Polictical Correctness

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I meant "your" in the generic, as in "one's own clique".

Politeness IS about controlling speech, as well as how to hold eating utensils, etc.

So I take you are all for CONTROLLING free speech and throwing out the 1st Amerndment then? I mean you support PCness - say that it's all about politiness and that politeness is abotu controlling speech.

Christianity is no more "bashed" than any other philosophy. In fact, they have more strength in numbers.

Oh it's not? You may be right - it's just that people don't feel troubled by bashing it - just like you did on the election thread. It's an acceptable thing to do - to bash extremely religious christians (and I'm not talking about people blowing up abortion clinics - I'm just referring to people who think they can talk in tongues) - but it's unacceptable to bash radical muslims ("we must understand them" I think is the usual Liberal phrase when discussing islam and the war on terrorism). But who in the liberal side cared about understand the christian religious people - to liberals their mostly just a bunch of nut cases - right?

Calling something ridiculous is too easy a cop out.

Someone called someone ridiculous? Where was SOMEONE called ridiculous? You must be getting confused between a person and a thing. I believe Wayfarer said that the IDEA that PCness has anything to do with politeness is ridiculous. I didn't know an idea was now considered a person.

[Wayfarer]

No, politeness is about showing consideration for others. Either someone is polite, or impolite - that has nothing to do with whether they are politically correct.

Politeness means you treat someone with the respect view to an individual, Political Correctness means you judge people based on whether or not they agree with you.

Political correctness doesn't involve politeness - that's why 'politically correct' people can be horribly rude and downright hateful to people who dissagree with them, and get away with it. It's about the subjugation of certain groups in order to glorify others.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

there is something to be said for being tactful however... while i'm all for people saying whatever they want, whenever they want... those who have a more polite/nonconfrontational demeanor tend to be a lot more influential with their povs

Like you? Can w go over some of your past posts before you also try to put yourself on the "politeness throne"?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but if a "black" friend said he would prefer to be called "african american" would you refuse to on principle alone?

See the following - by Theodore Roosevelt in 1915. Too bad it wasn't legistlated...

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt

... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

To answer your direct question though - I would not refuse to call someone that... I use the term myself... but I SURE see the irony in it, and still feel awkward in the useage

(despite being a 'European-American' myself! )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but if a "black" friend said he would prefer to be called "african american" would you refuse to on principle alone?

I probably would only call them my friend - because that's what they would be. See color doesn't really matter to me too much - it's the person. And anyway - my friends aren't that thin skinned to where they worry about whether they are called black, white, indian or asia or anything like that. They're more concerned with if they are treated as a true friend.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

See the following - by Theodore Roosevelt in 1915. Too bad it wasn't legistlated...

I used to have that in my signature. "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism."

[Insidious Rex]

Instead of saying be "politically correct" to a bigoted comment or joke would it be ok to say "dont be a pig headed boob" without everyone getting their panties in a wad? would that solve things?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Like you? Can w go over some of your past posts before you also try to put yourself on the "politeness throne"?

i meant that as a more general comment.... but fire away any time you like

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Instead of saying be "politically correct" to a bigoted comment or joke would it be ok to say "dont be a pig headed boob" without everyone getting their panties in a wad? would that solve things?

I like that a LOT better!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Like you? Can w go over some of your past posts before you also try to put yourself on the "politeness throne"?

This coming from YOU?? Ha ha! thats hysterical. Id say hes head and shoulders above just about everyone here in his easy going approach to debate really.

[Valandil]

Wow - all us guys are really hangin' out here today... 'cept for Anduril, who's making passes at the young girls!

(EDIT: was that wrong to say?? )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Political correctness doesn't involve politeness - that's why 'politically correct' people can be horribly rude and downright hateful to people who dissagree with them, and get away with it. It's about the subjugation of certain groups in order to glorify others.

