Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

[Tony]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?
I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml



LOL, can you dig up any more rediculous Cold War propaganda? :rolleyes:

LOL, this comes froma web site with a link to "The Deck of Hillary" playing cards like the Saddam Deck, and a thing that says 'Stop Hillary's Book!"

LOL :D yeah, you can just tell they LOVE free speech :p

what a joke :D

LOL, I just can't get enough.

There I also learned that the word "compañero" (filtered version of the communist "comrade" – Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making.

The "filtered version"? No, try the SPANISH version :p LOL, what a loser.

Yes, it means companion or friend. Ohh... scary.

The U.S. media must know that, so why don't they openly report that fact instead of misleading the public?

Why dont 'the US media report about a million things? Because it does not serve the status quo or the interests of the wealthy establishment.

It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.

It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.

LOL, comparing American PCness to Communist ways of dictating discourse is hilarious.

No, American PCness has to do with not being a friggen retard and and a bigot. Does it go to far? I guess so sometimes, but for the most part its just counteracts predjust and bigotry. I'm sorry that these guys can call people faggots or ******* in public anymore. Too bad for them.

For the most part American PCness is no different then just plan old normal manners.

In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

Okay, that was stupid. I see no reason to worry about Santa.

We see shameful situations created in our schools and universities in America that have fallen prey to Political Correctness. Some professors, students and publications are being attacked for expressing a point of view that differs from that imposed by a fanatical far left, under the guise of Political Correctness.

Examples? I didn't think so :D

Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion.

Not true. Christmas was illigal in America until the mid 1800s because Protestants found it an immoral and a pagan holiday.

I t was first made legal by states in the South and not nationally accepted until after the Civil War.

This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Okay, I agree there, there should be no allowance of Islamic or any other religious teaching in that manner, however I suspect this guy is overstating the issue.

The beneficiaries in the end will be the fanatic believers in the totalitarian state, who, in spite of the dismal failure of communism and the 100 million people exterminated pursuing that criminal system, have not given up.

LOL, right. This guy is still dreaming about communist conspiracy. Let's face it, the type of Communism this guy is talking about is no threat to America in any way, and 100 million people have not been exterminated pursuing Communism, and the system of Communism is not Criminal, the actions of certian people who called themselves Communsits certianly were though.

However, the irony is that the most people have been killed in relation to Communism by the anti-Communists.

Like, okay 2 million people were kille din Vietnam, by who? BY America fighting against Communism, how can you blame that on the Communists? Indonesia, 2 million Communsits killed, again by anti-Communist forces backed by America. Even in Russia, Stalin was killing Communists, becuase Stalin was not really a Communist, thats why he killed so many Bolsheviks.

Plus let's not even bring up the number of people killed in the name of Christianity or Islam.

Let's also not forget that thousands of people were killed in the creation of America (and only thousands because America had a small population at the time.)

Let's say it: Castro is not a 'president,' as the U.S. media's Political Correctness calls him. Castro has not been democratically elected to anything in Cuba. The correct word to define him is 'tyrant.' He is not just a 'leader,' as the U.S. media also calls him. He is more of a criminal Mafioso-type character.

We can possibly call him that. But every leader on earth has not been elected. Someone is not automatically a tyrant, and a dictator is not automatically bad. We can judge is Casto is bad based on his actions, not the way he came to power. The way he came to power was reactionary to foreign oppression.

Why criminal? Because he has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 Cubans. Thousands have died through his support of guerrillas in Central and South America. Thousands of blacks were killed by Castro's soldiers in Africa. Castro in the 1980s introduced the use of bacteriological weapons to kill blacks in Angola.

How many thousands have died in America as a result of his drug trafficking into the U.S.? How many thousands have died all over the world due to terrorists trained in Castro's Cuba?

Oh lord :p Umm.. Castro had to fight to come to power because Americans owned about 90% of Cuban property and Cubans had no control over their own country, all Cubans were poor and had no future under American puppet dictator rule. Thousands of Americans died bringing George Washington to power, shall we claim he's bad too? No. Had America granted the Cubans what they wanted, true freedom and econmic control of their country there could have been no need for violence, just like in the American Revolution.

Same with South America. Shall we discuss the Nicoraguans regime that the Sandinistas overthrew? It was totally corrupt. The overthow was the best thing to happen to Nicoragua. They brought reading levels up, prosperity up, healthcare up, etc. And yes, Castro helped do that, oh for shame.

Thousands of blacks were killed in Africa? Okay, who else would be killed there? They were fighting against corrupt regimes. Millions of blacks were killed in Africa by the British and French and hundreds of thousands were enslaved by Americans.

I dunno how many have died. Does he? What drug trafficking? Is it Castro's drug trafficking, or the drug trafficking of Cubans? Americans traffick drugs too, does that mean that is someone dies from drugs trafficked by Americans that its our Presidents fault? :rolleyes:

He stole foreign and national properties in Cuba. He has become one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes magazine. He has created a despotic and corrupt elite to exploit the Cuban people and keep himself in power. He has made the Cuban people hostages and slaves of his corrupt regime.

Well yes he did. So did the United States when it was formed. If 90% of America was now owned by China would it be okay to revolt and overthrow the Chinese land owners and take their property for yourselves? You bet. Why should it be any differnet for them?

Talk about double standard.

Let's preserve our freedom and say NO to the scourge of Political Correctness.

Let's preserve our freedom and say no to morons like this.

Face it, the ONLY people that have even been imprisoned in America for their poitical views are far left liberals.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


LOL, can you dig up any more rediculous Cold War propaganda? :rolleyes:

LOL, this comes froma web site with a link to "The Deck of Hillary" playing cards like the Saddam Deck, and a thing that says 'Stop Hillary's Book!"

LOL :D yeah, you can just tell they LOVE free speech :p

what a joke :D

So, you have no argument, just ad hominem attacks?

[Ed]

It seems, from another thread, that he agrees with those contentions.

[Tricky]

Whenever anyone wants to complain about how society has tried to encourage tolerance, the first term they bring up is "politically correct". Why is that? Well because they can't rant about any specific race or nationality without being recognized as a boorish person. So they use "politically correct" so they can still complain without mentioning specifics and thereby not offending anyone.

What this means, of course, is that the term "politically correct" has become politically correct.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
Whenever anyone wants to complain about how society has tried to encourage tolerance

Since when has society tried to encourage tolerance? The only people I see demanding tolerance are the femnazis, the gay mafia, the multicultural dogmatists and the "minority" nazi groups(naacp, jesse jackson ect..). As they say, there is nothing more intolerant than a person demanding tolerance.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tony


Since when has society tried to encourage tolerance? The only people I see demanding tolerance are the femnazis, the gay mafia, the multicultural dogmatists and the "minority" nazi groups(naacp, jesse jackson ect..). As they say, there is nothing more intolerant than a person demanding tolerance.

Wow, in one short paragraph Tony has identified things pretty well.

JK

[Malachi151]

Sorry, if you don't see the irony in an article about protecting freedom of speech being hosted on a far-right web site that wants to "Stop Hillary's Book" then you have problems understanding what free speech really is.

The article goes off in inane idiocy on every level, as I already pointed out.

Its the typical (dare I say it) "right-wing" BS of accusing you opponent of doing what it is that you are really doing.

"Hey, they don't want freedom of speech; we need to act now to keep them from speeking up any more!"

LOL, it so tired.

Remember what I JUST SAID in the other thread about left vs right, I said that the "right" has history of trying to blame everything on Communism. If they don't like something they call it communist. This just goes and proves exactly what I was saying.

Its the same of thing they have been doing for 80 years. They call everything a communist conspiracy to take over America with some kind of dictatorship, give me a break. :rolleyes:

Take a look around communists are the last thing you have to worry about in America!

[Tony]

Face it, the ONLY people that have even been imprisoned in America for their poitical views are far left liberals.


Examples? I didn't think so :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Face it, the ONLY people that have even been imprisoned in America for their poitical views are far left liberals.


Examples? I didn't think so :D
How about Eugene V. Debs (http://www.allsands.com/History/People/eugenevdebsbi_avg_gn.htm)
Does the name Muhammed Ali ring a bell? Henry David Thoreau? There are others. You really put your foot in it this time, Tony.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

How about Eugene V. Debs (http://www.allsands.com/History/People/eugenevdebsbi_avg_gn.htm)
Does the name Muhammed Ali ring a bell? Henry David Thoreau? There are others. You really put your foot in it this time, Tony.

