A Rational Discussion of Political Correctness


PDA






gc70
January 3, 2006, 12:58 PM
Following is the summary of The Retreat of Reason: Political correctness and the corruption of public debate in modern Britain (http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47.pdf).

For centuries Britain has been a beacon of liberty of thought, belief and speech in the world, but now its intellectual and political life is in chains.

Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts. People are vilified if they publicly diverge from accepted beliefs, sacked or even investigated by police for crimes against received wisdom. Whole areas of debate have been closed down by the crushing dominance of the moralistic ideology of political correctness.

Political correctness started as a study of cultural Marxism in Germany in the 1920s, and was adopted by the 1960s counter culture, eager to promote tolerance and alternatives to the conservative values of the time.

Political correctness quickly infiltrated US academia and spread its tentacles across the West. By the early twenty-first century, political correctness had completed its long march through the institutions in Britain, and had ensnared almost all of them, from schools to hospitals, from local government to national government, and from major corporations to the police, army and the church. In 1997, Britain became governed for the first time by a government largely controlled by politically-correct ideology.

Its influence has spread across the entire policy range, not just women’s pay and race relations, but education, health, law and order and the environment. It is upheld by a powerful array of lobby groups, from Liberty to Amnesty International, from Friends of the Earth to Refugee Action, and an array of domestic and international laws, charters and treaties.

Starting as a reaction to the dominant ideology, it has become the dominant ideology. It defines the terms and parameters of any national debate. Anything that is not PC is automatically controversial. Across much of the public sphere, it has replaced reason with emotion, subordinating objective truth to subjective virtue.

In the early days, political correctness brought benefits as it helped spread decency and consideration to the more vulnerable members of society, from the handicapped to women to ethnic minorities.

But, as political correctness spread and deepened its influence, it became more dogmatic and intolerant of dissent, until it became a betrayal of the very liberalism that first fuelled it. It has lead to new political censorship laws being introduced to curb freedom of speech, and membership of legal democratic parties being curtailed. Rather than opening minds, it is closing them down.

The aim of political correctness is to redistribute power from the powerful to the powerless. It automatically and unquestioningly supports those it deems victims, irrespective of whether they merit it, and opposes the powerful, irrespective of whether they are malign or benign. For the politically correct, the West, the US and multinational corporations can do no good, and the developing world can do no wrong.

Political correctness is often ridiculed, but it is more than just a joke. With its earlier benefits already won, it has now become a hindrance to social progress, and a threat to society. By closing down debates, it restricts the ability of society to tackle the problems that face it.

PC promoted multiculturalism in the Netherlands while silencing debate about its drawbacks, until the results exploded in religious violence leaving much of the country living in fear. In Britain, it allowed the creation of alienated Muslim ghettoes which produce young men who commit mass murder against their fellow citizens. By promoting the rights of criminals over their victims, it hinders law enforcement and leads to escalating crime. By challenging the authority of teachers, it fuels poor discipline in schools, and by promoting equality over excellence, it degrades the standard of education and inflates exam grades until they become almost meaningless.

By silencing debate and curbing objective analysis, political correctness can harm those it intends to help. The victims are taught to blame others for their vulnerability, discouraging them from taking responsibility for improving their lives if their problems are self-inflicted.

Black communities are encouraged to blame racist teachers for the failure of their boys at school, rather than re-examine their own culture and attitudes to education that may be the prime reasons. The poor sick have ended up having worse healthcare in Britain than they would in mainland Europe because PC for long closed down debate on fundamental NHS reform. Women’s employment opportunities can be harmed by giving them ever more rights that are not given to men. The unemployed are encouraged to languish on benefits blaming others for their fate. Poor Africans are condemned to live in poverty so long as they and their governments are encouraged to blame the West for all their problems, rather than confronting the real causes of poor governance, corruption and poor education.

Political correctness once had a purpose, but it now causes much more harm than good. For the last few decades, reason has been in retreat—but the time has come for reason to advance once again.

######################

Not to neglect the article's link to firearms, here is one of the more succinct quotes about Michael Moore's gun control efforts:

Michael Moore fabricates facts with merry abandon in his films, and yet his supporters are unapologetic on the grounds they represent the (politically correct) truth.

If you enjoyed reading about "A Rational Discussion of Political Correctness" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Werewolf
January 3, 2006, 01:01 PM
Political Correctness is just another name for tyranny with manners. :cuss:

Nuff said...

gc70
January 3, 2006, 01:06 PM
I think the article's author would describe political correctness as tyranny without manners.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 01:34 PM
I have three comments about Political Correctness:

1) I hate it for the reasons already stated in this thread.

2) See my sig line. There's a big difference between being politically correct and being politically smart. Eschewing Political Correctness doesn't make it smart to say whatever you want whenever you want -- and most importantly -- however you want. Presentation and image do matter -- and that has nothing to do with bowing to PC-ism.

3) Related to #2 -- the biggest victory for the PC crowd has been the backlash against PC-ism in some quarters. Some people revel in their supposedly anti-PC speech, thinking they're somehow making a strike for free speech, but they're simply being vulgar, racist and just plain low class. Their speech was unacceptable long before anyone conceived of political correctness.

The lesson? Don't let your dislike of Political Correctness trap you into undermining your ideas with low class and juvenile verbiage.

Old Dog
January 3, 2006, 02:22 PM
Political correctness once had a purpose, but it now causes much more harm than good.And using the label of "political correctness" without understanding the meaning also does more harm than good.

On occasion, it seems to me that it is difficult to engage in rational discussion on the topic of political correctness within the confines of this forum ... for a couple of reasons:

-- A great many members here seemingly cannot distinguish between actual political correctness and other members' attempts to simply rise above the rampant sarcasm, use of pejorative nicknames and (as Cuchulainn notes) juvenile verbiage;

-- The absolute rapidity and ferocity with which the label of political correctness is thrown at posters when attempting to clarify whether or not race or religion is being used as an underlying basis for a post or is in fact germane to the discussion at hand ...

It becomes quickly apparent that there are many who thrive on examining posts only to gain an opportunity to pounce on someone for being "the p.c. police" or otherwise accuse posters of being politically correct. We have more than a few members who never put forth opinions of their own nor add comments dealing with the actual thread subjects but whose posts serve only to criticise the remarks and impugn the motives of previous posters in the thread ...

Witness recent threads bemoaning the use of the juvenile nicknames of political figures (and the President). While many tried valiantly to make the case that the nicknames added nothing of substance to debate but only made the posters' remarks belie the name "The High Road" -- many others defended the use of the nicknames and decried the others as being "p.c."

Witness a post not long ago, when the original poster's only description of two individuals who were arrested at a gun show was to note they were black men. I innocently asked why the poster thought it important to note race, but absolutely no other descriptives about the arrestees -- and was subsequently thrashed in no less than ten or twelve subsequent posts for being p.c. and injecting race into the thread.

If it's not the accusations of political correctness, it's the accusations that other members are simply too "thin-skinned." While many attempt to indeed stay on The High Road, there are too many others who, as Cuchulainn accurately notes, glory in their anti-p.c. stance to the point of actually degrading the quality and content of debate in the forum.

Frankly, it may be time for a discussion on political correctness, and here's hoping it will enlighten those who heretofore have only used the phrase as a label without understanding the true meaning of the term.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 02:32 PM
Old Dog: It becomes quickly apparent that there are many who thrive on examining posts only to gain an opportunity to pounce on someone for being "the p.c. police" or otherwise accuse posters of being politically correct. Anti-Political Correctness has become a form of Political Correctness.

redneck2
January 3, 2006, 02:43 PM
Anti-Political Correctness has become a form of Political Correctness.

And maybe political correctness is the mask we tend to hide behind to shield ourselves from criticism. After all, I'm PC, obviously you're not, so I'm morally superior and you're a buffoon.

Perfect examples are the lefties that label Reagan and Bush as being totally stupid mental midgets because they don't have the "give the underpriviliged anything and everything" attitude (OK, at least it was true about Reagan)

I'd agree that we've gotten to the point that we can't have some discussions without the "PC Police" screaming racism

I made a point the other day that 82% of black children are born to unwed mothers. A woman (not even part of the conversation) replied in a very loud, almost yelling voice "well, listen to Mr Bigot" or something to that effect

Now, these are US Government statistics, but if you discuss facts rather than politically correct opinion, you're labeled right away

Guns are the area that have been attacked, and many of us are at the point that we're reluctant to tell people they own guns and shoot for fear of being labeled. Guns used to go up in value. This is no longer the case, I assume because there are less and less shooters. The anti's have made it difficult to own a gun (at least in some areas), difficult to find a place to shoot, and extreme liability if anything does go wrong.

By silencing debate and curbing objective analysis, political correctness can harm those it intends to help. The victims are taught to blame others for their vulnerability, discouraging them from taking responsibility for improving their lives if their problems are self-inflicted.

+1

V4Vendetta
January 3, 2006, 02:46 PM
You may find my sentiments about PC at this link:

http://www.lewisgrizzard.com/

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 02:52 PM
redneck2: I made a point the other day that 82% of black children are born to unwed mothers. A woman (not even part of the conversation) replied in a very loud, almost yelling voice "well, listen to Mr Bigot" or something to that effect

Now, these are US Government statistics, but if you discuss facts rather than politically correct opinion, you're labeled right away:) If it had been me, I'd have given a friendly smile and responded, "Madam, I understand how you might think I'm being racist. After all, there are plenty of people out there who might use that statistic in a racist manner. But I'm not. My point is blah, blah, blah."

Often, when we think someone else is being politically correct, they're simply misunderstanding our point. I've found that most people will give you a chance to clarify.

redneck2: And maybe political correctness is the mask we tend to hide behind to shield ourselves from criticism.Yes, as Old Dog said, many people do attempt to hide from criticism by labeling others politically correct.

longeyes
January 3, 2006, 03:15 PM
Well, we were told the meek would inherit the earth. Now we know how.

Political correctness is just one more form of tyranny, this time of The Loser.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 04:26 PM
Political correctness is just one more form of tyranny.Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

PC campus speech codes are a form of tyranny, yes. But I'd hardly call the PC-er who objects to the term chairman (as opposed to chairperson) a tyrant. He's silly and wrong, but he's no tyrant.

Peer pressure isn't tyranny. Criticism isn't tyranny. Objection isn't tyranny. Ad hominem attack isn't tyranny. Heckling isn't tyranny. Silly spelling and word choice (using s/he instead of he) aren't tyranny.

I'd even venture to say that mob rule acts (like stealing newspapers) aren't tyranny. Criminal, yes. Unacceptible, yes. Tyranny, no.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs -- gender neutral hairs, of course.

longeyes
January 3, 2006, 04:44 PM
Yes, you're splitting hairs--with Occam's razor no less.

