A Rational Discussion of Political Correctness

[Art Eatman]

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]

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]

P.C.

Speak the truth and in plain English. If some take offense,shame on them.

 

[cuchulainn]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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."

 

[Old Dog]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTEThis statement goes for anyone with any political leanings or any discussion about anything ][/QUOTE]

No, sir. I am speaking of SPECIFIC TOPICS which provoke The Look. "PC" has a definite pattern to its sore points.

 

[cuchulainn]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

Shakespeare knew what to do with the lawyers...

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.

 

[cuchulainn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lest RealGun is confused 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]

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 Sorry folks.

 

[RealGun]

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.