitude though, and thus, may react as they see fit. Thats their right to.

(Not saying you are bigoted, just speaking to actual bigoted people)

Where do you work?

PC is a means to protects people who feel offended by facts.

the phraise "political correctness" was coined by pseudo-conservatism PRECISELY to trivialize the only real morality there has ever been or will be.And which morality is that?

Where do you work?

A...Target store in Kansas...but thats besides the point...

The point being, racial slurs and such cause problems in the workplace. Problems in the work place hurt 'productivity'. Therefore, most employers seek to rid themselves of a problem before it begins, and hence PC rules are applied.

Is it so much to ask people to be courteous to eachother?

A...Target store in Kansas...but thats besides the point...

The point being, racial slurs and such cause problems in the workplace. Problems in the work place hurt 'productivity'. Therefore, most employers seek to rid themselves of a problem before it begins, and hence PC rules are applied.

Is it so much to ask people to be courteous to eachother?

Actually I was hoping you worked in an office so I could go down the route of the agreement you generally have to sign to use the computer networks that tend to state all kinds of things you can't say via e-mail on pain of a disciplinary hearing.

PC is a means to protects people who feel offended by facts.

Facts like 'All Muslims are terrorists'?

like 'All blacks are uncivilized'?

PC is a means to protects people who feel offended by facts.

...But most bigoted notions have little to no factual basis behind them.

If they had facts to support them, they wouldn't be bigoted.

...But most bigoted notions have little to no factual basis behind them.

If they had facts to support them, they wouldn't be bigoted.

What I or you would define as facts if different from what bigots such as UB would.

Okay, there's your thesis. Supporting arguments?

I don't think you have to look further than all the asshats who blame PC whenever they face consequences for saying something bigoted.

Surely the right to be a bigoted asshole is enshrined in the US constitution though? While I like the idea that everyone should be more polite to each other, I don't like it being required. I quite like my right to free speech.

Sure is. :) Won't win you many friends or help you stay employed, though. :p

PC is a means to protects people who feel offended by facts.Facts like 'All Muslims are terrorists'?

like 'All blacks are uncivilized'?Maybe facts like 'There are more men with high IQ levels than women'?

Facts like 'All Muslims are terrorists'?

like 'All blacks are uncivilized'?What do such statements have to do with PC ?

What do such statements have to do with PC ?

Those statements would both be very un-PC.

Those statements would both be very un-PC.But that's not what PC means. PC means to use a (seemingly) neutral and unbiased choice of words when expressing something (sometimes by using euphemisms).

Political Correctness is a bad thing because it interferes with the free expression and communication of ideas and their survival or decline in the general populace.

A racist cannot be convinced he is wrong by refusing to speak or listen on the subject. He will simply assume everyone else is ignorant or oppressing him, and keep his words to himself or among those who think like him. His ideas will never be challenged, his concepts will never be corrected, and he will remain a racist.

Racism can only be opposed by the free and fair exchange of ideas. Incorporation and Racial Integration are, I believe, more powerful ideas than Separatism and Racial Segregation - but if they are protected from challenge by a barrier of political correctness, they cannot prove it so.

But that's not what PC means. PC means to use a (seemingly) neutral and unbiased choice of words when expressing something (sometimes by using euphemisms).

No, UB. That's an effect, not a cause. The essence of PC is to refuse to make any value judgements at all, in fear of offending someone.

But that's not what PC means. PC means to use a (seemingly) neutral and unbiased choice of words when expressing something (sometimes by using euphemisms).

That's also true. Better examples from that perspective might be:

Blind - instead of PC "vision-impaired"
Deaf - instead of "hearing-impaired"
Poor - instead of "less-fortunate"
Handicapped - instead of "differently-abled"

That kind of stuff. In cases where the PC alternative is only marginally or even questionably more polite, it's a shame to see someone lose their job or some such thing over using the wrong one.

That's also true. Better examples from that perspective might be:

Blind - instead of PC "vision-impaired"
Deaf - instead of "hearing-impaired"
Poor - instead of "less-fortunate"
Handicapped - instead of "differently-abled"

That kind of stuff. In cases where the PC alternative is only marginally or even questionably more polite, it's a shame to see someone lose their job or some such thing over using the wrong one.


Vision impaired,.... That is seriously going a stretch. What is insulting in a term such as blind? Or for that matter deaf. The term "hearing-impaired" doesn't make any sense, since they are not impaired, they cannot hear at all. So the term is potentially misleading.

The problem is words like poor, deaf, bastard and retard are all normal words to describe a state. They were not made out as insults. However since they describe a state of the body/person that is considered undesirable. Hence terms such as retard/bastard were used as insults. Even though these words are or better said were simply neutral terms to describe an aspect of someone. Such as "John was the bastard child of Claire and Tom." Nothing insulting in it, nor meant. It is simply professing a state. However due to people using the term bastard as an insult "stfu you bastard." The term all of a sudden becomes politically incorrect, since people now assume negative with it. It will be an unbreakable circle. Soon vision-impaired will be politically incorrect as soon as some people start using "get the f*** off my lawn you vision impaired freak."

No, UB. That's an effect, not a cause. The essence of PC is to refuse to make any value judgements at all, in fear of offending someone.That's what using neutral words means, right?

Vision impaired,.... That is seriously going a stretch. What is insulting in a term such as blind? Or for that matter deaf. The term "hearing-impaired" doesn't make any sense, since they are not impaired, they cannot hear at all. So the term is potentially misleading.


They're imprecise, probably. Both are commonly used, though. Saying "deaf" or "blind" at the wrong moment could cost you a job, potentially.

My favorite has to be "difference of opinion" rather than "fight" or "argument." Especially when used in political debate between two or more people who really hate each other. :p

That's what using neutral words means, right?

Not quite. PC attempts to impose neutral words as part of it's attempt to get us to not make the value judgements themselves. According to PC Theory, we are not allowed to make such judgements. To the true PC believer (and I've met a few), preventing a blind person from owning a driver's licence is oppression.

