Political correctness will destroy the free world

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Any one who believes this and is gay, needs to have their head examined it has lead to some of the laws which barely save us from being treated like insane people. It is also for a Christian country the way so called Christianity teaches us about do on to others ect. If it was not around now it would be like the 50's and we would many be closet cases!

_is a thang-
anoda paoradoxins but gurd way

anyway

planat round until sum plotland insecure vibrator get flat tyre again

tinu

 

[ChickenGuy]

I was directly addressing YOUR commentary that the video was a "proof case" that racism isn't institutional. She was the target of bigoted bullying. And that's it.

Do you at all even acknowledge the colossal profound irony of a minority-race student going to a "safe space" to tell her story of racist harassment, only for her to be interrupted, overruled and ushered away directly and solely for pointing out it was a case of African-American racism?

Where is this girl's 'safe space' to tell her story? She gets excluded by the very people claiming to uphold her cause. Are you oblivious to the astounding hypocrisy and double-standards of that group?

 

[rareboy]

Team supporters: But the imagery HONORS YOU.

Tribe: How can that be when we are telling you we find that imagery incredibly offensive?

Team supporters: Tired of this PC bullshit

Exactly.................

 

[NotHardUp1]

I was directly addressing YOUR commentary that the video was a "proof case" that racism isn't institutional. She was the target of bigoted bullying. And that's it.

Not so fast. My post in Post 73 states clearly that her incident is a proof case that racism is not MERELY institutional, an explicit statement meaning racism includes all acts of "bigoted bullying" when based on race. What else was there to be bigoted about other than her race?

Whereas I totally disagree with the OP's premise that PC thinking is tearing apart society or in any way threatens the free world, the conversation is often intellectually dishonest and ignores realities like this young woman's, and ignores the inherent avoidance of actual discussion of race such as her being labelled an Asian when she isn't racially an Asian. An Egyptian or similar would never be identified as African American just the same way that Latino isn't a race. The whole language has been adulterated due to PC taboos, the most obvious being the promulgation of "Asian" as a race category.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

Do you at all even acknowledge the colossal profound irony of a minority-race student going to a "safe space" to tell her story of racist harassment, only for her to be interrupted, overruled and ushered away directly and solely for pointing out it was a case of African-American racism?

Where is this girl's 'safe space' to tell her story? She gets excluded by the very people claiming to uphold her cause. Are you oblivious to the astounding hypocrisy and double-standards of that group?

She didn't get excluded for her story - they let her finish it. She came into trouble when she started talking about how everyone can be racist, at an event that holds that racism is about privilege and power.

Her story was a fine example of racism in America, but she started drawing conclusions not supported by the event. She wasn't dragged off stage or booed off they just asked her to stop using a megaphone. I think it was handled fairly well really, she was just asked to stop talking politely, given a round of applause and they moved on.

 

[xbuzzerx]

She didn't get excluded for her story - they let her finish it. She came into trouble when she started talking about how everyone can be racist, at an event that holds that racism is about privilege and power.

Her story was a fine example of racism in America, but she started drawing conclusions not supported by the event. She wasn't dragged off stage or booed off they just asked her to stop using a megaphone. I think it was handled fairly well really, she was just asked to stop talking politely, given a round of applause and they moved on.

This. Well said.

The logic being employed her is the same as the one that gives the anecdotal (often very questionable) story of "I was white and grew up in a mostly non white neighborhood, and experienced teasing or bullying, and therefore whites experience racism every bit as much." Redefining racism as "any experience of exclusion or bigotry at all, from any source." That is the everyday speech "common redefinition" of the term, but it makes discussion of racism utterly pointless (as it artificially paints every group every which-way as experiencing it equally based on even 1 anecdote of personal experiences with individuals) and it is not the one used in scholarship or academic research on the subject.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Not so fast. My post in Post 73 states clearly that her incident is a proof case that racism is not MERELY institutional, an explicit statement meaning racism includes all acts of "bigoted bullying" when based on race.

