Jump to content

PC is stupid eh?


Lotharr
 Share

Recommended Posts

In another thread I think someone referred to being politically correct in an exquisitely detailed and creative way as...stupid.

Extreme anything is bad right? Except beer and BCM. But does anyone think that having the citizens of the world's only superpower become more international savvy and sensitive to the feelings of others a bad thing?

All things in moderation right? But are we not spearheading the era of global communications? Is making sure that people do not feel alienated or threatened because of beliefs or skin color a bad thing?

Of course I believe that all people are equal....

I believe that people have a right to fight labels that are stereotypical and racist….hmmm….stupid eh?

I’m curious what else people thing fall into being PC and why it is so....stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

does anyone think that having the citizens of the world's only superpower become more international savvy and sensitive to the feelings of others a bad thing?

I am not responsible for the feelings of others. They will feel what they choose to feel.

That said, I am not a moron either. I do not go around insulting people for sport. On the other hand, people today are too quick to label others as hateful and mean-spirited simply because they express a dissenting viewpoint. People claim that their feelings are hurt or that they are offended only because others don't agree with them. It is that behavior that has to stop.

quote:

Is making sure that people do not feel alienated or threatened because of beliefs or skin color a bad thing?

...I believe that people have a right to fight labels that are stereotypical and racist….hmmm….stupid eh?

There is a difference between stereotypical bigotry and political correctness. Political Correctness goes to extremes to prevent perceived slights before they occur. Take the recent flap over the New York State Regents exam where "educators" changed literary quotes because they didn't want to offend students. They changed words like "skinny" to "thin;" dropped phrases like "Jewish women" to "women." They think these words will offend students who are raised on MTV and rap music? The works on the test were literary for a reason -- they provoked thought. By changing the quotes they 1) may make it harder for students to recognize the original literary work, and 2) diminish the thought-provoking meaning that the author intended -- what made the work "literary" in the first place.

I could go on, but I have to leave now.

[ 07-04-2002, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve hit it pretty much on the head, if it offends you, well, it offends you, do not expect me to change my behavior because I offend 1 or 2 people. That's STUPID!!

Because 2% of the people are offended by something does not mean that I should have to change my behavior for that 2%. That 2% should learn to deal with it, it's part of life, but PC tells me that that 2% is JUST as important as the other 98%, well sorry, they are NOT just as important. Feelings, nothing more then feelings.

Well, if your feelings are hurt, time to get a backbone and handle it.

This is not aimed specifically at you Lothar, so do not take it as a personal attack when I say "you" in the above post.

[ 07-03-2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if 2% of a 250 mil population is Native American you should be able to refere to those individual's anyway you want?

quote:

Political Correctness goes to extremes to prevent perceived slights before they occur.

So in your mind Political Correctness is when people take the idea of trying to look out for the sensitivities of others too far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES, I should, I don't happen to do that, but to shut someones opinion down because you feel that it might be offensive to some group is wrong.

This is thought control, just as "hate crimes" is thought control. How do you know what a person was thinking as they comitted a crime?

If someone murders someone, they are just as dead if they are Black, White, Red, Yellow etc. Hate crimes are PC gone to the extreme. Murder is hate, beating the heck out of someone is hate, any crime is a "hate Crime" but to make a sentence harsher because it was against a minority is ridiculous. That is PC.

If some buffoon wants to use the N word in public, at least we all know that he is a moron, but it is not our place to shut him up with some stupid PC crap. At least if they are able to speak out, you know who has credibility and who doesn't. Besides the fact a little midnight justice might be a good idea at that point, but the government has no place telling us what we should say or not say, no matter how offensive it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, lets do it this way.

I am offended by:

1. Bums on the streets. I don't care how, fix this problem.

2. Non English signs in American stores. I live in America and I don't speak Spanish or Swahili, so I am offended by the display of other languages, and as I live in America I expect to be able to walk into a store and read signs in ENGLISH. So fix that.

3. Gay pride parade, I am offended by that, however I wouldn't be offended if there was Straight pride parade, so fix that.

4. Demonstrators blocking traffic on bridges and busy streets. Why should I be late to a place where I am going just because some group of people decided to wave signs accross the road, if they want to demonstrate and make thier views known, tell them to go to a football field, and if I want to get to know their views I will show up in the stands.

5. I am offended by politicians spending my social security, and my tax dollars on programs I don't agree with. I am the one who makes the money, so why should someone whos views I don't agree with get to spend 30% of it. Fix that.

So if you want to be so considerate, then consider my points, and after you do, tell me how you plan to please all 100%, because I am sure that there will be people who will disagree with some of the things that offend me.

