• 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!

"Politcal Correctness" - False Victim hood or Real issue.

Is Political Correctness real?

  • Yes PC is real and is rampant. People are too sensitive.

    Votes: 38 67.9%

  • Yes and No - It depends. (Explain in your post)

    Votes: 11 19.6%

  • No PC is a made up escape goat. It is a catch phrase used to distract from a real issue.

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • Total voters
    56
Fiddytree said:
Eh, Ida B. Wells nearly comes to mind. She made an apology tour in Europe, but it wasn't that kind of an apology tour. ;)
Click to expand...

"Cloaking an Apology for Lawlessness": Ida B. Wells, Frances Willard and the Lynching Controversy, 1890-1894

A public awareness campaign against lynching is not exactly the same thing as having to give a bunch of butt hurt morons on twitter an apology because they were "offended" that you offhandedly suggested that Mel Gibson might not be all that bad a guy. :lol:

Gary Oldman apologizes for 'offensive' comments about Jewish people after profanity-laced rant in Playboy Magazine - NY Daily News
 
mak2 said:
I hung out on a very conservative site at the time. They were scurrying about calling themselves tea-baggers. The instant they realized what it meant (heck, I didnt know either) it was like they had never heard the word before and they would have a fit if someone (like me) mentioned it. Kinda funny and certainly silly.
Click to expand...

But they didn't do it because of the sexual connotation, they did it for the same reason they called themselves the Tea Party, for historical reasons. When they realized it had an unintended sexual meaning as well, they dropped it. I don't blame them for that at all, although they should have done some more research, it isn't like the sexual meaning was a secret or anything.
 
Gathomas88 said:
"Cloaking an Apology for Lawlessness": Ida B. Wells, Frances Willard and the Lynching Controversy, 1890-1894

A public awareness campaign against lynching is not exactly the same thing as having to give a bunch of butt hurt morons on twitter an apology because they were "offended" that you offhandedly suggested that Mel Gibson might not be all that bad a guy. :lol:

Gary Oldman apologizes for 'offensive' comments about Jewish people after profanity-laced rant in Playboy Magazine - NY Daily News
Click to expand...

But you have to remember why she went to Europe, Gath. Her literature against lynchings and the criticisms against the Southern press in how they covered the incidents resulted in a mob destroying her press and having her life threatened. Political correctness in action caused her to tour Europe to, in effect apologize to the horrors of the U.S. and galvanize Europe to decry the situation. Such a move was also unpopular for Americans, because political correctness dictated that if you were to complain about U.S. society, you must do so at home, not abroad.

Persons complaining about Muslims threatening violence or death for bad commentary or liberals being so sensitive to followers of Islam that they dare not speak the name of "terrorist" have a point. So too did political correctness of the South prevent sensible any sensible discussion about the thousands who were being killed for erroneous reasons when it was really because of their race.
 
Last edited:
Zinthaniel said:
I really don't care what side of you I'm on. I don't care what you personally choose to call people. Quite frankly you sound like someone I wouldn't around me anyways. Your freedom of speech is not being challenged in this thread. The op is about using PC as an excuse to ignore an honest discussion. Not about censoring.
Click to expand...

You seem determined to personalize the discussion, unfortunately. I know political correctness doctrine often does not involve official government restriction of speech, although it has prompted First Amendment suits, e.g. in official speech codes on state university campuses. But when private persons use political correctness, however they try to sugar-coat it as being all about consideration and politeness, in fact they have exactly the same ugly intent. And that is to silence people they disagree with. I ignore people's attempts to do that, and I urge everyone else to do the same. The best way to resist attempts to make "Happy Holidays" the new, approved phrase, just to cite one example, is to insist all the more on saying "Merry Christmas" instead.
 
matchlight said:
You seem determined to personalize the discussion, unfortunately. I know political correctness doctrine often does not involve official government restriction of speech, although it has prompted First Amendment suits, e.g. in official speech codes on state university campuses. But when private persons use political correctness, however they try to sugar-coat it as being all about consideration and politeness, in fact they have exactly the same ugly intent. And that is to silence people they disagree with. I ignore people's attempts to do that, and I urge everyone else to do the same. The best way to resist attempts to make "Happy Holidays" the new, approved phrase, just to cite one example, is to insist all the more on saying "Merry Christmas" instead.
Click to expand...

