The Energon Pub

Here's a quote I got from my Philosophy Class:

Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.

Anyone care to discuss?

Does Jazz Die?

Chris™ wrote:Does Jazz Die?

Why, yes, sir. He does.

I actually think that whites are the minority now. At my nearest community college, the required accpetance GPA for a Hispanic, Black, or Asian is 2.5. The GPA requirement for a white person is 3.0. Many people call that "reverse discrimination," but it in reality, it's just discrimination. I wrote this in English class and many agreed with me. "All people may have been created equally, but they surely aren't treated equally."

Political correctness never would have gotten such a foothold if people could just be nice to one another.

Professor Smooth wrote:Political correctness never would have gotten such a foothold if people could just be nice to one another.

That is absolutely impossible. Man is cruel, violent, and self-absorbed. Never nice. Sorry if that came a little harsh.

Salazaar wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:Political correctness never would have gotten such a foothold if people could just be nice to one another.

That is absolutely impossible. Man is cruel, violent, and self-absorbed. Never nice. Sorry if that came a little harsh.

You just have to show them that being selfish butt-holes actually costs them time and money that they could be making by being nice. People like to doe what's in their best interest-- I know that's why I'm usually so courteous.

On political correctness-- as long as we see race and ethnicity as a conglomerate individual, we will never get over discrimination. Give funding to underprivileged schools, but not just because it's a 'minority' school. You can a big post of mine on this in the thread on racial reparations.

Political correctness is bullshit. Plain and simple.

It's fancy (and sadly acceptable) terminology for saying despicable things without the impact. (Or so people think)

It's a ridiculous do-se-do that lets you tiptoe around a subject without incurring the full wrath of someone or a group.

People call me honkey, fatass, etc and they're up front and honest with what they think. I respect them for that, but it's not fair because if I did the same exact thing, I'd be called racist, a pig, whatever.

I'm waiting for the day they say "PC is over, go back to what it was" and then we'd all say what we really feel and get this **** over with.

I think if we all got it out of our systems and said our piece...things wouldn't bury so deep and build up to dangerous proportions.

Autobot032 wrote:Political correctness is bullshit. Plain and simple.

It's fancy (and sadly acceptable) terminology for saying despicable things without the impact. (Or so people think)

It's a ridiculous do-se-do that lets you tiptoe around a subject without incurring the full wrath of someone or a group.

People call me honkey, fatass, etc and they're up front and honest with what they think. I respect them for that, but it's not fair because if I did the same exact thing, I'd be called racist, a pig, whatever.

I'm waiting for the day they say "PC is over, go back to what it was" and then we'd all say what we really feel and get this **** over with.

I think if we all got it out of our systems and said our piece...things wouldn't bury so deep and build up to dangerous proportions.

I agree. It seems the ultimate outcome of political correctness makes everyone hypersensitive and overcautious about what they say or think or protray, and then people start to live in fear of being branded un-PC. I'm all for treating people with respect and stuff and being considerate and all, but qeez, political correctness is nothing more than Big Brother watching over us. If some one is a jerk, why can't I call them a jerk without fear of repercussions based on race or religion or whatever? Because if I called a black person an asshole, my motivation would obviously be because said person is black, and not becuase they are legitimately an asshole. *sarcasm*
There was some incident on California where some black kids beat up these white girls for something around Halloween, and when the case went to court as a hate crime, it was protested because the victims were white and not minorities. According to the leaglese the hate crime laws are written in, this incident was a textbook example of a hate crime, but because the victims were not minorities people were clamoring that this was some perversion of justice.
In my view, political correctness would count a hate crime as hate crime regardless of who the victim was.
I also agree that this PC chokehold makes people afraid to say things, becuase one of the worst things you can be portrayed as these days is a racist, or a sexist, or a homophobe, or anything un-PC. It may have come from a place of genuine concern for peoples' feelings and so forth, but now it's just overly killed overkill.

If you want the answer to racism, it's Dave Chapel-- make a joke about racial stereotypes and biases.

It both labels racism as an absurdity (and thus anyone actually believing of in it equally laughable) and belittles the issue in people's minds (for what is racism but something of the mind?), so that it isn't this huge thing we all have to tip-toe around, and it just shrinks into a jestful nonissue like Irish or Polock jokes.

The Avatar of Man wrote:If you want the answer to racism, it's Dave Chapel-- make a joke about racial stereotypes and biases.

