Has Political Correctness in the USA gone too far?

[Dyakovo]

"Affirmative action" is a completely stupid concept and goes against the entire point of racial equality. There is no point in "affirmative action" unless we can admit that certain races are still being actively discriminated against, in which case discrimination is the one which should be tackled in the first place. What you're doing by affirmative action is going after the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem, and even poorly at that.

e: it's essentially a "the end justifies the means" thing

Since when are We not allowed to admit that certain "races" are still discriminated against?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

"Affirmative action" is a completely stupid concept and goes against the entire point of racial equality. There is no point in "affirmative action" unless we can admit that certain races are still being actively discriminated against, in which case discrimination is the one which should be tackled in the first place. What you're doing by affirmative action is going after the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem, and even poorly at that.

e: it's essentially a "the end justifies the means" thing

Since when are We not allowed to admit that certain "races" are still discriminated against?

Since never. Since racial quotas have been brought up in discussion (idk if they exist in the US but I'm pretty sure they do in some other countries) they're a great example to work with: unless it can be proven that teachers/professors/educational staff discriminate against certain races e.g. by refusing admission, giving lower grades, denying participation in various projects etc. all things being equal (meaning, a demonstrably weaker student cannot complain about being discriminated against where there exists legal discrimination based on academic prowess/performance) , there is no reason to do, well, anything. If it can be proven, however, the solution is not affirmative action but rather active measures against discrimination, such as legal consequences for staff proven to have done the things listed above, etc. They are two very different things. I get the feeling that affirmative action exists where there is no actual discrimination, simply out of principle and to try and "correct the mistakes of the past".

[Dyakovo]

Since when are We not allowed to admit that certain "races" are still discriminated against?

Since never. Since racial quotas have been brought up in discussion (idk if they exist in the US but I'm pretty sure they do in some other countries) they're a great example to work with: unless it can be proven that teachers/professors/educational staff discriminate against certain races e.g. by refusing admission, giving lower grades, denying participation in various projects etc. all things being equal (meaning, a demonstrably weaker student cannot complain about being discriminated against where there exists legal discrimination based on academic prowess/performance) , there is no reason to do, well, anything. If it can be proven, however, the solution is not affirmative action but rather active measures against discrimination, such as legal consequences for staff proven to have done the things listed above, etc. They are two very different things. I get the feeling that affirmative action exists where there is no actual discrimination, simply out of principle and to try and "correct the mistakes of the past".

You don't understand how institutionalized racism works, do you?

[Calisu]

As a gay individual I personally love when straight people decide when a gay character is offensive or not.

It's gone way to far and needs to be stopped.

[Mavorpen]

Since never. Since racial quotas have been brought up in discussion (idk if they exist in the US but I'm pretty sure they do in some other countries) they're a great example to work with: unless it can be proven that teachers/professors/educational staff discriminate against certain races e.g. by refusing admission, giving lower grades, denying participation in various projects etc. all things being equal (meaning, a demonstrably weaker student cannot complain about being discriminated against where there exists legal discrimination based on academic prowess/performance) , there is no reason to do, well, anything. If it can be proven, however, the solution is not affirmative action but rather active measures against discrimination, such as legal consequences for staff proven to have done the things listed above, etc. They are two very different things. I get the feeling that affirmative action exists where there is no actual discrimination, simply out of principle and to try and "correct the mistakes of the past".

You don't understand how institutionalized racism works, do you?

He apparently doesn't know much about the United States in regards to this topic considering he doesn't know that quotas are illegal. I'm not sure why he thinks his opinion is worth much given that.

[Divitaen]

First off, you have assumed that the blacks killed because of supposed "hate crimes" are innocent, yet we don't know if that is truly the case, which is a sign of political correctness and unfair treatment towards non-blacks. Why are we assuming that every act of violence or force against a black person is an act influenced by hate of the black people, but when there is an act of violence against latinos, or asians or whites we always assume that the crime was not racially influenced? We can also take recent examples like in Ferguson, when people rioted and destroyed property because a white person shot a black person (and they called it a race influenced killing), yet when that is worked around, nobody gives a shit. Where are the riots and angry TV rants about the murder of whites, asians and latinos? Where are the angry TV accusations of racism when a black person kills a non-black. This unfair standard in favor of blacks is a result of political correctness, and shows how it is gotten way too far.

