How to abolish political correctness?

Here is a funny guy...www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

Your average NYT and AP Style Manuals will be full of examples because they are the definitive lists of how to refer to just about anything in the press and most press rooms will follow one of their leads.

So? To me this just sounds like you want to be able to control language for your own purposes. How is this any different from what you're complaining about?

You're overly fond of the term illegal aliens. Undocumented workers just doesn't have the same bite

See? Words are tools, and I think what you really are all pissed about is having your preferred terminology lose it's potency and political/sociological clout

Free speech does not protect you from saying dumb #, or protect your feelies when you get called out.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

'PC' is just a hammer to beat something with or a mirror that reflects back whatever people want to see. It's so loaded a term that 10 people can talk about political correctness and all be thinking of different things.

In recent times, it's like people want to go back to the days when you could grab a woman's ass in an elevator. They want to call black kids 'n-word's or single out a Down's person in the street and shout 'fat retard' in their face. If they see gays in the street, they want to be able to chant some 'Yo queers' abuse at them or pick out the fat women in a crowd and call them ugly bitches. They think it's fair play if Paki, nignog and chingchong is casually aimed at fellow pupils in classrooms or the people working in shops.

They want to go back to when we'd only hire pretty women and then pay them less for the same work as men. The good old days when we could throw application forms in the trash if they had 'foreign-sounding' names or keep the 'wogs' out back away from the front-of-shop.

When they can't do all these things, they want to blame others as 'snowflakes,' and 'bleeding hearts' who are 'easily offended' and should 'suck it up.' If they ever want to 'abolish' PC, they'll write angry letters to complain and attack the internet with righteous indignation whilst never being offended themselves; only other people get 'offended.'

This thread is like a poor mans GOP debate, but funny all the same

If anything, PC is a confession of one's own racism and xenophobia, evidenced by the constant need to refer to large homogenous and abstract groups of people formulated in their racist minds to which they tailor their speech. Minorities, migrants, Muslims—the imagining of large groups of people as victims deemed infantile enough to be protected from certain speech by their white moral overlords. It's no more than a solipsistic projection of one's own racism on another human being.

It's a common tactic to make the anti-PC crowd to be racists and bigots, but only because conflating disagreement with bigotry and racism is the only argument they can muster. Yet if they were to stop projecting their own racist and bigoted tendencies for but a moment, they will realize they can barely find a single concrete example of the bigotry and racism outside of their own minds.

The amount of hate crimes in such a large nation Is so low, that they have to literally invent them out of thin air.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


If anything, PC is a confession of one's own racism and xenophobia, evidenced by the constant need to refer to large homogenous and abstract groups of people formulated in their racist minds to which they tailor their speech. Minorities, migrants, Muslims—the imagining of large groups of people as victims deemed infantile enough to be protected from certain speech by their white moral overlords. It's no more than a solipsistic projection of one's own racism on another human being.

It's a common tactic to make the anti-PC crowd to be racists and bigots, but only because conflating disagreement with bigotry and racism is the only argument they can muster. Yet if they were to stop projecting their own racist and bigoted tendencies for but a moment, they will realize they can barely find a single concrete example of the bigotry and racism outside of their own minds.

The amount of hate crimes in such a large nation Is so low, that they have to literally invent them out of thin air.

So you don't think there is any real racism or bigotry (is the use of racism along with bigotry redundant?), and that any one who thinks there is or objects to it is themselves the bigot?

I really hope that's not what you meant to say as it would surely be a contender for single most ridiculous post ever made on ATS (and that is some tough competition).

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


If anything, PC is a confession of one's own racism and xenophobia, evidenced by the constant need to refer to large homogenous and abstract groups of people formulated in their racist minds to which they tailor their speech. Minorities, migrants, Muslims—the imagining of large groups of people as victims deemed infantile enough to be protected from certain speech by their white moral overlords. It's no more than a solipsistic projection of one's own racism on another human being.

It's a common tactic to make the anti-PC crowd to be racists and bigots, but only because conflating disagreement with bigotry and racism is the only argument they can muster. Yet if they were to stop projecting their own racist and bigoted tendencies for but a moment, they will realize they can barely find a single concrete example of the bigotry and racism outside of their own minds.

The amount of hate crimes in such a large nation Is so low, that they have to literally invent them out of thin air.