When you are stifled and silenced you are experiencing tyranny. It doesn't matter whether the pressure's coming from a guy with a big crown on his head or the local social criticism committee.

What PC is about, really, is changing the way it is permissible to think and, more specifically, making sure that people CAN'T think because certain links in the process have been surgically removed. In the end it's all about power, and if that doesn't ring your "tyranny bell" I can't help you.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 04:49 PM
Political correctness is just one more form of tyranny.
and

Political Correctness is just another name for tyranny with manners. Furthermore -- given that most of the tactics of the PC-ers do not qualify as tyranny (see my previous post) -- don't those statements employ the same unfair tactic used by the PC crowd, using an inaccurate smear-label to discredit a dislikable idea?

We've got to be careful not to fall into the PC-ers' habits when fighting them.

Werewolf
January 3, 2006, 04:53 PM
Political Correctness is tyranny in as much as it attempts to enforce how and what one thinks.

For example:

Mentally challenged instead of mentally retarded...
Challenged implies that someone with an IQ of say 40 if given proper instruction and enough time can learn - say - calculus for example. That's simply not true but the PC crowd would like everyone to believe it.

Crewing a ship instead of manning a ship...
OK - USN ships now have female crew but you know what man is generic for mankind. That's english pure and simple but the PC crowd not being terribly well educated doesn't understand that - or maybe they do. :banghead:

In the first case positive spin is the action and spin is thought control.

In the second case the PC crowd is attempting to change a culture, a language and the way people think about men and women. Men and women (oh no - I listed Men first) are not the same and no amount of PC will change that (thank the lord for the differences).

There is most definitely a difference between anti-PC and bad manners. One is simply calling a spade a spade the other is just - well - bad manners.

PC is tyranny with manners - the tyranny of the thought police.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 04:57 PM
When you are stifled and silenced you are experiencing tyranny. It doesn't matter whether the pressure's coming from a guy with a big crown on his head or the local social criticism committee..Sorry, it's not tyranny for the "head of the local social criticism committee" to object to your ideas and words and attempt to shame you socially.

Peer pressure isn't tyranny.

Look, I disagree with PC-ism. But it's simply not accurate to use the blanket label of "tyranny."

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 05:02 PM
Political Correctness is tyranny in as much as it attempts to enforce how and what one thinks.

For example:

Mentally challenged instead of mentally retarded...Sorry, I don't consider the moron who wags his finger at me and says "You're a bad, bad man for using the term mentally retarded" to be a tyrant.

Some political correctness is tyranny. Some isn't.

By the way, do you consider Oleg Volk to be a tyrant because he forbids you from using certain words and from discussing certain topics on this forum (his private property)?

geekWithA.45
January 3, 2006, 05:06 PM
Social pressure isn't tyranny.

When given the force of law through a majoritarian excercise, well,then, that's a bit different, although plenty of majority worshippers will vouchsafe the outcome, because "it's not tyranny if we do it to ourselves."

Then, there's grey areas, the effect of PC policies on what are nominally private transactions of public significance, like, oh, say....college admissions.

Messy, messy, messy.

Nematocyst
January 3, 2006, 05:06 PM
... Frankly, it may be time for a discussion on political correctness, and here's hoping it will enlighten those who heretofore have only used the phrase as a label without understanding the true meaning of the term. OD, Will, excellent post. Thanks & +1.

Nem

gt3944
January 3, 2006, 05:11 PM
I agree with a lot of what everybody is stating...down the drain with political correctness...If I had to watch whatever I said so that I wouldnt make somebody uncomfortable I would have to stich my lips shut...

tube_ee
January 3, 2006, 06:46 PM
You know, a lot of this PC nonsense would go away if we came up with an even-gendered pronoun (nouns, too). We've got:

he / him / man: Clearly male.

she / her / woman: clearly female

it / they: genderless. This is a problem, if you are trying to come up with a pronoun for mixed gender groups. An individual person has a gender, it's just that until they are identified, we don't know what it is. So refering to a person whose gender is unknown as yet as "it" won't do it. Hideous stylistic abortions such as "s/he" don't work either. How the hell would you pronounce that?

English needs a short, pronouncable pronoun to indicate both genders at the same time.

--Shannon

PS: Lest I be tarred with the "PC" brush, I've been saying for years that women in America have much more important issues of equality to focus on than language. When women in positions of power and influence are no longer an oddity, then it might be time to worry about pronouns. Maybe.

Werewolf
January 3, 2006, 07:33 PM
Sorry, I don't consider the moron who wags his finger at me and says "You're a bad, bad man for using the term mentally retarded" to be a tyrant.When he holds one up to public ridicule and scorn and attempts to change your behavior as a consequence then he is being a tyrant and that is exactly how PC works.By the way, do you consider Oleg Volk to be a tyrant because he forbids you from using certain words and from discussing certain topics on this forum (his private property)?Apples and oranges - apples and oranges. Irrelevant and a quite disengenuous question - but then you knew that didn't you? :mad:

Standing Wolf
January 3, 2006, 08:30 PM
He who defines the terms generally wins the argument.

The most effective—and insidious—form of censorship is self-censorship.

RealGun
January 3, 2006, 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by cuchulainn
By the way, do you consider Oleg Volk to be a tyrant because he forbids you from using certain words and from discussing certain topics on this forum (his private property)?Apples and oranges - apples and oranges. Irrelevant and a quite disengenuous question - but then you knew that didn't you? :mad:

It was not a politically correct question. :rolleyes:

Malone LaVeigh
January 3, 2006, 10:12 PM
You can't have a rational discussion of political correctness here. 90% think it's confined to one side of the spectrum and don't seem to notice that they're wallowing in it themselves.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 10:29 PM
Werewolf: When he holds one up to public ridicule and scorn and attempts to change your behavior as a consequence then he is being a tyrant and that is exactly how PC works.Um, no. Public ridicule and scorn are not tyranny. What's amusing is that in saying that, you are using the same bogus tactic as the politically correct folks.


They don't like what's being said, so they hold people up to public ridicule and scorn by using blanket smears like racist or sexist.

You don't like what they're saying, so you hold them up to public ridicule and scorn by using the blanket smear of tyrant.

But neither they nor you are tyrants. Rather, you're both simply engaging in ad hominem arguments.

See, folk's, that's what I'm talking about when I said Anti-Political Correctness has become a form of Political Correctness. The tactics are the same -- but in negative image.Werewolf: Apples and oranges - apples and oranges?Really? Oleg has often been accused of being politically correct for his forum rules against discussing certain topics and using certain words. I was attempting to see where you stood on the matter. I'm still curious.

longeyes
January 3, 2006, 10:35 PM
Sorry, it's not tyranny for the "head of the local social criticism committee" to object to your ideas and words and attempt to shame you socially.

No, tyranny occurs when you find your behavior sorely restricted by aforesaid committee's plenary powers.

When you finally find tyranny, let me know; I want to be prepared.

Waitone
January 3, 2006, 10:45 PM
Those who control the language control the culture.

PC is an attempt to control language.

PC limits free speech.

Hate speech criminalizes free speech.

Neither PC nor hate speech has any place in a free society.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 10:53 PM
longeyes: No, tyranny occurs when you find your behavior sorely restricted by aforesaid committee's plenary powers.Well, if the "head of the local social criticism committee" has some sort of official powers over you -- as opposed to mere peer pressure, ridicule, shame and public scorn -- then yes, he'd be venturing into the behavior of a tyrant.

I've said all along that some PC-ism is tyranny, but some isn't.

Some PC-ism is simply an expression of opinion (an opinion that I disagree with, but nonetheless just an opinion).

Waitone: Neither PC nor hate speech has any place in a free society.I agree with you when the PC-ism crosses the line into overt control like laws, speech codes, etc.

The problem is when the PC-ism is limited to ridicule and scorn -- then it's just an opinion. How do we say opinions we don't like have no place in a free society?

Werewolf
January 3, 2006, 10:57 PM
Um, no. Public ridicule and scorn are not tyranny.The human animal is a social one. Being social means that social pressures, peer pressures are a more powerful tool for controlling behavior than any other. PC uses social pressures to control behavior against the controlled's will. That is tyranny.

What makes PC so evil is that more often than not a target of the PC control techniques often is not even aware of it because the PC folk use positive spin so very effectively.
See, folk's, that's what I'm talking about when I said Anti-Political Correctness has become a form of Political Correctness. The tactics are the same -- but in negative image.Intent matters. The PC crowd is all about control. The anti-PC crowd is all about personal freedom. Tactics are irrelevant. Intent matters....I'm still curious.What Oleg does with his board is his business - it's his house. Is he being PC with his rules - not in my opinion. He sets the standard. Don't like the rules go somewhere else.

Unlike the High Road which we all have the option of visiting or not PC is so pervasive in our society today that avoding it is no longer an option. The power of PC hangs like a poisonous green fog over our society and is everywhere. We can no longer avoid it. We can however point out where the cloud is thickest and avoid it, try to make it go away, or wade in with our gas masks on and fans a'blowin'.

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 11:09 PM
Werewolf: The human animal is a social one. Being social means that social pressures, peer pressures are a more powerful tool for controlling behavior than any other. PC uses social pressures to control behavior against the controlled's will. That is tyranny.

What makes PC so evil is that more often than not a target of the PC control techniques often is not even aware of it because the PC folk use positive spin so very effectively.versusWerewolf: Intent matters. The PC crowd is all about control. The anti-PC crowd is all about personal freedom. Tactics are irrelevant. Intent matters.You're trying to have it both ways:


In one breath you argue that the tactic of social pressure is tyranny (indeed evil).

In the next breath you argue that the tactic of social pressure doesn't matter if the intent is one you agree with.
Werewolf: What Oleg does with his board is his businessThank you for answering my question :)

Werewolf
January 3, 2006, 11:17 PM
You're trying to have it both ways:

* In one breath you argue that the tactic of social pressure is tyranny (indeed evil).
* In the next breath you argue that the tactic of social pressure doesn't matter if the intent is one you agree with.I suppose so. :rolleyes:

But then I am not bothered by that at all.

As I said:

INTENT MATTERS!

cuchulainn
January 3, 2006, 11:36 PM
Werewolf: I suppose so.

But then I am not bothered by that at all.

As I said:

INTENT MATTERS!OK, let's see if I've got this strait:


PC people are tyrants and evil when they use social pressure against you -- because their intent is to change ("control") your behavior with shame and ridicule.

However, you are justified when you use social pressure against them -- even though your intent is to change ("control") their behavior with shame and ridicule (calling them tyrants and evil).

I'm honestly not trying to put words in your mouth. But it really does seem like that's what you're saying.

Werewolf
January 3, 2006, 11:51 PM
I'm honestly not trying to put words in your mouth. But it really does seem like that's what you're saying.Then you're not paying attention.

If there were no PC crowd there'd be no need for an anti-PC crowd.

