What DO you think of Political correctness?

[Onyx]

This is a sample of the unPC side ( the rightist side I suppose)

A man rants about PC

 

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/

 

Now, what do you make of this blog?

Is this man is a rancid ranter against progress or the valid truth teller?

The definiton of true PCness according to me, is that PC people try to force feed their belief down people's throats. Now what do you make of it?

[Asimov]

PC is just another way to lump people into different categories.

 

Hey, these people are crippled, lump em all together as "special needs", or "handicapable".

 

They, these people have dark skin, lump em all together as "african american". Don't say black, oooh nooo...that's bad.

 

Who the fuck cares, the term African American will eventually become offensive to black people further down the road...

[Onyx]

If I said all blacks are niggers, would I be struck down as a stereotypical thinking person with no thoughts of progress?

What about that depised bastion of rightist thinking, jingoism?

Now, if I said all blacks is not partiotic, would I be censured as a racist rightist? What would you do?

[BlueGiant]

By and large PC is a whole load of horseshit. Plain and simple, and I have little time to put up with the overly PC.

 

That is not to say that perferred terms aren't a good idea, a lack of friction from verbage usually helps get things done with others more smoothly, but is not the be all and end all, but when they get in the way of actual communication, kind of talking around the elephant in the room, well, sometimes it just has to be tossed out of the window.

 

In other words, PC usually has about as much relevance to me as good penmanship has relevance to Formula One driving.

[Asimov]

That is not to say that perferred terms aren't a good idea, a lack of friction from verbage usually helps get things done with others more smoothly, but is not the be all and end all, but when they get in the way of actual communication, kind of talking around the elephant in the room, well, sometimes it just has to be tossed out of the window.

 

I could agree with you if I didn't think that people should unpussify their fragile feelings, harden up a bit.

[Caretaker]

There are some people who are offended at the very notion that they are different from the majority, and as such, they will be offended by ANY label.

 

Then there are those who are offended by ANYTHING that doesn't make them feel all-important.

[BlueGiant]

I could agree with you if I didn't think that people should unpussify their fragile feelings, harden up a bit.

 

True, and while I tend to follow the policy of Brutal Fucking Honesty™, and people really need to learn how to handle their emotions better (there is no reason to harden and lose feeling, been there done that, not a lot of fun, just learning how to keep them from dominating you). Of course, there are many times where you don't have the time or energy to give someone a lesson in that regard, my only concession to PC is expediency, I tend to use whatever works. Hope that clarifies the matter somewhat.

[Onyx]

If you were brutally honest about something, would it be extremely unpolitically correct? Or would being airy fairy about something make you PC? Or if you were stereotypical about certain people like atheists or christians, you would be un PC?

[Asimov]

True, and while I tend to follow the policy of Brutal Fucking Honesty™, and people really need to learn how to handle their emotions better (there is no reason to harden and lose feeling, been there done that, not a lot of fun, just learning how to keep them from dominating you).  Of course, there are many times where you don't have the time or energy to give someone a lesson in that regard, my only concession to PC is expediency, I tend to use whatever works.  Hope that clarifies the matter somewhat.

 

 

I agree only in the matter of serious discussion, that we should be PC. I hate it when politicians start apologizing for their statements.

 

"I am sorry for calling my opponent a heartless, life-sucking bitch....blah blah blah, I am a changed man."

 

No no no no no!!!!

 

This is what you should say "I am sorry for calling my opponent a heartless, life-sucking bitch. She is not heartless.....thank you"

 

If we are allowed to have our own opinions, then we should be able to air them, unless it is in a professional atmosphere, such as a serious discussion.

[Onyx]

My thoughts on PC's place in the world is that it must be addressed and debated till all feelings about it is good or bad.

[Onyx]

Is this true?

 

"I wonder if any of the German Greens condemning the Pope for equating abortion to the Holocaust have heard of abortion pioneer Margaret Sanger and her connections to the eugenics movement? -- which won her warm praise from Hitler himself! Thanks to a skillful PR makeover the old eugenicists dream to limit the breeding of the lower "criminal" classes has now been sold as a women's right. Their agenda here has now largely been achieved. There is a further layer of irony here too, of course. The most ardent advocates of women's right to control their own bodies, have not the slightest regard for individual rights or other forms of self government in non-reproductive matters."

 

Is this a PR attempt by atheists? I demand a explanation about this,please!

