• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politically Correct?

Am I being politically correct in the example given?


  • Total voters
    36
Who could have guessed that a thread about political correctness and courtesy would become so ugly and personal and rude....

Oh, wait. :lol:
 
Your position on political correctness is convoluted. On one hand, you say that words aren't important, but then you say they are. :shrug:
Words aren't inherently important and nobody needs to be polite or PC. Words are important relative to the reaction you're trying to get from your audience and if you want a positive reaction, then you'll want to use words that don't offend them.

Furthermore, some words are deemed offensive while other words are perfectly acceptable.
Yes, that's how language works. Some words are offensive and others are not. For example, "kike" and "retard" may be offensive to some, but "faggot" may not be offensive to the same people. I don't understand why you're treating this like it's a foreign concept.

The subjectivity of this issue is one of the main reasons I don't even bother trying to be politically correct. It's ridiculous.
Oh my god. You finally got my point. Subjectivity. A person who finds "anchor baby" stupid might not find "retard" stupid because the meanings we attach to words are subjective. Another person might find "retard" stupid but not "anchor baby". However, both people should not be self-righteous when they get negative reactions to the words they use.
 
Who could have guessed that a thread about political correctness and courtesy would become so ugly and personal and rude....

Oh, wait. :lol:
I think these threads are destined to be the rudest, if only because people use them to prove points.
 
Since he just died, here is Patrice O'Neal on political correctness. He hated political correctness, and I have to say, I agree with him.

Patrice: "I endorse hate speech...Why can't I hate you in speech?"

NSFW (lots of cursing)
 
During the Iranian hostage crisis in which dozens of our diplomats were being held, I was Finance Director for a SoCal water district. I was hiring a new accounts receivable clerk, and a Middle-Eastern young man applied. I liked his credentials and the way he handled himself in the interview. He had a very distinct accent, and I could see from his resume dates that he'd only been in the US a few years, so I asked how he liked it here and where he was from. He said he liked it very much, and he was from Persia... but I could see the instant flash of fear in his eyes. I just said, "Welcome to America, you've got the job." I thought he'd faint, lol.

After he'd worked for me for many months and was comfortable, he said in the break room... in a whisper... "I'm really from Iran, which used to be Persia." I just smiled and said, "I know."

Sometimes it's frightening to come to a new country that has tense relations with the country from which one just escaped.

It is frightening moving across the world to ANY country... period. ;)
 
Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages.

Wm. B. Fankboner


In a nutshell. In other words, you (impersonal) may have your own moral standards and I have to respect that, but do not presume to impose them on others. You have neither the intellectual nor moral standing to do so.
 
Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages.

Wm. B. Fankboner

Irony, it's name is Fankboner. :lol:
 
Are you under the misguided impressions that 1 grouping people according to the region they
Live in is not still grouping people in a divisionary fashion and 2. That there is no American culture and heritage?

Sure, but if people were not grouped this way, the entire concept and application of countries would need to be abandoned. Since there are borders and different nations, people are referred to as "American" or Canadian. But that does not refer to their humanity like the term African or any other ethic group. But truthfully, I even find the concept of patriotism to be rather stupid and backwards. Who cares if someone is "Russian" or "Canadian."

If so on either count, you believe a false premise. If not for both counts, I refer back to my previous post.

No, there is definitely a huge difference.


I don't see why you would be. I made it very clear earlier how I approach political correctness. If I use a word that someone deems offensive, I do so in the absence of giving a **** about their offense. This is nothing personal, it's simply who I am.

lol I guess my sarcasm didn't get through to you. We agree in this instance.


Words aren't inherently important and nobody needs to be polite or PC. Words are important relative to the reaction you're trying to get from your audience and if you want a positive reaction, then you'll want to use words that don't offend them.

Yes, that's how language works. Some words are offensive and others are not. For example, "kike" and "retard" may be offensive to some, but "faggot" may not be offensive to the same people. I don't understand why you're treating this like it's a foreign concept.


Oh my god. You finally got my point. Subjectivity. A person who finds "anchor baby" stupid might not find "retard" stupid because the meanings we attach to words are subjective. Another person might find "retard" stupid but not "anchor baby". However, both people should not be self-righteous when they get negative reactions to the words they use.

ah, so you agree with me, but you're just fond of wasting people's time. Gotcha.
 
Orient simply means "east" and traditionally referred to everything from Turkey to the Pacific, not only to the far East as you suggested. The Orient Express, for example ran from Europe to Constantinople (Istanbul).
 
Last edited:
I haven't distorted a single post in this thread.
You just admitted that you did when you said "oh so you agree with me" after having said for the entire thread that you didn't agree with me. My argument was the same when you said you didn't agree with me as it was when you said you agree with me, so you clearly distorted it during the former situation.
 