I am not sure I agree with Ali. That's debatable.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

How about Eugene V. Debs (http://www.allsands.com/History/People/eugenevdebsbi_avg_gn.htm)
Does the name Muhammed Ali ring a bell? Henry David Thoreau? There are others. You really put your foot in it this time, Tony.


It seems I have. :cool:


However, what about the Branch Dividians and the guys at Ruby Ridge? The argument could be made that they were persecuted for their politics.

[Pyrrho]

Ezra Pound (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/epound.htm) spent years in a hospital for the criminally insane, after having been arrested by the U.S. after WWII. Pound wasn't a left-winger.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Ezra Pound (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/epound.htm) spent years in a hospital for the criminally insane, after having been arrested by the U.S. after WWII. Pound wasn't a left-winger.


He met Mussolini in 1933 and saw in him the long-needed economic and social reformer. In his anti-Semitic statements Pound agreed with those who believed that the economic system was being exploited by Jewish financiers. During World War II he made in Rome a series of radio broadcasts, that were openly fascist. In one of his radio talks he suggested that "if some man had a stroke of genius, and could start a pogrom against Jews... there might de something to say for it ." In 1945 he was arrested by the U.S. forces - he was still and American citizen - and pronounced insane in a trial.

Looks like he went to prison for alot more than being a leftists (fascist).

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony
Face it, the ONLY people that have even been imprisoned in America for their poitical views are far left liberals.


Examples? I didn't think so :D

How about:

In 1919 and 1920, a wave of anticommunist hysteria swept the United States. By June 1920, some ten thousand people were arrested and imprisoned solely for their political beliefs or for belonging to labor or political organizations. About eight hundred of them were deported. The government's repression of radical movements in 1919 and 1920 was among the most severe in the country's history. It involved coordinated raids from coast to coast using federal warrants based on immigration laws that did not provide for due process of law. Men and women were rounded up, imprisoned without charges or access to a lawyer, and in some cases deported before their families could even learn their whereabouts.

Yes, thats ten thousand people, arrested.

Politicians were quoting the suggestion of Guy Empey that the proper implements for dealing with the Reds could be "found in any hardware store," or proclaiming, "My motto for the Reds is S. 0. S.-ship or shoot. I believe we should place them all on a ship of stone, with sails of lead, and that their first stopping-place should be hell." College graduates were calling for the dismissal of professors suspected of radicalism; school-teachers were being made to sign oaths of allegiance; business men with unorthodox political or economic ideas were learning to hold their tongues if they wanted to hold their jobs. Hysteria had reached its height.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/ALLEN/ch3.html

Keep in mind that all of this is in responce to IDEAS.

Innumerable other gentlemen now discovered that they could defeat whatever they wanted to defeat by tarring it conspicuously the Bolshevist brush. Big-navy men, believers in compulsory military service, drys, anti-cigarette campaigners, anti-evolution Fundamentalists, defenders of the moral order, book censors, Jew-haters, Negro-haters, landlords, manufacturers, utility executives, upholders of every sort of cause, good, bad, and indifferent, all wrapped themselves in the Old Glory and the mantle of the Founding Fathers and allied their opponents with Lenin.

The main objective of the Alien Registration Act was to undermine the American Communist Party and other left-wing political groups in the United States. It was decided that the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), that had been set up by Congress under Martin Dies in 1938 to investigate people suspected of unpatriotic behaviour, would be the best vehicle to discover if people were trying to overthrow the government.

No right wing groups ever had this responce, again its not about if you think it was justified or not, the issue is that the radical left has been actually legislated against and attacked and people have been put in jail. Also, the Sociaist Political Party was outlawed in the 1920s as well.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

One of those named, Bertolt Brecht, an emigrant playwright, gave evidence and then left for East Germany. Ten others: Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Albert Maltz, Adrian Scott, Samuel Ornitz,, Dalton Trumbo, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson and Alvah Bessie refused to answer any questions.

Known as the Hollywood Ten, they claimed that the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution gave them the right to do this. The House of Un-American Activities Committee and the courts during appeals disagreed and all were found guilty of contempt of congress and each was sentenced to between six and twelve months in prison.

It should also be noted that several right-wing grops existed during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, all fascists, none of them met the fate of the liberal groups, yet they actually killed people. The KKK, The Black Legion, the American Liberty League. Of these are fascist groups, all have killed people, none have been treated as severely as the liberal groups.

If people refused to name names when called up to appear before the HUAC, they were added to a blacklist that had been drawn up by the Hollywood film studios. Over 320 people were placed on this list that stopped them from working in the entertainment industry. This included Larry Adler, Stella Adler, Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Hanns Eisler, Carl Foreman, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Dashiell Hammett, E. Y. Harburg, Lillian Hellman, Burl Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorothy Parker, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Anne Revere, Pete Seeger, Gale Sondergaard, Louis Untermeyer, Josh White, Clifford Odets, Michael Wilson, Paul Jarrico, Jeff Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee, Orson Welles, Paul Green, Sidney Kingsley, Paul Robeson, Richard Wright and Abraham Polonsky.

On 9th February, 1950, Joseph McCarthy, a senator from Wisconsin, made a speech claiming to have a list of 205 people in the State Department known to be members of the American Communist Party. The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. If screened, McCarthy's own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list.

McCarthy also began receiving information from his friend, J. Edgar Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). William Sullivan, one of Hoover's agents, later admitted that: "We were the ones who made the McCarthy hearings possible. We fed McCarthy all the material he was using."

This witch-hunt and anti-communist hysteria became known as McCarthyism. At first Joseph McCarthy mainly targeted Democrats associated with the New Deal policies of the 1930s. Harry S. Truman and members of his Democratic administration such as George Marshall and Dean Acheson, were accused of being soft on communism. Truman was portrayed as a dangerous liberal and McCarthy's campaign helped the Republican candidate, Dwight Eisenhower, win the presidential election in 1952.

After what had happened to McCarthy's opponents in the 1950 elections, most politicians were unwilling to criticize him in the Senate. As the Boston Post pointed out: "Attacking him is this state is regarded as a certain method of committing suicide." One notable exception was William Benton, the owner of Encyclopaedia Britannica, and a senator from Connecticut. McCarthy and his supporters immediately began smearing Benton. It was claimed that while Assistant Secretary of State, he had protected known communists and that he had been responsible for the purchase and display of "lewd art works". Benton, who was also accused of being disloyal by Joseph McCarthy for having much of his company's work printed in England, was defeated in the 1952 elections.

McCarthy's next target was what he believed were anti-American books in libraries. His researchers looked into the Overseas Library Program and discovered 30,000 books by "communists, pro-communists, former communists and anti anti-communists." After the publication of this list, these books were removed from the library shelves.

Tell me, how many books have been removed from libraries for PC reasons? Who is the one really doing the censoring here?

In October, 1953, McCarthy began investigating communist infiltration into the military. Attempts were made by McCarthy to discredit Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army. The president, Dwight Eisenhower, was furious and now realised that it was time to bring an end to McCarthy's activities.

Ironically, just as these social commentators were lauding the resilience of American democracy, the anti-Communist crusade was undermining it. The political repression of the McCarthy era fostered the growth of the national security state and facilitated its expansion into the rest of civil society. On the pretext of protecting the nation from Communist infiltration, federal agents attacked individual rights and extended state power into movie studios, universities, labor unions, and many other ostensibly independent institutions. The near universal deference to the federal government's formulation of the Communist threat abetted the process and muted opposition to what was going on.

Moreover, even after the anti-Communist furor receded, the antidemocratic practices associated with it continued. We can trace the legacy of McCarthyism in the FBI's secret COINTELPRO program of harassing political dissenters in the 1960s and 1970s, the Watergate-related felonies of the Nixon White House in the 1970s, and the Iran-Contra scandals in the 1980s. The pervasiveness of such wrongdoing reveals how seriously the nation's defenses against official illegalities had eroded in the face of claims that national security took precedence over ordinary law. McCarthyism alone did not cause these outrages; but the assault on democracy that began during the 1940s and 1950s with the collaboration of private institutions and public agencies in suppressing the alleged threat of domestic communism was an important early contribution.

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-legacy.html

So, anyway, thousands of people have been arrested in America for having radical left-wing political ideas, and even more have been harrased to the point of ruining their careers and their lives.

http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/curwick.htm

Though World War II had come to an end with the defeat of Germany in 1945, the threat of a Cold War was already pressing upon the nation. To ensure support for the Cold War abroad, the Truman Administration paralleled its foreign policy of containment overseas with a full-out anti-communist crusade at home. Making anti-communism the focus of their 1946 campaign, Washington Republicans charged that “Democrats had sold their soul to the Communist Party.”[iii] The State Republicans’ determination proved fruitful when the 1946 elections ushered many of them into the State Legislature.

http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/412.jpg

Taking it to da streets ;)

These public hearings, however, were one-sided. Persons accused of being Communists could not cross-examine their accusers nor make their own statements. Moreover, the Committee also turned to professional anti-communist witnesses.

