Political Correctness vs. Actual Correctness?

[Upchurch]

In another thread, billiefan2000 made a comment that actually envoked thought (although, not the kind he was intending, I'm sure). Rather than derail that thread, I thought I'd start a new one.

Further, I will defend the placement of the thread on this board rather than in the Politics board because it really has to do with right, wrong, and ethics, which we all know has nothing to do with politics or law. :D

My question is this: What is the difference between Actual Correctness and Political Correctness?

The example given by billie was that the latest turn of events with the US Supreme Court overturning Texas's anti-sodamy laws and the now very real possiblity of homosexual merriages was only a "politically correct" decision and not an actually correct decision. (He goes on further to introduce the term "biblically correct" as actually correct, but that's a topic for another thread.)

It seems to me that current events mirror the civil rights movement of the 1960's, which could also be labeled "politically correct" as well as "actually correct", IMHO. How then, is the current gay civil rights movement now different from the black civil rights movement then?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The example given by billie was that the latest turn of events with the US Supreme Court overturning Texas's anti-sodamy laws and the now very real possiblity of homosexual merriages was only a "politically correct" decision and not an actually correct decision. (He goes on further to introduce the term "biblically correct" as actually correct, but that's a topic for another thread.)

Well, Billie is wrong on two counts here (surprise!) IMO because;
a. The current decision was merely an extension of privacy rights inherent in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Specifically, cops don’t have a right to break down your door and arrest you for doing the nasty w/ another consenting adult as stopping these acts does not serve a compelling state interest.

b. This decision will NOT lead to legalized gay marriages because heterosexual marriage DOES serve a compelling state interest - specifically stable families that procreate. (I know that in practice things are not quite so simple - but keep in mind that the state is promoting the theory by keeping the club exclusive so to speak).


How then, is the current gay civil rights movement now different from the black civil rights movement then?

This one is easy. The state has no compelling reason to promote alternative lifestyles (by granting gays the same advantages as married heterosexuals). However, the state cannot interfere in their practice by the criminalization of behaviors between consenting adults.

In a nutshell, the state DOES NOT have to give its seal of approval so that gays can feel better about themselves. I am not anti-gay by any means but the scenes at those gay pride parades in SF and NYC make me realize that a certain segment of the gay community will not be happy until society is all gay all the time.

I say to them, you have a right to be tolerated and left alone. But celebrated?? Get real.

Barkhorn.

[Yahweh]

"Today I a gay guy came up to me and said 'I know what it feels like to be descriminated against. I know how you feel. We are one in the same.' And said back to him 'Oh no we're not!!' @#$*ing fruit."
- Richard Prior (probably)

So is that quote "politically correct" or "actually correct"?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

b. This decision will NOT lead to legalized gay marriages because heterosexual marriage DOES serve a compelling state interest - specifically stable families that procreate. (I know that in practice things are not quite so simple - but keep in mind that the state is promoting the theory by keeping the club exclusive so to speak).


Stable families that procreate? I have 2 sets of neighbors that appear to be perfectly stable, raising children that are the biological offspring of one of the two, but are both lesbian couples. The brother of a friend of mine and his partner have adopted children infected with HIV (when no-one else would), and cared for them their entire (too short) lives.

If the state has a compelling interest in stable families that support and care for children, there is no need to limit the support to heterosexual families.

There are good parents who are heterosexual, and good parents who are homosexual. There are bad parents of all sorts as well. When I see the gay families that I know doing such a great job despite a lack of support (sometimes in spite of open hostility)...I see no reason for the discrimination.

[Dragonrock]

Actually correct: Allowing women to use pepper spray/mace to defend themselves against would be attackers.

Politically correct: Outlawing mace/pepper spray because if a person with AIDS is sprayed then they might develop fatal pnemonia.

[Yahweh]

How then, is the current gay civil rights movement now different from the black civil rights movement then?
Some people (Like Richard Prior) feel that there is a difference between equal rights for people of all races and the rights of so-called "immoral behavior".

