Well, if you are only going to recognize PC vocabulary when it "protects liberals", then your argument that PC is a political tool for protecting liberals has gone around in a circle; a very, very small circle. As is typical of - what's the term? oh yeah - "conservatives".
When I hear "PC" I think in terms of not calling a Native American an 'Indian' because they aren't technically from India; or not calling a woman 'babe' because it could be considered condescending. I do NOT think "PC" when trying to refrain from calling Tea Party members a bunch of bigoted, racist, ignorant, uneducated, fundamentalist, trailer park, violent, mean, drunk closed-minded rednecks. Your wording proves that not only do you think this is true, but that you also think that everyone else thinks this is true, and that they're practicing political correctness by trying to tip-toe around mentioning this very obvious fact sitting in front of them. Cheese-n-crackers! Anyway, what you've done in trying to show that PC applies to conservatives is actually proven the question originally posed in the OP...that PC, at least for you, is simply covering up your own personal prejudices by lying about your true feelings. For you, I will accept that PC applies to both sides of the aisle, because you're doing a great job holding in the ignorance that you apparently project onto the rest of the world. As for NOW, NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, etc, I'll believe their "stated" goals of sensitivity and justice towards their respective groups when their defensive actions are equally applied to members of their respective groups across the political spectrum.
They will start fighting for the rights of the privileged, bigoted, historically ignorant class when hell freezes over.
I said of their respective groups. So you're saying that, if they're conservative, blacks, gays and women are historically privileged, bigoted and ignorant...and therefore undeserving of political sensitivity or protection?? I don't know if I'm more offended that you guys cannot see the hypocrisy yourselves, or that you understand it fully yet expect no one else to see it. Either way I'm checking out of this thread, good luck with that cognitive dissonance...
Again, if your (as in your personal opinion) opening position is "They are less human than us", you effectively forfeit tolerance in return. That doesn't mean that if you are a log cabin republican we shouldn't be tolerant of your orientation. But if you view people of other orientations as deserving of less rights than you or if you even conclude you, yourself deserve less rights (which would be the worst kind of Stockholm syndrome), you leave yourself open for others to conclude your opinion is worth less than others. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "I want to maintain other people are less deserving of some rights than I am. But I still want my rights to be respected and tolerance shown toward me." You can't do that, RJBerry! And that's what you're trying to do here. You're saying "See, political correctness doesn't tolerate my intolerance! I told you it was a sham!" Come on. This is a science forum. I know you know better than that.
Of course. We're very familiar with this type of "thinking". But those of us who have been operating under those kinds of PC restrictions on our vocabulary, enforced throughout the major media most rigorously and with a remarkable lack of self-awareness on the part of the enforcers, would like to know whether the crusade against "PC" also liberates us - and the major media pundits - from them; or is it just the "conservatives" who can anticipate new freedoms in their choice of terms etc? Because this is not our thinking. Our thinking is that PC vocabulary helps keep people like you from lying, not about your "true feelings" (they're clear enough, trust me) but about other people.
So the Civil Rights Act was a ploy to get voters? And the Supreme Court, in its civil rights decisions, under the standards imposed by the Constitution and laws that provide for equality, justice and freedom from discrimination: the Supreme Court is out for votes? Not to mention the Federal District courts, where the suits are ultimately decided, with or without a writ to the Supreme Court: the federal judges want votes. And the US Attorney's Office, Civil Rights Division: they get votes too? Then you have all the other appointed positions: Education, Labor/EEOC, Housing, with various committees assigned specifically to everything from profiling to disability rights: they want to get reelected. And all the corporations, the privately held companies, and the small businesses...when they do cultural sensitivity training, or when they respond to ADA, EEOC or sexual harassment claims: they're out for votes, too? And all of this just stated happening yesterday? Thurgood Marshall heard no civil rights cases. Unless you consider Brown v Board of Education...*pshaw*...but what do I know...that too of course was to get reelected. Wow. Thanks for the whitewater trip down ole Skunk Hole Crick with the possum gun loaded, locked and pointed at my head. That was about as fun as handing out "I♥MLK" bumper stickers at Klan Ralley. I don't know if you were cut out for banjo, though, wynn, it's all out of tune, I didn't follow the rhythm and I couldn't tell if the melody was forwards or backwards. Mostly I think you got it backwards. Maybe if you'd put down the rifle and try it two-arm style, like them fancy duded-up city slicker flatpickers do up in Flyswat County, maybe that would help you play it straight. Then again, it just might be in your genes. Some folks just don't have an ear for it, and can't seem to make a single note ring true. . . . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
not only is politically correct , PC , lying but it is also about manipulation of a person or group away from their inital message they must distort the message in order to please PC destroys democracy and the democratic constitution on which we depend for our individual freedom
when you don't say things the way they are we can't give an intelligent response because PC hides the truth and therefore hides the truth have we come to the point where we can't " handle the truth " ?
That's just politics. It doesn't hide the truth necessarily, sometimes it reveals it. Do you call people in a wheelchair "cripples"?
Q: How are you? PC answer: Pretty good, thanks Truth: I have a bleeding hemorrhoid and bad breath. Q: What do you think of my idea? PC answer: Well, you might want to change X Y and Z if it's going to fly, as it is now it probably won't Truth: I think it fucking sucks I have a feeling even you choose PC answers over "truth."
It's how most people communicate. They give courteous answers instead of rude, but somewhat more truthful, answers. PC is the general description of that. Of course, some times it gets taken way too far. But the basic concept is called "courtesy" and is, IMO, a good idea in general.
there was a time when people were judged on; from the book by Susan Cain , Quiet pg.23 Citizenship , Duty , Work , Golden deeds , Honor , Reputation , Morals , Manners and Integrity these qualities no longer matter