Does political correcteness weaken the fabric of a nation?

Quote:

Engineer said: Again, sounds like standard Christian forgiveness doctrine. Why would you consider that PC?

Let me put it this way mate-
If your local school bosses hired an ex-peedo as a janitor who had access to the kids sports changing rooms and shower areas, would you prefer they kept his past secret from the parents or not?

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

You miss my point. You want to attribute this church's choice as political correctness when it is actually completely consistent with being a Christian church and preaching forgiveness. If it was a Catholic church... no let's not go there.

In some circles it is politically correct to be against political correctness. You cherry pick stories that show "political correctness run amok" and ignore stories that could be considered positive to political correctness by saying "oh, firing a racist school teacher is not political correctness, that is just common sense." Finally, you distort any story that you can to fit the story line. This story is the latter. A church hiring a pedophile is not political correctness.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I'm more in sync with Hawk's definition.

That should have been your first clue that you were on the wrong tack.

0 Replies

Hawkeye wrote:

Does political correcteness weaken the fabric of a nation?

Political correctness is silly, sure, and so are the examples you list in your original post. But "weaken the fabric of a nation"? Nah. Unemployment and homelessness weaken the fabric of a nation. The top percent of the top percent buying the nation's democratic process weakens the fabric of a nation. Fraudulently-started wars weaken the fabric of a nation. Political correctness is nowhere near that category. It is, as I said, merely silly.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Hawkeye wrote:
Does political correcteness weaken the fabric of a nation?

Political correctness is silly, sure, and so are the examples you list in your original post. But "weaken the fabric of a nation"? Nah. Unemployment and homelessness weaken the fabric of a nation. The top percent of the top percent buying the nation's democratic process weakens the fabric of a nation. Fraudulently-started wars weaken the fabric of a nation. Political correctness is nowhere near that category. It is, as I said, merely silly.

People putting their lives on the line in the American south during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, Thomas, were a part of what we now call "political correctness."

Do you consider that movement to be "silly?" Do you consider the bravery shown by many people (people who often paid for their bravery with their lives) to be "silly?"

Do you consider the many women who had to withstand taunting and derision because they wanted to equal the playing field for women during their struggles to be "silly?"

For the record, I do not.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Do you realize how ridiculous this type of story is? Even if it happened (it could have been made up) it is still ridiculous...

1. People have always done stupid things. In the 1600's they were tearing down schools because they were afraid of witches.

2. This is a story about what happened in 1 school. There are about 100,000 schools in the US. You can probably find a school where any crazy thing has happened that proves any crazy point you want to prove... especially when there are people who think like you do sending you them on Facebook.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

People putting their lives on the line in the American south during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, Thomas, were a part of what we now call "political correctness."

I disagree with the premise of your question. What these civil-rights activists did was treated as politically incorrect, not to mention illegal, by the polities in which they operated. For example, when Alabama's governor Wallace proclaimed: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", what he meant was that segregation was politically correct and that opposing it was therefore out of line. That he did not use the words "politically correct" is irrelevant.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you consider the many women who had to withstand taunting and derision because they wanted to equal the playing field for women during their struggles to be "silly?"

For the record, I do not.

Neither do I, but you're repeating the same mistake in your premises. Political incorrectness is about dissent from the prevailing political opinion of the polity you're in at the time. It is not about dissent from the particular opinions that happen to prevail in 2014 in New Jersey.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
People putting their lives on the line in the American south during the civil rights struggles of the 1960's, Thomas, were a part of what we now call "political correctness."

I disagree with the premise of the question. What these civil-rights activists did was treated as politically incorrect, not to mention illegal, by the polities in which they operated. For example, when Alabama's governor Wallace proclaimed: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", what he meant was that segregation was politically correct and that opposing it was therefore out of line. That he did not use the words "politically correct" is irrelevant.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Do you consider the many women who had to withstand taunting and derision because they wanted to equal the playing field for women during their struggles to be "silly?"

For the record, I do not.

Neither do I, but you're repeating the mistake in your premises. Political incorrectness is about dissent from the prevailing political opinion of the polity you're in at the time. It is not about dissent from the particular opinions that happen to prevail in 2014 in New Jersey.

Yeah...I guess that is one way for you to stick to your guns and refuse to recognize an important element of this discussion, Thomas...simply declare the premise to be false.

But it isn't.

The beginnings of today's "political correctness" can be found in the American south...at the business end of a fire horse...or the leash of a recently unleashed German Shepard attacking a protester.