You also mentioned Biblical Rights. Seriously, if we took every word of the bible at face value, then we would see that the bible is sexist and tyrannistic (I use such strong words to illustrate some of the "unequal rights" written in the bible). Today, "god-given rights" is a cliche expression that refers to the rights of a human to live, and because that phrase is so cliche it is incorrect to assume that it refers to god (it would be the same as asssuming the phrase "oh my god" stating you believe in god). There, now I have crammed the maximum number of words into a sentence that I can think of.

I dont like political correctness. It shelters and skews the meaning of words. I prefer the term "black" over "African-American". Black is the "actual correct" term to use. Wouldn't a Caucasian person born in Africa who gains American citizenship be considered an "African-American"? Although that example is uncommon, it isnt unheard of.

I dont like politcal correctness. I dont descriminate against groups. I am not going to change the way I speak because I'm afraid the words I use are going to upset someone.

The political correctness in schools is out of hand. We've all heard about the 400 or so words we cant print in textbooks because they might offend students. You cant use the word "crippled"... You cant refer to a blind person as a hero because it might offend the sight-impared students... http://a.1asphost.com/philchristian/images/Wtf.gif

By the way, I think the "Fighting Whites (http://www.fightingwhites.org/index.aspx)" highschool basketball team is hilarious.

[Yahweh]

Actually Correct: The game of chess is a game of strategy and outsmarting your opponent.

Politically Correct: Make all the pieces the same color to prevent all this racial tension... and all the squares too.


Actually Correct: Bowling is lifetime sport that can be enjoyed by people of all walks of life.

Politically Correct: "There is symbolism in the game of bowling. Big ol' black ball knocking down 10 little white pins... and all the pins got red necks." - Some black comedian.


Actually Correct: The first American cars were all the same color and looked like boxes. The Japanese asked Americans what they wanted in a car and delivered. In the same way, Bill Gates makes a product that people like.

Politically Correct: Bill Gates controls a monopoly and should break up into 3 smaller companies so the smaller businesses in competition with Microsoft aren't driven into bankruptcy.

Expansion on that Politically Correct example with an Actually Correct Example: The goal of each of those 3 companies is to get large enough to buy out and crush the other 2.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Yahweh
By the way, I think the "Fighting Whites (http://www.fightingwhites.org/index.aspx)" highschool basketball team is hilarious.

I remember shortly after the name came out, people thought it was great. Some of the students said they were disappointed in the reaction.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

In a nutshell, the state DOES NOT have to give its seal of approval so that gays can feel better about themselves. I am not anti-gay by any means but the scenes at those gay pride parades in SF and NYC make me realize that a certain segment of the gay community will not be happy until society is all gay all the time.

I say to them, you have a right to be tolerated and left alone. But celebrated?? Get real.And how is this different from the racial prejudice of the past?

(I would also point out that there are certain segments of the community that will not be happy until there are no gays, no blacks, no hispanics, and no jews.)

What compelling state interest is there to allow blacks and whites use the same set of stairs, or drinking fountains, or movie theaters? What is the compelling state interest to allow minorities to vote? What is the compelling state interest to allow women to vote? Why did the state give them the seal of approval for them to "feel better about themselves"?

But I digress, I don't think that political correctness and actual correctness need necessarily be mutually exclusive. In the case of gay civil rights, I think it is rather obvious gay men and women should have the opportunity to be treated like full citizens in this country, with all the rights and privelages that entails. It's the same principles that make black civil rights and women's sufferage both politically correct and actually correct.

[Dancing David]

Teh PC thing, is basically about learning tolerance but some people carry it to extremes and then other extremeists use that as an excuse to be intolerant. (this statement is generic and not a comment about any posters).

The issue is about fighting cultural bigotry. PC dom is about that, the second issue is the extremes that some idiots have taken it.

