Will our PC society eventually be the death of us, literally?

Yes, because it is making people dumber and oversensitive to socially engineered, divide and conquer stereotypes. We as a human species, are still alive in 2015 after 2.8 million years, and we didn't worry about things like a man cutting off his penis and putting on makeup, calling him a woman and a hero just to have the public to force others to be oversensitive, by crazy feminist types who cry until a policy is put in place, that benefits THEM only. This creates a divide between women and men. We were just fine without this BS before it started infecting our society.

Thing is, I have a hard time believing that a lot of these nuts are really serious. Could it be that this PC is some really sick, stupid, cruel joke being perpetrated on all the people that DO have common sense?

Every time I think, "Naahh, they can't REALLY be serious!?", I read some PC thing that is just a little more nuts.

The latest PC fad is actually being offended, or maybe pretending to, when they are called on it.

I know what would be a fun exercise. Lets start a thread and see who can come up with the most UN-PC one, two, or three word term. See how long it takes them to go ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY NUTS!

originally posted by: intrepid
Your premise is seriously flawed. Until the US joined the war they sold to the Nazis.

And as far as "PC" goes.... back then they WERE PC. PC isn't politically correct, as it's been bastardized to mean, it means showing a little respect.

Amen to that.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Go tell that terrorist he triggered you, and you need a minute to find your safe place.

You know, we should encourage those pc people to do just that. Maybe its the best way to get rid of them. How else to show them they are wrong since they have a habit of denying facts, exactly like feminists do?

Oh I can see it now
Ex:

PC: "Hey you not so nice terrorist, this is not how we run things in the world today! love and ligh..."
Radical Islamist: "Alla akbarrrrrrrrrr" *shoots without question*"



Let's put it this way; When you have Solipsistic leaders, or influences in power with this mentality, you are literally being run by psychopaths. This is not a conspiracy "theory" it is a psychological FACT. And guess what, if you don't do something about that insanity, it will drag you down into the gaping abyss with it.

Slowly you are all realizing what the real war is about.

it is

Facts vs Lies
Truthers vs Trolls
Common sense vs Insanity

The good news is, you are aware of this, but you all know a very difficult choice is ahead of you the more your walls close in.

Anyone watched the new predictive programming south park episodes?

Because you should, it is talking about PC, and a coming war was mentioned in south park, and they seem to hint it will be between we the people.

There is a war coming, and im gonna make sure I'm on the right side of it.

Heres the predictive programming on C- Jenner ("lord of the PC feminists)




To those who know and understand what predictive programming is, you may very well see the warning signs within those videos.

a reply to: MteWamp

I initiated the exercise and it's getting no attention. haha.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Replying to the OP, here. We should first look at the meaning of "Political Correctness". This term is generally used in the pejorative to denegrate those who choose their words carefully in order to avoid insulting minority constituents in the political spectrum. The thought, of course, is that harm is done to some party when one asserts that, for instance, a transgender individual should be referred to by their chosen gender rather than their biological gender. Honesty is lost! Truth is lost! I think that most of us can agree, however, that so long as the matter is not taken to extremes, advocating for what can only be described as respectful politeness is rather harmless. Perhaps even helpful. But I don't think that's what the OP is really concerned with. So, let's boil this down to the subtantive question raised in the OP: are we failing to properly address terrorism because we are careful about labeling an event as "Islamist Terrorism"?

I don't think that any harm is being done here. Allow me to elaborate. The label of "terrorism" is useful in two ways, I think. First, in that it describes a tactic -- wielding force, usually against an unarmed and unsuspecting target, in an effort to influence policy. This usually happens in a highly assymetric power equation, where the perpetrators of terror are outmatched by their (usually nation-state sponsored and/or endorsed) opponents. See: Israel v. Palestine, where Palestinians are grossly outmatched in any serious conflict with Israelis, and so some Palestinians (unwisely and without regard for innocent life) employ terrorism as a force-multiplier in their effort to influence policy. But not always. The only documented uses of nuclear weaponry were quite unquestionably employing the tactic of terrorism: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were soft targets, but the hope was that an overwhelming display of military ferocity would usher in a rapid end of hostilities. Here, the United States was trying to terrify the government of Japan into submission, and arguably succeeded. Here we find an unusual contrast when it comes to "political correctness": we don't describe the US tactics as being terrorism, but we do label the tactics of the aforementioned Palestinians as terrorism. In this case, the notion of "political correctness" probably is harmful, but not, I suspect, in the way that you are proposing. It is harmful in that the politically correct way of discussing the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki within the US political landscape totally avoids the truth of what those tactics were and are. Whether you believe the acts right or wrong, it does no good to pretend as though the US did not deliberately end hundreds of thousands of civilian lives (a conservative estimate would be 225,000) in the hope that this would bring an early end to the military conflict.

