Bront's Forums

Just a few examples, but the news is littered with them.

Are we being too sensitive about things? 

Are we so worried about offending someone that we'd rather invent a new term just in case the old one was offensive?

Are people looking for an excuse to be offended?

I mean, this is ridiculous.  Why should I feel bad for referring to someone as black if they are?  Is it really more offensive than blond, or male?

And why are we afraid to teach children about racism, especially when presented in fiction?  Isn't racism a part of life?  Just because you teach about a racist doesn't mean you condone their behavior.  People learn about Hitler all the time, and we don't expect them to start going out and killing Jews.  (I'm sorry, is it incorrect to say Jew?  Is Christ-impaired better?)

Isn't ignorance about cultural differences what's behind racism and other such prejudices?  So wouldn't teaching about them be better than not teaching them for fear we might offend someone?

 
well said big D

Yeah, it was ok.

I really don't have any political Philosophy, as I really don't get caught up in politics very much.  I don't hold any real loyalty for either party in particular.  Usually around voting time I try to learn as much as I can about the two individuals themselves and go with the one I like better.  As niether of the presidential candidates for the democratic party would I want to see in office, I'll have to vote for whatever the republican candidate ends up being.  I really don't like the "lesser of two evils" tactic, but in this day and age, its pretty impossible to avoid.  And as for the "issues"
As opposed to?  What is the opposition to this stand?
I would strongly agree with that.
I'm all for equal opportunities for women, and for the things that they are better at, I thing they should be paid more.  It should be based on competancy.  Whatever they want to do, I think they should do.  Except football, keep the girls to the sidelines cheering, thats man's turf.   
And as for choice, I'm pro life and I'm pro choice.  I believe women (and men) have a choice whether or not to have sex, they have a choice with whome they have sex, and they have a choice whether or not to protect themselves or not.  Once they have made all their choices, then the consequences come into play.  Just like any one can choose whether or not to buy a gun, but if you choose to, and you choose to go out and shoot someone with it, that is your right and your freedom, but there will be consequences, and your freedoms and rights will be taken away.  In the same way, the circumstances of its conception are not the fault of the babies, but once the choices are made and the concequenses come, there is no more freedom of choice, they've made their bed now lay in it.I think you hit it on the head there.
I think we were conned.  And its not entirely Bush's fault he is stupid.  Every president has to rely on advisors, rely on other people that are experts in their fields, in order to make the best, well informed decisions possible.  His Intelligence advisor told him we were in clear and present danger, NOW.  WMD's were being produced with our names on it.  No anount of oil is worth a human life, but if someone is going to attack you, you need to defend yourself.  If, for example, a freind tells you that a guy who hates your guts is going to his car to get his shotgun, because he is going to blow you away, and you have the opportunity to get to him before he gets to the car and therefore the shotgun, it would be wise to strike first.  If however, he ended up going to his car for a pack of smokes, and your friend was an idiot, than what?  So what if they don't like us.  We can't go around kicking everyones ass who doesn't like us.  I'd end up fighting all the time and spending the rest of the time in jail.  Well, his advisor in this case was a world class screw up.  And rather than admit the mistake, and try to correct it when the truth was found, Bush decided to back him up, so in my opinion, Bush is no better, and just as at fault.  If we had good intel that Bin Laden was in Iraq, Than I would have been all for busting in there, whether or not Hussain liked it or not.  If that ment taking him out, than good riddence.  If you side with Bin Laden, than you stand against us, and if you stand inbetween us and him, you're going down.  Now, we went into afghanistan and tore the place apart with nothing, not even a good trail.  Then we started going into Iraq.  They must have thought, "we're right here, we might as well finish the job statred in Desert Storm"  I know a lot of people who will argue against this point.  Saying that whether or not they had them or not, it was their intention sooner or later to develop them and come after us.  To me that sound more like a job for the thought police to tackle, along with the time cops.  We can't police the world based on thoughts and possible futures.  Or at least we shouldn't.  Or we might as well start taking over the rest of the world right now, its the only way to ensure our safety, anybody up for the red white and blue fourth reich?
I believe the government should be there to serve the people, but that its people should not ask what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country.  In a perfect world that would be the way it should work.  Alas, I know we are far from a perfect world.
I think the definition of generosity is to give without the expectation of anything in return.  I think I would like to like in a generous country.  the problem is,  if you are up to your ears in debt, and you've got no money, and you see someone in need, you shouldn't be generous with what you don't have.  If our country wasn't in deficit, but we were pulling the plus signs after every year, I would fully support worlwide aid with the expectation of nothing in return, but thats just me.
Well, as I am firmly in the lower income bracket, given the choice between paying 15% tax while the richer pay 40% or higher, or having everyone pay 25%, I'd rather pay the 15%.  But thats because thats what impacts me.  I'm not saying i think its fair or anything, the world isn't a fair place, but I'd rather pay less than more.  I'm sure if I were pulling down six figures, my song would change real quick though.
Me too, within reason of course.  And I've never even heard of a no flush toilet, how does that work?  Does it involve emptying a chamber pot out your nearest window?  Than no thanks, I'm all for the environment, but not at the cost of reverting back to the dark ages.
whats your view on E85?
I'd have to say I'd agree with that completely.
Just like freedom isn't free.
Thats just one of many cool ideas out there.  It all comes down to the almighty dollar, and what people are willing to spend to see it happen. 
Well, thats all I have for now.  I'm sure someone will be along here and want to pick a fight, until than, peace out y'all.  and have a great turkey day.   
TV

