I think people are confusing PC with manners

I was gob-smacked watching the latest Robin Hood series when I saw Friar Tuck was black! Can you imagine Nelson Mandela being portrayed as a white man? There would be a global outcry! This is beyond PC, its complete madness.

Oh boy... I just knew when I read the OP that this had to be about Donald J Trump... Look, I don't agree with the things that Trump says. What I like about him most, is that he says those things, doesn't give a damn about what people think about those things, and it drives people crazy. The media, liberals, hell even my most conservative friends. They all hate him for it, and I LOVE that about him.

I wouldn't consider your political affiliation as a precursor to whether you are PC, but he is pissing people off in the left AND the right establishments. No wonder we get a full daily dose of him, establishments run the media and neither side wants him elected. That just makes me want to elect him more, though I really hope some other candidates close the gap soon. I don't want to vote for Trump... but I freaking will if I have to!

But crazyewok, this situation highlights why America is the great country that it is. No matter what you say or I say, we can say it freely, or used to be able to. I am all for kindness, and helping your fellow man (and man's best friend) but we really don't need to start checking our speech in every conversation, just to make sure nobody else is offended. That's newspeak.. I truly believe the PC culture is just the start of that, once we start banning people or the things people say not one individual will be safe in the future.

a reply to: smitastrophe

I think you missed the entire point of the thread.

I NEVER suggested banning anything.

Im not saying one does not have freedom of speech (and the USA not the only country with it), trump and everyone has the right to say what they like.

Doesnt mean its the right thing to do or they should be protected from criticism, nor does it mean they are fighting PC.

Sometimes a jerk is just a jerk and freedom of speech does not make you immune from that.

Again I never said anything should be banned.

The term Politically Correct refers to the practice of tact & diplomacy (hence the use of the word political).
It addresses the use of respect in dealings & ministrations.
Its use requires a certain level of respect, intelligence and emotional astuteness.
Anti-PC is an excuse for those - tardy (with respect to the qualities aforementioned), to practice selfishness, rudeness and lack of emotional control/intelligence and of lack of respect - or, for these tardy individuals to latch onto a paradigm enabled to protect those not able to protect themselves - it fits both purposes for the same reasons...but, one group actively seeks out its harbour because of selfishness, rudeness, lack of respect and lack of emotional control/intelligence - all is as it should be...

Å99

originally posted by: deliberator
I was gob-smacked watching the latest Robin Hood series when I saw Friar Tuck was black! Can you imagine Nelson Mandela being portrayed as a white man? There would be a global outcry! This is beyond PC, its complete madness.

Yup.

Couldn't watch it.

That was blatetly forceing social agenda down your throat.

One reason I stopped watching the BBC.

Dont get me wrong I have no problem generally with minority’s in programs.
But I find it offensive when they are used in such a manner, almost patronising to both me and them.

Minoritys in a modern program set in the 20 or 21st century, great, fine.
Minority shoe horned in to programs set in a time when multiculturalism did not exist then no.

I had an interesting thought. I understand that a lot of people are offended by Trumps comments, and to me it sounds like you are saying that what Trump is doing is not fighting the PC culture but just being a jerk and rude. I get that, but I would like to make a comparison. During the 2008 elections, do you recall the SNL skits that Tina Fey did impersonations of Sarah Palin? Now, political ideologies aside and taking into account that I myself am NOT a fan of Sarah Palin; do you think that would be considered equally rude, mean and "jerk-ish"? Yes SNL is meant to be satire but we are seeing everyday how satirical commentary is seriously considered by average ordinary citizens, those how do not read or watch the news, internet etc.

I would contend that is outright more "jerk-ish" than what Trump said. SNL ran a comedic skit that was picked up by news organizations that publicly humiliated someone. I remember talking to people who had no idea who Sarah Palin was but were talking about Tina Fey. That to me is far worse, than somebody spouting at the mouth, trying to get elected.



www.youtube.com...

I don't think we should be offended by what Trump says, is that there is historical precedence for immigration moratoriums. We have done it in the past, hell Obama did it a few years ago. That is why I personally am not offended. We would be doing it temporarily and to keep ourselves safer. Perhaps a moratorium would spur greater action within the Muslim community to end this sort of extremism, which is springing forth from those religious teachings (though a very strict interpretation of them).