Many of the accused were not active party members. Some had been members but had left years before. A few may never have been Communists. But regardless of their relationship to the Party, those targeted would pay a heavy price. The accusations were damaging to reputations and cost many their jobs. The Canwell investigations, as well as the later investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee, left many Communists and former Communists blacklisted.

The most publicized example involved six tenured professors at the University of Washington. Seeking to “clear the University’s reputation,” administrators prepared to dismiss Garland Ethel, Harold Eby, Melville Jacobs, Joseph Butterworth, Hebert Phillips, and Ralph Gundlach, charging them with incompetence, neglect of duty, incapacity, dishonesty or immorality. A faculty committee was established to determine whether tenure should be revoked. Hearings that lasted for three months came to a close during December 1948 with the Tenure Committee voting to dismiss Gundlach and retain the five other professors. These recommendations, however, were ignored, and the UW Regents in January 1949 declared that Butterworth, Phillips and Gundlach would be discharged, while Eby, Ethel and Jacobs would be placed on probation for two years and required to sign loyalty oaths. Butterworth, Phillips and Gundlach never worked in academia again. Butterworth, a teacher of Chaucer and English, went on public assistance. Phillips, a philosophy professor, was forced to become a laborer. Gundlach, a psychology professor, found a new career as a clinical psychologist. Melvin Rader, also accused of being a Communist, fought back against the Canwell Committee by filing perjury charges against George Hewitt, a professional witness who had testified against Rader.

http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/canwellprotest.jpg

And tha people just keep takin' it to tha streets ;)

Irene Hull, Washington Communist Party member since 1942, was one of the hundreds named by Barbara Hartle. In 1954, Hull was publicly accused on television of being Communist. Interviewed for this project, Irene recalled her experience:

She [Hartle] named a whole raft of people, many of whom she did not know. When she named me she called me a Trotskyite. I was very anti-Trotskyite. My mother-in law had a tv downstairs. She said, “You better come down here. I heard your name.” So I went down and Barbara said it again. They always made sure that it got repeated so that more people heard.

What's up with that?

And it goes on, and on. The attacks are real, the effects have been long lasting.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony


Looks like he went to prison for alot more than being a leftists (fascist).

He was presenting him as an example of someone who was arrested for their political beliefes that was NOT a leftist.

Its a debateable issues, but its one person, who was consortign with the enemy. I don't really know enough about this specific incident to comment or to know if he was arrested for his political views or something else.

[Tony]

Malachi, as usual your post is too long to read the whole thing.

But, I don’t have any problem with jailing or deporting communists that have subversive goals, no more than I have a problem with killing or arresting osoma bin laden.

Why should we tolerate people that want to take away our freedoms and subjugate our citizens?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


He was presenting him as an example of someone who was arrested for their political beliefes that was NOT a leftist.


D'oh, I misread.

....who was consortign with the enemy.

Thats how I see it.

[Frank Newgent]

Which side of these barricades is this?


http://www.doitnow.org/pages/leary1.html


I've always been basically an individual; I believe firmly that the intelligent individual is the unit of human life, therefore I've always been somewhat detached from the family and the state and church bureaucracies and organizations which attempt to take over the responsibilities and progress of the individual. I'm an all-out believer in selfhood. I think the great evolutionary advance in the last 20 years in this country is the sociology and neuropathy of self — the so-called me generation — the first mass generation in human history (as far as I can find out) that defines the unit of civilization and life as the responsible and intelligent self-reliant individual. That is, of course, the basic American visionary point of view — the Emersonian, self-reliant, look within point of view. It's really happened in the last 20 or 30 years and I'm glad to have contributed to it. Everything I did as a scientist and as a reformer and as an occasional political activist was to challenge the state and other bureaucracies in their attempts to take over the human body and the human brain — the first and last frontiers of selfhood, your own body, and who and what you put in your own body and your own brain.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

How about Eugene V. Debs (http://www.allsands.com/History/People/eugenevdebsbi_avg_gn.htm)
Does the name Muhammed Ali ring a bell? Henry David Thoreau? There are others. You really put your foot in it this time, Tony.

Er...

How about an example from the last 15 years, since the libs have gained power and become corrupt?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Er...

How about an example from the last 15 years, since the libs have gained power and become corrupt?
The last 15 years? The liberals haven't had power since Jimmy Carter, and arguably, not since Lyndon Johnson.

Really, almost no one has gone to jail for their political beliefs in the last 15 years. Young Tony asked for some examples and I gave them to him. Now I challenge conservatives to show examples of right-wingers who have gone to prison for their beliefs. Ever.
Originally posted by Tony
Why should we tolerate people that want to take away our freedoms and subjugate our citizens?
You mean like John Ashcroft?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
How about an example from the last 15 years

John Walker Lindh. And hasn't Sirhan Sirhan had a parole hearing in the last 15 years?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Er...

How about an example from the last 15 years, since the libs have gained power and become corrupt?

The past 15 years is not important. His article about PCness traces it back to 1923, and I am doing the same thing.

The article complains about the roots of PCness, I am showing the roots of the attitude toward liberals.

The past 15 years in not important in understanding to attitude towards liberals in America, because Americ atoday is the product of the past and because they people in power today are all people who lived though the times that I have brought up and are a product of those times.

If you want to know why people have the atitude they have today towards liberals then you have to look at the past and see how that developed. Most people are totally unaware of that past. Our parents and grandparents grew up in a time when simply being very liberal, not even really communist, could mean the end of your career, could mean your name being called out on TV to be publically ostracized and made an example of. There was significant anti-liberal propaganda in this country at various times, and there has never been any such significant anti-conservative propaganda.

Many of the attidutes of today are still a product of that propaganda.

Many politicaisn today still say things that refer back to that Cold War paropaganda. I am aware of it, many young people are not, but when they say these things they strike a cord with older generations.

When a politician claims that "Hillary is a socialist", it may not mean a whole lot to you, but to people in theirt 50s and older that bring up reminders of lots of propoaganda, sociaists used to be enemy number on in America, the party was outlawed, the people were ostracized, people lost their jobs, there was a significant feeling being created that anyone who held "socialist ideas" was a threat to the country and was going to "take away our freedom", and these people saw entire hearings and whatnot on the matter.

This is a real issue.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


John Walker Lindh. And hasn't Sirhan Sirhan had a parole hearing in the last 15 years?


Those arent political prisoners.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky



You mean like John Ashcroft?


what freedoms has he taken away?

[c0rbin]

Tony, I would like to point out to you, while you throw the term "nazi" around that Jesse Jackson and his ilk risked their lives so black people could do something as outrageous as vote.

So feel free to think what you want about nazi this and nazi that, but be careful about how easily you want to label a woman who wants to earn the same amount of money as a man a "feminazi" or a gay couple who just wants to be out and comfortable without fear of being strung up on a fence post.

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Tony, I would like to point out to you, while you throw the term "nazi" around that Jesse Jackson and his ilk risked their lives so black people could do something as outrageous as vote.




I agree, people of his ilk did some good things. But that was 40 years ago. Today, jackson has turned into a self-serving gangster that really doesnt care about the plight of black people or ending racism.

In a way im glad MLK is dead. If he was alive today, I fear he would be as pathetic as jackson.


So feel free to think what you want about nazi this and nazi that, but be careful about how easily you want to label a woman who wants to earn the same amount of money as a man a "feminazi"

Strawman


or a gay couple who just wants to be out and comfortable without fear of being strung up on a fence post.

Strawman

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

In a way im glad MLK is dead. If he was alive today, I fear he would be as pathetic as jackson.
If he were alive, I'm sure he would be sad to see that bigotry has had a strong resurgance in the form of people who rail about "political correctness".

And I am still waiting for you to give me an example of a single conservative person who has gone to jail for their beliefs. I've given you several liberals.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

If he were alive, I'm sure he would be sad to see that bigotry has had a strong resurgance in the form of people who rail about "political correctness".



So people who believe in freethought are bigots?

And I am still waiting for you to give me an example of a single conservative person who has gone to jail for their beliefs. I've given you several liberals.

You never asked me to.

[c0rbin]

Evidence of Jesse Jackson being a gangster?


Strawman

Do you claim that there is no disparity between men and women in the work force?

