Polictical Correctness

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I am a liberal "mouthpiece"? Liberal, yes, mouthpiece, I wish. I would love to be paid the 10 million a year that a "mouthpiece" like O'Reilly or Hannity gets.

Well I must say - you are a very good mouth piece - even though you don't get 10 million dollars.

I am not a mouthpiece. In fact, I am not an object of any kind. I am a fellow mooter, thank you very much, and I certainly am interested in reading and replying to my feloow mooter's opinions.

Well since you are so interested in reading and replying to your "fellow" mooter's opinions - my opinions are posted above.

All I'm objecting to is the spamming of this thread with two pages of opinions that I cannot possibly address because 1. I don't have the time and 2. the original writer is not going to read my reply and 3. they are not the opinions of my fellow mooters and 4. they are not replies based on reading my opinion in a reciprocal discussion.

Actually - number 3 I have a problem with here - because they are the opinions of many of your fellow mooters - they're just written by other people. You just happen to disagree with the things that are said in them - therefore you can not be bothered with.

Also - I would like to note - that you are not the only person here - and I was not posting them for your sole benefit. I had the thread in mind when I posted them - because they do deal with the discussion at hand. Oh I could have just posted links - but you see I have found with my FOUR years of being here - that links die and then when you try to reread things - you don't know what the hell was in the documents. This is way when people come back in a year and look over the thread - they get to see what was in the websites I quoted - whether they go off line or not.

So please stop. And please stop accusing me of these nastinesses. Whatever Rian and I worked out together, backchannel, regarding our respective religious opinions and politics, is between the two of us and not anyone else's concern.

See - the problem is - it wasn't only against her your diatribes - it was against me. And personally I don't recall you woirking jack **** out with me. And also - Rian doesn't represent all religious people or anything. The fact remains that you said those things - you acted like bigotted jerk and then you want to come on here and talk about PC and politeness. Give me a break.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

Frankly, Elfhelm, I do those same things but I am of the teach a man to fish school as opposed to give him one fish, myself!

Seriously, the crass commercialization of Christmas is, in the proper approach, an evangelistic tool. Persons who have never met the Incarnate Word are more approachable in the spirit of the season and more receptive!
Not that one need EVER take a howitzer where an idea will do! All praise to our Christian forebears who co-opted Sol Invictus' celebration for CHRISTUS VICTOR!

inked, on the teaching we agree.

On the spirit of Christmas making people more open to the lessons of Love, we agree.

On not taking a howitzer where an idea will do, we agree.

On co-opting the pagan solstice celebrations, I'm not so sure it happened that way. I think when the Christians were in the minority, they celebrated in their own way to avoid being persecuted. I don't think they had the intent to co-opt.

But on generic shop window greetings, if you were in the minority and you were being excluded by the majority, I would be defending you. But since you seem to condone excluding the other religions, I have to argue with you.

And on the crass commercialization, the reason the paid mouthpieces of the news media are all excited about this story is 1. it sells, 2. they will not come down against business because business buys ads, and 3. nothing will change as a result of their actions but they will SEEM pure.

It is my strongly felt opinion that the spirit of this season is that it is a time for families to gather in a circle of love. If that means church services for some, family dinners for others, and gift exchanges for some, then that is how they create their circle of love. But I am much more offended by the spirit of greed that takes over this celebration than by the lack of images from my particular sect in the commercial spaces.

[jerseydevil]

Don't we have a thread on the discussion of the commercialisation of christmas? What does this have to do with PCness?

[Elfhelm]

JD, please stop characterising my opinions on other threads. It detracts from the discussion at hand. If you want to work something out back channel, I am always open to it.

(On that other thread I stated my opinion, post-election, that my party was NOT an immoral party, that our positions were based on our morality of which I am very sure are good morals, and I stated that we should not change our values as some suggested at the time. I stand by that. You and inked posted thing in that thread that were deleted by the admins. He posted an article that made a reference to the Senator from New York which used inapproriate languge. You made blatant personal attacks. I replied and my replies were deleted, too. Clearly they do not want this continued. So stop.)