Language is important and while it may seem inconvenient to refer to ' that retard' as an 'individual living with a developmental disability'. But the focus is on the individual and not the diability.

We need to be more tolerant, all the time, we must fught cultural bigotry.

However it does get carried to extremes by people with wierd political agendas.

[ntech]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


In a nutshell, the state DOES NOT have to give its seal of approval so that gays can feel better about themselves. I am not anti-gay by any means but the scenes at those gay pride parades in SF and NYC make me realize that a certain segment of the gay community will not be happy until society is all gay all the time.

Barkhorn.

Or maybe given the basic human rights the rest of us enjoy.

Why should a hetero be allowed all the benefits of a union and gays not be?


Do you judge all white people by the actions of the ted bundys of the world?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What is the difference between Actual Correctness and Political Correctness?
One of them conforms to the empirical facts, and the other one comforms to the current political situation.

Magically controlling reality is far to much fun to expect humans to give up.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi

One of them conforms to the empirical facts, and the other one comforms to the current political situation. Maybe I should rephrase my question: Are Political Correctness and Actual Correctness mutually exclusive and how does one know the difference?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch
How then, is the current gay civil rights movement now different from the black civil rights movement then?

Boy I sure missed something...

Are they making gays sit in the back of the bus?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are they making gays sit in the back of the bus? smart@$$ ;)

No, but they are specifying different rules for different segments of the population, in essense creating first and second class citizens based only on social stigma. I'm drawing a comparison between the social stimga of being gay to the past social stimga of being black.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Boy I sure missed something...

Are they making gays sit in the back of the bus?

that is a good point, in that descrimination is less obviuos, except for gay bashing.

But consider this, ten years ago someone I knew fell out of a crane. He and his partner had bought a house and aquired many assets. While he was in the hospital , his family refused to let his partner see hi. When he died they sued his partner for half the equity and half the possesions.

Why should gay people have to make bussiness partner ships, wills and sign power of attorneys when we can grant the rights granted to heteros.

Then there is the whole 'keep it quiet' thing. I am not saying that people should have sex in the street, but what if you feel that you can't bring your partner to the office christmas party because they are a friend and not family.

Then there is the fact that the Army will kick you out for being gay.

Etc., Etc.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch
smart@$$ ;)

No, but they are specifying different rules for different segments of the population, in essense creating first and second class citizens based only on social stigma. I'm drawing a comparison between the social stimga of being gay to the past social stimga of being black.


I think you have to look at the different problems the two groups encounter/ed..

While there may be some similarities and parallels, gays do not endure an overwhelming amount of discrimination based on appearance. ( not that stereotypes don't exist, but I do not feel this is the crux of the problem.. )

Gays are not routinely discriminated against because they are gay, but rather as a result of behavior, perceived or otherwise; by choice or otherwise.

Blacks were/are discriminated against merely for being ' black '..


Does that make sense...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Does that make sense... I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree.

It is a very fine line between saying that Blacks were descriminated against because how they looked rather than how they were. Do you think a child of a bi-racial couple, who looked white, wouldn't have been descriminated against once their heritage was revealed before the 1960's (or later)? Do you think a white man who sympathised openly with black people would have been respected simply because he had white skin?
Gays are not routinely discriminated against because they are gay, but rather as a result of behavior, perceived or otherwise; by choice or otherwise.I'm sorry, Diogenes, but that's utter BS.

Did you know that here in Missouri, it is absolutely legal to fire a gay man from his job for no other reason other than because he is a gay man? It doesn't matter what his behavior is, if his boss finds out and is homophobic, there is nothing a gay man can do.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Did you know that here in Missouri, it is absolutely legal to fire a gay man from his job for no other reason other than because he is a gay man? It doesn't matter what his behavior is, if his boss finds out and is homophobic, there is nothing a gay man can do.

You must have missed or ignored where I said ' perceived ' behaviour..

