Jump to content

Political Correctness


PhDP
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's an example of calling-PCness-a-straw-man in itself becoming a straw man. Whether the "Christmas Controversy" is an example of "government honoring the establishment clause" or an example of "lefty behavior" is a matter of personal opinion, and valid either way.

 

So honoring the establishment clause is lefty behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So honoring the establishment clause is lefty behavior?

 

"Honoring the establishment clause" is your opinion on the "Christmas Controversy" issue. There are other opinions on the subject, but apparently you refuse to acknowledge that possibility, and toss out a straw man instead.

 

You know what we call it when one group of people decides that another group of people can't have a different opinion about a subject?

 

Political correctness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Honoring the establishment clause" is your opinion on the "Christmas Controversy" issue. There are other opinions on the subject

 

I'll defer to the opinion of SCOTUS:

 

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

 

So yeah, guess I'm just one of those crazy lefties who thinks the government should respect the establishment clause (and case precedent) and remain neutral on religious issues, including Christmas. I believe the establishment clause has served us well in creating an ecumenical community where we can put aside issues of gender, race, and creed and work together to promote the common welfare.

 

As for the general public and Christmas? Hell if I give a damn. In the words of Mr. Garrison: Merry f*cking Christmas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what we call it when one group of people decides that another group of people can't have a different opinion about a subject?

 

Political correctness.

 

Do we? why? who's we? does political correctness neccesitate refusing to acknowledge that others may have a different opinion? how is doing so politically correct? didn' t you just use political correctness as an argument when it is, in fact, meaningless to do so (i.e., touched upon the OP)?

 

I'll defer to the opinion of SCOTUS:

 

[snip]

 

So yeah, guess I'm just one of those crazy lefties who thinks the government should respect the establishment clause (and case precedent) and remain neutral on religious issues, including Christmas. I believe the establishment clause has served us well in creating an ecumenical community where we can put aside issues of gender, race, and creed and work together to promote the common welfare.

 

As for the general public and Christmas? Hell if I give a damn. In the words of Mr. Garrison: Merry f*cking Christmas

 

but it's oppinion as to whether christmas counts as a religious holiday. tbh, at least in the UK christmas is allready more-or-less a generic 'winter holiday'. obviously the more devout christians also have a religious chrismas-mass at the same time, but mostly its a secular holiday, which most mulims/athiests/etc also celebrate. tbh, most christians celebrate the turkey-eating, getting-drunk-with-family aspect rather than the jesus's-birthday aspect.

 

iow, it's arguable that christmas is more of a secular holiday than a religious one, or at least has huge secular aspects. why couldn't the govournment celebrate the non-secular aspects of christmas (that are accessable to all) whilst not recognising the specifically christian ones (like mass)? wouldn't that be compatable with the seperation clause?

 

iow, you can't just automatically assume that the 'christmas controvosy' is respecting the establishment clause as opposed to 'being a bit silly'.

 

You PC hippy you :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Its a form of Bayesian inference. You don't let it run your life but it enters into the personal equation."

 

:)

I like that. Is it correct enough for me to use as a quote? comforting to know that part of what makes me what I am (my quidity, perhaps), can be neatly summed up with some sort of authority.

 

I anticipate using it conversation as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Its a form of Bayesian inference. You don't let it run your life but it enters into the personal equation."

 

:)

I like that. Is it correct enough for me to use as a quote? comforting to know that part of what makes me what I am (my quidity' date=' perhaps), can be neatly summed up with some sort of authority.

 

I anticipate using it conversation as soon as possible.[/quote']

 

Context matters. In the wrong context it could generate antagonism. So if you use those words in conversation, I'd prefer that you not attribute to me personally or SFN. But the internet ethos is that what's out there is fair game, isn't that right? So I can't complain if you choose to attribute, I simply prefer not.

