Backlash against Politically Correct

[Acim]

Smoke-free workplaces help prevent people from dying of cancer just to make a living.

Yep, this be incorrect nonsense.

I'd provide (plenty of) links to back up my position but a google search on: secondhand smoke debunked would likely pull up the ones I would readily use.

Which even for a moment, let's just consider the idea that SHS is possibly harmful, then you come to the SHV (secondhand vapor) arguments which are using THE EXACT SAME logic to try to persuade people. But not only is there negligible amounts of harm associated with it, akin to exhaled human breath, it is arguably better for you than exhaled human breath. Yet, is treated as equal to SHS (from the position that hasn't investigated the debunking, or perhaps has but is willing to lie).

If people honestly, truly believe something like SHV can cause them grave harm then in our reality everyone ought to be wearing filters over their mouth for there is evidence that human breath contains harmful chemicals. Deadly in fact. Just pay no attention to the fact that it is in such minute amounts to be (forever equal to) negligible harm. But propagandists don't bring this up and instead just cite data that "SHV contains deadly chemicals."

I find it helpful, honestly, that SHS harms have been debunked.

I also do think there is a direct relation between anti-smoking rhetoric (heavily promoted at one point by German Nazis, arguably the birthplace of such rhetoric) and American' PC'ism. Hard to make a real quick, solid case for this, but I really do think that the empowerment that anti-smoking types have gotten from their 'successful' battling has been seen as way to tackle other avenues/issues that people wish to change the narrative on.

There is actually a 'game plan' from anti-smoking advocates that has been leaked (akin to WikiLeaks) that shows it was always intended as a propaganda tool, not a public health issue. This game plan dates back to early 1960's. Now that they are doing the same thing with vaping, I see them (anti-types) as overplaying their hand. I was one that at one point was borderline anti-smoking, because of the propaganda (never really researched it). But because they chose to overplay their hand in what struck me as "this doesn't make sense what they are now purporting with regards to vapor," I've seen that they were intentionally lying all along, and literally creating a narrative for "political correctness." I see it as no different than how prohibitionists in 1920's must have tried to persuade people into their version of righteousness. That, obviously, failed. The anti-smoking one is still with us, but if I had a dollar for every person I've come across that is so under-prepared for reasonable debate on this topic, I'd have enough money to make sure a third party candidate could compete in this year's U.S. elections for POTUS.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Given how thoroughly debunked SHS (2nd hand smoke) studies have been, it is clearly now in the 'politically correct' territory.

It's make me nauseous and irritates my lungs. As a child, it made me very ill. Second hand smoke has not been debunked. The same chemicals the smoker inhales are bearing exhaled. When I'm in public, I shouldn't have to tolerate the stench or the adverse health effects that come with it. You can believe tobacco company funded "research" if you want (they did, after all, tell people that even cigarette smoking is not dangerous), but tell the widows and widowers who lost a spouse due to lung cancer caused by expose to second hand smoke. Heart disease especially is a risk with exposure to second hand smoke.

As I am mostly a vaper, I've done lots (and lots) of research on this. Vaping has literally no reason to be banned in public spaces

I am a vapor, and though I've read studies that show it to be 95% less harmful than cigarettes, I am still courteous to those around me. Asking someone for permission to use it in their house or facility has nothing to do with being "politically correct," it's called being a respectful guest (something that even Satanism upholds as a rule). It isn't smoking, and I do argue that point, but I still have enough respect for others to do not do it around those who don't want to be around it.

While that may be true with regards to when the term was coined, "political correctness" didn't gain any real traction until the mid 90s when the touchy feely liberalism we all love to hate began to gain popularity.(the Bill Clinton administration) Before that this whole 'right' to not be offended ' thing that dominates our Western politique of today was a fringe opinion at best.

There is no right to not be offended, but words to have power behind them and it's not "politically correct" to acknowledge that.

secondhand smoke debunked

Of course you'll find stuff backing up your claims if you type in "secondhand smoke debunked." Just like I can find "proof" of the Earth being flat if I type in "evidence of flat earth" or "proof" that Biblical Creationism if I type in "Creationism proven." But, it's a very different outcome if you just type in "secondhand smoke," which yields a ton of medical information concerning the risks of second hand smoke.

 

[sun rise]

It appears that we need better definition of "politically correct".
I say....
It's when civil & rational speech is curbed in order not to offend people too easily offended or actively seeking offense.
It can be:
- Avoidance of discussing a topic entirely
- Replacing benign terminology with awkward new ones

I think that's a good definition. And it is not the exclusive province of left or right or even in politics because it describes a psychological situation that could be said to apply outside the realm of politics..

 

[Acim]

It's make me nauseous and irritates my lungs. As a child, it made me very ill. Second hand smoke has not been debunked.

Yes, it has.

The same chemicals the smoker inhales are bearing exhaled.

Not accurate.

When I'm in public, I shouldn't have to tolerate the stench or the adverse health effects that come with it.

Could be said about ANYTHING in public.