Do you claim that homosexuals are not exluded from any aspect of society?

Politicol correctness may be an extreme reaction to racism, sexism and fear of non-christian values, but it is certainly not the "Scourge of our times." That is rediculous.

Ignoring the contributions of all our people is a greater threat. Tolerance, equity of opportunity, and understanding, from both sides is a step in that direction.

[c0rbin]

So people who believe in freethought are bigots?

How do you reach this conclusion based on what others in this thread have said?

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Do you claim that there is no disparity between men and women in the work force?

Do you claim that homosexuals are not exluded from any aspect of society?



Thats not the point, I dont call women who are merely campaigning for equal pay "femnazis". I was referring to the male-haters.

What aspect of society are homosexuals excluded from? In fact, homosexuals are demanding special rights, not equal rights.


Ignoring the contributions of all our people is a greater threat. Tolerance, equity of opportunity, and understanding, from both sides is a step in that direction.

Right now, its only one side doing the tolerating and understanding.

As for jesse jackson try reading the book "Shakedown" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261650/002-6388966-2600058).

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin


How do you reach this conclusion based on what others in this thread have said?

Tricky said people who rail against political correctness are bigots. I disagree.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Wow, in one short paragraph Tony has identified things pretty well.

JK

I think that PC is more dangerous than would be suggested by simply associating it with what might be termed "good manners".

The problem with PC, IMNSHO, is that it attempts to create a riskless, vanilla society devoid of any edginess. That and the fact that it is horribly inconsistant and reenforces tribal attitudes.

The recent book that discussed writing standards for children's literature provides good cases in point, to wit: no mention of holidays (religious softening), handedness, dinosaurs, and so on. The onerous renaming of things in the mistaken belief (by whom, I wonder) that, somehow, underlying problems are addressed by such actions (tell me where the evolution of the terms for people of color came from? Negro-->Afro American-->Black-->African American. Or Indian-->Native american).

A lot of this stuff takes place in schools which I think is particularly dangerous. Any of you have kids in school where they play "winnerless" games? Or how about the episodic efforts to eliminate valadictorians? The thinking is that such things make the non-recipiants "feel bad". If a purpose of schooling is to prepare kids for later life such silliness is clearly counter productive.

Amoungst liberals, it is not PC to criticise black "leaders" nor to point out troubling statistics regarding black incarceration or single parent households. The penalty, of course, is to be called "racist". Similarly, advocating gun ownership, right to life, or agreement with GWB are looked at askance. The penalty here is to be branded "facist". In liberal circles, diversity appears to be alive and well except when it comes to ideas. I think that this is particularly obvious when it comes to HIV/Aids. If this disease is as dangerous as we are led to believe, why is there no national registry of carriers? Care to suggest that at a liberal gathering? I would wager that every SARS patient in NA has been cataloged completely. One might argue that the gay leadership in this country, by opposing such measures, bears responsibility for some number of deaths. Yet, to point that out, or to attempt to discuss it is problematic.

I suspect that there are similar examples that might be found amoung groups on the right and far right. The difference is that those conventions do not seem to permeate any national discussion.

Aspects of PC are particularly devisive. A white person is viewed as "boorish" by using the term ******. Fair enough. It is ok, though for black entertainers to use the term with little pushback from anyone. It think that this leads to and reenforces the existance of "white tribes" and "black tribes". I don't find this encouraging.

If I were to recite the following to your 15 year old daughter you might punch me in the nose:

"Hey yo, its all good
Range Rover all would
Do me like you should
F*ck me good, suck me good
We be them stuck ******
Wishin you was ******"
(Nelly-Ride wit me)

Yet, to critisize these deathless words would result in terrible charges being leveled against you in some circles.

Similar problems exist in discussions of black patois. Yup it is english, nope it will not help you to get a good job. Legitimizeing it is destructive. Critisizeing it is self destructive.

The problem with PC is, IMNSHO, that it is incidious. It is far more than not being allowed to call a spade a spade. It diminishes our capacity for debate and creates unwarrented expectations as well as legitimizing non-mainstream behaviour that can have far ranging reprecussions on a young persons adult life. Those are the problems.

[KelvinG]

Excellent post Ed.

[c0rbin]

Er...

How about an example from the last 15 years, since the libs have gained power and become corrupt?

Liberals are people willing to embrace change. WHen you mean "Democrats"--say it.

Don't confuse the two. Liberal is a stance toward individual issues. Democrat is a political part that may or my not have "gained power and become corrupt."

Tony,
You walk that thin line and cross it as you see fit. That is fine. If you choose to ignore the violence and underground-living that homosexuals have had to endure in this country, or refuse to acknowledge that women and blacks (in this very century) have had to fight every step for basic equality, then perhaps you are not in a position to understand diversity.

You said that was "40 years ago." Well, that means that this generation of black college-age people have had to grow up watching their parents suffer as second-class citizens--bow and shuffle to whites on the street (ever been to South Carolina these days?). What do you think that would do to one's psyche?

Would that justify a reactionary approach in your eyes?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Malachi151

No, American PCness has to do with not being a friggen retard and and a bigot. Does it go to far? I guess so sometimes, but for the most part its just counteracts predjust and bigotry. I'm sorry that these guys can call people faggots or ******* in public anymore. Too bad for them.


Not that I don't agree with most of what you said, Malachi151 but this sentence deserves some sort of award.

It doesn't quite fit for the language or logic awards but an Unintentional Irony award, possibly. Anyone want to start a thread?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ed


I think that PC is more dangerous than would be suggested by simply associating it with what might be termed "good manners".

*snip*

The problem with PC is, IMNSHO, that it is incidious. It is far more than not being allowed to call a spade a spade. It diminishes our capacity for debate and creates unwarrented expectations as well as legitimizing non-mainstream behaviour that can have far ranging reprecussions on a young persons adult life. Those are the problems.

Ed,

I agree with you, honestly I do (can you hear the 'but' coming?) BUT I would raise the followng points for your consideration:

1) In its infancy, Political Correctness was a reactionary movement. It derived its strength from the strength of engrained habit to which it was opposed. When that engrained habit died out from the mainstream (which it has for the most part), the armies of PCdom suddenly found themselves facing a routed enemy and, as armies are wont to do in such circumstances, they ran wild. The result of that is the kind of abuses of reason and common sense you describe. However, those days are now gone too and, without the reactionary fervour to drive it, rabid PC has begun to peeter out. It will continue to do so and will eventually either disappear altogether or morph into a far tamer force entirely.

2) By arguing against PC in this manner you give fuel to the energies of a type of person that is not unknown on these forums and who thinks that they should be allowed to say what theylike to who they like using whatever foul language and comparisons echo around in the very spacious area between their brains and their skulls. YOu also ally yourself with far nastier persons. Not that I think you shouldn't state your opinions, I just think maybe you need to add a disclaimer or something - "This in no way implies that . . .etc." Unless you are happy to be counted amongst such company, of course.

3) Finally, yes it is far more than not being able to "call a spade a spade". IMO, you should be able to call a spade a spade, a gay person gay, a black person black and a retarded person retarded. That's only sensible. If you really want to, you should also not be legally prevented from calling them fags, ******* and retards. I do, however, think that it should not be socially acceptable to do so and that any person with a sense of honour should object to your doing so.

I look forward to your comments.

Graham

[corplinx]

I think we are forgetting something. Politcial correctness is telling people not to say Negro while encouraging them to donate to the United Negro College Fund. Its about removing the gender specific words from an all girl college brochure to not offend "transgendered" people. Its about trying to have the "manholes" on your street changed to some other name. Its about the sterilization of our language. Its new-speak though social pressure instead of through law. And yes, its about racial slurs. Its about the movie Blazing Saddles having the word ****** censored. Its about Mark Twain being banned for school reading. Its about Chevy Chase asking Richard Pryor on SNL what came to his mind when he heard the word ******. You won't see that kind of comeuppance comedy anymore. You can't even use the word niggardly anymore.

Political correctness isn't about discouraging trailer trash from using racial slurs. Indeed, it probably has the opposite effect.

[Graham]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think we are forgetting something. Politcial correctness is telling people not to say Negro while encouraging them to donate to the United Negro College Fund. Its about removing the gender specific words from an all girl college brochure to not offend "transgendered" people. Its about trying to have the "manholes" on your street changed to some other name. Its about the sterilization of our language. Its new-speak though social pressure instead of through law. And yes, its about racial slurs. Its about the movie Blazing Saddles having the word ****** censored. Its about Mark Twain being banned for school reading. Its about Chevy Chase asking Richard Pryor on SNL what came to his mind when he heard the word ******. You won't see that kind of comeuppance comedy anymore. You can't even use the word niggardly anymore.

