Please! Somebody say something politically incorrect!

"politically uncorrect is the new political correctness" - bunny

<shakes head>

<image is nothing, thirst is everything.. so obey this image of being unconcerned about images and drink sprite >

<doodling>

Being politically incrrect is the new form of political correctness.

"I see men (without reference to women) of Europe of the 20th century until 1915 differently from those living after 1916."
(Referring to WWI and Dadaism)

Is this statement politically incorrect?

1) Is it simply a matter of controversy? Anything that's emotionally loaded is PC or un-PC?
2) Or does PC-ness reflect an unthinking predisposition or bias, a closed mind that ignores further research and debate?
3) Or is PC-ness the last resort, the desperate peer pressure we use when all else fails?
4) Or is PC-ness simply the current majority opinion, with people playing dirty tricks to keep it that way.
5) Or is PC-ness simply the most vocal or aesthetically pleasing opinion?

Some test cases listed below...



We should all work together to make the world a better place.
--- vs. ---
Greed is good. Being selfish, ambitious, controlling and manipulative works really well, and makes society far better off. Freedom is a lie.



We should love and preserve all living things.
--- vs. ---
Evolution is the process of continual extinction, so get used to it. Humans are wonderful wolves, making the Earth's herd stronger by churning the gene pool faster than ever before.



Mr. Bush is a war-monger, ruthlessly taking control of the world.
-- vs. --
Mr. Bush is a wonderful guy, and it's amazing how he's able to function so well and get things done, considering all the criticism and chaos throughout politics.



Humans are destroying the Earth. We need to get things back in control, for balanced living.
-- vs. --
Mother Nature is not a virgin. We're supposed to fool with it.



Men and women are fundamentally equal, different in character, but capable and powerful as independent individuals, and defined only by their choices.
-- vs. --
Women have superior dexterity, more acute sense of smell, higher intuitive intelligence, a more balanced view of the world, and a better undertanding of organic systems and healthy biology. That's why they should do all the cooking.

Actually, Lee lived very penuriously, relying almost entirely upon his salary as a serving officer; the slaves which remained at Arlington were a part of Mary Custis Lee's estate, and, just as his idol, George Washington never touched a penny of Martha Dandridge Custis Washington's estate, Lee would take nothing from his wife's. To properly vilify Lee for his treatment of Americans of African ancestry--and to sustain your point in debate--i refer to R. E. Lee, by Douglas Southall Freeman, in which you will find a whitewash of his "wanted poster" flyers for run-away slaves, and of his letters to Rooney Lee about dealing with rebellious slaves. It's very easy to get ahold of Freeman's book, and his bibliography is impeccable, so you'll have all the citations you need to condemn Lee in an historically defensible manner.

