Is politically correct (PC) a form of lying?

PC is not about justice. It uses a one size fits all form of justice based on stereo-typing and then says other forms of stereotyping are unjust. The dual standard is for their base.

For example, I was never involved with slavery in any form, nor did any of my parents, grandparents, etc., etc, haver any involvement. But because I am white I have to accept responsibility for something I did not do nor did I have any connection to? The retribution for this injustice to me, needs to go to those who were never slaves? This is not rational enough to qualify as justice. It is a manipulation of reality to justify injustice. The word game calls injustice justice and that fools the base.

What happens is history is being rewritten to help this illusion. According to this alternate reality history, just by being white I helped with slavery. There is something in that white skin that makes me a slavery munger even before I am conceived. Through genetic transmission I am guilty, even if I was not there.

Why not extend this to all forms of crime. How about all the descendants of criminals now have to pay the descendants of crime, even if the descendants of criminals are law abiding and the descendants of the victims are criminals. This is a logical extrapolation.

Real justice would mean if the PC crowd is able to force me to pay for something I did not do that should be a crime. There is cause and effect here that is rational.

I could see, using the slave example, those who had slaves needing to give something to those who were slave This is justice. But once you extrapolate this to include people not connected to this reality, that should be a crime. The word play is designed to call justice injustice and injustice justice.

One other liberal observation is they have done more to defend criminals that in any other time in history; criminal rights. This shows their base.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wellwisher

PC has nothing to do with reparations for slavery, it is simply a recognition that you should not denegrate and discriminate against others(minorities, women, liberals, conservatives, theists, non-theists). I do not think reparations are called for, but having grown up in the South before and during the civil rights era I remember "Coloreds Only" signs, the lack of opportunity, the bigotry, the murders, the attitudes, the Jim Crow laws, the two teired justice system, the fact that almost all politicians were either members or nodding and winking fellow travelers of the KKK, the dogs and water cannons and the overt racism in all it's gory details. What you call PC is what changed all of that, but it is a constant fight.

Did you know that slavery is alive and well in the US?

http://open.salon.com/blog/amy_mcmu...ry_alive_and_well_in_the_us_sponsored_by_alec

That concerted efforts are underway to restrict mostly the poor, elderly and blacks from voting?

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

And you only have to listen to the Republican Presidential candidates to hear the dog whistles blowing a tune that Southern racists hear very well. Ron Paul even published racist ranting in his newsletters(and he DID sign off on the content thereof).

""It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product ... He would proof it," said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul's company and a supporter of the Texas congressman, to the Washington Post.

An individual involved in Paul's numerous businesses said that Paul wanted to boost sales and felt that adding offensive material to the newsletters might boost numbers.

"It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government," said the person, who supports Paul's economic policies but is not backing him for president. "I'm not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.""

http://www.theroot.com/ron-paul-racist-newsletters-signed-off-associates

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It says racism, sexism, unfairness toward the disabled, and religious discrimination are not to be tolerated. Under the civil rights ideal, there is no "us" and "them". Just "us". One race, the human race. Why does that bother you?

The "base" would wonder why you are playing victim. What responsibility has been placed on you? To acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act is the law of the land? Big deal. Based on the way you bristle at the idea of equality, it sounds like your ancestors had some sort of axe to grind regarding the emancipation. Didn't your family hope, during the Civil Rights movement, that blacks would gain their rights quickly without violence? That would be one possible test for complicity. It's not enough to claim innocence from the slave trade. How about all the exploitation and abuse that followed that?

You help with the modern version, racism, whenever you feel like you are the victim. Since whites (the country in general) benefitted from slave labor, it stands to reason that every advantage whites enjoy over blacks today stems in some part from what was taken from slaves. I'm not sure what alternative reality history you are referring to, but your feeling of being the victim requires a complete rewrite to all the texts.

Unless you embrace civil rights and respect all people regardless of their differences from you, then you are tacitly supporting the the same ideals that created slavery.

White people enslaved blacks. Then they continued to mistreat them until the 1877 laws were passed. Still the abuses continued, and only in the 1960s did the laws begin to address discrimination. Today we acknowledge the mistakes of the past by joining together as one race dedicated to proposition that all people are created equal. One way we do this is by reprimanding anyone who discriminates. You call that political correctness and feel you are the victim. Perhaps there is some guilt there, why else would you feel resentment?