It both labels racism as an absurdity (and thus anyone actually believing of in it equally laughable) and belittles the issue in people's minds (for what is racism but something of the mind?), so that it isn't this huge thing we all have to tip-toe around, and it just shrinks into a jestful nonissue like Irish or Polock jokes.

Except he ruined it when he quit his show because "too many white people laughed at his jokes".

Ironhidensh wrote:Except he ruined it when he quit his show because "too many white people laughed at his jokes".

Where did you read that?

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:Political correctness never would have gotten such a foothold if people could just be nice to one another.

That is absolutely impossible. Man is cruel, violent, and self-absorbed. Never nice. Sorry if that came a little harsh.

You just have to show them that being selfish butt-holes actually costs them time and money that they could be making by being nice. People like to doe what's in their best interest-- I know that's why I'm usually so courteous

actually, "being nice" would cost a hell of a lot more money. If you gave a million dollars to charity, the homeless, the crisis in Darfur, and to churches, do you think you'd get any of that money back in profit? No.

I wouldn't give a dime to a church, but...

Donating a ton of money to a charity can definitely buy someone a certain sense of self-satisfaction.

Salazaar wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Salazaar wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:Political correctness never would have gotten such a foothold if people could just be nice to one another.

That is absolutely impossible. Man is cruel, violent, and self-absorbed. Never nice. Sorry if that came a little harsh.

You just have to show them that being selfish butt-holes actually costs them time and money that they could be making by being nice. People like to doe what's in their best interest-- I know that's why I'm usually so courteous

actually, "being nice" would cost a hell of a lot more money. If you gave a million dollars to charity, the homeless, the crisis in Darfur, and to churches, do you think you'd get any of that money back in profit? No.

Courteous is the lowest-- actual help is the next. Seek the max output ratio for both yourself and others. Of course giving everything you have to charity is just plain fiscal stupidity any way you look at it, but donating occasionally, showing up to fund-raisers, and being a nice guy to be around is what gets people to subconsciously to start working for your own interests and gets you favors. It all adds up eventually.

Professor Smooth wrote:I wouldn't give a dime to a church, but...

Donating a ton of money to a charity can definitely buy someone a certain sense of self-satisfaction.

It's no longer a question of can you, but should you buy happiness? (stemming from self-satisfaction)

Don't get me wrong, I'll for supporting charities and whatnot, but for the right reasons (I.E. they actually need it, a hell of a lot more than you do), not the self satisfying ones.

If I have to buy my way to being human and humane, then forget it. That's not a world I wish to support.

Nor do I wish to support the climate we have now. Lies, cover ups, polite slaps in the face, charity for show.

Hell no, there has to be a better way...

Professor Smooth wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:Except he ruined it when he quit his show because "too many white people laughed at his jokes".

Where did you read that?

He said it himself in several of the interviews he did when he got back from his exile/rehab in Africa. At least, I think it was in Africa.

Autobot032 wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:I wouldn't give a dime to a church, but...

Donating a ton of money to a charity can definitely buy someone a certain sense of self-satisfaction.

It's no longer a question of can you, but should you buy happiness? (stemming from self-satisfaction)

Don't get me wrong, I'll for supporting charities and whatnot, but for the right reasons (I.E. they actually need it, a hell of a lot more than you do), not the self satisfying ones.

If I have to buy my way to being human and humane, then forget it. That's not a world I wish to support.

Nor do I wish to support the climate we have now. Lies, cover ups, polite slaps in the face, charity for show.

Hell no, there has to be a better way...

Short answer: yes.

Everything ever done has been in search for self satisfaction or fulfillment-- some are just too stuck up or confused to admit it. A"selfless" act doesn't exist.

...after looking at some of these posts, I almost wished I lived in such a wonderful place, where the playing field was so even that "minorities" were in such good socio-economic shape that white folk were justified in complaining about the "PC ruckus" everyone seems to use against them. But I'm an American, so unfortunately, I still live in a society that women earn at least 30% less than men when all other factors are considered, where programs such as Afirmative Action are still required in some places for employers to pay attention to nonwhite applicants, and the gap between the wealthy and working poor is one of the largest in the world.