And this is on topic, because i've devoted my life to reading history, and never a regret. What really incenses me about the Political Rectitude Gestapo is the way they piss all over the historical record, and are willing to accept the most egregious claptrap in their eagerness to proudly display their devotion to "cultural diversity." A case in point: China, when under criticism for it's human rights record after Tienaman Square, and hoping to get major concesions on trade and investment from the Clinton administration, used two tactis which showed great political savvy. The first was covert--grease just as many Democratic palms as were found to be extended. The second, overt, was to play the Political Rectitude crowd like a wind-up organ. Their official position was that there has never been a tradition of popular participation in government, nor any democracy in China, so they don't have to play. And the PC crowd took it, hook, line and sinker. The Chinese had not misjudged the suckers they were dealing with. In fact, during the so-called Shang Dynasty, there was never any true, centralized control--local governors did pretty much as they pleased, and kept their heads attached to their shoulders by sending in the minimum tax levy which they could get away with, while avoiding the prospect of invasion, and they hedged their bets by seeking concensus with, and granting concessions to village elders, so as to have a ready mass of peasants to rely upon if ever they were actually threatened. Huang-ti, the Yellow Emperor, put a true imperial, and totalitarian, regime into place. The early Han were able to largely maintain that, but they accomplished this by allowing direct trade with the nomads of the Yellow River loop, Mongolia and the Kansu corridor, allowing them to concentrate military forces at home for internal security, which they enhanced through the establishment of units of local governance. The latter Han collapsed through the failure of the dynasty to continue to produce effective leadership, and its enervation due to the ongoing process of "sinicization," which sapped the vigor of each successive, "semi-barbaric" dyansty which took imperial control. When the governor of the province surrounding the capital, Dong Zhuo (probably not the PC modern spelling of his name) began a reign of terror, the last remaining, competent military officer of the regime, Tsao Tsao (i know that's the modern PC spelling), brought an army to put him out of business, and then made a naked grab for power. He was opposed by two ancient and powerful clans--Liu and Sun. Liu had some support in the north, but being aristocratic in composition and character, they lost that support through a direct appeal to the peasants by Tsao Tsao. The Sun were able to maintain their position against the usurper precisely because they instituted the ancient practice of granting certain rights to peasants in general and certain districts in particular, and were thereby enabled to establish a reduced imperial dynasty in the south during the "Three Kingdoms" period. There are many, many examples of the grant of rights and local self-governance in the history of the succession of dynasties, but that of the Mongols was the most precipitate and breathtaking. Chingiss consolidated military control of each district he conquered, and then turned day-to-day adminstration over to councils of village elders, and was obviated the need to leave behind substantial garrisons--the local peasants were prepared to observe a time-honored tradition dating from the Shang, and turn out as militia at need. His policy of ignoring local imperial authority and the blandishments of the Mandarin class, combined with his alliance with the peasants, allowed him to accomplish the conquest of China in an incredibly short period of time. Of course, the Yuan dyansty also sank into sinicization, and the reliance upon the Mandarins, as well as becoming insular and embroiled in the Forbidden City intrigues of the women and the eunuchs of the palace and fell in their turn.

My point is that there is not only not a shred of truth in the contention by the contemporary Chinese regime that popular pariticipation in government and democratic practice are not a part of Chinese cultural tradition, in fact, it is an outright, knowing lie on their part, as the exact opposite is true. As i mentioned before, they had the measure of the PC crowd taken down to the stitch--those boys and girls rolled right over on that one.

But i digress--very good points you have made . . .

buttocks....heehee......

Being politically incorrect is saying an opinion that will get you killed, beat up, arrested or fired. It is stating a contrary opinion to the ones that we know are the only one we're allowed to state publicly. Codeborg has said something interesting and also the person who spoke at length just before this post. However, the point being, I suppose, is that you can say whatever you want, but to follow a single thread of thought, I must say that you avoided, studiously, saying anything politically incorrect. For example, do you, yes or no, consider women superior to men? Don't dress it up with alternate theories or articulance. Are you a Nazi or a anti-Semite or a member of KKK by any chance? Or maybe some sort of freaky, less objectional group, like the Republicans?

Dov - can you define politically incorrect for me?

In all seriousness, saying something that will get you killed, beaten up, arrested or fired sounds to me like saying something that is a great deal more than politically incorrect! It sounds more like saying something that is deeply hateful, illegal, grossly insulting, horribly racist, grossly sexually inappropriate or something of that ilk.

If it IS those things, then is that not the more important thing about the putative utterance, rather than the political incorrectness?

Craven has misquoted me above - what I DO say, and believe, is that political correctness is the new political incorrectness.

OK - political correctness at its nadir could be irritating, bullying (at least in theoretical politics and sociology and other academic disciplines in Oz) and an excuse for failure to really think (I get a feeling that it may have become more extreme in some areas in the US, but I do not really know) - but in general it was an insistence on inclusive and non-discriminatory language and practice - and still damn well still should be, in my opinion.

The proponents of the new political correctness, which is anti political correctness, are simply guilty of the very sins of thought and practice which they claim to criticise - and which were, because change is difficult and pisses people off greatly, a great target to direct the anger of reaction against.

