It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's be honest about political correctness

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Political correctness has long been a weapon of the left to attack the right. Speech codes at universities, for example, have punished traditional viewpoints, and have stifled long held ideals. It might mean that any given insurgent minority is now fighting for dominance, and dominance means the suppression of the weak. In 2014 it seems that things have changed, and there are now others who fly the banner of political correctness. Who are they? They are those on the political right who might be offended, or outraged by the suggestion that their opinion might be colored (pardon the pun) by matters of race. Since our venue is ATS, it is not reasonable for me to accuse any poster of being a racial bigot. I have seen no poster that convinces me of that. Back to the point. In 2014, it now seems politically incorrect to accuse anyone on the right of possibly being racially biased. Progress can be measured by the fact that today every bigot strives to show that he is not a bigot. My question to those on the right, is whether you admit that you are being just as PC as those on the left.
p.s. I understand that this is somewhat of a Molotov cocktail.



+4 more 
posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot


A very wise man once said that "content of character" was more important than color of skin. But everything PC focuses on the color of skin.

PC ignores the content of character.

PC inhibits free speech. PC stifles free speech.

PC cares about what offends.

Well guess what?

Everything offends everyone sometimes.

And it is PC that has legalized/legitimized "butt-hurt", or simply put, "I didn't like that".



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

Molotov cocktail...lol maybe even nuclear.

Todays accusations of bigotry or racism are used as a weapon to discredit an individual or group thus lessening the ideology. In my experience it has always been the left pointing to the right, and usually ends up being hypocrisy. An example would be something like the war on women when the WH underpays it own women in the administration while the whole time claiming the republicans have a war on women.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Basically Political Correctness is :

Don't say nothing 'bad' that someone will take the wrong way.

It is a draconian limit on what is suppose to be FREE SPEECH, and FREE EXPRESSION.

Political Correctness is the antithesis of what the word liberal means.

This is another thread that deserve another dose of Menchen:



The American of today, in fact, probably enjoys less personal liberty than any other man of Christendom, and even his political liberty is fast succumbing to the new dogma that certain theories of government are virtuous and lawful, and others abhorrent and felonious. Laws limiting the radius of his free activity multiply year by year: It is now practically impossible for him to exhibit anything describable as genuine individuality, either in action or in thought, without running afoul of some harsh and unintelligible penalty. It would surprise no impartial observer if the motto “In God we trust” were one day expunged from the coins of the republic by the Junkers at Washington, and the far more appropriate word, “verboten,” substituted. Nor would it astound any save the most romantic if, at the same time, the goddess of liberty were taken off the silver dollars to make room for a bas-relief of a policeman in a spiked helmet. Moreover, this gradual (and, of late, rapidly progressive) decay of freedom goes almost without challenge; the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights and to the minute regulation of his conduct by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that he no longer makes any serious protest. The American Credo: A Contribution toward the Interpretation of the National Mind (1920)


en.wikiquote.org...

American politics ?

The same snip, different day, different decade, different century.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
Political correctness has long been a weapon of the left to attack the right. Speech codes at universities, for example, have punished traditional viewpoints, and have stifled long held ideals. It might mean that any given insurgent minority is now fighting for dominance, and dominance means the suppression of the weak. In 2014 it seems that things have changed, and there are now others who fly the banner of political correctness. Who are they? They are those on the political right who might be offended, or outraged by the suggestion that their opinion might be colored (pardon the pun) by matters of race. Since our venue is ATS, it is not reasonable for me to accuse any poster of being a racial bigot. I have seen no poster that convinces me of that. Back to the point. In 2014, it now seems politically incorrect to accuse anyone on the right of possibly being racially biased. Progress can be measured by the fact that today every bigot strives to show that he is not a bigot. My question to those on the right, is whether you admit that you are being just as PC as those on the left.
p.s. I understand that this is somewhat of a Molotov cocktail.


So, just to be fair, what is your definition of "Bigot"?

Bigot can have several different contextual meanings, depending on how your implying it.




big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\ : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


So, you could call me a bigot in reference to Johovah Witnessess, since well, I STRONGLY do not agree with any of their messages, and refuse to discuess it with them.

So, everyone in this case, who has a STRONG opinon, "could be" classified as a Bigot, from the President, to a majority of people on ATS.

The other thing, I was curious about, is your useing two words that carry the same meaning, in conjuction, a Racists Bigot, is like saying "Chewey bubblegum".. We know bubblegum is chewey. Reminds me of many marketing schemes.

Granted, Bigot does NOT directly imply racism either.