There's a belief among the "politically correct" that if they follow a socially accepted set of language rules, then they would be able to attack their political foes under the belt so to speak. With voters a greater portion of faith is placed in their representative when he can hold his temper and address serious matters with an assured strength. It appears weak to get frustrated at the podium and act out at the other candidates without forethought, giving everyone a bad impression. Of the debates in the current election that I'd seen there was a particular candidate that seemed to do this often. Some would call it "passion", I would call it not being able to handle the pressure of "knowing everything" and greedily nabbing the spotlight without anything really intelligent to say. It's one thing to shoot down your opponent with hard facts and knowledgebility, It's another thing to wave your arms around and say random slogans to distract the viewer.

a reply to: crazyewok

Just playing devils advocate here, Crazy, but there were black people in England during the Middle Ages and especially so during the late Roman period. It's not unheard of, that's all I am saying...

However, portraying Friar Tuck as a black man is a step too far, it is essentially as you are saying - re-writing history to fit modern norms. That said, the period in which Robin Hood is set had no friars at all! - it was an addition later on to the legend.

a reply to: crazyewok

But if your a jerk then your not free from being shouted down.

That is free speech too.

If you act like a dick then other people have the right to act like a dick back.

So, all it takes to justify your inner jerk is for someone else to open the floor by being what you consider to be a jerk? Then you can be as big a dick as you like because they started it? How mature.

And I can certainly see how that creates a more civil, polite and just society. Just bully someone who says something you don't like so long as you can justify it by saying they were being a jerk.

Thanks for clarifying. I wish it would help me out, but I just can't be that much of a jerk.

This is the problem with PC. It makes you think you are being morally superior when you are still really just being a jerk.

a reply to: deliberator

If someone can cast Tom Cruise as a 15th century European vampire then ANYTHING is possible.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: crazyewok

Just playing devils advocate here, Crazy, but there were black people in England during the Middle Ages and especially so during the late Roman period. It's not unheard of, that's all I am saying...

However, portraying Friar Tuck as a black man is a step too far, it is essentially as you are saying - re-writing history to fit modern norms. That said, the period in which Robin Hood is set had no friars at all! - it was an addition later on to the legend.

Sure there were a very very very few. But they were mostly moor traders or in Roman times slave traders. Certainly not a relevant community .
And certainly not to a extent the BBC would have you believe.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

But if your a jerk then your not free from being shouted down.

That is free speech too.

If you act like a dick then other people have the right to act like a dick back.

So, all it takes to justify your inner jerk is for someone else to open the floor by being what you consider to be a jerk? Then you can be as big a dick as you like because they started it? How mature.

And I can certainly see how that creates a more civil, polite and just society. Just bully someone who says something you don't like so long as you can justify it by saying they were being a jerk.

Thanks for clarifying. I wish it would help me out, but I just can't be that much of a jerk.

This is the problem with PC. It makes you think you are being morally superior when you are still really just being a jerk.

Never said you should be a jerk back did I?
There is a diffrence between what you can do and what is right.

Just said in a society with true free speech you are FREE to be a jerk back and your not protected from the consequences.

True PC = is the state dictating what you can or can not say.

To say a bully and a jerk needs special protection from consequences from other bullys and jerks make you just as bad as the PC you bemoan. You are PC!

originally posted by: crazyewok
There seems to me to be a huge confusion on politically correctness and just plain manners.
It seems people are cheering "certain" people for mocking disabled people, personal attacks on people and out right rudeness and claim it fighting political correctness.

Its not.

For me political correctness is things like:
Safe spaces

Shoe horning minority’s into programs were they don’t belong, IE the BBC in England’s obsession with putting blacks and Asians in Medieval European settings. (not that I have a problem with minority’s on TV but just they should not be shoe horned in)

Locking people up for thought crimes and non violent hate speech. (I might disagree with someone but I defend there right to say it )

Double legal standards.

Revising and censoring history to be more PC.

White guilt.

Reverse racism and positive discrimination.

Banning or discouraging certain cultural norms while promoting others.

Zero tolerance culture.

Those are to me PC culture and things we need to look at as harmful.


On the other hand:

Mocking disabled people.

Making blanket generalisations on race or religions

Being outright rude or insulting to individuals

Giving into fear and hysteria

That’s not fighting PC, that’s just being a jerk.

I actually disagree with you. Our constitution provides your the right to be offended but our political correct society is making laws to now change our constitution to make it illegal to offend you. That is the difference and is a nasty slippery slope!

a reply to: Bearack

Disagree with what?

At what point have I said the the state should regulate what you say?

I have already stated I recognise the right to say what you like even if offensive.
But you have to take the consequences and back lash too. Thats also free speech.

Plus just because you CAN be a offensive jerk does not mean you should.


Take NAMBLA , sure they have RIGHT to say the things they do, but thats doesn't mean mean the vile sick perverted things they say are right does it?