Political correctness isn't about discouraging trailer trash from using racial slurs. Indeed, it probably has the opposite effect.

I would contend that these are examples of PC gone mad, rather than PC per se. Don't throw they baby out with the bathwater.

Just out of interest, what did they want to call manholes instead?

Graham

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Graham


Not that I don't agree with most of what you said, Malachi151 but this sentence deserves some sort of award.

It doesn't quite fit for the language or logic awards but an Unintentional Irony award, possibly. Anyone want to start a thread?

Graham

I agree, its in the vain of showing what happens when you ignore PCness, essentialy, "If you don't want ot be PC, then fine, I won't be PC and I'll tell you like it is w/o mincing words."

[Skeptic]

Frankly, while I don't like PC and consider it silly and often absurd, the attempt to consider it some sort of "awful menace" and a "theat to liberty", blah blah blah, is greatly overblown.

The "politically correct" people are usually academics--which, in America, traslates into "a powerless class of people". Only the academics themselves, and the rabid critics of political correctness, consider "political correctness" powerful enough to actually effect anything significant in the "real world"--that is, outside academia.

[KelvinG]

Has anyone actually met someone who would say "Yes, I consider myself politcally correct."

[Ed]

Originally posted by Graham

Ed,

I agree with you, honestly I do (can you hear the 'but' coming?) BUT I would raise the followng points for your consideration:

1) In its infancy, Political Correctness was a reactionary movement. It derived its strength from the strength of engrained habit to which it was opposed. When that engrained habit died out from the mainstream (which it has for the most part), the armies of PCdom suddenly found themselves facing a routed enemy and, as armies are wont to do in such circumstances, they ran wild. The result of that is the kind of abuses of reason and common sense you describe. However, those days are now gone too and, without the reactionary fervour to drive it, rabid PC has begun to peeter out. It will continue to do so and will eventually either disappear altogether or morph into a far tamer force entirely.

Perhaps. But (and you saw that coming too, right?) as recently as 3 years ago a councilman in ...Pittsburgh(?) was fired for using the word "niggerdly" in a sentence. The person that complained and the Mayor had a rather, shall we say, limited vocabulary. After the event, the fired guy apologised and said that he should not have used the word. The guys responsible for his termination were abyssally ignorant, the fireee (fire-ee) was a self loathing PCer. These fuccers just assaulted MY language, and got away with it. I am afraid that the thinkinf is alive and well. Like any good bureocrat, the mavins of PC want it to continue in order to actualize themselves. There are some people that use words that end in "ist" or "phobe" to earn their daily bread. As a joke (or thought experiment) think of what any politition might say if asked to comment on an event like, say, 4 gays killing a black crack addict. How much substance would there be. And, yes, this is PC for PC is the art of the innocuous.

2) By arguing against PC in this manner you give fuel to the energies of a type of person that is not unknown on these forums and who thinks that they should be allowed to say what theylike to who they like using whatever foul language and comparisons echo around in the very spacious area between their brains and their skulls. YOu also ally yourself with far nastier persons. Not that I think you shouldn't state your opinions, I just think maybe you need to add a disclaimer or something - "This in no way implies that . . .etc." Unless you are happy to be counted amongst such company, of course.

Well, this is akin to the argument that we need to control the internet "for the children", if you attach "for the children" to anything you think that you have a free pass. No, the nature of free speech is that assopenings have the power of speech. You (metaphorically) having the right to argue for the curtailment (through pressure or lack of media outlets) of free speech is just as supportable as me haveing the right, after supporting your right, to call you a big fat homo ****** (assuming the is some degree of verisimilitude). Your motivations are as pure and correct to you as mine are to me. I find that there are people that I choose not to associate with, they may be crass, or not know the meaning of the word niggerdly, no matter, they are not part of my evoked set. I respectfully suggest that that option is open to all, particularly on a forum.

3) Finally, yes it is far more than not being able to "call a spade a spade". IMO, you should be able to call a spade a spade, a gay person gay, a black person black and a retarded person retarded. That's only sensible. If you really want to, you should also not be legally prevented from calling them fags, ******* and retards. I do, however, think that it should not be socially acceptable to do so and that any person with a sense of honour should object to your doing so.

Concur (except in the case of the dagos:D)
I look forward to your comments.

Graham

Edit to add that "assopening" was not my original word, I was politely asked to change the original. I will not tell you what I originally wrote. Does it strike anyone as ironic that it occured in a discussion of free speech? Anyhoo, I think that "assopening" is more euphonious and I am greatful that this episode added an arrow to my quiver of the written word.

[corplinx]

Ross Perot got in trouble for saying "you people". We can all point out political correctness run amok. Can you however point out reasonable political correctness? And no, refraining from using ethnic slurs doesn't count.

[Gideon S]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Frankly, while I don't like PC and consider it silly and often absurd, the attempt to consider it some sort of "awful menace" and a "theat to liberty", blah blah blah, is greatly overblown.

The "politically correct" people are usually academics--which, in America, traslates into "a powerless class of people". Only the academics themselves, and the rabid critics of political correctness, consider "political correctness" powerful enough to actually effect anything significant in the "real world"--that is, outside academia.


www.languagepolice.com

The extreme right and the extreme left both benefit from this sort of censure. The right gets to censor ideas, and the left gets to censor words and images. Everybody's happy!

Personally, I'm just happy that in this modern world mere words still have such an almost mystical power and significance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin



Tony,
You walk that thin line and cross it as you see fit. That is fine.

What does this mean corbin?


If you choose to ignore the violence and underground-living that homosexuals have had to endure in this country, or refuse to acknowledge that women and blacks (in this very century) have had to fight every step for basic equality, then perhaps you are not in a position to understand diversity.

I don’t ignore the discrimination homosexuals face, and personally, I could care less if someone is gay. But I don’t want the radical homosexual agenda shoved down my throat. (no pun intended)

And I acknowledge that women and blacks have had to struggle for equal rights, which they should have. What does this have to do with anything?


You said that was "40 years ago." Well, that means that this generation of black college-age people have had to grow up watching their parents suffer as second-class citizens--bow and shuffle to whites on the street (ever been to South Carolina these days?). What do you think that would do to one's psyche?

Would that justify a reactionary approach in your eyes?

What kind of reaction?

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx
Ross Perot got in trouble for saying "you people". We can all point out political correctness run amok. Can you however point out reasonable political correctness? And no, refraining from using ethnic slurs doesn't count.

Yes. Asking "may I" before lighting a ciggerate, offering to help a mother with her carrige when going down or up stairs, not wearing a hat inside, offering to shake hands when you meet someone, returning something that is not yours. Sorta like manners. This is far from attempting to imagine anything that might represent a slight to another person and then acting on it. Part of being mannerly is the willingness to overlook gaffes.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ed


Yes. Asking "may I" before lighting a ciggerate, offering to help a mother with her carrige when going down or up stairs, not wearing a hat inside, offering to shake hands when you meet someone, returning something that is not yours. Sorta like manners.

No, these are manners. And they are lacking poorly these days still. Wearing hats inside has to be at an all-time high.

This is not PC.

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx


No, these are manners. And they are lacking poorly these days still. Wearing hats inside has to be at an all-time high.

This is not PC.

Sure it is, commonly accepted acceptable behavior. An early incarnation.

Forget political correctness. It is politics that is the scourge of our (any) times.

-Who

[Tony]

Originally posted by Whodini
Forget political correctness. It is politics that is the scourge of our (any) times.

-Who

Agreed, cant we all just get high and have fun? Or is that politically incorrect? :p

[c0rbin]

Quid Pro Quo,

I said you walk a thin line. What I mean by that is you do not distinguish feminists from "man-haters" unless prompted to and are probably perfectly willing to laugh with the boys about it.

radical homosexual agenda

What is this?

After you answer that, answer this: Which is worse? Some homophobic paranoia you have or Senate Bill 83 which goes into effect next year here in Texas and does some actual subverting (of the Bill of Rights).

C'mon, dude, PC is not the end of the Freedoms we have in America.


And I acknowledge that women and blacks have had to struggle for equal rights, which they should have. What does this have to do with anything?


It is the reason why minorities, from women to transgender, react the way they do. PC might not even be an issue if their wasn't descrimination or even percieved oppression.


What kind of reaction?


I am impressed with anything short of armed insurrection, which white men did because of high taxes not so long ago. So these groups search for identity and ask that you, the white male majority, give them a fair shake--you get pissed because you get in trouble for telling tit jokes at work. This is the "scourge of our times" how?

