Political Correctness is Going to Destroy US

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

It's omitting that word some - right? What we say means something. How we say it - and why we say it

When people say Muslims did this, or black people do that, what we hear is - this is how all those people are

We're not allowed to point that out however. Policing language and apparently thinking seems to be the right of some - but not others

It seems to me that this is basically a PC attack tool to say " so you mean all xxx". The normal assumption would be a person doesn't mean all unless they say all. If we do not use the word "all" do we still need to say "some".

Think that is a reach. I do think there is a value in qualifying what you mean when discussing groups of people.

When you say bears sh87 in the woods...it's safe to assume you mean "all".

If you are going to talk about religion or race, it's thoughtful to qualify IMO. You don't say that Catholic Priests like to molest children..."some" is a fair qualifier to toss in. Personally I prefer accurate statements...not "catholic priests", but rather "child molesters"...and yes the priesthood is an occupation that has attracted "some" of those folks.

I prefer "terrorist"...cuz it describes the people much accurately than Muslim, Christian, White Supremist, Communist, Left-Wing, Right-Wing...really who gives a crap about why they are claiming it is OK to kill innocent people? they are out-of-bounds, there is no motive that makes it legitimate...eff em. Murderes, rapists, terrorist, criminals...I don't care what god they claim to follow...I don't care if they think Jesus Christ himself told them to do it..."Muslim" muddies the issue and makes it more difficult to address. I also think ethnicity makes it harder...It's a lazy man's way of pretending if we just ban all X, problem solved. We have had dozens of Americans...Christian, Muslim, Black, White etc...conduct terrorist acts in the USA. Spending time talking about their declared religious or ideological motivation as if it matters is not a sound strategy, cuz the common denominator is that they are mentally bent, not religion or skin color.

originally posted by: seeker1963



That's what it is coming down to, whether you want to admit or not. A nation cannot survive with this type of division! Study the fall of Rome........

Indeed, but read some books instead of relying on TV movies and shonky op ed websites.

Rome was not a nation. It was a city, then a monarchy, then a republic, then an empire, then two empires, then just one.

The empires fell not because they were divided but because of pressure from outside. The Western Empire collapsed for many reasons, including large scale migrations of "barbarians" which destabilised the regions. The Eastern Empire withstood attacks from Islamic expansionism and Western Christians for centuries before it, too, withered away and fell to the Ottomans.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Think that is a reach. I do think there is a value in qualifying what you mean when discussing groups of people.

When you say bears sh87 in the woods...it's safe to assume you mean "all".

I agree to a point, but PC takes the statement "most terrorist these days are Muslim" to mean "most Muslim these days are terrorist". One is a true statement and the other one is not.

If you are going to talk about religion or race, it's thoughtful to qualify IMO. You don't say that Catholic Priests like to molest children..."some" is a fair qualifier to toss in. Personally I prefer accurate statements...not "catholic priests", but rather "child molesters"...and yes the priesthood is an occupation that has attracted "some" of those folks.

I prefer "terrorist"...cuz it describes the people much accurately than Muslim, Christian, White Supremist, Communist, Left-Wing, Right-Wing...really who gives a crap about why they are claiming it is OK to kill innocent people?

Really so you do not think culture and beliefs has anything to do with terrorism? I think it is very important why terrorist are within a group. It is also important in how people identify themselves too. Would you feel comfortable around a group of men who say they are the KKK or crips/bloods, generic_01 biker gang etc?

. We have had dozens of Americans...Christian, Muslim, Black, White etc...conduct terrorist acts in the USA. Spending time talking about their declared religious or ideological motivation as if it matters is not a sound strategy, cuz the common denominator is that they are mentally bent, not religion or skin color.

I agree it is a numbers game but on one side you have a few and on the other side you have 10,000s so which one should we be concerned about?

a reply to: Indigo5

But does it?

What about Polar Bears? Are you saying they sh*t in the woods? Why are you so ignorant? And thus the PC war begins.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

But does it?

What about Polar Bears? Are you saying they sh*t in the woods? Why are you so ignorant? And thus the PC war begins.