You can believe tobacco company funded "research" if you want (they did, after all, tell people that even cigarette smoking is not dangerous), but tell the widows and widowers who lost a spouse due to lung cancer caused by expose to second hand smoke. Heart disease especially is a risk with exposure to second hand smoke.

Incorrect. Bring the widows and widowers here, and I'll be glad to tell them the facts. With glee.

I am a vapor, and though I've read studies that show it to be 95% less harmful than cigarettes, I am still courteous to those around me. Asking someone for permission to use it in their house or facility has nothing to do with being "politically correct," it's called being a respectful guest (something that even Satanism upholds as a rule). It isn't smoking, and I do argue that point, but I still have enough respect for others to do not do it around those who don't want to be around it.

Glad you are a "vapor" [sic]. I've always vaped indoors with respect and courtesy. Batting 1.000 in the places I've vaped, meaning never once have I been asked to not do it (or caught doing it) and told it is not wanted there. I think this shows I'm not an obnoxious vaper who has no respect for those around me. But if a place has a 'no vaping ban' in place, I'll ask why. If they provide what I recognize as unsubstantiated rationale, I'll vape there. Not so they can see me, but to prove the point that one can be very respectful, courteous to others, and you'd likely have zero clue that people are vapers/vaping in your establishment.

It's not only that it's 95% less harmful than cigarettes (which helps perpetuates some deceptions of cigarettes) it is that SHV is actually less harmful than human breath. I'd even go as far as argue that it is helpful to other humans, but I'll admit that's stretching things, though only a little. Obviously depends on what one's vaping, but given the anti-bacterial, anti-germ components that make up most eLiquids, it's worth a debate, IMO.

There is no right to not be offended, but words to have power behind them and it's not "politically correct" to acknowledge that.

I definitely disagree that words have power behind them. But don't disagree that acknowledging a perception of words as having apparent power is bad. Just would disagree if that becomes something that one is zealous about to the point of curtailing other's speech/thought patterns.

The N-word is perfect example, I think. It's good to acknowledge, I think, the perception of apparent power the word, when uttered has. Becomes very confusing when that word is at times uttered and is understood as "my good friend or brother" and therefore allowed to be spoken as if "perfectly okay" in some instances and horribly uncivil in other instances. That's just hypocritical nonsense, and helps explain that the words themselves hold no actual power.

But getting to point of zealotry where works of art (i.e. movies) are to edit out use of that word or showing people smoking, in attempt to not pass that onto the next generation, is PC gone way (way way) overboard.

Of course you'll find stuff backing up your claims if you type in "secondhand smoke debunked." Just like I can find "proof" of the Earth being flat if I type in "evidence of flat earth" or "proof" that Biblical Creationism if I type in "Creationism proven." But, it's a very different outcome if you just type in "secondhand smoke," which yields a ton of medical information concerning the risks of second hand smoke.

Perhaps not the thread for such a debate, but feel free to post your best, unbiased evidence on 'risks of SHS.' I'll be glad to debunk it. Sure my stuff will show a bias, but I was mostly joking about the idea that it would be (remotely) plausible for anyone to bring 'unbiased' evidence to the table in discussion on SHS risks.

 

[fantome profane]

For the most part - anything that supports a culture of victimhood and liberalism is politically correct...other views, opinions, positions, etc. belong to politically incorrect oppressors.

A look at the mindset:

"X" votes for a black candidate and admits the candidate being black is part of the reason = Good

"Y" votes for a woman candidate and admits the candidate being a woman is part of the reason = Great

"Z" votes for a white/male candidate and admits the candidate being white/male is part of the reason = Oh hell no!

Z wouldn't even be voiced in public because...you know.

It seems to me that in recent years the claim of victimhood has largely been part of the conservative political narrative. "the taking our jobs", "they are ruining our culture", "they are oppressing our religion" etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep, this be incorrect nonsense.

I'd provide (plenty of) links to back up my position but a google search on: secondhand smoke debunked would likely pull up the ones I would readily use.

Which even for a moment, let's just consider the idea that SHS is possibly harmful, then you come to the SHV (secondhand vapor) arguments which are using THE EXACT SAME logic to try to persuade people. But not only is there negligible amounts of harm associated with it, akin to exhaled human breath, it is arguably better for you than exhaled human breath. Yet, is treated as equal to SHS (from the position that hasn't investigated the debunking, or perhaps has but is willing to lie).

If people honestly, truly believe something like SHV can cause them grave harm then in our reality everyone ought to be wearing filters over their mouth for there is evidence that human breath contains harmful chemicals. Deadly in fact. Just pay no attention to the fact that it is in such minute amounts to be (forever equal to) negligible harm. But propagandists don't bring this up and instead just cite data that "SHV contains deadly chemicals."

I find it helpful, honestly, that SHS harms have been debunked.

I also do think there is a direct relation between anti-smoking rhetoric (heavily promoted at one point by German Nazis, arguably the birthplace of such rhetoric) and American' PC'ism. Hard to make a real quick, solid case for this, but I really do think that the empowerment that anti-smoking types have gotten from their 'successful' battling has been seen as way to tackle other avenues/issues that people wish to change the narrative on.