Anyhow, as you can see you can't please everyone, now what you can do is please the majority, and that is what voting is for. That being said, when the next presidential election rolls up, and me finally being of voting age, I don't think I will vote for the people who think it's constitutional to have porn in the libraries, illegal imigrants with all their social programs, or the growth of government and growth of beuracracy, and polls show that about 70% of people agree with me on those points. So take that for consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

Political Correctness is stupid. I can understand a slight change of etiquette, but many groups attempt to alter a way of life simply because they "feel" some historical wrong has been commited and must be made right.

The other day, the United Nations was trying to pass a resolution declaring mother's day as a "sexist" evil holiday, because it portrayed women in a traditional role.

It's true, traditionally, women *are* mothers. Show me one guy who is a mother and we'll talk about equality on that issue.

The "hate" crimes, and all the other braindead legislation that gets passed off is sickening to my sense of morality, and is the anti-thesis of what this country was intended to be.

A beacon of freedom, not of oppression by Orwellian thought police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

It's true, traditionally, women *are* mothers. Show me one guy who is a mother and we'll talk about equality on that issue.


LOL, you obviously haven't been to San Francisco and haven't seen the Gay Pride parade. I can show you a million mothers in that parade, or shal we say malthers. However, women are the ones who give birth, the are the ones who are more sensetive and nurturing, you show me a guy who says he is just as sensetive and nurturing as a woman and I will show you either a full blown homosexual or someone who wishes they were a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me put it this way...

Minority lobbies and campaigns for priviledges and rights beyond those of the majority = ok

Majority lobbies and campaigns to PREVENT minorities from obtaining (unfair) rights and priviledges beyond those avaliable to the majority = discrimination

Believe me, PC is out of whack in gringoland. I see minority folks treating majority like piss and getting no more than a stern look. Majority does that to minority..its an HR issue, courts come into play, etc etc.

Heck I was even counceled to NOT use the word "spick" when joking with my friends. The HR guy was shocked to know I was also a "spick". He inmediately "dropped the charges", apologized and let me go. Can you believe it? I KNOW I couldve make a racket and say he had singled me out because i was minority and was harrassing me or something like that and MY word would have had a boatload more weight than that "majority" guy. Even though I was the one doing the "offense" in the first place. Unreal, totally unreal.

PC is a good idea, if it applies to both sides of the fence and is not taken overboard. Right now, its walking the plank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the time some politician up in the NorthEast(?) complained about niggardly spending. The poor guy was slaughtered in his local media and nearly got the same nationally until someone had the smarts to actually look the word up. The "need" for and use of PC statements shows a lack of independent thought. While it may have been born of a desire to help everyone relize the worth of others, all it has managed to really accomplish is to further legalize and entrench discrimination against white males under 40 as Tac has pointed out so nicely.

[ 07-03-2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Tyrn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So if 2% of a 250 mil population is Native American you should be able to refere to those individual's anyway you want?

Like I said, I don't go around insulting people for sport, and most people don't either. But if I wanted to, then yes I could because we have this thing called the First Amendment (another topic for another time). And, if 245,000,000 decided to call the other 5,000,000 names, who's going to stop them?

quote:

So in your mind Political Correctness is when people take the idea of trying to look out for the sensitivities of others too far?

Yes.

Today, it goes even further than that. As Soback and Tac were illustrating, Political Correctness is a one-way street. If you're a protected class belonging to the American Left then PC rules, but if you are on the Right, then the rules rule against you.

[ 07-04-2002, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, political correctnes is one thing, discrimination is another. People have meshed those 2 ideas together because of a lot of people being sued for something like their opinions. What needs to be done is a court system that will first establish if a lawsuit even needs to be heard, and if it's just some plain ridiculous claim then then person who brough that lawsuit should be heavily fined. That way you won't only see a speed up in the court procesing, and drop in fraugelent lawsuits, but also get rid of all this bull where a person can't just say something that is plain and true, but instead has to check and check again if his words are offending anyone, and if they do, he has to change the meaning untill his message is so crypted nobody knows what the @#$% he is even talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

you show me a guy who says he is just as sensetive and nurturing as a woman and I will show you either a full blown homosexual or someone who wishes they were a woman.

Does this mean I have to get a boyfriend now?

Seriously Soback, that remark offends me as a straight man. It's bad enough that a lot of women say it, but to hear so many men agree with it is really sad in my opinion.

Anyway, while I'm not the most informed person about the issue of this thread, I believe that using the law to enforce PC is just a way of sweeping prejudice under the rug rather than addressing it. Banning the use of overt slurs is not going to prevent the prejudicials from using other words, even PC words, in an offensive manner.

A few days ago I saw a fascinating movie called "Gentleman's Agreement" (based on the novel by Laura Hobson), in which a journalist in 1940s New York pretends to be Jewish for eight weeks. One of the important points that is made by the story is how racism not only exists in the people who purposefully and overtly offend others, but also exists in the polite people who offend in a subtle manner (e.g. through the presumption of stereotypes), and even in the good people who don't speak against it when it's expressed right in front of them.