Or, are you speaking specifically of the blight of nouveau "pig" patriotism that appears to be drowning the USA? The sort of thing that almost deifies the military and the role of the Us as avenging angel of the lord against the axis of terror, and brands dissenting thought as enemy or "un-American" thought.

That seems to me to be a far more frightening and familiar thing than political correctness!

Oh shoot... I wrote too many words again! :-( Trying to condense...


You're right. I avoided actually stating something politically incorrect. I'm a chicken. :-) Actually, I'm just boring and have no reason to fight. I don't hold any strong opinions that many people find objectionable. If many people did object, I'd be re-examining and researching the issue until I felt comfortable saying "This is my working hunch so far... and I can understand the way you think too."

Truth is, everything anyone says is wrong. Everything. Every idea is just a working model that we constantly adapt and modify, diddle and play with. I'm not that possessive about my toys.

I actively keep an open mind, so it's impossible for me to state something as unequivocably true. And even if I had a strong hunch, I certainly wouldn't force it on someone else! Sorry.

I guess you're fishing for controversy. So, the KKK? I'm not a member, haven't done much reading, but it seems pretty noxious to my values. I certainly disagree with the concept of racism. But I know violence and blind dogma can be powerful tools in our society, so you gotta expect to see lots of it around.

If I sat down and talked with KKK members I bet I could understand where they are coming from, and I would still respect them as human beings. I love the KKK. Just like I love everybody and everything in our amazing and wondrous universe. It's all worth figuring out.

Am I eager to judge people and scapegoat my issues onto them? No.
I'm responsible for my own way of being. I donate money to the NAACP because their values seem closer to mine.

I hope that I've been able to say something controversial or politically in/correct here, but that depends on who the audience is.


Women are absolutely superior to men. Men are also absolutely superior to women. That is correct, and at the same time the question is moot (and also muu, as the Japanese put it). I can't dress up the truth.

If the job, the task, the goal at hand is better suited to a women, then women are superior. If I need the characteristics of a man, then men are superior. If I didn't have some goal ... if I'm not using people for some kind of job... then there is no criteria (or reason!) to judge.

Any judgement about men or women would only reveal something about me, not them! It would describe what job I have in mind. Or it would describe how quickly prejudiced I get without reason. Saying "women are superior" has almost nothing to do with women!

I'm pretty slow to judge people, and don't have any ambitions for telling others what to do. I want people to be themselves, with or against me, right or wrong, no matter how ugly or beautiful their position. I simply don't judge them. Instead, I'm curious, ask questions and explore and find out who these men and women are. Not to use and abuse them (what's the point?), but to appreciate, celebrate and love them (also pointless!). My needs are very small and the world is an amazing place, so I have a lot of spare energy to just explore and learn.

There is no success because there is no competition. I'm just a tourist here.

Anybody who disagrees and fights with me simply gets a smile and a "wow!". I have no reason to fight, except maybe to blow off steam for the heck of it. I protect my interests and take good care of myself, so if someone wants to punch me, then "wow!". Look at that! What's going on there?

If someone tells me I MUST believe something, or I must do something, then it seems they aren't taking very good care of themselves. Why are they so wrapped up in pushing people around? What needs do they have, that they are starving so badly? The PC crowd is very curious to me.

I think people who (1) keep an open mind, (2) resist drawing absolute conclusions, and (3) avoid pushing their own agendas onto others, simply don't engage in the bigotry of PC-ness. That's why I like A2K so much!

So yes, women are definitely superior. Just like everything else in the universe. I firmly believe that. We could fight about it though, if you want!

Sorry...

Dlowan has furry buttocks! :wink: heehee....


Oh, on 9/11? Some friends of mine cheered and said "yeah, about time! America had it coming!" They were not referring to the innocent civilians in any way, but to the institions of our government that destroy other cultures.

They immediately shut up, because we don't have freedom of speech here. People got nervous. People got scared for their lives. Not in the slightest from Al-Queda, but because of Americans hurting Americans. As they said "If I held a sign on the streetcorner that said 'America had it coming!'", how long to you think I would last? Not very long.

