Your Opinion of Political Correctness

[Divitaen]

Setting aside the fact that almost every single instance of Yumyum's evidence that something wasn't really a newsworthy problem was dismissed by you with a sound "well it's still dumb" (a point he didn't refute), wouldn't common sense be for you to follow your own bolded statement?

I have no difficulty ignoring people using PC to "correct" people. With the right to say things that are offensive, comes the right to be offended. And with the right to say something about being offended, comes the right to ignore someone when the complain about being offended.

Some of these examples were just stupid, and not necessarily hurtful. But when an entity of greater power (i.e. an employer, a school, a government etc.) takes action against someone who is being "offensive", that's where it crosses a line for me. It's one thing to have somebody tell you they think you're a bigot etc., it's another to be fired/arrested/fined/sued/threatened or any other legitimate punishment.

I generally would agree, except I do think sometimes action is needed against offensive action, because such offensive action may be a sign of a teacher or an administrator creating an unsafe or discriminatory environment for colleagues or students, and that is actionable under the law.

[Patridam]

I have no difficulty ignoring people using PC to "correct" people. With the right to say things that are offensive, comes the right to be offended. And with the right to say something about being offended, comes the right to ignore someone when the complain about being offended.

Some of these examples were just stupid, and not necessarily hurtful. But when an entity of greater power (i.e. an employer, a school, a government etc.) takes action against someone who is being "offensive", that's where it crosses a line for me. It's one thing to have somebody tell you they think you're a bigot etc., it's another to be fired/arrested/fined/sued/threatened or any other legitimate punishment.

Define "offensive" because even libel and defamation is a tort, and that's saying untruthful things about a person with malice aforethought.

Well, most of what is found to be "offensive" and corrected through PC, I wouldn't find offensive myself. But I don't mean libel or defamation, which are indeed justifiable and necessary exemptions to the freedom of speech.

Offensive, in this context, has come to mean any opinions and/or terminology that could any way be construed by someone (in my mind, oversensitive people, but that's just me) as discriminatory, noninclusive or otherwise insulting to an identifier (i.e. gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, religion).

I generally would agree, except I do think sometimes action is needed against offensive action, because such offensive action may be a sign of a teacher or an administrator creating an unsafe or discriminatory environment for colleagues or students, and that is actionable under the law.

Well, doing what you can to not make a dangerous environment is just being professional, but you have to be at least reasonable in how you try to prevent it. But firing someone for what they say outside of work, or for using politically incorrect terms in an appropriate context, is definitely too much.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So what? It was not school district mandated, but that doesn't make it any less silly.

And it had no actual effect on anyone.

It did happen, and was not corrected until the woman told the media about it. The JCP was covering its ass.

So are you saying that this was a policy of theirs, and they only changed it after the media called them out on it? I'm not seeing anything but a single incompetent employee.

I disagree. Easter Egg hunts are a secular trapping, and renaming the eggs as Spring Spheres, if anything, is going to make people more uncomfortable.

By calling them Easter Egg hunts, you're associating them with Easter, a holiday regarding the central focus of a specific religion. Nothing secular about that. Spring Spheres, however, are totally secular.

The council went through with the ban on internal documents. You're just indicating that many people agree that its stupid.

Right, so stupid that it never caught on outside the council, and has had no impact whatsoever on society as a whole.

Or, you know, if you don't want to pray just ignore them.

What part of the term "settled law" are you having an issue with?

Definitely not a problem - it was hanging in an office, nobody was forced to look at it. Our school had Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms posters in the library, is the Freedom of Religon poster also non-PC?

It's still government-sponsored approval of a specific religious practice. That's not "Freedom Of Religion", that's out-and-out theism being pushed. It was hanging in the school office, meaning that students were shown it every day.

It's only sexist if Halloween costumes and dieting are sexist.

It was the reason for the dieting--to fit into revealing costumes to put their bodies on display--being touted as a noble goal that was sexist. I can explain that to you, but I can't understand it for you.

It still happened, and yes, it was part of a protocol that 'Gay' was always insulting. Just because somebody managed to fix it after a while doesn't mean it didn't happen; if somebody wrongfully arrested, the fact they were released a month later with an apology doesn't negate the problem with the wrongful arrest.

Don't compare a miscommunication with a private company that results in the loss of a non-vital service for a few days to false arrest. The process is very different, the stakes are enormously different, the lengths that one must go to to get it resolved is different in time, complication, and expense, and the risk to one's health are so different as to defy comparison. Having said that, I hope that he got some sort of adequate compensation, but this was one case where someone made a mistake that was swiftly corrected. I'm not seeing it as part of a major societal trend.

The fact they tried to do this. It took an act of protest (santas quitting the firm) to stop it.

The point is that it ended up having no long term impact.

Once again, doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

No, but it also means that it had essentially no effect whatsoever.

Accurate? How is "handwriting" any more accurate than "penmanship"? And how is penmanship even insulting?

I'm not sure that it is. It is, however, technically inaccurate. I'm not sure how shifting some terminology to be more accurate is such a big deal, or worth complaining about.

She should've told the children to be quiet, if anything. It found in favor of the defendant (school district and bus driver), and the bus driver went back to work.

Do you have a link to that? I tried to find the outcome, but to no avail.

It doesn't have to be forced to be idiotic and overreaching.

But it does need to be enforced to have an impact, and it does need to have an impact to be at all meaningful.

Still, people attempted. It's stupid.

Yes, but people do all sorts of stupid things.

There are of course, more. You've probably seen some of these before, but I think they are slightly more than very few. I'd honestly like to know if/how you don't consider them political correctness, because I do have a fairly broad definition myself.

I've seen nearly all of them before. People say that there are more examples, but they keep pulling out all of these old ones, some from years ago.