Mm. Kay and you again are lost to what I am actually arguing. This is NOT about censoring. I've told you that three time now I believe. This is about trying to use the notion that people are being "political correct" to avoid discussing an issue that is real.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is appropriate to bite the hand that feeds you crap.
Click to expand...

Don't know if you're referring to me or Alinksy here, but I'll stand by my perceptions on this. And Alinsky may be crap, but he, or at least his doctrine, is carefully studied and taken very seriously by many.
 
Cephus said:
There's quite a difference between not saying things that you know will offend others and being afraid to say anything at all for fear that someone, somewhere, just might possibly be offended. That's the difference between polite society and political correctness.
Click to expand...

Well of course. However, when some AM Talk Radio personality says something offensive and then complains about "Political Correctness" when they face the PR backlash, a lot of times its not PC run amok, its that they said something that was offensive. For example, its offensive to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality. It's not just PC, its offensive. If an individual can't say anything without offending someone, their problem might not be the PC Culture, it might just be they are a hatemongering jackass.
 
Fiddytree said:
But you have to remember why she went to Europe, Gath. Her literature against lynchings and the criticisms against the Southern press in how they covered the incidents resulted in a mob destroying her press and having her life threatened. Political correctness in action caused her to tour Europe to, in effect apologize to the horrors of the U.S. and galvanize Europe to decry the situation. Such a move was also unpopular for Americans, because political correctness dictated that if you were to complain about U.S. society, you must do so at home, not abroad.

Persons complaining about Muslims threatening violence or death for bad commentary or liberals being so sensitive to followers of Islam that they dare not speak the name of "terrorist" have a point. So too did political correctness of the South prevent sensible any sensible discussion about the thousands who were being killed for erroneous reasons when it was really because of their race.
Click to expand...

Again, however, that's not really the same thing.

What you're referring to here isn't institutionalized "political correctness." It's simply the "mob mentality" paired with "tyranny of the majority."

Modern political correctness was a much more deliberate movement to limit vocabulary and acceptable speech, usually to drive a certain social and political agenda.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Well of course. However, when some AM Talk Radio personality says something offensive and then complains about "Political Correctness" when they face the PR backlash, a lot of times its not PC run amok, its that they said something that was offensive. For example, its offensive to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality. It's not just PC, its offensive. If an individual can't say anything without offending someone, their problem might not be the PC Culture, it might just be they are a hatemongering jackass.
Click to expand...

Perhaps one of the greatest efforts of the PC Militia is when they take comments out of context, edit them to invent a new context, and then spread the invented context around the various PC Militia news outlets so these enemies of their agenda can hopefully be destroyed.

That's a real problem that should expose those who participate in such antics as the tools they truly are.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Again, however, that's not really the same thing.

What you're referring to here isn't institutionalized "political correctness." It's simply the "mob mentality" paired with "tyranny of the majority."
Click to expand...

It is political correctness, Gath.

Modern political correctness was a much more deliberate movement to limit vocabulary and acceptable speech, usually to drive a certain social and political agenda.
Click to expand...

Precisely. There's no difference here. If someone can't publish literature or have conversations about the social or political agenda of the South, cannot use certain language to describe the situation (only using other approved words) without fear of reprisals or isolation, that is political correctness.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The very nature of a sports fan (fanatic?) is to be critical of (offensive to?) the opposing team and heap praise upon their favored team cheering even their most minor accomplishments and forgiving their shortcomings. Your confusion of sports fans and Christians is excused - go lions. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, besides the Redskins. I don't particularly want to watch them because...well if I want maddeningly mediocre, there's the Bills and Vikings...

Outside of that, why would you want to offend people?
 
Fiddytree said:
It is political correctness, Gath.

Precisely. There's no difference here. If someone can't publish literature or have conversations about the social or political agenda of the South, without fear of reprisals or isolation, that is political correctness.
Click to expand...

