NationStates

Thama wrote:Hello, I'm a Caucasian male and Nigga this shit is dank 'yo.

Political Correctness. Pfft.

Oh Jesus it's that guitarist from U2.

Kumrann wrote:Its arrogant to suggest that because someone disagrees with something automatically means they don't understand what their talking about. Of course there's lots of anti PC nonsense with people saying "we have to call Christmas Wintermass or you cant order a black coffee". But its wrong to pretend that despite being well intended it's not flawed - it's gone beyond a sort of organised politeness to something that does limit political discourse there are a number of issues that politicians (I can only speak for the UK) are unable to have an open discussion about. Surely the sign of a mature, free and liberal society is to not have political correctness but to have one were people are allowed to say what they want so say & also one were people can rightfully defend themselves and feel offended without being told they need to grow a 'thicker skin' ?

Surely it depends on what they are being offended by? For example, this just seems silly to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22

Shove Piggy Shove wrote:

Kumrann wrote:Its arrogant to suggest that because someone disagrees with something automatically means they don't understand what their talking about. Of course there's lots of anti PC nonsense with people saying "we have to call Christmas Wintermass or you cant order a black coffee". But its wrong to pretend that despite being well intended it's not flawed - it's gone beyond a sort of organised politeness to something that does limit political discourse there are a number of issues that politicians (I can only speak for the UK) are unable to have an open discussion about. Surely the sign of a mature, free and liberal society is to not have political correctness but to have one were people are allowed to say what they want so say & also one were people can rightfully defend themselves and feel offended without being told they need to grow a 'thicker skin' ?

Surely it depends on what they are being offended by? For example, this just seems silly to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22

Well I don't think that would be offensive but I think you should be allowed to be offended by it (even if I don't understand why you should). It also depends who says they were offended - if a black person said to me "I don't like it when people say niggardly" I wouldn't say it again.

Kumrann wrote:

Liriena wrote:People whining about "political correctness" don't have any idea what the fuck they are talking about.

Its arrogant to suggest that because someone disagrees with something automatically means they don't understand what their talking about. Of course there's lots of anti PC nonsense with people saying "we have to call Christmas Wintermass or you cant order a black coffee". But its wrong to pretend that despite being well intended it's not flawed - it's gone beyond a sort of organised politeness to something that does limit political discourse there are a number of issues that politicians (I can only speak for the UK) are unable to have an open discussion about. Surely the sign of a mature, free and liberal society is to not have political correctness but to have one were people are allowed to say what they want so say & also one were people can rightfully defend themselves and feel offended without being told they need to grow a 'thicker skin' ?

Are said politicians unable to have an open discussion about those issues because it's prohibited or because of extreme vocal criticism?

Kumrann wrote:Well I don't think that would be offensive but I think you should be allowed to be offended by it (even if I don't understand why you should). It also depends who says they were offended - if a black person said to me "I don't like it when people say niggardly" I wouldn't say it again.

But, the reason for people taking offence to niggardly is that it sounds like it kinda starts with nigger. Which it doesn't, and the two words have entirely separate meanings/etymologies. If anything complaining about its usage harms the case of campaigners when they have a genuine grievance (e.g. Washington Redskins), as whenever they try to make a change then opponents will dismiss it as mere 'political correctness' and highlight this tosh instead of addressing the actual issue.

Alien Space Bats wrote:

Quintium wrote:My signature has a very sensible point on political correctness. The subjects for political correctness may have changed since the early 1940s, but the ways in which it is generally carried out have not. It's not so much overt government censorship - which is a shame, because then people couldn't deny it - but rather a sickening, deceptive form of self-censorship by those genuinely afraid of offending someone or something they're afraid to offend.

Let's be honest with ourselves: Conservative carpring about political correctness is largely an effort to avoid getting called out for being racist, sexist, or homophobic. It's as if Conservative America is telling the rest of us, "Look, if I want to call a black man 'nigger', a woman 'slut', and a gay man 'faggot", that's not my problem — it's yours. Grow a pair, accept my right to offend you, AND DON'T TALK BACK."