Furthermore, Conservative media pundits aren't openly racist, they just simply oppose unfair standards in favor of anybody and political correctness. If you call that racism, then I am, in your mind, a racist (although I don't support racism or racial discrimination). I understand that Duck Dynasty isn't the most politically correct of shows, but it is really an exemplification of another side, of the rural deep south people that are almost uncovered by mass media. If we are going to have more political correctness, then we will have less diversity on media, less interesting characters, and more and more of the same thing, effectively dulling our culture. Unless you want politically correct city liberals being the only people on TV, which will inevitably result in more of the same thing, unless you don't want to know less about a different side, of a different people, then it would be asinine to support more political correctness.

I don't assume anything, and neither does the majority of the media. There will always be the extremist civil rights leaders who jump the gun, but the mainstream media and the large proportion of civil rights leaders have reacted based on the evidence. The cases I cited for you were cases where there was evidence of official misconduct from policemen (Amadou Diallou and Oscar Grant), witness testimony of excessive force and autopsy evidence of disproportionate use of violence. In all cases, unarmed, helpless African-Americans were gunned down by armed white policemen or citizens. People associate these cases with race-influenced killing not because of blind political correctness, but evidence of rampant proliferation of white privilege disadvantaging blacks in so many aspects of daily life. People "don't give a shit" about other forms of violence, like black-on-white violence, not because they don't care for the lives of white people. Its because in all the cases in my earlier comment, the black victims faced immense obstacles and hurdles to justice that dead white victims don't have to experience. We saw victim-blaming, character assassinations, policemen working to defend and protect perpetrators and even themselves using racial epithets, a lack of transparency when policemen are the ones that perpetrate racial violence and, most of the time, the perpetrators even get off scot-free or are acquitted for unknown reasons. During the Trayvon Martin case, a guy challenged me by citing the 'Marley Lion' incident of a white teenager killed under similar circumstances by black gangsters, asking why the media wasn't making a fuss. The reason is because Marley Lion's killers faced prison time, but George Zimmerman walked away scot-free, and even then, only after a negligent police force released him without any background checks and before autopsy results even came in and proceeded to defend their decision not to prosecute him and caved in only after intervention from Florida's government when the community protested. No one needed to protest for Marley Lion to get justice, but the whole nation cried "No Justice, No Peace" and George Zimmerman still walked. That's the difference. That's why the media and civil rights leaders make a fuss when the victim is black. Only because African-Americans are 6 times more likely to go to jail on drug charges than whites, despite the drug usage rate for both races being the same. Only because white-on-black homicides are 3.5 times more likely to be ruled as justifiable homicide than black-on-white violence. Only because New York Stop-and-Frisk laws are racially enforced, with blacks and latinos making up 79% of stops in Park Slope, but only 24% of residents. Only 11% of stops are based on genuine descriptions of violent crime suspects, while 90% of those stopped are blacks and latinos, with 88% of those stopped innocent people. Even though school zero-tolerance policies always have a disproporionate effect on black students over students of caucasian ethnicity. Only because so many security guards and law enforcement officers stop black people in high-class shops, assuming they are thieves, shoplifters or financially struggling, so much so that this phenomenon has been labelled by intellectuals as "Shopping While Black". Given the state of racial disparity in the US, the media should focus on white-on-black violence and examine the racialised nature of law enforcement and the justice system. If the media just assumed "oh the killer is white and the victim black, he or she must be guilty and a racist" then that would be a problem, but in all the cases I mentioned, news anchors like Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow would attach evidence to their coverage on the issue, evidence of witness testimony, autopsy results and character witnesses on the person involved, to ascertain whether they were racially-biased or not.