How would the employer know he was gay if he did not reveal it in some way.. Which is the point I was trying to make..


And your mixed marriage child is an exception also.. If there was nothing to distinguish the child as black, it would also not be dicriminated against until the facts were revealed in some way..

Again making my point, I believe..

[Upchurch]

True story: I have a gay friend who helped a straight friend of his get a job at the company he worked at. He had to make a point of asking his friend to not mention his boyfriend in casual conversation at work. He could have been outed through no fault or behavior of his own and been fired for it.

Regardless, we can go back and forth on this but it doesn't make it actually correct to deny privilages to a portion of society for traits they cannot control, does it?

[ntech]

Originally posted by Diogenes



I think you have to look at the different problems the two groups encounter/ed..

While there may be some similarities and parallels, gays do not endure an overwhelming amount of discrimination based on appearance. ( not that stereotypes don't exist, but I do not feel this is the crux of the problem.. )

Gays are not routinely discriminated against because they are gay, but rather as a result of behavior, perceived or otherwise; by choice or otherwise.

Blacks were/are discriminated against merely for being ' black '..


Does that make sense...


Not behavior. Their nature. What if you were forced to live in a world where you had to marry a guy. It would be hell, wouldn't it. Well if it were not for all the religious bigotry it would not be such a big deal. Where do you think all the bigotry comes from?

How many times does one have to ask a gay person if it's a choice?

[Ladewig]

How many times does one have to ask a gay person if it's a choice?


When it comes to deciding rights, the question of choice or inherent trait is irrelevant. There are federal laws to protect people from racial and ethnic discrimination (inherent traits) AND religious and political discrimination (choices).

___________________________________
As for the original P.C. question, it means both appropriately correct and inappropriately concerned with correctness. Dictionary.com gives

1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch
True story: I have a gay friend who helped a straight friend of his get a job at the company he worked at. He had to make a point of asking his friend to not mention his boyfriend in casual conversation at work. He could have been outed through no fault or behavior of his own and been fired for it.

Regardless, we can go back and forth on this but it doesn't make it actually correct to deny privilages to a portion of society for traits they cannot control, does it?

I hope from my observations, you didn't infer that I feel discriminating against gays is O.K..

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes


I think you have to look at the different problems the two groups encounter/ed..

While there may be some similarities and parallels, gays do not endure an overwhelming amount of discrimination based on appearance. ( not that stereotypes don't exist, but I do not feel this is the crux of the problem.. )

Gays are not routinely discriminated against because they are gay, but rather as a result of behavior, perceived or otherwise; by choice or otherwise.

Blacks were/are discriminated against, merely for being ' black '..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by ntech


Not behavior. Their nature. What if you were forced to live in a world where you had to marry a guy. It would be hell, wouldn't it. Well if it were not for all the religious bigotry it would not be such a big deal. Where do you think all the bigotry comes from?

How many times does one have to ask a gay person if it's a choice?



You, like Upchurch, seemed to have picked out a word from my comments and ignored the rest..

I didn't say anything about ' choosing' to be gay. I was referring to behaviour that might identify one as gay, that the gay person had a choice about.
Like a passionate kiss with their partner in public, and how this compared to being able to identify and discriminate against a black person.

I'ts pretty easy to identify, and tell black people to sit in the back of the bus.
Unless the gay person walks around with a sign saying ' I'm Gay ', when he gets on the " Gays In The Back" bus,
he can probably get away with sitting next to the driver.

And I definitely feel, that gay people should be free to reveal their gayness, and get treated as anyone else would expect to be.

I just don't feel the comparrison between the civil rights for blacks movement, can be laid along side the gay rights movement, with a match, point for point.

The discrimination against both, or any group is equaly wrong, in my opinion.

[Fade]

But consider this, ten years ago someone I knew fell out of a crane. He and his partner had bought a house and aquired many assets. While he was in the hospital , his family refused to let his partner see hi. When he died they sued his partner for half the equity and half the possesions.