Thus, my response to criticism of "political correctness": If you want to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, or religious bigot, go ahead — shoot off your mouth. Use whatever hateful language and vile epithets you want; that IS indeed your right.

But don't whine when I rhetorically tear you a bloody new asshole, calling you out for your small-minded hatefulness and unsuitability as even a poor facsimile of a human being. If you're going to reserve the right to be insensitive to others around you, then I'm going to reserve the right to make your asshattery abundantly clear to the world, and ride you off into the sunset like a broken quarterhorse until you can't stand the sound of my voice in your ear.

Because if you insist on exercising your God-given right to bring discomfort and misery to the loves of others, then I'm going to make it my Karmic mission to bring discomfort and misery to yours. First Amendment, bitches.

That's worth a golden medal. Can't deal with others criticizing and being offensive to your ideas, then stop being an offensive dickwad yourself and get over it.

I delight in the fact that the people complaining of PC going mad are effectively doing exactly what they're complaining of.

to a point political correctness is required. no one should be called nigger or spic,

but can it go to far?
is a halloween costume of treyvon martin racist?
how about a geisha?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2jhJkYy9k

Baltic Finland wrote:Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?

You are allowed. It's just a two way street and you have to accept that sometimes people will whine about how you hurt their feelings.

Sometimes people are going to tell you that whatever you said is insensitive, racist, sexist, etc., and you just have to tell them, "Well, it's still true, and you can't change reality by playing the race/gender/whatever card."

If the PC backlash is so overwhelming that you can't stand your ground, then maybe whatever you said actually WAS bigoted and wrong. If you have a reasonable opinion and you do a decent job of arguing it, you can generally find at least SOMEONE to back you up.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Baltic Finland wrote:Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?

You are allowed. It's just a two way street and you have to accept that sometimes people will whine about how you hurt their feelings.

Sometimes people are going to tell you that whatever you said is insensitive, racist, sexist, etc., and you just have to tell them, "Well, it's still true, and you can't change reality by playing the race/gender/whatever card."

If the PC backlash is so overwhelming that you can't stand your ground, then maybe whatever you said actually WAS bigoted and wrong. If you have a reasonable opinion and you do a decent job of arguing it, you can generally find at least SOMEONE to back you up.

No, he's saying that PC doesn't exist. You're agreeing.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Baltic Finland wrote:Just stating my opinion. Isn't what I said what political correctness means?

That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want.

There actually are laws against hate speech in some countries. Just saying.

Shaggai wrote:

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
You are allowed. It's just a two way street and you have to accept that sometimes people will whine about how you hurt their feelings.

Sometimes people are going to tell you that whatever you said is insensitive, racist, sexist, etc., and you just have to tell them, "Well, it's still true, and you can't change reality by playing the race/gender/whatever card."

If the PC backlash is so overwhelming that you can't stand your ground, then maybe whatever you said actually WAS bigoted and wrong. If you have a reasonable opinion and you do a decent job of arguing it, you can generally find at least SOMEONE to back you up.

No, he's saying that PC doesn't exist. You're agreeing.

Yeah, I figured that out after I replied. He really was not clear about it.

Ethel mermania wrote:to a point political correctness is required. no one should be called nigger or spic,

but can it go to far?
is a halloween costume of treyvon martin racist?
how about a geisha?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2jhJkYy9k

I don't know about necessarily racist, but both are ridiculously insensitive no matter what your skin color is. A black person in a Treyvon Martin costume or a Japanese-American in a Geisha costume is still using someone's suffering to draw attention to themselves.