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Don't we have a thread on the discussion of the commercialisation of christmas? What does this have to do with PCness?

The crass commercialization is worse, in my opinion, than the choice of Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas. It's my opinion of the degree of the severity and I say methinks they doth protest too much. That's all.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

JD, please stop characterising my opinions on other threads. It detracts from the discussion at hand. If you want to work something out back channel, I am always open to it.

(On that other thread I stated my opinion, post-election, that my party was NOT an immoral party, that our positions were based on our morality of which I am very sure are good morals, and I stated that we should not change our values as some suggested at the time. I stand by that. You and inked posted thing in that thread that were deleted by the admins. He posted an article that made a reference to the Senator from New York which used inapproriate languge. You made blatant personal attacks. I replied and my replies were deleted, too. Clearly they do not want this continued. So stop.)

Sorry - but it was YOU who made the personal attacks. Don't try twisting the thing onto me. You were the one who was posting and saying how republicans were racist, sexist bigots and making fun of the people who voted for bush. Obviously you have no true of what occurred and since you go in this thread about the need to be polite and act if you are - I do think the past is relavent. Because it seems to me - you are fine with being PC and polite to "certain" groups - but to ones you disagree with - then it doesn't matter to you. That is the problem I have with you in this thread. You sit there giving me speeches - when you should worry about how you act toward others. That is the problem with PC - it worries about everyone else - instead of looking at how they act.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

The crass commercialization is worse, in my opinion, than the choice of Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas. It's my opinion of the degree of the severity and I say methinks they doth protest too much. That's all.

And as i have said in the CORRECT thread to discuss this - Christmas is what you make it. If you don't like the commercialzation of it - then don't buy gifts or go to the store. See - it's free choice - something that PC wants to take away by feigning offense. The only holiday right now is Christmas. So what is up with Season's Greetings? If the stores are going to be selling for Christmas - they should be honest. Hell - they're not selling for New Years - it's Christmas. You don't have Santa Claus at the malls for Chanuka.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Jerseydevil

Because it seems to me - you are fine with being PC and polite to "certain" groups - but to ones you disagree with - then it doesn't matter to you.

What "certain" groups? PC, I think, is mostly about protecting weak groups against abuse from larger ones. Republicans and Christians aren't exacty "weak" groups.
Personally I think acts like removing Christian symbols from public institutons are stupid (should you rename Los Angeles while you're at it?), but some people will always take things to the extreme.

"PC" has, by the way, become a pretty washed out expression, as it now a days can mean almost anything.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Falagar

What "certain" groups? PC, I think, is mostly about protecting weak groups against abuse from larger ones. Republicans and Christians aren't exacty "weak" groups. :P

PC has nothing to do with protecting groups. Only in Elfhelm's narrow world is it really about protecting groups. What's the difference between saying someone is deaf - versus hearing impaired. Either way they can't hear. That is PC and it's stupid. You can't say - disabled - you're supposed to say "physically challenged". YOu're not supposed to say black anymore - you're supposed to say "African American". I foudn it funny that I found things where Britain and Canada (which I posted above) is going through the same ridiculous PC crap. What it boils down to - is you're permitted to be unPC to certain groups - but supposed to be overly accepting of others. It doesn't matter how you talk about white - White Trash for instance is still perfectly acceptable - as is Redneck. But god forbid you use a deragatory term against another group.

Personally I think acts like removing Christian symbols from public institutons are stupid (should you rename Los Angeles while you're at it?), but some people will always take things to the extreme.

And that's the problem - is it and always has been at extremes.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

PC has nothing to do with protecting groups. Only in Elfhelm's narrow world is it really about protecting groups. What's the difference between saying someone is deaf - versus hearing impaired. Either way they can't hear. That is PC and it's stupid. You can't say - disabled - you're supposed to say "physically challenged". YOu're not supposed to say black anymore - you're supposed to say "African American". I foudn it funny that I found things where Britain and Canada (which I posted above) is going through the same ridiculous PC crap. What it boils down to - is you're permitted to be unPC to certain groups - but supposed to be overly accepting of others. It doesn't matter how you talk about white - White Trash for instance is still perfectly acceptable - as is Redneck. But god forbid you use a deragatory term against another group.