Most PC advocates aren't that extreme (or that stupid) of course. But the core of PC Theory remains one of systematically denying reality.

Because it stifles free speech. End of story.

oh the irony

One of my peeves is when the "PC police" try to turn an innocent phrase into an expression of racism. When I say "you people" I probably mean you Liberals. And I wasn't even thinking of color when I called a spade a spade.

There are nice examples of PC. If you try to get rid of language barrieres the PC is maybe positive. As certainly, some words are affected with a positive or negative touch indeed. But I believe PC is a shield in diplomacy where you can accuse a nation to ignore e.g. human rights with that nice words that (i) no-one is offended and (ii) you still can claim the accusement to be done. I hope some harder impact is done with such accusements. Why do we have trade and contracts with some despotes or corrupt regimes. The term "political corectness" is -for me- be correct and isolate those systems.

To be politically correct means attempting to deceive other people about your thoughts and attitudes by lying to them. It also means claiming to accept what authority figures say no matter how wrong they may be.

For example, for a Republican, being politically correct means claiming that George Bush was right when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, right when he decided to keep troops there for over four years, and right when he denied the existence of a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Of course, he's also right in telling us that there is no global warning, isn't he? Now, is being politically correct and supporting this incompetent, dishonest president a good idea? So much for political correctness.

To be politically correct means attempting to deceive other people about your thoughts and attitudes by lying to them. It also means claiming to accept what authority figures say no matter how wrong they may be.

For example, for a Republican, being politically correct means claiming that George Bush was right when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, right when he decided to keep troops there for over four years, and right when he denied the existence of a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Of course, he's also right in telling us that there is no global warning, isn't he? Now, is being politically correct and supporting this incompetent, dishonest president a good idea? So much for political correctness.
what global warning?

One of the problems I have with PC is that it forces politeness on people. You can no longer know who the racists and bigots are. They mantle themselves in neutral phrases. Whilst they might be spitting to lynch niggers, they might amicably use the term African-American and such now to avoid the immediate stigma associated with just straight out saying niggers. In my opinion I prefer it when I immediately know the person, instead of being played false because society demands it.

Political Correctness isn't a bad idea in theory, but it just doesn't work. The idea of being more polite is a good thing, but why slap a label on it? Why not just call it being more polite. Second, it abridges free speech, one of the top three rights, and third, people take it to extremes, such as changing ba-ba black sheep to ba-ba rainbow sheep to avoid offending blacks, someone in my school district challenged our Spanish department from teaching the Spanish word for black, negro, and this example that happened a few months ago.

Friend: how was your weekend?

Me: I had to spend it with my cousin

Friend: what's so bad about that?

Me: he's mentally retarded,

Girl next to us in line: YOU SHOUDNT CALL HIM RETARTED, IT'S INSULTING AND DEGRADING, HE'S SPECIAL NOT RETARTED, TRY BEING A LITTLE POLITE!!!!1

Me:............WTF?

first off, mentally retarded it the proper fucking medical term, calling some one who's mentally retarded special is like calling someone who has terminal cancer mildly ill.

/end rant.

Political correctness fails on 2 fronts for me.
1.It's thinly veiled racism and an attempt to keep the country segregated and fractured instead of united as one.(You'll notice there is no PC term for White People.We're just Americans while every other group is tagged with a modifier to let you know they are not pure Americans.)

2.It can't be applied universally to everyone.
Here's what I mean.African-American is the most commonly used term,and implies the person is of African Ancestry.Easy right.
Charlize Theron was raised in South Africa and now lives in America so she is African-American.Actress Thandie Newton's father is from England and her mother is from Zimbabwe so she would be.....What exactly?African-British,African-American-British?Halle Berry and Mariah Carey are mixed so they are...? Maybe we need to go with Rosario Dawson to keep it simple.She's got Puerto Rican,Cuban,African,Irish and American Indian ancestry so she's Native-Hispanic-African-Irish American right?
In a country that's seeing the lines between racial groups blur more and more everyday PC is just another example of how behind the times we really are.

By and large "political correctness" is a bogeyman, just basic decency and politeness by another name.

But there are instances where it's gotten out of hand. Like giving a second grader a detention for asking "does she have a mustache?" when looking at a portrait of a Mexican woman. Entirely uncalled for in that situation. Now, don't get me wrong, instances like this are the exception to the rule, but they still occur.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

Most people don't dislike the idea of being polite, they dislike the idea of sweeping the truth under the rug in favor of politeness.

There are concerns about the way it effects objective science and reporting, but my main concern is that it doesn't combat racism or sexism, it just removes it from the public eye.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

In a nutshell, right-wingers object to it because it takes away their God-given right to be offensive.

That's also true. Better examples from that perspective might be:

Blind - instead of PC "vision-impaired"
Deaf - instead of "hearing-impaired"
Poor - instead of "less-fortunate"
Handicapped - instead of "differently-abled"

That kind of stuff. In cases where the PC alternative is only marginally or even questionably more polite, it's a shame to see someone lose their job or some such thing over using the wrong one.

Personally, I don't like to be called either handicapped or differently-abled.

Political correctness fails on 2 fronts for me.
1.It's thinly veiled racism and an attempt to keep the country segregated and fractured instead of united as one.(You'll notice there is no PC term for White People.We're just Americans while every other group is tagged with a modifier to let you know they are not pure Americans.)

2.It can't be applied universally to everyone.
Here's what I mean.African-American is the most commonly used term,and implies the person is of African Ancestry.Easy right.
Charlize Theron was raised in South Africa and now lives in America so she is African-American.Actress Thandie Newton's father is from England and her mother is from Zimbabwe so she would be.....What exactly?African-British,African-American-British?Halle Berry and Mariah Carey are mixed so they are...? Maybe we need to go with Rosario Dawson to keep it simple.She's got Puerto Rican,Cuban,African,Irish and American Indian ancestry so she's Native-Hispanic-African-Irish American right?
In a country that's seeing the lines between racial groups blur more and more everyday PC is just another example of how behind the times we really are.

Your US-centrismis is disgustig. The concept of PC is not limited to the US.