[Onyx]

I need a explanation for this also from this blog.

 

"Men are the losers of the sexual revolution

 

Columnist Jeffrey Hart recently argued that women were the losers of the sexual revolution. He has a point. By making themselves available outside of marriage, women have undermined the institution of marriage. The problem with Hart's analysis is that he assumes that men want sex and women want marriage. But what if men want marriage, too? Aren't they also losers of the sexual revolution?

 

Men do want marriage. There is no comfort in a different woman every night. Moreover, that approach to sex might produce offspring, but not a lifetime relationship with sons, daughters and grandchildren.

 

Because of the emphasis on the sexual benefits to men of the sexual revolution, many people blame men for the revolution. But, of course, it wasn't men who created the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution was a happening. Many men were surprised at the sudden availability of young women. I was a university professor during the 1960s. I remember the complaints of male students that "nice girls are ruining themselves." Sex became casual. It no longer was proceeded by a long period of dating, going steady or being "pinned." Sex became a date activity like going to a movie. Eventually with the present-day "hook-up," sex was divorced from dating altogether.

 

People who study the sexual revolution blame it on feminists. No doubt feminist intellectual arguments in favor of female promiscuity played a role, but I doubt a significant percentage of the suddenly available young women were being guided by the intellectual musings of feminists. I don't know why the sexual revolution occurred. But I do know that many young men were of two minds about it. It was a helpful development for raging harmones, but it made it difficult for a guy to get a girl of his own, someone special to him.

 

Eventually, guys may get over their reluctance to enter into long-term relationships with women who have been in bed with their friends or friends of their friends. When I ask men I know who are in their 30s and 40s why they have not married, they do not answer that female promiscuity makes it unnecessary. They say that they are reluctant to propose to easy women. One man put it this way: "I would be uncomfortable in social gatherings where 15 percent of the people had been in bed with my wife."

 

The sexual revolution has provided men with easy sex, but not with families and wives who don't walk out on them. Feminists may have destroyed the chastity of women, but they certainly destroyed the security of marriage. Today it makes no sense for a man to marry even if sex were unavailable from "hook-ups." The reason is the extreme risk that marriage today imposes on husbands. A wife can throw her husband out of his house, take his children and half or more of his income without having to have a real reason for the financial and emotional ruin she brings to her husband. We hear a lot about successful middle-aged men who leave their wives for younger "trophy" wives. But most divorces are initiated by women and are involuntary divorces from the husbands' standpoints.

 

Back when marriages were real, solid grounds were required for divorce. Moreover, divorce was not designed to financially ruin men. Today divorce proceedings treat husbands and fathers as criminals in the dock. If a husband fights over custody of children or visitation rights, the wife simply tells the police that he has threatened her and gets a restraining order, or she reports him to Child Protective Services as a child abuser. A man who marries today is either ignorant of the risks, has great confidence in his choice of mate or is a fool."

[Merlinfmct87]

If you were brutally honest about something, would it be extremely unpolitically correct? Or would being airy fairy about something make you PC? Or if you were stereotypical about certain people like atheists or christians, you would be un PC?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that brutal honesty, by definition, demands the absence of Political Correctness.

 

Take it this way: Which of the following is "Brutally Honest:"

 

You have an Alcohol Issue, dear.

 

You're a fucking slush!

 

Merlin

 

Edit: Damned typo.

[Onyx]

Option 1?

[Merlinfmct87]

Is this true?

 

"I wonder if any of the German Greens condemning the Pope for equating abortion to the Holocaust have heard of abortion pioneer Margaret Sanger and her connections to the eugenics movement? -- which won her warm praise from Hitler himself! Thanks to a skillful PR makeover the old eugenicists dream to limit the breeding of the lower "criminal" classes has now been sold as a women's right. Their agenda here has now largely been achieved. There is a further layer of irony here too, of course. The most ardent advocates of women's right to control their own bodies, have not the slightest regard for individual rights or other forms of self government in non-reproductive matters."

 

Is this a PR attempt by atheists? I demand a explanation about this,please!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This... is way too spinned for me to make out clearly I think.

 

He's saying Abortion in germany was started by a Nazi? That forced abortions were seen as a Woman's Right?

 

I Can't be reading that right.

