The secret origins of political correctness

Skyfloating
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Replace words such as "Gay" with "Mafia" and you have "You have no choice but to do Business with the Mafia".
Thats where this is leading. You will return to this thread in 20 years and agree...but by then the thread will have been removed as a thought-crime.

Only equatable if you believe homosexuality to be criminal. I think you'll need to start another thread for that. But you ignore my Jim Crow premise. You also speak of PC as taught, ignoring the fact that good manners and empathy for others are also taught. At least, that's what I successfully imparted to my kids.

Please stop using the extreme as exemplification of the norm. Not to mention 'straw man' arguments.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Good Manners and PC are two different things. I choose to display good manners because its what I want to choose, partially based on my observation of what works best in life. PC is not a choice, its attempting to legislate or force others to think/speak differently.

As for racial discrimination: I think its good we got rid of school segregation or habitually calling other-coloured people derogatory names. I disagree with you that thats thanks to PC.

Skyfloating
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Good Manners and PC are two different things.

But they are not mutually exclusive

As for racial discrimination: I think its good we got rid of school segregation or habitually calling other-coloured people derogatory names. I disagree with you that thats thanks to PC.

Well, much of that was courtesy of your Civil Rights Act, which would fall under your definition of imposition of values by the government, would it not? In fact, I'm pretty sure the same 'sky is falling' arguments were heard at that time, too.

As to the much-vaunted Constitution...it really only applied to white men at the time it was written, so it is not much of a fall-back.

Here`s Steven Pinker - the exact opposite of a "right-wing nut" speaking out against PC.

The video is not very interesting, I only post it merely as an anti-PC statement from an academic viewpoint.

George Carlin - not exactly a "right wing nut" either, speaks out against PC:

Skyfloating
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

I must have provided at least 10 examples of PC in my OP...none of which you have actually yet addressed.

I have specifically addressed two of them. But I asked you to tell me why you think children are routinely branded as racist for not going on a day trip when the article you linked to proves the opposite - that teachers who try to do that end up having to apologise and withdraw what they wrote. We in fact live in a world where that type of thing is not allowed.

So why are you claiming the opposite? And why are you accusing me of not being specific when I am in fact discussing the excat details of the case, while you are just making vague pronouncements?


Like here:

It explains why various European schools have banned Christian crosses from being displayed, but have allowed muslim headscarfs and prayer rooms. It explains why prayers have been banned from many schools, but Hindu Yoga lessons, Buddhist Meditation sessions and Muslim Prayer Rooms are being "integrated".

You don't even bother to give one of your isolated examples for this. It's just an assertion. And while there may be examples of it occurring it is not widespread at all - indeed France has banned the headscarf and Christian symbols. In the UK christian prayers are not banned and neither are headscarfs. Indeed many schools are explicitly religious.

So thus far you have a school in Staffs where a teacher has been made to apologise for going against societal norms and a lot of unsourced claims.

JohnnyCanuck

Well, much of that was courtesy of your Civil Rights Act, which would fall under your definition of imposition of values by the government, would it not? In fact, I'm pretty sure the same 'sky is falling' arguments were heard at that time, too.

This is a very good point. Literally exactly the same argument was made for why apartheid South Africa was fine and dandy.

reply to post by Skyfloating


....

-hits the big red NOPE button-

TheToastmanCometh


-hits the big red NOPE button-

Hitting an imaginary button wont make ideas you disagree with go away.

JuniorDisco
Literally exactly the same argument was made for why apartheid South Africa was fine and dandy.

Neither the civil rights movement nor the end of apartheid have anything whatsoever to do with PC. They are a result of progress in civil rights and democracy.

JuniorDisco


You don't even bother to give one of your isolated examples for this. It's just an assertion.

After writing three threads on the subject, each having numerous OP-posts brim full with references, sources, examples, citations, I`ll allow myself to sit back and relax a little. If you have objections to what has been referenced and presented in the three OPs of this thread or the OPs of previous threads in this series, feel free to pick them apart with references, documentation and citations of your own. Thus far you have provided no documentation whatsoever in support of your notion that PC has advanced society and mankind.

Skyfloating
This thread provides a good example of the totalitarian future that awaits us. 9 out of 10 posters approve of me not being able to choose who I do Business with.

Actually no, the LAW does.... equality before the law, that's all it's about.
If you want to change the law, vote somebody in who will do that, otherwise ALL business owners have to abide by the law.

And it's the law of the UK I might add.

JohnnyCanuck
]Well, much of that was courtesy of your Civil Rights Act, which would fall under your definition of imposition of values by the government, would it not? In fact, I'm pretty sure the same 'sky is falling' arguments were heard at that time, too.

It is good if the Government bans hateful ACTION.

Its nonsense to try to ban hateful THINKING.

Thats the whole anti-PC argument in Summary.

blupblup
Actually no, the LAW does.... equality before the law, that's all it's about.
If you want to change the law, vote somebody in who will do that, otherwise ALL business owners have to abide by the law.