You just admitted that you did when you said "oh so you agree with me" after having said for the entire thread that you didn't agree with me. My argument was the same when you said you didn't agree with me as it was when you said you agree with me, so you clearly distorted it during the former situation.

yawning.gif





Bull scat. Your support or lack of support for this particular topic is as dubious as most of your opinions. Feel free to have the last word here.
 
Bull scat. Your support or lack of support for this particular topic is as dubious as most of your opinions. Feel free to have the last word here.
Sure. First, you say you disagree with me. Then, you say you agree with me. In both instances, I wrote the same argument. I think that speaks for itself.
 
Sure, but if people were not grouped this way, the entire concept and application of countries would need to be abandoned.

Absolutely. Have you forgotten that it was you that said: "Don't people realize that dividing ourselves into groups such as race only furthers our problems as a species?"

If that is your view, then you absolutely, positively have to be of the belief that the entire concept and application of countries would need to be abandoned. Nations are, by their very nature, dividing ourselves up into groups. National borders are nothing more than imaginary lines. They don't exist in reality. The only thing that separates the US from Mexico or Canada is belief. It only takes a war to change the location of those imaginary lines. In fact, that has happened quite a few times.

Who cares if someone is "Russian"...

Ask a Chechnyan.


No, there is definitely a huge difference.

Why? Because you're the one doing it this time?

I again refer to your previous quote: "Don't people realize that dividing ourselves into groups such as race only furthers our problems as a species?"

Please explain how your views about dividing ourselves up into national groups is not utterly and completely hypocritical. To me it seems like you are only whining about what other people do to divide themselves up. When you do it, it's just peachy keen. Because, teh fact that you are the one doing it is a huge difference, right?






lol I guess my sarcasm didn't get through to you. We agree in this instance.

I actually saw it, but I wanted to point out the irony.
 
Absolutely. Have you forgotten that it was you that said: "Don't people realize that dividing ourselves into groups such as race only furthers our problems as a species?"

If that is your view, then you absolutely, positively have to be of the belief that the entire concept and application of countries would need to be abandoned. Nations are, by their very nature, dividing ourselves up into groups. National borders are nothing more than imaginary lines. They don't exist in reality. The only thing that separates the US from Mexico or Canada is belief. It only takes a war to change the location of those imaginary lines. In fact, that has happened quite a few times.



Ask a Chechnyan.




Why? Because you're the one doing it this time?

I again refer to your previous quote: "Don't people realize that dividing ourselves into groups such as race only furthers our problems as a species?"

Please explain how your views about dividing ourselves up into national groups is not utterly and completely hypocritical. To me it seems like you are only whining about what other people do to divide themselves up. When you do it, it's just peachy keen. Because, teh fact that you are the one doing it is a huge difference, right?








I actually saw it, but I wanted to point out the irony.

I have already said that I do not agree with division by nationality, and yet we can't simply erase the borders that do exist. And I;ll admit that I don't support a one world government, so countries and nationalities are a fact of life. But it is not what makes us human.
 
...And I;ll admit that I don't support a one world government...

So you support an even more divisive grouping than race which has done far more to further our problems as a species, but basically demonize people for acknowledging their cultural heritage.

Doesn't make sense to me. Acknowledging the differences between groups isn't the problem. Never has been.

The real problem is when one group decides that the other groups activities need to be curbed and then tries to enforce it's will upon the other group.

Ironically, this is done by both the uber-PC crown AND the uber-anti-PC crowd. The PC crowd wants everyone to use "touchy-feely" language all the time while the uber-anti-PC crowd goes ape**** over what people want to call themselves.

To me, both of these groups are the problem because they refuse to tolerate other people being other people. So, ultimately, dividing people into groups is not the problem. It only becomes a problem when those groups decide to arbitrarily hate each other.
 
So you support an even more divisive grouping than race which has done far more to further our problems as a species, but basically demonize people for acknowledging their cultural heritage.

Doesn't make sense to me. Acknowledging the differences between groups isn't the problem. Never has been.

The real problem is when one group decides that the other groups activities need to be curbed and then tries to enforce it's will upon the other group.

Ironically, this is done by both the uber-PC crown AND the uber-anti-PC crowd. The PC crowd wants everyone to use "touchy-feely" language all the time while the uber-anti-PC crowd goes ape**** over what people want to call themselves.

To me, both of these groups are the problem because they refuse to tolerate other people being other people. So, ultimately, dividing people into groups is not the problem. It only becomes a problem when those groups decide to arbitrarily hate each other.

So what do you suggest? End all borders and countries? A one world government? What?
 
So what do you suggest? End all borders and countries? A one world government? What?

Well, I disagree with the primary premise you use to argue against labeling one's self "African-American" so I am not logically required to take that premise it's logical conclusion of abolishing all "divisive groupings of humans".

My premise is that diversity is not, nor has it ever been, the problem. Intolerance towards diversity and arrogant beliefs about supremacy within certain groups have always been the real culprits.

But those things cannot be "fixed". They're part of human nature.