Oh, and Corplinx said:


You can't even use the word niggardly anymore.


You just did.

[c0rbin]

Agreed, cant we all just get high and have fun?


Now you're talking, you ****** bitch.

[DavidJames]

"You can't even use the word niggardly anymore."

I would suggest a thesaurus. The English language is rich with words rarely used. But, you might say, why shouldn't I use whatever words I like. As c0rbin indicated, nobody is stopping you. But, why, considering the abundance or available alternatives, would someone deliberately choose words offensive to some?

[c0rbin]

Can you however point out reasonable political correctness?

Corplinx,

Look, at issue here is PC being "the scourge of our times" which is a gross hyperbole at best.

We on the board have demonstrated that you cannot change the way someone thinks. This is something that they have to do themselves.

But you can make a work environment more hospitable and inclusive by saving the off-color talk for home. Got a great Jew joke you want to share with your buddy? Share it away from the office.

This is a good thing and a "PC" thing to do.

Now, it is also hyperbole, IMO, to think that PC will replace freedom of speech. No ultimate court will support someone saying that the word "niggardly" was used as a racial slur.

That is not PC, that is ignorance and it aboubds in all segments of society.

Now, I wonder why you react against the idea of creating an inclusive office environment?

Do you resent the fact that you can't tell tit jokes at work?
Do you need to curb your use of the word niggardly?
Are you tired of planning Gay-Bashing Raids through the arts section of your city so inconveniently at home instead of the office?
Do you find yourself stuttering because you can't remember a slur for Puerto Ricans?
Is PC controling your thoughts!?!

[Ed]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"You can't even use the word niggardly anymore."

I would suggest a thesaurus. The English language is rich with words rarely used. But, you might say, why shouldn't I use whatever words I like. As c0rbin indicated, nobody is stopping you. But, why, considering the abundance or available alternatives, would someone deliberately choose words offensive to some?

It's a good word. Are you suggesting that vocabulary should be tailored to the lowest common denomonator?

[DavidJames]

"Are you suggesting that vocabulary should be tailored to the lowest common denomonator?"

I'm not suggesting anyone do anything other than what most people already do, that is consider the words they choose. Railing against PC is such a crock. The fact is most people will "tailor" their language to suite the audience. That's PC, like it or not. How you might describe a poor performance by your favorite sports team in a locker room will likely be different than if you were telling your mother or child. That's PC! Things change, what is considered PC changes. Nobody is telling you how to speak or think. You make your own decisions everyday. It's only when someone questions that decision that it becomes a PC issue. That's the crux of the issue.

[c0rbin]

Nice point, David.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Are you suggesting that vocabulary should be tailored to the lowest common denomonator?"

I'm not suggesting anyone do anything other than what most people already do, that is consider the words they choose. Railing against PC is such a crock. The fact is most people will "tailor" their language to suite the audience. That's PC, like it or not. How you might describe a poor performance by your favorite sports team in a locker room will likely be different than if you were telling your mother or child. That's PC! Things change, what is considered PC changes. Nobody is telling you how to speak or think. You make your own decisions everyday. It's only when someone questions that decision that it becomes a PC issue. That's the crux of the issue.

No. It influences what is in textbooks andwhat is said on the air. It defines some topics as off limits. When the media refuse to discuss certain issues it affects us all. Forget about PC as name calling, that is not the point.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by DavidJames

I'm not suggesting anyone do anything other than what most people already do, that is consider the words they choose. Railing against PC is such a crock. The fact is most people will "tailor" their language to suite the audience. That's PC, like it or not.

Yes, we all adapt our language to our audience. Some linguists would say that each one of us is multilingual, because we can change our "style" to suit our audience and we don't even notice. When you speak to a child, you use simpler words, repeats the concepts, emphasize certain words, makes exaggerated gestures. This adaptation isn't restricted to vocabulary. Now, when you are in a job interview, the words you use, posture, facial expression will be completely different.

This is not PC! There's nothing "political" in that. No agenda. You probably could find similar behavior in our human ancestors.

How you might describe a poor performance by your favorite sports team in a locker room will likely be different than if you were telling your mother or child. That's PC! Things change, what is considered PC changes. Nobody is telling you how to speak or think. You make your own decisions everyday. It's only when someone questions that decision that it becomes a PC issue. That's the crux of the issue.

I believe that PC stems from *oversensitiveness* over certain words and tries to apply rules and limits to that "multilinguism" that I referred above. Knowing how to speak to a fellow human being, as you can naturally do, is not enough, now you have to be aware of the appropriate words because someone somewhere might not like it. That's PC.

edited for html

[gnome]

The problem with arguing about PC is that it really means different things depending on who's arguing.

If you mean:

Dogmatically enforcing "sensitive" language to the point of absurdity and inaccuracy... then of course that's wrong and I oppose it. Most people do. Is this a large and widespread problem? Need more than just anecdotes. There are plenty of examples of stupid people making bad decisions and I don't think you can blame any particular ideology for it.

If you mean:

Encouraging the use of terms that are often broader and more accurate than those in common usage... then I think it's a good idea. For example, George Carlin mentioned the evolution of the term "Shell Shock" into "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder". He has a good point about it sounding far less personal, but the fact is that essentially the same problem affects more than just soldiers in battle, and I see nothing wrong with using a term that reflects that.

If you mean:

That racist or intolerant language has become unfashionable... and you have a problem with this, I say tough s__t. Should I care if a__holes are unpopular?


I can't escape the conclusion that most of the reasonable "Anti-PC" bunch are upset about my first example, and arguing against people defending the second example, so really apples and oranges are being compared.

[DavidJames]

"The problem with arguing about PC is that it really means different things depending on who's arguing."

I agree.

"now you have to be aware of the appropriate words because someone somewhere might not like it. That's PC."

ah, yeah, that's my point. That's exactly the distinction of locker room talk versus a conversation with your mother. Do you not choose your vocabulary based at least partially on to whom you are speaking? And exactly what is the problem with trying to choose non-offensive language. Some might say that no matter what words we choose someone will be offended, so screw em. Nobody is forcing you, do and say as you like.

"No. It influences what is in textbooks and what is said on the air. It defines some topics as off limits. When the media refuse to discuss certain issues it affects us all. Forget about PC as name calling, that is not the point.:

In textbooks, some topics are always off-limits depending the subject and audience. I don't believe there is a issue on earth that "the media" refuses to discuss. Now the issue may not get the right spin or discussed by the right participants or reach the right conclusions for some, but not discussed? I don't think so. Can you provide some examples?

[Malachi151]

This is so funny, because all the off limit topics are liberal topics or topics that undermine the credibility of the establishment.

Just read the paper in my sig and you see exactly what I mean.

I agree, let's stop being PC so I can openly call Christianity the scourge of the earth, and expose the lies and treachery of the American establishment.

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Quid Pro Quo,

I said you walk a thin line. What I mean by that is you do not distinguish feminists from "man-haters" unless prompted to and are probably perfectly willing to laugh with the boys about it.



You're wrong.





radical homosexual agenda

What is this?


The same agenda that has trained you to make kneejerk charges of homophobia just for asking questions and being critical. The same agenda that demands that gays get special treatment.


After you answer that, answer this: Which is worse? Some homophobic paranoia you have or Senate Bill 83 which goes into effect next year here in Texas and does some actual subverting (of the Bill of Rights),


Homophobic parania? I believe thats a strawman argument.

As for Bill 83, im not familiar with it. Could you enlighten me?


It is the reason why minorities, from women to transgender, react the way they do. PC might not even be an issue if their wasn't descrimination or even percieved oppression.

I dont buy it. Minorities and women act the way they do because previous generations were discriminated against? Im sorry, that smells like bullsh!t.


m impressed with anything short of armed insurrection, which white men did because of high taxes not so long ago.

When did that happen?

So these groups search for identity and ask that you, the white male majority, give them a fair shake--you get pissed because you get in trouble for telling tit jokes at work.

A “fair shake” doesn’t include surrendering my right to be an a**hole.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
John Walker Lindh. And hasn't Sirhan Sirhan had a parole hearing in the last 15 years?
Originally posted by Tony
Those arent political prisoners.
Think again.


Originally posted by Malachi151
This is so funny, because all the off limit topics are liberal topics or topics that undermine the credibility of the establishment.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Think again.





OK, I did. They still arent political prisoners.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Tony



OK, I did. They still arent political prisoners.

I am merely suggesting that Sirhan Sirhan might already be walking free had the victim he was convicted of killing been somebody other than RFK. Get it?