No I don't think you are racist at all. I may disagree with your point but nothing in your arguments has displayed any racial bias or prejudice. I understand conservatives such as those on FoxNews want to see white perpetrators or defendants treated as innocent until proven guilty and I have no problem with people covering the other side of the story. The problem comes when FoxNews openly participates in victim-blaming and character assassinations of dead black teenagers, calling them "thugs" and "gangsters" and "potheads" and attempting to smear the reputation of African-American victims. Some have been called Jesse Jackson, noted civil rights leader, a "hussler" and a "pimp". FoxNews anchors such as Jeanine Pirro and Bill O'Reilly have made openly racist comments before on immigration, Muslims and, yes, African-Americans, with O'Reilly even saying a black congressman on his show "looked like a drug-dealer". Surely you don't believe these actions constitute a mere attempt at covering the other side of the story? It is an example of the conservative movement being apologists for violence and finding every way to reinforce streotypes of African-Americans. The fact that they can do this openly and fearlessly suggests that political correctness has clearly not been a significant impediment on their free expression. As for political homogeneity, I'm not advocating for liberals to dominate every channel. I myself am not exactly very liberal, I'm quite conservative on abortion and some economic issues. But I think political correctness is not the application of a litmus test. There is a profound difference between expressing conservative views and being offensive. In the case of Duck Dynasty, it should be noted that many celebrities and famous people have expressed views that homosexuality is a sin, like Orson Scott Card, Mel Gibbson and Kirk Cameron, and they don't get banned from shows or anything. Believing homosexuality is immoral is one thing, you have a right to express that opinion, but Phil Robertson went a step further and 'otherised' and stereotyped homosexuals as deviants, comparing committed same-sex couples them to adulterers and even terrorists, and went on to call them 'illogical' and imply that gays are mentally impaired to like men. That is an example of intolerance. In a more politically-correct USA, offensive comments would result in media censure, but that doesn't mean tolerant conservatives will not have a voice.

[Stormwind-City]

ack, my eyes, to much text! Spoiler please for the love of Athena.

[Divitaen]

ack, my eyes, to much text! Spoiler please for the love of Athena.

Right, sorry

[Stormwind-City]

ack, my eyes, to much text! Spoiler please for the love of Athena.

Right, sorry

Nice rebuttal BTW.

[Divitaen]

Right, sorry

Nice rebuttal BTW.

Thanks!

[New switz empire]

no they do not. no one cares

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Since never. Since racial quotas have been brought up in discussion (idk if they exist in the US but I'm pretty sure they do in some other countries) they're a great example to work with: unless it can be proven that teachers/professors/educational staff discriminate against certain races e.g. by refusing admission, giving lower grades, denying participation in various projects etc. all things being equal (meaning, a demonstrably weaker student cannot complain about being discriminated against where there exists legal discrimination based on academic prowess/performance) , there is no reason to do, well, anything. If it can be proven, however, the solution is not affirmative action but rather active measures against discrimination, such as legal consequences for staff proven to have done the things listed above, etc. They are two very different things. I get the feeling that affirmative action exists where there is no actual discrimination, simply out of principle and to try and "correct the mistakes of the past".

You don't understand how institutionalized racism works, do you?

enlighten me.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You don't understand how institutionalized racism works, do you?

He apparently doesn't know much about the United States in regards to this topic considering he doesn't know that quotas are illegal. I'm not sure why he thinks his opinion is worth much given that.

so my opinion is worthless because quotas are illegal in the US? I just used it as an example for affirmative action in general, and why not, for the US. this logic applies to all affirmative action involving "positive discrimination".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

He apparently doesn't know much about the United States in regards to this topic considering he doesn't know that quotas are illegal. I'm not sure why he thinks his opinion is worth much given that.

so my opinion is worthless because quotas are illegal in the US? I just used it as an example for affirmative action in general, and why not, for the US. this logic applies to all affirmative action involving "positive discrimination".

So, in other words, you used an example that doesn't apply, and now you're rationalizing it. Got it.