The PC folks want to control how people think.

Anti-PC folks just want the PC folks to go away and let people think however they wish. But since they won't go away someone needs to point them out to those who otherwise aren't even aware they are being manipulated. If that makes me a tyrant then so be it. At least when my purpose is fullfilled I'll go peacefully into that good night. I doubt if the same can be said about the PC crowd.

INTENT MATTERS!

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 12:10 AM
Werewolf: Anti-PC folks just want the PC folks to go away and let people think however they wish. But since they won't go away someone needs to point them out to those who otherwise aren't even aware they are being manipulated.Right, you're saying that ridicule and scorn = tyranny and evil … except when you do it with good motive.

You're using ridicule and scorn in an attempt to make society better (rid it of PC thought) -- much the way they use ridicule and scorn in an attempt to make society better (rid it of racist/sexist thought).

You're just as much a thought policeman as they are -- you even assume people are unaware of being manipulated by PC ideas the same way they assume people are unaware of being influenced by sexist/racist ideas.

You even claim your tactic is justified by a good "INTENT"–- just like they claim.

You, Werewolf, are a bona fide, certified PCer.

Nematocyst
January 4, 2006, 12:19 AM
Deleted. (The server was stuck for a while, resulting in a double tap. Everytime I clicked post, it just spun, but one extra copy of this made it through. I'll leave the version below...)

Werewolf
January 4, 2006, 02:02 AM
Right, you're saying that ridicule and scorn = tyranny and evil … except when you do it with good motive.Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that at all.:p You're using ridicule and scorn in an attempt to make society better (rid it of PC thought) -- much the way they use ridicule and scorn in an attempt to make society better (rid it of racist/sexist thought).Whatever works to make them shut up and stop.You're just as much a thought policeman as they are -- you even assume people are unaware of being manipulated by PC ideas the same way they assume people are unaware of being influenced by sexist/racist ideas.Horsepucky. The anti-PC crowd isn't trying to control anyone's thought. We just want the PC crowd to stop. Sexist, racist, or whatever the flavor of the day is. They may not be mainstream, acceptable, moral or otherwise for some folk but the last time I looked this is the United States and we're still free to believe what ever we wish no matter how stupid or immoral. Until those thoughts turn to action and become illegal it is OK to have them. Trouble is the PC crowd doesn't understand that. In their infinite wisdom they - like all leftists - imagine that their way is the best way and they can decide for others how they shall live, what their moral values should be and how they should think and even speak.

Well that's just plain wrong in any society that professes to believe in freedom of thought. It seems some understand that and some don't.

The anti-PC crowd isn't trying to control anyone. They don't even really want the PC crowd to shut up they just want them to stop using positive spin, emotion, fear, peer pressure and all the other tactics they use to influence those more easily influced that way than by fact and logic.

But they will not stop so fire must be fought with fire. Simple as that.

OH - and just because one is anti-PC doesn't mean one is sexist, racist, homophobic, anti retard or any of the other things that YOU and the rest of the PC crowd claim. We simply want all you thought police to go away - hell - we'd be happy if you'd just shut the :cuss: up! Is that ad hominen enough for ya?You even claim your tactic is justified by a good "INTENT"–- just like they claim.It is and so is theirs. The difference is I'm right and they're wrong. :what:

You, Werewolf, are a bona fide, certified PCer.Ahhhhh.... Well if using the tactics of the PC crowd (which I do not admit to but it's not worth arguing about) makes me one of 'em then so be it.

I prefer to believe it makes me an anti-PC'r and it seems that more and more people are waking up to the dangers the PC thought police represent so I'm not alone.

Only time will tell which side will win out.

CAnnoneer
January 4, 2006, 02:23 AM
Political correctness has gone far beyond just "peer pressure". Just try and make a remark that can be construed or cast as non-PC at work and watch the fireworks. You'd be lucky if you get to keep your job. Why? Because PC has become the law of the land.

Ever took a "harassment" course? Ever heard of "hostile environment"? How much time do you spend at work every day? Eight, nine, ten hours? Taking into account sleeping time, your freedom of speech is suspended the majority of your waking lifetime.

If that is not tyrrany, I wonder what is.

What a circuitous way to strangle the First Amendment. Yosif Vissarionovich would be truly proud with his contemporary disciples.

Nematocyst
January 4, 2006, 02:31 AM
You, Werewolf, are a bona fide, certified PCer. Ah, finally, we get to the part where the gauntlet is thrown.

At least we can say, this thread about PC is not PC.

And no one is being PC towards those who seem to be PC on a thread about PC.

Sabe?

Let's see: will he who is accused of being PC on a thread about PC be PC?

Wait...I'm getting confused...would that be PC or anti-PC?

Or anti-anti-PC?

Oh, the recursion of it all.
I'm so confused.

But maybe I'm just an idiot.

"No, sir," said the feel-gooder, "you are NOT an idiot;
you are only intellectually challenged."

:scrutiny:

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 08:09 AM
Werewolf: In their infinite wisdom they - like all leftists - imagine that their way is the best way and they can decide for others how they shall live, what their moral values should be and how they should think and even speak.

Well that's just plain wrong in any society that professes to believe in freedom of thought.Exactly. That's my point. By your own admission, Werewolf, you support using their tactics to shame people away from PC moral values.

You want to shame them into to not expressing PC thoughts ("Just shut up").

You're behaving no differently than they do.

We cannot -- MUST NOT -- stoop to their tactics. Then we become no better than them.CAnnoneer: Political correctness has gone far beyond just "peer pressure". *Sigh* Yes -- for the fourth or fifth time -- I understand that. But not all PC-ism is tyranny. Some is; some isn't.

Herself
January 4, 2006, 08:28 AM
Just as long as we do not mistake an employer's right to set rules of conduct for employees for "tyrrany." Employer's paying you to do a job -- his way.. If you don't like that, get another job!

Yes, yes, people are preposterously thin-skinned these days and employers are very wary of being sued. But don't blame them. They've got to work within the legal framework they are handed.

Quite a lot of the PC-ness in the workplace came about because people were unwilling or unable to behave civilly. Act like kids, get treated like kids. Perhaps if more people started acting like adults, we'd have a bit less mindless, reflexive PC behavior -- and a bit less of the equally mindless and often vulgar reaction to it.

--Herself

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 08:43 AM
We had a recent example of PC in action. Something absolutely intuitive was treated as completely unacceptable. Tempering comments were generally ignored. The unmentionable was mentioned.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats blasted former Education Secretary William Bennett on Thursday for saying that aborting "every black baby in this country" would reduce the crime rate, and demanded their Republican counterparts do the same.

"This is precisely the kind of insensitive, hurtful and ignorant rhetoric that Americans have grown tired of," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday that President Bush "believes the comments were not appropriate."

Bennett, who held prominent posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told a caller to his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.

"That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.

Herself
January 4, 2006, 08:53 AM
Yeah, real high class: it takes a smooth operator to sound pro-abortion and racist in one sentence. And in a world of sensationalized journalism, that's exactly the sort of thing reporters dream of hearing from a politician.

Bennett's statement is a prime example of incivilty. It's not suitable for table talk. And it contains an unprovable assertion. It's also probably an untrue assertion: crime rates are actually pretty constant when racially-mixed and unmixed populations of otherwise similar demographics are compared.

I'm reminded of another Cabinet member telling an off-color joke on a campaign or press bus, and getting burned by it. Look, if you wouldn't be comfortable telling it to your mother, don't say it in public! How difficult is that?

--Herself

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 10:39 AM
It's also probably an untrue assertion: crime rates are actually pretty constant when racially-mixed and unmixed populations of otherwise similar demographics are compared.

I didn't take this assertion seriously at all. I guess I could hope that it was meant as tongue-in-cheek.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 10:41 AM
Herself: Just as long as we do not mistake an employer's right to set rules of conduct for employees for "tyrrany." Employer's paying you to do a job -- his way.. If you don't like that, get another jobGood point. If we start regulating employers against PC policies, then we're behaving just like the PCers. Yes, a lot of the verboten behavior ought to be addressed by simple maturity. The problem is that some employers do go too far with PC rules (which, yes, is their right).

The question is how -- and whether -- we address their behavior.

We ought not regulate against PC behavior (talk about burning the village to save it).

We ought not use the PCers’ tactics of shame and social intimidation right back at them (as Werewolf suggests we should).

But we should criticize and expose employers’ out-of-line PC rules. The problem is that there’s often a fine line between legitimate criticism/exposure of dislikable ideas/behavior -- and illegitimate PC tactics.

Target was out of line (but, yes, within its rights) when it forbid employees to say, “Merry Christmas.” Target should have been subject to public criticism.RealGun: We had a recent example of PC in action. Something absolutely intuitive was treated as completely unacceptable. Tempering comments were generally ignored. The unmentionable was mentionedYes, Bennett was a victim of political opportunism fueled by Political Correctness.

On the other hand, as Herself has pointed out, he was pretty stupid to say it. It is unprovable. It is probably not true. Thus, it unnecessarily stirred bad feelings.

On the third hand, his critics should have realized he just made a stupid mistake while speaking off the cuff. Their teapot-tempest was out of line.

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 11:00 AM
he was pretty stupid to say it. It is unprovable. It is probably not true. Thus, it unnecessarily stirred bad feelings.

But that is PC at its finest.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 11:14 AM
RealGun: But that is PC at its finest.Yes, I acknowledged that by saying Bennett was a victim of political opportunism and by saying his critics should have realized he simply made a stupid remark off the cuff.

Nonetheless, he was stupid to say it. People have always twisted their political opponents' statements, and they always will. That is not a product of PC-ism because it existed long before PC-ism. If you're going to be a public political figure, you've got to watch what you say. Bennett should have known better.

I'd be willing to bet that if there were no such thing as the PC movement that political opportunists still would have jumped all over his statement.

That’s what I’m getting at when I say there’s a difference between being politically correct and being politically smart.

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 11:57 AM
Yes, I acknowledged that by saying Bennett was a victim of political opportunism and by saying his critics should have realized he simply made a stupid remark off the cuff.

Nonetheless, he was stupid to say it. People have always twisted their political opponents' statements, and they always will. That is not a product of PC-ism because it existed long before PC-ism. If you're going to be a public political figure, you've got to watch what you say. Bennett should have known better.

I'd be willing to bet that if there were no such thing as the PC movement that political opportunists still would have jumped all over his statement.

That’s what I’m getting at when I say there’s a difference between being politically correct and being politically smart.

But why do we insist that Bennett wasn't absolutely right? I think we are avoiding reality, or do we need another two year, multi million dollar government study to declare something that everyone already understands.

Hollowdweller
January 4, 2006, 12:09 PM
While I think that we all should try to be polite to other people as best we can, the only time it really enters into my world is when I hear people on discussion boards or talk radio go on about it.