That's also true. Better examples from that perspective might be:

Blind - instead of PC "vision-impaired"

Vision impaired is not a euphemism for blindness. Check out wikipedia:

Visual impairment or vision impairment is vision loss that constitutes a significant limitation of visual capability resulting from disease, trauma, or a congenital or degenerative condition that cannot be corrected by conventional means, including refractive correction, medication, or surgery.[1][2][3] This functional loss of vision is typically defined to manifest with 1) best corrected visual acuity of less than 20/60, or significant central field defect, 2) significant peripheral field defect including homonymous or heteronymous bilateral visual field defect or generalized contraction or constriction of field, or 3) reduced peak contrast sensitivity either of the above conditions.[1][2][3] [4]

According to the U.S. [5], "the terms partially sighted, low vision, legally blind, and totally blind are used in the educational context to describe students with visual impairments. They are defined as follows:

1. Partially sighted indicates some type of visual problem has resulted in a need for special education;
2. Low vision generally refers to a severe visual impairment, not necessarily limited to distance vision. Low vision applies to all individuals with sight who are unable to read the newspaper at a normal viewing distance, even with the aid of eyeglasses or contact lenses. They use a combination of vision and other senses to learn, although they may require adaptations in lighting or the size of print, and, sometimes, braille;
1. Myopic - unable to see distant objects clearly, commonly called near-sighted or short-sighted
2. Hyperopic - unable to see close objects clearly, commonly called far-sighted or long-sighted
3. Legally blind indicates that a person has less than 20/200 vision in the better eye or a very limited field of vision (20 degrees at its widest point); and
4. Totally blind students learn via braille or other non-visual media.



Deaf - instead of "hearing-impaired"

Similarly, Hearing impairment is a full or partial decrease in the ability to detect or understand sounds. It's not just a euphemism for "deafness."

Poor - instead of "less-fortunate"

Ok, that's a euphemism, but does anyone outside of 19th century Britian use it?

Personally, I don't like to be called either handicapped or differently-abled.

Then if you told me that I would tailor my use of word to the one you prefer. Does that mean that everyone minds though?

Personally, I don't like to be called either handicapped or differently-abled.But "special" ?

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

I don't see how trying to avoid calling someone black as if there is something wrong with it is polite.

I don't see how banning private prayer from school is polite.

I don't see how getting rid of many customs and traditions is nescecerry, just because it has vague religious connotations, and offends one in a million people.

etc...

Political correctness fails on 2 fronts for me.
1.It's thinly veiled racism and an attempt to keep the country segregated and fractured instead of united as one.(You'll notice there is no PC term for White People.We're just Americans while every other group is tagged with a modifier to let you know they are not pure Americans.)



Caucasian.

I don't see how banning private prayer from school is polite.Well, it prevents kids from wasting some of their precious life time.

Well, it prevents kids from wasting some of their precious life time.

90% of the crap kids do can be called a waste.

Caucasian.Brown people?

I don't see how trying to avoid calling someone black as if there is something wrong with it is polite.

Do people actually refrain from calling someone black anymore?

I don't see how banning private prayer from school is polite.

Is private prayer banned from school?

I don't see how getting rid of many customs and traditions is nescecerry, just because it has vague religious connotations, and offends one in a million people.


What traditions and custorms are removed of because of vague religious connotations?

Brown people?

Crackers

Do people actually refrain from calling someone black anymore?


They used to, when PC became really popular. A lot of people still do try to avoid it, using words like "african american" etc...


Is private prayer banned from school?


Used to be.


What traditions and custorms are removed of because of vague religious connotations?

Many songs can't be sung anymore in school (in the UK), because they have christian themes. As well as many other stories and plays, including the nativity play (yes I know it's incredibly christian, but who gives a shit?).

They used to, when PC became really popular. A lot of people still do try to avoid it, using words like "african american" etc...



Used to be.



Many songs can't be sung anymore in school (in the UK), because they have christian themes. As well as many other stories and plays, including the nativity play (yes I know it's incredibly christian, but who gives a shit?).

Links? I had to go to assembly once a week where prayers were said, etc, when I was at school.

Links? I had to go to assembly once a week where prayers were said, etc, when I was at school.

As I said this sort of shit doesn't tend to happen much anymore, but if you ever watched the news you must have seen a few examples. I'll try and find links.

Edit: oh also my mums a music teacher and she isn't allowed to use songs with christian themes.

Edit: oh also my mums a music teacher and she isn't allowed to use songs with christian themes.

Good.

As I said this sort of shit doesn't tend to happen much anymore, but if you ever watched the news you must have seen a few examples. I'll try and find links.

Edit: oh also my mums a music teacher and she isn't allowed to use songs with christian themes.

Link please. Its more concrete as an argument. Not to mention that removing Christian themes from the classroom does not equal banning private prayer

...oh also my mums a music teacher and she isn't allowed to use songs with christian themes.Good. Why would your mum do something as weird as that anyways?

Good.

Oh yeah because it's upholding the principles of "teh seperation of church and state" :rolleyes:. Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Oh yeah because it's upholding the principles of "teh seperation of church and state" :rolleyes:. Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

It doesn't? Evidence please

Oh yeah because it's upholding the principles of "teh seperation of church and state" :rolleyes:. Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Yes it does. What is hard to understand about that?

It doesn't? Evidence please

Firstly, seperation of church and state is about restricting the church from exercising any political power, as well as restricting the state from having any power. Obviously a little innocent song,that no one but boring and whining fucktards give a shit about, exercises any power.

It can also be interpreted as stopping one religion getting promoted over another, but again many other songs are also used which have other non christian religious themes. The themes are so vague, and the arbritrary ideas about what is and what isn't promoting a religion is so subjective, that again no one gives a shit but boring whining fucktards.

Firstly, seperation of church and state is about restricting the church from exercising any political power, as well as restricting the state from having any power. Obviously a little innocent song,that no one but boring and whining fucktards give a shit about, exercises any power.