What are you paying for? Is someone punishing you? This is the victim stance. It's typically attributed to denial. And how would you propose that the modern society repay for the crimes of their ancestors? By treating them with respect as your "politically correct" ideals would require? What's wrong with that? Would you rather pay back all the money (with interest) that their families are owed for lost wages, lost opportunity and mental anguish? I think this is a pretty sweet deal. Just be humane. It's free.

Oh you mean you have to suffer a reprimand if you disrespect another person's civil rights? Aha. So that's your penalty. In this case, if the descendant of the slaver were to continue the tradition by using racial slurs, then that would be a continuation of the original offense, and, if it goes too far, it's punishable under federal law.

The word play is you claiming that you have to pay for something while you are benefitting from the ripoff done to those poor souls for centuries. You are not the victim.

This explains your reaction to liberals, who ushered in the civil rights movement.

As for criminal rights, do you mean you would like to see the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the 8th Amendment repealed? I don't think Americans are famous for being gentle with prisoners. But the Supreme Court has ruled that they get a fair trial, something like one or two meals a day and medical care for their serious illnesses. They are not to be beaten or tortured, except excessive force can be used when they resist handcuffs and such. Also they can not throw youngsters into a bullpen full of predators. So that's about it for prisoner rights. If you think prisons actually obey these rules, then just read the Supreme Court prisoner rights cases and you'll discover how naive you are. Prisoners have to sue to get the laws enforced within the prisons. And it takes years for relief, if any, to come to them. Of course, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo exposed some of the evidence of abuse and still the backlash here at home included a huge segment of supposedly religious people who expressed satisfaction that the prisoners were tortured and killed.

Now who was the victim in that scenario? In short, I don't think you're going to get much sympathy if your only complaint is that people are nailing you whenever act disrespectfully. Sounds really frivolous to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with PC is it creates it own version of discrimination but is unable to see this. For example, PC will say blacks were once enslaved, which is true in a sense. It is not true of any living blacks in the US. The illusion begins by lumping past and present.

Part 2 of the illusion is since whites enslaved blacks, all whites must pay, even if you never did anything as a person. It does not matter if you were born 100 years to late to qualify for realirty. PC will say this lumping based on race, is not discrimination.

As an analogy, say a person commits a crime against you. According to PC, the descendents of the criminal, even if they are good people who never hurt a fly, much pay forever and feel guilty. The descendants of the victim get retribution, even if there are a criminal, since person by person is not important. What is important is an abstract stereo-type.

If I did something to someone, I owe them. If my gradnfather fought with your grandfather, that is not my beef, based on my name. This is manipulation that uses feelings to cloud common sense.

The illusion of lumping past and present is used to continually open up old wounds.

 

It is 100% true. It's not just "true in a sense." (So were whites, BTW.)

That's not "political correctness." That's "reparations."

No. At most, PC says you have to call them "legality-impaired americans" instead of "criminals."

 

This is true, we are supposed to strive for being colorblind, but only selectively.

"Please indicate on this employment form your race, gender and creed which we promise will have no impact whatsoever on our decision-making process because those things do not matter to us..." Uh, ok. Nothing like encouraging harmony and obscuring the lines between groups by highlighting them with a Sharpie marker, eh?

It reminds me of another of my favorites: "money isn't everything". Every time I hear someone say "money isn't everything" it seems to be quickly followed by various measures of who has it vs who doesn't, why those who have it shouldn't, and what great things can be done with it once it's out of their hands...

 

No one is being made to answer criminal charges based on anything their ancestors did, this is clearly a lie. Unless you consider all taxes to be a fine, which is the kind of thing conservatives like to say.

 

There are no "illusions" involved in noting that our country's history of slavery has left us with a legacy of black people who are systematically disadvantaged.

Well, except for the illusions of all those who'd prefer not to have to face up to any such unpleasant realities.

Good lord, now you're shoving issues like reparations under "PC?"

Riiiight.

Although, the insistence on conflating a government-perpetrated, systemic social crime with an individual action, and then concluding that government-initiated, systemic social remedies to inequality must be unjust does tell us a lot about the conservative mindset.

You must be white. Nobody else considers racial stereotypes, and systems of racist oppression, to be "abstractions." That privileged naivety being a big part of what PC tries to address.

