Politically correct

[ADigitalArtist]

By introducing "self-evident" you're shifting the goal posts. I never claimed "self evident".

I'm using it colloquially, not as a legal term. As in, the merit of calling your statements factual is debated, academically and socially, and aren't solidified as fact.

very specific factual claims

I disagree.

Each of these claims is clear enough that it can be confirmed or refuted

I disagree. But again, not in the mood for gish galloping. There's plenty of counterargument to those you can look up if you're interested.

You can also look up the ones I gave too, to understand that citing study does not equal citing fact.

 

[icehorse]

I disagree. But again, not in the mood for gish galloping.

I've never heard of preemptive gish galloping - I suspect you're thinking of something else?

Second, I made my claims, based on research, not ad hoc reckoning. You saying "I don't think so" doesn't stack up against the work I'm relying on. Heck, you haven't even bothered to tell me where you think I've got it wrong. You're doing a sort of lazy drive-by don't you think?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

People of all nationalities and races can be racist and interrace racism does occur, whites do not have a monopoly on it and I would say it is reasonable to assume it was occurring in one form or another long before any colonialist adventures by whites.

there is no such thing as race..

 

[Epic Beard Man]

You know, my dad has always been a little racist. Not in an aggressive, angry way, but he has some crass ideas on things and sometimes would say off-color remarks. Now, I know my dad, and he doesn't mean any harm, that said:
.

No such thing as "little racist" just as there is no such thing as "reverse racism" you either are racist or not.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've never heard of preemptive gish galloping - I suspect you're thinking of something else?

Second, I made my claims, based on research, not ad hoc reckoning. You saying "I don't think so" doesn't stack up against the work I'm relying on. Heck, you haven't even bothered to tell me where you think I've got it wrong. You're doing a sort of lazy drive-by don't you think?

Setting up for a 'debate' where you are relying on exhaustive pages of replies over a broad set of questions you preemptively claim is already established fact is gish galloping. I'm abstaining because each post would get progressively longer and more off topic from the OP, and would go nowhere because you already believe it's factual and no exhaustive reply of mine will change your opinion.

Instead, I'm pointing out that the merit of your claims 'based on research' doesn't make them factual any more than the research which states atheists are less empathetic (big double study in the rounds last year.). There are hot debates on the methodology of studies I've seen used for your claims, and there isn't consensus. So saying 'these are the facts is disingenuous.

 

[icehorse]

Setting up for a 'debate' where you are relying on exhaustive pages of replies over a broad set of questions you preemptively claim is already established fact is gish galloping. I'm abstaining because each post would get progressively longer and more off topic from the OP, and would go nowhere because you already believe it's factual and no exhaustive reply of mine will change your opinion.

Instead, I'm pointing out that the merit of your claims 'based on research' doesn't make them factual any more than the research which states atheists are less empathetic (big double study in the rounds last year.). There are hot debates on the methodology of studies I've seen used for your claims, and there isn't consensus. So saying 'these are the facts is disingenuous.

I'm sorry, you can't possibly predict what I'm relying on. Further, it's not the case that all of my claims have to be addressed. And once again, I said very clearly that they were "factual claims" that might be refutable. I think it's disingenuous for YOU to twist my words.

If you didn't want to debate my claims, you shouldn't have responded at all. For you to hit and run like this is really quite rude. Do you recall the OP? I believe I have answered the OP as well as anyone on this thread. The OP clearly asked for examples of politically incorrect statements.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm sorry, you can't possibly predict what I'm relying on. Further, it's not the case that all of my claims have to be addressed. And once again, I said very clearly that they were "factual claims" that might be refutable. I think it's disingenuous for YOU to twist my words.

If you didn't want to debate my claims, you shouldn't have responded at all. For you to hit and run like this is really quite rude. Do you recall the OP? I believe I have answered the OP as well as anyone on this thread. The OP clearly asked for examples of politically incorrect statements.

I have enough experience to be confident enough to know where it will go. Or won't. No different than creationist debates really.

In any case, I'm not disputing that these are statements are called politically incorrect by some. I'm disputing

here are some examples of true sentences that normal people might want to use, but will probably get called out for if they do:

That these are all true statements, which you nor anyone has established as truth. I'm not twisting your words in saying so.

I don't really care if you think it's rude, I don't need to do pages of replies to say I don't think you've earned calling these statements of fact.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm disputing that these are all true statements, which you nor anyone has established as truth. I'm not twisting your words in saying so.

I don't really care if you think it's rude, I don't need to do pages of replies to say I don't think you've earned calling these statements of fact.

In any case, those statements, -in icehorse's opinion-, are considered "true" by many people and I guess that's freedom of speech.
We can either agree or disagree politely.