It can also be interpreted as stopping one religion getting promoted over another, but again many other songs are also used which have other non christian religious themes. The themes are so vague, and the arbritrary ideas about what is and what isn't promoting a religion is so subjective, that again no one gives a shit but boring whining fucktards.

Other non-christian themes? So i'm assuming your mother also has some nice islamic songs perhaps? maybe some jewish ones? Buddhist chanting? and in equal amounts?

Ad hominum attacks? Very sophisticated argument they are indeed

Firstly, seperation of church and state is about restricting the church from exercising any political power, as well as restricting the state from having any power. Obviously a little innocent song,that no one but boring and whining fucktards give a shit about, exercises any power.

It can also be interpreted as stopping one religion getting promoted over another, but again many other songs are also used which have other non christian religious themes. The themes are so vague, and the arbritrary ideas about what is and what isn't promoting a religion is so subjective, that again no one gives a shit but boring whining fucktards.

I'd like to find comfort in the fact that when I send my kid to a public school he/she won't be subject to learning or singing about religion in any way that is not purely academic. Private schools can dip their fingers in that shit all they want.

Links? I had to go to assembly once a week where prayers were said, etc, when I was at school.
Hell, a few years ago when I was at primary school prayer and hynms were forced on everyone, and that's in a 'secular' state school. Interestingly, of all that I still know of who went to sixth form, all are now atheists.

Other non-christian themes? So i'm assuming your mother also has some nice islamic songs perhaps? maybe some jewish ones? Buddhist chanting? and in equal amounts?


Again, no she doesn't include every world religion as it's absurd to expect a teacher to do so.


Ad hominum attacks? Very sophisticated argument they are indeed

Of course it isn't sophisticated, anyone (not targeting you) who is actually as boring and whiney as someone who complains about their school having meaningless, irellavent nursery songs is not sophisticated so I don't have to treat them as such.

Of course it isn't sophisticated, anyone (not targeting you) who is actually as boring and whiney as someone who complains about their school having meaningless, irellavent nursery songs is not sophisticated so I don't have to treat them as such.
Am I being targeted?

Goody!

Again, no she doesn't include every world religion as it's absurd to expect a teacher to do so.


Then stop teaching any so that none takes precedence over another, especially in a class that doesn't have a teacher qualified to teach them


Of course it isn't sophisticated, anyone (not targeting you) who is actually as boring and whiney as someone who complains about their school having meaningless, irellavent nursery songs is not sophisticated so I don't have to treat them as such.

How nice of you

Am I being targeted?

Goody!

I'm not targetting anyone on NSG.

I'm not targetting anyone on NSG.

That is very pc of you.

Oh yeah because it's upholding the principles of "teh seperation of church and state" :rolleyes:. Even though it has absolutely nothing to do with that.Why trouble kids' minds with a death cult like Christianity?

Then stop teaching any so that none takes precedence over another, especially in a class that doesn't have a teacher qualified to teach them


How could you possibly know if she is qualified or not. Just because someone learns a song doesn't mean that a bunch of five year olds will then believe christianity is the one true religion. A meaningless song just makes it look more meaningless. It would have to take some strange form of insanity to believe some nonsensicle idea like that.


How nice of you

How nice of them to (almost) sue.

Again, no she doesn't include every world religion as it's absurd to expect a teacher to do so.



Of course it isn't sophisticated, anyone (not targeting you) who is actually as boring and whiney as someone who complains about their school having meaningless, irellavent nursery songs is not sophisticated so I don't have to treat them as such.

Justifying an Ad Hominem with an Ad Hominem.........

Why trouble kids' minds with a death cult like Christianity?

What an extremely un PC thing to say, I guess your not mad about PC either.

How could you possibly know if she is qualified or not. Just because someone learns a song doesn't mean that a bunch of five year olds will then believe christianity is the one true religion. A meaningless song just makes it look more meaningless. It would have to take some strange form of insanity to believe some nonsensicle idea like that.




Meaningless songs, if I understand the term at all, cannot possibly have one of the world's major religions as an underlying theme.

Justifying an Ad Hominem with an Ad Hominem.........

Oh save me from your ultra clever analytical skills :rolleyes:

What an extremely un PC thing to say, I guess your not mad about PC either.

Oh, it's allowed to bash Christianity. It's just un-PC to do the same with Islam (or anything else).

Meaningless songs, if I understand the term at all, cannot possibly have one of the world's major religions as an underlying theme.

Yes it can. It's a nursery rhyme, sung for it's melody and ease of words.

Oh, it's allowed to bash Christianity. It's just un-PC to do the same with Islam (or anything else).

I try not to bash any religion unless they interfere with my life directly. Then I make fun of them.

Yes it can. It's a nursery rhyme, sung for it's melody and ease of words.

There are literally an infinite number of childrens songs that can be chosen for it's melody and ease of words that have nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. If only religious songs had simple melodies and ease of words, I'd be compelled to agree with your stance.

Meaningless songs, if I understand the term at all, cannot possibly have one of the world's major religions as an underlying theme.oh yes they can.

There are literally an infinite number of childrens songs that can be chosen for it's melody and ease of words that have nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. If only religious songs had simple melodies and ease of words, I'd be compelled to agree with your stance.

Theres thousands of nursery songs that you probably don't know about them being christian. My mum doesn't choose songs based on the religion. The song that a family threatened to sue over most people didn't even realise was christian.

oh yes they can.

Huzzah?

I try not to bash any religion unless they interfere with my life directly. Then I make fun of them.Do you hear church bells from where you live?

How could you possibly know if she is qualified or not. Just because someone learns a song doesn't mean that a bunch of five year olds will then believe christianity is the one true religion. A meaningless song just makes it look more meaningless.It would have to take some strange form of insanity to believe some nonsensicle idea like that.


She's a music teacher you said. I don't see that as being qualified to teach Religious Education.

I try not to bash any religion unless they interfere with my life directly. Then I make fun of them.

So i'm guessing you bash Christianity and Islam quite alot, since they interfere directly.

Theres thousands of nursery songs that you probably don't know about them being christian. My mum doesn't choose songs based on the religion. The song that a family threatened to sue over most people didn't even realise was christian.