That depends on your definition of PC. You're allowed to be "unPC" to whites because whites have been on the top of the chain for many years, while blacks have been suppressed. You're allowed to be "unPC" to Christians because Christianity is the largest religion (most influence) in the west today. Other religions/pagans/"coloured people" (or niggers, chips and reds if you prefer ) were often oppressed (="weak groups") and have therefore been handled very carefully lately.

Since "blacks" was often used negatively in the past (at least here in Norway), people dislike using it. It may be just a word, but words can be powerful...

I have to find my bed now, see you tomorrow (though the debate's probably moved too far away for me by then).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Falagar

That depends on your definition of PC. You're allowed to be "unPC" to "whites" because whites have been on the top of the chain for many years, while blacks have been suppressed.

So I'm glad that you accept the double standard - I however don't.

You're allowed to be "unPC" against Christians because Christianity is the largest religion (most influence) in the west today. Other religions/pagans/"coloured people" (or niggers, chips and reds if you prefer ) were often oppressed (="weak groups") and have therefore been handled very carefully lately.

Well so much for trying to make a color blind society then. As long as people aren't treated as people - but only viewed in those contexts - then you can never get rid of racism - because there will always be one group expecting handouts and one resenting.

BTW - most Indians - don't call themselves Native Americans. On the reserve - I've never heard them call themselves that and Trish has always thought it was stupid. They've always referred to themselves as Indians - so again it seems to be people assuming that something is offensive - when it isn't.

All PC is is speech control.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Since "blacks" was often used negatively in the past (at least here in Norway), people dislike using it. It may be just a word, but words can be powerful...

Actually - the word black was never negative. Although ANY word can be used as negative. Does referring to them as "African-American" make them less American? A white person is just an American - but a black person is "AFRICAN-American". It causes division and second class status as far as I'm concerned.

When I went to see A Christmas Carol my friends and I got into this discussion - about the Merry Christmas and PC. It was sort of funny - because they brought it up. The person who brought it up - happens to be black - the first time we met we saw a play together as part of the "Gateway Regional Tourism Council" meeting at the George Street Playhouse in New Brunswick call "Allelujeh Baby!!". Ironically enough - it was about race relations. It followed this person (the characters didn't age) who was black and wanted to be a star from the 1900's to modern day. Through the decades it covered all the racism - white against black, black against white, white against white, black against black - until it reached the 21st century and they showed how far we have come. And it's not because some people say "African-American" versus "black" - but it's attitude.

It isn't the words that make the difference - it's the THOUGHTS behind the words that make the difference.

[Elfhelm]

My world is narrow because I want to include everyone. How's that for Newspeak?

I repeat, if ANYONE feels offended by anything I posted and wants to work things out, please do not hesitate to write me. Those who wish to maintain a contentious relationship with me will no doubt refuse to write me, I understand.

These discussions are fun as long as we don't attack each other. Write me if you fell I've attacked you or offended your beliefs and I'll try to work it out. But please, tell me which actual phrases insulted you. Don't just characterize me as your enemy, because I'm not.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It is the CHRISTMAS holiday. The only other holiday that is celebrated during this time - is Chanukah and that's over with. Kwanza as far as I'm concerned is a holiday that was started by the "anti-white" blacks - who wanted a "non-white" holiday.
[/edit]

Yes of course you just had to go there. Why am I not surprised...

How nice of you to justify ignoring another holiday because you choose to generalize about every single person that celebrates it. Yep its gotta be those damn racist blacks again who have a problem with Bing Crosby and Santa Claus. Spare me. This is a pathetic excuse to insist that no one should be saying "happy holidays" in december. how ridiculous. Can someone please tell me who has legislated that we cant say merry christmas any more? or where this is coming from exactly? it seems like such a ridiculous accusation. in fact it doesnt seem to be about not being able to say merry christmas, it seems to be about "oh you BETTER ONLY say merry christmas!". And who is the thought police again? well I say let people say happy holidays if they want. i mean most people just dont care.

