StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A group of aborigines stole the coat of arms off of parliament house once. They claimed that the kangaroo on it was a symbol of genocide. "Geoncide through pictures" or some such.

Durandal wrote: What ideas? The ones that violate everyone else's rights?

Hmm, so I suppose "Huckleberry Finn" violates everyone else's rights, thank God they censored it.

Then you're either lying or just a moron.

No, I am it seems one of those rare agnostics who can think for himself, and am not worried that if I see the word "God" once in a while I'm going to get confused and become a Christian.

Red herring. Political correctness is about respecting minorities' rights.

Maybe in intent, but in practice it's about censorship of anything some people find remotely "insulting", even if the rest of that minority doesn't agree (See the Speedy Gonzales issue, most Hispanics liked him, but the powers that be who know what people need better than they do, decided it was degrading )

People like me, huh? What side am I not presenting? I can actually empathize with American Indians when they feel that the Cleveland Indians' mascot is offensive and inappropriate. How would I feel if New York City's baseball team was the "New York Dagos/Whops/Guineas" with a Mafia hitman as the mascot? I can't understand why it's so much to demand basic decency, courtesy and respect from people.

Nice totally unrelated analagy, "Indian" is not a racial epithet, not in practice and certainly not in the context of a bloody sports team...except of course to the hyper-sensitive PC mongers who want to find racism in everything. Political Correctness has nothing to do with decency, courtesy and respect, it has everything to do with censorship and "New ideas are bad, we need to repress them, and edit the old ones too in case something thinks they are offensive."

Hmm, so I suppose "Huckleberry Finn" violates everyone else's rights, thank God they censored it.

I agree. Political correctness, like any idea, can be taken to extremes. It's about respecting minorities' rights, and lawyers and PTA boards have used it as a springboard from which to launch censorship campaigns.

No, I am it seems one of those rare agnostics who can think for himself, and am not worried that if I see the word "God" once in a while I'm going to get confused and become a Christian.

Then you're obviously too stupid to understand the ramifications of religion in the government. It's illegal.

Maybe in intent, but in practice it's about censorship of anything some people find remotely "insulting", even if the rest of that minority doesn't agree (See the Speedy Gonzales issue, most Hispanics liked him, but the powers that be who know what people need better than they do, decided it was degrading )

Good idea. Poor execution. Happens all the time. Anti-PC nuts accuse everything done in the name of racial/ethnic harmony as being weak or soft, but most of them also happen to be a part of the majority.

Nice totally unrelated analagy, "Indian" is not a racial epithet, not in practice and certainly not in the context of a bloody sports team...except of course to the hyper-sensitive PC mongers who want to find racism in everything. Political Correctness has nothing to do with decency, courtesy and respect, it has everything to do with censorship and "New ideas are bad, we need to repress them, and edit the old ones too in case something thinks they are offensive."

Bullshit. American Indians are a minority, as well. It's simply indecent and offensive to use a stereotype for a mascot. What if a baseball team sprung up called the "Harlem Niggers," and it had a gang member for the mascot?

Let's not get me started on the draft rates for Irish immigrants during the Civil War.

Or for that matter the fact that the Irish, Italian, Chinese and Rom immigrants were considered sub-human in both the north and the south, before and after the civil war.

While they could not get any protection in our courts for blatant violations of their rights as humans (Rape, Murder, Robbery) they were forced to form Criminal organizations to prevent such behavior.

The more you know about history, the more you realize it really is silly how people carry on these days.


O

Durandal wrote:I agree. Political correctness, like any idea, can be taken to extremes. It's about respecting minorities' rights, and lawyers and PTA boards have used it as a springboard from which to launch censorship campaigns.

*shrug* Then what do you expect? Given the way Political Correctness is implemented how can you expect anybody to say they support it?

Then you're obviously too stupid to understand the ramifications of religion in the government. It's illegal.

I suppose so, I am clearly too stupid to see how a completely optional pledge with a completely optional line spoken in some school's qualifies as part of a government conspiracy to create a state religion. If you'll note that is the only thing that is illegal, a state sponsored religion, which the Pledge of Allegiance is not.

Good idea. Poor execution. Happens all the time. Anti-PC nuts accuse everything done in the name of racial/ethnic harmony as being weak or soft, but most of them also happen to be a part of the majority.

Please give me an example of something being done in the name of racial harmony being yelled down by anti-PC people.

Bullshit. American Indians are a minority, as well. It's simply indecent and offensive to use a stereotype for a mascot. What if a baseball team sprung up called the "Harlem Niggers," and it had a gang member for the mascot?