There is actually a 'game plan' from anti-smoking advocates that has been leaked (akin to WikiLeaks) that shows it was always intended as a propaganda tool, not a public health issue. This game plan dates back to early 1960's. Now that they are doing the same thing with vaping, I see them (anti-types) as overplaying their hand. I was one that at one point was borderline anti-smoking, because of the propaganda (never really researched it). But because they chose to overplay their hand in what struck me as "this doesn't make sense what they are now purporting with regards to vapor," I've seen that they were intentionally lying all along, and literally creating a narrative for "political correctness." I see it as no different than how prohibitionists in 1920's must have tried to persuade people into their version of righteousness. That, obviously, failed. The anti-smoking one is still with us, but if I had a dollar for every person I've come across that is so under-prepared for reasonable debate on this topic, I'd have enough money to make sure a third party candidate could compete in this year's U.S. elections for POTUS.

And the moon landing was faked, right?

 

[Sees]

It seems to me that in recent years the claim of victimhood has largely been part of the conservative political narrative. "the taking our jobs", "they are ruining our culture", "they are oppressing our religion" etc.

Notice how those statements are not taken as being politically correct, or even taken seriously to begin with.

 

[fantome profane]

Notice how those statements are not taken as being politically correct, or even taken seriously to begin with.

Right and that is my point. There is bull**** in the politically incorrect as well as bull**** in the politically correct.

 

[Acim]

And the moon landing was faked, right?

A better retort would've been: and climate change is really occurring, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A better retort would've been: and climate change is really occurring, right?

No, because my goal was to ridicule your position, not follow you deeper down your rabbit hole.

 

[Acim]

No, because my goal was to ridicule your position, not follow you deeper down your rabbit hole.

That's fine. Whenever you wish to have the debate, do let me know. For now, we can rest assured you believe in pseudo-science.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that in recent years the claim of victimhood has largely been part of the conservative political narrative. "the taking our jobs", "they are ruining our culture", "they are oppressing our religion" etc.

For volume, conservatives have some tough competition from feminists, university students, black folk, etc, etc.
But I observe that the cons are less demanding that language be altered to accommodate them.

 

[fantome profane]

For volume, conservatives have some tough competition from feminists, university students, black folk, etc, etc.
But I observe that the cons are less demanding that language be altered to accommodate them.

Are you kidding me? They are constantly complaining that Obama doesn't use the words they want him to use.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you kidding me? They are constantly complaining that Obama doesn't use the words they want him to use.

Complaining is one thing. They all (left & right) do that.
But consider who gets results.
The non-cons I mentioned drive language in universities, public discourse, & even RF.
They're the ones who carp about "code words", "triggers", etc.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

There is no right to not be offended, but words to have power behind them and it's not "politically correct" to acknowledge that.

.

Of course it is. The idea that peoples opinions have 'power' so you somehow have a right not to hear them, or should not express yours for the same reasons, is purely 'politically correct'(bull****)

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

For the most part - anything that supports a culture of victimhood and liberalism is politically correct...other views, opinions, positions, etc. belong to politically incorrect oppressors.

A look at the mindset:

"X" votes for a black candidate and admits the candidate being black is part of the reason = Good

"Y" votes for a woman candidate and admits the candidate being a woman is part of the reason = Great

"Z" votes for a white/male candidate and admits the candidate being white/male is part of the reason = Oh hell no!

Z wouldn't even be voiced in public because...you know.

No **** right?

Think of this one.

Black pride =good for you!

Mexican pride = Of course you should be proud!

White pride = RACIST SCUM

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's fine. Whenever you wish to have the debate, do let me know. For now, we can rest assured you believe in pseudo-science.

And rest assured that I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to tell science from pseudoscience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

White pride = RACIST SCUM

When have we white people been beaten down, harassed, repressed, erased from history, contributions downplayed, denied rights, and our very existence degraded?
It's like this "straight pride" thing over the rise of gay pride. It completely misses the idea of gay pride, which isn't pride in that you are born gay, it's that fact you are gay and you aren't going to let society shove you back in the closet.
"White pride" is a bit of a misnomer anyways. We come from many parts, and do make up many ethnicities. The same goes for "black pride," but here in America black people as a whole share a history of oppression and a status of being less than a second class citizen. Even still today many people look at black people, especially young black men, as if they are thugs just because they exist. To me, it's an embarrassment to even be around someone who yells at a black person with their pants sagging but pretends white people never do it (personally, I see more white people do it than black people), or when someone is surprised that a black person is articulate, or that they like music other than rap. I can only imagine it must be at least frustrating, probably worse, for the black people offended over such assumptions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course it is. The idea that peoples opinions have 'power' so you somehow have a right not to hear them, or should not express yours for the same reasons, is purely 'politically correct'(bull****)

Hitler's words and opinions certainly had much power behind them. So much in fact that he changed the course of history.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Hitler's words and opinions certainly had much power behind them. So much in fact that he changed the course of history.

Yes indeed. Shame that he lost.