I won't lie; "political correctness" is a mostly worthless, apologetic language that people of privilege have used to cover-up the sins of bigotry and discrimination, a sort of euphemism that betrays the greater injustices lurking beneath the surface. I agree that the language itself might just be another form of control that puts a pretty face to an ugly reality, cultivating the illusion of progress in ensuring that all peoples are regarded as equal...but that's just it! The language itself serves the opposite purpose that it presents on the surface: it doesn't encourage sensitivity to diversity. It goes a long way to deny the legitimacy of that diversity in the first place.

For example, people--particularly the white ones--will cite that "Affirmative Action" is just an example of discrimination against white folk, and that people "should be considered based on merit alone, and not because of some P.C. policy." First off: it's America. Merit doesn't exist. If you're not connected, then you likely never will be, and no amount of hard work will ever change that. Second: I bet you that nine times out of ten, the person who benefits from the very minimal "equality of opportunity" that Affirmative Action brings is an example of merit, having to struggle in a society that has already made up its mind about her/him based on skin color, has had to prove her/his abilities on more occasions than Keith Richards has illegitimate children to a much more critical audience, and likely were denied the same rich experiences as others because of the institutional racism that still pervades many aspects of society. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But that's the nature of privilege: it allows for a society to live by double-standards. A man can be outraged that a woman was picked for the job he applied for, sure, but he would likely be equally outraged if forced to confront the unfair standards women are forced onto--y'know, trying to be an impossibly beautiful domestic with no greater purpose than to find some man to marry so she can be seen as a "legitimate" member of society. A bit exaggerated, but hey, not by all that much.

Anyway, in short: "political correctness" might be BS, but it's only the first chapter in the Great American Dream, folks. If you gotta get worked-up about something, there are far more pressing matters to attend to...

PC can be bad I think when it begins to stifle free speech, and people become overtly paranoid about offending folks who are differant from them. Not the free speech where the person rants like a blatent bigot and advises harm on other races and ethnic groups, but free speech in normal interaction. Like talking to a person who is black. I don't want to feel I have to walk on eggshells while talking to him/her and wonder if I accidently happened to offend in speach or mannerisms. I just want to be able to "shoot the breeze" so to speak, and regard them as another regular human being instead of "an African American" which PC forces you to always keep in mind.

Political correctness is truly oppressing not only the freedom of speech but also history as well.

Here's an example from my history class this year:
Teacher: [GodfatherBluto] please read the next passage.
GFB: "Those who lynched minorities would tend to refer to the lynchees as spades, niggers, etc." (OK it was to this effect)
Teacher: [GFB]!
GFB: What? I was reading this passage like you told me and earlier in the year you allowed me to say "Anarchist Bastards" this is no different this is how people really talk. And honestly if i didn't say these words in context then it would be worse, for we must accept history as it is.

Kranix-76 wrote:women earn at least 30% less than men when all other factors are considered

This is one of those unfortunate misconceptions where people fail to differentiate between different/same and unequal/equal.
Women tend to earn less than men for a variety of reasons.
Mainly, it's that men are more cut-throat, more willing to sell themselves in interviews, and more eager to maneuver themselves into advantageous positions. They're just that much more competetive than women.

Women are also higher risk investments, since they occasionally get pregnant, and are entitle to maternity leave in a lot of western countries.
It's not discrimination, it's business.

I believe there was a rather poignant episode of The Simpsons that touched on this issue.

For example, people--particularly the white ones--will cite that "Affirmative Action" is just an example of discrimination against white folk, and that people "should be considered based on merit alone, and not because of some P.C. policy."

The fact is, that it is discrimination based on econimic status and/or ethnicity.
That, in and of itself, creates real inequality, regardless of who is the perpetrator, and who is the victim.

First off: it's America. Merit doesn't exist. If you're not connected, then you likely never will be, and no amount of hard work will ever change that.

Rags to Riches stories are rare because there just are not that many rich people.
What you've said here would seem to imply that two otherwise equal applicants for a job or university place would not be decided between on the basis of which has worked hardest and acheived more.

Second: I bet you that nine times out of ten, the person who benefits from the very minimal "equality of opportunity" that Affirmative Action brings is an example of merit, having to struggle in a society that has already made up its mind about her/him based on skin color, has had to prove her/his abilities

Even if that were the case 100% of the time, that doesn't mean the white kid from the good family didn't deserve the college place or job more than the over-acheiver from the ghetto. It just means that unjust discrimination is being perpetrated in the name of so-called "social justice".

institutional racism

How is the concept of a meritocracy mythic in a country like America, yet this urban legend actually forms part of your vocabulary?

**** pc