Political Correctness thread

[JughedJones]

I said "white culture" in the Presidential Horse Race thread.

Note for context: I said white culture is a bad thing.

I also said "assimilate."

Note for context: I said people should assimilate to break down racial barriers. I did not say black people or minorities needed to assimilate. I said we all need to assimilate.

I choose to think you're just putting on a weird racist character on Irishevy because you think it's funny.

That gets me through the day.

 

[JughedJones]

Right, and he is using your words to "argue" against a completely different poster who for all I know, might think the points you have made are dumb.

no. wizards and bishop are the two I'm talking about.

everyone else is just caught in the shrapnel.

 

[connor_in]

Lax pointed out something a few pages ago about this thread that I had in mind from the start. It is not about who is right and who is wrong in right versus left it is about political correctness as a concept and is it going too far and possibly infringing on freedom of speech.

The ticky tack stuff about "well you believe this so you are obviously wrong and beneath contempt so anything I say bad about you and your beliefs is warranted" moves the conversation along how exactly? Also, because Cruz/Trump or Obama/Clinton may or may not believe a certain something does not mean every single member of the right or left identifies with every single detail of their philosophies.

This is NOT a safe space, but it is a discussion of a topic. I fail to see how simply putting someone down or calling names advances anything.

 

[woolybug25]

You're missing the point. Feel free to criticize all you want. This is a discussion thread after all, so I welcome the debate. But don't get angry because I'm arguing against your line of reasoning.

I didn't get angry. I pointed out where this thread was going to go. You attacked me for it. Now we're here. Don't really know what to tell ya...

You'll also notice that I did not name you or any other poster in the post that you are taking issue with. You came after me because you felt that I was targeting you, Cack, and Jughead. True, your post was something I had in mind when I made my point, but I didn't mention you by name.

Is this for real? You are so hypocritical. You state that I am "attacking" you because I point out the thread you made, but are now trying to say that you weren't addressing me simply because you didn't use my name directly.

Not to mention... what freakin' point are you trying to make here other than arguing with me for argument's sake?

What you are doing is making a logical inference, reading more into my post then just the words that were written. And this is just the thing that you get so bent out of shape about when I do it to you. You respond with "that is not what I wrote." Okay, but it isn't hard to figure out what you mean by what you wrote.

Again... you made a thread about hating how people "get bent out of shape for reading more into comments are inferring things"?

Okay dude...

 

[connor_in]

Part of me hates to see Jug go because when he doesn't go overboard in political threads, he can be a good guy. (IIRC he got banned before or took a self sabbatical after doing similar postings in the Politics thread.) At the same time, he did go off the rails and Wooly was one of the guys calling him out for it. Jug's posts and the responses are not the only "ugly" parts of this thread, but it is the majority that led to the downward turn today.

I hope we can return to

It is not about who is right and who is wrong in right versus left it is about political correctness as a concept and is it going too far and possibly infringing on freedom of speech.

 

[Bishop2b5]

While PC is mostly a leftist/liberal thing, even some of our most liberal members here have pointed out that much of it is totally ridiculous and way beyond what they consider acceptable or supportable. I have no problem with reasonable discussion and debate about topics that tend to get addressed by PC thinking, nor debating and discussing the merits of those issues, but I really thought the purpose of the OP was to laugh at some of the over-the-top silliness and ridiculousness of the many examples of PC run amok.

 

[connor_in]

While PC is mostly a leftist/liberal thing, even some of our most liberal members here have pointed out that much of it is totally ridiculous and way beyond what they consider acceptable or supportable. I have no problem with reasonable discussion and debate about topics that tend to get addressed by PC thinking, nor debating and discussing the merits of those issues, but I really thought the purpose of the OP was to laugh at some of the over-the-top silliness and ridiculousness of the many examples of PC run amok.

That too...pointing out the ridiculousness of it going too far is all part of the ongoing discussion as well...like the one posted earlier today

 

[GoIrish41]

I think that political correctness began with good intentions. Avoiding expressing things that exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people should not, in and of itself, be considered a negative. However as with all things, there are people who take it too far, often resulting in the very behavior that was attended to be called out. Of that there is little doubt.