That's the definition you are employing. I don't, and I gave the reasons why. In situations that transcend individual interactions, like applying for a home loan, securing employment, seeking a loan to start up a small business, calling the police, or going before a court, the factor that would stand to impact her would be her status as an immigrant. Her race would not work against her. It would probably do the reverse.

 

[NotHardUp1]

b

She didn't get excluded for her story - they let her finish it. She came into trouble when she started talking about how everyone can be racist, at an event that holds that racism is about privilege and power.

Her story was a fine example of racism in America, but she started drawing conclusions not supported by the event. She wasn't dragged off stage or booed off they just asked her to stop using a megaphone. I think it was handled fairly well really, she was just asked to stop talking politely, given a round of applause and they moved on.

Not supported and not tolerated at two different things. Their tolerance of her view was at best dubious.

This. Well said.

The logic being employed her is the same as the one that gives the anecdotal (often very questionable) story of "I was white and grew up in a mostly non white neighborhood, and experienced teasing or bullying, and therefore whites experience racism every bit as much." Redefining racism as "any experience of exclusion or bigotry at all, from any source." That is the everyday speech "common redefinition" of the term, but it makes discussion of racism utterly pointless (as it artificially paints every group every which-way as experiencing it equally based on even 1 anecdote of personal experiences with individuals) and it is not the one used in scholarship or academic research on the subject.

One doesn't have to endorse that majority race members in society experience racism "every bit as much" in order to see a range of valid types of racism within our societies.

And the bit about redefining racism has been stated the wrong way round. It is recent efforts to solely define racism as systemic institutional abuse that is the change. Were it not, the debate wouldn't even currently exist. There is indeed a school of sociology that does seek to redefine racism and in so doing, narrow the discussion. The problem is broader than just the problems imposed upon blacks in America or any other oppressed group.

To eliminate all discussion of bigotry that is race-based aside from that of the Caucasian-based majority is inherently flawed and sure to fail ultimately as it paints races with only one kind of brush: victim or victimizer. The effect won't be to increase reconciliation but to foster continued fracture and in effect, inculcate a new sort of racism, or racial bias.

That's the definition you are employing. I don't, and I gave the reasons why. In situations that transcend individual interactions, like applying for a home loan, securing employment, seeking a loan to start up a small business, calling the police, or going before a court, the factor that would stand to impact her would be her status as an immigrant. Her race would not work against her. It would probably do the reverse.

I agree that systemic institutional racism will work against certain minorities and in favor of others. But that doesn't encompass all the ills that race minorities face in society, and their voices get to be legitimately aired when they occur, as this girl attempted. They don't deserve to be disrespected or poo-pooed. She plainly saw her treatment as an example of racism and was in turn generous enough in her reflection to not blame the race of the perpetrator, but the individual who had attacked her verbally.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

Not supported and not tolerated at two different things. Their tolerance of her view was at best dubious.

I doubt anyone was the bothered by it really - just speaking at a private event is not a right. I am sure they were quite clear on their position before whatever protest this was, and really they just wanted to be making the points they had agreed on, not getting into a debate on what is/isn't racism.

Its fine to have them before a protest, but once you're at that stage you need to stay on point to get yourself heard.

 

[NotHardUp1]

They were noticeably bothered ON the video.

It is not a right indeed. I don't think there is any "position" to be clear upon. They had an ingrained bias. It surfaced when they unexpectedly faced a testimonial inconsistent with their intellectual biases. It is highly likely they did not anticipate such a witness.

And there wasn't any debate, just eagerness to silence her voice. She wasn't opposing them in any way other than by merely being there.

 

[xbuzzerx]

And the bit about redefining racism has been stated the wrong way round. It is recent efforts to solely define racism as systemic institutional abuse that is the change.

It goes back to at least the 1940s (likely earlier) and Martin Luther King Jr. began to incorporate this phase of the discussion into his speeches just before his assassination.

