Politically correct

[leibowde84]

What a racist, sexist & ageist post.
(At least you didn't go after religion or sexual preference.)

Just explaining my personal experience. The only people I've ever seen complain are either old white men or country folk.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just explaining my personal experience. The only people I've ever seen complain are either old white men or country folk.

That would be an experience to relate with greater care.

 

[Milton Platt]

I hear everyone complain about PC. So much so that I took for granted that people were constantly dealing with having to monitor their speech in an attempt not to offend.

Now, however, I am wondering. What exactly is it that you cannot say? I guess I understand you wanting a safe space to speak freely because others are going to attack you for saying not so PC things. But I don't get what you want to say?

Could you please help me out here and explain. Please do not offer extremists who jump on people at the slightest hint of offense. We have all seen the youtube videos of extremists, spouting craziness, on boother sides of politics.

I am asking how regular folk are censoring their everyday speech because other regular folk are offended. Do you want to tell black jokes at the office? Do you want to compliment the waitress on her tits? If you could help me out I would appreciate it, because I am starting to think that people don't have to really change their speech at all and the whole thing is another instance of categorizing the left based on a small group of extremists. I am wondering, because the problem is certainly not presented like it is the extremists.

Should one not rather strive to be ACTUALLY correct?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

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.

I understand by your point, but for the record although your mother was right per se racism, is not localized geographically, but is the problem of all human beings. Moving towards your views on ethnic portrayals in sports like Cleveland Indians and such, the problem with these depictions is their historical existence. Columbus thought he was reaching the "indies" when encountering the Native Americans, when it was realized that it was the "New World." The name stuck and subsequent racial designations were attached to Native Americans.

Because United States has socialized their citizens in accepting pejorative depictions and designations, we have normalized these designations as acceptable. The controversy of the term "Atlanta Braves" and "Florida Seminoles" and the depiction of what is considered an "Native American chant" has all been seen as normal in the spirit of entertainment. Even Native Americans fight for the right to keep the name(s) "Redman" "Indians" "Redskins" etc. Because they themselves have been taught and socialized to accept these designations as okay. Considering historically the Native Americans have been taught to "love their oppressor" there is not much fight in the community so long as you give them "alcohol and casinos."

In my own belief, I believe without dissention to wrong doing, society will always persist in maintaining pejorative designations of specific ethnic cultures. I follow this with the quote of Edmund Burke:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

[Quagmire]

My point was that most the regular folks I know do not seem, at least to my awareness, to have stop themselves from this behavior. So either, people do secretly have this desire similar to this or it is something else. I am just trying to understand what it is?

Still not sure who you mean by "regular folks".

In your op you say: "I hear everyone complain about PC"

Then you go on to ask "regular folks" if they're really closet racists/sexists. My question is: if "people do secretly have this desire similar to this " do they still qualify as "regular folks".

Basically what I'm saying is: if you consider racists and/or sexists "regular folks", then of course "regular folks" ( aka closet racists/sexists ) will object to having to act like civil human beings in public.

On the other hand, to people who aren't closet racists/sexists but who still have objections in regards to socially mandated political correctness (correctitude?), I would think that the question in your op might come across as a bit loaded.

And bear in mind that as a closet racist/sexist myself, I'm not particularly offended by the question, but I suspect that your target audience --- regular folks --- might be, and might even feel a bit hobbled in their ability to answer honestly.

 

[Phantasman]

I understand by your point, but for the record although your mother was right per se racism, is not localized geographically, but is the problem of all human beings. Moving towards your views on ethnic portrayals in sports like Cleveland Indians and such, the problem with these depictions is their historical existence. Columbus thought he was reaching the "indies" when encountering the Native Americans, when it was realized that it was the "New World." The name stuck and subsequent racial designations were attached to Native Americans.

Because United States has socialized their citizens in accepting pejorative depictions and designations, we have normalized these designations as acceptable. The controversy of the term "Atlanta Braves" and "Florida Seminoles" and the depiction of what is considered an "Native American chant" has all been seen as normal in the spirit of entertainment. Even Native Americans fight for the right to keep the name(s) "Redman" "Indians" "Redskins" etc. Because they themselves have been taught and socialized to accept these designations as okay. Considering historically the Native Americans have been taught to "love their oppressor" there is not much fight in the community so long as you give them "alcohol and casinos."

In my own belief, I believe without dissention to wrong doing, society will always persist in maintaining pejorative designations of specific ethnic cultures. I follow this with the quote of Edmund Burke:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Like I said. Words are arranged, changed, added to and taken from. In the end, the definition is in the eye of the beholder. No matter the word. The same thing is true in all perception.

But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things. The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good and place them among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever.- Gospel of Philip

Without knowledge, there is no wisdom. I see past the words and the satire that so many seem to be so disturbed by.

 

[PureX]

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

Point taken.

 

[PureX]

Still not sure who you mean by "regular folks".

In your op you say: "I hear everyone complain about PC"

Then you go on to ask "regular folks" if they're really closet racists/sexists. My question is: if "people do secretly have this desire similar to this " do they still qualify as "regular folks".

Basically what I'm saying is: if you consider racists and/or sexists "regular folks", then of course "regular folks" ( aka closet racists/sexists ) will object to having to act like civil human beings in public.

On the other hand, to people who aren't closet racists/sexists but who still have objections in regards to socially mandated political correctness (correctitude?), I would think that the question in your op might come across as a bit loaded.

And bear in mind that as a closet racist/sexist myself, I'm not particularly offended by the question, but I suspect that your target audience --- regular folks --- might be, and might even feel a bit hobbled in their ability to answer honestly.

