NationStates

Llamalandia wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
No, you're creating a fabricated version that you're pretending relates to something that's being discussed.

What you've done, indeed - in creating this alternate version to fight - is pretty much the book definition of a strawman logical fallacy.



You're going to have to link to a specific event, because I just can't address this kind of rambling nebulous claim.

Which specific event - link, please - was portrayed a racism, but wasn't racism, because of 'pc?

I admit offhand I can't find a good link to back this up. But let me offer instead that he talked about food stamps on another show and since then al sharp ton specifically has taken him to task for being racist. Yet, my understanding is in the story bill O never mentioned race at all, all he talked about was poor people and food stamps. But no we all know talking about the poor and food stamps is somehow code for saying yeah those worthless black people. So what should orally refrain from discussing food stamps because sharp ton perceives it as a racial slight? i mean that would be the pc thing to do, in fact you're not even supposed to call food stamps food stamps because we don't want to stigmatize anyone, we have to call it SNAP now, don't want anyone to get their feelings hurt now do we?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-defends-against-charges-of-racism-by-telling-surprising-story-about-al-sharpton/

I thought it was called SNAP now because it's a supplemental nutrition assistance program (so SNAP is the acronym) and they no longer use stamps?

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
I admit offhand I can't find a good link to back this up. But let me offer instead that he talked about food stamps on another show and since then al sharp ton specifically has taken him to task for being racist. Yet, my understanding is in the story bill O never mentioned race at all, all he talked about was poor people and food stamps. But no we all know talking about the poor and food stamps is somehow code for saying yeah those worthless black people. So what should orally refrain from discussing food stamps because sharp ton perceives it as a racial slight? i mean that would be the pc thing to do, in fact you're not even supposed to call food stamps food stamps because we don't want to stigmatize anyone, we have to call it SNAP now, don't want anyone to get their feelings hurt now do we?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-defends-against-charges-of-racism-by-telling-surprising-story-about-al-sharpton/

I thought it was called SNAP now because it's a supplemental nutrition assistance program (so SNAP is the acronym) and they no longer use stamps?

And you would, unsurprisingly, be correct.

Llamalandia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Very concise. And wrong.

A very concise link to a very verbose wiki article that is somewhat accurate. Progress i guess?

... Yes.

That is most definitely progress.

Brevity is the soul of wit, not of truth.

I detest political correctness. I detest it all the more because I often agree with its stated aims, which IMFAO it only undermines.

When I hear politically correct, I don't think "Oh no, I can't say this, that, or any other thing", I think of it as "How can I approach this subject tactfully while also being considerate of others beliefs, feelings, etc.". Sometimes there is no avoiding offending somebody, but you are able to intelligently start a discussion about the offensive topic that could be another form of being politically correct. These are just my thoughts on the subject.

Coccygia wrote:I detest political correctness. I detest it all the more because I often agree with its stated aims, which IMFAO it only undermines.

Oddly enough, I lived near a neighborhood with a large ethnic Jamaican population.

Me and the young black kids would get all awkward and offended when the old black people would laugh their asses off about who was working the cotton fields.

14 years later, me and Malc got the joke and nobody else did.

Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic wrote:These days one must be careful of what comes out of their mouths, and make an effort to be politically correct. Is it bad not to be politically correct, and vice versa? (when I say politically correct, I mean, for example, the public backlash a politician would recieved if he or she "offended someone through dialogue"). What is your opinion of political correctness? (regarding a statement by a none-bigoted individual)

No, being nice to others and treating them on the content of their character and by their abilities is not being politically correct, it's just being a nice person or a rational person.

Being forced to be PC however, can infringe on personal liberties or advocate for specific speech to be regulated or banned, regardless of how hateful it is. If you can't treat someone with good will due to some external, albeit, uncontrollable part of that person, then you need to learn on your own, not be force fed by the government, on how to treat them differently. Also, PC can go too far and society becomes more offensive, even if you work to not be offensive in a voluntary manner.

Sucrati wrote:

Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic wrote:These days one must be careful of what comes out of their mouths, and make an effort to be politically correct. Is it bad not to be politically correct, and vice versa? (when I say politically correct, I mean, for example, the public backlash a politician would recieved if he or she "offended someone through dialogue"). What is your opinion of political correctness? (regarding a statement by a none-bigoted individual)

No, being nice to others and treating them on the content of their character and by their abilities is not being politically correct, it's just being a nice person or a rational person.

Being forced to be PC however, can infringe on personal liberties or advocate for specific speech to be regulated or banned, regardless of how hateful it is. If you can't treat someone with good will due to some external, albeit, uncontrollable part of that person, then you need to learn on your own, not be force fed by the government, on how to treat them differently. Also, PC can go too far and society becomes more offensive, even if you work to not be offensive in a voluntary manner.