John Walker Lindh? http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=106

The only "good" deal is one in which justice is achieved, and in this case I think there's much to regret on both sides. It seems clear in retrospect that the Justice Department charged Lindh with numerous crimes for which they had little or no evidence. Having portrayed him as a dangerous terrorist, the government had to back down into accepting a plea that was only indirectly and remotely related to terrorism. So the prosecutors lost a lot. Lindh, however, had to accept an extraordinarily long sentence for a nonviolent felony conviction for a first-time offender: twenty years. His lawyers reasoned that, in the current political climate, it was the best they were likely to do-especially given that the trial would have taken place in one of the most conservative courts in the country, just nine miles from the Pentagon, where the terrorist attack was still very fresh in potential jurors' memories.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


I am merely suggesting that Sirhan Sirhan might already be walking free had the victim he was convicted of killing been somebody other than RFK. Get it?



I get it, but I disagree. Murder is punishable with a life sentence in most states in the US.

John Walker Lindh? http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=106

Interesting article. but this:

But, rather than going forward with a trial, in the end both sides agreed to a deal in which Lindh pleaded guilty to only two counts: violating an executive order prohibiting U.S. citizens from giving their services to the Taliban, and committing a felony while carrying firearms. President Clinton signed the order regarding the Taliban in 1999, after the Al Qaeda attacks on two U.S. embassies in East Africa, since the Taliban was seen as harboring Al Qaeda.

seems to indicate he was guilty of more than just unpopular politics.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Tony
...seems to indicate he was guilty of more than just unpopular politics.
Depends on one's timing (http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm).

I am not posting to defend what Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of doing. But he is eligible for parole and as of March 2003 has had parole denied twelve consecutive times. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_B._Sirhan)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I agree, let's stop being PC so I can openly call Christianity the scourge of the earth, and expose the lies and treachery of the American establishment.

You could do that....... Or you could get a life. Doesn't matter to me either way.

[Tony]

We cant even openly call Islam the scourge of the earth. Another example of PC.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Tony
We cant even openly call Islam the scourge of the earth. Another example of PC.
I can swear you just did.

You are either comlaining about not being able to call Islam the scourge of the Earth period, that is, you're complaining about a limitation of free speech. If this is your issue, you're obviously wrong since you just implied that Islam is the scourge of the Earth without being prosecuted.
The other alternative is that you are complaining about not being able to call Islam the scourge of the Earth without being criticized by your peers. If this is the case you are in face complaining about people other than you excercising free speech, but I'm sure a freedomlovin' conservative as yourself would never do that.

What I would like to know is how a person like you can be a conservative, yet have so little in common with me, a classic conservative.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Depends on one's timing (http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm).

I am not posting to defend what Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of doing. But he is eligible for parole and as of March 2003 has had parole denied twelve consecutive times. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_B._Sirhan)

Same with Charlie Manson, your point is what? Convicted murderers deserve a parole?

[Ed]

Originally posted by gnome
The problem with arguing about PC is that it really means different things depending on who's arguing.

If you mean:

Dogmatically enforcing "sensitive" language to the point of absurdity and inaccuracy... then of course that's wrong and I oppose it. Most people do. Is this a large and widespread problem? Need more than just anecdotes. There are plenty of examples of stupid people making bad decisions and I don't think you can blame any particular ideology for it.

I can't escape the conclusion that most of the reasonable "Anti-PC" bunch are upset about my first example, and arguing against people defending the second example, so really apples and oranges are being compared.

It is not just about language, it is an insipid and biased world view. This from the Fox News site:

"The California Legislature (search) only narrowly passed a resolution honoring Father’s Day because Democrats insisted on inserting inclusive, PC language praising the “wonderful diversity” of America’s fathers, reports the Sacramento Bee.

Republicans nearly blocked the resolution because they objected that it had to single out every conceivable contortion of fatherhood. The resolution mentioned "single fathers, foster fathers, adoptive fathers, biological fathers, stepfathers, families headed by two fathers, grandfathers raising grandchildren, fathers in blended households, and other non-traditional fathers."

Last time I looked "fathers day" was pretty all inclusive, what is going on here is pure pandering.

This from the same source:

"Defaming Hinduism

Some readers say a Florida newspaper’s report about an obscure and tiny Hindu cult in India that eats people should never have been published because it makes their faith look bad, reports the Tampa Tribune.

The Tribune published a story in early June about a local man who traveled to India (search) extensively to study the Aghoris, a sect that practices cannibalism. For the article, the man speculated that some tourists who disappeared might have been gobbled up by the Aghoris."

From an Amazon.com review of The Language Police"

"In a multi-page sampling of rejected test passages, we discover that "in the new meaning of bias, it its considered biased to acknowledge that lack of sight is a disability," that children who live in urban areas cannot understand passages about the country, that the Aesop fable about a vain (female) fox and a flattering (male) crow promotes gender bias. As outrageous as many of the examples are, they do not appear particularly dangerous. However, as the illustrations of abridgment, expurgation, and bowdlerization mount, the reader begins to understand that our educational system is indeed facing a monumental crisis of distortion and censorship."

This is not about politeness, this is about controlling young minds and it is dangerous.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ed


It is not just about language, it is an insipid and biased world view. This from the Fox News site:

"The California Legislature (search) only narrowly passed a resolution honoring Father’s Day because Democrats insisted on inserting inclusive, PC language praising the “wonderful diversity” of America’s fathers, reports the Sacramento Bee.

Republicans nearly blocked the resolution because they objected that it had to single out every conceivable contortion of fatherhood. The resolution mentioned "single fathers, foster fathers, adoptive fathers, biological fathers, stepfathers, families headed by two fathers, grandfathers raising grandchildren, fathers in blended households, and other non-traditional fathers."

.

Bullshiznit, this was a fight about gay rights. Whats PC is wasting so much time lawmaker on a usless resolution.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy


Bullshiznit, this was a fight about gay rights. Whats PC is wasting so much time lawmaker on a usless resolution.

Presumably, so no one is offended.

[Tmy]

PC ness is more or less modern day good manners. Sure it can get kooky, just like manners. (like wearing white shoes after Labor Day.). Is PC really so awful? Its it so terrible to not use the word "gook". Would it be better if we all behaved like boorish idiots.

[Temporal Renegade]

The American version of PC seems to stem from the concept of liberal white guilt: don't say bad things, as they might offend someone...re-label it instead, so that everyone feels included.
Being both white and liberal, I'm not real sure what to make of this...

Am I PC? Maybe, as I don't want to offend people so much as try to understand them. Am I going to re-label them, just to make myself feel better? No. As George Carlin said, we need fewer labels, not more.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tricky
If he were alive, I'm sure he would be sad to see that bigotry has had a strong resurgance in the form of people who rail about "political correctness".

What do you suppose he would think of people who attribute things to "bigotry" when there is no basis for doing so?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx
Ross Perot got in trouble for saying "you people". We can all point out political correctness run amok. Can you however point out reasonable political correctness? And no, refraining from using ethnic slurs doesn't count.

Interesting that you choose to distance PC from one of its main goals--refraining from using ethnic slurs. Why shouldn't the latter count?

[Tmy]

You know what, screw PC!! Ive had enough. No longer will I rise forthe national anthem at baseball games. Imgaine not only having to stand up, but to also take my hat off! I just want to watch a damn game. But Im sure all the PC thugs sitting near me will give me dirty looks or say crap just cause Im not bein PC.

Damn liberals.

[c0rbin]

You're wrong.


I hope so. I hope you could express the validity of femenist concepts to your friends in earnest.


The same agenda that demands that gays get special treatment.


What's so special about wanting to get a legally recognized marriage? Or what so special about wanting to be intimate with your lover without having to worry about going to jail for it? How is this special treatment if these are concenting adults?

The constitution does not use the word "Homosexual" in it, but it also doesn;t use the word "God" in it either.

Sentae Bill 83 is an example of our mis-guided biases in this nation. You rail against perdcieved limitations on your first amendment rights (even though I see you using words you fear you might not be able to use--hell, I called you a ****** bitch and I haven;t even been slapped by people more sensetive than I)--all this while true transgressions agains the US Constitution happen in out very state.

Bill 83 requires by law that children in Texas public schools observe a moment of silence and say the pledge of allegiance every day before school. This means that kids must decalre the existance of a God and that the US is "one nation under God."

Their only recourse is to get a note from their parents. So, the state of Texas says you must declare that you are monotheistic until you are 18 or have a note from your parents.