I think that the whole PC issue is a straw man for the right to use to make the voting public feel like minorities are getting special treatment, rather than a disproportionate share of prison cells and death sentences;)

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 12:20 PM
RealGun: But why do we insist that Bennett wasn't absolutely right? Eh? Why? At best, his comment is worthy of a shrug ... at worst, it's worthy of rolled eyes. Debating it's truth seems like a red herring to me when compared to the underlying issue of crime in the Black community.RealGun: I think we are avoiding realityYes, as a society, we are ignoring reality ... and that's why we should get beyond the red herring of Bennett's abortion comment. Shrug, roll our eyes and focus back on the important issue of addresssing crime in the Black community.

See, that's another reason his statement was stupid -- he set up a pointless red herring debate that distracted from the real issue of crime in the Black community.

HankB
January 4, 2006, 12:43 PM
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: Code words used by overly empowered liberals to mask their intolerance for diversity of thought, and hostility towards (and suppression of) the free expression of opposing viewpoints.

Art Eatman
January 4, 2006, 12:44 PM
Re Bennett: "On the other hand, as Herself has pointed out, he was pretty stupid to say it. It is unprovable. It is probably not true."

Provability? For homicide, merely go to CDC. For homicide, it's true. Remember, though, he was talking about rate. (The number of whites on welfare is greater than the number of blacks on welfare. But, the rate is higher for blacks. The debate should be about causality, not race.)

For all that he was making a sarcastic remark, in no way indicating a desire on his part, it was factual. The problem is that the causes have nothing to do with race as race. The causes have to do with dozens of other factors, including federal programs brought about by the same people who have led the PC movement.

And this is where the PC thing comes in: You can't speak some facts because the PC listener doesn't want to look at root causes. In order to avoid facing reality, name-calling ensues: "Racist", "Homophobic" or "Sexist", etc.

The PC crowd apparently equates "different" to "bad". They apparently believe in moral equivalency in everything, whether it's social behavior or government. A spendthrift libertine is apparently morally equal to a thrifty, quietly-behaved person. The USSR was morally equal to the US, since, "They're both governments." You're sexist if you point out different skills common to men but uncommon to women--even though they've been obvious and known for hundreds of years. That men are better at math than women is a shrug and a so-what deal, not a cause to excoriate a university president for saying so in public. We're stuck with hard-wired biology, whether or not political activists approve.

My own way of dealing with these creatures is the mild comment, "Well, you do have a problem, because your opinion is of zero interest to me." The PC crowd can't debate the idea, so they're stuck with attacking the person...

Art

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 12:54 PM
Eh? Why? At best, his comment is worthy of a shrug ... at worst, it's worthy of rolled eyes. Debating it's truth seems like a red herring to me when compared to the underlying issue of crime in the Black community.Yes, as a society, we are ignoring reality ... and that's why we should get beyond the red herring of Bennett's abortion comment. Shrug, roll our eyes and focus back on the important issue of addresssing crime in the Black community.

See, that's another reason his statement was stupid -- he set up a pointless red herring debate that distracted from the real issue of crime in the Black community.

Then we declare it a red herring so that we don't have to discuss it or confront it. If that doesn't work, we can always go the ad hominem route or some other debating strategy that could serve to duck the issue. Righteous indignation is a good one. That usually works.

ken grant
January 4, 2006, 12:56 PM
Speak the truth and in plain English. If some take offense,shame on them.:what:

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 01:32 PM
RealGun: Then we declare it a red herring so that we don't have to discuss it or confront it. If that doesn't work, we can always go the ad hominem route or some other debating strategy that could serve to duck the issue. Righteous indignation is a good one. That usually works. Look, I agree with you that Bennett was treated unfairly by the PCers. What more do you want me to say about it?

And discuss and confront what? Bennett said that aborting all black babies would lower crime. Maybe it would ... maybe it wouldn't. What more is there to say about it?

We're playing right into the PCers’hands by debating Bennett instead of focusing on the real issue of black crime. Don't you understand? They WANT us to debate Bennett instead of the real issue of black crime.

But, OK, just for fun, let's "discuss and confront" whether aborting all black babies would lower crime.

Here goes...Art Eatman: Provability? For homicide, merely go to CDC. For homicide, it's true. Remember, though, he was talking about rate. (The number of whites on welfare is greater than the number of blacks on welfare. But, the rate is higher for blacks. The debate should be about causality, not race.)

<snip>

it was factual. The problem is that the causes have nothing to do with race as race. The causes have to do with dozens of other factors, including federal programs brought about by the same people who have led the PC movement.Eh? Aborting black babies would lower crime only if you assume that no other group would slip into the created void and become victims of the same socialist Welfare policies that cause the crime.

Get rid of the black babies, and that's means more Welfare money for poor whites, Hispanics, etc. Let's be honest. The Welfare money that now fuels crime in the black community would go to somone else. That means more whites and Hispanics on welfare -- and resulting increased crime in those communities. Maybe that would make up for the decrease among blacks. Maybe not.

But it was a silly, throw away statement. Who cares if it's true?

Baba Louie
January 4, 2006, 01:56 PM
P.C. = "Thought Police" at work.

Weasel wording at its finest in an attempt to placate either the masses or to appease those in positions of power.

Where's that durned First Amendment when you need it, anyway? :rolleyes:

I find it interesting to watch some attempt to take The High Road when calling a "Spade" a "Spade" while others simply tell it like it is (their perception at any rate) no matter who takes offense.

It's all good. Or bad. Maybe "War IS Peace" depending upon your definition of what "IS" is. ;) (who said that?)

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 02:06 PM
Baba Louie: Weasel wording at its finest in an attempt to placate either the masses or to appease those in positions of power.

Where's that durned First Amendment when you need it, anyway?Hey, the PCers' right to use weasel words is fully protected by the 1st Amt ... so's their right to attack our word choices ... so's their right to put out their absurd propaganda.

So's our right to ignore them and use whatever words we want.

But seriously: Yep, sometimes the PCers get too much power and enact Speech Codes that violate the 1st Amt. That's a big problem, and needs to be fought head on. I take it very seriously.

Other times, it's just our opinion against their opinion. In such cases, it's silly of us to whine that we're being oppressed by their attempts to focus peer pressure and social condemnation.

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 02:53 PM
Who cares if it's true?

That's what PC is all about - suppressing discussion of the truth. That has its place, but I think it is too often used to simply shout down things we don't want to hear or discuss. We are hiding from issues, pretending they don't exist.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 03:17 PM
RealGun: That's what PC is all about - suppressing discussion of the truth. That has its place, but I think it is too often used to simply shout down things we don't want to hear or discuss. We are hiding from issues, pretending they don't exist.Oh, spare me. I don't think Bennett's comment merits much discussion. That doesn't mean I'm afraid to discuss it ... and it sure as hell doesn't mean I'm trying to suppress discussion of it. :rolleyes:

If you really believe that I'm trying to supress discussion, then you're more thin skinned than the most wobbly-kneed PCer. "Ack! Help! Help! Cuchulainn said 'Who cares.' Help! Help! He's suppressing discussion! Hellllllp! Help." :rolleyes:

Old Dog
January 4, 2006, 03:27 PM
That's what PC is all about - suppressing discussion of the truth. That has its place, but I think it is too often used to simply shout down things we don't want to hear or discuss. We are hiding from issues, pretending they don't exist.
This statement is mildly ironic ... when you consider that now it's commonplace to label people as being PC in an attempt to shut them up ... The fact is, it's the use of labels that obscures the real issues, especially once use of the lables becomes so rampant that any original meaning becomes lost.

longeyes
January 4, 2006, 03:32 PM
Quote:
RealGun: That's what PC is all about - suppressing discussion of the truth. That has its place, but I think it is too often used to simply shout down things we don't want to hear or discuss. We are hiding from issues, pretending they don't exist.
Oh, spare me. I don't think Bennett's comment merits much discussion. That doesn't mean I'm afraid to discuss it ... and it sure as hell doesn't mean I'm trying to suppress discussion of it.

My personal experience with the PC-minded is that they try to suppress all discussion of anything that makes them uncomfortable. Forget Bennett's inflammatory remarks. You can be talking to a PC-type about the Second Amendment, about the size of government, about progressive taxation, about racial quotas, about the source of our political liberties, ad infinitum, and you will sooner or later get The Look. The Look means SHUT UP, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT--EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.

Old Dog
January 4, 2006, 03:38 PM
My personal experience with the PC-minded is that they try to suppress all discussion of anything that makes them uncomfortable. Forget Bennett's inflammatory remarks. You can be talking to a PC-type about the Second Amendment, about the size of government, about progressive taxation, about racial quotas, about the source of our political liberties, ad infinitum, and you will sooner or later get The Look. Broad generalization. This statement goes for anyone with any political leanings or any discussion about anything ... it has nothing to do with political-correctness yet everything to do with simply what one does or does not agree with ...

Seems to me as though we all tend to use the label of "political-correctness" now toward anyone of a liberal bent with whom we cannot agree ...

longeyes
January 4, 2006, 03:42 PM
No, sir. I am speaking of SPECIFIC TOPICS which provoke The Look. "PC" has a definite pattern to its sore points.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 03:42 PM
longeyes: My personal experience with the PC-minded is that they try to suppress all discussion of anything that makes them uncomfortable. Forget Bennett's inflammatory remarks. You can be talking to a PC-type about the Second Amendment, about the size of government, about progressive taxation, about racial quotas, about the source of our political liberties, ad infinitum, and you will sooner or later get The Look. The Look means SHUT UP, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT--EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.Yes, that's my experience too.

But we on the right do it too. Sometimes, when someone wonders if something is racist or sexist, he's being sincere. But we don't want to hear it. We don't want to consider whether it's true

We just fling out the label "PC!"

Timbers in our own eyes, and all that.

roo_ster
January 4, 2006, 03:43 PM
We're playing right into the PCers’hands by debating Bennett instead of focusing on the real issue of black crime. Don't you understand? They WANT us to debate Bennett instead of the real issue of black crime.


cuchulainn & others:
1. The topic of Bennett's comments was abortion, not black crime. A caller had called in and wondered why utilitarian arguments were not made by pro-lifers. Bennett said that utilitarianism was the exact wrong tactic, that abortion is wrong in and of itself, because it kills a human. To illustrate his point, he used a utilitarian argument in favor of abortion, the comment we are all now familiar with.
2. The PC mafia did want to distract from the real topic...abortion
3. The statistics support what Bennett said. It is an ugly truth, but is true nonetheless.
('nuff said on abortion, which is not the topic of this thread, but was the topic Bennett was addressing).

---------

Herself:
Thank you for providing a textbook example of PC sentiment and operation.

Accusations of racism:
Yeah, real high class: it takes a smooth operator to sound pro-abortion and racist in one sentence.

Accusations of insensitivity:
Bennett's statement is a prime example of incivilty. It's not suitable for table talk.

Diminishing the role of (inconvenient) facts in debate:
And it contains an unprovable assertion.

Assertion of provably false data:
It's also probably an untrue assertion: crime rates are actually pretty constant when racially-mixed and unmixed populations of otherwise similar demographics are compared.

That is quite an accomplishment for such a short post.

CAnnoneer
January 4, 2006, 03:51 PM
Just as long as we do not mistake an employer's right to set rules of conduct for employees for "tyrrany." Employer's paying you to do a job -- his way.. If you don't like that, get another job!

Yes, yes, people are preposterously thin-skinned these days and employers are very wary of being sued. But don't blame them. They've got to work within the legal framework they are handed.

Most employers enforce PC only because of fear of getting sued. But that is only possible because PCness is the law of the land. If it weren't, there would be no legal basis for the suits, and thus employers would have nothing to worry about.

Changing jobs would generally not help you, because all employers function under the same laws. It is the laws that are the problem, not the employers.


Quite a lot of the PC-ness in the workplace came about because people were unwilling or unable to behave civilly. Act like kids, get treated like kids. Perhaps if more people started acting like adults, we'd have a bit less mindless, reflexive PC behavior -- and a bit less of the equally mindless and often vulgar reaction to it.


Right. So, let's legislate jerks into gentlemen. All you get is fear, resentment, and passive-aggressiveness on a far larger scale involving many more people than the few oafs in question. Congratulations.

Such an argument is the exact analog of the anti-gun rhetoric that because there are a few criminals using illegally obtained guns, all gunowners must put up with more harassment, discrimination, and restrictions.

The liberties analog of the same is the eavesdrop/gtmo/torture rhetoric that because these methods can (supposedly) make it easier to capture a few terrorists, fundamental liberties must be suspended for all citizens.

I think we can all see what is the philosophical nexus for all the above.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 03:53 PM
jfruser: 2. The PC mafia did want to distract from the real topic...abortion Thanks for the correction :) But my point remains. They wanted us to focus in Bennett's comment and not on the real issue. We play right into their hands when we debate the truth of Bennett's comment. They win when we do that.

Lest RealGun is confused :rolleyes: I'm not attempting to "suppress" or "shout down" such discussion -- I'm simply suggesting that we ought to forego much discussion of Bennett's comment to avoid letting them set the agenda. Advice is not "suppression."

longeyes
January 4, 2006, 04:02 PM
Most employers enforce PC only because of fear of getting sued. But that is only possible because PCness is the law of the land. If it weren't, there would be no legal basis for the suits, and thus employers would have nothing to worry about.

So true.

What interests me is how and why this mind-set arose and conquered so quickly. Perhaps we can trace it back--or at least its fangs--to one generation of lawyers and their law professors?

roo_ster
January 4, 2006, 04:06 PM
Shakespeare knew what to do with the lawyers... :evil:

Of course, if you are reading this and happen to be a lawyer, I'm sure you're one of the "good ones" and would not have to suffer the Shakespeareian fate.

Also, I have no money you could possibly win in a lawsuit. :p

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 04:08 PM
longeyes: That interests me is how and why this mind-set arose and conquered so quickly. Perhaps we can trace it back--or at least its fangs--to one generation of lawyers and their law professors?What started out with good intention got out of hand. The laws started out targeting truly predatory employers -- guys who demanded that women trade sex for job security or who committed acts of minor sexual assault like ass grabbing -- and it spread out to other acts like off-color jokes or flirting.

Mission creep of the worst sort.

Old Dog
January 4, 2006, 04:10 PM
Right. So, let's legislate jerks into gentlemen. All you get is fear, resentment, and passive-aggressiveness on a far larger scale involving many more people than the few oafs in question. Congratulations.

Well, to play the devil's advocate here ... only if the group one is addressing as a whole inherently possesses those traits to begin with.

I can speak from experience here ... having just finished over a quarter-century on active duty in the military, I've been very close to some of our "social experimentation." Starting with integrating females in all of our units, going through the touchy-feely sexual harassment and anti-discrimination classes ... the armed forces in the late '70s, through the '80s and '90s became a poster case for enforcing political correctness (at least as the company line). Guess what? It actually, for the most part worked (at least as far as attitudes -- no need for any anti-female in the military folks to chime in with how gender integration negatively impacted combat readiness) and there is, for the most part, a a far better understanding, at most levels of the military, of the evils of any type of discrimination and harassment, and the need for civil discourse and professional attitudes, now than there was when I first entered active duty.

The whole issue of political correctness is just part of a cycle of social behavior within our culture. From the artificial gentility of the pre-Civil War South through wartime horrors and the late 1800's crudities, through our Victorian period, into the new century, through Prohibition, we alternate between periods of social upheaval and enforced civility ... Look at the history of our country; the pendulum's swung back and forth every few generations or so, only the labels have changed.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 04:11 PM
jfruser: Shakespeare knew what to do with the lawyers... If you read that line in context, Shakespeare was praising lawyers. The point was that the lawyers might stand in the way of a contemplated illegal act, so it might be necessary to kill them all first.

Shows what Shakespeare knew ;)

antarti
January 4, 2006, 04:15 PM
RealGun:That's what PC is all about - suppressing discussion of the truth. That has its place, but I think it is too often used to simply shout down things we don't want to hear or discuss. We are hiding from issues, pretending they don't exist.

+1

Am I the only one with kids? How many times have your little kids asked a question (in private or public) that either made heads turn, and/or you couldn't answer until later when less sensitive ears were present? I'm not discussing "the Birds-N-Bees talk" that has no place being discussed in public, I'm talking about the simple questions that deserve an honest answer, but are often hot-button PC issues.

Most people (not all) will forgive a kid asking such questions, but what about a teen or adult who hears something and asks an "obvious to others" (and obviously therefore "non-PC or taboo") question in public? Theres little chance some honest discussion is going to follow, and a good chance that person won't be asking questions anymore.

Questioning is IMVFHO, a precondition to learning anything. Questioning everything is even better.

I'd rather try to talk (or even argue) sense to 1 person who can discuss something as they see/feel it (unrestrained by language or convention), than to 1000 people who are so guarded that the discussion amounts to "What do you mean 'how is the weather today'? We mustn't discuss the clouds!" after everyone's out of breath. I may still disagree with all 1001 of them, but one is far more satisfying, mentally stimulating, honest, and just plain "American" than the other.

There are no bad questions, no bad books, and no forbidden knowledge. The last thing we need is a socio-cultural dark-age brought on by new elites, who have pre-determined what everybody is going to think, and are all too ready to (verbally) flog or (socially) exile anybody who doesn't fall into lockstep. English may be my second language, but I didn't study it all my life so a bunch of narrow-minded clowns could come along and change it, I'd rather force a nice uncomfortable discussion on them and see how they deal with it.

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 04:55 PM
Lest RealGun is confused :rolleyes: I'm not attempting to "suppress" or "shout down" such discussion -- I'm simply suggesting that we ought to forego much discussion of Bennett's comment to avoid letting them set the agenda. Advice is not "suppression."

I offered that Bennett was a good example of PC in action. I stand by that.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 05:13 PM
RealGun: I offered that Bennett was a good example of PC in action. I stand by that.Yes, and I agreed with you. You do realize that I agreed with you don't you?

However, when I further opined that Bennett's comment didn't merit much debate you absurdly raised concern about me attempting to "suppress" discussion.

Oh, how I hate having to clarify who said what. Yeah, that adds real value to the discussion :rolleyes: Sorry folks.

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 08:10 PM
Here's another one from Bill Cosby, who dared criticize black parenting:

http://tinyurl.com/ddpdc

http://tinyurl.com/7zhst

Look at the efforts to explain away or distract from the truth of it.

cuchulainn
January 4, 2006, 08:25 PM
RealGun: Here's another one from Bill Cosby, who dared criticize black parenting:Good example.

tube_ee
January 4, 2006, 08:47 PM
"Social" PC isn't tyranny. It's the 1st amendment in action. Amendment One says that I have the right to tell you to shut up. It also says that you don't have too. Perfect.

As to Bill Bennett - I don't know the man, but nobody seems to be considering the fact that he could, in fact, really be as much of a racist pri** as he sounded like. And that's OK, too... You're allowed to be a jerk. But the Constitution doesn't protect you from getting called on it.

There's nothing PC about that.

--Shannon

Herself
January 4, 2006, 08:54 PM
The PC crowd apparently equates "different" to "bad". They apparently believe in moral equivalency in everything, whether it's social behavior or government. [...]You're sexist if you point out different skills common to men but uncommon to women--even though they've been obvious and known for hundreds of years. That men are better at math than women is a shrug and a so-what deal, not a cause to excoriate a university president for saying so in public. We're stuck with hard-wired biology, whether or not political activists approve.

Bzzzt! But thanks for playing.

You're sexist if you insist that all men are better at math than all women -- and vice versa with respect to fine manipulation. Must I go find a big, hairy male watchmaker who can't balance his checkbook or solve a quadriatic equation? How about the top gun in the Meterology department at my work, a bubbly, blonde, soccer-Mom-looking young woman with advanced degrees in math and physics in addition to meteorology because, she says, "it's just fun."

"Hard-wired biology" only tells us about general trends. It is incapable of telling us about individual ability. The only way to learn that is to meet the person and see what they can and can't do.

...And that's the big logical error in Mr. Bennet's remark. Humans have got a "hard-wired biology" to be bad guys and in pretty consistent precentages of the population. Even if, in some ghastly alternate universe, his thought-experiment was carried out, the end result would not be less crime, just paler criminals. Man tries to rob me, his skin color is not a salient fact right at that moment; how about you?

--Herself

Herself
January 4, 2006, 09:13 PM
Right. So, let's legislate jerks into gentlemen. All you get is fear, resentment, and passive-aggressiveness on a far larger scale involving many more people than the few oafs in question. Congratulations.

That was my point. You can't make jerks into gentlemen (or ladies) by legislative fiat or by workplace rule. And, sadly, nowadays it is considered impolite to shoot them. Even slapping is frowned upon.

So stop putting up with louts! And/or stop being a lout yourself. We're not talkin' PC, just saving the locker-room jokes for the locker-room; saving the class-bashing jokes for those who appreciate such, and puttin' a bit of effort into saying, "Please," Thank you," "Sir," Ma'am,", "Mister," "Miss," "Miz" and "Misses." You know what those words are? They're what we say instead of "go hump yerself, ya offspring of goats." It's not non-PC to find out if somebody can do the job before assuming he can't!

Such an argument is the exact analog of the anti-gun rhetoric that because there are a few criminals using illegally obtained guns, all gunowners must put up with more harassment, discrimination, and restrictions.
Nope; my argument is that more of us need to be armed, more of us unwilling to knuckle under to criminals and more of us need to be doing a better job of teaching basic safe gun-handling to others.