I see...so if you don't happen to be a minority using a minorities name, even if not as a slur, is immediate racism. There you go again. "Nigger" is a racial slur, pure and simple (unless you happen to be black), "Indian" is not, nor is it in the context of the name of a sports team.

I'd have no problem with a team being named "The Fighting Whities"


So naturally it would follow that a team named "The Indians" wouldn't really piss me off too much...

*shrug* Then what do you expect? Given the way Political Correctness is implemented how can you expect anybody to say they support it?

Simple: reform the way it's implemented.

I suppose so, I am clearly too stupid to see how a completely optional pledge with a completely optional line spoken in some school's qualifies as part of a government conspiracy to create a state religion. If you'll note that is the only thing that is illegal, a state sponsored religion, which the Pledge of Allegiance is not.

Then what do you call it? The Pledge of Allegiance is written in to American law, and it was added under a bigoted context.

Please give me an example of something being done in the name of racial harmony being yelled down by anti-PC people.

It's not only about racial harmony. Anti-PC nuts have shouted down criticisms of the Pledge (that would be in the name of religious tolerance).

I see...so if you don't happen to be a minority using a minorities name, even if not as a slur, is immediate racism. There you go again. "Nigger" is a racial slur, pure and simple (unless you happen to be black), "Indian" is not, nor is it in the context of the name of a sports team.

How about the portrayal of the mascot as some bucktoothed moron?

I suppose I should throw in my $.02 on the original subject matter sooner or later ...

"Political correctness" is a derogatory term used to describe movements such as racial equality, sexual equality, freedom from government-sponsored religion, benefits for the handicapped, etc.

Any one of those movements has intrinsic merit, and cannot easily be argued against in a rational fashion. Therefore, it has proven rather convenient for the right-wing to lump them all together under the blanket term "political correctness", associate that term with the most extreme elements of the individual movements, and then use the "guilt by association" fallacy to throw the whole damned baby out with the bath water.

The phrase "politically correct" was a brilliant semantic choice on the part of social conservatives, because it suggests a sort of enforced conformity, or intellectual tyranny. It also suggests coercion and on some levels, an Orwellian sort of Thought Police. Many people use it in that sense; as a term to describe a sort of intellectual coercion in which it is perceived that social conservative thought is being forcibly suppressed by tyrannical special interest groups and their lawyers. So in essence, the term "political correctness" has three meanings in popular use:

1. Racial equality, sexual equality, freedom of and/or from religion, benefits for the handicapped, etc.
2. The most extreme elements of the aforementioned movements.
3. Loss of academic and intellectual freedom; forcible suppression of ideas deemed "incorrect".

This creates problems for a poll such as this one. When someone asks "is political correctness a good thing", which definition comes to the mind of the audience?

This creates problems for a poll such as this one. When someone asks "is political correctness a good thing", which definition comes to the mind of the audience? - Darth Wong

I would hazard to say that the media plays upon #2, which certainly does influence what option people would choose.

XPViking

Number 1. I tried adding a third option to the poll (good idea, bad implementation), but for some reason, it didn't show up.

I agree with Wong's observation on the subject, which is why I asked for a definition earlier. You are already throwing concessions to the 'anti-PCers' by calling affirmative action, etc... "politically correct." I voted "yes" as I am in favour of programs designed to help minorities, but the term "politically correct" is a derogatory strawman.

"Political Correctness" is nothing more than a blunt label that has no real contribution to any rational dabate. I never use it for that very reason.

Durandal wrote:Number 1. I tried adding a third option to the poll (good idea, bad implementation), but for some reason, it didn't show up.

If you edit the first message in this thread, you can also edit the poll and add more choices.

The problem with PC is that it always seems to be more about what people say than what they do. You can be perfectly accepting of different minorities, etc. But if you make a joke that includes a minority or use what PC nuts call an offensive word, then some PC paladin comes down with a holy avenger and smites you good.

Sometimes I even worry about calling Wogs Wogs.

In my opinion, the term PC was evolved into something almsot degrading, so I think it should only be used in the most degrading and humorous circumstances.

I think affirmative action is a good idea. But when you use it to give minorities an advantage getting jobs, that's PC. Let me give you an example:

You have a job opening, and 2 applicants: A black woman, and a white man. The white man has far more experience and education. With affirmitive action, the black can't be turned down for being black. She could be turned down for being less experienced. With PC affirmitive action, if you don't choose the black woman, you'll be labeled racist.