As I have said on other threads, I have hired several lawyers to rabidly destroy anyone and anything that would seek to come between me and my own partner.

Here's an example of discrimination:

For a man and a woman to ensure that, should one become incapacitated, the other has full rights and privelages of estate, they need to go to their nearest courthouse and pay 54 bucks to get a marriage license. Voila, done.

For two men, or two women, to have those same rights:
I have to go to a good lawyer, pay him a fee in order to keep him my lawyer and keep all my papers filed. I need to pay another fee (I think they called it a retainer) that sits in trust in case I do get sued and am not currently able to pay. Some families have had entire assets FROZEN from a surviving partner until the case has been cleared up. I had to go through hours and hours of very careful wording of several documents that these lawyers will use if it ever comes to us being in court. The entire process took us something like 4 weeks, and 2,000 dollars.

And we still aren't married.

Gays are not routinely discriminated against because they are gay, but rather as a result of behavior, perceived or otherwise; by choice or otherwise.

We are routinely discriminated against when it comes to jobs, housing, and loans just for being gay. 60 years ago, a lot of black people used the term "pass" when one of their children was light enough to be considered white. This is what gay people pretend to do. When they have a life partnership, and the question comes up, they simply say single. Do you have any idea how humiliating it is to deny that the person you love with every fibre of your being even exists? It's incredible to me, in this day and age, that any American can so quickly forget the civil rights movement, and all it stood for.

Blacks were/are discriminated against merely for being ' black '..

And gays are being discriminated against merely for being gay. There is no choice involved in homosexuality. Would any sane person CHOOSE to put themselves in a position where they would undergo regular, continued discrimination?

Obviously not.

Also, until you are gay, you really don't quite understand what it's like. I can not walk up to an 80 year old black man and tell him "I understand," because I don't. Because I can't. My experiences, while similar in some respects, do not come close to what he experienced. All I can do is empathize with his position, and do my best to make sure things like that never, ever happen again.

That is all gay rights is about. Not pride rallies, not marches. It's about quietly telling the government that their systematic discrimination is NOT okay. We can't do it alone.

I once believed that the US was a country where that sort of ideal wasn't only tolerated, but rigorously embraced. I was very wrong.

Edit-

Cost of a Marriage License in Kitsap County is 54 dollars, not 20.

[Fade]

I hope from my observations, you didn't infer that I feel discriminating against gays is O.K..

I didn't, but some will.

I do, however, realize that you know far less than you think you do. Perhaps it is no fault of your own. You have been inculcated with these mindless, awful beliefs since you were a kid. Anti-gay garbage is highly prevelant in American culture.

Edit--

It must be said that the "racist america" of the past was due in a large part to a populace that just didn't know. Racism/bigotry declines a LOT as you work your way up the ladder of education. The ratio of outright bigots that have received 8 year university education is tiny compared to the general population. I believe as one becomes more educated, one realizes how utterly inane double standards really are. Anti-gay laws serve no purpose, other than to discriminate. If one were to simply allow gays to marry and adopt children, the system would work a lot more smoothly. Imagine how many gay couples are out there wanting a child of their own very much.

General inquiries will tell you that about the only way you are going to do it is to private adopt. Find a couple that doesn't want their unborn baby. Adopt it at birth. That, or adopt a child addicted to crack, or infected with AIDS.

[ntech]

Fade

It is simply incredible what you have to endure even now in the new millennium. My gay boss, coworkers, friends and family members are great citizens who love their families, do their jobs and simply want to live without bigotry. I can’t imagine not being able to talk about the great things I experience with my wife, share the stories and simply live without fear of bigotry. My gay friend Julie is raising two great kids who were foreign orphans, unwanted. They are thriving with their loving parent. You are right about the education level. Bigots typically speak in short incorrect sentences.