Again, however, "political correctness" was a movement driven largely by academia, with a deliberate (and usually Marxist) political aim in mind.

It's almost like a real life version of Orwellian "newspeak."

That's not really the same thing as the violent racist sentiment you described above. That kind of thing originated more or less spontaneously, in a rather ad hoc fashion. It also wasn't really focused around "words" per se, so much as social and political dissent in general.

The modern "P.C." movement, on the other hand, is basically all about words, and was deliberately engineered to achieve a certain effect.

They're both expressions of cultural authoritarianism. Don't get me wrong. However, this latest development in the cycle is rather unique compared to past eras.
 
celticwar17 said:
I'm a nice guy... rarely intentionally mean. Nothing I do should be taken in offense... I don't intentionally insult people hardly ever.

I don't ever get offended... as long as the person is respectful of what I have to say... and isn't intentionally trying to be mean/sarcastic/rude. Tea-bagger in almost every case I've heard it's meant to be a mean and dismissive term....Like whats the point in changing the name of a person who follows the tea party in the first place? to make fun of them like a child? It's an insult.... that's different.... anyone can toss out insult...

You... you... Dirty Rosepetal!!!.... that's an insult that's just pointless...
Click to expand...

But then my actual point stands that it's still "political correctness." Saying tea-bagger offends some on the right, the same way other words may offend people of that "group."

Either you can say these words, or you can't. You don't get separate rules for the TP.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Again, however, "political correctness" was a movement driven largely by academia, with a deliberate (and usually Marxist) political aim in mind.
Click to expand...

The term political correctness is in regard to that. The method of social control is not isolated to academia, left-wing political movements, and so on. Previously, the term political correctness referred to a lock-step following of Party doctrine.

What people attribute to what upsets them about political correctness, however, is precisely what has been used by groups from centuries ago, for various political and social causes.

It is terribly fascinating to see it play out in the press in the immediate aftermath of the Denmark Vesey incident. South Carolinian papers identifying specific papers of the North, specific authors, who had broken the "long-standing" social custom of observing the sensitivities of the South's slavery regime. Then immediately in regard to the abolitionist literature in the post office episode, when the mere act of having mail addressed to you which offended Southerners (a numeric minority, with a white demographic majority in the nation--but sometimes nevertheless minority status in a given county) could be reason enough to be socially ridiculed, isolated, or denied access to information. Words were heavily regulated, and only the right words or tones were accepted.
 
Last edited:
cpgrad08 said:
Not at all, just don't freak out if I wish you a Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to wish anyone anything you want, just don't freak out when someone else picks a different term. There is no war on Christmas, that's idiotic.
 
There you go. And now I will go on my merry ole way.

Zinthaniel said:
With the introduction of social media it has become more and more difficult to escape the "news" no matter what it's covering. As a result discussions of every little thing under the clear blue sky is becoming more and more a common past time, for all ages.

With that the intrinsic social issues that are rampant throughout societies world wide- women rights, male rights, gay rights, racial rights, etc - get a lot of air time. And as a result there are some who appear to be weary of issues that seem to never go away. So in comes the new or reintroduced "it" phrase. "Political Correctness".

It appears that now, regardless if the issue has any merit and is in fact morally or ethically insidious , those who are sick of discussing it dismiss it as "political correctness". They insist that the everyone is too "Sensitive" and that "it's not that big of a deal".

The phrase is so over used and simplified that it is become a tired argumentative fallacy. Instead of engaging and honestly addressing an issue, those who refuse to see for what it is simply cry "PC" and go on their merry ol' way.

It's rampant on this forum as well. It reeks of false victim hood, where those who belong to a privileged class that often is contributing to the misfortune of another people essentially cry out because they are being stripped of their right to subjugate, harass, alienate, or otherwise mistreat others. It's silly.

But that's my perspective, what's yours?

Is PC a real thing? Are people too sensitive? Or is PC a cop out excuse used to sweep pressing issues under the rug?
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
You're welcome to wish anyone anything you want, just don't freak out when someone else picks a different term. There is no war on Christmas, that's idiotic.
Click to expand...