I am opposed to gun control, since it has shown to be innefective at stopping crime, but if you support it, you are a control advocate. You're not PC unless you're forcing someone to remove an old, antique rifle from their office (It happened at Ohio University, I think).

The term itself was coined in order to be degrading of ideas supporting racial harmony, tolerance toward minorities and simply being a nice person.

I'm sorry, but it just isn't incredibly considerate to name a team the "Indians," and have the mascot be some bucktoothed, cartoonish Indian stereotype.

Affirmative action, like it or not, is something necessary. The reality is that blacks and Hispanics are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to upper level jobs and education, and that all things being equal, a white guy will get hired for a management position over a black guy. If we ever want racial harmony in the future, minorities need to get better jobs.

However, that fact does not excuse blacks and Hispanics from striving for academic excellence. The goal of affirmative action is to open up opportunities, not to give free rides for unqualified people.

Darth Wong wrote:I suppose I should throw in my $.02 on the original subject matter sooner or later ...

"Political correctness" is a derogatory term used to describe movements such as racial equality, sexual equality, freedom from government-sponsored religion, benefits for the handicapped, etc.

Any one of those movements has intrinsic merit, and cannot easily be argued against in a rational fashion. Therefore, it has proven rather convenient for the right-wing to lump them all together under the blanket term "political correctness", associate that term with the most extreme elements of the individual movements, and then use the "guilt by association" fallacy to throw the whole damned baby out with the bath water.

The phrase "politically correct" was a brilliant semantic choice on the part of social conservatives, because it suggests a sort of enforced conformity, or intellectual tyranny. It also suggests coercion and on some levels, an Orwellian sort of Thought Police. Many people use it in that sense; as a term to describe a sort of intellectual coercion in which it is perceived that social conservative thought is being forcibly suppressed by tyrannical special interest groups and their lawyers. So in essence, the term "political correctness" has three meanings in popular use:

1. Racial equality, sexual equality, freedom of and/or from religion, benefits for the handicapped, etc.
2. The most extreme elements of the aforementioned movements.
3. Loss of academic and intellectual freedom; forcible suppression of ideas deemed "incorrect".

This creates problems for a poll such as this one. When someone asks "is political correctness a good thing", which definition comes to the mind of the audience?

Erm, I'm just a little confused now.... last time I've read you writing about political correctness, it was on your site's essay about racism in Star Wars and Star Trek respectively, where you apparently criticized (what you described as) "the political correctness movement" of criticizing Star Wars for depicting ethnical stereotypes while not saying one word about Star Trek portraying the Klingon and Romulan races (and for that matter, also the Jem'hadar, Ferengi and Species 8472) as villains.

(the people who accused Gungans of being stereotypes of Caribbeans are indeed hypocrites, since I've never heard them complain about the Klingons being insensitive portrayals of Russians, or Ferengi being insensitive portrayals of Scotsmen)

By the way, I can link to the essay if you're interested:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Racism.html

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Erm, I'm just a little confused now.... last time I've read you writing about political correctness, it was on your site's essay about racism in Star Wars and Star Trek respectively, where you apparently criticized (what you described as) "the political correctness movement" of criticizing Star Wars for depicting ethnical stereotypes while not saying one word about Star Trek portraying the Klingon and Romulan races (and for that matter, also the Jem'hadar, Ferengi and Species 8472) as villains.

What's the confusion? I just pointed out that there are several different definitions of political correctness, so what's the problem? In the page you mentioned, I was obviously using #2, and pointing out that it was being inconsistently applied.

Darth Wong wrote:different definitions of political correctness, so what's the problem? In the page you mentioned, I was obviously using #2, and pointing out that it was being inconsistently applied.

Hmm... I understand now... so what you mean is that there are different types of p.c.???

Political correctness is way out of hand...I think we all need to develop thicker skin anyone remember sticks and stones? Its a tricky situation on the one hand if you make an issue of it people are only doing the right thing out of a fear of retribution. Political correctness doesnt change peoples veiws it only alters their willingness to express them. As well political correctness identifies minorities says yes they are different to you but god damn you better not treat them that way....As long as we are compensating for inequities we continue to highlight them and encourage them. At the same token being an individual within a group should carry with it a certain responsibilty to make an effort to integrate into the community and be a producive member of it. Shouldn't it?

In my opinion, political correctness is that which is most in-line with the liberal agenda (rain forests, hyphenated-Americans, saving useless animals, opposing all things military, etc.). The best idea is to determine one's own set of priciples and stick with them, regardless of those on the extreme left who might oppose you.