[c4ts]

Billiefan is an idiot. He thinks Biblical Correctness is somehow greater than Political Correctnes. What he fails to realize is that both are equally worthless.

[Fade]

Originally posted by ntech
Fade

It is simply incredible what you have to endure even now in the new millennium. My gay boss, coworkers, friends and family members are great citizens who love their families, do their jobs and simply want to live without bigotry. I can’t imagine not being able to talk about the great things I experience with my wife, share the stories and simply live without fear of bigotry. My gay friend Julie is raising two great kids who were foreign orphans, unwanted. They are thriving with their loving parent. You are right about the education level. Bigots typically speak in short incorrect sentences.

I lead a fairly sheltered life, as far as bigotry went, for quite a long time. I was shuttled from a small Irish community, where we just didn't talk about who's genitals we liked the most, right to an American college. I encountered very little guff for being gay. In fact, I can only recount one "real" outburst in my entire time there.

Enter the real world, where I actually have time to listen to what the rest of the world is saying, and I hear idiots like Dr. Laura and endless amounts of politicians speaking out against equal civil liberties.


Sometimes the world is painful.

[justsaygnosis]

Here's a link regarding the marriage laws

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html



"marriage: an overview

In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is not allowed for lack of a valid reason and because it was deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex."


This is complicated and diverse enough for 'traditional' marriage.
Expanding the contractural guidelines for same sex should keep the legal eagles employed for years to come.


(I would also point out that there are certain segments of the community that will not be happy until there are no gays, no blacks, no hispanics, and no jews.)


I think Upchurch has hit on at least 90% of the problem with that line.
Sonny Bono had a great response when he was asked how he felt about Chastity Bono being gay.
I hope I get it close enough to do his answer justice.
"Obviously it wasn't my first choice that things turned out this way but she's my daughter, I'm not going to disown her because she's different in this regard."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I hope from my observations, you didn't infer that I feel discriminating against gays is O.K.. I didn't. Honest. This is still in the realm of constructive debate, in my mind.

We seem to have gotten off on the topic of who is easier to identify, a black man or a gay man, which wasn't my orginal point. My point was that that political correctness isn't, by necessity, the polar opposite of actual correctness. In other words, something can be both politically correct and actually correct at the same time. The issue in my mind arose with another thread about gay civil rights and I used the example of black civil rights.

When I asked the thread what the difference between the two is, the replies I got (except Dancing David's) was that political correctness is always over the top bowing down to some social or political group in disregard of actuality. In fact, if you look at the Politics board, "PC" is almost considered to be a dirty word. "PC Police" and "Thought Police" are nearly synonymous.

I don't agree that being PC is necessarily a bad thing nor incorrect.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I didn't. Honest. This is still in the realm of constructive debate, in my mind.

We seem to have gotten off on the topic of who is easier to identify, a black man or a gay man, which wasn't my orginal point. My point was that that political correctness isn't, by necessity, the polar opposite of actual correctness. In other words, something can be both politically correct and actually correct at the same time. The issue in my mind arose with another thread about gay civil rights and I used the example of black civil rights.

When I asked the thread what the difference between the two is, the replies I got (except Dancing David's) was that political correctness is always over the top bowing down to some social or political group in disregard of actuality. In fact, if you look at the Politics board, "PC" is almost considered to be a dirty word. "PC Police" and "Thought Police" are nearly synonymous.

I don't agree that being PC is necessarily a bad thing nor incorrect.

Thanks for the reply.. I see where trying to put my thoughts into words, spun some tangents I hadn't intended.. Easy to see why I don't make my living writing...:)

I believe I agree with you on the PC, thing.. Certainly with regard to the fact that just because something has the PC label attached to it, in no way makes the issue not ' correct ' in a sense that anyone should not be able to acknowledge it as such.

Playing the ' PC ' card, is often intellectual and moral laziness at it's worst.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I didn't. Honest. This is still in the realm of constructive debate, in my mind.