Deal with the "prevailing political opinions of today" if you want, but they are there because of huge prices paid by very brave people. You do them a disservice by making the argument you are making.

Stick with calling it silly, if you want. I have more respect for the people who started this process.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah...I guess that is one way for you to stick to your guns and refuse to recognize an important element of this discussion, Thomas...simply declare the premise to be false.

I'm not declaring your premise to be false. My dictionary is. To be politically correct is to be "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." Governor Wallace tried to oppress people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King because they had violated the political sensibilities of White Alabama racists in matters of race. Federal courts oppressed Susan B Anthony because she had illegally voted in the federal election of 1868, offending the political sensibilities of America's political establishment in matters of sex. In both incidents, it was the pro-civil-rights cause that was politically incorrect. Your ignorance of ordinary dictionary definitions is not my problem.

1 Reply

Hawkeye says:

Quote:

when I think of political correctness I think of retribution towards those who speak unpopular ideas or who use unpopular . This is very new, and is very dangerous.

Remember the 50s and 60s (and 70s)? Remember Joe McCarthy? Remember the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities? Remember Hollywood blacklisting? Remember "America Love It or Leave It"? Remember the vilification of those protesting the war in Vietnam (before it became the majority American position)? Remember (think back to yesterday), those vilifying advocates of same-sex marriage and ranting about the "homosexusal agenda? (before same-sex marriage became the majority opinion, and since, actually)? Point being, so-called "political correctness" is NOT new, and every political opinion has done it (and reviles others for practicing it from a different viewpoint). Hell, look at Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, for extreme right-wing blatant practice of political correctness. Look at coldjoint, for that matter.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Yeah...I guess that is one way for you to stick to your guns and refuse to recognize an important element of this discussion, Thomas...simply declare the premise to be false.

I'm not declaring your premise to be false. My dictionary is. To be politically correct is to be "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." Governor Wallace tried to oppress people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King because they had violated the political sensibilities of White Alabama racists in matters of race. Federal courts oppressed Susan B Anthony because she had illegally voted in the federal election of 1868, offending the political sensibilities of America's political establishment in matters of sex. In both incidents, it was the pro-civil-rights cause that was politically incorrect. Your ignorance of ordinary dictionary definitions is not my problem.

There is no ignorance on my part, Thomas. There is stone-headedness on yours.

In any case, the on-line dictionary defines "political correctness" as:

Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

If you cannot fit the civil rights movement of the 1960's in the American south into that definition...you have major problems.

But you want to call the practice "silly"...as do most of the far right who use it as a pejorative term for liberal attempts to level the playing field in our country.

Fine...find comfort in being with that lot.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, thank you, I got that Frank. I'm not senile yet. Surprised

And blather? LOL. If you say so Frank.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

What made us a world power was the fortunes of war,WW2 to be exact. The fact that FDR was the president at the time, and while he was definately a social engineering liberal he wasnt soley responsible for making us a world power. After all, Ike was a republican president.
Now I would ask you, what president brought the USSR to it's knees?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

What made us a world power was the fortunes of war,WW2 to be exact. The fact that FDR was the president at the time, and while he was definately a social engineering liberal he wasnt soley responsible for making us a world power. After all, Ike was a republican president.
Now I would ask you, what president brought the USSR to it's knees?

Pope John Paul II??

But I don't think he was president.

1 Reply

I never meant, in the OP, to assert that the goals of political correctness are necessarily malevolent. Rather, I wondered if such efforts may become divisive. Hence, my posting of what I thought might be PC in the extreme, that most likely to cause division.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Because firing a demonstrably racist school teacher is not a result of "political correctness."

Should there be a teacher who is instructing his or her students that whites are superior to blacks, that blacks are good at sports because they have an "extra tendon," that slavery was actually a positive institution because black slave were better off on plantations then the disease infested jungles and plains of Africa, or that the white race was created by a black scientist named Yakub, and all whites are evil because of the brutal process of converting blacks to whites, or all whites are either blatant or subtle racists, but blacks can't be racist; I would hope her or she would be immediately fired upon discovery of the practice.

I feel certain that in most of the schools around the nation, any person teaching children the first three "facts" would be, rightfully, fired for demonstrable racism. Such firing would not be a result of violating restrictions imposed by "political correctness."