Hence why liberals can be downright rude to christians - whiel saying muslims must be understood. Why Repulbicans can be called bigots and sexist - while ignoring the fact that Bush has had to two most ethnically diverse adminstrations in US history. The thing is - unlike Clinton - Bush didn't put in "token blacks" or the "token woman" - unlike Clinton - he didn't go around saying "I need a woman for this position" or "I need a black for this position" - filling a position on race or gender is the worst kind of racism. Because the person giving the position doesn't see the other as an equal - just as minority in need of help.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Wow - all us guys are really hangin' out here today... 'cept for Anduril, who's making passes at the young girls!

well us old guys have to do something. we'll just get slapped if we try that.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The thing is - unlike Clinton - Bush didn't put in "token blacks" or the "token woman" - unlike Clinton - he didn't go around saying "I need a woman for this position" or "I need a black for this position" - filling a position on race or gender is the worst kind of racism. Because the person giving the position doesn't see the other as an equal - just as minority in need of help.

So you are of the opinion that the only qualified Clinton appointees were the white ones? And would you say that Clarence Thomas was the best choice of ALL possible candidates?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I probably would only call them my friend - because that's what they would be. See color doesn't really matter to me too much - it's the person. And anyway - my friends aren't that thin skinned to where they worry about whether they are called black, white, indian or asia or anything like that. They're more concerned with if they are treated as a true friend.

nice dodge... my point is that you would probably do something for a friend if it meant something to them and was no big thing to you one way or another... that is being tactful

being "politically correct" is treating strangers the same way as you would treat friends... you take the time to think about what may or may not offend them, not what may or may not offend you

it's about trying to not be too hung up on things for purely reasons of "principle"

that said, it can certainly be taken too far... most would not care whether you used "black" or "african american"... but they might not appreciate other terms that are "just words"

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

This coming from YOU?? Ha ha! thats hysterical. Id say hes head and shoulders above just about everyone here in his easy going approach to debate really.

I never intidicated I'm polite here - I say what's on my mind and how I feel about things. He implied that he was though. When if you don't agree with him - he isn't. I respect many people here - I just don't really see the need to beat around the bush about how I feel about their opinions. Sorry if you think I ever denied that - but I haven't. now ask me if i care.

[Wayfarer]

Yes and no.

Saying "dont be a pig headed boob" is great. That's something that I've said myself (in slightly different words). When someone crosses the line of good taste, you tell them that that's not cool.

The problem with 'political correctness' is that it's an institution which is used, not to encourage reasonable ('polite') behavior, but to censor people of certain political/religious/philosophical outlooks by accusing them of being whatever when they speak their mind. It equates 'dissagreement' with 'hate' and then makes 'hate' a crime - so people who dissagree are commiting a crime.

Changing the term used doesn't take care of the fundamental problem - the claim that anyone who holds a different viewpoint needs to be censored, for whatever reasaon.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Wow - all us guys are really hangin' out here today... 'cept for Anduril, who's making passes at the young girls!

(EDIT: was that wrong to say?? )

young women

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So you are of the opinion that the only qualified Clinton appointees were the white ones? And would you say that Clarence Thomas was the best choice of ALL possible candidates?

No I'm not saying that - so don't put words in my mouth. But many times Clinton was putting minorities into positions SOLELY becuase they were minorities. He used to come right out and say it. You think his former Secretary of Health or whatever she was - was a good choice?

As for Clarence Thomas - I don't know much about him - or how he compared to other judges. I just know the sexual harrassment that came to light - whether that was true or not is another matter though.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I never intidicated I'm polite here - I say what's on my mind and how I feel about things. He implied that he was though.

no you implied it

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So I take you are all for CONTROLLING free speech and throwing out the 1st Amerndment then?

See, you are exagerating again. Unfortunately, when you argue against an exageration of my point, you are not actually arguing against my point, so I feel no need to defend it. I certain do not endorse the exagerated point of view. Who would?! LOL!

I wish I could stay and play but some work just came in. Later for you.