We don't need laws against doing Bad Stuff With Guns any more than we need laws against rudeness -- in each case, we need more people who are unwilling to tolerate such behavior!

Sadly, it would seem that you are not among them, at least where civility is concerned. You see a gal post and you leap to assume she's a secret blissninny. Or perhaps a Tool of the New World Order:

The liberties analog of the same is the eavesdrop/gtmo/torture rhetoric that because these methods can (supposedly) make it easier to capture a few terrorists, fundamental liberties must be suspended for all citizens.

I think we can all see what is the philosophical nexus for all the above.
You betcha. Anyone that favors polite discourse, my very dear sir, must be The Enemy. Why, I'm plotting to oppress you right now! H'mmm, shall I start with anti-maccasars, or move right in for the kill with Using The Proper Fork at a Formal Dinner? (Hint: the sideways one at the top is for the fish course).

With warmest personal regards,
I remain,

--Herself

Dionysusigma
January 4, 2006, 10:05 PM
As the culture dies, the schools fail, the cities teem with functional illiterates and our children turn into tattooed primitives cosseted by a civilization whose origins they barely know, I watch them with--I will say it plainly--contempt. A mild contempt, but contempt. Sadness also, for they have lost much, but yes, a contempt I do not want yet cannot escape.

So, to judge by my correspondence, do many people old enough to read fluently. None use the word "contempt." The taboos are too ingrained, the penalties too harsh, the unspoken laws protecting everyone's self-esteem too punitively policed. Again, it is not a contempt that people want to feel: All would prefer that things not be as they are. Yet contempt is unmistakably what peers through their letters.

Contempt is the proper reaction to the contemptible.

I sometimes think the country is dividing itself into two cultures. The first, and much the smaller, will be of those who read widely and know much, who are cultured and live in a wider world than the merely present. The second will be of those who received high grades without understanding that they were being cheated by their elders. An abyss will separate the two.

The chain of cultivation, once broken, is not easily rejoined. We are doing everything we can to break it. It is a shame. People deserve more. We are doing this, as nearly as I can tell, so that the dull and uninterested will feel good about themselves. We are doing it to conceal that some of us are better than others.

Yes. Better. That word.

In the past it was recognized that certain qualities were superior to others, and that people who cultivated those qualities were superior to those who didn't. The honest were thought superior to the thieving, the kind to the cruel, the provident to the shiftless, the wise to the foolish, the learned to the ignorant. Today one must not hold these views. They constitute the crime of elitism, which is the recognition that the better is preferable to the worse.

One must never, ever notice that some people are better than others.

Not to notice the inescapable requires either stupidity or moral blindness. Since few people are very stupid, we have chosen the road of blindness. We feign stupidity for reasons of politics.

It takes some serious feigning. If I said that Mother Theresa was no better than the Hillside Strangler – "she wasn't better, just different" – people would laugh. If I said that Albert Schweitzer was of greater worth than an illiterate drug-dealing parasite in what is called the inner city, I would be called a racist. If I said that a white suburban kid who couldn't do long division amounted to a medieval peasant without the excuses, I would be called, spare me, an elitist.

Which I am.

What, pray, should one feel toward intelligent people who cannot read without squinting laboriously, who know less of their language than a fourth-grader in 1954, have a shaky grasp of the multiplication tables, cannot write a coherent paragraph, and seldom read a book? Respect comes to people who merit respect. It isn't an entitlement. Contempt also comes to those who merit it. And should.

I do not scorn, say, savages from Papua-New Guinea who wear penis gourds, eat huge grubs from within logs, and peer at distant airliners as those vouchsafed a glimpse of divinity. It is unreasonable to blame them for not having profited from opportunities they didn't have. I watch them with wonder, but not contempt.

But the lazy, shiftless, deliberately half-lettered, the feckless and socially worthless – yes, worthless: that, and "shiftless," are words that could well be resurrected – those who have had every opportunity to better themselves but couldn't summon the effort…for them I cannot help feeling pity. And contempt.

And what should one think of the bloated welfare mother with a second-grade education, with a litter of five she can't feed and won't school, by twenty-five fathers she can't remember, who spends her limited time between couplings in watching Oprah and feeling abused? The best I can come up with is revulsion. And pity, yes. Being a public uterus cannot be pleasant. Yet I will not pretend that it is admirable.

And what of the mall children of the suburbs, who leave high school with less arithmetical fluency than I had in the sixth grade in 1957 in the schools of Alabama? I didn't know arithmetic because I was particularly meritorious. I was a barefoot Southern kid with a BB gun in one hand and a fielder's glove in the other. I knew arithmetic, we all knew arithmetic, because the society, the schools, and our parents made it plain that we ought to know it, and in fact were going to know it, at which point the conversation was over.

This brings us to a greater question: What should one feel other than contempt for a society that, enjoying virtually unlimited resources, deliberately enstupidates its children? We don't have to do it. We choose to. We are ruining our society on purpose.

Today I see mall rats who go through high school with the red puffy eyes born of dope, and literally count on their fingers to do multiplication. On graduation they take one course at the community college, play video games, and hang out pointlessly with their friends. I've got more respect for dirt. You can grow plants in it.

I once wrote a column on the almost comic state of regained subhumanity. A friend of mine responded:

"Johnny can't add coz (a) his grade school teachers are moron socialists, (b) his parents are mouth-breathing, TV watching losers, and (c) he's majoring in sociology so he can get a gov't job like everyone else."

I can't see much wrong with that analysis.

The desire to disguise differences in merit by ideological cleansing, and the atmosphere of pre-human irredentism now earnestly promoted in what were for a time the schools, will promote precisely the elitism they pretend to vanquish. Those who achieve will always look down on those who didn't bother. This is certainly true in regard to schooling. As the gap increases between the few who know their history and literature, and those who gurble ungrammatically about their favorite situation comedies, the contempt will become sharper. Two cultures.

Maybe self-esteem comes too high. Besides, who will have greater respect for themselves, the puzzled and half-literate, or those who read confidently and know that they have been well educated? If you want to respect your self, do something worthy of respect. Now there's a concept.

-The Two Cultures (With All Due Respect) by Fred Reed

RealGun
January 4, 2006, 10:36 PM
Even if, in some ghastly alternate universe, his thought-experiment was carried out, the end result would not be less crime, just paler criminals.

Nonsense. There is no criminal vacuum to be filled, except maybe to support demand for drugs. You breed fewer potential criminals, a product of parents who need parenting themselves, and you get fewer incidences of crime. You also don't get cops who won't go into "the project" without backup.

As a bonus, you get fewer bogus motives for gun control.

CAnnoneer
January 4, 2006, 11:28 PM
+1 RealGun

That was my point. You can't make jerks into gentlemen (or ladies) by legislative fiat or by workplace rule.

So you agree that PC laws are ineffectual in anything but harassing the general populace? Just like gun laws?

So stop putting up with louts! And/or stop being a lout yourself.

So now I am a lout? Exactly where did I say we should tolerate the few louts that every place has?


We don't need laws against doing Bad Stuff With Guns any more than we need laws against rudeness -- in each case, we need more people who are unwilling to tolerate such behavior!

But because you do not have more people like that, you want to legislate them into existence? If yes, then you defeat your own argument. If no, they you agree the PC laws are extraneous and ineffectual. Which is it?


Sadly, it would seem that you are not among them, at least where civility is concerned. You see a gal post and you leap to assume she's a secret blissninny. Or perhaps a Tool of the New World Order:

You are the first to go ad hominem. I will not follow suit. These methods are not fooling anybody. :rolleyes:

Also, in an intellectual discussion, expect no punches to be pulled just because you are XX, instead of XY. Making gender an issue is yet another transparent ploy often used to guilt/embarass the opposition into a corner. Again, the method is not fooling anybody and is completely ineffectual in a worthy company.


You betcha. Anyone that favors polite discourse, my very dear sir, must be The Enemy. Why, I'm plotting to oppress you right now! H'mmm, shall I start with anti-maccasars, or move right in for the kill with Using The Proper Fork at a Formal Dinner? (Hint: the sideways one at the top is for the fish course).

<claps> :)

Is this being rude in one's politeness, or polite in one's rudeness? :)

Switching from insults to stereotypes to ridicule makes no worthy argument other than condemning its author.

CAnnoneer
January 4, 2006, 11:45 PM
You're sexist if you insist that all men are better at math than all women -- and vice versa with respect to fine manipulation.

That is not what the Harvard president said, yet he got jumped by PCers, feminists, feds, etc. In fact, he worded it very much in terms of general trends, but that did not prevent the flak he attracted.


Humans have got a "hard-wired biology" to be bad guys and in pretty consistent precentages of the population.

Let's assume for the moment that that were true. Then it follows that all races and both genders, being equal, should have the same percentage of the "criminality gene". Then our prisons and crime statistics should mirror the population percentages along racial and gender lines. However, the observed is drastically different from that prediction. Therefore the model is wrong.



the end result would not be less crime, just paler criminals. Man tries to rob me, his skin color is not a salient fact right at that moment; how about you? --Herself

RealGun covered that. I will only add the very real statistics from the security mailing list of a major university in my area. Two crimes on average a week, each involving on average two suspects. We are talking robbery, burglary, sexual assault, assault with a deadly weapon. For the past couple of years, NOT A SINGLE TIME did it involve an asian or a white as the suspects. Please explain this fact within your framework.

cuchulainn
January 5, 2006, 12:01 AM
RealGun: Nonsense. There is no criminal vacuum to be filled, except maybe to support demand for drugs. You breed fewer potential criminals, a product of parents who need parenting themselves, and you get fewer incidences of crime.

<sigh>

Actually, a program to abort all the babies of a particular race would create great social upheaval and backlash -- and that likely would increase crime. It likely would backfire.

But let’s say it didn’t do that. Let’s pretend that blacks meekly and voluntarily lined up en masse at the abortion clinics like Eloi:

1) At best, there'd be no crime reduction for at least 10 to 15 years because the already-born babies and toddlers would continue to reach adolescence, which is when most criminal activity begins. Only when you reached the years when the aborted babies would have hit adolescence could the benefit show up.

2) In ensuing decade-plus wait, there'd no way to tell what societal factors might erase the "coming benefit." Maybe criminal activity among the now-grown white, brown, yellow and red babies would increase enough to negate Bennett’s supposed benefit. There’s no way to tell or predict.

Art Eatman
January 5, 2006, 02:05 AM
Alright, Herself. In math, the average ability for men is notably greater than the average ability for women. Same deal for spatial relationships. (Which doesn't mean that some men aren't lousy architects, or that some women aren't great.)

Regardless, it's built in to Homo Sap. Nuthin' can be done about it, whether the PC crowd likes it or not. No different from the issue of upper-body physical strength...