So, no.

To eliminate all discussion of bigotry that is race-based aside from that of the Caucasian-based majority is inherently flawed and sure to fail ultimately as it paints races with only one kind of brush: victim or victimizer. The effect won't be to increase reconciliation but to foster continued fracture and in effect, inculcate a new sort of racism, or racial bias.

If the goal is to eliminate systemic and policy-based racism stopping to have a discussion with every single Irish American and South Korean American is at best going to turn into a symposium on history and personal experiences. It's totally counterproductive to the goal. Again, the objection you're raising only makes any sense working from a definition that "all bad feelings about any group = racism."

I agree that systemic institutional racism will work against certain minorities and in favor of others. But that doesn't encompass all the ills that race minorities face in society

No. Who said it did? You can live as a lily white Christian and try to push yourself into an Amish community and experience perceptions of exclusion and bigotry. Is that also racism?

and their voices get to be legitimately aired when they occur, as this girl attempted.

If she'd been refused the microphone because she was Asian, I'd agree you have a point.

 

[jbrown329]

So, not calling someone of African ancestry n***er is being to PC? Not calling someone with Asian ancestry g**k is being to PC? How about calling someone with Down's Syndrome retard? Or a kid who's Autistic?

I guess when my brother called Obama "the spear-chucking ni**er in the White House" I shouldn't have gotten pissed. Besides being a racist statement, his info (on Social Security) was 100% wrong. He was putting the blame on Obama when it was the Republicans doing it.

The "stars and bars" is not heritage. It's flat out racist. A holdover from when slavery was legal. So opposing that flag is being to PC?

Being PC is also not being a dickhead.

 

[Draven]

so UNIs sit a adult kiddees downs ans
"1s a pons time ---"

haaa
^noooooooo^
haaaaaaaa

got wuv apees human a so sumthang
_haaaaaa_

tinku

I agree with Sloppy

 

[Essex Boy]

I agree with Sloppy

Me too, increasingly. With age comes wisdom.

 

[gaysian85]

When it comes to racism, my opinion is that while it is wrong and in the ideal world should not even exists, it still does and we should accept the fact that it will never go away completely and act like past incidences do not exist. I am talking about the banning of newer cartoons and even redrawing them to be more "politically correct" and "acceptable." And editing older offensive cartoons and movies seems to make things worse as if cutting it out completely and as if it never existed makes up for the offensiveness it once had. It already happened and no editing can or will ever change it so why not leave it alone and put up a disclaimer acknowledging what is about to be shown is no longer acceptable (in terms of views and treatment towards minorities like segregation) and should not be acceptable today and does not reflect the stufio's moral stand point? It's much better than acting like the racist and offending imagery never existed in the first place.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

When it comes to racism, my opinion is that while it is wrong and in the ideal world should not even exists, it still does and we should accept the fact that it will never go away completely and act like past incidences do not exist. I am talking about the banning of newer cartoons and even redrawing them to be more "politically correct" and "acceptable." And editing older offensive cartoons and movies seems to make things worse as if cutting it out completely and as if it never existed makes up for the offensiveness it once had. It already happened and no editing can or will ever change it so why not leave it alone and put up a disclaimer acknowledging what is about to be shown is no longer acceptable (in terms of views and treatment towards minorities like segregation) and should not be acceptable today and does not reflect the stufio's moral stand point? It's much better than acting like the racist and offending imagery never existed in the first place.

ooh ya hittin os sum stuff
"vary gurd"


speed a chnge in 100 yr catch a ways wit teys pantys down or undees or equal unisex supportin ware
*or at tea cups?*
wot a folkees ins profession rubbin up a titulls wot drip wit a
*puke?*
" not fat crap?"
sumthang

anyway

keep a tinkin ans 10 house pointees
! ans burbs work ons a stop planet sinkin !

tinku

 

[eastofeden]

I just have a mini rant about PC that came up...as it usually does...this time of the year....

