Political Correctness And The Death Of The Truth In Society

Why can't anyone in our society speak the truth regarding Hispanic and black destructive social pathologies?

What pathologies are we talking about?

I mean, really: with an opening question like what you just posted, how do you expect anyone to react to this? I'd ask what you think the "truth" is, but that awful opening gives me a pretty good indication. Geeminee, this is a depressing read.

The kind of pathologies that makes one who utters the truth about them a 'racist'.

Let's begin my crucifixation with the rates of illegitimacy in the black community.

-

He's already implied that I am a 'racist' here, just by bringing up the topic. He is the neo-totalitarian insider.

-

A pathology is a disease, and illegitimacy is having children out of wedlock. You will not be crucified for talking about how illegitimacy rates are higher in black communities and what the causes are, you might be for talking about the pathologies of black communities. So you see it isn't about truth, it's about language.

You are careful about how what you say could be interpreted, the same as with any sensitive issue.

That some people react to "intolerant sounding language" when the other person isn't being malicious in any way is unfortunate.

The truth is that I know what the word pathology means. You are changing the subject by narrowly redefining a word.

Why are we skirting around the subject? Why can't we just say, for example, that the black 'rapping pimp' that is glorified in popular culture is an outright manifestation of pure evil and should be completely eradicated from society? Why pretend that these pathologies don't matter to society or, worse that they don't exist?

I am interested in what it is that makes it a 'sensitive issue'. You seem to be playing games.

It is astonishing to me that someone living in American could not be fully aware that speaking negatively in any way about black people makes them automatically 'racist'. I simply don't believe that you aren't aware of this fact.

It wasn't for bringing up the topic, period. Reread your first sentence. You take as self evident in this question that the black and hispanic communities have destructive pathologies, and you focus upon these two groups and these two groups only.

I would find a question of the form: "Does PC help or hinder society?" followed by a "No, because the value prevents criticism of certain groups or individuals" followed by good evidence to support said claim to be a reasonable introduction to discussing the virtues of PC. Instead, what you wrote implicates that the black and hispanic communities qua race have destructive pathologies as a priori truth. Can you see how that comes across as racist?

The language is very strong. Pathology, pure evil, etc. It isn't a matter of pure evil. Not using that kind of extreme language isn't pretending they don't matter or don't exist.

Race and gender are sensitive issues aren't they?

Huxley helps your point, but I still disagree with "in any way". For most people, simply going out of your way to say that it isn't anything inherently to do with race, but rather poverty and culture, will do just fine.

There are people who are racist, and since I am not a racist, I will use language that won't be interpreted as racist if the person I am talking to might take it that way. Simple. That is PC in a nutshell.

Now, speaking a truth that is as plain as the day is long has become "extreme".

What makes them so?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it does have to do with race and that culture and race are no scientifically separable things. In this case you are advocating lies pure and simple. Why limit what people can say in the first place? Why are you denying the power of the word 'racist'?

Yes, and Huxley is trying to teach you a lesson that you should really learn. Again, I find your seeming lack of knowledge on this important social issue a bit unbelievable.

And even as you state that you must be careful with language itself, you imply that P.C. is something other than what it obviously is.

-

Why are we skirting around the subject? Why can't we just say, for example, that the black 'rapping pimp' that is glorified in popular culture is an outright manifestation of pure evil and should be completely eradicated from society? Why pretend that these pathologies don't matter to society or, worse that they don't exist?
-

If it isn't plain to me then I don't think it is as plain as day.

Historical and present day circumstances.

Why would we say something so false for the sake of argument? Yes, if we assume something false for the sake of argument than I am advocating lies pure and simple.

Sure I see people do that a lot. But many people are reasonable about such things. Criticizing PC is fairly common.

You've lost me I'm afraid.

The language is very strong.

I will use language that won't be interpreted as racist if the person I am talking to might take it that way.

It doesn't matter how you phrase it, you are calling me a racist precisely because I challenged your politically correct mind-set. You are even rewriting my post while at the same time pretending that freedom of expression is not limited by Political Correctness. This would be laughable if it was not so wide spread. I challenge anyone with an unbiased mind to look at my opening text to decide for themselves whether or not it is racist.

Why is it 'racist' to speak the truth about the levels of criminal behaviour in the Hispanic and black communities? Just because they are black and Hispanic? I don't get it. The question should be whether they are riddled with pathologies or not. Instead the question is whether someone who thinks they are is an automatic 'racist'.

I'm not saying that being black or being brown makes you bad. I am saying that the American Hispanic and black neighborhoods are bad neighborhoods. And you are saying that I am a racist for stating this obvious truth.

Why can't anyone in our society speak the truth regarding Hispanic and black destructive social pathologies?

It does matter how you phrase things. That's how you convey meaning. I rewrote nothing. I challenged your initial assertion, and for good reason. You didn't support it -- you took it as given, and you continue to take it as a given. I challenged your initial assertion on the basis that I suspected your given premise was supported by anecdotal bias which linked race to bad behavior.

Well, now you're at least questioning whether they are or are not riddled with pathologies. That's good, in my book. Let's stay there, as you request. The "racist" remark was a jab in your direction to make you rethink what you wrote -- in my opinion, "racist" has become such an ugly term that we can't even talk about whether we have racist opinions or not -- as if we have to fit the mold of 1960's racism in order to still be considered racist. This, unto itself, is a bad thing. We should discuss race, and we should discuss it with the understanding that it's probable we hold racist views. The 60's weren't that long ago, after all. The viewpoints and experiences of our parents and grandparents likely still affect us.

That's good that you're now looking at this from the perspective of neighborhoods, though I'd still say you should research this and see if all black and hispanic neighborhoods are as bad as you say. Read your first sentence again, which does not mention neighborhoods:



This reads as if the social pathologies are in the skin color of these individuals. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, now, but can you see how this sentence comes across? Clear communication is important, even more so with respect to sensitive topics.

Why can't anyone in our society speak the truth regarding Hispanic and black destructive social pathologies?

Oi vey... I tried to extend the olive branch, but your misinterpreted copy of 1984 just kept getting in the way.

I mentioned "anecdote" because it's a common mistake people make. Induction is a messy business, and really, isn't logically valid. At least I know of no current description that rigorously defends induction logically. Also, confirmation bias is a well known phenomena, and something one should address in their own inductions. No matter how many times you state "TRUTH!" and "Oh ye equivocators of truth, how I pity thee in thine immoral slumbers!", you still have to demonstrate that you have the truth. The fact that you're talking about a social system only complicates the issue further. Social systems are difficult to understand, and sound conclusions are hard to reach.

Also, neo-totalitarian insider? Like, do I receive the neo-liberal-fascist-commie weekly, updating me on what words have been eliminated from the New World Order's dictionary?