I've personally given up on trying to fix the world. I can only influence a very small area, so I focus my efforts on that small area. If I can change on person's perspective away from those attitudes, I have done my part in improving the world.
 
Well, I disagree with the primary premise you use to argue against labeling one's self "African-American" so I am not logically required to take that premise it's logical conclusion of abolishing all "divisive groupings of humans".

My premise is that diversity is not, nor has it ever been, the problem. Intolerance towards diversity and arrogant beliefs about supremacy within certain groups have always been the real culprits.

But those things cannot be "fixed". They're part of human nature.

I've personally given up on trying to fix the world. I can only influence a very small area, so I focus my efforts on that small area. If I can change on person's perspective away from those attitudes, I have done my part in improving the world.

You've made a good point here. And yet I have to ask: why is it that people feel the need to take pride in their differences? The people who insist on making others acknowledge their heritage are likely doing it out of a since of pride. Does that not divide people? And why is it important for someone to be acknowledged as "African-American" or whatever?
 
You've made a good point here. And yet I have to ask: why is it that people feel the need to take pride in their differences? The people who insist on making others acknowledge their heritage are likely doing it out of a since of pride. Does that not divide people? And why is it important for someone to be acknowledged as "African-American" or whatever?

I don't think taking pride in ones culture is celebrating differences as much as diversity. Feeling connected to your heritage through traditions and practices can bring a since of belonging and oneness. The world is a richer place by far for the variety that different peoples bring to our experiences. The problems do occur when cultures clash over petty differences rather than finding ways of sharing common values. Becoming intolerant and over sensitive insisting on being referred to by a certain racial or cultural label. PC born of insecurity is a method of overbearing conformity, excessively controlling public speech through censorship. As if life isn't difficult enough without worrying if everyone will like us for talking nice? Pee-yew!
 
I just love it when people discuss this issue.

Tell me, when it comes to being politically correct, who decides, exactly, what is correct?

While we're at it, how about I list some examples of political correctness gone stupid?
 
You've made a good point here. And yet I have to ask: why is it that people feel the need to take pride in their differences? The people who insist on making others acknowledge their heritage are likely doing it out of a since of pride. Does that not divide people? And why is it important for someone to be acknowledged as "African-American" or whatever?

The thing to remember is that the cultural differences between groups exists with or without overtly acknowledging them. Cultural differences are impossible to prevent because we only have a small amount of people that we can interact with directly. While humanity is less isolated than it has ever been before, the nature of humans to align with each other into smaller groups, or tribes, is a part of what has allowed us to survive and thrive as a species. We are social creatures and we need to feel as though we belong to a pack or tribe.

But an ambiguously defined pack of "humanity as a while" doesn't satisfy this need. We need to feel that sense of belonging on a smaller, more concrete level. We create these alignments according to our cultural similarities, for the most part. Nowadays, in the absence of the extreme isolation of the past, those packs have the potential to reach much larger sizes than previously possible. People will align with a pack or packs based on their similarities to the other members of those packs. Shared history, shared language, cultural values, etc. Sometimes, those things coincide with shared physical characteristics, sometimes they do not.

In the case of self-identifying as an African-American, for example, there is the incidental aspect of shared physical characteristics, but the real impetus for this identification is the shared cultural history, language, and values. The same is true for people who identify as Irish-American, or simply as an American, for that matter. Physical aspects are far less of a factor in these groupings than the cultural aspects are. think about it.

When you pick someone whom you wish to associate with, you can (and probably will) totally ignore physical characteristics. You'll probably focus more on their traditions, values, and the other social characteristics which the two of you may share. People generally don't enjoy associating with someone they have little to nothing in common with. They may not dislike the other person, but they aren't likely to bond with them without a decent amount of common ground either.

This is basically what causes that group formation. The differences have to exist before the groupings can even occur. So giving name to the groups does not act as a divisive factor. The divisions pre-date the names for them.
 
How many of you really hate PC but feel forced to conform or be an outcast?
 
We have had a few discussions on the topic of politically correct topics lately, and it reminded me of a conversation on these boards from quite some time ago. I cannot remember what the discussion was about so the other person will remain nameless and hopefully unidentifiable. Who it is is not important. What I am going to ask is if I was being politically correct in this discussion.

Conversation: something about Asians, some one calls Asians "oriental", another person points out that properly, the correct term is Asian.

Me: I learned some time ago that Asian refers to people, Oriental to objects, so I always use Asian

Other person: You are just being Politically Correct.

Me: I don't think I am, it is effortless on my part to say Asian and I then don't have to worry about offending any one accidentally.

Other Person: Exactly, you are trying not to offend, so you are being PC.

Now, obviously this is somewhat paraphrased and condensed from a longer conversation. What I want to know though, is in the example I gave as I gave it, am I being Politically Correct to use the term Asian instead of Oriental?

PC is just a whine that rightwingers shout when they're called out for their bigotry
 
Back
Top Bottom