New Octopucta wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:to a point political correctness is required. no one should be called nigger or spic,

but can it go to far?
is a halloween costume of treyvon martin racist?
how about a geisha?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2jhJkYy9k

I don't know about necessarily racist, but both are ridiculously insensitive no matter what your skin color is. A black person in a Treyvon Martin costume or a Japanese-American in a Geisha costume is still using someone's suffering to draw attention to themselves.

it would be a white person in the treyvon martin costume, and i agree its insensitive.
an american in the geisha outfit . how is that racist?

Ethel mermania wrote:it would be a white person in the treyvon martin costume, and i agree its insensitive.
an american in the geisha outfit . how is that racist?

I don't see how it is, anymore than an American dressing up as a ninja is racist.

Quintium wrote:And perhaps it's the people calling others racist, sexist or homophobic instead of responding to what they said who are the problem. If their point is really that nonsensical, why not explain that to them? Why immediately play the bigot card? That stifles public debate and creates an effect called 'polarisation' - the right moves to the right and the left moves to the left and ultimately you'll have a country that can barely be governed anymore because everyone's bickering over who's racist and who's politically correct.

Are conservatives REALLY so self-unaware as to not see the harm their words do? Can they really not see how stereotypical remarks about black men being criminals, black women being promiscuous welfare queens, and women in general being unable to manage a business or pursue a career in math or the sciences are hurtful? I mean, it's not like their totally unaware of the harm speech can do — because white men SURE as hell get angry when you remind them of how their forebears committed genocide against Native Americans or practiced chattel slavery...

What is it about the Golden Rule that makes it so damned hard for some people to understand? Why do some people seem to lack the ability to fully absorb the first lesson that their grandmothers likely ever taught them, namely: "Don't be rude, and don't speak ill of people behind their backs?"

No, I think that conservative carping about "political correctness" is a backlash to the changes in society that have broadened the power base, making it more inclusive. They HATE those changes, and their response to those changes is increasingly to get in the faces of those they dislike, and to make it clear in no uncertain terms that they think things ought to go back to the way they once were.

I mean, it's not as any of this OUGHT to be a mystery to anyone. Common sense aside (i.e., "You know that if you say hurtful things about people, they're going to REACT, right?"), it's not like we haven't had lots and lots and lots and lots and LOTS of examples of, say, women responding badly to slut shaming or aspersions against their mental abilities, or minorities getting upset about hateful stereotypes.. After a point, you'd think that any intelligent person would LEARN from all of this; we are therefore either left with two possibilities: Either conservatives are stupid or they've chosen deliberately to be rude.

So would you rather we operate on the former premise, or the latter?

Quintium wrote:

Alien Space Bats wrote:It's as if Conservative America is telling the rest of us, "Look, if I want to call a black man 'nigger', a woman 'slut', and a gay man 'faggot", that's not my problem — it's yours. Grow a pair, accept my right to offend you, AND DON'T TALK BACK."

That has nothing to do with political correctness. I'll give you a better example.
Recently, many progressive politicians wanted to change a nineteenth-century royal carriage in my country because it depicted black people offering gifts to white people. That's political correctness. The changing, denying or ignoring of certain parts of reality, or history, or certain parts of the public debate in order to prevent offending people you've decided you do not want to offend. It's blatant revisionism for ideological reasons.

European political and social dynamics are different from American ones; I can't comment without further data on how those who wanted to change the carriage felt about its appearance, and whether they believed its use intimates that they should be seen as subservient to their lighter-skinned peers.

And it's not like that sort of thing doesn't cut both ways: There is, after all, the rather humorous example of Ken Cuccinelli and the Great Seal of the State of Virginia.

Quintium wrote:Well, I've never rhetorically had a new asshole torn by anyone. They've tried, but they've always failed, and you are no exception.
The best they could do were strawmen, insults, harsh language, threats and reports to moderators on an online forum.

I can't recall actually having tried with you, so...

New Octopucta wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:it would be a white person in the treyvon martin costume, and i agree its insensitive.
an american in the geisha outfit . how is that racist?

I don't see how it is, anymore than an American dressing up as a ninja is racist.