But, lets not pretend that this is a liberal phenomenon. Free speech also served as a launching pad for some folks to do some pretty hateful things -- burn down black churches, spit on veterans who returned home from Vietnam, hold Muhammed art contests to antagonize Muslims, and refusal to allow homosexuals to marry. Whether it is political correctness, or any of these, there are two common threads that run through all of this and neither of them has much to do with whether you are a liberal or a conservative. ... 1) a general lack of overall civility and understanding toward others, and 2) the wandering too far down the path of self-righteousness.

I'm with Wooly on this. This thread was probably a bad idea. I've read through it and can already see it taking an ugly turn. While it could be an opportunity to increase understanding of what others are thinking, sadly it won't play out that way. I think we all know that. If we're being honest, the topic was likely began as a thread to allow those of like mind a place to gather to poke at us liberals and our affinity with taking things too far. To that I say, ya got us. Not all of us, mind you, but certainly some of us. There are liberals who have taken the concept too far -- not because the intentions weren't good or noble in the first place, but because some people always let things get away from them. We have wacky people on our side of things, too, who have a tendency to take things too far.

But, don't let that hide the fact that the other side has more than its share of nutjobs who are willing to push the envelope. The guy who leads the Republican presidential primary race is a vocal racist and his support continues to grow. Argue if you want to on this fact, but it is more than clear. He often points out his distaste for political correctness as a licence to say every disgusting, hateful, bigoted thing he can think of -- and there are millions of supporters who eat it up. I know a lot of my republican friends on here will say they dislike Trump as much as anyone, but if we are going to throw labels around about liberals and lump our crazies together with the entire progressive ideology, then we can't separate the wheat from the chaff on the conservative side. I find it comical that the right is so quick to pounce on the "politically correct" but willing to dismiss their own far more disturbing realities that are playing out during this election.

Political correctness may have gone too far, I'll grant that. But it started as a reaction to ignorance in an attempt to make the country a more inclusive place. The answer to it going astray cannot be to double down on ignorance again and to turn the clock back to a era where it was OK to publicly ostracize large groups based on their color, their socioeconomic background, their religion, or their sexual orientation. It is regressive and gross, and it makes all of us weaker as a people. The lack of civility in this country is difficult to comprehend -- whether it manifests itself in a seemingly endless expression of micro-agressions, through violence against protestors at political rallies, or any of hundreds of shades in between and beyond.

Everyone understands that the problem with this country is the unwillingness of people to come together to get anything done, but we can't see beyond our own personal feelings about one another to begin making progress. Relatively few liberals are political correctness Nazis, and relatively few conservatives are shoving black girls out of Trump rallies or burning down churches. Why not focus on the vast majority in the middle who have far more in common than we have differences?

 

[wizards8507]

GoIrish41, Trump isn't a racist. He's everything else you said--vile, disgusting, hateful, ignorant--but not a racist. He's certainly happy to encourage racists to vote for him, though.

Also, do you think the Catholic Church should be forced to perform homosexual marriage? Because that's what you seem to be implying when you say that the first amendment is being used illegitimately.

 

[beryirish]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ceS_jkKjIgo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[GoIrish41]

GoIrish41, Trump isn't a racist. He's everything else you said--vile, disgusting, hateful, ignorant--but not a racist. He's certainly happy to encourage racists to vote for him, though.

Also, do you think the Catholic Church should be forced to perform homosexual marriage? Because that's what you seem to be implying.

I find little difference in being a racist and pandering to them by fanning the flames of their hatred.

I do not think the Catholic Church should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but I also don't think that the law of the land should be influenced by Catholic beliefs. Gays should be allowed to marry.

But these are topics for another thread. I was trying to make a larger point about how people take free speech to destructive places.

 

[wizards8507]

I find little difference in being a racist and pandering to them by fanning the flames of their hatred.

I agree. I wasn't defending him, just laying down some nuance.

I do not think the Catholic Church should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but I also don't think that the law of the land should be influenced by Catholic beliefs. Gays should be allowed to marry.