Good question.

as opposed to any particular group ie Gays Blacks Whites men women or "the party" ect...

I would rather be treated as an individuel than as "a white guy, or "insert religion"
however that doesn't mean that as an individual I shouldn't work to help out my community.

Jovis

I'll igree with the point, but it still doesn't explain why we, in this topic, got on the issue of where we stand politicaly.

Not trying to end the talk, but you'll probably also get more topic traffic with a new thread on where people stand

The problem with the thread is there will be no one to take the PC point of view.  It is currently PC to not appear PC. 

Well, there is something wrong with PC, or you wouldn't have started this thread.

I think you'll agree that as thinking individuals we need to set aside taboos, and talk about even the difficult topics. 

I don't think PC extremes are the only problem.  Without extremes PC has been used to define what is ok to talk about.  Making it impossible for some people concerned with correctness, to hear truth.  The little things PC has restricted us from saying for so long, lead to the thought processes you condemn. 

It doesn't seem reasonable to me, for you to condemn the PC restrictions you don't like and then say the ones you like are ok. 

PC simply builds more taboos into our culture making it difficult to speak truth. 

Well of course I agree the extremes have gone too far.  I'm a systems guy, I see patterns and systems, I like to look at how things work.  My boss explains my methodology as a result of being curious.

So I'm curious, how did we get to this place of extreme PC?  It clearly comes from accepting that what people think is more important than the truth.  The logic is broken right from the start.  Once you buy into Politically Correct, that is to say Popularity makes it Correct, you've lost sight of why we talk at all.

We should talk to exchange information.  Sometimes the information is unpopular.  Popularity shouldn't be the criteria for deciding what can be said or not.   Unfortunately popular opinion is all that matters in PC, part of good politics is just to be on the popular side.  We've taken a political art form, and tried to incorporate it in our everyday culture, to the point where it oddly influences our legal system.  We shouldn't hold PC as part of our value system, we should value truth and simple courtesy, above any political behavior.

PC is wrong from its inception.  We should be civil in our language, not PC.

The mask of PC is to be civil.  The intent is to silence a point of view. 

If we judge intent, by motive, and if we judge motive by actions, then look at what PC has become. 

It has become a method of control, the only place Americans will tolerate an infringement on freedom of speech is PC.   For instance, PC does not allow us to speak negatively of Islam, but freedom of speech seems to allow Christianity to be slammed without restriction. 

I agree with your four points, we shouldn't allow PC to rule our lives like that.  We shouldn't follow PC at all.  In America we should be allowed every thought and point of view in civil discussion.  If burning an American flag is ok, and not an insult to my heritage, then I'm not sure how a tribal name as a mascot is an insult.  The difference is PC.  PC says tribal mascots are bad and burning flags is ok.  PC controls the plebs.

I'm not even sure where to start. 

Let’s take the easy stuff.  flag burning is legal Because the Supreme Court said it is protected by the first amendment.  To over rule the Supreme Court would take an amendment to the Constitution, or the Court reversing it's ruling.  After the Supreme Court ruling 'Texas v Johnson (1989)' the congress did pass a law, and the Supreme Court struck it down.  To my knowledge no amendment has been made, and the court has not reversed its ruling.  I did a quick Google, and found there was a proposed amendment, it passed in the house and didn't pass in the senate back in 2006. 

But that was just a side note...

Where to start on the other stuff.  Imus and Hardaway had contracts which controlled the legal questions in each case.  Imus, (In Detroit, Don Imus in the morning, was often called 'Don I'm an Ass in the morning') had been on the radio for decades, I assure he said much worse things.  His mistake was PC does not allow a white to call a black a 'nappy headed hoe' his guest said the same thing a moment before and you never hear that part of the story.  Think it over for a moment.  Where does 'nappy headed hoe' come from?  It's a black phrase.  Do you hear any out rage when a black person says it?  The problem only exists because it is NOT PC for a white person to say.  PC is used to control speech, Don Imus is an example of how it works.  What radio host will dare say 'nappy headed hoe' now? 

Only if they are talking about Jesus, will they be allowed to call some one a nappy headed hoe.  Think about it, what would the backlash be?  You would have a few Christian spokes people (there are only a few) politely protest, if any one notices, CNN would do a report about how Christians should turn the other cheek, can't take a joke,  or are crying about being picked on.   Contrast that with how US media handles a teddy bear named Mohammed in Sudan.  Think about it for a moment.  In Sudan, the news is a teacher getting lashes or jail time, why do we even know that?  Shouldn't our media instead cover the Muslims committing genocide or forced conversion in Sudan?  Never heard of it? Ask what are the two sides in the Sudan Provence of Darfur?  Look into what is really going on and ask why our media drops the word Muslim or Arab from any story they do on Darfur?  It is not PC to condemn Arabs or Muslims. 


PC is about control, the mask, the sugar coating, that lets you agree with giving up freedom of speech is the 'valiant attempt about hurting words'.   It's that first broken step of logic that leads to the extremes you are protesting.

I gotta agree with you, Crispen.

Our bill of rights is a list. For those of you who are unaware of them, here they are.
Freedom of speech/press/religion
Bear arms
Protection from quartering troops
protection from unreasonable search/seizure
due process
trial/civic trial by jury
protection against excessive bail/cruel and unusual punishment
powers of states and people

There are rights that have not been...slimmed.. On the other hand, the 'PC' fad IS shaving away the first right. On all sides. There are others, as well, that are on this list that are being whittled down slowly.

Political correctness is a tool, used by the people in a position of authority. And, slowly, the temperature in the pot of water climbs, but we frogs dont notice it.

It is all double-plus ungood.
D

That's a big bite to chew. As usual I think we agree in the Broad Brush, it might only be the details we need to work out.   You ask what I think so I'll take some liberty with that. I'm not going to try to separate Legally and Socially.  Shunning is also a form of communication.  What I think should be, as opposed to what legally is or socially is, what I think is:

In America there should be no point of view which can't be said.  That doesn't mean that anything can be said.  I can protest 'the war' without disturbing a veteran’s funeral.  I can clearly state our country is wrong without burning a flag.  I can discuss racism without a racial slur.  I think the first amendment should allow us to speak any point of view, and places a burden on us to speak in a civil manner.  Like the second amendment should allow the people the right to weapons and the responsibility of having weapons.  Words are not just a right but a responsibility.  Just because I can say hurtful things doesn't mean I should.  Just because something might be hurtful doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.  If I yell at a Kid is that wrong?  Most of the time yes, but if it keeps him from running into traffic, then no, I'd gladly hurt a child’s feelings to save their life.   

I don't agree with our courts that vulgarity, nudity, and flag burning are protected under the first amendment.  I think any point of view can be discussed without vulgarity, nudity, or flag burning.  I challenge anyone to come up with a topic that requires those forms of communication. 

I think freedom of speech, also requires the ability to have freedom from speech.  No one should be allowed to be in your face.  There is no point of view which requires a funeral to be disturbed, a fur coat to be ruined, a building burned, a noose, a brick through a window, or a riot.  There is no freedom of press which should violate our right to privacy.  The press can say anything that is the truth, but they can't do anything they want to get the scoop.

It is not in your face, for a teacher to have a Bible (or Quran) on their desk, to have a Cross on a memorial, to bow toward Mecca, or pray at work/school. 

I think under basic common sense, PC is unnecessary unless one wants to do some social engineering.   

Many naritives require some of these to get the appropriate point across.  To censor a naritive of these things, you can miss the point.  Beyond that, you're assigning your values as to what should and shouldn't be protected.  That's pretty darn close to the PC movement that you dislike...

This thought right here is the exact thought behind PCism.  They're just asigning a different value to what you should have a freedom from.

You mention Vulgarity, Nudity, and Flagburning specificly.  Why?  Are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed to swear?  What about words that some consider vulger and others don't (Crap, Ass, Sucks, and Hell come to mind)?  Is Nudity in my home ok?  How about a nudist colony?  Things I can turn off, are they allowed to cross that line since I can ignore them?

As for flag burning, I disagree with it, but protests like that were what this country was founded on, and the right to protest and question the government is our biggest and most important right of all.

You're sounding more and more like you're sidding for PC, with exceptions to what can be said freely based on your values.  This is also why I talk about breaking it up between legal and social.

Legaly: Very few forms of free speach should be limited.  Mostly, ones that are intentionaly disruptive or unrelated (Protesting at soldiers funerals for example) or potentialy dangerous (either immedately or in the future.  Inducing riots or inciting others to kill or otherwise physicaly harm someone)

Socialy: Here is where the moral fiber of the country should exist.  Shunning those who use excessive vulgarity, refusing to support pornography, legal and responsable protests, and even public outrage over others actions or words.

Basicly, it's an important distiction, because social PCism is the right way to go about things, where as legaly enforcing PCism begins the slippery slope of taking away rights.