0
   

Has PC gone to far?

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 04:59 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
... But I also think that this particular case is SO bizarre on so many levels. I would imagine most would agree.


You'll get no argument from me on that ... bizarre is if anything a word inadequate to describe the whole incomprehensible deal.

Had it not actually happened, I doubt it could have been sold as a plotline for a 2cnd-string TV show.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 05:04 pm
Well, why I don't agree with one lone person (male or female) escorting this guy, I think that hand cuffs would have went a long way in keeping this from happening.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 05:06 pm
Quote:
Had it not actually happened, I doubt it could have been sold as a plotline for a 2cnd-string TV show

But now that it has happened, how long before we see something similar on one of the Law and Order shows?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 05:23 pm
Um, wasn't the subject of this read about being too PC? Did you read the rest?

I'm mearly pointing out all the other elements involved in the Nichols story. And Malkin's take on that photo op is related to the PC question.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 05:28 pm
And my point on how bizarre this all is plays right into the extraordinary circumstances regarding this particular case, which IMO is not necessarily germaine to the subject of this thread.

And there must be some reason as to WHY he didn't have handcuffs (I didn't know that). Is he just that psychotic to one second seem harmless, then be a ruthless murderer, and then end up having a talk about spirituality with his hostage for several hours, letting her go, and surrendering peacefully to authorities after what he had just done.

Once again, not the best example regarding the subject of this thread.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 05:48 pm
Wow! Nobody was watching the screens, either.

Could it be because he was on trial for rape rather than for murder?

And how PC is THAT? Isn't rape ALSO a rather violent crime, requiring shackles? Or was it the circumstances regarding the rape crime (i.e., too many questions rather than an obvious ?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050314/ap_on_re_us/courthouse_shooting_security

So many questions, yes?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 05:59 pm
tommrr wrote:
Well, why I don't agree with one lone person (male or female) escorting this guy, I think that hand cuffs would have went a long way in keeping this from happening.


Don't you think a male closer to this guys size would have had a better chance of fighting this guy off then the smaller weaker female watching him?
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 09:46 pm
Quote:
Don't you think a male closer to this guys size would have had a better chance of fighting this guy off then the smaller weaker female watching him?

Of course a male that was closer in size would have had a better chance against the guy, but I think the outcome would have been the same. Here is a guy, that was just days before, caught trying to smuggle a shank into the courtroom, being escorted by ONE person, and he was not handcuffed. I would think that common sense should prevail here. But as I have learned, PC trumps common sense these days.
I have long believed that we are taking PC too far. Now that it has proved to be harmful, do you think we may actually change? Doubt it.
Where in the constitution does it say that we are promised the right of not being offended, or having our feelings hurt? We need to get over it and just do what is right, and don't give in to the whiners.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 10:01 pm
tommrr wrote:
Quote:
Don't you think a male closer to this guys size would have had a better chance of fighting this guy off then the smaller weaker female watching him?

Of course a male that was closer in size would have had a better chance against the guy, but I think the outcome would have been the same. Here is a guy, that was just days before, caught trying to smuggle a shank into the courtroom, being escorted by ONE person, and he was not handcuffed. I would think that common sense should prevail here. But as I have learned, PC trumps common sense these days.
I have long believed that we are taking PC too far. Now that it has proved to be harmful, do you think we may actually change? Doubt it.
Where in the constitution does it say that we are promised the right of not being offended, or having our feelings hurt? We need to get over it and just do what is right, and don't give in to the whiners.


You know it never will. When they start limiting the type of information in history books to reflect the founding of our country you know we have crossed a line that is almost impossible to cross back. When they start handing out tests that don't let children use their imaginations you know we are in trouble. Most tests do not allow children who live in warm climates imagine what they would do on a snow day; kids who live in the ghetto are to write anything about living in the country or even imagine what it is like. PC is killing the creativity in out future leaders.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 11:38 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Most tests do not allow children who live in warm climates imagine what they would do on a snow day; kids who live in the ghetto are to write anything about living in the country or even imagine what it is like.

Most tests also don't ask suburban kids to imagine what it would be like to live in housing projects or to stand in line at a welfare office.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:33 am
Well they should then. That would make more sense then removing the other stuff.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:05 pm
Quote:
FREEZE! I JUST HAD MY NAILS DONE!
March 16, 2005

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room ?- who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-a-vis her negative body image.

The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.

Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.

I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.

Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.

There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 911," the Richard Clarke show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being soft on Bush.)

The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops ?- even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne Somers.

A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a "study" -- cited by an ACLU attorney ?- allegedly proving that "female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?

There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.