I think that law enforcement of PC only makes the prejudice more quiet and polite rather than addressing the prejudice itself.

However, I also think that PC as a social movement is important for intercommunal relations, and I support it for that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having had more time to think on the subject, let me add this: Political correctness is a vain attempt at being mannerly. Most of the issues surrounding PC used to be taken care of by simple social graces. When was the last time that you heard that something was not discussed because there were ladies present?

Menchise, I would suggest that you have best described the problems (inherent problems) of being politically correct and that what you term as a good use of political correctness is really a call for people to return to being polite and having good manners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Menchise, I would suggest that you have best described the problems (inherent problems) of being politically correct and that what you term as a good use of political correctness is really a call for people to return to being polite and having good manners.

I partially disagree with that. I'm not referring to mere politeness in terms of traditional social graces because some of those graces can also contribute to prejudice.

I regard the social movement of PC as an important vehicle for encouraging mutual respect intercommunally by raising awareness of cultural taboos and such and suggesting equivalent alternative communication that avoids needless or reckless offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I regard the social movement of PC as an important vehicle for encouraging mutual respect intercommunally by raising awareness of cultural taboos and such and suggesting equivalent alternative communication that avoids needless or reckless offense.

Part of what is at the root of Political Correctness is this country's obsession with what divides us instead of what unites us.

PC took a drastic turn for the worse (in my opinion) during the last decade of divide and conquer politics (triangulation), where groups of people were pitted against other groups of people and told that theire situation would be better if only THOSE other people weren't in the way. Multi-culture fits into this somewhat as well, since it focuses on things that separate us.

People should equally focus on the things that we have in common. It is what we have in common that unites us in Humankind.

An additional elaboration:

There is enough commonality amongst people of the world that an entire vocabulary of human intercourse was able to develop for interaction. Political Correctness, to me, is an attempt to force commonality where none exists by altering the meaning of words to make people fit into groups to serve an agenda.

[ 07-05-2002, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

Originally posted by silk:

Show me one guy who is a mother and we'll talk about equality on that issue.


thats why we have fathers day

what about single parents??? wouldnt they be playing both roles respectively??? im just curious cause im a single parent, and my g/f is a single parent as well. would the both uf us fall under the "homosexual" category soback??? we both have to play both roles to our children.

i have to clean and cook and do crap like that, while being judge and jury... same with her. so doesnt that put us on BOTH sides of the coin? playing the role of both parents so our kids grow up halfway normal???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read again what I wrote Grayfox. I specifically said, "show me a guy who says that he is as nurturing as a woman", you might be doing a role of a mother and a father, but you still can't replace a woman mom. A guy who says that he is as good as a woman is either gay or just confused. Man can be loving, caring, but never, never, never will he live up to a role of a mother. A man who is a homosexual can try his best, but it just looks and feels wrong and messed up (I have seen plenty of that in San Francisco).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a great example of a guy that would say that he is as good as a woman at being nurturing and motherly.

He has a very soft voice (to a point where you can tell he is actually trying to soften it), his tone of voice changes to mimic something that of a female gender, he bends his hands at the wrists and seems to make a habit of holding one hand in the other. That is a guy that would stare you in the face and tell you that he can offer the child just what a mother can if not better. The truth is, why do you think he is obviously trying to act feminine (doesn't matter if he is gay), the answer is, because even if he doesn't realize it, he wishes he was a female, and that wishing makes him mimick womans actions, or at least what he thinks a woman acts like, and that's why I said show me a guy who says that he is as nurturing as a woman and I will show you a full blown homosexual, or someone who just wishes he was born a woman. That's also why a family has a male and a female in it, because one can not replace the other, a father is an example of a male, and a mother is an example of a female, therefore they behave different and treat their kids differently. What I don't understand is this movement towards unisex, where people are saying that a man can fulfill a role of a woman, or a woman can fulfill a role of a man. That's just plain bull. While one can act like the other, they will never BE the other.

"Why not be oneself? That is the whole secret of a successful appearance. If one is a greyhound why try to look like a Pekinese?"

- Edith Sitwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

you might be doing a role of a mother and a father, but you still can't replace a woman mom.

i agree. my son needs the "motherly" attention that only a woman can give.

men were not made to be single parents. it is not in our genes to be caring and loving... men are hunter gatherers by nature, and its a culture shock for us to be thrown into a situation to where we need to take care of a child by ourselves, and to play both roles.

that is why (in my opinion) women make better single parents than men. but that doesnt mean i wont love my child any less.

i understand what your saying soback... just the way you had worded it before kinda caught me off guard, and i needed a lil more explanation

lack of sleep warps my mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its going down the drain I tell ya.. Congress voted the use of the term "Oriental" to describe folks across the pond.

Just what kind of possible derogatory or insulting term "Oriental" is.. its beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grayfox:

people find offense in everything.

I find that statement offensve.

[ 07-07-2002, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: fendi ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...