I would like to think that anyone teaching the account of Yakub would be fired and for the same cause: racism. I feel sure that they would be fired, but I expect that quite often it would be for the cause of teaching absolute nonsense to kids (which of course it would be)and not specifically racism.

Not only do I seriously doubt that any teacher though has ever been fired for teaching Critical Race Theory ( a racist proposition itself) I know that it is part of the curriculum in some schools. This is a result of Political Correctness.

A middle-school teacher in Michigan was suspended for showing a video of white entertainers in black face during a lesson on racism, slavery and Jim Crow laws. An assistant principle sitting in on the class said it was "offensive and racist." None of the students (including black children) registered complaints. This injustice was a result of Political Correctness.

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/michigan-teacher-suspended-for-showing-blackface-video-in-lesson-plan-on-racism/ wrote:

Source

The terms "politically correct" or "political correctness" do not have much of a history of usage before 1990 and in the 24 years since then, the usage has been in the pejorative sense. Bill Maher did not name his television show "Politically Incorrect" because he intended for it to be a platform for intolerant, racist or homophobic rants."

Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher) wrote in "The Abolition of Britain" that: "What Americans describe with the casual phrase ... “political correctness” is the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation."

"Political Correctness" is clearly distinguishable from "Moral Correctness" or "Legal Correctness" and so claims that it is based on good intent or that it has been given a bad name, fall short of the mark.

It is most often words, and sometimes images and deeds, that are ruled proper or improper based not on morality, legality or even common sense, but what is or is not acceptable within the framework of political dogma. So video of white entertainers wearing black-face is inherently offensive and racist and therefore so is any instance of its use, regardless of context.

The inanity of political correctness can even extend beyond the use of words or images that we would all agree are offensive to attach offense (no matter how tenuously) to common, or perfectly acceptable words and phrases like "brown bag" or "black hole," or "niggardly."

Political correctness would be nothing more than inane if it wasn't frequently used in an intolerant, unfair and clearly aggressive manner e.g. suspending the Michigan teacher or smearing someone's reputation.

It's not just liberals that employ political correctness, although they are its most frequent and flagrant users. The branding of the Dixie Chicks as traitors for making a critical comment about Bush during a concern in the UK is an example.

This type of behavior is not good for the free discussion of all ideas, for the victims who are caught it its cross hairs, or for our nation, and I would argue that it is the pre-cursor of the sort of brutally intolerant acts of oppression and suppression that some folks have argued are its predecessors.

Anyone who is a classical liberal should avoid it, condemn it and even to the extent that it is growing, fear it.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Fraudulently-started wars weaken the fabric of a nation.

Really? Russia seems to be doing alright. The Russian people are more united than us. But they have a leader.

So to laugh the fact of PC off, is saying that what was good just a short while ago and now somehow offensive. Have we honestly figured out how to live in such a short time? And in that same time decided to force it on the masses?
You bet we have.

You can see the new enforcement of thought police almost daily. And it isn't pretty. You see black crime not the root of the problem dealt with. And fully intended not to deal with it, to keep people sat each others throat. And that is just one example.

PC is doing exactly what it was intended to do. And never takes a day off.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank...uh what are you taking about...where did I mention pope paul II?
Are you having a senoir moment?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher) wrote in "The Abolition of Britain" that: "What Americans describe with the casual phrase ... “political correctness” is the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation."

This continues to floor me that almost all Americans believe that we are the most tolerant people to walk the Earth. We are actually not very tolerant at all, and this feel good tolerance that we pat ourselves on the back about is on relatively trivial matters. On the important stuff we are extremely intolerant on. TRy arguing that individual freedom should have limits to protect the collective. Try arguing that wealth belongs to the collective. Try arguing the freedom of association includes the right to not associate with whomever for what ever reason, to include gender or race. Try arguing the pursuit of wealth is not a worthy goal. Try arguing that women should be expected to make at least minimal efforts to prevent themselves from being raped. Try arguing that greed is not good. Try arguing that men in this society are now oppressed. and so on and so on.

0 Replies

Quote:

Engineer said to me: A church hiring a pedophile is not political correctness.

I never said it was!
But the church bosses should have then let the church members know they had a pervert in their midst.
But they never warned them in case it breached his pol-correct "human rights of privacy".
That's why PC-ism is a blind, unthinking mess, because it doesn't use simple commonsense.
As I said, the peedo soon started abusing members kids because the church bosses hadn't warned parents about his past.

0 Replies

Does political correcteness weaken the fabric of a nation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know