Except when they're not, and they end up harming people; or when the continue despite a widespread acknowledgement of idiocy. Common sense is to ignore something minor that offends you, not to force everyone to bend to your way of thinking.

What harm has been done? What is continuing in any significant way in the larger culture?

I think that the major issue that I'm having here is that I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue. Is it that there are people out there who go a bit too far in attempting to not offend folks? No argument here, but I'm not really seeing them as having any significant impact on society as a whole, or even being worth discussing at length. Seriously, the worst things that you found that actually had any sort of significant impact were a council ruling that kept them from using a single word, and maybe a bus driver going over the top when confronting a little girl who had told another child that her brother was going to hell for being gay. That's it. That's all. No examples of the larger culture being threatened, no serious censorship happening, no attempts to control the thoughts of others, no attempts to bend anyone to any way of thinking.

It's almost like there's no case to be made at all outside of a few isolated incidents around the world that have had no effect at all on society as a whole.

[Patridam]

Do you have a link to that? I tried to find the outcome, but to no avail.

https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/s ... 0cv1117-74

For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the
Plaintiffs’ free speech, free exercise, and equal protection claims is hereby GRANTED.

I honestly am not quite sure what that means, but saw Defendant's motion and GRANTED.

It's almost like there's no case to be made at all outside of a few isolated incidents around the world that have had no effect at all on society as a whole.

Are you implying that political correctness does not exist?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/s ... 0cv1117-74

For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the
Plaintiffs’ free speech, free exercise, and equal protection claims is hereby GRANTED.

I honestly am not quite sure what that means, but saw Defendant's motion and GRANTED.

Thank you! As it turns out, the article that you posted and the claims of the child's mother did not match the videotaped evidence. The bus driver simply tried to ensure that the girl had heard what the driver had stated that morning, and was polite but insistent when the girl seemingly lied to her and denied having told another classmate that her brother was going to hell. There was no insult to the girl's religion, and no attempt to keep her from practicing it. Instead, she was simply told to treat her classmates in a manner that would not cause insult or disruption. The driver didn't even bother making it an official report, instead wanting to keep the issue an informal one.

Are you implying that political correctness does not exist?

I'm implying nothing of the sort.

I am stating outright that where political correctness does cross the line, there is no significant impact to society as a whole, and indeed there is usually nothing enforced at all, and where political correctness does have a significant impact on society as a whole, it does not cross the line.

[Patridam]

Are you implying that political correctness does not exist?

I'm implying nothing of the sort.

I am stating outright that where political correctness does cross the line, there is no significant impact to society as a whole, and indeed there is usually nothing enforced at all, and where political correctness does have a significant impact on society as a whole, it does not cross the line.

Honestly, I think in its mere existence, it crosses the line. But that's an opinion, not something I can really argue.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm implying nothing of the sort.

I am stating outright that where political correctness does cross the line, there is no significant impact to society as a whole, and indeed there is usually nothing enforced at all, and where political correctness does have a significant impact on society as a whole, it does not cross the line.

Honestly, I think in its mere existence, it crosses the line. But that's an opinion, not something I can really argue.

Well, which part?

I mean, it's easy for us to look at the "brainstorm" example, and say "Well, that's stupid. Even that organization for awareness of epilepsy doesn't have an issue. What a bunch of idiots," and have a good laugh about it. But what about other things?

What about "African-American" being used in the media instead of "black"? And before that, what about "black" rather than "Negro"? Are these examples of P.C. overreach, or simply signs that we continue to negotiate racial issues in this country? Come to think of it, what about minstrel shows? Is societal disapproval of them nowadays also P.C. gone mad, or simply a sign of changing viewpoints? How about the word "nigger" being used? I agree that it shouldn't be legally banned, but shouldn't there be some sort of societal pressure applied against those who constantly use the phrase?

I remember when I was in elementary school, we had a playground game called "Smear The Queer". I didn't know what a "Queer" was at the time, and didn't play many of the sports involving a lot of running around, but I was aware of its existence. Nowadays, where the game isn't prohibited for being overly rough, the name of it usually is so that gays aren't made the object of derision. I consider this polite. You may consider it overreach. I can only say that the times seem to support my viewpoint over your own.

Please note that I am a HUGE advocate of the right to free speech, and I don't care if it's someone on the left fighting for the right to advocate free love, or someone on the right proposing that we send black people back to Africa. They have the right to say these things. Society tends to shift and change with and without prods from above, though, and what was considered passable one week may not be considered as such the next. That's how it's always worked.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I'll just leave this here.

[Dyakovo]

I'll just leave this here.

Better yet, make your own argument rather than just posting a YouTube link that almost no-one is going to watch.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I'll just leave this here.

Better yet, make your own argument rather than just posting a YouTube link that almost no-one is going to watch.

Because I'm intelligent enough to understand when someone else can phrase my arguments in a much clearer manner than I. What, son.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Pictures of Mohamed are offensive to Terrorists.

Therefore no-one knows what Mohamed, looked like.

Therefore PCers ban ALL pictures of random guy with turban.

[Liriena]

Therefore PCers ban ALL pictures of random guy with turban.

When, where, and who?

[The Alpine Federation]

Pictures of Mohamed are offensive to Terrorists.

Therefore no-one knows what Mohamed, looked like.

Therefore PCers ban ALL pictures of random guy with turban.

Pictures of Mohamed are offensive to more than terrorists.
When did this case of banning happen where someone banned a picture of someone who wasn't Mohammed but they thought it was? Also, someone could've explicitly stated that it was the prophet Mohammed in writing that was added to the picture. Post a link for proof.

[Dyakovo]

Therefore PCers ban ALL pictures of random guy with turban.

When, where, and who?

It never happened.