My opinion: Al-Queda is nothing compared to the terror our own citizens put on each other. That's what the PC crowd does.

IMO, political correctness is a set of prejudices imposed on the political establishment and media by a bunch of left radicals, being more vociferous and audacious than the general population.
These prejudices constitute developed ad absurdum positive ideas about equality of people regardless of their race, gender, and sexual orientation, about necessity to preserve healthy environment, about fair approaches in the international relations.
And as it usually happens, lots of cons and thugs took a hitchhike on these ideas. The Chinese example, provided by Setanta, is one of the PC abusive implementation instances.
Among another ones I would mention exoneration of O.J. Simpson (one of the printed media sources made an ironic remark that the evidences in his case presented two options: either Mrs. Simpson and her lover were killed by O.J. or by the Holy Spirit; the politically correct jury preferred the second version); presentation of different terrorists as "freedom fighters" and Islam as humane religion (left radicals even forgive it ultimate suppression of the women's rights, put away the doctrine of non-Islamic world to be conquered and enslaved); opposition to any attempts to enforce existing laws regarding the illegal immigrants and fake "asylum seekers", especially in Europe; vigorous attempts to curb industrial development in the areas populated by people belonging to primitive cultures (despite of the fact that economic development might seriously improve their living standards, life span, education, etc.), advocating dusgusting gay parades that actually trigger homophobic feelings (if homosexuality is an inborn feature, there is nothing to be proud of; pride of some biologically defined feature does not differ in its essense from pride of being an Aryan, that was characteristic to Nazis). This list is to be continued...

Setanta..
There is not such a thing as a PC chinese spelling. A romanized spelling of chinese is for convenience, as they have their own character system. They are almost indifferent between the spelling "cao" and "tsao", but they are keen about a single stroke or even a single dot in a chinese character.

Even both "Peking" and "Beijing" are possible, for instance. The former approximately follows the Southern standard (the locale of a former capital) and the latter the Nothern standard (the locale of the modern capital but "B" is not correct if pronounced in the English sound).

I think, in some contexts, cultural correctness is more significant than PC.

Perhaps you're right about cultural correctness, Satt -- and i admit taking another cheap shot at the Chinese on that one. When their new take on how "romanized" Chinese names and placenames should be spelled, my immediate response was to wonder how they took it upon themselves to decide how to use someone else's alphabet. Inty-leck-chewall honesty would compel me to acknowledge that what had rubbed me the wrong way was the smugness and rigid thinking of Americans i knew in the academic world who would correct one on such faults about Chinese names and placenames, indirectly accusing one of ignorance and cultural insensitivity.

I have a couple of responses to what others have posted here: the Cunning Coney surmises that Political Rectitude might have been of a more virulent strain in some areas of the United States. Although one could make misleading generalizations about regions and their "liberal" populations, that would be a smoke screen to cover the pervasiveness of the problem. Appearing at first among academic settings, Political Rectitude arose from the desire of the New Left (which is gettin' pretty old and cranky these days) to be aware of and display sensitivity to the feelings of a broad spectrum of members of marginalized, or allegedly marginalized groups. However, given the religious quality of conviction among the militants of the left in the late 1960's and the 1970's (and i would saddly have to admit to having once been a member of said group), this quickly grew into an Orwellian double-speak, such as is provided in my example of the specious claim of the powers that be in Peking about their own history.