Which song? Not that an unfair law suit has anything to do with allowing Christian songs to be taught in music class

She's a music teacher you said. I don't see that as being qualified to teach Religious Education.

So old macdonal is actually agricultral education, as it's a song about farming?

She's a music teacher you said. I don't see that as being qualified to teach Religious Education.Most RE teachers I've known aren't qualified to teach Religious Education.

So old macdonal is actually agricultral education, as it's a song about farming?

Farming is a belief system with a set list of rules to live your life by?

Most RE teachers I've known aren't qualified to teach Religious Education.
That's true...

Most RE teachers I've known aren't qualified to teach Religious Education.

True :p

Farming is a belief system with a set list of rules to live your life by?

Thats irellavent. Why does the nature of the subject have an impact on whether you are teaching it or not. It is no more logical to say that "old macdonald" is teaching farming as "three wise men" is teaching religion.

I think there was a really lengthy thread on this recently. ;)

As for PC, I think it's just that people don't like to see it misapplied - people fired for saying something the *wrong* way, rather than for what they actually said, etc. Nothing's wrong with politeness, though.

Yeah. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it isn't. In a children's book, the word Evil in the title was replaced with Naughty. Lolz.

Because it stifles free speech. End of story.

PC mandates what you can and cannot say and it has crept its way into free societies everywhere. Forcing equality upon a society only degrades its freedoms. Despite what the US Constitution says (saying this as I am American), all men are not born equal. However, we here are born free. If you want total equality you have to remove freedom and if you want total freedom you have to remove equality. There is a balance between the two, which every democratic society should find but PC is not the answer it is pushing towards equality over freedom and I'd rather be free.

Thats irellavent. Why does the nature of the subject have an impact on whether you are teaching it or not. It is no more logical to say that "old macdonald" is teaching farming as "three wise men" is teaching religion.

So what you are debating is the effectiveness of subliminal (not exactly the correct usage of the word I think but the best I could think of) learning?

So i'm guessing you bash Christianity and Islam quite alot, since they interfere directly.

When called for.

Edit: Want to read a funny article? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38673

Do you hear church bells from where you live?

Yep. Freedom of expression is not what I'm against, given the proper place and setting. Would you be enraged if you heard Islamic chanting from where you live?

And please, don't teach my kids how to ring those bells.

Then if you told me that I would tailor my use of word to the one you prefer. Does that mean that everyone minds though?

But "special" ?

Personally, I prefer to be called by my name.

Personally, I prefer to be called by my name.

So reserved parking spaces for those with handicaps should be given the title of what exactly?

I would call you your name obviously but if I had to refer to your handicap / disability / whatever, what word would you prefer I use

First off I'm American-centric because I'm American and don't know what the foreign PC terms are.Secondly christian overtones SHOULD be removed from schools because of seperation of church and state.The constitution was not built on Christian ideals it was built to prevent the head of the country from being head of the church as well(The situation in England at the time)As people over here are finding out if you teach Creationism in a multi-belief country you have to teach EVERY religion's story as fact not just your own.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.
The people who say "political correctness" as if it were a slur are the people who resent being called a racist after they've spent an entire cocktail party telling jokes about lazy Mexicans and thieving blacks.

Some people think "free speech" means that they are free to say anything they wish without consequences of any sort. Some folks like to cry "OPPRESSION!!" if somebody tells them to knock it off and quit acting like a jackass.

It's normal to be embarrassed when you fuck up and somebody calls you on it. What isn't okay is to then turn around and cry about how you're being repressed because you said something stupid and other people noticed.

The people who say "political correctness" as if it were a slur are the people who resent being called a racist after they've spent an entire cocktail party telling jokes about lazy Mexicans and thieving blacks.

Some people think "free speech" means that they are free to say anything they wish without consequences of any sort. Some folks like to cry "OPPRESSION!!" if somebody tells them to knock it off and quit acting like a jackass.

It's normal to be embarrassed when you fuck up and somebody calls you on it. What isn't okay is to then turn around and cry about how you're being repressed because you said something stupid and other people noticed.

Indeed, free speech does not entail receiving a license to be an asshat in public. I resent all the ultra-libertarian views on this subject, you can say whatever you want about free-speech, but some people are just bigoted in the extreme.

Indeed, free speech does not entail receiving a license to be an asshat in public.
I think free speech does mean you have the right to be an asshat in public...but it also means that everybody else has the right to call you an asshat. They have the right to never invite you to the party again. They have the right to tell you (and each other) that you're an asshat.

All the true anti-PC folks I've met end up being crybabies when you get right down to it. They're big enough to go around saying offensive things for attention and shock value, but they're not big enough to take the heat that comes with it. They whine and cry because other people aren't laughing at their lousy, tired, unfunny racist jokes.

I think free speech does mean you have the right to be an asshat in public...but it also means that everybody else has the right to call you an asshat. They have the right to never invite you to the party again. They have the right to tell you (and each other) that you're an asshat.

All the true anti-PC folks I've met end up being crybabies when you get right down to it. They're big enough to go around saying offensive things for attention and shock value, but they're not big enough to take the heat that comes with it. They whine and cry because other people aren't laughing at their lousy, tired, unfunny racist jokes.

I disagree to a certain extent, anti-PC government stances foster anti-social and intolerant attitude and activity in the community which do not contribute to either the political debate surrounding the issue/s. I am all for people voicing their opinions in the appropriate venue and time, and in a respectful manner, but going in public and screaming racist or the like things is anti-social and unproductive, and paramount to public obscenity and disruption, which laws exist for. I believe in free-speech if it's done appropriately in a way that allows opposing views and counterpoint rebuttal to be made, not in hostile illegal manner.

I disagree to a certain extent, anti-PC government stances foster anti-social and intolerant attitude and activity in the community which do not contribute to either the political debate surrounding the issue/s. I am all for people voicing their opinions in the appropriate venue and time, and in a respectful manner, but going in public and screaming racist or the like things is anti-social and unproductive, and paramount to public obscenity and disruption, which laws exist for. I believe in free-speech if it's done appropriately in a way that allows opposing views and counterpoint rebuttal to be made, not in hostile illegal manner.
Hm.

