|
Post by ericreturns on Dec 3, 2009 13:31:09 GMT
So what is "political correctness" and why are so many against it?
AFAICS political correctness means :
...... seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts in language , ideas, policies and behavior
So what is so wrong in wanting to minimise offending others?
Why also do people who are anti PC are also antiglobal warming and anti-socialist.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 3, 2009 13:42:12 GMT
Why also do people who are anti PC are also antiglobal warming and anti-socialist. are they? that's news to me.
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Dec 3, 2009 13:43:00 GMT
Political Correctness is a system devised by those in positions of power. It is there to control our speech,our actions and indeed our very thoughts. If you can get everyone singing from the chosen hymnsheet they will give you very little trouble.
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 3, 2009 13:52:15 GMT
So it is OK to insult people because they are disabled? or prevent people getting jobs because of thier age?
Surely at its basis, political correctness is politeness and consideration?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 3, 2009 14:26:14 GMT
No, specialpeople, "politeness and consideration" are just good manners.
Political debate is not about good manners and/or personal etiquette, it is about dragging out the essentials of a story from obfuscation by people with an interest in closing down debate.
PC dom, stifles debate, just as the tall story of "consensus" stifles debate, and is INTENDED TO.
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 3, 2009 14:34:04 GMT
Political debate is not about good manners and/or personal etiquette, it is about dragging out the essentials of a story from obfuscation by people with an interest in closing down debate. PC dom, stifles debate, just as the tall story of "consensus" stifles debate, and is INTENDED TO. So in political debate it is OK to insult, name call ect, to insult is not to draw out a debate it is actually a sloppy, cheap short cut. An example of how PC stiffles debate would be good
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Dec 3, 2009 14:42:21 GMT
An example of how PC stiffles debate would be good Several years ago the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police quoted figures on street crime which showed that a very high percentage was committed by young black males. The resulting howls from the "usual suspects" stifled debate. Good enough example?
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 3, 2009 14:50:52 GMT
An example of how PC stiffles debate would be good Several years ago the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police quoted figures on street crime which showed that a very high percentage was committed by young black males. The resulting howls from the "usual suspects" stifled debate. Good enough example? Not really What is the 5 of young black males in London What is the colour of victims in London Does the Chief Constable of Cornwall state that a high % of crime is committed by white young males? Why is the race of a person important?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 3, 2009 14:53:36 GMT
A lot of political comment IS satirical and hard hitting. So what?
When the going gets tough.... You know what they say - the-weak-at-the-knees flee to closed boards, don't they?
Horses for courses!
There's room for it all. Why do YOU have to set the gold standard for others? Do you "believe in" "Common Purpose"? Now there's an illusion.
Incidentally, you've got it wrong about the cluster of attributes you confer on the non-PC.
The non-PC probably disagree between themselves over just as many things as everyone else.
Don't we, bets, sin, sim, libjoe, alan?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 3, 2009 14:57:15 GMT
yes
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 3, 2009 14:58:48 GMT
Because it is part of the story and it would be PC to omit it, dosey!
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Dec 3, 2009 15:00:25 GMT
Well Spesh, I'm afraid that's tough if you don't like the example and try to swamp it with,dare I say,PC smokescreens. The very fact that he mentioned blacks might be responsible for large amounts of a specific crime,even though numbers backed him up,meant that any meaningful debate was silenced. The jolly old R-word was wheeled out.....nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 3, 2009 15:02:14 GMT
The discussion about the race of victims and perps has been done before.
The facts were that more whites were victims of black violence than vice versa DESPITE whites being the majority.
Don't ask where the data is. I have no idea. It was a while back.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 3, 2009 15:08:13 GMT
i have been thinking - a rare occurrence - so feel special...
it's surely not very PC to deny the non-PC a voice
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 3, 2009 15:35:10 GMT
i have been thinking - a rare occurrence - so feel special... it's surely not very PC to deny the non-PC a voiceWho is denying them a voice? are are they denying themselves? A Free Speech argument is insufficient reason to publicly abuse anyone just because you can do something does not mean you should do it. You are not being asked to change what you think only not to publicly insult on grounds of race, sexuality etc etc Of course the clever one know how to insult using coded language look at Nick Griffin
|
|