That's fine. But Constitutionally it should be done at the state level.

Ideally, I'd like to se marriage privatization. The government neither endorses nor rejects nor formally approves nor formally disapproves of any kind of marriage.

But these are topics for another thread. I was trying to make a larger point about how people take free speech to destructive places.

Unfortunately that's a necessary evil in a free society. When you allow the government to reject the most egregious speech, you're also empowering them to limit that "gray area" speech. I think everyone agrees that Westboro Baptist Church is one of the the most vile groups of people on the planet, but the same protections that allow them to speak is what allows you say "I think Bush made a mistake going into Iraq."

 

[BobbyMac]

I do not think the Catholic Church should be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but I also don't think that the law of the land should be influenced by Catholic beliefs. Gays should be allowed to marry.
.

Huh? Are singling out Catholic beliefs or do you mean any/all Christian beliefs? So our laws shouldn't be even influenced by Christian beliefs now? I wish you were born in the 1730's, would have loved to see you present that idea during this Country's founding.

That's fine. But Constitutionally it should be done at the state level.

Wow. Surprising.

 

[GoIrish41]

Huh? Are singling out Catholic beliefs or do you mean any/all Christian beliefs? So our laws shouldn't be even influenced by Christian beliefs now? I wish you were born in the 1730's, would have loved to see you present that idea during this Country's founding.



Wow. Surprising.

I think you may be stretching my point into something that was not intended. On the topic of whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I don't think Catholic beliefs should be cut and pasted into our laws. Is that clearer?

 

[BobbyMac]

I think you may be stretching my point into something that was not intended. On the topic of whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I don't think Catholic beliefs should be cut and pasted into our laws. Is that clearer?

The use of "influence" wasn't the best choice. I have no problem with you making the bolded statement... even if I disagreed with it, which I don't.

 

[GoIrish41]

The use of "influence" wasn't the best choice. I have no problem with you making the bolded statement... even if I disagreed with it, which I don't.

Fair enough. Sometimes clarity escapes me.

 

[Irish#1]

I agree with this. Things I have never had happen to anyone I know.

1) An African American getting mad for being referred to as "black"
2) A women getting mad at me for opening a door.

I find it hard to believe that this is as common as many of the posters in here believe that it is...

I could tell any story I want in this thread and there is zero ways for anyone to prove that it didn't happen.

There might be one or two that claim that, but I don't think that's the case for the majority who have posted in here. I haven't experienced #1 or #2.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The use of "influence" wasn't the best choice. I have no problem with you making the bolded statement... even if I disagreed with it, which I don't.

Can't be too careful about limiting the malign influence of papists on this side of the Atlantic:

 

[Irish#1]

Part of me hates to see Jug go because when he doesn't go overboard in political threads, he can be a good guy. (IIRC he got banned before or took a self sabbatical after doing similar postings in the Politics thread.) At the same time, he did go off the rails and Wooly was one of the guys calling him out for it. Jug's posts and the responses are not the only "ugly" parts of this thread, but it is the majority that led to the downward turn today.

I hope we can return to

It is not about who is right and who is wrong in right versus left it is about political correctness as a concept and is it going too far and possibly infringing on freedom of speech.

For the most part, he was either fanning the flames just to see how far he can push a poster or, he is to narrow minded to believe anyone could have an experience that would contradict his beliefs which in turn shows a flaw in his thinking.

 

[BeauBenken]

I think that political correctness began with good intentions. Avoiding expressing things that exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people should not, in and of itself, be considered a negative. However as with all things, there are people who take it too far, often resulting in the very behavior that was attended to be called out. Of that there is little doubt.

But, lets not pretend that this is a liberal phenomenon. Free speech also served as a launching pad for some folks to do some pretty hateful things -- burn down black churches, spit on veterans who returned home from Vietnam, hold Muhammed art contests to antagonize Muslims, and refusal to allow homosexuals to marry. Whether it is political correctness, or any of these, there are two common threads that run through all of this and neither of them has much to do with whether you are a liberal or a conservative. ... 1) a general lack of overall civility and understanding toward others, and 2) the wandering too far down the path of self-righteousness.