Racist bigot: a strongly opinionated racist? But according to the LEFT, all racists are strongly opinionated.



tautology, noun : needless or meaningless repetition in close succession of an idea, statement, or word


More to the point, The Left used the racist card, consistantly for ANYTHING that was putting the President in a bad light, at the drop of a hat. Most of us could care less if he was purple, pink, green, or camel tan. It's not the appearance that matters, it's the person underneath that has caused the issues, and his directives.. (Granted, a heliatrope-colored president would be easier to spot in a crowd).



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

Political correctness is pressuring the mentally secure to cater to the whims of the mentally insecure. It is reverse facsism. Nerf the world for the sake of the wussies. Curb the truth, where it might offend the decieved...we wouldnt want to hurt anyone's feelings, that might force them to grow up.

PC is disgusting, but it exists on both sides. Dont bash global warming, you'll make a liberal cry. Dont point out the hypocracy in Zionism or the republicans might stop watching Football.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Let's be honest about political correctness


This thread is really about convening the right wing mutual appreciation society so you can reinforce one another's dogmatic views of the left.

What exactly do you think "PC" is?

There's a huge difference between getting bent out of shape because somebody says, "that's gay" and being upset because some yahoo says, "God created AIDS to destroy homosexuals." There's a big difference between a comedian making light of a stereotype (might offend a sanctimonious person) and a some congressman's staffer wishing people a "Happy N# Day" on MLK day (any reasonable person knows that racist). So why pretend that it's all so nuanced that it's beyond reason to expect people to observe social decorum? Why conflate something like falsely alleging bigotry (e.g. "pulling the race card") with PC when they are two distinct things?

Simple!

Because if you believe that everyone who complains about bigotry is just "oversensitive" (PC) then ANY bigotry, regardless of the actual impact or severity, can be excused away.

edit on 2014-7-11 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Maybe you can give me an example of something.

Give me an example of something that isn't considered "PC" that you don't agree with. Tell me something that you feel like you would like to say but can't because it isn't considered PC.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Calling p.c. what it truly is very simple, it's b.s. The people that use it as their weapon of chose are scared little children that don't have the guts to actually speak their minds because they are afraid someone may not like them, it's dangerous and stupid and will likely get many people killed. Yes the right is just as capable of p.c.b.s as the left but neither side should use it, unfortunately like certain politicians it's here to stay.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
My question to those on the right, is whether you admit that you are being just as PC as those on the left.


I have tried to point this out several times, to no avail.

Everyone is PC to some extent. The "war against PC" has gone over the top. If I say something less-than-polite about gay people, the PC police will surely appear, saying that what I said is offensive (and they will most-likely be from the left). If I say something less-than-polite about Christian people, the PC police will surely appear, saying that what I said is offensive (and they will most-likely be from the right).

Being PC is simply being courteous and thoughtful, taking care not to hurt or offend others. I don't see the big problem with that. In fact, we could all benefit from being a little more courteous to other people.

It's just like both political "sides" claim to be for freedom, but in reality, they only support the freedoms they AGREE with.

In general, the left supports the freedoms to marry who you want, ingest recreational herb, make personal choices about reproduction and enjoy complete separation of church and state.

The right supports the freedoms to carry firearms, make as much money as possible, run your business however you see fit and have legalized special religious rights.

What really gets me about the whole PC thing is that whomever is "called out" for being offensive (or non-PC), usually starts crying like a baby, wailing about "free speech", as if the government is making laws against their opinions. As if they should be able to say WHATEVER nasty thing they like in a diverse society and suffer no consequences whatsoever.

We ALL have the right to be offensive! We all have the right to be mean or say things that are less than polite. And when someone calls us out, we should take it and own it, instead of crying about PC or free speech. If you want to be nasty and offensive, go ahead! But there WILL be people who will point it out. There will be consequences. If you speak in public in a derogatory manner against black people, you MAY lose your job. That's just the results of living in a society of people where courtesy and politeness are still valued.

That, my friends, is FREEDOM. You have the freedom to speak as you like and others have the freedom to do so as well.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=18132547]beezzer[/post
PC is simply a set of ethical and moral standards that are political in nature. We all practice PC. Many on the right feel than any criticism of them regarding race is automatically an accusation of racism. They feel that such criticism is illegitimate and unwarranted. This attitude is PC.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace
You're probably right about the nuclear potential of my thread, but we all know how important it is.
The issue of pay disparity in the WH stems from an inaccurate comparison of job positions. Also I am not aware of any female employees that have spoken out, or have sued under the Lily Ledbetter law. As far as there being a political war on women, I think that it is helpful to see how women vote. A majority of women in 2014 vote against the Republicans.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: MarlinGrace
You're probably right about the nuclear potential of my thread, but we all know how important it is.
The issue of pay disparity in the WH stems from an inaccurate comparison of job positions. Also I am not aware of any female employees that have spoken out, or have sued under the Lily Ledbetter law. As far as there being a political war on women, I think that it is helpful to see how women vote. A majority of women in 2014 vote against the Republicans.



