The secret origins of political correctness

Why is being anti PC automatically being unfair to minorities?

It seems to me that being PC focuses on phenotypes and not "content of character".

But I guess in this day and age, people enjoy the comfort of being superficial and one-dimensional.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


The only thing I see was a takeover by the banks and big industrialists after the civil war. You are correct that we all became slaves to the federal government and then to the federal reserve.

I just dont see the communist aspect to all this. I think its misplaced anger to be honest. blame the commies, blame the zionists, etc. The real power brokers are the vatican and switzerland. Its an iluminati/nwo conspiracy.

I could be wrong but I always though communism had more to do with financial equality and atheism, rather than social equality. All powerful human beings(self worship) living and working in government sponsored communes.

People should stop blaming others for their own problems and mess it caused. What is happening is that the people of the world are beginning to wake up to a new reality, namely that we all need to share this planet with eachother for a long time.

The only country in the world who is not in the program, who keep on resisting with everything they got is the USA. It must be hard for them after decades of fantasizing how they would rule the world and getting so much stuff, believing they invented so many things themselves and thinking everybody looks up to the USA.

So hard for them to realize they are not their former glory, harder it is for them when they realize their glory was never theirs, but their ancestors are just a bunch of thieves, crooks, people who didn't want to comply to the Royal families at the time and left Europe to go golddigging, killing everyone that got in the way. Still believing the lands are theirs forever while I can still see the natives laughing at their claims in their eternal fields.

Thinking they are safe while they are lunatics with guns and nukes always bluffing they would use them, slowing down other countries in their development, which they have rights to but the Americans don't know about that yet, which will be another fun moment even though everybody wanted it to be different but the Americans. Can you imagine it would have been world peace by now and everybody would be safe, have food each day and a home were it not for the uncooperative Americans with their arrogance and misplaced confidence in themselves, their wrong outlook on truths in the world and other countries, disrespecting that without any hint they'll ever change.

The best thing ofcourse is the moment they are all in heaven and think they are safe forever which is when the divine computer tells them it is really a human being and they all got to go to sleep so they can all be reprogrammed. Just not in their Matrix style what they had hoped for (no dude that isn't heaven).

reply to post by Dragonfly79


To address all of your warped statements would take more time than I am willing to commit, and only push the thread off topic.

So I will pick one statement to rebut: most of us gun-toting Americans know we're not safe, that's part of the reason we like our guns.

Show thread with listening information

reply to post by Skyfloating


*chucks two shiny pennies at you*

Sorry for the abrupt reaction, but I do have reason for it on the regards of the gender neutral restrooms.

Despite being transman, I usually opt for women's restrooms because I'm not too keen on STP devices and it's better to give off the impression of a 'butch' woman than get harassed by other males who don't see me as my true gender.

That's just my take, but for others, sometimes restrooms divided by 'normal gender division' can be a bit overwhelming for them, especially when they first come out or start transitioning therapy.

I also don't have problems with Unisex restrooms as they offer more options

JuniorDisco


Nope, I'm addressing them. I read the OP - well, the first one - and it's flat wrong pretty much from the word go.

And I fail to see what my definition of fairness has to do with anything. Or how it's small minded to think that there is a basic definition which most people would agree on. I guess there are some nutjobs who would think that fairness meant "being rude to minorities" but I think we can safely discount their judgement.

These days, if some whiny discontent thinks they are a "minority" and thinks someone else is being "rude" to them, they can easily get fined or fired. Whether they were really rude or not. Often just the claim of sexism, classism, racism, lookism, ableism, etc. is enough.

Thats the problem.

reply to post by adjensen


(insert thumbs up icon here)

(insert smile emoticon here)

reply to post by TheToastmanCometh


Thanks for chiming in. I actually figured that even transgendered people have issues with it...which begs the question WHO THE HELL BENEFITS?

The PC-Agenda wont even stop at Pedophilia, suggesting that Pedophiles be called minor attracted persons.

Skyfloating

EnPassant

How about - Smartism? You can't be more intelligent or creative than someone else. dumb down the smart people. No more Einsteins!

edit on 20-11-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Unfortunately thats not a joke but the actual aim of meritocraphobes.When Pol Pot or Mao or Stalin came to power, the first thing they did was kill anyone who was above average educated, intelligent or successful...because they represented "being better" - the supposed enemy of ultra-egalitarianism.

Well, it is meant as a joke. The purpose of this 'ismism' is to make everyone the same and therefore more easy to control and subjugate. The isms are provided for weak and spiteful people who will propagate them and dumb down everyone into sameness and erode creativity. Maybe we should criticise people who engage in Sameism!

beezzer
Why is being anti PC automatically being unfair to minorities?

It seems to me that being PC focuses on phenotypes and not "content of character".

But I guess in this day and age, people enjoy the comfort of being superficial and one-dimensional.

It isn't automatically unfair but usually a complaint about PC is a coded plea for minorities to, you know,just shut the hell up about prejudice they may experience. And that could be cover for unfairness.

The reason being that PC - at least as the OP describes it - is a literal straw man, invented so that people can employ the whine detailed above. And in doing so essentially complain that they aren't allowed to be nasty to others based on race, sex or gender.

It isn't always this, but it often is. To test the hypothesis try to find actual examples where 'political correctness' is mentioned except by its opponents.

Skyfloating

JuniorDisco


Nope, I'm addressing them. I read the OP - well, the first one - and it's flat wrong pretty much from the word go.

And I fail to see what my definition of fairness has to do with anything. Or how it's small minded to think that there is a basic definition which most people would agree on. I guess there are some nutjobs who would think that fairness meant "being rude to minorities" but I think we can safely discount their judgement.