And it's the law of the UK I might add.

So if I own a shop of antique vases and I won't allow drunken brawlers to enter my shop, the law requires me to let them enter?

No need to reply...

Skyfloating


So if I own a shop of antique vases and I won't allow drunken brawlers to enter my shop, the law requires me to let them enter?

No need to reply...

But that, and most of your other examples, are pure BS, straw-man, utter crap.
They have literally nothing to do with anything.

Being drunk in public in many places, is now illegal and your stock could get damaged.
Also it's about how you go about refusing service.

Saying "The invisible man who talks to me said that gays are bad so you can't sleep in our B&B tonight"
Is probably not the best way to go about it.

You cannot, and the law should not allow it either, discriminate against people based on Gender, sexual orientation, race or any other such factor.
That's why we have laws in place, for equality.... a lot of hard work went in to getting this far.
why would you undo all of that to go back to a time when bars and pubs had these signs up?




This is what you want the world to be like? All so people are free to air their bigotry and judge and shun whoever they like.

No thanks and I'm fully confident you have no hope of getting this world back

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco
Literally exactly the same argument was made for why apartheid South Africa was fine and dandy.

Neither the civil rights movement nor the end of apartheid have anything whatsoever to do with PC. They are a result of progress in civil rights and democracy.

I'm aware they have nothing to do with PC, because PC isn't real outside the imagination of people who share your views.

What is incontestable is that when segregation in the USA and apartheid in RSA were under attack, it was your argument - the one about freedom of trade - that was marshalled in their defence. You're part of a not very proud tradition.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


You don't even bother to give one of your isolated examples for this. It's just an assertion.

After writing three threads on the subject, each having numerous OP-posts brim full with references, sources, examples, citations, I`ll allow myself to sit back and relax a little. If you have objections to what has been referenced and presented in the three OPs of this thread or the OPs of previous threads in this series, feel free to pick them apart with references, documentation and citations of your own. Thus far you have provided no documentation whatsoever in support of your notion that PC has advanced society and mankind.

Either you haven't understood or you're being deliberately obtuse. I have no notion that "PC has advanced mankind" (whatever that means) because I recognise that "PC" is something you've invented so you can get angry about being unable to exercise prejudice.

Again it's you who isn't being specific and who seems unable to answer my point. I'll try it one more time and see what you do - I suspect you'll evade it again.

Once again - you cited an example where a teacher threatened children with censure for not going on a day trip. You said this was commonplace and generally accepted. And yet if one reads the story it's clear that the teacher was forced to withdraw her comments and apologise. We in fact live in a world where that is deemed unacceptable. So why are you so insistent that its the status quo when it is clearly not? When your own example proves that it is not?

Incidentally you claimed to have 'hundreds' of examples of children "every day" being threatened with "PC" censure. And yet you are unable to show anything more than a single example in a single school.

Skyfloating

JohnnyCanuck
]Well, much of that was courtesy of your Civil Rights Act, which would fall under your definition of imposition of values by the government, would it not? In fact, I'm pretty sure the same 'sky is falling' arguments were heard at that time, too.

It is good if the Government bans hateful ACTION.

Its nonsense to try to ban hateful THINKING.

Thats the whole anti-PC argument in Summary.

Tell me one law passed in the UK or USA that bans a thought. Just one.

reply to post by blupblup


If you don't let bigots speak openly, they are going to do it secretly. And thats how the virus spreads. You outlaw bigotry and resistance forms.

Those Hotel-Owners in your thread...what do you think they are going to do, suddenly and magically become good? No, they have been fined a lot of money, so now they are going to continue their hatred in secret. And every time a homosexual couple comes along they will lie and say "We are fully booked". The homosexual couple on the other hand...well...I think its good that they went public about it and shamed the hotel. My problem in this case is not with the homosexuals but with the LAW that tries to legislate what these peoples opinions and views are supposed to be.

So Im in my shop full of China, a drunkard comes in and I say "I dont serve drunk people". He says: "Im not drunk. Thats discrimination. Im going to sue you". And I get fined. Its the same basic principle...me, the Business owner, getting find for refusing to do Business.

The homosexuals had their feelings hurt. PC demands that you can get $$$ compensation not only for physical injury, but for getting your feelings hurt. What kind of precedent does that set for the future?

Ive been denied service before. For instance, numerous times as a Teenager I was not admitted into dance clubs. My feelings were hurt. I was discriminated against because I wasnt dressed good enough, didnt have any women with me, didnt have the right face or whatever. But instead of crying "discrimination" and going around suing people, I instead learned that these people...the ones discriminating against me...are not worth my time and I am better off going to places where I am welcome. So those dance clubs missed out on my money and my presence. Their loss, not mine.

JuniorDisco
I have no notion that "PC has advanced mankind" (whatever that means) because I recognise that "PC" is something you've invented so you can get angry about being unable to exercise prejudice.

Absolutely fantastic post.