I also guess he showed people here what the consequences of not being PC are: that is people want certain topics to be "tucked away".

(I think it's a given we all disagree with all those statements...btw)

 

[YmirGF]

That these are all true statements, which you nor anyone has established as truth. I'm not twisting your words in saying so.

I don't really care if you think it's rude, I don't need to do pages of replies to say I don't think you've earned calling these statements of fact.

If I may, I think you have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. Bear with me as sec to unravel the explanation.

here are some examples of true sentences that normal people might want to use, but will probably get called out for if they do

My reading of this is more nuanced. I'm seeing sloppy wording which gives an understandable confusion. It's not that the statements are TRUE, in and of themselves, but rather, that many people BELIEVE them to be true and thus THINK they are being quite factual. In THAT sense, @icehorse is giving somewhat factual statements of what many people think, rather than about people expressing well researched ideas grounded in fact.

It's a subtle, but important, difference.

Does this make more sense to two of my favorite people on RF? *sniffle* @ADigitalArtist

 

[Phantasman]

But African-Americans, myself included, believe the Dutch (as well as others including some arabs) are not indigenous to Africa. Their bloodline did not begin in Africa. Mines did, although I have an ad mixture of other ethnic groups, I resonate with the Africans in Africa due to the commonality of experiencing racism from so-called white supremacy. A Dutch or anyone whose ancestors had to move to Africa cannot relate to African diaspora, hell many cannot relate to the middle passage.

The term African-American is appropriate because for one, my skin pigmentation is literally not black, but chocolate brown. Two, I'm obvious colored but that is not my genus. Three, I trance my ethnic heritage to the people who were enslaved who belonged to the continent of Africa, the indigenous people. Not the Afrikaans, Portugese, British, French or any colonial power that came and raped the continent before if was named the term "Africa."

My point was that skin color shouldn't be characteristic of defining nationality. The other guy above missed it as well.

What is an Aborigine American citizen called? Certainly not African American. It's a global thought. Would a white man from Johannesburg, South Africa select African American on a job application?

I'm could care less what color or nationality anyone is. I'm playing devils advocate by saying Politically Correct isn't as correct as people make it. And it's through the PC culture that people are afraid to say anything without the "police" condemning you because you fail to fall in line.

If flesh meant anything to me, I'd be a hypocrite because every post I post here is after Jesus words "the flesh profits nothing". It is the spirit that makes us alive.

The PC culture is nothing more than moving words around to project a different thought. Maybe I should call myself an English- Irish-American Indian- Scottish American. Or a European-American Indian American. Sounds better than white, I guess.

 

[PureX]

You're right. I'd just rather not go about unintentionally offending folks. Why, cause it's easier to deal with unoffended people..

Sure. But some people WANT to be offended. They live for it. It's how they maintain their sense of self-righteousness.

 

[PureX]

And people keep mistreating people in new ways through each sweeping change of social mores, it seems to me.

Yes, sadly, each generation has to learn anew, if it's able, that cooperation is better for everyone than competition. And I fear the failure to learn that lesson is going to erase humanity from existence, one day.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

My point was that skin color shouldn't be characteristic of defining nationality. The other guy above missed it as well.

What is an Aborigine American citizen called? Certainly not African American. It's a global thought. Would a white man from Johannesburg, South Africa select African American on a job application?

I'm could care less what color or nationality anyone is. I'm playing devils advocate by saying Politically Correct isn't as correct as people make it. And it's through the PC culture that people are afraid to say anything without the "police" condemning you because you fail to fall in line.

If flesh meant anything to me, I'd be a hypocrite because every post I post here is after Jesus words "the flesh profits nothing". It is the spirit that makes us alive.

The PC culture is nothing more than moving words around to project a different thought. Maybe I should call myself an English- Irish-American Indian- Scottish American. Or a European-American Indian American. Sounds better than white, I guess.

At the end of the day we disagree. It is not missing points, because I understood yours clearly, you just disagree with my presentation. Like I said before and I'll say it again none of the whites you see in Africa especially post-apartheid South Africa are not indigenous to Africa regardless if their descendants were born and raised. They're not a product of the African diaspora as I am. I am a part of the African diaspora and the result of trans-atlantic slave trade and slavery. Should someone of Dutch descent who was born and raised in South Africa and who migrated to the United States be called African-American? No. One, they are foreigners of U.S. soil and if they become citizens they'll have the distinction of being "South-Afrikaan," not Afrikaan-American. My presentation mentioned nothing about skin pigmentation, ironic considering people often confuse ethnicity with skin pigmentation. I, and many African-American have the legitimate right to call ourselves such since we are the direct products and descendants of slaves and inter-mixing of slaves and slave owners. the Dutch people in South African do not have that right because historically this was not the case. BTW there is no Aborigine-American, there is Australian-American. If you have any issues with labels perhaps you want to blame some of the Caucasians behind the historical misappropriation of labeling cultures throughout history.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm a vendor on-site the Boss of the site decided to write our bosses and sales department complaining about our work. I was copied in an wished to reply. I was told not to by my boss because even though my reply was well written and correct, it would only annoy their boss. So I am supposed to just let someone bash my work incorrectly because their feelings might be hurt and it may cost my company money.