Where was I talking about a war on Christmas? Why would I freak if someone gives me a different holiday greeting?
 
cpgrad08 said:
Where was I talking about a war on Christmas? Why would I freak if someone gives me a different holiday greeting?
Click to expand...

I don't know, lots of people seem to. If you're not one of them, kindly disregard.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Don't know if you're referring to me or Alinksy here, but I'll stand by my perceptions on this. And Alinsky may be crap, but he, or at least his doctrine, is carefully studied and taken very seriously by many.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that Alinsky's tactics are appropriate in some situations when being passive and silent means living with oppression, squalor and poverty.
 
Zinthaniel said:
With the introduction of social media it has become more and more difficult to escape the "news" no matter what it's covering. As a result discussions of every little thing under the clear blue sky is becoming more and more a common past time, for all ages.

With that the intrinsic social issues that are rampant throughout societies world wide- women rights, male rights, gay rights, racial rights, etc - get a lot of air time. And as a result there are some who appear to be weary of issues that seem to never go away. So in comes the new or reintroduced "it" phrase. "Political Correctness".

It appears that now, regardless if the issue has any merit and is in fact morally or ethically insidious , those who are sick of discussing it dismiss it as "political correctness". They insist that the everyone is too "Sensitive" and that "it's not that big of a deal".

The phrase is so over used and simplified that it is become a tired argumentative fallacy. Instead of engaging and honestly addressing an issue, those who refuse to see for what it is simply cry "PC" and go on their merry ol' way.

It's rampant on this forum as well. It reeks of false victim hood, where those who belong to a privileged class that often is contributing to the misfortune of another people essentially cry out because they are being stripped of their right to subjugate, harass, alienate, or otherwise mistreat others. It's silly.

But that's my perspective, what's yours?

Is PC a real thing? Are people too sensitive? Or is PC a cop out excuse used to sweep pressing issues under the rug?
Click to expand...
One need only look at who and what the complaints of "political correctness" overwhelmingly directed at to see that "political correctness" is a farce. The complaints are primarily directed at marginalized groups and concepts that defend marginalized groups. It isn't white people who whine about being called "racist" who are called "PC", it is people of color who ask that jokes no longer be made at there expense or that teams no longer use names that insult them who are called PC. It isn't men who are called "PC" when they express outrage at women who speak about "rape culture". It is women who ask that "being a girl" no longer be used as insult that are called "PC". And so on.

The concept of "political correctness" and the idea that people are becoming "too sensitive" are arguments that have been developed in response to increasing attempts by many people in our society to move past the tradition of letting the privileged decide how the marginalized should be spoken about. It's the last, desperate attempt of bigotry to withstand its inevitable.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
One need only look at who and what the complaints of "political correctness" overwhelmingly directed at to see that "political correctness" is a farce. The complaints are primarily directed at marginalized groups and concepts that defend marginalized groups. It isn't white people who whine about being called "racist" who are called "PC", it is people of color who ask that jokes no longer be made at there expense or that teams no longer use names that insult them who are called PC. It isn't men who are called "PC" when they express outrage at women who speak about "rape culture". It is women who ask that "being a girl" no longer be used as insult that are called "PC". And so on.

The concept of "political correctness" and the idea that people are becoming "too sensitive" are arguments that have been developed in response to increasing attempts by many people in our society to move past the tradition of letting the privileged decide how the marginalized should be spoken about. It's the last, desperate attempt of bigotry to withstand its inevitable.
Click to expand...

In fact the concept of political correctness was cooked up long ago by European communists as a way to silence people they considered heretics. It was imported here, where it has been popularized by leftists of various stripes.
 
I believe in free speech that's is unmolested by PC... If someone has a problem with that? FAQ
 
"Political correctness" is not new, and the attempts to create more thoughtful and inclusive phrases stems from the civil rights movement, which begat the women's movement, which has begat....

"Ms.," in my opinion, is critically important. "Police officer," "mail carrier," and etc. are not just more inclusive; they're also more precise.

But political correctness can be dishonest and manipulative (for example, calling illegal immigrants "undocumented workers") or just plain silly (for example, referring to inmates as "involuntary guests of the state"). :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom