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.

 

The secret origins of political correctness

page: 17
91
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


You do enjoy overstating the volume of your data, don't you?


Overstating? I dont think so. In our new fascist tyranny, anyone whose views differ from the consensus, instantly lose their job. Here Phil Rpbertson dares to express Christian Morals. The result? He loses his position, his career is over.

It does not matter whether his views are correct or not. What matters is that he can no longer express non-PC views without losing it all.

Tyrants.


So A+E have to continue to showcase this man and pay him lots of money whatever views he espouses? Odd that they don't fall under the rules you set for everyone else about freedom of association and who you do business with. Shouldn't they be free to stop their commercial relationship with him at any time and for any reason?

Anyway, you're (once again) talking total nonsense and - yes - overstating the situation. It's not true that "anyone whose views differ from the consensus, instantly lose [sic] their job" is it? That's just a basic exaggeration.




posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   

JuniorDisco
Odd that they don't fall under the rules you set for everyone else about freedom of association and who you do business with. Shouldn't they be free to stop their commercial relationship with him at any time and for any reason?



This I absolutely agree with. They should be free to do Business with whomever they want.

Note that the Hotel we talked about previously is NOT free to do Business with whomever they want, while A&E is free to do Business with whomever they want. The double standard is because PC is currently in power.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


So you think they should be free to end their association with this guy, but that they should continue to employ him. In other words you're okay with them firing him for his views, but also appalled by it. I'd say it's you who has the double standard.

Note that you're also drawing a false equivalence. A hotel is a public service that holds certain responsibilities because of the type of business it offers. A TV station is not public in that sense and it is not incumbent upon it to broadcast everyone just because they want to be on it.

This is why your argument fails - you keep pretending all businesses are exactly the same. They are not, and they are not forced by some ideological purity to act identically. You keep trying to invent that ideology and enforce it because it suits your position of superiority.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   

JuniorDisco
So you think they should be free to end their association with this guy


Oh Yes.




In other words you're okay with them firing him for his views


Yes. Absolutely.




A hotel is a public service


Yes. I agree 100%.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


The Duck Dynasty issue is a private one between A&E and its contractual employees. Of course they should be free to cancel the show (contract permitting).

Political-correctness is what causes a once-struggling company like A&E to consider dropping their biggest money-maker over comments with which most of the show's target audience would agree. It is also the reason A&E discouraged the Robertson family from ending the show with a prayer, and edits out most of the religious references made during filming. Something tells me fans of the show are not 'offended' by religion, so what was A&E afraid of?

They were afraid of organized groups like GLAAD, who go around filing lawsuits and ginning up boycotts against anyone and everyone who does not embrace their so-called progressive ideology. That is political-correctness -- a pervasive fear of being persecuted for expressing one's opinion or beliefs. It afflicts corporations and people, though only those who think for themselves



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindedRealist
 


No, they just think that their "stars'" opinions are outmoded and have no place in the brand of the channel. That they still put them on TV up until one of them really went off the reservation you may call hypocrisy. But just because quite a lot of people think something doesn't make it correct. And the notion that "PC enforcers" are more powerful than your vaunted silent majority is, if you think about it, absurd. And illogical.

Happy holidays.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


If you think A&E's decision was based on ethics, you are being naive. The company exists to make money, and if it gets viewers it will keep airing a show. Besides, do you really think they were unaware of the subculture surrounding hunting in Louisiana?

And how does a silent majority possibly have more effect than a vocal minority? If two out of twenty people vote to make chocolate illegal and no one else votes, then no one gets to eat chocolate.

MERRY (late) CHRISTMAS!
Happy New Year, too.
edit on 27-12-2013 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   

OpenMindedRealist

If you think A&E's decision was based on ethics, you are being naive.


I precisely don't think that. I even say it above.


And how does a silent majority possibly have more effect than a vocal minority? If two out of twenty people vote to make chocolate illegal and no one else votes, then no one gets to eat chocolate.


Because it's not that silent and has the vast weight of historic hegemony on its side?