I see where you are coming from. I certainly am revolted by some of the crap that is allowed to hijack American political discourse.

On the other hand, though, I don't like the idea of LEGALLY trying to ban any behavior or speech which is considered "unproductive" or "anti-social." I've participated in protests which disrupted business and were profoundly hostile, yet I believe they were for just causes.

I also don't think there are two equal sides to every issue. I think that notion is one of the biggest piles of crap in current American politics. It's like the "debate" between Creationism and evolutionary biology; it is crap to pretend that you have two equal and opposing views which deserve equal consideration, when what you've really got is one well-established and reasonable position versus a bunch of loud, ignorant saps who put more energy into demanding attention than they put into actually having something approaching a valid counterargument. I don't believe it's productive to have "counterpoint rebuttal" in all discussions, because that gives far too much credibility to the petulant tantrums that comprise one "side" of the discussion.

Hm.

I see where you are coming from. I certainly am revolted by some of the crap that is allowed to hijack American political discourse.

On the other hand, though, I don't like the idea of LEGALLY trying to ban any behavior or speech which is considered "unproductive" or "anti-social." I've participated in protests which disrupted business and were profoundly hostile, yet I believe they were for just causes.

I also don't think there are two equal sides to every issue. I think that notion is one of the biggest piles of crap in current American politics. It's like the "debate" between Creationism and evolutionary biology; it is crap to pretend that you have two equal and opposing views which deserve equal consideration, when what you've really got is one well-established and reasonable position versus a bunch of loud, ignorant saps who put more energy into demanding attention than they put into actually having something approaching a valid counterargument. I don't believe it's productive to have "counterpoint rebuttal" in all discussions, because that gives far too much credibility to the petulant tantrums that comprise one "side" of the discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I am not like advocating restriction on freedom of speech, I just advocate a new kind of consensus polity discussion in communities on such issues, not the divisive kind of displays mentioned. I think it needs to be said that by demonizing your opposition from distance your only creating the 'two warring camps' and making the situation worst. I believe personally in a return to 'town hall meetings' kind of devolved politics in which policy is discussed in a practical way where everyone gets the opportunity to voice opinion and to reach consensus.

I believe that to a greater degree the loud noises in politics are from the racist extremists, tiny minorities, and they represent like nothing of the voting public, if discussion was done in aforementioned way then those views would be drowned out in the sea of moderation, and those bigots would get the attention comparative to their size, meaning basically nothing, it's the bigots who make the news, not when a community decides moderately on an issue of concern to all of them. Giving power to the common power is the key to defeating extreme minorities with disproportionate attention.

I totally agree with though on those comments regarding creationism etc, having equal based media which covers news according to the support given to it will bring true democracy.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

PC is all well and good, and I don't think it is PC in and of itself that causes any ill will but stupid things done in the name of PC.

An example:

Here in Britain about 10 odd years ago, the PC brigade got mightly upset over some books in school librarys. One of the worst was that tome well known to be a fave of the bigoted right wing, and used freqently as a manual of propergander to turn the heads of the young and impressionable. That is right I'm talking about 'Baa baa black sheep'

They called for the removal of this book from schools on the grounds that it is offensive to black people?

Being PC has since come to mean having a fluffy liberal mindset untempered with any sort of common sense, and rightly so these people get lambasted wherever they go.

By all mean treat other people with the respect that you would like to be treated, but if I catch you sneaking into a school in the dead of night to remove 'Baa baa black sheep' then I am going to point and laugh at you, whats more I'll call all of my friends in to do the same.

Don't get me wrong, I am not like advocating restriction on freedom of speech, I just advocate a new kind of consensus polity discussion in communities on such issues, not the divisive kind of displays mentioned. I think it needs to be said that by demonizing your opposition from distance your only creating the 'two warring camps' and making the situation worst. I believe personally in a return to 'town hall meetings' kind of devolved politics in which policy is discussed in a practical way where everyone gets the opportunity to voice opinion and to reach consensus.

Ahh! Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about legal restrictions on speech, in the interests of preserving debate or something along those lines.


I believe that to a greater degree the loud noises in politics are from the racist extremists, tiny minorities, and they represent like nothing of the voting public, if discussion was done in aforementioned way then those views would be drowned out in the sea of moderation, and those bigots would get the attention comparative to their size, meaning basically nothing, it's the bigots who make the news, not when a community decides moderately on an issue of concern to all of them.

Yee gods, but that's true of America. The overwhelming majority of actual Americans support equal legal rights for gay citizens, yet we still have a "debate" over whether gay people should be allowed to enjoy legal unions. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the decision about whether or not to have an abortion should be left up to the individual, NOT decided by the government, yet we still have a "debate" over legally banning abortion. Hell, the majority of the American public wants out of Iraq, but we still have a "debate" over what "the people" want. It's crazy to watch the mainstream media in our country create "debates" like this.


Giving power to the common power is the key to defeating extreme minorities with disproportionate attention.
You've gotta remember, though, that freedom of speech is also about making sure that the majority doesn't rule. Unpopular, uncommon, minority views are the ones that the majority is most eager to silence, but freedom of speech is about ensuring that no majority can remove the fundamental rights of the minority.

Ahh! Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about legal restrictions on speech, in the interests of preserving debate or something along those lines.


Yee gods, but that's true of America. The overwhelming majority of actual Americans support equal legal rights for gay citizens, yet we still have a "debate" over whether gay people should be allowed to enjoy legal unions. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the decision about whether or not to have an abortion should be left up to the individual, NOT decided by the government, yet we still have a "debate" over legally banning abortion. Hell, the majority of the American public wants out of Iraq, but we still have a "debate" over what "the people" want. It's crazy to watch the mainstream media in our country create "debates" like this.


You've gotta remember, though, that freedom of speech is also about making sure that the majority doesn't rule. Unpopular, uncommon, minority views are the ones that the majority is most eager to silence, but freedom of speech is about ensuring that no majority can remove the fundamental rights of the minority.