I'm with Wooly on this. This thread was probably a bad idea. I've read through it and can already see it taking an ugly turn. While it could be an opportunity to increase understanding of what others are thinking, sadly it won't play out that way. I think we all know that. If we're being honest, the topic was likely began as a thread to allow those of like mind a place to gather to poke at us liberals and our affinity with taking things too far. To that I say, ya got us. Not all of us, mind you, but certainly some of us. There are liberals who have taken the concept too far -- not because the intentions weren't good or noble in the first place, but because some people always let things get away from them. We have wacky people on our side of things, too, who have a tendency to take things too far.

But, don't let that hide the fact that the other side has more than its share of nutjobs who are willing to push the envelope. The guy who leads the Republican presidential primary race is a vocal racist and his support continues to grow. Argue if you want to on this fact, but it is more than clear. He often points out his distaste for political correctness as a licence to say every disgusting, hateful, bigoted thing he can think of -- and there are millions of supporters who eat it up. I know a lot of my republican friends on here will say they dislike Trump as much as anyone, but if we are going to throw labels around about liberals and lump our crazies together with the entire progressive ideology, then we can't separate the wheat from the chaff on the conservative side. I find it comical that the right is so quick to pounce on the "politically correct" but willing to dismiss their own far more disturbing realities that are playing out during this election.

Political correctness may have gone too far, I'll grant that. But it started as a reaction to ignorance in an attempt to make the country a more inclusive place. The answer to it going astray cannot be to double down on ignorance again and to turn the clock back to a era where it was OK to publicly ostracize large groups based on their color, their socioeconomic background, their religion, or their sexual orientation. It is regressive and gross, and it makes all of us weaker as a people. The lack of civility in this country is difficult to comprehend -- whether it manifests itself in a seemingly endless expression of micro-agressions, through violence against protestors at political rallies, or any of hundreds of shades in between and beyond.

Everyone understands that the problem with this country is the unwillingness of people to come together to get anything done, but we can't see beyond our own personal feelings about one another to begin making progress. Relatively few liberals are political correctness Nazis, and relatively few conservatives are shoving black girls out of Trump rallies or burning down churches. Why not focus on the vast majority in the middle who have far more in common than we have differences?

I don't usually read giant walls of text, but I actually really like the civility of this post. Not bad!

As well, the points you make here are also why in my first post in this thread while I was disagreeing with the over the top PC movement, I tried to refrain from calling it liberal or Democrat...because it is not. Many of the people in this thread disagreeing with this PC culture are liberals.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't usually read giant walls of text, but I actually really like the civility of this post. Not bad!

As well, the points you make here are also why in my first post in this thread while I was disagreeing with the over the top PC movement, I tried to refrain from calling it liberal or Democrat...because it is not. Many of the people in this thread disagreeing with this PC culture are liberals.

Thanks Beau. It probably would have been bad form in my post about civility for me to be a dick about it.

 

[NDgradstudent]

But, lets not pretend that this is a liberal phenomenon. Free speech also served as a launching pad for some folks to do some pretty hateful things -- burn down black churches, spit on veterans who returned home from Vietnam, hold Muhammed art contests to antagonize Muslims, and refusal to allow homosexuals to marry.

Burning things down, or spitting on people, do not constitute "speech." Free speech is a "launching pad" for these things? That is like saying that automobiles are a "launching pad" for these things.

Notice, too, that "refusal to allow homosexuals to marry" is lumped in with burning buildings down, spitting, etc. This is why the IRS will eventually "come" for Christian churches' and schools' money.

There are liberals who have taken the concept too far -- not because the intentions weren't good or noble in the first place, but because some people always let things get away from them. We have wacky people on our side of things, too, who have a tendency to take things too far.

What liberals do and think matters more than what conservatives do and think because ~95% of university faculties and journalists and ~75% of lawyers are liberals and/or hard-leftists.