And, as I said, it's not at all a "good" or "bad" thing. It's a Cronkhite thing: "And that's the way it is."

G'night...

:), Art

grampster
January 5, 2006, 02:12 AM
What Art so deftly said is that "you is what you is", but also he said, "it's how you use what you is, that defines who you are". To that, I wholeheartedly agree.

I also agree that I don't need a law to define the obvious. Sigh.............

Herself
January 5, 2006, 02:46 AM
+1 RealGun
So you agree that PC laws are ineffectual in anything but harassing the general populace? Just like gun laws?
I never didn't agree; I said that such laws are what you get when a society no longer bothers to control the manners of its members by a means other than looking to government.

So now I am a lout? Exactly where did I say we should tolerate the few louts that every place has?
Never said you were a lout. I did leave room for you to be one if you so chose. I should not wish to be accused of leaving louts out -- although in the real world I do so, every chance I get.

Not everything that is not prohibited is therefore mandatory. Not-A isn't always B.

But because you do not have more people like that, you want to legislate them into existence? If yes, then you defeat your own argument. If no, they you agree the PC laws are extraneous and ineffectual. Which is it?
Neither, see above. If you want better-behaved people, put your shoulder to the wheel and start movin' society in that direction. Mandatory, large-scale social engineering is a tool of authoritarians. The traditional method is to do so one-on-one or a few at a time, instead.

You are the first to go ad hominem. I will not follow suit. These methods are not fooling anybody. :rolleyes:
Y'all are saying I was the first? (Didn't even know I had. Thin-skinned?) Ummm, parm'me, but did you not accuse me of favoring the logic that calls torture good? Yes; you did. The innocent act doesn't suit you, dear.

Also, in an intellectual discussion, expect no punches to be pulled just because you are XX, instead of XY. Making gender an issue is yet another transparent ploy often used to guilt/embarass the opposition into a corner. Again, the method is not fooling anybody and is completely ineffectual in a worthy company.
"Fooling?" You leapt to assumptions about me that appear to be based on my sex. No foolin'. N.B., words have gender; critters have sexes.

Switching from insults to stereotypes to ridicule makes no worthy argument other than condemning its author.
You're the one championing rudeness and prejudice as Good Things, simply because they are not PC. There are plenty of reasons to despise rudeness and impoliteness other than because the PC types claim to be against them.

In the real world, the enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend. That's a lesson gunfolk often forget, to our peril.

--Herself

grampster
January 5, 2006, 02:55 AM
Ok dudes and dudettes. This is a place where we agree to disagree. However, we all agree that peeing on our leg is not preferred. I hear a pssshhhing sound.
Oh, there, it stopped. Now, what's on yer mind?

Herself
January 5, 2006, 03:03 AM
As for the "more blacks, less crime" nonsense, I see we have people here who don't do math at all well.

Crime levels are closely linked to two things: Poverty and lack of upward mobility.

The more po'folks with no lawful or honorable way out of poverty a society has, the more crime it will have. D'ye lads not read history? Some of my ancestors were ghetto-scum in their day: Irish and Scots. Last time I looked, they were among the paler sort of folks, generally. And when they'd come to the States in vast numbers and lived in teeming slums, they formed gangs. They robbed. They kidnapped. They murdered. They ran drugs. They ran prostitutes.

Color? Color's an historical accident. At one time, red hair and freckles was an "uh-oh." At another, straight black hair and a ruddy sunburn. Right now it's curly dark hair and dark skin -- and a War On Drugs that makes it look a lot easier to make a lot more upward progress outside the law than within it helps preserve that status quo, right along with Welfare in all its forms.

C'mon -- ask the boys in the SouthWest, last seen fretting about the crime and trouble arising from their latest group of outsiders; a group that -- oh, picture it it! -- ain't of African descent.

Can't have it both ways. Wanna hear about Amish teen gangs?

--Herself

Cosmoline
January 5, 2006, 03:16 AM
I remember the first time I heard "PC" was in the early '90's when socializing with old high school friends who were going to an elite liberal arts college in Portland. It had already gripped social life at that institution to such an extent that people decided whether or not to go to parties based on how "PC" the person throwing them was. At my own university I saw things getting increasingly dogmatic. The PC movement has restricted free expression. That is its goal. If wrongspeaking is forbidden, wrongthinking can be cured. It goes way beyond merely being polite, and seeks to change society by punishing what it deems are the wrong thoughts. The excesses of the PC movement are in fact what converted me from liberalism. I began to realize I was being force fed a new dogma, much of which had little or no support in reality.

cuchulainn
January 5, 2006, 07:48 AM
Herself: The more po'folks with no lawful or honorable way out of poverty a society has, the more crime it will have. D'ye lads not read history?Indeed.

Moreover, the problem with the thought experiment -- other than the fact that Bennett didn't present it seriously, so why are we? :rolleyes: -- is that it assumes a static culture.

The thought process: Today, in January 2006, blacks account for a disproportionate share of crime. Thus, people assume that it's obvious that aborting all black babies would cut future crime.

That's far from an absolute. As I stated above (in post #84):
1) The effects couldn't appear for 10 or 15 years (if ever).
2) Lots might change in that time to negate any positive effects.

And all that assumes there would be no social backlash against the abortion program, increasing crime rather than decreasing it.

RealGun
January 5, 2006, 09:25 AM
As for the "more blacks, less crime" nonsense, I see we have people here who don't do math at all well.

If you are proposing that you are somehow smarter, you might want to demonstrate it. I see no equation here...agreeable, yes (yawn)...enlightening, no.

Taurus 617 CCW
January 5, 2006, 09:25 AM
Now that the Christmas season is over I can discuss the latest go around with the PC reform. I had not been so pissed off as I was this year by everyone saying things like "Let's decorate the holiday tree," "Happy holidays to you," and I even heard "Merry Santa day." When I heard statements like that I couldn't resist wishing them a happy political correctness day back. I work at Lowe's Home Improvement Center and we actually had a lady complain about a sign that said Christmas trees out front of the store. Lowe's ended up taking it down voluntarily as a result of her request. I never became offended over the terms Hanukah, Kwanzaa, or Christmas. I truly believe that political correctness will be the downfall of our society. :fire:

roo_ster
January 5, 2006, 01:22 PM
As for the "more blacks, less crime" nonsense, I see we have people here who don't do math at all well.

Crime levels are closely linked to two things: Poverty and lack of upward mobility.
So, are you arguing correlation or causation?

Nematocyst
January 5, 2006, 01:43 PM
So, are you arguing correlation or causation? That's a very important, key distinction in this argument folks. It deserves to be addressed.

Waitone
January 5, 2006, 02:11 PM
Crime levels are closely linked to two things: Poverty and lack of upward mobility.Oooooo, so that explains the huge wave of crime and violence during the great depression. That explains why our crime levels are so much lower today than they were in the early '30's.

Crime is a moral problem. :scrutiny:

antarti
January 5, 2006, 02:31 PM
The excesses of the PC movement are in fact what converted me from liberalism. I began to realize I was being force fed a new dogma, much of which had little or no support in reality.

You said a mouthful... Reading about other "backlash cases" give me hope. As the dogma gets more divorced from reality, I hope to see the rates of both backlash and ridicule similarly increase.

CAnnoneer
January 5, 2006, 03:08 PM
If you want better-behaved people, put your shoulder to the wheel and start movin' society in that direction.

I am of the opinion people should be free to make total jackasses of themselves. Engineering them in any direction, personally or by force of law, diminishes their freedom. A lout suffers ostracism from polite company without any legislation or private tutoring. That is a condition he naturally reaches on his own. Whether it is a loss or a gain is for him to decide, not for anyone else to mandate.


Ummm, parm'me, but did you not accuse me of favoring the logic that calls torture good? Yes; you did. The innocent act doesn't suit you, dear.

Extrapolating your logic to refute it is not ad hominem. Also, "dear" is bit too familiar, to the point of being disparaging. Yet another transparent method to undermine the opposition without offering meaningful logic. At least there is behavioral consistency. And again, nobody is fooled.


"Fooling?" You leapt to assumptions about me that appear to be based on my sex. No foolin'.

You misstepped, I called you on it. No assumptions involved.


N.B., words have gender; critters have sexes.


Read some classics, e.g. Dickens and Jane Austin. They talk of "gender", not "sex".


You're the one championing rudeness and prejudice as Good Things, simply because they are not PC.

PC is anti-freedom and pro-social-engineering. Just because I am anti-PC does not make me pro-rudeness. Also, the truth is often harsh. Harshness is often taken for rudeness, and dismissed as such together with the truth. My priority is truth above all, no matter whose feathers, fur, or scales get ruffled. A society that sacrifices truth in any way, shape, or form is not for long in the real world.


In the real world, the enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend. That's a lesson gunfolk often forget, to our peril.
--Herself

Do some searches on this forum and you will convince yourself very few to nobody here has much of an illusion about the enemy of the enemy. The problem is many people feel they only have to choose between two evils.

CAnnoneer
January 5, 2006, 03:28 PM
Crime levels are closely linked to two things: Poverty and lack of upward mobility. The more po'folks with no lawful or honorable way out of poverty a society has, the more crime it will have.

If indeed poverty and no upward mobility characterize and determine the condition of all new-comers, please explain why it is that prisons are not filled with asians and why it is not drugged asians that would mug you on the street.

We in the pacific west have a large continuous wave of asian legal immigrants that come, integrate, root, bloom, and prosper, outstripping many "natives" in both social and financial succes by legal means. It seems poverty, crime, drugs, Maltusian catastrophe, welfare.gov, and whining are not their destiny somehow.

Damn counterexamples, ay?

Herself
January 5, 2006, 07:58 PM
If indeed poverty and no upward mobility characterize and determine the condition of all new-comers, please explain why it is that prisons are not filled with asians and why it is not drugged asians that would mug you on the street.
Excuse me? Man, there are Vietnamese street gangs in the quiet Midwestern city where I live and work. Not where you live? No Hmong punks? (And I suppose you never, ever heard of the Tong?)

We in the pacific west have a large continuous wave of asian legal immigrants that come, integrate, root, bloom, and prosper, outstripping many "natives" in both social and financial succes by legal means. It seems poverty, crime, drugs, Maltusian catastrophe, welfare.gov, and whining are not their destiny somehow.
Couple of points:
1. Aisian immigrants are not, as a group, immune to the lures of vice and crime
2. However, unlike Americans of African descent, they are not the inheritors of the actions and attitudes of a patronizing government that assumes they can never do as well for themselves as whites, that assumes they are in need of an extra break or a hand-out on the sole basis of skin color, that beleives they can never compete evenly with persons of European descent. (Look up what President Wilson told W. E. B. Dubuois after Wilson segregated the Federal government and Dubious called on him to object, for example).