And yet, we note that this absolutist insistence on strict individualism does not apply to any number of other identity groups: nations, for one notable example.

Again: the naivety is astounding. These privileged white folks talk like racism ended back in the 19th century, and so any attempt to come to grips with the ongoing problems is an attack on their feelings and embattled self-esteem. It would be offensive, the way they cast themselves as the victims, if it weren't so pathetically ignorant.

 

You mean you're being singled out for disrespecting others?

In your mind there is a stigma called PC. In your mind "it" "says" blacks were enslaved. But that's all in your mind.

Is this not a straight quote from Archie Bunker? Sure: black Americans are doing great. No problems there. That's what you're saying.

The illusion begins by inventing ideas in your mind, then assuming they are true.

Pay with what, wellwisher, do you have your checkbook out everytime someone reprimands you for using the N-word?

Poor wellwisher. Discriminated against for using the N-word.:bawl:

Because wellwisher can never speak to the point...must always diverge into "analogy" which is always the most absurd random connection his brain can make:

Translation: poor wellwisher.

As if this is a written in stone somewhere...

saint wellwisher

is the victim. :bawl:

Another box of tissue please. :bawl:

but wellwisher is not seeking our pity and clouding the issue (that he was RUDE and this is why he was reprimanded).

Does anyone have another box of tissue? And I've run out of crying smilies : (

Oh, the indignity.

 

ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
bwaa ha ha ha ha

ah yes - my daily dose of spidergoat, a needed respite from the histrionics of this sorry ass bullshit!

ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
bwaa ha ha ha ha


Funny: it started out with his wife asking if her dress looked alright. A wormhole opened up and next thing you know he's reliving the burning of Atlanta!

ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
bwaa ha ha ha ha


Maybe this thread belongs under a new subject area: I was possessed by a Rebel demon-spirit!


ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
bwaa ha ha ha ha


wellwisher's recurring dream:

Part I: The Humiliation at Appomattox

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Part II: The Burning of Atlanta

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Part III: The Ruination and Debt of Political Correctness

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am actually a strong advocate of political correctness. I don't care, for instance, if a racist feels marginalized and uncomfortable about publically expressing their views.

 

I respect the idea of being sensitive to people but I have two problems with PC:

1) It seems to accentuate differences rather than genuinely look past them (e.g. what the hell happened to that "Great American Melting Pot" that we used to learn about when I was young?) and
2) The sensitivity requirement only seems to apply to a particular political affiliation. You can call Rick Santorum a Taliban-Christian with no PC recourse, for example, which is really just the modern-day Godwin invocation. (Not that I like Santorum...but the observation is valid)

It's clear that PC isn't truly about being nice to each other, it's about creating social pressure to adhere to a particular political ideology; and to that I say stuff it.

 

1. The difference have always been there. We had a melting pot in principle, but that doesn't mean that everyone got along with each other.
2. Of course, such a statement indicates that one has no desire to be sensitive to Santorum, filled as he is with so much political incorrectness. He represents the opposite of what political correctness is trying to achieve and so he must be ridiculed.

 

In point of circumstance, there is a correlation between people who take that book - "The Bell Curve" - seriously as informative, and people who find themselves constrained by "PC". And that correlation illustrates one of the roles of PC conventions: they prevent certain kinds of people, what the politically incorrect refer to as "the dumbass", from wrecking interesting and informative discourse through their inability to handle the concepts in play.

The most strident and visible and - one must admit - effective attempts to engineer public discourse through pressure on vocabulary, come to us courtesy of the heirs of Lee Atwater and their broadcast media tools.

Running the gamut from ridiculous ("homicide bomber") to transformative ("liberal"), it is this engineered social pressure on vocabulary - let's call it "CP" - that now bids to dominate our conversations and restrict our expressions of thought.

 

?? The pejorative label "Taliban" has been applied rhetorically to both Christian and Muslim public figures.

At its base being PC is being nice to each other. That's where it originated, not calling people "nigger" or "kike" or "dago" even if the person was "just kidding" or none of that minority were present. And that's a good thing.

It's when people take it overboard that it becomes a problem. Like everything else, what's good in moderation is generally not the same as being good in extremes.

 

...and so the obvious solution is to subdivide people as much as possible, while simultaneously declaring that such divisions are destructive?