But secondly, I think "terrorism" as a label is useful in that it signals an organized effort by a constituency much larger than the perpetrator. Looking at the San Bernardino incident, it is obvious that the question of whether the perpetrators were acting individually as opposed to being part of a larger, organized effort is an important one. And I am sure the the author of the OP is convinced the latter is the case, and that the danger introduced by tip-toeing around this situation is that people are deceived into underestimating the threat being faced. But this must be balanced against the difficult to measure but very real damage which is done when ordinary Muslims are alienated by the effort to portray their beliefs -- beliefs that do not drive them to commit horrible acts -- as being the seed of something terrible and malicious. The reason a wise diplomat is careful when it comes to ascribing atrocities committed by Muslims to the religion itself is the same as it is for associating the KKK or violence against abortion providers with Christianity. It is generally unhelpful to do so, and it insults the vast majority of peaceful Christians who would never endorse those agendas.

Looking at the likely perpetrators of the San Bernardino attack, facts strongly suggest that they were motivated, at least in part, by an extremist Muslim ideology. But whether it is useful to highlight this is still a matter of question. The shooter in Colorado Springs who murdered LEOs and civilians rather indiscriminately looks to have been motivated by a twisted take on Christian ideology. Is it useful to talk about the perpetrator of those crimes as a Christian terrorist? I don't think so. We are all grown-ups here, and we all know that sometimes people who've lost their marbles do terrible things and ascribe their actions to whatever belief systems make them tick. There is nothing to suggest that he was part of some underground network of secret Christian terrorists who are, as I type, arranging another attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in a community "Near You." When discussing the San Bernardino incident, the same thinking applies: it is only important to discuss it as a matter of Muslim extremism insomuch as this couple was tied into a larger network involving bidirectional planning and decision-making. If they were "merely" a couple of extraordinarily imbalanced people watching awful videos on Youtube and the like who decided to make a horrorshow of their lives and the lives of their victims, then they are very much in the same category as the perpetrator of the Colorado Springs, CO shootings or the Roseburg, OR shootings. And to this point, the evidence made available to the public suggests that this is indeed the case.

So, were the San Bernardino shooters "Islamist Terrorists"? They probably were, in precisely the same sense that the Colorado Springs, CO perpetrator was probably a "Christian Terrorist". Is it helpful to describe them that way? Probably not, for precisely the same reason it is probably not helpful to describe the Colorado Springs, CO shooter that way.

That said, I do want to make mention of the fact they "crashed" their mobile phones and removed hard drives from their apartment prior to the attack. I am concerned that this might indicate that they were in fact part of a larger network and were covering their tracks to avoid implicating their accomplices. I hope that this is not the case and that these two were alone in their evil machinations, but I remain open to the possiblity that they were "terrorists" in this second sense; that they were part of a larger, organized agenda. If that turns out to be the case, however, it would be very irresponsible to have suggested such before the facts rather conclusively supported it.

a reply to: reldra
watch current season of south park its partly about the pc fad that is sweeping the world and yes it is a real problem.
when a blatant terrorist attack by muslim fanaticical turds is tried to be downplayed into a workplace squabble by our president and government then we have a very real pc problem. tptb will not go after saudi arabia because they don't want to piss off muslims around the world we boo the blank blank hoo the saudi religious leaders are sennding operatives into our country to cause anarchy. yes i know everybody in a faith can't be bad all germans weren't bad either but we still had to go kick their leaders out of power because of the aggressiveness towards everyone else.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

You make some very excellent points here! Alas, we are humans and we make mistakes when we talk or type. We blurt out the thoughts that instantaneously come into our conscience. Trying our hardest to filter the things that we presume to be PC and yet we slip and make a mistake. On the view point of Donald Trump, he doesn't have a filter and I don't believe he is PC. If PC is about showing some sort of respect to your audience then it should be taken with the utmost importance to try your best to communicate effectively. This doesn't take away the aspects of the ideas and proposals Donald speaks of, it's how you say it. To see people agree with him disgusts me and I'm sure God doesn't approve. I believe there is a point when you can take something too far and sometimes, we take things too far.

Will our PC society eventually be the death of us, literally?

Yep the 90s created PC. They stuck their heads in the sand, and thought terrorism would just go away.

It came back in a horrible way. 9-11.

The last 15 years everyone knows what's been going on.

If you can't recognize a problem, and call it what it is. There is absolutely no hope, and no future for us.

A war for the globe is currently waging right now. Currently it spans Northern Africa, the entire middle east, and has crept its ugly head in Europe, and other westerner countries.

Some people still choose to ignore it, and act like word nazis, but the Islamofascists, thinking they are the 'master' race has to be stopped.

We ALL know who just wants to roll over, and play dead because they don't want to hurt their poor wittle feelings.