We seem to have gotten off on the topic of who is easier to identify, a black man or a gay man, which wasn't my orginal point. My point was that that political correctness isn't, by necessity, the polar opposite of actual correctness. In other words, something can be both politically correct and actually correct at the same time. The issue in my mind arose with another thread about gay civil rights and I used the example of black civil rights.

When I asked the thread what the difference between the two is, the replies I got (except Dancing David's) was that political correctness is always over the top bowing down to some social or political group in disregard of actuality. In fact, if you look at the Politics board, "PC" is almost considered to be a dirty word. "PC Police" and "Thought Police" are nearly synonymous.

I don't agree that being PC is necessarily a bad thing nor incorrect.

If something is both politicaly correct and morally correct then, in my experience, most people just call it morally correct. Political correctness means doing something because it looks good, not because it's right. Refering to a crippled person as "Differently abled" is only politically correct because it's all smell and no meat.

"Politically correct" originally refered to things that make someone feel better, but don't actually help anything.

[Fade]

Political correctness means doing something because it looks good, not because it's right

I don't agree with this at all.

What ever happened to being nice to one another? That is what kicked up PC in the first place. The world is full of people that go out of their way to be rude, and phrase things in the most insulting way possible. PC movement tried to combat this.

I think the anti-PC garbage on this board draws itself from the nasty nature of many of the posters here. You want to be able to freely insult and degrade anyone and anything without somebody else making you remember that somewhere in that dark little head of yours lies a conscience.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Fade
I think the anti-PC garbage on this board draws itself from the nasty nature of many of the posters here. You want to be able to freely insult and degrade anyone and anything without somebody else making you remember that somewhere in that dark little head of yours lies a conscience. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, but I think it goes further than just this board. From what I've observed, the attitude seems to be mostly shared by extreme right-wing conservatives in general. Surely, that is indicitive of something other than "they're mean"?

[Fade]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, but I think it goes further than just this board. From what I've observed, the attitude seems to be mostly shared by extreme right-wing conservatives in general. Surely, that is indicitive of something other than "they're mean"?

Yes, it goes much further than this board. I could go into the probable causes of what, exactly, makes a person not want to treat his/her fellow man with respect, but it would take me hours. The science of bigotry isn't something I am comfortable enough with to try to condense into a board friendly format.

Suffice it to say "wanting to be mean" is a large part of it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Fade


Yes, it goes much further than this board. I could go into the probable causes of what, exactly, makes a person not want to treat his/her fellow man with respect, but it would take me hours. The science of bigotry isn't something I am comfortable enough with to try to condense into a board friendly format.

Suffice it to say "wanting to be mean" is a large part of it.

I think you hinted at this when you talked about education level..

Most people experiment with bullying and meaness at an early age, and for whatever reason, most ( many? ) manage to outgrow it..

[Dragonrock]

It's not about being nice to each other. It's about making up new words and ways of acting because the old ways became offensive to someone.

Words that were descriptive have become offensive. The general term used to describe someone with some type of disability was "crippled". It wasn't meant to be offensive, it was meant to be descriptive. Crippled became offensive so "handicapped" was used. Handicapped became offensive so "disabled" was used. Now disabled is becoming offensive and "differently abled" is the term of choice. These words weren't invented to be offensive like "n*gg*r" for blacks and "f*g" for gays. They are descriptions that happen to bring attention to a person's disability and some people don't like being reminded that they are different.

There has to come to a point where we realize that words are just words.

[Fade]

These words weren't invented to be offensive like "n*gg*r" for blacks and "f*g" for gays.

Not everyone considers those two words offensive.

The point is, it doesn't hurt you to not use words that others find offensive. It also doesn't hurt to let people in the minority know that life isn't going to be horrible and unbearable for them.

Perhaps simple respect is too difficult a concept for some people to grasp.

That is why we have PC thugs. If you were careful with your words in the first place, they wouldn't have ever had reason to complain in the first place.