IF I say Merry Christmas and you don't like it....BITE ME.
IF I say Happy Holidays and you don't like it....BITE ME.

Really..fuck off. I am done with trying to please anyone else and since I don't really give a fuck either way myself....I vote for me....and whatever the fuck comes out of my mouth is fine with me....

...and for the people who want to lecture other people on what "should" be said...wipe your own ass....you don't need to wipe mine..I am really good at it....

Really...I am not trying to keep the Christ in Christmas not am I trying to destroy it....I just don't give a fuck....

-rant over-

 

[NotHardUp1]

The fact that we're still using the term "Asian" proves the one-eye-closed mental gymnastics that some PC policemen are endorsing.

Australian is not a racial description.

North American is not a racial description.

African is not a racial description.

European is not a racial description.

Asian is not a racial description.

Race can mean species. Man is a race of beings.

Race can mean nationality in some uses. Someone may refer himself as a Spaniard.

Race can be a genetically related strain of people, like Caucasians, Negroids, or Mongolians, or Aboriginals.

Because racial theories were deemed offensive, and they were, the academics and others moved strongly away from the descriptors of eugenicists, and their ilk.

But what we are left with is a vague avoidance of terms, replaced by terms almost wholly meaningless. We actually have Indians (largely Aryans by genetics) and Chinese, and Russians all identified as "Asian." What the heck is that? They share no language, no religion, no genetics (in any near-relations) and no government or civil culture in common. Yet, the PC promoters have insisted on Asian to avoid saying Oriental, or Indian, or whatever.

The debate isn't whether we should show one another respect, but whether there is any sense and sanity to the pussyfooting around about actual language.

The same goes for references to historical racial slurs or such. No one endorses the slurring of people, or no one decent does. But the idea that the utterance of the word is like speaking Yahweh's name aloud is on the sanctimonious end of the spectrum. There was a talk show last week where this was discussed with the lead actor in Blackish. The talk show consensus is that the newer generation is gradually removing the power of the words of taboo. I hope that is true, even though I hate to heart them in pop music, etc.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I just have a mini rant about PC that came up...as it usually does...this time of the year....

IF I say Merry Christmas and you don't like it....BITE ME.
IF I say Happy Holidays and you don't like it....BITE ME.

How about if you say "Mazel Tov"? Can we compromise and just suck you?

 

[xbuzzerx]

The fact that we're still using the term "Asian" proves the one-eye-closed mental gymnastics that some PC policemen are endorsing.

Australian is not a racial description.

North American is not a racial description.

African is not a racial description.

European is not a racial description.

Asian is not a racial description.

Race can mean species. Man is a race of beings.

Race can mean nationality in some uses. Someone may refer himself as a Spaniard.

Race can be a genetically related strain of people, like Caucasians, Negroids, or Mongolians, or Aboriginals.

You're doing the opt out that leads to "well there's really not even any such thing as race."

Biologically, you're correct. But within the context we are clearly talking about race as it is commonly understood in social construction. And yes, Asian is a race in that regard. It's what Asians put in a race box in a form.

Because racial theories were deemed offensive, and they were, the academics and others moved strongly away from the descriptors of eugenicists, and their ilk.

Actually what happened virtually overnight after WWII was that exactly the same rhetoric and theories continued but converted to using "culture" as an almost direct substitution for the word "race." It was the way people distanced themselves from the virulent reputation eugenics had gained worldwide and continue to talk about the same things but simply shifting the blame to a different category which would, in the cases of most societies, still overlap with race.

This process continues to the present day. It's not okay to say "black people are dumb." But plenty of people opine "well black culture doesn't really value education.." You know. Because there is one monolithic black culture and we're totally not talking about race at all.

But what we are left with is a vague avoidance of terms, replaced by terms almost wholly meaningless.

This is a crisis no minority of visible racial phenotype would have. Because for your entire life you will hear everyone use your racial category whether you personally "believe" in race or find the categories "meaningless" or not.