The world needs to step up instead of placating those middle eastern NAZI's.

a reply to: neo96

He is awake. Sides have been decided. Action is required, the form still unknown.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I think you made a point I was trying to make but you did it better.

No one should be exempt. If you are causing problems you need to be called out regardless of your ethnicity or religion or heritage.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


No one should be exempt. If you are causing problems you need to be called out regardless of your ethnicity or religion or heritage.

Ding DIng DIng, we have the common sense of the day. Right then and there. Contrary to the PC beliefs, a person with sanity will recognize he or she is the problem and take responsibility for it.

But right here lies a dilemma, because in a solipsistic (pc) world view, "I am perfect and you are not. I will express myself how I see fit, no you cannot express yourself. Its about me, me me me me selfish poor wittle me. I am not to blame, YOU are to blame."

Mark Passio was right, it is a nanny childish state we live in. Because thats exactly how a spoiled child acts. Just telling it for what it is. But they aren'tto blame, what influences them are to blame. Psychological disturbances always has a root cause. But people ignore the root cause or they simply cannot comprehend common sense.

I think it is really cool to see everyone discussing this politely without resorting to crapping on each other. While I know some of my wording might have bothered some people, and made it seem like I was trying to pick on certain groups but that really wasn't my intent.

I had a long day and am ready for bed so I will go back through tomorrow and hopefully comment some more. Not that anyone is waiting with baited breath, but there are some great points made in here on both sides I would like to reply to.

I'm older than most on here and I've been closely following the "PC" trend since it started. Nothing in my mind has changed since the very beginning. I've always had the same outlook on the issue and I've always acted the same. In fact I'm amazed that so many people fail to understand this.

In order to combat PC you simply have to reject it. As I say, I've been following the PC trend for decades now. It really hasn't changed much in all this time. Reject it. Stand up for whatever you believe. Say whatever you believe. Demand your freedom by rejecting it overtly and completely.

Since its very inception I have seen PC for what it is, a farcical joke behind a curtain. Be that dog and pull back the curtain.

Most people who want to live in a politically correct society are the intelligent ones.

Those who want to live in an politically incorrect society have severe mental health issues because they want to purposely cause problems and then blame someone else for their attacks.

Political Incorrectness is the same mentality of a rapist who rapes his victim and then blames the rape on her wearing a short skirt and was asking to be raped.

a reply to: Dryson

I imagine it must be a freightful life when you consider anyone that is politically incorrect as equal to a rapist who then blames the victim on the rape.

Wait a minute, did I just read and type that? I suspect you are being facetious.

Yes
PC is Marxism
and is meant for you
To destroy you
All marching in order
Programed to seek and destroy
Anything that offends them
More rights
More rights

a reply to: piney please provide some evidence for this because it sounds like paranoid McCarthyism to me. This thread just represents a bunch of right wingers looking to blame anyone but themselves, which I find strange considering their all about taking personal responsibility or is it just too easy to blame others now?

a reply to: woodwardjnr

You aren't the first one to mention that this thread is somehow about me blaming people for something, and not wanting to take responsibility for something. I know I can be ignorant at times, but I can't figure out what it is I am blaming people for and what it is I am shirking responsibility for? I mean outside of what I have very clearly stated I have issues with.

If you suspect I run around using racial slurs online or in real life, or constantly blame all my problems on muslims and that I am mad that people are stopping me you couldn't be more wrong. I invite you to look at my post history, you have about 8 years of them to review if you care to. Either way, I am not out screaming "cis-***&$#" at people or getting them fired for disagreeing with me, or committing mass murder; So I really don't feel like I am shirking any responsibilities there. If you want to accuse me of standing by passively and letting this all happen, I am afraid I am guilty. But then who could have known it would come to this and what could 1 man possibly do about it?

In any case, if you could explain I would greatly appreciate it. It is hard to facilitate conversation when I don't have the first clue what exactly my accusers are accusing me of. Honest to god I am not being patronizing I am just at a loss.

a reply to: piney

You are on the right track piney.

Since the end of WWI, there has been an incredible effort to infiltrate the US(mainly the educational system) in almost every element. The takeover was slow and methodical, using dignified people/companies in the US that were in line with marxism/socialism/communism. The truth is that this goes way beyond a simple cookie cutter social, political, and economical ideology like communism. This is tied intrinsically to the NWO agenda.

Like Woodwardjnr mentioned, this is very much so related to the Red Scares(McCarthyism).

As for proof, well there is plenty of it. It depends on how hard you want to look, and how far into truly understanding the world you want to go.

This video is a good place to start, as it gives insight from a very intelligent person who was chief investigator in 1953 for the special committee on Tax Exempt Foundations.

Hidden Agenda

Considering this guy gave up a golden parachute in the banking industry due to his ethics regarding sound banking, I consider him very trustworthy.