Terrorism = Man-Caused Disaster

War = Kinetic Military Action

Penmanship -> Handwriting

Fisherman -> Fishers

Policeman -> Police Officer

Freshman -> First Year Student


PC is not manners. PC is an attempt by those in authority to shift our language to a warm cuddly soft vocabulary without perceived inequities or triggers. And when you call TPTB on this, they just ask "You don't want to offend anyone, do you?"

If someone is offended by the inclusion of 'man' in their word choice, then I really don't care if I offend them. They don't have a right to not be offended. In my opinion they either need a thicker skin, or they should rub some dirt on their ego and walk it off.

This leads me to turn your original point on its head:

TPTB want people to confuse manners with PC

a reply to: crazyewok

But that is what happens.

Someone doesn't use the PC term and they get yelled at and bullied and destroyed. Ever researched Dan Savage? He's a highly thought of gay rights activist. His anti-bullying tactics are basically bullying.

It's one thing to pick on people and be mean-spirited. It's another thing when you simply disagree and that and that alone is labeled as hate speech and un-PC which is what going on these days. Ask the CEO of Mozilla what he thinks about PC ... oh wait, you can't because he's not the CEO anymore. All he did was send some private money of his to donate to a position he agreed with (not company money or anything like that) WELL BEFORE he was ever in that job. But when the activists released the disclosure ... he was railroaded out. It wasn't PC you see.

I guess it'll be a cold day in hell before I have a Mozilla product.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

But that is what happens.

Someone doesn't use the PC term and they get yelled at and bullied and destroyed. Ever researched Dan Savage? He's a highly thought of gay rights activist. His anti-bullying tactics are basically bullying.

It's one thing to pick on people and be mean-spirited. It's another thing when you simply disagree and that and that alone is labeled as hate speech and un-PC which is what going on these days. Ask the CEO of Mozilla what he thinks about PC ... oh wait, you can't because he's not the CEO anymore. All he did was send some private money of his to donate to a position he agreed with (not company money or anything like that) WELL BEFORE he was ever in that job. But when the activists released the disclosure ... he was railroaded out. It wasn't PC you see.

I guess it'll be a cold day in hell before I have a Mozilla product.

But what would you do?

Get the state to intervene? Because then you are enforcing your own PC.

You bemoan those how boycotted the former CEO of Mozilla so he got fired. Yet your now boycotting Mozilla for firing him. I will not say who was right or wrong because as far as I am concerned you both have that right to boycotted a product. And the former CEO should know that being in such a high profile job does bring certain risks in regards to what you say and do. Sure he has the right to say what he likes, but again he is not free for the consequences of what he says, only free from what the state can do.

There are going to jerks and douche bags on both sides of the political spectrum left or right. There not much you can do about that without restricting freedom as that human nature. All you can do is encourage people to voluntarily use manners and discernment.

I might not agree with you on some things, but I do find you good mannered you put your views forward respectfully.
Again you cant force good manners but you can encourage them.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Terrorism = Man-Caused Disaster

War = Kinetic Military Action

Penmanship -> Handwriting

Fisherman -> Fishers

Policeman -> Police Officer

Freshman -> First Year Student


PC is not manners. PC is an attempt by those in authority to shift our language to a warm cuddly soft vocabulary without perceived inequities or triggers. And when you call TPTB on this, they just ask "You don't want to offend anyone, do you?"

If someone is offended by the inclusion of 'man' in their word choice, then I really don't care if I offend them. They don't have a right to not be offended. In my opinion they either need a thicker skin, or they should rub some dirt on their ego and walk it off.

This leads me to turn your original point on its head:

TPTB want people to confuse manners with PC

You see those are good examples of what I would call PC which is bad.

That’s not manners or being polite that’s just changing language to suite a agenda.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yea, late in the game since we were discussing this yesterday, but.............

After posting, I got to thinking about England/UK and began to wonder, "when did England/UK" start to become more multi-cultural? The 1600's? For example, did Africans and/or Indians begin to make an appearance, perhaps as dock workers in London in the 1600's/1700's?

Any idea?

a reply to: TonyS

Think it began slowly in the mid 1700s but wasn’t really a thing till after WW2 when we ere desperate from workers and encouraged people from the empire to move here.

Don’t think it was a overnight thing and stumason is right there was always some minority’s here in the form of traders and slavers but they were not common or a integral part of English society and the racial make up of the English population certainly was not as rainbow coloured as the BBC would like you to think. Probably the biggest minority group were Jews and they did play a important part doing the jobs Christians looked down on but couldn’t do without. After the mid 1700’s though it did slowly start to change.