When Aisians were seen and treated as underpeople -- out West during the 19th century, for instance -- they were disproprtionately involved in vice and crime. This is a combination of a lack of any legitimnate way to get ahead of the rat race and of "living down" to the low expectations of the culture they were surrounded by. (I am once again led to suspect that you have not read much history).

It changed, but it changed slowly. While asians as a group were doing considerably better in the States by the early-mid 20th Century than the had been in the 19th, the surrounding majority culture still did not quite view them as full members, and had no qualms at all about singling out a particular subgroup and collecting them in internment camps after Pearl Harbor.

Damn counterexamples, ay?
Indeed. Sharply pointed at both ends, too.

As for the remainder of your replies to me, I shall ignore them, as you have chosen to ignore any area of similarity in our conclusions, let alone work to mutual understanding. I have no need of dominance games.

You have taken umbrage at being called "dear;" please read back. Such terms are what one uses in polite discourse when tempted to speak harshly.

--Herself

CAnnoneer
January 5, 2006, 11:03 PM
Aisian immigrants are not, as a group, immune to the lures of vice and crime

Nobody has claimed "immunity". We are talking about trends and general character/culture. Running to absolutes does not help the argument and is statistically meaningless.

Please address the original point that while we do have numerous asian newcomers that (according to your model) are accordingly exposed to miserable conditions, we do not see them stacking the prisons nearly as much as "natives" of other races.


However, unlike Americans of African descent, they are not the inheritors of the actions and attitudes of a patronizing government


So, it cannot be their fault, it is the government's fault?


When Aisians were seen and treated as underpeople -- out West during the 19th century, for instance -- they were disproprtionately involved in vice and crime.

My readings of history have indicated that the crushing majority of asians in the period worked their butts off building the transcontinental railways, farming, and mining gold in California, while being treated worse than dirt by virtually everybody. Meanwhile all famous bank-robber gangs of the period contained no asians as far as I can tell. There certainly was some slave trade, opium trade, and shanghaiing in SanFran, but that hardly qualifies as "disproportionately involved" in the crime landscape of the time.


This is a combination of a lack of any legitimnate way to get ahead of the rat race and of "living down" to the low expectations of the culture they were surrounded by.

It changed, but it changed slowly. While asians as a group were doing considerably better in the States by the early-mid 20th Century than the had been in the 19th, the surrounding majority culture still did not quite view them as full members, and had no qualms at all about singling out a particular subgroup and collecting them in internment camps after Pearl Harbor.


Again, please explain why that has not kept the asians down and why and how it has changed.


As for the remainder of your replies to me, I shall ignore them, as you have chosen to ignore any area of similarity in our conclusions, let alone work to mutual understanding. I have no need of dominance games.


Your attitude and methods in this entire thread suggest otherwise. Working towards mutual understanding is very hard when one side heavily coats its arguments in emotionality, sarcasm, disparaging remarks, and demagogy. Clean up your act and you will enjoy a better reception.


You have taken umbrage at being called "dear;" please read back. Such terms are what one uses in polite discourse when tempted to speak harshly.
--Herself

So you prefer to insult in more convoluted ways? How about simply addressing the issues with solid facts and healthy logic, leaving out the rest?

Art Eatman
January 6, 2006, 01:25 AM
Herself, sorry, but poverty doesn't cause crime. If it did, the historical high in the U.S. would probably be the period 1930-1939. 25% unemployment and all that.

"Ten-cent cotton and forty-cent meat! How in the world can a poor man eat?"

What you don't want to be is a share-cropper in hard times...

Art

Herself
January 6, 2006, 02:38 AM
CAnnoneer: How you do go on! Underneath all your objections and crying "foul!" you will find your own great discomfort at having your cozy assumptions challenged. That'd be your problem.

Art Eatman: Poverty doesn't cause crime; never said it did. It is, however, linked to crime. Other closely-linked phenomona include opportunity (crime rose during Prohibition, for example, and has risen during the "war on drugs"), societal expectations and personal expectations, being an "outsider" or not, and a lack -- real or percieved! -- of legitimate means of upward mobility.

An individual's commission of any crime is a moral issue -- although just what sort of morality can be debateable; would you steal to feed your starving children if there was no other way to feed them at the time?

But crime rates in a given place and time are greatly affected by the external factors mentioned above. Each person has a "tipping point" and the broad effects simply move the center.

Right now, in most of the U.S., the poorest group with the lowest expectations and the fewest ways up happen to be black. That's all. It has been different in the past and it will be different in the future. When? There's no tellin'.

Generally: Those of you who are arguing -- however coyly -- that crime levels in a society are directly proportional to the number of persons of color within that society are nothing more than slicked-up Klansman. You have traded your white sheets for fine suits but you've got the same rotten souls.

You also have been ignoring crime and vice stats from lily-white Siberia, a world leader in robbery, prostitution, crack addiction and HIV. Oh, yeah -- and a leader in poverty with few honest ways out.

Your minds are made up. I'm not going to debate with a bunch of closet racists. It disgusts me to encounter such persons within the shooting community. I thought gunnies had more sense.

--Herself

edited to add "closet" to "racist," as none of the respondents are willing to be non-PC enought to make a really overt stand.

gc70
January 6, 2006, 03:21 AM
This topic has had a good run, with more than 100 posts.Your minds are made up. I'm not going to debate with a bunch of racists.But I guess we have reached the end of rational discussion when it is more convenient to label and damn than to debate.

Maybe a moderator will be good enough to close this thread before it devolves further.

Herself
January 6, 2006, 03:38 AM
This topic has had a good run, with more than 100 posts.But I guess we have reached the end of rational discussion when it is more convenient to label and damn than to debate.

Maybe a moderator will be good enough to close this thread before it devolves further.

Isn't it the very essence of PC-speak to have Daddy shut discussion down when it challenges one's comfortable assumptions?

I never asked for such; I debated long enough to make it clear what sort of attitude I was dealing with and then bowed out. I'm quite happy to let racists seethe in public -- it makes them self-identifying targets. For ridicule.

--Herself

gc70
January 6, 2006, 04:26 AM
It was never my assumption that a discussion on THR could be conducted without resorting to name-calling, although I would have been willing to be happily surprised.

cuchulainn
January 6, 2006, 07:10 AM
Herself,

Dear, you are way out of line calling these guys racists. They aren't.

Funny thing, I was on your side in the poverty-crime link debate, but I sure as heck ain't going to jump in as your ally now.

Ta Ta.

Waitone
January 6, 2006, 10:36 AM
Herself, those who have been members of this and other fora see a consistent pattern. A principal discussion takes place and somewhere along the way a charge is made and from that point on it is a downward spiral. Thankfully I am not a moderator but in a lot of cases I would have closed down a thread long before is was actually closed. Recently a number of members have expressed concern over how civility is taking a backseat to scoring points. I am in that group. Isn't it the very essence of PC-speak to have Daddy shut discussion down when it challenges one's comfortable assumptions?

I never asked for such; I debated long enough to make it clear what sort of attitude I was dealing with and then bowed out. I'm quite happy to let racists seethe in public -- it makes them self-identifying targets. For ridiculeis over the line.

roo_ster
January 6, 2006, 11:57 AM
I do want to thank Herself for the fine examples of PC thought and practice, one of which is found here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2144010&postcount=64).

That may not have been Herself's intent, but we take our representative samples where we can get them.

CAnnoneer
January 6, 2006, 02:26 PM
CAnnoneer: How you do go on! Underneath all your objections and crying "foul!" you will find your own great discomfort at having your cozy assumptions challenged. That'd be your problem.

If indeed I were afraid of having assumptions challenged, I would not consistently and repeatedly ask you to provide facts and logic. What you keep giving us in return is insults, categorizations, and PC pre-formed opinions (some call that "prejudice") that do not stand the test of rational examination.

I am sorry to say this, but you are the one devolving this thread. Leave the hysterical namecalling aside and present something of value. Otherwise, the moderators will rightfully kill an otherwise decent thread.


Art Eatman: Poverty doesn't cause crime; never said it did. It is, however, linked to crime. Other closely-linked phenomona include opportunity (crime rose during Prohibition, for example, and has risen during the "war on drugs"), societal expectations and personal expectations, being an "outsider" or not, and a lack -- real or percieved! -- of legitimate means of upward mobility.

That is just a PC excuse. Unless one is born in affluence, life is a struggle universally. Decent people work hard, pay their dues, and keep away from trouble, no matter how difficult it is. Then there are others that look for 50-150 year old excuses why it is they choose the easier paths of peddling drugs and living a life of crime. The latter are the ones that severely undermine the efforts of the former in their own communities. But if somebody says it like it is, he gets smacked with "Klansman", "racist", or whatever other garbage ammo the resident apologeticists happen to favor.


An individual's commission of any crime is a moral issue -- although just what sort of morality can be debateable; would you steal to feed your starving children if there was no other way to feed them at the time?

Right. Gangbangers make thousands of dollars a day in peddling smack, robbers mug people, and psychos rape women "to feed their children". Who are you kidding?


But crime rates in a given place and time are greatly affected by the external factors mentioned above. Each person has a "tipping point" and the broad effects simply move the center.

It is clear leftist apologeticism has made the center-of-mass of many rather high.


Right now, in most of the U.S., the poorest group with the lowest expectations and the fewest ways up happen to be black. That's all. It has been different in the past and it will be different in the future. When? There's no tellin'.

You still need to explain this within the framework of evidence and models discussed.


You also have been ignoring crime and vice stats from lily-white Siberia, a world leader in robbery, prostitution, crack addiction and HIV. Oh, yeah -- and a leader in poverty with few honest ways out.

That is hardly a fair parallel. The complete collapse of the Soviets produced the kind of political vacuum and economic crisis that 99.9% of the west cannot even begin to fathom. We are talking complete and utter collapse of society, the social contract, services, transportation, currency, banking system, etc. It is like what Y2K could have been multiplied by a hundred, and in many ways worse than the Weimar Republic.

The US equivalent would be complete bankruptsy of the federal government, dissolution of local authority, gas reaching 100 dollars a gallon, virtual disappearance of police, everyone taking an 80% cut in income while prices jump several times, even simple things like bread, milk, and butter disappearing from the supermarkets.

To compare this to the experiences of minorities in today's US is beyond preposterous.


Your minds are made up. I'm not going to debate with a bunch of racists. It disgusts me to encounter such persons within the shooting community. I thought gunnies had more sense.
--Herself

Facts and logic instead, please.

molonlabe
January 6, 2006, 03:51 PM
Whew, I don't believe I've read all this. As one who grew up poor and brought myself out of the shall we say ghetto. The wisest comment I've seen is.
Crime is a moral problem.

I agree, color me simple.

If you enjoyed reading about "A Rational Discussion of Political Correctness" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!