Link to Bill (http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist25/pr03/p040403a.htm)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy
You know what, screw PC!! Ive had enough. No longer will I rise forthe national anthem at baseball games. Imgaine not only having to stand up, but to also take my hat off! I just want to watch a damn game. But Im sure all the PC thugs sitting near me will give me dirty looks or say crap just cause Im not bein PC.

Damn liberals.

New PC or old PC? ;) Language is changing all the time, and it's not just the PC agenda which is trying to limit and direct what can be said. "Axis of evil" anyone? WMDs? Disarmament? what is a muslim or a patriot, and how has that changed since the WTC attack?

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin



What's so special about wanting to get a legally recognized marriage? Or what so special about wanting to be intimate with your lover without having to worry about going to jail for it? How is this special treatment if these are concenting adults?



There you go again. Assuming I am talking about something I am not. Everything you just mentioned, I support and hope gays are successfull at achieving.


Bill 83 requires by law that children in Texas public schools observe a moment of silence and say the pledge of allegiance every day before school. This means that kids must decalre the existance of a God and that the US is "one nation under God."

I do have a problem with the Bill. Kids should not be compelled by law to say the pledge. But I also have a problem with your assertion that saying the pledge is akin to declaring the existance of god. THAT my friend, is paranoia.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Ed
Same with Charlie Manson, your point is what? Convicted murderers deserve a parole?

http://www.sondralondon.com/tales/thornley/goof.gif

political prisoner?





No, Ed. That is a silly suggestion.

[DavidJames]

"The same agenda that demands that gays get special treatment."

Can you elaborate on what you are referring to?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames


Can you elaborate on what you are referring to?



This (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21008) is just one example.

[DavidJames]

Some employee's wanted to continue something that had been going on for some 10 years. The new administration said no. BFD.

This is hardly an

"agenda that demands that gays get special treatment"

Sorry, I thought you really had some serious information worth discussing. Nevermind.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Some employee's wanted to continue something that had been going on for some 10 years. The new administration said no. BFD.

This is hardly an

"agenda that demands that gays get special treatment"

Sorry, I thought you really had some serious information worth discussing. Nevermind.

So, you are saying that isnt special treatment?

[Ed]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"The same agenda that demands that gays get special treatment."

Can you elaborate on what you are referring to?

Well, according to this
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

HIV is the 18th leading cause of death in the US. You would not know that from the attention that it receives. It might be sorta un-pc to even point this out.

I never quite understood the notion of gay marrage. Of course gay couples should be able to avial themselves of all of the legal protections that hetro married couples get but using the word "marrage" sorta flies in the face of common usage throughout human history. It is, in effect, a non-sequitor. What will be will be, I suppose, but the push for it is clearly special treatment inasmuch as it supports the change of a basic concept of human existance for a minority.

[Frank Newgent]

- Homosexual employees of the US Department of Justice (news - web sites) have been forbidden to hold an annual "Gay Pride" event at the department's headquarters, a gay DoJ employee said Friday.

Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) "will not allow us to hold our annual pride ceremony in the building," said Melissa Schraibman, who works in Justice Department (news - web sites)'s tax division.

The Justice Department has held gay pride events at the Department headquarters annually since the early 1990s, when Bill Clinton (news - web sites) -- a gay rights supporter -- was president and Janet Reno (news - web sites) the US attorney general.

.....

The cancellation "is definitely a surprise," Schraibman told AFP. All the preparations for the event, to be held in the Department's main hall, had already been finalized.

According to Schraibman, the prohibition is "in accord with a new department policy that prohibits commemoration unless it is supported by a presidential proclamation."

"This is something we have never heard of before," she said. "It doesn't exist in writing yet."

Schraibman said that other groups of DoJ employees -- including those belonging to ethnic or special interest groups -- continue to use the Department building as a meeting place.
Originally posted by Tony
So, you are saying that isnt special treatment?
Having a new prohibition imposed that has been applied to no one else? Sounds like special treatment to me.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Having a new prohibition imposed that has been applied to no one else? Sounds like special treatment to me.


The prohibition is applied to everyone. You've never seen a straight pride day have you? And if there was, someone would probobly get sued for sexual harrasment.

[Frank Newgent]

Schraibman said that other groups of DoJ employees -- including those belonging to ethnic or special interest groups -- continue to use the Department building as a meeting place.

And here I thought you were, perhaps, being clever...

[DavidJames]

"HIV is the 18th leading cause of death in the US. You would not know that from the attention that it receives. It might be sorta un-pc to even point this out. "

First, enough with this PC nonsense. It reduces the seriousness of the discussion.

Second. Pretty much every disease, affliction, handicap has advocates, lobbies, celebrities, etc. trying to increase awareness and funding for their special "cause". In this sense HIV is no different then the others. Each are trying to get their share of the pie. If you have some evidence that HIV advocates are going beyond this, or as was stated, seeking, "special treatment", please post it.

HIV has received a lot of attention, perhaps, relatively speaking, more than it should. But unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I believe the HIV advocates are not seeking anything different than another other similar advocate. Apparently they are only guilty of being more successful than the others.

You must be livid about the treatment SARs is getting. I can only imagine the uproar if SARs was associated with a group conservatives didn't approve of.

[c0rbin]

There you go again. Assuming I am talking about something I am not. Everything you just mentioned, I support and hope gays are successfull at achieving.

Then what "special treatment are you talking about? [Added] I read that thread and I think Baker chimed in at the end. Doesn't sound like special treatment to me. Do you have any other examples?


But I also have a problem with your assertion that saying the pledge is akin to declaring the existance of god. THAT my friend, is paranoia.


The pledge contains the words "One nation under God" How is that paranoia?

Ed, your aids link didn;t link to anything for me, can you elaborate?

As for marriage, in a progressive society, we come up with new rules to handle things that have not had a vocabular to describe them in the past. An example that comes to mind are motor vehicle laws. Throught human history, these laws have not been a concern--only recently. Now that we live in a society that, at least by design, guarentees equality, we can explore expanded meanings of terms.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I can only imagine the uproar if SARs was associated with a group conservatives didn't approve of.

http://www.vu-la.com/tlp/045_masked_man.jpg

"Talk to the hand you elderly and young immunocompromised as well as relatively healthy no-good bastards".

[gnome]

Originally posted by Ed

It is not just about language, it is an insipid and biased world view. This from the Fox News site:

"The California Legislature (search) only narrowly passed a resolution honoring Father’s Day because Democrats insisted on inserting inclusive, PC language praising the “wonderful diversity” of America’s fathers, reports the Sacramento Bee.

Republicans nearly blocked the resolution because they objected that it had to single out every conceivable contortion of fatherhood. The resolution mentioned "single fathers, foster fathers, adoptive fathers, biological fathers, stepfathers, families headed by two fathers, grandfathers raising grandchildren, fathers in blended households, and other non-traditional fathers."

Last time I looked "fathers day" was pretty all inclusive, what is going on here is pure pandering.

Sounds like the whole exercise was pointless... didn't the legislature have anything better to do than pass feel-good resolutions in the first place? I'm unimpressed with the entire body, left and right, in this case.


This from the same source:

"Defaming Hinduism

Some readers say a Florida newspaper’s report about an obscure and tiny Hindu cult in India that eats people should never have been published because it makes their faith look bad, reports the Tampa Tribune.

The Tribune published a story in early June about a local man who traveled to India (search) extensively to study the Aghoris, a sect that practices cannibalism. For the article, the man speculated that some tourists who disappeared might have been gobbled up by the Aghoris."

I'm quite sure it's a fact of life in journalism that you can't write about ANYTHING without some readers complaining. And I'm equally sure that's been going on since before anyone imagined the term Political Correctness. I'm sorry, I just don't consider this an example. Opinions were stated. Who was censored or controlled?


From an Amazon.com review of The Language Police"

"In a multi-page sampling of rejected test passages, we discover that "in the new meaning of bias, it its considered biased to acknowledge that lack of sight is a disability," that children who live in urban areas cannot understand passages about the country, that the Aesop fable about a vain (female) fox and a flattering (male) crow promotes gender bias. As outrageous as many of the examples are, they do not appear particularly dangerous. However, as the illustrations of abridgment, expurgation, and bowdlerization mount, the reader begins to understand that our educational system is indeed facing a monumental crisis of distortion and censorship."

This is not about politeness, this is about controlling young minds and it is dangerous.

On this matter, let me state that I am totally against distortion and censorship in American (or any other) education. However, I would point out that this is also a time-honored custom and not anything that is new, or getting worse. AND not anything limited to one side of the political fence.

The problem I'm having here is with the idea that those that crave control over language and commentary all have the same political agenda. We've got them on all sides.