But, don't let that hide the fact that the other side has more than its share of nutjobs who are willing to push the envelope. The guy who leads the Republican presidential primary race is a vocal racist and his support continues to grow. Argue if you want to on this fact, but it is more than clear.

Is this an argument against having this thread?

Political correctness may have gone too far, I'll grant that. But it started as a reaction to ignorance in an attempt to make the country a more inclusive place. The answer to it going astray cannot be to double down on ignorance again and to turn the clock back to a era where it was OK to publicly ostracize large groups based on their color, their socioeconomic background, their religion, or their sexual orientation.

The function of political correctness is to pick certain designated victim groups ("sacred minorities"), forbid any rational discussion about these groups, and then ostracize other groups- groups that may be numerically minorities but do not enjoy sacred status. These include most conspicuously conservative Christians and white men.

Everyone understands that the problem with this country is the unwillingness of people to come together to get anything done, but we can't see beyond our own personal feelings about one another to begin making progress. Relatively few liberals are political correctness Nazis, and relatively few conservatives are shoving black girls out of Trump rallies or burning down churches. Why not focus on the vast majority in the middle who have far more in common than we have differences?

This is not an accurate description of political differences. There is a massive gulf between the two sides of politics that is not a matter of agreeing on the ends and disagreeing on the means (except maybe in the most abstract sense). There are enormous differences between liberal and conservative ideas, and, increasingly, between liberal and conservative 'lifestyles.' Where you live, where/whether you go to church, whether you get married and/or have children, where you work, etc., are heavily correlated now with political opinions.

In any case, politics is about division by definition- if there were no division, there would be no politics. Political correctness seeks to cover up these divisions and enforce a new faux-egalitarian orthodoxy. It is simply anti-liberal and should be opposed, from its intentions to its applications to its effects.

 

[connor_in]

‘Sensitivity’ fascists are turning colleges into day-care centers | New York Post

Meanwhile, two members of Bowdoin College’s student government faced impeachment for . . . attending a tequila party where some guests wore (gasp) tiny sombreros.

The school launched an instant investigation into this “act of ethnic stereotyping,” put partygoers on “social probation” and expelled the hosts from their dorms.

 

[ACamp1900]

Bowdin College must burn to the ground every St. Patrick's, Mardi Gras, and Cinco De Mayo....

 

[NorthDakota]

Bowdin College must burn to the ground every St. Patrick's, Mardi Gras, and Cinco De Mayo....

Joshua Lawerence Chamberlain must be rolling over in his grave.

 

[IrishLax]

So let's talk about an example of political correctness gone good.

Growing up, in middle school and high school everybody called stuff "gay". It was a direct substitute for "lame" or "annoying"... every time something less-than-good happened the default response was "that's so gay" or if someone was acting like a loser you said "stop being a fag" or something to that effect.

That kind of speech just flat out doesn't exist anymore. Nobody talks that way in middle school/high school. And that's a very good thing, and it happened because of an appropriate application of political correctness and social awareness.

 

[connor_in]

So let's talk about an example of political correctness gone good.

Growing up, in middle school and high school everybody called stuff "gay". It was a direct substitute for "lame" or "annoying"... every time something less-than-good happened the default response was "that's so gay" or if someone was acting like a loser you said "stop being a fag" or something to that effect.

That kind of speech just flat out doesn't exist anymore. Nobody talks that way in middle school/high school. And that's a very good thing, and it happened because of an appropriate application of political correctness and social awareness.

I agree with this post


...and didn't realize Lax was still in Jr High and High School

 

[BeauBenken]

Thanks Beau. It probably would have been bad form in my post about civility for me to be a dick about it.

My first post being said though, I really do feel that this new PC culture needs to be seriously addressed largely because of it's large role on campuses and in our classrooms. It's aggressive censorship not niceties, and it undermines the American educational system.

 

[ACamp1900]

"Gay" isn't used as a substitute for 'lame' or 'annoying' anymore?? That's news to me... I hear it constantly still.

 

[IrishLax]

"Gay" isn't used as a substitute for 'lame' or 'annoying' anymore?? That's news to me... I hear is constantly still.

That's shocking. Aren't you in Cali?