An interesting aside, is how some terms have been renamed:

Jungle ... Rain Forest
bum or hobo ... homeless person

The list goes on, but you can see that it would be more effective to say, "Save the rain forests," rather than to say, "Save the jungles."

Tebrak'aun wrote:Political correctness is way out of hand...I think we all need to develop thicker skin anyone remember sticks and stones?

It goes beyond insults. Many movements which are supposedly "PC" are about correcting inequities rather than creating them, but if they get out of hand, the latter can result.

Case in point: women were never allowed into many professions before the advent of "PC" thinking. But today, you have women becoming firefighters in my province even though they don't meet the strength requirements, so they changed the strength requirements so that a firefighter need only lift a certain percentage of his or her own body weight, rather than an absolute number. Something to keep in mind when some 90 pound girl tries to haul a 300 pound unconscious guy out of a burning building.

Its a tricky situation on the one hand if you make an issue of it people are only doing the right thing out of a fear of retribution.

People have always done the right thing out of a fear of retribution.

Political correctness doesnt change peoples veiws it only alters their willingness to express them. As well political correctness identifies minorities says yes they are different to you but god damn you better not treat them that way....

Fuck you. "Yes they are different"? Minorities are only different in skin colour, asshole. There is no intrinsic difference which is relevant to anything important, such as hiring for a job. And are you suggesting that racial discrimination is OK by mocking the notion that you shouldn't treat different races differently?

As long as we are compensating for inequities we continue to highlight them and encourage them.

Wrong. Compensation for inequity does not encourage inequity, and I fail to see how you can possibly justify that leap in logic. The problem is that compensation for inequity can potentially go too far, or that it can continue after the source inequity has ceased, so that it becomes an inequity in itself. There is some debate as to whether this is the case now.

You seem to forget where we came from. In the 1960's, a black man could not sit at the front of a bus, enter many buildings, eat in most restaurants, or drink from the same water fountains as everybody else. It was virtually impossible for a black man to get any job other than manual labourer, and every single hiring agent in every company was a racist, and would much rather give any given job to a white man than a black man. Compensation for those kinds of inequities was completely justified at the time. Is it still justified today? That's an open question, but you are not answering it by pretending that it was a bad idea from day one.

At the same token being an individual within a group should carry with it a certain responsibilty to make an effort to integrate into the community and be a producive member of it. Shouldn't it?

Of course. How does this negate the idea of correcting inequities rather than just shrugging and being glad you're on the winning side of them?

jegs2 wrote:An interesting aside, is how some terms have been renamed:

Jungle ... Rain Forest
bum or hobo ... homeless person

The list goes on, but you can see that it would be more effective to say, "Save the rain forests," rather than to say, "Save the jungles."

Somewhat OT, but my favourite is the substitution of the term "wetland" for the word "swamp"

Paraphrasing Mike's 3 definitions. . .

1. Social justice
This is the part that's a good idea - recognising systematic injustices, and attempting to correct them. Often past injustices can create self-perpetuating cycles. In these cases, simply removing the injustice is not enough - it is necessary to take positive action to break the cycles. Aboriginal Australians are a good example - past abuses by society have created many current problems. While the current government isn't responsible for the abuses of its predecessors, it is responsible for trying to repair the subsequent damage.
It is a recognition that, while a perfectly level playing field is neither desirable, nor possible, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to level out some of the worst bumps.
This version isn't concerned about words, or about what you think - it is interested in actions. Words continue to be governed by conventional censorship laws.

2. Reverse-discrimination, obsession with words
The extremists who have missed the point, and (unfortunately) have a tendency to give option 1 a bad name. These are the ones who go too far, doing all sorts of stupid shit. Sometimes these people are actually worse racists than the people they are trying to villify (see Mike's racism essay for a really good shredding of this sort of attitude)
The worst part about some of these fuckwits is when they effectively accuse members of minority groups of 'not fitting the stereotype' well enough. Like when wacko feminists accuse women who like watching porn of 'betraying the sisterhood'. Or when Aboriginals who adopt Western ways are accused of 'abandoning their heritage'.

3. The thought police
This is a flat-out scare tactic, generally used by people who for some reason are deliberately arguing against option 1, or who are genuinely too stupid/ignorant to know any better.

On the PC front has anyone ever seen anyone refered to as "a person of gender"? Well everyone has a gender and it doesn't necessarilly have to match your biological sex but in this case someone was trying to come up with a dumbass special pc way of saying female. As if male isn't a gender.