[Kelinfort]

"Affirmative action" is a completely stupid concept and goes against the entire point of racial equality. There is no point in "affirmative action" unless we can admit that certain races are still being actively discriminated against, in which case discrimination is the one which should be tackled in the first place. What you're doing by affirmative action is going after the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem, and even poorly at that.

e: it's essentially a "the end justifies the means" thing

I agree, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary if we reformed the education system, made these neighborhoods safer and built a community, along with increasing police outreach in a community, increasing welfare, and making college much cheaper.

Oh wait, you didn't want to spend any money fixing the original problem.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

"Affirmative action" is a completely stupid concept and goes against the entire point of racial equality. There is no point in "affirmative action" unless we can admit that certain races are still being actively discriminated against, in which case discrimination is the one which should be tackled in the first place. What you're doing by affirmative action is going after the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem, and even poorly at that.

e: it's essentially a "the end justifies the means" thing

Oh wait, you didn't want to spend any money fixing the original problem.

complete and utter strawman

I agree, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary

it isn't anyways. it just isn't. it's stupid and it needs to go away. stop acting like it's a quicker alternative. it is not. it's like patching a broken leg. you don't patch a broken leg, you fix it.

if we reformed the education system, made these neighborhoods safer and built a community, along with increasing police outreach in a community, increasing welfare, and making college much cheaper.

there.

[AiliailiA]

Poll does not include option "Political Correctness has not gone far enough" so I did not vote.

Taking offense at the words chosen is not a new thing. It's a perfectly legimate way of expressing dissent. It's in Shakespeare. Fuck, it's in Chaucer.

We're in a golden age of neologisms. We need new words for new concepts, and also the English language has more new users than than ever before, and they use and introduce words from other languages.

Yeah, so, I'm just going to redefine the term "politically correct". Being politically correct: having an attitude or opinion which you can defend in debate (because debate is the essence of politics). Being politically incorrect: having an attitude or opinion which you can only "defend" by claiming a right to hold an opinion.

You're politically correct, or you're just plain wrong.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Poll does not include option "Political Correctness has not gone far enough" so I did not vote.

Taking offense at the words chosen is not a new thing. It's a perfectly legimate way of expressing dissent. It's in Shakespeare. Fuck, it's in Chaucer.

We're in a golden age of neologisms. We need new words for new concepts, and also the English language has more new users than than ever before, and they use and introduce words from other languages.

Yeah, so, I'm just going to redefine the term "politically correct". Being politically correct: having an attitude or opinion which you can defend in debate (because debate is the essence of politics). Being politically incorrect: having an attitude or opinion which you can only "defend" by claiming a right to hold an opinion.

You're politically correct, or you're just plain wrong.

It would be great if PC would be that but it simply isn't, and pretending otherwise would be grossly dishonest.

Regardless of how many arguments I will bring to the table , I will still be regarded as not PC for going against affirmative action, for example.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Poll does not include option "Political Correctness has not gone far enough" so I did not vote.

Taking offense at the words chosen is not a new thing. It's a perfectly legimate way of expressing dissent. It's in Shakespeare. Fuck, it's in Chaucer.

We're in a golden age of neologisms. We need new words for new concepts, and also the English language has more new users than than ever before, and they use and introduce words from other languages.

Yeah, so, I'm just going to redefine the term "politically correct". Being politically correct: having an attitude or opinion which you can defend in debate (because debate is the essence of politics). Being politically incorrect: having an attitude or opinion which you can only "defend" by claiming a right to hold an opinion.

You're politically correct, or you're just plain wrong.

It would be great if PC would be that but it simply isn't, and pretending otherwise would be grossly dishonest.

Regardless of how many arguments I will bring to the table , I will still be regarded as not PC for going against affirmative action, for example.

So what is PC to you then? And when you offer your explanation, please don't be grossly dishonest and try to use anecdotal evidence of teachers, council offices and businesses taking weird measures for whatever reason because random acts of stupidity are hardly a solid argument.