I think it's all just a part of living together as a community. What's being labeled "political correctness" is just our communities way of telling us that we are becoming an unacceptable anomaly. All communities have to maintain a certain degree of homogeny to maintain cohesion. When individuals become too much of an anomaly they threaten this homogeny and thereby the social cohesion.

What we are calling 'neo-conservatism' these days in the U.S., is not conservatism in the traditional "maintaining the status quo" sense of the past. This new conservatism is much more about achieving and maintaining absolute selfishness. It's based on the false ideal that freedom means we can think, do, and say anything we want regardless of how it effects anyone else. And anyone who's dares to object to our doing so is an "enemy of freedom", and an "enemy of me and mine". The traditional "maintain the status quo" type conservatives have discovered that by developing and exploiting the selfishness among the general population, they can get some of them to act in the service of protecting and maintaining their own elite positions of wealth and power. So we now have two distinct versions of "conservatives": those who are trying to protect their own wealth and power, and those who believe that freedom equals the right to be absolutely selfish and self-centered, owing nothing at all to the society in which they live. It's a socially toxic admixture, and it will destroy us as a society if we don't find some way of countering it.

 

[Curious George]

Still not sure who you mean by "regular folks".

In your op you say: "I hear everyone complain about PC"

Then you go on to ask "regular folks" if they're really closet racists/sexists. My question is: if "people do secretly have this desire similar to this " do they still qualify as "regular folks".

Basically what I'm saying is: if you consider racists and/or sexists "regular folks", then of course "regular folks" ( aka closet racists/sexists ) will object to having to act like civil human beings in public.

On the other hand, to people who aren't closet racists/sexists but who still have objections in regards to socially mandated political correctness (correctitude?), I would think that the question in your op might come across as a bit loaded.

And bear in mind that as a closet racist/sexist myself, I'm not particularly offended by the question, but I suspect that your target audience --- regular folks --- might be, and might even feel a bit hobbled in their ability to answer honestly.

Regular folks would be people who are not extremists. I don't want to hear about people threatening jail time over failure to use the proper pronoun and I don't want to here about racist or nazi groups either. Most people are not part of a racist group anymore than most people are not part of this super sensitive trigger group, despite how much a person wants to label everyone other as a part ofor such groups.

So yeah, regular folks. It is not too hard to understand here. By and large when we talk about PC this is the behavior we are discussing. If you took the OP as an insinuation that most people are racist or sexist, that was not the intention .

 

[Curious George]

Should one not rather strive to be ACTUALLY correct?

Do you think political you correct seeks to censor actual correctness? If so, how?

 

[Estro Felino]

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

I understand...but you surely understand too that most people like me will disagree with them, especially with the one about race and IQ.

@ADigitalArtist I apologize if my observation sounded too severe..also have mercy because I am a foreigner and my sentences sound too direct, at times.

 

[icehorse]

I understand...but you surely understand too that most people like me will disagree with them, especially with the one about race and IQ.

@ADigitalArtist I apologize if my observation sounded too severe..also have mercy because I am a foreigner and my sentences sound too direct, at times.

I understand that the statements are uncomfortable. It would be nicer if they weren't true. It's hard to know how to deal with some truths. But that doesn't make them false.

On IQ, you might find this an interesting starting point:

The Bell Curve - Wikipedia

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I understand that the statements are uncomfortable. It would be nicer if they weren't true. It's hard to know how to deal with some truths. But that doesn't make them false.

On IQ, you might find this an interesting starting point:

The Bell Curve - Wikipedia

Murray is a white supremacist: Charles Murray

 

[icehorse]

Murray is a white supremacist: Charles Murray

He might well be. But that's independent of the claim.

I have a lot of Scandinavian genes. As I understand it, I'm predisposed to getting cancer because of those genes. That's life. Black's are predisposed to sickle cell disease. Compared to blacks, it might be statistically true to say that "white men can't jump". So what?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He might well be. But that's independent of the claim.

His "findings" are in service of his ideology and have been disputed many times.

 

[Milton Platt]

Do you think political you correct seeks to censor actual correctness? If so, how?

The Cambridge dictionary says this:
avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive:

Sometimes this can become a form of censorship and can hide what is actually true. No, I don't think it SEEKS to censor, but I believe it sometimes does.

 

[Orbit]

The term "politically correct" could be replaced by "respecting others" in most sentences.

 

[Quagmire]

Regular folks would be people who are not extremists.

But who feel dissed because they can't tell racist jokes in public or compliment the waitresses on her tits.

I don't want to hear about people threatening jail time over failure to use the proper pronoun and I don't want to here about racist or nazi groups either. Most people are not part of a racist group anymore than most people are not part of this super sensitive trigger group, despite how much a person wants to label everyone other as a part ofor such groups.

So yeah, regular folks. It is not too hard to understand here.

You're right, not hard to understand at all.

By and large when we talk about PC this is the behavior we are discussing. If you took the OP as an insinuation that most people are racist or sexist, that was not the intention .

Although apparently, you didn't intend not to either.

 

[leibowde84]

That would be an experience to relate with greater care.

Probably right.

 

[Curious George]

But who feel dissed because they can't tell racist jokes in public or compliment the waitresses on her tits.



You're right, not hard to understand at all.



Although apparently, you didn't intend not to either.

I am not sure they feel "dissed" at all. I am guessing that people complain about political correctness feel that they are not permitted to talk about certain way. I chose two things that would be an example of political incorrect speech. I did not call the people racist or sexists. If you would like to define racist or sexists by that, you are free to do so.

It was a question. I am not sure what else people want to discuss with politically incorrect speech(though @icehorse gave some examples) If you have other examples give some.

I have no idea what "apparently you didn't intend not to either" means.