These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics."

The inestimable economist John Lott Jr. has looked at the actual data. (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.

Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)

In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers ?- as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."

In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people ?- such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls ?- there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.

In a study of public safety officers ?- not even the general population ?- female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers ?- although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)

Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.

There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.

Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing, they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at airports.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 02:23 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage


Tico's posted article is a valid point, if phrased somewhat undiplomatically. From what I've heard police procedure is that male officers always handle male offenders, political correctness be damned as it should have been in this case..

A good friend of mine worked at a porn store/dancing girl combination, which only hired men (usually unobviously gay for other safety reasons) to work behind counter because if someone was likely to harrass the female performers they would be more likely to harass the female workers as well. Such a safeguard (only hiring gay male workers who looked tough) could be tackled as discrimination, even when it is for the safety of -all- workers.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 08:16 pm
Baldimo

The results of your poll offer great support for your argument.........Has PC gone too far? 78% said yes. I'm a new guy but I have read enough here to form the opinion that a high percentage of the participants of this great forum are left of center politically and if even they say PC has gone too far then you can put it in the bank.

The only bit of opinion that I would like to add is this:
Political correctness has been caused by the death of common sense and the inability of our free and open society to deal with the tyranny of the minorities.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 08:16 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
FREEZE! I JUST HAD MY NAILS DONE!
March 16, 2005

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room ?- who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-a-vis her negative body image.

The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.

Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.

I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.

Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.

There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 911," the Richard Clarke show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being soft on Bush.)

The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops ?- even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne Somers.

A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a "study" -- cited by an ACLU attorney ?- allegedly proving that "female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?

There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.

These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics."

The inestimable economist John Lott Jr. has looked at the actual data. (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.

Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)

In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers ?- as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."

In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people ?- such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls ?- there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.

In a study of public safety officers ?- not even the general population ?- female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers ?- although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)

Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.

There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.

Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing, they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at airports.


This is one great article and gets to the point of the issue.

Bookmark!
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 09:50 pm
rayban1 wrote:
The results of your poll offer great support for your argument.........Has PC gone too far? 78% said yes. I'm a new guy but I have read enough here to form the opinion that a high percentage of the participants of this great forum are left of center politically...


Had you been here a little longer you'd have noticed that none of the particularly "left of the centre" forumers have posted here and presumably few have voted on the poll. I mean, hell, if you ask me I'd have voted yes (but didn't answer the poll) but you're reading a little too much into a thread that most left-aligned people would avoid like the plague due to the title.

Besides, the question is so general as to be nearly useless. It's almost truistic to accept the excesses of PC these days. Had it been a question more like "Has PC become a problem?", "Do we need to cut back PC?", etc. then we would got more meaningful responses.

... Nothing personal, I'm just a technicalities person.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 09:56 pm
I'm just too all agog to respond.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 10:28 pm
theantibuddha wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
The results of your poll offer great support for your argument.........Has PC gone too far? 78% said yes. I'm a new guy but I have read enough here to form the opinion that a high percentage of the participants of this great forum are left of center politically...


Had you been here a little longer you'd have noticed that none of the particularly "left of the centre" forumers have posted here and presumably few have voted on the poll. I mean, hell, if you ask me I'd have voted yes (but didn't answer the poll) but you're reading a little too much into a thread that most left-aligned people would avoid like the plague due to the title.

Besides, the question is so general as to be nearly useless. It's almost truistic to accept the excesses of PC these days. Had it been a question more like "Has PC become a problem?", "Do we need to cut back PC?", etc. then we would got more meaningful responses.

... Nothing personal, I'm just a technicalities person.


While the question was a little general, it did allow for some examples to be brought up, which they were. If you would like, I could provide some more examples?
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 10:33 pm
Baldimo wrote:
While the question was a little general, it did allow for some examples to be brought up, which they were. If you would like, I could provide some more examples?


Oh no, fantastic for the thread. Promoted some good and interesting discussion, just saying not to read too much into the poll results. You're welcome to share some examples though, they trigger even more discussion and exaggerated PC tends to be quite humorous.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 10:59 pm
theantibuddha wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
While the question was a little general, it did allow for some examples to be brought up, which they were. If you would like, I could provide some more examples?


Oh no, fantastic for the thread. Promoted some good and interesting discussion, just saying not to read too much into the poll results. You're welcome to share some examples though, they trigger even more discussion and exaggerated PC tends to be quite humorous.


Antibuddha;

You are perceptive.......I don't know all the personalities yet and yes I should have known that left of center folks would avoid the shallowness of the question like the plague!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 12:59:23