And word of advice: when you overkill with outside articles you shoot yourself in the foot. One article is good. I read through that first post. Then realized i was only half way through that whole thing and there was another enormous post to follow. I skimmed through that because it wasnt very funny anymore. Then i realized there was like EIGHT more! I skipped them because i had lost interest by then. So what was the purpose of dumping all of those in one after the other ranting on about the evils of political correctness exactly? Theres a strategy to injecting outside sources. Even biased opinion pieces like those can be useful. But theres no real point jamming so much down our throats at once. The people who disagree with your opinion will quickly lose interest and no useful discussion will result.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - most Indians - don't call themselves Native Americans.

Actually, "most indians" call themselves by their tribe names. the ones THEY made for themselves. Indians are from INDIA... Remember?

[Elfhelm]

IR, there's some public school that won't allow the kids to sing Silent Night anymore. It's at CNN.com right now. It's absurd. But the problem was, Jewish kids who didn't sing it, who closed their mouths during that song, were in the past kicked out of the choir or didn't get a grade. It was handled wrong in the past, so now nobody can sing it? That's not right, either. What we should be teach our kids (yes I said our kids, hehehehe) is to negotiate a fair resolution to their differences. Forcing and banning are both extremist reactions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Actually, "most indians" call themselves by their tribe names. the ones THEY made for themselves. Indians are from INDIA... Remember?

Actually - you are wrong about. I have been to six nations numerous times - how many times have you been there? So don't tell me what they refer to themselves as. Trish is Mohwak of the Turtle clan. But she refers to herself, as do most of the people on the reserve as indians.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

IR, there's some public school that won't allow the kids to sing Silent Night anymore. It's at CNN.com right now. It's absurd. But the problem was, Jewish kids who didn't sing it, who closed their mouths during that song, were in the past kicked out of the choir or didn't get a grade. It was handled wrong in the past, so now nobody can sing it? That's not right, either. What we should be teach our kids (yes I said our kids, hehehehe) is to negotiate a fair resolution to their differences. Forcing and banning are both extremist reactions.

\Actually - you read that article wrong - and it's not the full story. You're getting confused with a person who grew up in Texas who now lives in NJ. It had nothing to do with the school in NJ - it was his experience in another school in Texas. Anyway - they had no problem with allowing Chanuka and Kwanza songs.

Ban on Christmas carols sparks debate
Wednesday, December 22, 2004 Posted: 10:16 AM EST (1516 GMT)

NEWARK, New Jersey (AP) -- As a Jewish boy growing up in Texas, Joel Schwartzberg performed many traditional Christmas songs in the elementary school choir.

Uncomfortable about singing evangelical versions of songs like "Silent Night," Schwartzberg kept his lips sealed during those parts. He remembers being told by his teacher that he had to sing all the words if he wanted to participate.

Schwartzberg, whose young children are about to enter school, said those memories surfaced this month when the South Orange-Maplewood school district decided to ban instrumental Christmas carols at school-sponsored holiday concerts.

The move has brought considerable publicity to Maplewood, located about 10 miles west of Newark, and echoes a larger debate over what public religious displays or expressions are acceptable during the Christmas season.

There have been several other publicized disputes in New Jersey towns, including Egg Harbor Township. The school board there voted earlier this month to remove "Silent Night" from an elementary school holiday program after a parent complained, then voted to reinstate the song after the complaint was withdrawn. The program already included songs celebrating Hanukkah and Kwanzaa.

There have been lawsuits involving a public holiday display in Cranston, Rhode Island; a school nativity scene and performance of Christmas carols in Bossier Parish, Louisiana; and a school in Saginaw, Michigan, that prohibited a student from passing out candy canes containing religious messages.

Courts have used the "reasonable person" standard -- essentially, whether a reasonable person would feel a religious display or expression constituted an endorsement of religion. Jared Leland, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C., said that courts have frequently ruled that recognizing the religious tradition of a particular holiday does not meet that standard.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based organization that funds legal actions in cases involving religious expression, is considering challenging South Orange-Maplewood's decision in court.

"When these school boards start censoring Christ out of the holidays, they're on the wrong side of the Constitution," said Gary McCaleb, the group's senior counsel. "It's a kind of Orwellian doublespeak, in my mind."