 

I tried looking up Bayesian inference in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

It wasn't all that good. I wanted to make sure you aren't completely unfamiliar with it, if you want to use the concept in conversation. Wikipedia tends to have OK stuff on uncontroversial topics. But this article didn't seem to convey the intuitive idea. It was more mathematical than it needed to be.

Thomas Bayes lived in the 18th century. He had the notion that you could express your beliefs about the world by a bunch of probabilities you attach to various statements. And then he showed how your experience, as you go along in life, should be factored back in and change those probabilities. you have a "prior" probability function, and then you make some empirical observation and it changes and you recalculate and get a new probability function. Bayesian inference is a systematic way to get from the "before" estimates to the "after" estimates. My statistician friend (he's actually a respected probability theorist and game theorist, not just a statistician---I'm very proud to know him) really likes Bayes interpretation of what probability means and that whole way of thinking. Not all probability/statistics people do---it is a vocal minority in the profession.

 

The example I used was one of positive past experience with Punjabi at copy centers. For some reason various Punjabi have solved problems for me with notable excellence, so this past experience influences my behavior and expectations.

 

I'd suggest using a positive example---if you can think of one that works for you. The person you are talking to will invert the example mentally and complete the idea on their own. If they thought of it they are more apt to think it's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we? why? who's we? does political correctness neccesitate refusing to acknowledge that others may have a different opinion? how is doing so politically correct? didn' t you just use political correctness as an argument when it is, in fact, meaningless to do so (i.e., touched upon the OP)?

 

Those aren't questions, those are statements of opinion, and you're making them in objection to a condition you've already agreed has a degree of validity to it. You did that in your responses to Bascule about the Christmas Controversies, which YOU brought up as an example of political correctness. Why are you doing that? Does it really bother you THAT much when someone uses the term in a manner that you've already agreed is valid? Or are you just determined to straddle the fence?

 

Could it be that you are feeling an urge to be perceived as politically correct?

 

PCness doesn't just apply to society. It applies to all societal subgroups. It applies to my workplace in a very different way from how it applies here on these message boards or when speaking with my friends, or when speaking with my wife's friends, or when speaking with my parents' friends.

 

When you feel that discomfort and need to cough after someone says something that you knew wouldn't sit well with the group but you also knew everyone was too polite to say anything about it, but you knew they'd all comment to each other about it later?

 

Yeah. That.

 

Dismissing that, by the way, is a politically correct position on this message board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those aren't questions, those are statements of opinion, and you're making them in objection to a condition you've already agreed has a degree of validity to it. You did that in your responses to Bascule about the Christmas Controversies, which YOU brought up as an example of political correctness.

 

actually, i brought it up as an example of what is considered political correctness (possibly 'gorn mahd') in the uk, which is different.

 

Why are you doing that? Does it really bother you THAT much when someone uses the term in a manner that you've already agreed is valid? Or are you just determined to straddle the fence?

 

you stated that political correctness was "what we call it when one group of people decides that another group of people can't have a different opinion about a subject", which is certainly not what i agreed is a valid usage of it.

 

Basicaly, i agree that you had a point that christmas isn't neccesarily an establishment clause case (and also that bascules post was a strawman), i just don't see what the purpose of mentioning PC was in your post?

 

Could it be that you are feeling an urge to be perceived as politically correct?

 

no, you faggy coon-headed wench, i am not :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think that intentionally obscuring language to avoid offending people is a bad thing. Sometimes the truth is offensive to some people, and that can't be helped. But truth should always trump political correctness. Sticking our heads in the sand and saying lalalalala won't make things less true. Rather than forbidding people to say bad things about blacks, women, etc., we should teach people that statistics on groups aren't meant to apply to individuals.

 

Political correctness is what you get when you overdo tact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Before we talk about political correctness it must be defined because many people seem to use the term and not even know what it means themselves. They cannot even understand why they used the term. I am guessing it has been used many times by other people as a pejorative term that people jump on the bandwagon.

 

Political correctness is just being polite and trying not to offend others. In this case I think some political correctness is good. For example, I wouldn't walk around naked in public because of the offense to families.

 

Political correctness is about making people happy even if you're lying a bit. For example, if you saw an non-attractive young schoolgirl, would you go up to her and say, "You are ugly."

 

Many people who say they are not politically correct attack those who attack Christmas. This I think is silly because Christmas itself is politically correct since it involves lying about Santa Clause to little children to make them happy.

 

In fact, religion itself is politically correct. Instead of modifying words to make people happy, religion modifies all perception of reality to make people happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political correctness is just being polite and trying not to offend others.

 

Political Correctness: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Tact: consideration in dealing with others and avoiding giving offense

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Political correctness is very restrictive, and has little to do with with what the speaker actually feels. It is not very personal, being about avoiding offense to groups. It sometimes gives the impression of being a bit dishonest or superficial. Much about it is about avoiding forbidden language.

 

Tact, on the other hand, is much more personal and less superficial. Tact is considered a virtue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political Correctness: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged
PC is avoiding insult to socially disadvantaged people. Therefore, if I avoid saying something that is derogatory to women, that is PC because women are disadvantaged. But if I avoid saying something derogatory to men, that is not PC?

 

Is attacking PC just an excuse for bashing people who are socially disadvantaged? For those to advocate PC based on this idea, why is it okay to bash the disadvantaged and not the non-disadvantaged? Wouldn't this result in a might-makes-right system? If we live in a might-makes-right system then since government rules through power then government has the right to enforce any PC system it wants.

 

So I would like to see some person who is against PC to clearly define why it is he does that. Being against PCness doesn't seem to make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC is avoiding insult to socially disadvantaged people. Therefore, if I avoid saying something that is derogatory to women, that is PC because women are disadvantaged.

You as an individual can be "PC" by referring to manhole covers as sewer tops, etc. Society can enforce PC behavior by means of stigmatization by legal means. It is the latter that is a bit troubling, particularly so since what is poltically correct changes. Look at the words that have fallen into favor only to later fall out of favor.

 

But if I avoid saying something derogatory to men, that is not PC?

Moreover, I can call you a low-life, scum-sucking, planet-destroying rapist pig (based on your picture) and not be politically incorrect. Heck, that is just the truth. You're male. Guilty.

 

OK, maybe that is a bit over the top.

 

The very act of reserving political correctness to apply to the oppressed only is discriminatory in its own way and is also condescending.

 

Is attacking PC just an excuse for bashing people who are socially disadvantaged?

Attacking PC is often just an excuse for an attack against the left by the right. The left invented the term in the 60s or earlier. They did some incredibly stupid and incredibly anti-free speech things based on the concept, giving the right the perfect material for an attack. The extremes of the left (and right) are capable of doing the most incredibly stupid things. Oops. Can I say stupidity and left in the same phrase or should I be condescending and say something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because many things that right-wing people are concerned about are suppressed by law, so these things can be seen as politically correct. E.g. I'm not allowed to walk around naked in the streets because I will offend religious people. Wearing pants then is a PC action. But because wearing clothes is presumably considered by many to be a right-wing thing then maybe not.

Moreover, I can call you a low-life, scum-sucking, planet-destroying rapist pig (based on your picture) and not be politically incorrect. Heck, that is just the truth. You're male. Guilty.
Take it easy. Have you visited the Free Rice link in my signature?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because many things that right-wing people are concerned about are suppressed by law, so these things can be seen as politically correct. E.g. I'm not allowed to walk around naked in the streets because I will offend religious people. Wearing pants then is a PC action. But because wearing clothes is presumably considered by many to be a right-wing thing then maybe not.

Americans of all ilk are prudes. The nudity laws in the US are a sop to the prude in each and every one of us, not just the religious right.