So the premise of PC is that "I'll be sensitive if you will", while the litmus test of "being sensitive" is whether or not your views are Progressive? What you're saying is that Fundamentalist Christians are fair game but Fundamentalist Muslims are NOT fair game...even though it would be difficult to make the case that Muslims are any more sensitive than Christians in general. It's bullshit and you know it.

Face it Spidergoat, Political Correctness is a sham and you cannot justify it in a logically consistent manner. If PC were really about being polite then it would be applied to EVERYONE...not just those that happen to further one side of a political agenda.

 

I view people as individuals and not as a herd abstration. The herd abstraction tend to blur the lines of reality. I brought up blacks and slavery since this is an easy example of a herd abstraction. No modern black individual was a slave in 1850's. However, the group abstraction can be used to blur that line. Old wounds, based on the nebulous, can be made to extend to individuals without any reality connection. The same is true of guilt based on a herd abstraction.

When you lump individials into a group abstraction, the individal math does not always add up. You can get credit or blame for something ""ÿou" did not do as an individual. PC is part of the propaganda wing of the democratic party. It uses language games, in an attempt to lump individuals into group abstractions to help cloud the line between real and the group abstractions that benefit their party. It is way to manipulate. If you treat each person separately, this manipulation does not work.

If I say I was never a slave owner, and I had nothing to do with this as an individual, I need to be slienced by PC, by equating me to the deep south. My inidividualitty is replaced with an abstraction. Now I m,agically did all that and even more. I am glad my tactic worked and a few members helped show us the game.

Let me give a rough example. I PC will define poor as anyone making less than $100K/year. This amount is high for poor, but since I control language I will use this to cloud the lines of reality. You may say, that person making $100K/per does not need assitance. Although this is true, I will say, so you hate the poor don't you? It reminds me of arguing with a female who is playing emotional games to push your buttons. This can be fun but a rational male does not stand a chance. The hope in the above example, is you will get defensive trying to qualify your rational answer, so the irrational $100K assumption becomes the new irrational reality.

PC also tries to create a self forfilling Pavlov programming by helping to define how you are suppose to react to their new language noises and sounds. PC will come up with a new term and say this terms requires you jump up and down. If you laugh instead, because it is funny, you are insensitive. You should not be making fun of jumping up and down since the herd now thinks this is good. This emotional manipulation helps collective programming, since the leaders are so caring.

There are many people whose heart is in the right place, but who can't see they are being conditioned for emotional food pellets. You My goal is to make the game harder to play by giving trade secrets.

 

The solution is to acknowledge where we are with honesty and go forward.

PC terminology is just a front in a culture war. You are welcome to opt out, but I think that reflects poorly on your worldview. While I would stand up for religious freedom, that doesn't mean I can't ridicule any particular fraud, like Santorum or Al Sharpton. Fundamentalism is basically opposed to any change in our understanding of minority rights, from women to gays, which is why I think it doesn't deserve any kind of special consideration.

 

That's well-put; it's a front in a culture war. And I understand that people who may oppose your cultural views are deserving of ridicule in your eyes; but don't try to claim moral superiority when someone like wellwisher ridicules your cultural views by being politically incorrect. You are no more correct in any objective sense than he is, and you have also discarded your chance for moral superiority via "politeness" by being inconsistent in its application.

I say again, it has very little to do with actually chasing the ideal of being polite even if that's how it began.

 

What you don't seem to understand is, that by giving no extras to protected groups, it means all are seen as equal. If you are equal, there is no need for anyone to have a head start. That would be cheating. Conservatives see equal and head start as cheating.

Liberalism says we are all equal with PC words, but it really its actions says white, male and straight is better, therefore we need to give the rest of the groups a head start in the race of life. This is racism.

Say you were playing golf with a group of people. You will not give a golf handicap to someone who i sas good as you. If someone in the group suggested this, you would fight it. If the person was worse at golf and you want it to be fair, you might give the handicap.

PC irrationality has distorted cause and effect, where the act of caring is confusing the underlying feelings of certain groups needing help, due to being inferior. In the world of cause and effect, if they were equal, the same starting line would be the fair place for all to begin.

The difference may be mom and dad. The PC mom will protect even if that means smoother. The conservative dad wants them to try.