I disagree with the last bit, human liberty gives everyone equal rights and standing from birth, the idea that someone can get more public attention because they hold a minority view, more attention than any other citizen would for their opinions no matter what they were, it elitist at best and dangerous. Everyone deserves equal share in the polity.

I disagree with the last bit, human liberty gives everyone equal rights and standing from birth, the idea that someone can get more public attention because they hold a minority view, more attention than any other citizen would for their opinions no matter what they were, it elitist at best and dangerous. Everyone deserves equal share in the polity.

Which is what freedom of speech ensures. People don't get attention because the espouse a minority view or a majority view; they get attention for the ways and meaqns they express their views. Freedom of speech ensures that everyone has the right to put their position forward for consideration.

Without it, all you have is dictatorship by the majority, or more succinctly, mob rule.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

I think the general objection stems (in the US) from the idea that only one party lays claim to it, and uses it as a stick to beat on the other party.

If it were truly a generic term for "doing the right thing", then both parties could be equal users of it.

It also is used as a slur by the party that gets beat by it - to beat on the party that claims its righteousness.

I disagree with the last bit, human liberty gives everyone equal rights and standing from birth, the idea that someone can get more public attention because they hold a minority view, more attention than any other citizen would for their opinions no matter what they were, it elitist at best and dangerous.

Nobody, majority or minority, is entitled to attention. We absolutely do not guarantee all citizens equal "right" to attention, because no such right exists.

You have the right to say what you want. You don't have any "right" to have people listen. If nobody feels like listening to you, then you get no attention. If people feel like listening, you get attention.

PC is all well and good, and I don't think it is PC in and of itself that causes any ill will but stupid things done in the name of PC.

An example:

Here in Britain about 10 odd years ago, the PC brigade got mightly upset over some books in school librarys. One of the worst was that tome well known to be a fave of the bigoted right wing, and used freqently as a manual of propergander to turn the heads of the young and impressionable. That is right I'm talking about 'Baa baa black sheep'

They called for the removal of this book from schools on the grounds that it is offensive to black people?

Being PC has since come to mean having a fluffy liberal mindset untempered with any sort of common sense, and rightly so these people get lambasted wherever they go.

By all mean treat other people with the respect that you would like to be treated, but if I catch you sneaking into a school in the dead of night to remove 'Baa baa black sheep' then I am going to point and laugh at you, whats more I'll call all of my friends in to do the same.
Okay, let's sort out one of the biggest "pc gone mad!" myths.

What happened was that 2 nurseries decided to have children use various different adjectivies in the nursery rhyme to make it a bit more varied and interesting.

Two nurseries out of the whole of Britain, (plus (according to the mail) another couple).

And the adjectives chosen were not motivated by anything to do with race, preventing offense or anything of the sort.

Below is the BBC article on it. And then the article by the Daily Mail (:rolleyes:) which twisted it beyond belief and caused this whole fuss.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4782856.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=379114&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true

So, once and for all:

Baa Baa Black sheep has been banned nowhere in Britain.
The only alterations made to it were in about FOUR nurseries/schools.
These alterations were not motivated by race or political correctness.
It is a MYTH.

And, just for the record:

There is no "PC brigade".

There is no "PC brigade".

You know, even if there was, one wonders why so many people are getting upset about it. I mean a brigade only has what, 4000, 5000 troops? Surely the "anti-PC" crowd can self-righteously dredge up at least a couple dozen divisions, no?

You know, even if there was, one wonders why so many people are getting upset about it. I mean a brigade only has what, 4000, 5000 troops? Surely the "anti-PC" crowd can self-righteously dredge up at least a couple dozen divisions, no?

Yeah, like the "vast right-wing conspiracy"...

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mdownes/bdhome/csm1.jpg

Nobody, majority or minority, is entitled to attention. We absolutely do not guarantee all citizens equal "right" to attention, because no such right exists.

You have the right to say what you want. You don't have any "right" to have people listen. If nobody feels like listening to you, then you get no attention. If people feel like listening, you get attention.

QFT

Which, I might add, is also an excellent point relating to the "Equal Time" radio controversy.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

PC is a bad thing because while I do believe that proponents of it are genuinely seeking to encourage people to shun racism, etc, this method is NOT the right way to go about it.

Have you ever read George Orwell's 1984? If so, have you read the appendix on Newspeak? For those who haven't, Newspeak is an Government-promoted simplification of language designed to make it difficult for individuals to express subversive thoughts. The belief is that if a person can't express an idea in words, they can't fully develop it and thus the Government can, in a literal sense, control how people think.

I invite you to look again at the OP's opening statement. "if it makes us..." The comparison there is a bit creepy. (Andaras Prime, I know you don't mean to endorse mind control, I'm just using that as an illustration.)

I think people bristle at the idea of Political Correctness because we, as individuals, prefer to decide for ourselves what the best words to use are, and as adults we can handle it if someone says something that is offensive to us. We don't want or need to be told by others whether our use of the language is "Correct."

Lord knows we got enough of that in school.

Nobody, majority or minority, is entitled to attention. We absolutely do not guarantee all citizens equal "right" to attention, because no such right exists.

You have the right to say what you want. You don't have any "right" to have people listen. If nobody feels like listening to you, then you get no attention. If people feel like listening, you get attention.

QFT

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

Restraint of free speech. Living in fear that you might say something that offends someone, when everyone these days is offended by everything. Have you noticed that the only people about whom we're allowed, even encouraged, to offend are white, Christian, conservative men? (For the record, I'm a white, agnostic, moderate woman). PC is silly. You can't express even an informed opinion because it might offend someone. You can't speak the truth because it might offend someone. Thinking before you speak is one thing, being afraid to speak is another.

Restraint of free speech. Living in fear that you might say something that offends someone, when everyone these days is offended by everything. Have you noticed that the only people about whom we're allowed, even encouraged, to offend are white, Christian, conservative men? (For the record, I'm a white, agnostic, moderate woman). PC is silly. You can't express even an informed opinion because it might offend someone. You can't speak the truth because it might offend someone. Thinking before you speak is one thing, being afraid to speak is another.