That's the thing, though.

It's about being polite and respecting other people's feelings. If someone feels uncomfortable being addressed a certain way, shouldn't you respect their feelings and not call them whatever it is they don't wish to be addressed as?

As thinking, rational adults, I'm certain we can come to that agreement without getting into this complicated bullshit that has nothing to do with the real reason we have political correctness.

Dyakovo wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
I thought it was called SNAP now because it's a supplemental nutrition assistance program (so SNAP is the acronym) and they no longer use stamps?

And you would, unsurprisingly, be correct.

So, cold-hard objective facts are evidence of an evil liberal agenda? Stephen Colbert was right after all?

So I posted in this thread, then decided to back off and give it a chance, just to see if anyone would come up with an anti-P.C. argument that didn't essentially boil down to "I want to be able to call black people niggers if I feel like it, and otherwise be an offensive douche without being called out on it."

Nobody has so far.

I'd be more disappointed if I weren't utterly unsurprised.

True. However it is still referred to commonly simply as food stamps. Most of the objection to the term is not bc now they use an EBT card but rather because of the stigmatizing effect of the term food stamps.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[1] formerly and still popularly known as the Food Stamp program, provides financial assistance for purchasing food to low- and no-income people living in the U.S. It is a federal aid program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, though benefits are distributed by individual U.S. states. They can be used to purchase any prepackaged edible foods, regardless of nutritional value (e.g. soft drinks and confections). Hot foods (such as those found in a supermarket deli) are ineligible, as well as items in fast food restaurants and similar retail settings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
people aren't complaining about the technical factual inaccuracy of the term, but rather what it implies.
Hence its pc to say SNAP and unacceptable to use the term food stamps because at least so far the term SNAP doesn't seem to carry with it many negative connotation even though yes it is basically the same thing as food stamps just in electronic form.

The Sheika wrote:When I hear politically correct, I don't think "Oh no, I can't say this, that, or any other thing", I think of it as "How can I approach this subject tactfully while also being considerate of others beliefs, feelings, etc.". Sometimes there is no avoiding offending somebody, but you are able to intelligently start a discussion about the offensive topic that could be another form of being politically correct. These are just my thoughts on the subject.

See the problem is though (at least i my personal experience) this isn't how everyone approaches being pc or defines what that is. To most people i've dealt with it means not saying anything bad about certain groups or certain individuals within a group bc thats not pc. Its like how the left wing media portrayed trayvon as an angel and zimmerman as this racist devil. yeah don't say anything about Trayvon and marijuana that's offense.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:So I posted in this thread, then decided to back off and give it a chance, just to see if anyone would come up with an anti-P.C. argument that didn't essentially boil down to "I want to be able to call black people niggers if I feel like it, and otherwise be an offensive douche without being called out on it."

Nobody has so far.

I'd be more disappointed if I weren't utterly unsurprised.

Wait who said that i must have missed a few pages. No it's not ok to go around calling black people the n word (though its not and shouldn't be illegal), its reprehensible and should basically be universally condemned.
I just don't think that I shouldn't be allowed to comment on say, the problem of African American violence and incarceration rates. I mean yeah its a painful truth but if more black families were intact in my opinion the murder rates among blacks would be lower. Now it's fine to disagree and debate but don't "call me out" for stating what is at least statistically true.

Dyakovo wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
yes because scotus and the un are perfect arbiters of rights in the world and can never be wrong.

Can you show how and why they are wrong?

Can you show how and why they are right with out a simple appeal to authority. No that aside a lot of times they do get it right but not always. As I've said earlier in the case of scotus though I see no constitutional basis for marriage as right. Non-discrimination yes, but nowhere that i'm aware of is marriage a guaranteed right in the us constitution despite the supreme court saying it is in the opinion referenced earlier.

Llamalandia wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:So I posted in this thread, then decided to back off and give it a chance, just to see if anyone would come up with an anti-P.C. argument that didn't essentially boil down to "I want to be able to call black people niggers if I feel like it, and otherwise be an offensive douche without being called out on it."

Nobody has so far.

I'd be more disappointed if I weren't utterly unsurprised.

Wait who said that i must have missed a few pages. No it's not ok to go around calling black people the n word (though its not and shouldn't be illegal), its reprehensible and should basically be universally condemned.
I just don't think that I shouldn't be allowed to comment on say, the problem of African American violence and incarceration rates. I mean yeah its a painful truth but if more black families were intact in my opinion the murder rates among blacks would be lower. Now it's fine to disagree and debate but don't "call me out" for stating what is at least statistically true.

Yeah, it's not necessarily politically incorrect for white folks to explain to black people just what the hell is wrong with their community. It's just unbearably condescending, and almost never takes into account the numerous factors involved.

