It is not racist for a black man to say that rockers are stupid because they have long hair and listen to loud rock music and you couldn't prove that he was a racist for saying so if he says that "white metal rockers with long hairs" are silly so he shouldnt at white people who think that black rappers are stupid too

cborgman said:

You can see it everywhere... people will jump on people like hungry lions if they feel that they might be saying something that is not PC. There has been a great deal of discussion about the horrible blight that is politcal correctness and it is a very real problem.

I could find and post a lot of stuff about it if necessary.

Ice I agree with you in theory.

Not everyone cares about political correctness (my father) and are a modern day Archie Bunker. They just don't give a fuck, period.

This generalization of a race, group of people (long hairs), women, country origins, religion (jews) or anything else is just based on ignorance.

Plain and simple, they are happy being ignorant by thinking that they (as a group of people, black, white, Italian whatever) are better than another group.

It's ignorance at a level that is beyond my comprehension.

jn2 said:

People shouldn't cry about anything that other people say, as people are entitled to their own opinions. Who gives a fuck if someone likes or doesn't like rap, metal, long hair, druggies, criminals, rednecks or whatever? We should feel free to talk about whatever we want and we should not worry about what others might think about our views. More power to the people want to take the opposite postion and argue the benefits or positive attributes of things that others don't like... that's the beauty of free will.

IceNine said:

is it that that people are jumping on them because they believe in political correctness or is it because they have real issue with what is being said? you never hear the term political corectness from anyone but those that swear it is being used against them.

cborgman said:

Right... why would you? It wouldn't make much sense to even talk about it if you don't have a problem with it. :LOL:

IceNine said:

all i am saying is that political corectness has not been embraced by anyone since the early 90s when it appeared, other than people who use it to say that they are being oppressed. i rarely see it being enforced at all.

People shouldn't cry about anything that other people say
not agree again Ice, after WW2 some french writers were judge and condemn to deah penalty, they didn't kill anyone or didn't work for the nazis but they kept writing things like "kill jewish people" etc( I believe that there was more or less the same kind of situation with locals Dj's in Rwanda after the genocide)
at a certain level some thoughts/ words sooner or later have consequences on reality
would you let your kid with a teacher who would say that suicide or killing people is cool?
+ that would mean that negationnist are "entitled to their own opinions" too
-

jn2 said:

well, i can not speak for other countries, but in america, we have a right to freedom of free speech, and while i think people should think about what they say and what saying it might cause to happen, i am not about to say that people can not say something, including, yes, that "suicide or killing people is cool." they have the right to express their opinion, no matter how horrifying it is.

cborgman said:

Political correctness has been around for a lot longer than that and it is a very real deal... there is no "enforcing" political correctness, as it is not a law, but rather a system of beliefs that strives to homogenize society and silence different views.

sinisterpentatonic said:

Thank you.

IceNine said:

i would like to see proof of that claim. the earliest i had heard of it was the early 90s. i could be wrong. if there is no enforcing it, than how is this an issue? if there is no enforcing it then what makes it a problem? if a person says "gay people are ruining the economy" (yes, some idiot really said that to me once) they are voicing their opinion. and if someone says "that is not appropriate to say" tin response then they are merely voicing their opinion as well. if it's not enforced or a law, then it is merely someone else stating their opinion and is no diferent.

Chris, you can't tell me that you are not aware of political correctness, can you?

"The term "political correctness" is now used to discredit egalitarianism, but it was first used in the 1930s as a serious term among Stalinists, Keefer notes. It resurfaced in feminist circles in the 1970s as a reminder of the dangers of closed ways of thinking or as a term of humorous self-criticism. American neoconservatives adopted the term in the early 1980s as a polemical description of their adversaries."

Political Correctness

What Is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the communities safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny ( see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

Clear Inspiration For Political Correctness
The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, none-whites, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War ), which is why the terms edited for political correctness, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.

The Origins Of Political Correctness
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, tradition and law (See the law of reverse civilisation). As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints which genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

Dissembles the real nature of the claim
Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name
For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:
Different cultures are compatible.
People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.
Which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking .
From Bourgeois To Racist
Naturally as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticised for being bourgois. George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois ( but labelled racist, sexist etc ) are losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street , risking judicial penalty and perhaps receiving death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.

Parental Values Always Attacked
The inevitable scapegoat for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society's agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing off-spring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilisation by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:

"For every democracy which has enjoyed property for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order,.."
Tyranny Grows
Once a community embraces tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socialising and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once those members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another members performance were just labelled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracised. Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.

Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny
In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the federal member of parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics. Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson's political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilised community. And any mob who chants "Burn the witch" (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry ) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.

Widespread Throughout The Community
Revealing the extent of the mob's support, their sentiments ( suitably refined ) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties contesting the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.

International Experience Of PC Tyranny
And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression. Bowing to the clamour of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson, paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington, USA confirm the hysteria is everywhere.

Inevitable Impact
Recognising the pathetic nature of the hysteria that is taking over the community will not halt its impact. Once expression gets placed in a strait-jacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade, where reality shrinks, delusion thrives and terror rules.

Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered, at least by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe. The SBS television program "What Ever Happened To Russia" which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik's oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series "Blood On The Snow" broadcast in March 1999.