I'll tell you what PC is to me. PC is a get out of jail free card, typically used by the social right wing, that's played when the user has just said something indefensible but wants to escape criticism for the words they just uttered. The hypocrisy in that people complain about their right to free speech in order to deny others the right to free speech is absolutely astounding in that it's so freaking obvious yet people still think it's a solid line of argument.

[New Chalcedon]

You don't understand how institutionalized racism works, do you?

Hey hey - it's not like he benefits from pro-white affirmative action at every step of the hiring process!

Oh, wait....

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

It would be great if PC would be that but it simply isn't, and pretending otherwise would be grossly dishonest.

Regardless of how many arguments I will bring to the table , I will still be regarded as not PC for going against affirmative action, for example.

So what is PC to you then? And when you offer your explanation, please don't be grossly dishonest and try to use anecdotal evidence of teachers, council offices and businesses taking weird measures for whatever reason because random acts of stupidity are hardly a solid argument.

I'll tell you what PC is to me. PC is a get out of jail free card, typically used by the social right wing, that's played when the user has just said something indefensible but wants to escape criticism for the words they just uttered. The hypocrisy in that people complain about their right to free speech in order to deny others the right to free speech is absolutely astounding in that it's so freaking obvious yet people still think it's a solid line of argument.

I don't really understand how not-PC statements could "deny others the right to free speech" .

In my book being PC is not making "inconvenient" statements or overly aestheticizing "inconvenient" statements. What may superficially appear as racist, sexist, etc. but is actually not can still be not PC.

Rape jokes and alleged victim blaming are good examples of not-PC behavior. Simply state that not going in a certain neighborhood will lower your chance of being victimized, in a crime debate, for example, and you have a good chance of getting called a "victim blamer" when you are merely stating a fact, with 0 intention whatsoever to blame victims for the crimes. Regarding rape jokes, it's A-OK to use "murder" or "kill" jokingly or in a non-serious manner, as with other shit that would be horrible if used literally, but for whatever reason "rape" is the special snowflake of the bunch.

[Neo-Coriolanus]

Yes.

[Keyboard Warriors]

So what is PC to you then? And when you offer your explanation, please don't be grossly dishonest and try to use anecdotal evidence of teachers, council offices and businesses taking weird measures for whatever reason because random acts of stupidity are hardly a solid argument.

I'll tell you what PC is to me. PC is a get out of jail free card, typically used by the social right wing, that's played when the user has just said something indefensible but wants to escape criticism for the words they just uttered. The hypocrisy in that people complain about their right to free speech in order to deny others the right to free speech is absolutely astounding in that it's so freaking obvious yet people still think it's a solid line of argument.

I don't really understand how not-PC statements could "deny others the right to free speech" .

In my book being PC is not making "inconvenient" statements or overly aestheticizing "inconvenient" statements. What may superficially appear as racist, sexist, etc. but is actually not can still be not PC.

Rape jokes and alleged victim blaming are good examples of not-PC behavior. Simply state that not going in a certain neighborhood will lower your chance of being victimized, in a crime debate, for example, and you have a good chance of getting called a "victim blamer" when you are merely stating a fact, with 0 intention whatsoever to blame victims for the crimes. Regarding rape jokes, it's A-OK to use "murder" or "kill" jokingly or in a non-serious manner, as with other shit that would be horrible if used literally, but for whatever reason "rape" is the special snowflake of the bunch.

You can make all the rape jokes and do all the victim blaming you like. Just don't complain when you're branded a sexist for what you say, or at least don't complain how you're the victim of political correctness as if to pretend the problem is that what you said didn't match what the rest of us think, rather than the problem being what you said.

[Sebastianbourg]

Yes, political correctness has gone to far everywhere.

[Nervium]

Political correctness can never go too far.

In fact, let's look at the words "political" and "correctness", political means politics, wich means lying, we don't want that connotation, so we'll change it, with "freedomf", here, now you have a word without negative connotations, now "correctness", the word itself implies that there must be an opposite namely "incorrectness", now we can't have that, so replace it with "truth"

Et voilà,

Freedom truth