In a healthy society, people should be afraid of the social repercussions of bigoted speech.

You have a right to free speech. That doesn't mean your speech has to be respected.

In a healthy society, people should be afraid of the social repercussions of bigoted speech.

You have a right to free speech. That doesn't mean your speech has to be respected.

True. But your speech should be respected or shunned due to it's content, not because it uses the correct formula and verbiage.

In a healthy society, people should be afraid of the social repercussions of bigoted speech.

You have a right to free speech. That doesn't mean your speech has to be respected.

In a healthy society, you should not be afraid to open your mouth because, no matter what you say, someone will be offended.

When Bill Cosby made his comments about the problems of African-American youth, even though they were true, he was denounced. This was not bigoted speech, yet he was treated as if it were. The man is intelligent and educated. His comments were informed, yet he was treated with contempt and vilified. This is PC at it's worst - when you don't just ignore the truth, you spit on it.

In a healthy society, you should not be afraid to open your mouth because, no matter what you say, someone will be offended.

When Bill Cosby made his comments about the problems of African-American youth, even though they were true, he was denounced. This was not bigoted speech, yet he was treated as if it were. The man is intelligent and educated. His comments were informed, yet he was treated with contempt and vilified. This is PC at it's worst - when you don't just ignore the truth, you spit on it.

Not only that, but people who disagree with yuor message might easily pick out a few words that might not be considered PC and shift the focus of the argument from the content of your words to a meaningless debate over syntax and whether or not you're a bigot.

I've seen that tactic used a number of times. Most distasteful but when you have a society that thinks PC is a good thing, people WILL take advantage of it.

Yanno, maybe that's a better way to put it... Political Correctness wrongly switches the focus of our discussion from the meaning to the syntax, and that can only degrade communication and understanding, not enhance it.

So it doesn't have such a good name, but why is this? I mean if it makes us shun racism, sexism and other bigoted and intolerant things, why do people to say 'political correctness' as a bad thing, if it does nothing it makes us more polite.

First the idea that somebody should be made polite is a little scary although it may be appropriate at times.

Second, political correctness in education and the workplace discriminates against people with certain racial or religious views. This is unacceptable in a free society. One of the reasons to protect free speech is that since no man is omniscient, all perspectives need to be protected in order for there to be a proper discourse. Nobody's views should be considered "out-of-bounds" and punished.

Third, political correctness is often applied in a bizarre and unjust manner. An example was a student who was expelled from a PC school for getting upset at a bunch of students who happened to be black who were causing a lot of noise near his dorm room. He told them that they were being as loud as a bunch of water buffalos and he would appreciate it if they would quiet down so as not to interfere with his studying. Some foolish school administrator considered this somehow racist because that administrator thought that water buffalos are from Africa and so were the ancestors of the black students. Well the fact that water buffalos are actualy from Asia and Australia did not reverse the decision to expel the student. For some reason I think that this happened in UCLA but I am not sure.

Fourth, political correctness is cumbersome and apparently in flux. What one day is considered acceptable is soon to be considered offensive to the PC folks even though there is no one head of the PC movement to determine which words of the day are ok to use or are unacceptable. For example, Colored is acceptable one day but then it should be Negro then neither are ok and it should be Black and that Black is not ok and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Fifth, the whole doctrine is associated with some pretty slimy types of folks like elitists, radical college professionals, gay activists, feminists, and others that do not exactly give it a lot of respectability in the eyes of the average Joe. Along similar lines the very name itself sounds pretty scary and undemocratic.

However, if political correctness were simply the idea that it is not cool to go up to a colored guy and call him a "******" or go up to a Jew and tell him that "the Nazis should have killed all the dirty Jews when they had the chance (by the way someone actually told me that straight to my Jewish face) then yeah it might be a good idea although I am personally glad when someone demostrates their complete nincompoopery so I know to stay away from them. Unfortunately, PC goes way beyond that.

Not only that, but people who disagree with yuor message might easily pick out a few words that might not be considered PC and shift the focus of the argument from the content of your words to a meaningless debate over syntax and whether or not you're a bigot.

I've seen that tactic used a number of times. Most distasteful but when you have a society that thinks PC is a good thing, people WILL take advantage of it.

No doubt you are right.

In a healthy society, people should be afraid of the social repercussions of bigoted speech.

You have a right to free speech. That doesn't mean your speech has to be respected.

What repercussions are there that are so scary as to be afraid of in a free society? I cannot think of any.

Another consideration - your opinions don't change just because you aren't allowed to express them (whether because of laws or social pressure). They just go underground and are expressed in other ways, some of them violent.

In a healthy society, you should not be afraid to open your mouth because, no matter what you say, someone will be offended.

When Bill Cosby made his comments about the problems of African-American youth, even though they were true, he was denounced. This was not bigoted speech, yet he was treated as if it were. The man is intelligent and educated. His comments were informed, yet he was treated with contempt and vilified. This is PC at it's worst - when you don't just ignore the truth, you spit on it.
Free speech works both ways.

You are free to say what you want. I am free to say what I want right back at you.

Forgive me for not having sympathy for millionaires who find themselves facing criticism for things they've been allowed to voice via national (and often international) media. Maybe it's because I'm atheist, non-hetero, female, and not a millionaire, and thus have had to put up with people talking shit to me in pretty much every single arena of my life. Sticks and stones, motherfuckers.

People only like the truth when it's the truth they've chosen. Such is humanity. It doesn't matter how right you are, or how many facts are on your side, there's gonna be somebody pissed off at you for saying what's true.

Somebody will ALWAYS be offended. This is largely because there are many people with too much time on their hands, who have nothing better to do than go looking for things to be offended about.

The solution is not to try to create a world where people are required to shut up whenever they disagree. The solution is not to try to create a world where nobody is ever offended, because it just ain't gonna happen. The solution is to let everybody know that you don't have a right to not be offended. And you also don't have a right to not get your feelings hurt if people criticize what you say. It works both ways.