What if I identify as a Koala Bear? Why cant we be understood as a true bear?
FREEDOM FOR BEARS!
#KLM

a reply to: Punisher75

Who cares? You still sh*t in the woods. Brown, black, koala, you're all the same and sh*t in the woods.

But Polar Bears ... don't you see? They have no woods to live in, so they are the true victims here!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Punisher75

Who cares? You still sh*t in the woods. Brown, black, koala, you're all the same and sh*t in the woods.

But Polar Bears ... don't you see? They have no woods to live in, so they are the true victims here!

Maybe so but I think Koala Bears should get special treatment after all we are marsupials and have pouches!

originally posted by: reldra
PC may not be what most people think it is. It was given that name as a derisive, bad thing. Why? People who want to act less than human want something to blame. Something, anything. Even if 2 letters is it, they think 'Why not?" it will hide me from looking like a monster.

The problem is, you can't hide. People see you. They see your racism, bigotry, sterotyping, condemnation of entire ethnic groups. It is 2016, not 1942. You can't hide behind something so small.

I'm sorry but this divisiveness is disingenuous nonsense.

I consider myself an egalitarian, meaning I'm pro LGBT, anti-racist, anti-sexist. I want equality for everyone. I'm also a humanist. I would love to see humanity live up to it's true potential, I hate these divisive demagogues who bring out the worst in us.

I'm just against any type of thought policing. I don't want a centrally planned nanny state imposing their hive mind on me. I hate seeing professors lose their job for challenging their anti-intellectual students. I hate seeing politically correct mobs dox people online so they can pressure their employers to fire them. I'm tired of seeing people lose their business because someone called their yoga studio cultural appropriation.

I'm also very concerned with the PC movements that constantly identify straight white males as the source of the worlds problems. And before you make another assumption about my defense of straight white males, just know that I'm not straight or white, I'm just consistent with my opposition to divisive generalizations. If you read Salon, Gawker, or Buzzfeed you will quickly realize that they have an almost daily supply of articles discussing "the white male problem" which ironically helps white supremacists spin their white genocide propaganda. None of this is helping.

I'm also concerned about the psychological impact of this obsession with microaggressions which encourage an unhealthy level of hypersensitivity that destabilizes people.

I'm worried about what it means politically when polls show that 40% of millennials support repealing the first amendment.

My concerns aren't based in bigotry, they are based on liberty. They are the same concerns alexis de tocqueville had for soft despots and their effect on democracy.

a reply to: Punisher75

Oh? And I suppose the next thing you do is tell the Polar Bears to check their white privilege.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Punisher75

Oh? And I suppose the next thing you do is tell the Polar Bears to check their white privilege.

They totally should look at how much space they have all to themselves!!!
I mean Black Bears have to share their space with so many different animals, but the polar bears are up there in their "ivory" tower virtually all alone living in what amounts to an echo chamber!
They don't want to be a part of the "common masses" otherwise they would move into more culturally diverse areas.

originally posted by: Indigo5



recent shooters in the USA...the Philadelphia Cop shooter claiming allegiance to ISIS?...American born and bred, San Bernardino? one of the shooters American born an bred.

American born and 'resident'. Breeding, ethnicity, culture and religious

affiliations take longer. Probably up to three generations for assimilation

to take place. That is IF they want it to!!

We start focusing on Islam or some other generalization and we miss the target IMO...apart from PC or a moral rgument..it strategically fails.

Name me one other religion that calls for the death of ALL infidels?

We need to be fiercely hunting and combating terrorists and terrorist organizations, not entire religions or ethnicities. That just makes it easier for terrorists to recruit.

As ^^^^^ previous point.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
People calling the "PC crowd" bigoted, people massively generalizing. Oh the irony. -sigh-

I will repeatedly state: the issue is that no one actually knows what "PC" is. There isn't a universal definition we share.

Well it doesn't really matter because we're past the point of learning, and posting it multiple times isn't gonna change that.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I thought the issue was that, by not talking about certain topics in certain ways due to PC culture, we are losing some aspect of justification?

I am getting mixed signals.

Lack of respect and discretion will destroy the US.