Considering everything this administration does with a disclosure agreement, it's no wonder they don't speak out. Even Sgt. Bergdhals Platoon had to sign disclosure agreements. What chance would women have to speak out when a sitting Congressmen or Senators can't even get in to see the illegal children at the border. In this administration transparency means STFU.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Cygnis
You ask some good questions. To me a bigot is someone who hates or feels superior to people based upon their identity as opposed to their behavior. You may hate the Jehovah's Witnesses who wake you on Saturday morning, but this doesn't come close to making you a bigot. Also, racial bigotry is just one type of bigotry. There is cultural bigotry such as a hatred of the Roma (gypsies). Some bigots hate women, some hate gays, etc. Finally, as a member of the Left that you mentioned, I believe that most criticism of Obama, for example, is not a function of racism. At ATS I know that the great majority of his critics cannot reasonably be considered racist.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
You make some very interesting points, but I am not sure about catering to the whims of the mentally insecure. But that I guess is subject to interpretation. Also I don't believe that the left views AGW denial or criticism as non-PC. Finally, the point where we agree the most (naturally) is when you say that it exists on both sides.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


What really gets me about the whole PC thing is that whomever is "called out" for being offensive (or non-PC), usually starts crying like a baby, wailing about "free speech", as if the government is making laws against their opinions. As if they should be able to say WHATEVER nasty thing they like in a diverse society and suffer no consequences whatsoever.

We ALL have the right to be offensive! We all have the right to be mean or say things that are less than polite. And when someone calls us out, we should take it and own it, instead of crying about PC or free speech. If you want to be nasty and offensive, go ahead! But there WILL be people who will point it out. There will be consequences. If you speak in public in a derogatory manner against black people, you MAY lose your job. That's just the results of living in a society of people where courtesy and politeness are still valued.


This. It all really amounts to "I want to say offensive things, but you shut your mouth if you want to call me on it."



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I think it would be helpful if we all begin by considering what me mean by correctness. To me, correctness is moral and ethical behavior that defines our personal philosophy. We don't dishonor our mother, we don't cheat on our mate, we don't steal from our neighbor, etc. These are standards that we impose upon ourselves. When our standards involve issues of a political or controversial nature, then it becomes a standard of political correctness. We all practice PC. It seems that the loudest screaming and hollering is all about people who are screaming and hollering. We all love FREEDOM, but responsibility, not so much.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Political correctness boils down to being polite enough not to call people names in public or claim a problem is based upon a particular minority. Its really simple manners.

If you want to be politically incorrect you're essentially saying you want to be as rude and mean as possible. Particularly to minorities that are powerless or that have been subjected to even worse in recent history.

Suit yourself. Call somebody a racist name in public. See what you get in return.
edit on 11-7-2014 by Frith because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace
A WH disclosure agreement might serve to muzzle dissent, but these statements are now the law of the land. By that I mean that they are everywhere, in every institution public and private, and they are the creation of lawyers. Also I believe that if there is or was a significant issue of pay disparity in the Obama WH, then you would see at least one ex-worker talking about it. I don't think that any disclosure agreement would stop them from going to Fox News. I may be wrong, though.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: MarlinGrace
A WH disclosure agreement might serve to muzzle dissent, but these statements are now the law of the land. By that I mean that they are everywhere, in every institution public and private, and they are the creation of lawyers. Also I believe that if there is or was a significant issue of pay disparity in the Obama WH, then you would see at least one ex-worker talking about it. I don't think that any disclosure agreement would stop them from going to Fox News. I may be wrong, though.



Of course disclosure agreements are everywhere in business, they protect trade secrets. But remember these are privately held companies, or corporations responsible to stockholders. The government is supposed to work for the people, transparency shouldn't even be a question. Of course the whistleblower of all time Edward Snowden left the country for his safety and they are still chomping at the bit to get him back. The list of NSA employees a handful really lost their jobs from whistle blowing. Currently whistleblowing is alive and well how much goes on I doubt we will really know considering the MSM chooses to ignore anything negative involved with this administration. Have you heard about the 67 claims of retaliation of whistleblowers involved in the VA scandal? Source



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join