These days, if some whiny discontent thinks they are a "minority" and thinks someone else is being "rude" to them, they can easily get fined or fired. Whether they were really rude or not. Often just the claim of sexism, classism, racism, lookism, ableism, etc. is enough.

Thats the problem.

edit on 21-11-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

No, it's a side effect of trying to treat people fairly. And it's incredibly rare.

Look, you can't even get your definitions right. In your OP you say that "lookism" is thinking that people look different. It is not - it is discriminating against people because of the way they look. Why would anyone think that was a good thing?

Now...do we really want to start defining anything by its loony outriders? That really doesn't lend much credence to your central thesis.

Skyfloating
The PC-Agenda wont even stop at Pedophilia, suggesting that Pedophiles be called minor attracted persons.

See this is a classic example. Your source - of course - is from the anti-PC side. It has to be, because there is no pro-PC side.

It seeks to cast the actions of a small pressure group - one whose aims are in fact quite laudable if you cared to investigate - as the pernicious tentacles of a gigantic progressive pressure group. Total nonsense.

Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich is Racist, Says Portland School Official

You can read more about principal Gutierrez’s sandwich-sensitivity philosophy here.

Next time you’re in the bread aisle at the grocery store, you may want to think twice. Sensitive liberal educators are now recommending the “torta” or the “pita” as a more culturally inclusive alternative.

Now that you’ve been made aware of the evil of PB&J, there’s only one question left to answer: Is white bread more racist than whole wheat?

www.thecollegefix.com...

www.examiner.com...

"Guess what? When everything is racist, then nothing actually is," Twitchy said.

Stormdancer777
Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich is Racist, Says Portland School Official

You can read more about principal Gutierrez’s sandwich-sensitivity philosophy here.

Next time you’re in the bread aisle at the grocery store, you may want to think twice. Sensitive liberal educators are now recommending the “torta” or the “pita” as a more culturally inclusive alternative.

Now that you’ve been made aware of the evil of PB&J, there’s only one question left to answer: Is white bread more racist than whole wheat?

www.thecollegefix.com...

www.examiner.com...

"Guess what? When everything is racist, then nothing actually is," Twitchy said.

edit on 123030p://bThursday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

She sounds like a pretty stupid woman, but note that actually she never says the sandwich is racist. That's a gloss added by - surprise surprise - the media. Once again they exaggerate a pretty tiny example of someone doing something culturally sensitive (note her goal is to improve her kids' results by connecting with stuff they understand)
and pretend is part of a wave that is claiming everything is racist.

Why does it do this? Well, it's to delegitimise genuine complaints of racism by pretending they are part of some silly plot.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


It's also interesting that none of the pieces actually link directly to the article they quote. Almost as if they don't want you to check the source material, isn't it?

JuniorDisco
"(They) complain that they aren't allowed to be nasty to others based on race, sex or gender."

You demonstrate the big deception of political correctness. The declared goal is to prevent descrimination on the basis of minority status, but in effect it places people in a protected class due to race, gender, etc.

To correct your above quote:
They complain that they aren't allowed to honestly judge the actions (and therefore merit) of a person because said person happens to be of a certain race, nationality, religion, gender, or sexuality.

JuniorDisco

Skyfloating
The PC-Agenda wont even stop at Pedophilia, suggesting that Pedophiles be called minor attracted persons.

See this is a classic example. Your source - of course - is from the anti-PC side. It has to be, because there is no pro-PC side.

It seeks to cast the actions of a small pressure group - one whose aims are in fact quite laudable if you cared to investigate - as the pernicious tentacles of a gigantic progressive pressure group. Total nonsense.

The pedophilia argument is a red herring. It's an issue that can not be discussed because there is only one correct view. Any comparison only weakens an argument.
I am not saying that this should not be discussed, because it should, but I would be hesitant to use the issue to reinforce the rational idea that politically correct speech is not at all acceptable.
PC is about as un-PC as possible.

Because it limits individuals, which is supposedly what PC speech is meant to rid the world.
Symbols that are viewed as pejorative and limiting in nature.

Politically correct speech is sold to us as a way to equal the playing field by improving the self-image of the weak, but they do that at the cost of the strong, relatively strong that is, apparently not strong enough to withstand the pressure of a politically correct climate.

That is the whole ploy of communism. Give us yourself and we will take care of you.
All the animals are equal but some are more equal than others.
Somebody has to enforce these rules, because if they become law, then they are law by contract.

A person cannot be compelled into any behavior unless contractually agreed upon.
If they are contractually obligated then the force of law can be used to compel the behavior- equity, the legal term.
We have been under assault since records began being kept.
The last time, in my opinion, that this loose union of nations/countries (words used by the US Supreme Court pre-Tompkins v. Erie Railroad case) was operating in full capacity was just prior to the War of 1812.
This is the war where the British kicked our butts and burned our federation capital to the ground. This included all ratification records and it was at the exact same time that the original 13th was in the process of ratification.
The British were the baddest boys on the block, but they didn't want to fight a protracted guerilla war of attrition with the colonies, so they settled on leaving them independent as long as they paid their debts, which by the Treaty of Ghent that ended the war essentially added 30% more to the national debt.
The English had several means of conquering a nation. No different than today and our use of economic hit men.
Back then they openly used esquires. Men would become learned in the law and how to manipulate it, then they would earn a title of nobility through their work in maintaining the crown.

The original 13th Amendment was meant to keep attorneys from holding office, and the title esquire is a title of nobility. Today, an esquire is an attorney recognized by the original BAR association in Great Britain.

This amendment was meant to keep the foxes from guarding the hen house, so to speak.

The last people we want actually creating statutory law are lawyers.

These guys are private citizens who go to school in order to learn to use the law to benefit the highest bidder.
That is their job.

The very last people that we want creating statutory law are lawyers.

Oh, but I have gotten off track.
The power of that red herring.