You can think whatever you like about women or muslims or blacks or mexicans or catholics and in a private forum, your home with friends, a private members only club or an membership forum like ATS you are free to say whatever you want.

But don't expect people to support your positions based on defamatory remarks about broad swaths of people, in fact if that is all you have to say - Don't.

It's called 'common decency'.

You have every right to be a loud mouthed bully but it won't gain you respect except from other loud mouthed bullies.

Be happy one of your own is making an ass of himself and humiliating the whole nation (US) in front of the world just for you.
'

a reply to: Dark Ghost

How does one go about attempting to "right a historical wrong that badly needs to be righted" without discriminating against the descendants of the people that actually did something wrong?

You return to those who were wronged what was taken from them, or make redress in other appropriate ways. Those who currently possess what was taken may have to give it up; but this is not wrong. It is simply the repossession of stolen property, to which the holder has no right anyway.

Nobody is suggesting that people alive today be punished for what their forebears did; merely that they must do without the advantages they have hitherto enjoyed as a result of those deeds.

WHY are life outcomes for blacks not as good, on average, compared to whites? Is life as good for the average asian, latino or arab? Do these other groups continuously appeal to the past to explain their current predicaments?

Because the legacy of cultural deracination, chattel slavery and over a century of oppression and second-class citizenship are not put aside in a generation or two. Other groups do not have that past, so the comparison you make is irrelevant.

How exactly does a country "deal with its racist past" in your opinion?

Apologize, make redress and level the playing field for all communities.

You improve the relative position of black people in Western society by tackling the internal issues present in that population, NOT by blaming an external enemy and living in the past.

No. The ‘internal issues present in that population’ are black people’s business, not yours. If you are American but not black, your job is as stated in my answer to your previous question above.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The west, Anglo-Saxon culture, and all that currently live according to its legacy no matter what the race and creed, are the only ones apologizing in the history of the world for their past crimes.

Your language is imprecise (French, Italian and German speakers have done their share of apologizing too) but your point is taken. You mean Western culture and yes, you are right, it is the world’s most advanced culture philosophically and ethically as well as militarily and technologically, and it is greatly to its credit that it is beginning to come to terms with its past in a way other societies still struggle to do. There is, however, a long distance to go, and — as we see in this thread — some of the more backward or obscurantist elements within the culture resent the obligation to do this. Thus, posts like yours; but civilized men and women may yet hope that the age of dinosaurs will soon pass.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

'Islam' wasn't present in Europe really.

Islam was the dominant power in Spain for nearly a thousand years. Islam in Spain. Islam has been widespread in the Balkans and Eastern Europe since the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Sicily was a colony of the Ummayid Caliphate.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No, how about ‘Arab immigrants’?

It’s actually nonsense to say that political correctness, by anybody’s definition, prevents such things from being discussed. All that political correctness demands is that derogatory references (such as a certain word commonly used to refer to white people in my country) be avoided, and that generalizing statements of the ‘Jews are always tightfisted’ or ‘Islam oppresses women’ be regarded as the slanders they are.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What is driving the Muslim negativity today that really wasn't there in the past?

I take it you mean Muslim ‘negativity’ towards the West?

You do like painting with a broad brush, don’t you? I spent some years working in the Middle East where most of the Arab expatriates I knew were very fond of Western culture and quite keen to migrate to Europe or North America.

If you are talking about some Muslims’ ‘negativity’ (I would use a stronger word) toward the West, it is a simple reaction to being dominated and dispossessed by Europeans and Americans since well before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The West has a long history of bullying and stealing from the people of the Middle East. ‘Negativity’ towards thieves and bullies is quite natural reaction, don’t you think?

What keeps the negative focus on blacks that is not seen towards other minorities such as Asians and even Latin Americans outside of illegal aliens? You do know that at one point Asians were considered lower than slaves [and] the Irish were seen as the lowest humans in America at one point too... so is it really bigotry when... other groups were able to overcome it?

I see you have edited your post since I first saw it. Prior to the edit, your inference was clearer: if other groups were able to raise themselves in the estimation of whites, it must be more than just bigotry keeping blacks down; it must be something inherent in blacks themselves, or in their culture. You were well advised to make that edit.