 

Merlin

[BlueGiant]

The version of Brutal Fucking Honesty™ that I practice is: there are times when uncomfortable things need to be said for the good of all involved. While it does not have to be phrased in a brutal fashion (Your girlfriend is a fucking tramp, and has banged half of Chicago.) it should be straightfoward and to the point, mostly as there is no good way to say it (Hey, man, your girlfiend has been cheating on you). Truth itself is often brutal enough, it is that you actually say it rather than just watching and not saying anything "out of tact."

[BlueGiant]

Is this true?

 

"I wonder if any of the German Greens condemning the Pope for equating abortion to the Holocaust have heard of abortion pioneer Margaret Sanger and her connections to the eugenics movement? -- which won her warm praise from Hitler himself! Thanks to a skillful PR makeover the old eugenicists dream to limit the breeding of the lower "criminal" classes has now been sold as a women's right. Their agenda here has now largely been achieved. There is a further layer of irony here too, of course. The most ardent advocates of women's right to control their own bodies, have not the slightest regard for individual rights or other forms of self government in non-reproductive matters."

 

Is this a PR attempt by atheists? I demand a explanation about this,please!

 

 

This is a PR attempt by the stupid and uninformed, it seems. First, this violates Goodwin's Law (corolarry), and there is no evidence brought forth here, other than Margret Sanger, who was one of the first proponents of birth control education in general, and was also an Eugenist. Yeah, this is just a really bad attempt at PR.

[Onyx]

It was a horrible PR attempt by the rightists themselves? SO IRONIC!

[Merlinfmct87]

I need a explanation for this also from this blog.

 

"Men are the losers of the sexual revolution

 

Columnist Jeffrey Hart recently argued that women were the losers of the sexual revolution. He has a point. By making themselves available outside of marriage, women have undermined the institution of marriage. The problem with Hart's analysis is that he assumes that men want sex and women want marriage. But what if men want marriage, too? Aren't they also losers of the sexual revolution?

 

Men do want marriage. There is no comfort in a different woman every night. Moreover, that approach to sex might produce offspring, but not a lifetime relationship with sons, daughters and grandchildren.

 

Because of the emphasis on the sexual benefits to men of the sexual revolution, many people blame men for the revolution. But, of course, it wasn't men who created the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution was a happening. Many men were surprised at the sudden availability of young women. I was a university professor during the 1960s. I remember the complaints of male students that "nice girls are ruining themselves." Sex became casual. It no longer was proceeded by a long period of dating, going steady or being "pinned." Sex became a date activity like going to a movie. Eventually with the present-day "hook-up," sex was divorced from dating altogether.

 

People who study the sexual revolution blame it on feminists. No doubt feminist intellectual arguments in favor of female promiscuity played a role, but I doubt a significant percentage of the suddenly available young women were being guided by the intellectual musings of feminists. I don't know why the sexual revolution occurred. But I do know that many young men were of two minds about it. It was a helpful development for raging harmones, but it made it difficult for a guy to get a girl of his own, someone special to him.

 

Eventually, guys may get over their reluctance to enter into long-term relationships with women who have been in bed with their friends or friends of their friends. When I ask men I know who are in their 30s and 40s why they have not married, they do not answer that female promiscuity makes it unnecessary. They say that they are reluctant to propose to easy women. One man put it this way: "I would be uncomfortable in social gatherings where 15 percent of the people had been in bed with my wife."

 

The sexual revolution has provided men with easy sex, but not with families and wives who don't walk out on them. Feminists may have destroyed the chastity of women, but they certainly destroyed the security of marriage. Today it makes no sense for a man to marry even if sex were unavailable from "hook-ups." The reason is the extreme risk that marriage today imposes on husbands. A wife can throw her husband out of his house, take his children and half or more of his income without having to have a real reason for the financial and emotional ruin she brings to her husband. We hear a lot about successful middle-aged men who leave their wives for younger "trophy" wives. But most divorces are initiated by women and are involuntary divorces from the husbands' standpoints.

 

Back when marriages were real, solid grounds were required for divorce. Moreover, divorce was not designed to financially ruin men. Today divorce proceedings treat husbands and fathers as criminals in the dock. If a husband fights over custody of children or visitation rights, the wife simply tells the police that he has threatened her and gets a restraining order, or she reports him to Child Protective Services as a child abuser. A man who marries today is either ignorant of the risks, has great confidence in his choice of mate or is a fool."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, both sexes suffered from the Sexual Revolution. But hey, I'm a wiccan. We think sex is a big thing.

 

But I DON'T think yearning back to the Glory Days of when a husband could walk all over his wife is a good thing!

 

*sigh* What this guy is missing is that the difference between the '50's and the '60's was the difference between Virgin Wife June Cleaver and Cheap Whore Bond Girl... NEITHER ONE WORKS.

 

They completely skipped over the middle ground... sexually liberated WOMAN. He's still thinking in the biblical paradox of women being either Virgins or Whores.

 

And that's a damned shame to me. Men are losing a valuable companion and Women are loosing sight of their own sacredness and value--irregardless of what cards they're carrying.

 

Merlin

[Merlinfmct87]

The version of Brutal Fucking Honesty that I practice is: there are times when uncomfortable things need to be said for the good of all involved.  While it does not have to be phrased in a brutal fashion (Your girlfriend is a fucking tramp, and has banged half of Chicago.) it should be straightfoward and to the point, mostly as there is no good way to say it (Hey, man, your girlfiend has been cheating on you).  Truth itself is often brutal enough, it is that you actually say it rather than just watching and not saying anything "out of tact."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wise words BlueGiant. Thank you for sharing them.

 

Merlin

[Onyx]

So it is the rightists at it again...

[Onyx]

this is interesting:

"NYC PREFERS SATANISM TO CHRISTIANITY

 

(Post excerpted from an article by the estimable Tom Barrett)

 

Churches meet in schools all across our nation. In fact, another minister and I have teamed up to start a church in a public school here in Loxahatchee, Florida. So I was understandably interested when I discovered that New York City is trying to throw churches out of their public schools.

 

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The New York City School District is interpreting this principle as requiring that their facilities to be religion-free zones. But the Constitution requires schools to be neutral regarding religion. They can neither endorse nor discriminate against churches.

 

There are several important principles that must be understood in order to determine whether the School District is right or wrong. First, the District looks at the schools as its property. Government at all levels makes this fundamental mistake. The New York City Schools, as well as all government property at all levels, belongs to "We, the People." Yellowstone National Park belongs to us. The Statue of liberty belongs to us. And our local schools and libraries belong to us. Government is our servant, and is only the steward, or caretaker, of our property.

 

The second principle is that the New York City schools regularly rent out their facilities to all kinds of organizations. These include everything from political organizations to self-help groups. When did people of faith become second-class citizens in this nation? When did it become OK to welcome literally everyone except for people who worship God? Who decided it was acceptable to violate our First Amendment rights?

 

Finally, many of the organizations that New York City welcomes with open arms (while trying to exclude Christians) are actually religious organizations. Witches are welcome. Secular humanists are welcome. And atheists are welcome. Yet all of these are religions. Witches worship Satan. Humanists worship man. And the atheist's religion is that there is no God. So apparently New York City's position is that it is OK to rent to religious organizations unless the religion is Christian."

[crazy-tiger]

which won her warm praise from Hitler himself!

Which is why he ordered all her books burned...

 

That's one weird way of showing praise, but it's certainly warm.

[Eccles1:2]

As a bit of a linguistic pedant it has always amused me that the very term "Political Correctness" is flawed; it should be "Political Correctitude". Is answer to your original question, I find myself agreeing with most of the stuff on that site. I believe PC to be largely the province of yoghurt-sucking sandalled tweedies who get all bent out of shape on behalf of people who never asked for or desired their help in the first place. At least, that's what it should be, if it should be anything at all. Unfortunately, the tendrils of this life-strangling bindweed have spread throughout the instruments of politics, especially local politics here in the UK. I'm sure Americans would find it very strange that some English councils forbid people to fly the St. George's cross (the English flag), on the grounds that it's a "racist symbol". Insanity! If you tried to stop Muslims or Jews, or even Scottish and Welsh people expressing their national identity, there would be a heck of a fuss. But as the English flag is usually displayed by young anglo-saxon males at football matches, it's far too dangerous for anyone else to fly, oh dear no, think of all the people who will be upset by our flying our own flag in our own sodding country!

 

Time to sign off, as I am becoming upset.

[Reach]

I think political correctitude is often a lame excuse to leave unsaid the truth of a matter, for one's personal comfort, and I speak not of the comfort of the potential hearer but of the speaker.

 

Let no one speak of the elephant in the room!