I think feminists and people who are reeeeeeally moralistic about prostitution would rather not favour it but I don't see how it is inherently oppressive or insensitive.

Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro wrote:I think feminists and people who are reeeeeeally moralistic about prostitution would rather not favour it but I don't see how it is inherently oppressive or insensitive.

Geisha aren't prostitutes, and even if they were it still wouldn't be racist.

political correctness is a balancing act. See, trying to bring up the issue of forced marriage and being accused of being racist is an example of over-zealous PC, but tapping people for calling for gays to be burnt IS acceptable. And no, I can't claim either of those events happened, I was just making a point.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Baltic Finland wrote:Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?

You are allowed. It's just a two way street and you have to accept that sometimes people will whine about how you hurt their feelings.

Sometimes people are going to tell you that whatever you said is insensitive, racist, sexist, etc., and you just have to tell them, "Well, it's still true, and you can't change reality by playing the race/gender/whatever card."

If the PC backlash is so overwhelming that you can't stand your ground, then maybe whatever you said actually WAS bigoted and wrong. If you have a reasonable opinion and you do a decent job of arguing it, you can generally find at least SOMEONE to back you up.

I wasn't arguing in the favor of bigots. I was arguing against them. Although 'X is fucking bullshit' is hardly considered an argument in my opinion.

Quintium wrote:
And perhaps it's the people calling others racist, sexist or homophobic instead of responding to what they said who are the problem. If their point is really that nonsensical, why not explain that to them? Why immediately play the bigot card?

Because the process by which people arrive at non-sensical conclusions prevents them from grasping sensible explainations. Besides which no-one cares if a tiny minority of people have terrible views. Its only a problem when people choose to share them. The fallacy here is that racist, sexist or Homophobic views are somehow contributing to a debate. They aren't. If you aren't contributing, you need to be discouraged from taking part. Essentially they are just people blowing rasberries every time its their turn to talk. your saying "why not engage with them?"

Ifreann wrote:I delight in the fact that the people complaining of PC going mad are effectively doing exactly what they're complaining of.

We aren't offended but rather passionate.

There is a major difference.

Madenia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I delight in the fact that the people complaining of PC going mad are effectively doing exactly what they're complaining of.

We aren't offended but rather passionate.

There is a major difference.

One is fueled by self delusion?

The UK in Exile wrote:

Quintium wrote:
And perhaps it's the people calling others racist, sexist or homophobic instead of responding to what they said who are the problem. If their point is really that nonsensical, why not explain that to them? Why immediately play the bigot card?

Because the process by which people arrive at non-sensical conclusions prevents them from grasping sensible explainations. Besides which no-one cares if a tiny minority of people have terrible views. Its only a problem when people choose to share them. The fallacy here is that racist, sexist or Homophobic views are somehow contributing to a debate. They aren't. If you aren't contributing, you need to be discouraged from taking part. Essentially they are just people blowing rasberries every time its their turn to talk. your saying "why not engage with them?"

I could add something onto this with a real case. In the Netherlands, we have Geert Wilders who spreads those hateful views, but at every stop in parliament he makes a turn to say "but the immigrants", "but the Muslims", "but the Islamic religion", etc. It's not like verbally harassing immigrants and minorities is contributing anything worthwhile, and the above post indeed shows pretty much why.

The reason I don't engage with people who hold anti-immigrant views, or insult those who do, is because those people, more often than not, talk nonsensical arguments like "but the immigrants do this", "but the immigrants do that", not providing any source at all. Why should I bother to engage with them if all they're saying is "the immigrants are bad" and aren't swayed from that path, no matter how hard we may be pushing or pulling. It's like beating a dead horse, except this dead horse talks bullshit and doesn't ever want to stop talking bullshit.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Madenia wrote:
We aren't offended but rather passionate.

There is a major difference.

One is fueled by self delusion?

The opinion of political correctness being alright is delusional yes.