So you don't think there is any real racism or bigotry (is the use of racism along with bigotry redundant?), and that any one who thinks there is or objects to it is themselves the bigot?

I really hope that's not what you meant to say as it would surely be a contender for single most ridiculous post ever made on ATS (and that is some tough competition).

That's not what I said, nor is that an argument.

If people don't like PC on ATS, there is nothing to say you have to be. So don't be, just read the terms and conditions you signed up to as a member. They are the only rules, you agreed to. Don't be politically correct in real life. If you offend or upset someone, be prepared for any cònsequences. Just enough of the moaning about something that can't be enforced.

originally posted by: MrsNonSpecific


Do you mean 'pillock'?

What is a 'pollack'?

LOL!! ... late to the party again ...


*Polack* is a slang term for a person from Poland in the same way

as :-

*Jock* is someone from Scotland

*Pom* or *Limey*someone from England

*Paddy* someone from Ireland

*Yank* someone from America

*Ruski* someone from Russia

*Krout* someone from Germany

*Paki* someone from Pakistan

Politically correct or not that's it!!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think people are just confusing speaking your mind and telling the truth and being a jerk.

You can call out injustice and problems without being bad mannered and rude.

a reply to: DAZ21

So it's ok for you to be an asshole but we can't be an asshole back to you? Thanks for the double standard.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In other words, you would prefer we not talk about anything here because God forbid we be polite in polite society?

Also, you do understand that in today's economy, simply moving on to a new job is not nearly as easy as 1, 2, 3 ... especially if you have to explain in your interview why you last firm fired you for a racist tweet or at least a tweet everyone thought was racist.

Good luck with that.

Such is life. There are consequences for your actions. There always has been. Adapt and overcome. That's what they used to tell me in the Army. Whining about it won't solve anything.

It is one thing to simply call each other names in order to try to shame each other into shutting up. It is quite another to push the envelope to where you can get people fired because they said something you don't like whether it was actually racist, bigoted, homophobic or not.

Well what would you change to make that go away? Are you suggesting as a Tea Party member that the government steps in and tells a business how to run its company? Specifically its employment?

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DAZ21

Promote freedom of speech? Like the freedom to call someone a racist for saying something racist?

No, the freedom to call someone a racist for calling the ACA "Obamacare" because it was a failure and they don't want his name on it.

Well you have that freedom.

The freedom to call someone a racist for using the term thug.

You have that freedom too. I do believe you just did it in fact. Did anyone from the government come kick your door down and haul you off to jail after typing that?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Did you read the explanation of why the two terms are not synonymous?

As relabeling terrorism man-caused disaster ... that is also imprecise. Terrorism is an act done for a specific reason and can be done by many different groups. There are many things that could be labeled man-caused disasters. Anytime someone fails to properly design a building or bridge and it collapses killing many, that is a man-caused disaster. Anytime someone has a nice campfire in the woods, but doesn't properly put it out and it becomes a raging wildfire, that is a man-caused disaster. The Titanic was a man-caused disaster as you could argue that the engineering faults, hubris and lack of preparedness led to death as much as the iceberg.

None of those latter incidents I described have anything to do with terrorism, but we are now lumping terrorism in with that euphemism. It shifts the focus from what an incident actually is so that people do not talk about it.

And yes, the purpose is control. They don't want people to talk (or THINK) about things in ways they don't approve of.

Considering that only a few companies own the media and they all work in concert to present the news that is approved ... I'm surprised you chide me rather than the truth that's in front of your face.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Exactly. People are more aware of what constitutes intolerance and they are willing to speak up about it. That's really all there is to it.

The root of the problem isn't what people say but the fact that anyone feels they must take some form of retaliation against the person for what is said.

It's been said a thousand times but freedom of speech comes with the freedom to be offended.
It ends there unless you have a retort.
But you don't run to the School Principal or the media and demand so-and-so is fired for calling someone "X"
That's more akin to living in East Germany under communism when they encouraged you turn in your neighbor.
If they had thoughts critical of the regime of course.

But all of that is included with freedom of speech as WELL as freedom of the press. You have to take the good parts of freedom along with the bad. I have to put up with hate speech. Y'all can have to put up with social consequences for your words. We're all big boys here.