Oh, and I guess A&E weren't quite as scared of the big bad advocacy groups as you suggest. Maybe they aren't actually the powerhouses you think they are


www.theguardian.com...
edit on 28-12-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Perhaps I don't give the American people enough credit; I have been pleasantly surprised by the public outcry against A&E. Hopefully it is indicative of a greater trend against PC-motivated decisions which unjustly restrict the majority in response to complaints from a minority.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindedRealist
 


Or the all-powerful PC monster that you conjured up was a phantom in the first place.

Which do you think is more likely? A country where black people were literally second class citizens in living memory and slaves only a few generations ago, and where homosexuality was against federal law until recently - either it mysteriously became ruled for a brief period by an unstoppable PC authority and has now thrown off the shackles because, um, some reality TV guy woke up the proles (your contention).

Or the country was never that PC in the first place and you guys just made it all up.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:52 AM
link   
PC is a game of reality-reversal. So instead of saying "homosexuality can be a choice and gender is no choice because you are born that way" the PC says "homosexuality is never a choice because you were born that way and gender is a choice".

Reality is that a significant percentage of homosexuals are so by choice, and ALL sexual acts are by choice, whereas gender is not a choice but rather a biological reality.

If these dumb cultists were even just a little honest then they'd promote either both or neither as a choice.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Skyfloating
Reality is that a significant percentage of homosexuals are so by choice, and ALL sexual acts are by choice, whereas gender is not a choice but rather a biological reality.
Reality is that to get one's knickers in a twist over what others are doing with their naughty bits is unseeming at best...and suspect at worst!



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





I may have much more to say on this interesting topic later.... for now I'd just like to point out that quite ironically, and amusingly, ATS' own policies fit right in with the "Politically Correct" / be-as-inoffensive-as-possible school of thought.


Not only can I not use racial / religious epithets, etc, I can not even "curse," or use "colorful" language due to (someone else') fear that it might offend someone.


I can't even call someone a "moron" or an "idiot" no matter how moronic or idiotic their words are.


I'd be curious to hear how you feel ATS' own policies fit in with your veiwpoint, OP? Do you think it's okay that ATS does it? Why, or why not? To not offend advertisers? Not offend members? But isn't that kind of the same thing everyone else is trying to do, when speaking (in a "PC" manner) in public? How, if at all, do you view this differently? Why would you not give any other group / writer / speaker / publisher the same benefit of the doubt?



edit on 4-1-2014 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


That aspect of the debate came up a few pages ago.

Like driving a car, joining ATS is a voluntary decision. If I don't like to read books, I shouldn't join a book club. If I can't form an argument in a civil manner, I shouldn't join a discussion forum.
For a more thorough rebuttal, read the previous posts.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Skyfloating
PC is a game of reality-reversal. So instead of saying "homosexuality can be a choice and gender is no choice because you are born that way" the PC says "homosexuality is never a choice because you were born that way and gender is a choice".

Reality is that a significant percentage of homosexuals are so by choice, and ALL sexual acts are by choice, whereas gender is not a choice but rather a biological reality.

If these dumb cultists were even just a little honest then they'd promote either both or neither as a choice.


Why are you guys always picketing military funerals and blaming America's problems on gays?

(See how silly it is?)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


I think its important to define a set of rules within limited playgrounds, such as this Discussion Board. Its a difeferent story when its Government mandated for-all.

I also dont consider removing insults and hates-speech to be PC. Im really only attacking the extremists with this thread, not the people who just want some common respect and manners.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   

JohnnyCanuck
Reality is that to get one's knickers in a twist over what others are doing with their naughty bits is unseeming at best...and suspect at worst!


I dont care what someone does sexually (despite your PC-attempt to pretend I do). I care about ideology. I care about the person who says "Gender is a choice, homosexuality is not a choice!". Thats counter-factual, counter-science, counter-reality. Gender is not a choice its a biological reality. And homosexuality sometimes is a choice.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

BenReclused
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Them bastards! They killed "free speech"!

That was a great OP! Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected.

See ya,
Milt
heres some nostalgia www.youtube.com...

In world war 2 the british psyops on germany was to distribute porn in germany to weaken their morals and spirits... Ever wonder why internet porn is free? Or music channels? Or news channels? But history and documentary channels are mostly paid for, the p.c brigade stops us from complaining about the degeneration of our dignity.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That story is from nine years ago. So maybe it's more like a once-a-decade event.



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join