This leads me further, and into a criticism of what Steissd wrote. I tire more and more quickly of his injection of Reagan-era conservative dogma into these discussions. Political Rectitude was quickly used as a means of exploiting middle- and upper-class white, liberal guilt for any advantage which could be gained (again, consider the Chinese example), but the appeal of and usefulness of such a tactic was not lost upon the right, and, beginning among right-wing christians, the application of the concept of Political Rectitude was a pursued with great enthusiasm. Contrary to Steissd's contention, Political Rectitude became a weapon in the arsenal of the right to the same, or aguably, to a greater extent than is the case with the left. Liberal quickly became an epithet used to tar anyone with whose expressed opinions someone on the right disagreed--and the influence of the idea of "liberal" as a personal slur became so strong, that it crept into the speech habits of those who would once have proudly announced themselves as adherents of the left. The examples of right-wing double-speak and double-think began to proliferate quickly, and the left became less and less inclined to fight the good fight--the power of the pen is mighty indeed. I am a liberal, in the good old-fashioned sense which derives its meaning from the latin liberalis, a free man. To me, the Democrats are more than a little right-wing, and have been drifting further and further to the right. I believe the proximate cause is the perception that the nation was becoming more right wing, and that this was necessary to join them in that drift to assure electoral survival. And i see this as a consequence of the concept of Political Rectitude writ large in our social discourse. Political dialogue has disappeared, and is replaced by rote recitation of hate-filled diatribes against one's opponents. This is not to say that it does not continue on the left--one can discuss all day the continuing problems of race in America, as long as one does not have the bad taste to point out the pervasive anti-semitism of the black community here. Of course, Political Rectitude continually marches on to new lows in the suppression of honest discourse--Steissd provides an example in his nastiness about Islam, a subject for which he ought to acknowledge his bias and disqualify himself from commenting upon. I recommend to him The Veil of Shame: Women in the Arab World, by Eveline Accad (she's Lebanese), in which she correctly and perceptively points out that the Quran enjoins the faithful to treat women well (although patronizing and narrow in its views by the standards of our day, it was radical thought in the seventh century, espeically in the world of the nomadic semite--Muslims and Jews alike are notoriously misogynistic [i'm sure i've probably misspelled that]). As Professor Accad points out, attitudes toward women in the Islamic community are a product of the intrusion of tribal values into the ethos of that culture. Female genital mutilation of infants and small girls, and sequestration of women and girls were both practiced before the advent of Islam, and their force in tribal society was sufficiently strong to have forced themselves into the Muslim social view. I would also point out to Steissd that Mr. Simpson was not exhonorated, and the jury's finding means nothing more in the world of jurisprudence than that the prosecution had failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt in the opinion of those empanelled in that case. I would also ask him, if so-called "freedom fighters" are thinly disguised terrorists, what that makes Menachim Begin, and his companions of old. Does he therefore see the bombing of the King David Hotel as a terrorist act? In the world of Political Rectitude, as in all other things political, issues usually boil down to a case which Martin Luther pithily described as "whose ox was gored."

something politically incorrect













stop yer moanin' - SOMEBODY had to say it!

heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

Ah, she's a bad bunny indeed, and we all should love her for it . . .

henrygreen....heh heh, this thread walked into that one...

Setanta..
What kind of rominization is adopted is more concerned with standardization than politics. As a person interested in internationalization computing, I am somewhat keen on this topic.
Althought Wade-Giles romanization has some merits, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 7098 adopted Pinyin romanization as the standard for Chinese.

There could be the third concept: Standardizedly Correct.
(I personally do not favor too much standardization.)

I personally advocate as much anarchy in language as remains consistent with gettin' yer jokes understood . . .

I was going to, this morning, type out a lengthy point by point review of all these wonderful opinions. Codeborg, I was referring to a poster that entered a much longer message from yours if that matters. I do think though that there might be a misunderstanding of my point when I started this thread. The point, in this case, is not to argue or debate but to exercise true diversity of opinion. I certainly have no intention of challenging anyone on their views. It is a fine line because just writing about this issue almost necessarily involves disagreement and a imposition of my (presumed) correct opinion on any issue. I might say I am almost hungry just to hear a chorus of differences. I am so sick of one view thrust upon me by the media and the government. For example, I wish I could really hear the extent of the opinions of those in Iraq that are still pro-Saddam. How about a healthy anti-Euro-American statement given by somebody that everyone loves to hate, like Al Sharpton or Miss Michael Jackson. Can you imagine the nerve of the guy wearing white for his second wedding? But I digress.....In the great tradition of diversity of opinion, I will close with another anti-PC comment. GENERALLY, I think women would make better national leaders than men. Not counting Joan Rivers.