Jessica Schneider, a 16-year-old who plays in the ensemble band at Columbia High in Maplewood, called the district's Christmas carol ban "kind of silly."

"Personally, I don't know anyone who objected, and as a student who's part of the school's Jewish population, I would think I would have," Schneider said. "To me, it's just music and it's giving the community something to be happy about it."

State and federal laws hold that teaching about religious holidays and practices is acceptable in schools as long as the holidays are not celebrated. Holiday displays are allowed as long as they do not advance religion and are temporary in nature.

Schwartzberg said a line can be drawn.

"When students are compelled to engage in evangelical activities -- even without intent or proselytizing -- with the alternative being nothing except to sit out, I think that's not appropriate."

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yes of course you just had to go there. Why am I not surprised...

How nice of you to justify ignoring another holiday because you choose to generalize about every single person that celebrates it. Yep its gotta be those damn racist blacks again who have a problem with Bing Crosby and Santa Claus. Spare me. This is a pathetic excuse to insist that no one should be saying "happy holidays" in december. how ridiculous.

I don't care if you like my comment regarding Kwanza - that is the reason basically it was started. It wasn't a traditional holiday or anything like that.

Can someone please tell me who has legislated that we cant say merry christmas any more? or where this is coming from exactly? it seems like such a ridiculous accusation.

The liberal PC groups have been slowly complaining about it. it doesn't need to be legislated - just needs to be a minority of loud mouth complainers. But that's okay - ABC World News Tongiht had on about a backlash against stores. One store in a mall in North Carolina is advertising that they wish people a Merry Christmas and have actually seen their sales go up. Since it is a CHRISTMAS SEASON and the giving of gifts is a CHRISTMAS thing - then they should cater to who they sell to. I would have no problem with during Rhamadan someone wishing me a Happy Rhamadan at the checkout counter.

in fact it doesnt seem to be about not being able to say merry christmas, it seems to be about "oh you BETTER ONLY say merry christmas!". And who is the thought police again? well I say let people say happy holidays if they want. i mean most people just dont care.

Well if people don't care - then what is the big deal about complaining about stores saying Merry Christmas?

And word of advice: when you overkill with outside articles you shoot yourself in the foot. One article is good. I read through that first post. Then realized i was only half way through that whole thing and there was another enormous post to follow. I skimmed through that because it wasnt very funny anymore. Then i realized there was like EIGHT more! I skipped them because i had lost interest by then. So what was the purpose of dumping all of those in one after the other ranting on about the evils of political correctness exactly? Theres a strategy to injecting outside sources. Even biased opinion pieces like those can be useful. But theres no real point jamming so much down our throats at once. The people who disagree with your opinion will quickly lose interest and no useful discussion will result.

Thanmks for the advise - I don't need it though. I'm sure your heart was in the right place when you typed that in your usual condescending attitute though. It's your choice as to whether you want to read it or not - I don't always read those things that people post right away - but will go back to them later on. So - to make a long story short - I really don't give adamn if you read them, you skimmed over them, or if you have a problem with me posting them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

My world is narrow because I want to include everyone. How's that for Newspeak?

The thing is - you hardly are inclusive about things. You have people who you like to put down - you just won't admit it.

I repeat, if ANYONE feels offended by anything I posted and wants to work things out, please do not hesitate to write me. Those who wish to maintain a contentious relationship with me will no doubt refuse to write me, I understand.

I don't really care whether I maintain a contentious relationship with you or not to be honest with you. YOu knew back then that I found your comments that the people who voted for Bush were a bunch of religios whackos, bigots, sexist, homophobics, etc -offensive. You took no action there - except to apologize to Rian for the Christian remarks - so don't act like you really care now.

These discussions are fun as long as we don't attack each other. Write me if you fell I've attacked you or offended your beliefs and I'll try to work it out. But please, tell me which actual phrases insulted you. Don't just characterize me as your enemy, because I'm not.

You really do crack me up with your feigned innocence here. I'm sure people who don't know the past between us would really believe you on this - or people who don't follow the other political threads.