 

Moreover, I can call you a low-life, scum-sucking, planet-destroying rapist pig (based on your picture) and not be politically incorrect. Heck, that is just the truth. You're male. Guilty.

 

OK, maybe that is a bit over the top.

Take it easy.

Are you humorless? I admit, I should have put a tongue-in-cheek smiley by that statement. What I was getting at are statements by some leaders of the African-American community regarding the impossibility of blacks (or any non-white minority) of being racist. Feminists have said similar things.

 

The concept of political correctness started in the far left. They took it quite seriously, climaxing in the failed attempt to pass the Equal Rights Ammendment. The far left was in part responsible for the failure of this ammendment. They fed the opponents of the bill all kinds of ammunition with which to defeat the bill, including a lot of stuff about enforced political correctness should the ammendment pass. Had it not been for the far left, the right wind might well have failed in defeating the ammendment. It was the ERA that helped the right hijack the term political correctness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC is avoiding insult to socially disadvantaged people. Therefore, if I avoid saying something that is derogatory to women, that is PC because women are disadvantaged. But if I avoid saying something derogatory to men, that is not PC?

 

Is attacking PC just an excuse for bashing people who are socially disadvantaged? For those to advocate PC based on this idea, why is it okay to bash the disadvantaged and not the non-disadvantaged? Wouldn't this result in a might-makes-right system? If we live in a might-makes-right system then since government rules through power then government has the right to enforce any PC system it wants.

 

So I would like to see some person who is against PC to clearly define why it is he does that. Being against PCness doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

I think that is a politically correct way of looking at political correctness, and it's also about making anti-PC people wrong. Political correctness is all about getting the unwashed masses to do what they're told, so making everyone accept a politically correct definition of political correctness is just another way of getting everyone on board with the socia- I mean progressive agenda. I'll pass.

 

I see political correctness as that point at which doing the right thing evolves into a sick, mutated shadow of good intentions. A good idea taken to ridiculous extreme, with any and all dissention beaten mercilessly into begging submission.

 

You know, like the phrase "global warming deniers".

 

So I don't really care how anybody else defines it. If I accepted someone else's definition of it then it would defeat the entire purpose of having such a concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(sigh)

 

60 Minutes did a great piece this week on the new generation of employees coming into the work force, born in the 1980s and 1990s. Apparently one of the biggest trends with this group is that they were all told as children that they're all winners just for showing up. You know, like soccer "tournaments" where everyone goes home with a trophy. Employers are having to modify their approach to suit this new workforce.

 

Generalities are always wrong to some degree, of course, and that same generation also has a lot of positive and promising traits. But it does seem like we're paying for all that PC mollycoddling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generalities are always wrong to some degree, of course, and that same generation also has a lot of positive and promising traits. But it does seem like we're paying for all that PC mollycoddling.

I saw the special as well. It seems as managers we need to start sending shiny stars home with employees so they can show their mommy. If we give any negative criticism to our direct reports, we'll likely lose them to a company who caters to their infantile needs. Good grief. :doh:

 

I liked the comment made in the special, it was a quote used to illustrate the mindset of this new generation of workers. I don't remember it word for word, but it was along the lines of, "I'm going to work for this other company. They adore me, where you just liked me." :rolleyes:

 

 

"I believe the children are our are future

Teach them well and let them lead the way..." :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as managers we need to start sending shiny stars home with employees so they can show their mommy.

 

My wife actually does this. Even more incredibly, her employees actually go along with it. Her observation on this experiment is that if you don't let on that you're being sarcastic and cynical, you can get away with the most sarcastic and cynical of actions imaginable. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take for the example the issue of bestiality. I have always believed that having sex with an animal is quite harmless and should be legalized.

 

However, if I were to have sex with a goat in public, some right-wing religious person would be offended. Yet many right-wing people scream political correctness when other try to stop them offending other people whose beliefs don't fit their own.

 

So then political correctness seems like a case of people being able to dish abuse at others but being unable to receive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.