[Dragonrock]

What I was saying is that people decide that a word is offensive, even though it has been used for years in a non-offensive way. I think it was Katie Couric who once asked a guest about being called a "J word B word" (Katie didn't want to say "jewish bastard"). The person's response was "You can say 'jewish'". Katie was so afraid of offending someone that she couldn't even use a common word and in doing so insulted the person she was trying to be sensitive to.

Deciding to be offended by a word that is not meant to be insulting will eventually make it impossible to communicate at all.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Fade


What ever happened to being nice to one another? That is what kicked up PC in the first place. The world is full of people that go out of their way to be rude, and phrase things in the most insulting way possible. PC movement tried to combat this.

I think the anti-PC garbage on this board draws itself from the nasty nature of many of the posters here. You want to be able to freely insult and degrade anyone and anything without somebody else making you remember that somewhere in that dark little head of yours lies a conscience.

Hmmm....

PC seems to be double plus ungood.

While it is a nice idea that people should be kind to one another, do you really think that this can be accomplished by regulating vocabulary?

Do you wonder if vocabulary regulation of the PC sort has any negative or unwanted consequences? I have wondered if the latent message of the PC movement is that its OK to be hyper-sensitive.

Of course, many terms are insensitive or spiteful. Sometimes using them is a bit cathartic. If you find yourself robbed of the right to use crude or harsh words when you are angry or frustrated, how else are you going to release your anger and frustration? Do you have the right to bear arms where you live?

Ultimately, I would hope that people would be actually nice to me, rather than use words with me that have been declared nice.

Just some random thoughts

[Roadtoad]

Ever think, for a moment, what things would be like if we actually had to be kind to one another?

Granted, PC came about because the theory was if you establish the language, eventually, the behavior would come around. The problem with this is that the language has little to do, really, with the mindset.

Years ago, my wife and I became involved somewhat with the fight against apartheid in South Africa. One of the people we met was the daughter of the Archdeacon for Bishop Desmond Tutu's diocese. Vanessa was a wonderful, inventive woman, with an infectious positive outlook on things. She'd also been involved in the fight against apartheid directly, and had literally taken fire from the South African Police for doing so. (No, luckily, she was never hit by the bullets.)

During this time, we contributed to the fight. Sometimes, it was money, (which we had little of at the time), sometimes it was simply showing up.

Oddly enough, the radio station where I worked spoke out against the way Blacks were treated in South Africa, but not against apartheid! It wasn't okay to shoot at them, but it was perfectly acceptable to deny the Black majority the right to vote, to deny certain Blacks from marrying, to engage in the systematic discrimination of Blacks in employment. We even had a guy from South Africa, a Black minister, who spoke out against Bishop Tutu and his people, saying that the end of apartheid would HARM the Black majority! (Vanessa listened to a tape of this clown, and wept.)

Ultimately, I confronted the boss about this, and was fired.

I don't understand everything, Fade, but I have a pretty solid clue of some what you're going through. A friend of ours, Deanne, worked for the Albertson's in Folsom. I became known that she was a lesbian, and her boss made her life Hell for it. She even had to endure the continual sexual harrassment from two younger men, (I can't say "boys," as they were both over 18), who told her they could "cure" her "affliction." Ultimately, she was fired because a woman called in to complain (supposedly) because her kids came down with some weird venereal disease, and Deanne was supposedly the only source for this, since she was a lesbian!

Now, explain this one to me: These kids come down with this disease, but my kids who spent nearly every waking moment with Deanne (!) were perfectly healthy! Why wasn't the mother checked out? Why was Deanne fired?

BTW: I got a lot of flack from people I went to church with because I let my sons hang out with Deanne. One woman even told me that this wonderful woman was engaging in secret rituals to turn my sons into HOMOSEXUALS!

Yah, I know about those rituals. And, man, am I pissed! They never once saved any of the chocolate chip cookies for ME! They ate every last one!