That's not "political correctness", that's work place politics. Different thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm a vendor on-site the Boss of the site decided to write our bosses and sales department complaining about our work. I was copied in an wished to reply. I was told not to by my boss because even though my reply was well written and correct, it would only annoy their boss. So I am supposed to just let someone bash my work incorrectly because their feelings might be hurt and it may cost my company money.

That has literally nothing to do with political correctness.

 

[icehorse]

I'm seeing sloppy wording which gives an understandable confusion

Whaaaammm - bulance... (that's me invoking the wham-bulance)

What's an example of sloppy wording?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Everyday speech:

1. Be polite.
2. Be respectful
3. Be courteous
4. Do not use insulting words
5. Speak to others the way you want to be others to speak to you.
6. Listen to other viewpoints. You may learn something important.

Everyday speech:

1. Be polite.
2. Be respectful
3. Be courteous
4. Do not use insulting words
5. Speak to others the way you want to be others to speak to you.
6. Listen to other viewpoints. You may learn something important.

Perfect way to treat everything in this life, imo.

 

[Phantasman]

At the end of the day we disagree. It is not missing points, because I understood yours clearly, you just disagree with my presentation. Like I said before and I'll say it again none of the whites you see in Africa especially post-apartheid South Africa are not indigenous to Africa regardless if their descendants were born and raised. They're not a product of the African diaspora as I am. I am a part of the African diaspora and the result of trans-atlantic slave trade and slavery. Should someone of Dutch descent who was born and raised in South Africa and who migrated to the United States be called African-American? No. One, they are foreigners of U.S. soil and if they become citizens they'll have the distinction of being "South-Afrikaan," not Afrikaan-American. My presentation mentioned nothing about skin pigmentation, ironic considering people often confuse ethnicity with skin pigmentation. I, and many African-American have the legitimate right to call ourselves such since we are the direct products and descendants of slaves and inter-mixing of slaves and slave owners. the Dutch people in South African do not have that right because historically this was not the case. BTW there is no Aborigine-American, there is Australian-American. If you have any issues with labels perhaps you want to blame some of the Caucasians behind the historical misappropriation of labeling cultures throughout history.

e

You're right. I don't see it through the same lens you do.

I was a child in the 50s and questioned my father when we drove through Georgia and I saw the water fountains. I didn't understand it then and still don't. My mother and father were British from England. I born in Ohio. Never experienced the that division until see it in southern states. My first best friend was black (5 yo) and my mother told me when I walked to 1st grade with him to never call him the N word. My father explained to me that the division was an American problem, the British overcame centuries prior.

It has always stayed with me. But today, the division is fueled by those who have become the division. Both sides equally guilty.

Where does it become offensive? The Cleveland Indians didn't take the name to dishonor Indians. Is PITA next, with Eagles and Bears? Do we need to junk all Pontiacs? Change the name of Ninja blenders? Change the name of all cities named Jackson? Jefferson? Leesburg?

I saw a lot of ignorance at play in the past. The reminders are clearly ironed into the minds of most Americans. But to erase mistakes as though they never happened, will give rise to those who would repeat it.

Force will be met with force. Education and knowledge makes wisdom. Removing those, by force, is dangerous and benefits no one, especially the ones exerting the force.

You cannot shake hands while clinching your fist.

 

[Nakosis]

Sure. But some people WANT to be offended. They live for it. It's how they maintain their sense of self-righteousness.

Well, probably not the kind of people most folks want to hang around.

 

[icehorse]

In any case, those statements, -in icehorse's opinion-, are considered "true" by many people and I guess that's freedom of speech.
We can either agree or disagree politely.

I also guess he showed people here what the consequences of not being PC are: that is people want certain topics to be "tucked away".

(I think it's a given we all disagree with all those statements...btw)

For the record, I think all of those statements are true.

Now of course they don't tell the entire story. For example, it's important to understand that a lot of obesity in the US happens because poor people can only afford junk food. So income inequality plays a major role in the US's obesity problem. But that doesn't make the claim regarding obesity and healthcare untrue.

In my opinion, a lot of PC culture revolves around this sort of issue. In many cases, the politically incorrect statement is true, but it can be misleading. Or it can lead to hurt feelings. On the other hand, being too PC can hide important data, which is really the point here, I think.