I for one will not alter my language one iota to suit anyone.
I cling to my first amendment even harder than my 2nd.

Great. Do you. No one is coming for your 1st though.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We just need to teach children words do not hurt, that no one has ever been injured by a word in the history of the universe, that violence involves actual violence and not talking, and that political correctness is a superstition insofar as it conflates speaking and writing with physical violence.

It's a simple matter of early childhood education, but unfortunately many adults are already a lost cause.

There are many things that should be taught at early education that aren't.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's fine as long as they can back up their PC accusation with proof that such freedom of speech was in fact racist.

Wait so someone spouting likely bigoted rhetoric doesn't have to back themselves up with evidence, but someone calling him a bigot needs to prove the person is a bigot? How does that work?

Which by the way is the problem with PC culture. Because they shout racist because it's something that they don't want to hear not necessarily because it was a racist statement that was made.

And?

The thing is, I agree with them here.

As someone who has worked in social justice, and works to this day with NGOs and political campaigns around disadvantaged communities, and who works around and is friends with countless social justice people, I've seen first hand how some people can and will abuse the concepts of social justice to manipulate others, or simply project on to others.

But everything is abused. There is no denying that.

There most definitely ARE situations where people call racism, when in fact the situation or original action is not racist. I disagree with you that someone can claim "racism" or bigotry without demonstrable evidence. The accusation of racism can destroy careers and reputations. Without real evidence, that is in fact slander or libel, or defamation of character. All of which can be prosecuted either in a court of law or civil court.

We call that an unfounded opinion. I see many of those thrown around from anti-pc people. Why can't pc people throw them around too? We are all humans after all. We all make similar mistakes in judgement.

A great example is recently a women in my office begin to see me as a threat as I was doing quite well. She began lashing out at me and harassing me. This was witnessed by others. I finally called her out on it. Given we work in a very liberal, social justicey group within NYC, she claimed that I was being "patriarchal" and that I was calling her out because she is a woman, so on and so forth.

What can you do? Sounds like the root of that problem was jealousy and not feminism though. She just used it to act out her jealousy.

Because her bad behavior was witnessed by others (thankfully), most of us knew that she was just behaving poorly, that in fact it wasn't due my "sexism" or "bigotry."

However, one of my uber social justice friends tried to lend it credence, because in our current "pc" or social justice climate, the moment someone offers some trigger word such as racism or sexism, all of a sudden that can be a valid superimposition or explanation, even if it is completely false.

It is these kinds of excesses that are making people disenchanted with the PC or social justice world, NOT the original or ostensible goals of social justice.

But the point is that it is all legal. Trying to make it otherwise is an infringement on the 1st. That is the point I'm trying to make with this thread.

a reply to: Kandinsky

This is well said. It's like people don't understand that the things they are complaining about losing make other people upset. Sure, not EVERY minority is offended by those things, but many are and pretending like it is innocent fun or just for laughs isn't helping anything. It's still mean. Yes, it's a harmful world out there and people need to suck things up, but that doesn't mean you should be casually insulting people without knowing what you are doing.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


If anything, PC is a confession of one's own racism and xenophobia, evidenced by the constant need to refer to large homogenous and abstract groups of people formulated in their racist minds to which they tailor their speech. Minorities, migrants, Muslims—the imagining of large groups of people as victims deemed infantile enough to be protected from certain speech by their white moral overlords. It's no more than a solipsistic projection of one's own racism on another human being.

It's a common tactic to make the anti-PC crowd to be racists and bigots, but only because conflating disagreement with bigotry and racism is the only argument they can muster. Yet if they were to stop projecting their own racist and bigoted tendencies for but a moment, they will realize they can barely find a single concrete example of the bigotry and racism outside of their own minds.

The amount of hate crimes in such a large nation Is so low, that they have to literally invent them out of thin air.

So you don't think there is any real racism or bigotry (is the use of racism along with bigotry redundant?), and that any one who thinks there is or objects to it is themselves the bigot?

I really hope that's not what you meant to say as it would surely be a contender for single most ridiculous post ever made on ATS (and that is some tough competition).

That's not what I said, nor is that an argument.

Could you explain what you meant then by barely find a single concrete example of the bigotry and racism outwith their own heads?
If I have misinterpreted apologise, but I certainly sounds like you are saying there is no real bigotry.