An Old Witness
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognised, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad. The awful effect this had upon Helen's sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating, this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.

Political Correctness Is Social Dementia
Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, or why they are saying it.

Social Decline Grows Worse With Each Generation
Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behaviour less restrained and less rational.

A Study Of Our Decline — by Philip Atkinson (July, 2000)
[This message was edited Tue Jul 15 8:31:51 PDT 2003 by IceNine]

IceNine said:

i was wrong.

that having been said, i repeat: if there is no enforcing it, than how is this an issue? if there is no enforcing it then what makes it a problem? if a person says "gay people are ruining the economy" (yes, some idiot really said that to me once) they are voicing their opinion. and if someone says "that is not appropriate to say" tin response then they are merely voicing their opinion as well. if it's not enforced or a law, then it is merely someone else stating their opinion and is no diferent.

cborgman said:

It is an issue because it is used to control people's thoughts and speech, not to mention the fact that it is a driving force behind legislation that would take away freedom from citizens. It doesn't take too much imagination to understand the problems that can be caused by such a nefarious movement.

IceNine said:

I todesn't take too much imagination to understand the problems that can be caused by someone voicing their opinion? that's damn scary.

2 a great extent I think that 'political correctness' is a disease, in that it can effect every1 in society. Many groups in society suffer as a result of it. 'Political Correctness' is constantly changing, based on certain groups perceptions of what they believe 2 be morally right. For example, as ridiculous as it may sound, it may be illegal 2 drink beer in the UK considering the fact that drink-driving causes more deaths through accidents than firearms.
As ridiculous as it sounds 2 make beer drinking illegal, who would of thought there would be high taxation on cigarettes and a celebratory Mardi Gras. These R just examples things that years ago would of been unthinkable, but they have happened. So who R we 2 say what is right and what is wrong?
In many ways 'political correctness' is ridiculous, take the whole fiasco with regards 2 Live Crew's Me So Horny record or the call 2 ban Punch and Judy shows based on their content. Yet newspapers and media sensationalise such popstars as Eminem and Marilyn Manson becuz people thrive on conflict and controversy. I feel in many ways that 'political correctness' is a misguided attempt 2 protect sections in society, by telling them what is right and wrong when they should be left 2 their own judgements. Personally, I feel Marilyn Manson should not be considered guilty with regards the Columbine killings or that kids R gonna go out and beat up women after they've listened 2 an Eminem record. I think often kids no the difference between right and wrong and has more 2 do with the way they R raised by their parents rather than what they R told is right and wrong by the 'thought police'.
I may be naive and looking through rose-tinted glasses here but if we go some way 2 removing the excess of 'political correctness' in society we wouldnt be hearing half of what we do on the news nearly ever day-war, starvation, poverty, violence, hatred, disease.
On the other hand, I would also say it does matter in what we say in society. I think its only a positive thing that it is fround upon 2 call black people 'niggers' where it was 1ce common, and that sexist banter in the workplace is understood 2 be abusive. It is right that groups in society R that used 2 be written off as mentally retarded are recognised as having special needs.
As far as the argument is concerned, I believe in liberal ideas and freedoms as long as they R within sane limits and untrusive upon peoples lives. So U do have 2 have a certain degree of conservatism I guess aswell.

cborgman said:

That's what I am saying! The PC people attack others for expressing their viewpoints and try to suppress any dissenting viewpoints. This is what I have been saying.

JDINTERACTIVE said:

Well said, JD.

IceNine said:

what i am saying is that you are making the argument against PC by saying people shouldn't voice their opinion, which is what you are accusing them of doing.

Too busy to read all of the other responses - please accept my apology for any redundancies.

Isn't political correctness (a term that has become fashionably pejorative) mostly a sign of enlightenment? Frankly, I can think of a million examples of useful political correctness. Most have to do with race/ethnic relations.

The Confederate flag debate for Georgia is a great example of useful "PC." Removing a symbol directly linked to racial terror has a positive net impact that trumps white southerners concerns about preserving their whitewashed version of confederate history. This isn't Orwellian, it's enlightenment.

In another example, I find the use of the continued use of "Redskins" for the football team and "Braves" (with the demeaning tomahawk chop) for the baseball team to be demeaning to some Native Americans. It's beyond anachronistic. Those who passionately adhere to these terms despite the objections from those who are caricatured by them are demonstrating a type of racist insolence that is deservedly condemned. Call it "PC" if you like. I call this awareness and the debate "progress."

well said, Jd. to be honest, i don't agree with Political corectness. i am a fairly offensive person.

i merely think that what ice is saying is highly contradictory.

cborgman said:

No... what I am saying is that the political correctness movement is a method of mind control. It is not that they shouldn't express their opinions, but that their opinions are shaped by an underlying desire to suppress differences and dissenting opinions.

Fuck the nutcases who voted this thread down!

Cloudbuster said:

A few tears were shed... a few votes were placed... a few laughs were heard from my desk.

IceNine said:

supress differences and dissenting opinions? isn't that what being politically correct stops? a person says "black/asian/gay/etc people just want to take over the country and become the ruling class." it's not only a ridiculous statement, it's a way of attempting to create fear amongst people so that they suppress differences and dissenting opinions. it's the same thing from both sides.

Cloudbuster said:

co-sign. i don't often vote, but i am 5 starring this one