Llamalandia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Can you show how and why they are wrong?

Can you show how and why they are right with out a simple appeal to authority. No that aside a lot of times they do get it right but not always. As I've said earlier in the case of scotus though I see no constitutional basis for marriage as right. Non-discrimination yes, but nowhere that i'm aware of is marriage a guaranteed right in the us constitution despite the supreme court saying it is in the opinion referenced earlier.

That doesn't matter.

The United States Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution when it comes to our laws.

That law was deemed unconstitutional.

The reasoning can be found here. It's a bit much to post here.

Llamalandia wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Can you show how and why they are wrong?

Can you show how and why they are right with out a simple appeal to authority. No that aside a lot of times they do get it right but not always. As I've said earlier in the case of scotus though I see no constitutional basis for marriage as right. Non-discrimination yes, but nowhere that i'm aware of is marriage a guaranteed right in the us constitution despite the supreme court saying it is in the opinion referenced earlier.

SCOTUS, as far as I can tell, didn't say that. That would be them legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. SCOTUS said that Congress can't define marriage as an institution between only one man and one woman.

Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic wrote:*cut*

Political correctness only exist as a means of stifling honest debate and assessments.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
Can you show how and why they are right with out a simple appeal to authority. No that aside a lot of times they do get it right but not always. As I've said earlier in the case of scotus though I see no constitutional basis for marriage as right. Non-discrimination yes, but nowhere that i'm aware of is marriage a guaranteed right in the us constitution despite the supreme court saying it is in the opinion referenced earlier.

That doesn't matter.

The United States Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution when it comes to our laws.

That law was deemed unconstitutional.

The reasoning can be found here. It's a bit much to post here.

Yes the law was deemed unconstitutional because it violated the 14th not because marriage is some inherent right, unless i missed something. And yes strictly speaking i suppose the supreme court could do just about anything it wanted, i mean it could interpret the first amendment to be banning ice cream if it wanted to and strictly speaking as completely illogical as such a ruling would be it would still be technically legit.
I think we were speaking more broadly though in a philosophical and not strictly legal sense of what is a right and not a right.

Freedom And Zohar wrote:

Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic wrote:*cut*

Political correctness only exist as a means of stifling honest debate and assessments.

Translation: "I want to call black people the N-word at my Klan rally, but when I do, a bunch of people we didn't invite throw tomatoes at us."

Freedom And Zohar wrote:

Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic wrote:*cut*

Political correctness only exist as a means of stifling honest debate and assessments.

And exactly what argument will you use to back up that bold claim?

Llamalandia wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
That doesn't matter.

The United States Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution when it comes to our laws.

That law was deemed unconstitutional.

The reasoning can be found here. It's a bit much to post here.

Yes the law was deemed unconstitutional because it violated the 14th not because marriage is some inherent right, unless i missed something.

Nope. DOMA is still a law. Only Section Three was overturned. Not the whole law.

Mkuki wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
Yes the law was deemed unconstitutional because it violated the 14th not because marriage is some inherent right, unless i missed something.

Nope. DOMA is still a law. Only Section Three was overturned. Not the whole law.

The link refers to Loving v Virginia, in which marriage was stated by the court to be a right.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Llamalandia wrote:
Wait who said that i must have missed a few pages. No it's not ok to go around calling black people the n word (though its not and shouldn't be illegal), its reprehensible and should basically be universally condemned.
I just don't think that I shouldn't be allowed to comment on say, the problem of African American violence and incarceration rates. I mean yeah its a painful truth but if more black families were intact in my opinion the murder rates among blacks would be lower. Now it's fine to disagree and debate but don't "call me out" for stating what is at least statistically true.

Yeah, it's not necessarily politically incorrect for white folks to explain to black people just what the hell is wrong with their community. It's just unbearably condescending, and almost never takes into account the numerous factors involved.

yeah no I'm not saying by any stretch that covers all of it or that race is even the primary factor at issue. But it seems like it's impossible to even have the debate with certain people bc they will do nothing but scream racist and shut you down. Then liberal commentators will talk about how we need to be pc and not point out these things because "white guilt" and histories and legacies. Well guess what I've had nothing to do with unjustly or unfairly harm african americans I wasn't even born when these things were routine so why should i not be able to talk about problems and air criticisms of their community as I see fit. and yeah like i said the issues are complicated and emotionally charged but nothing gets done if we shut down discussion because we feel guilty or just to avoid hurting feelings.

The Rich Port wrote:

Freedom And Zohar wrote:
Political correctness only exist as a means of stifling honest debate and assessments.

Translation: "I want to call black people niggers at my Klan rally, but when I do, a bunch of people we didn't invite throw tomatoes at us."

If that's what you took away from my post you're mistaken and it's your loss.