Not everyone is politically correct!

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Back to the original post in this list - Tonight I drove back home by the Toyota City stadium (Toyota City pop: 575,000) and there were 4 Christmas trees that I could see on one side - all lit up. There were some other Christmas scenes there too. Go figure!

Diversity recognized is freedom gained;
Diversity celebrated is strength gained;
Diversity squelched is freedom lost;
Diversity abused is strength lost.
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
I have to admit that I have yet to know anyone who has been fired, axed, ex-laxed, or stabbed because they were politically incorrect. I do know of several who got steaming mad when someone stood up to them when they did so. This is a complicated subject, because few people are consciously prejudiced. But I think it's better for people to speak up when they feel stepped on for no other reason than the ensuing discussion may raise consciousness a bit. Keeping silent will never resolve an issue. That means that if I have to let you say something irritating then you have to let me complain about it. And if we're both open to discussion maybe a little more light will escape into the world. If I had to choose between a world where there was social pressure to be polite and one where someone can say silly things that are calculated to offend a group of people I'd pick the former every time.

Marc
 
Politically correct is the subtle badgering arm of ACLU mentality. No one wants to get sued but it happens when someone in retail doesn't conform to subtle and then overt pressures. No one wants to lose their job but non-PC conformity can cost a person their job - and you can bet the ACLU will fund the lawsuit.
I've seen them boycott a company, and put pressure on them. But what legally can they do to force a company to conduct business in a certain way? I don't see any case of that nature being able to make it through the courts. If I own a company, I can make policy. If you as an employee go against that policy, I can fire you. That's legal in most states that I'm aware of. My employment contract say they can fire me at any time with or without cause.


Did you know that you can say GD to the US of A from a pulpit and support a member of said church by name for national elections and that is OK. But if you name a person of another gourp that supports certain belief principles - it is labeled as not PC and lambasted by the press. And the US government HAS in fact notified major church denominations that in national elections they can support principles but can NOT name a person by name from the pulpit? Why is it OK for one group that pushes PC but not OK for the other?
I would like to see your source for this. I don't believe for an instant that the Government can Order anyone, or any organization from endorsing anyone by name in any context. Any such law or order would be in direct violation of the constitution.


Did you know that you can own a mom & pop business and if you are open to the public, in some places, you can be sued to hire another worker for at least minimum wage for all of the hours that you are open - to speak another language if you, as the owner are not bilingual?
Where is this? Again, I need to see proof.


Did you know that one member here who worked for the State of . . asked for diagonal cutters by saying "hand me the dikes" and was given a letter of reprimand by the State? And if the person in question had done so, they could have had the letter of reprimand removed from their file by showing that they were using a word in proper context. If the office refused, the ACLU would likely have funded the legal cost to have it removed by law.

Did you know that another person, an online friend from another forum - well I will quote him here: "I too came under the gun about that word (dike) and the word "peckerhead". I am a retired electrician and got myself jammed up with the people in the office one day when I told them that the peckerhead was missing on one of the grove pumps. A peckerhead is the termination box cover on the side or end of large electrical motors. Monkey wrench also is taboo as well as some other words and phrases used in the fields. Political correctness, is . .

Did you know that I was reprimanded by a store owner once for saying "Boy, its hot today!" while standing by a black fellow, a friend. He laughed at the stupidity of the reprimand! I shook my head and left - with my friend.
These two above are individuals who have gotten PC so fouled up as to think that they are the law. They are not. As I said before, was a police officer called to write a ticket? I think not.

And you asked - explain how PC has taken ANY rights away from anyone? Can't talk without someone taking offense at innocent words and expressions.

I am respectful of ethnos and and am well aware of different ethnos and cultures far more than most people would guess. I get to see the insides of cultures that vacationing visitors, and short term workers never see. I don't meet these people on the governmental and commercial interaction level but rather at the point of their basic value system - who they are, who they wish to be. As a counselor too, I see the inside to this.

I do not see in other cultures except Euro/North American doing the PC stifling. Differences are noted in countries outside of those just mentioned without exploiting the differences and there is no insistence on generic commonality for PC purposes.

I was disappointed of you the bringing of the "N" word into the fold. No one was referring to that, unless I missed something. I grew up on a farm in the middle of the south where my closest white neighbor was about 4 miles away. So my childhood friends were black and they are still my friends. No one else brought this up. Were you trying to equate anti-PC people and prejudice as one and the same? That kind of implicating is wrong! If someone does bring it up, pounce on them! I will. But to suggest that anti-PC and prejudice are the same is plain wrong.

Hank, I brought up the "n" word because I was thinking of places where people messed up by being non-PC. The whole Sienfeld comedian saga (Kramer) from a few years back popped into my mind. I always saw the events as him being non-PC not prejudiced.

I just spent the Holiday back in SC with my family. While there I visited a part of my Mother's boyfriend's farm. A woman from Memphis had come out to see where her great-grandfather had lived and Dr. Chapel knows the place and stories about what was happening. This woman's black great-grandfather was a black man with a white father (the farmer who owned the land at the time). The father had built his son a house on the land right around the turn of the century, and the house is still more or less intact today. During the stories that he was telling, the "n" word was mentioned several times in a way that showed how life was during that time. I don't believe that the woman ever took offense to his use of the word in the contexts that it was being used. She went away with more knowledge of her family's history than she likely could have gotten any other place. And it was obvious that Dr. Chapel respected her great-grandfather, his father, and their family to me. The house was a Tenant Farmer's house, but it had a raised seam metal roof that is still intact. That's not the typical house built for a tenant farmer of the day. As Dr. Chapel said "This house was built special for someone that Mr. Nelson loved and respected"


PC - DOES badger people and can causes some to lose jobs.
Yes, PC can be badgering when people insist on it to extremes, just as religion itself can be badgering when it is pushed towards someone in extremes. It can cost people their jobs if they dismiss corporate policy in their following or lack of following of it. In government jobs as was pointed out, it cost someone their job because the person in charge thought it had legal backing that is DOES NOT. The person was reinstated.

As I said in my original post, Legally no rights have been taken or impeded by PC. The only thing it can effect is the way you are viewed by other individuals.

Some companies have also started saying that to remain employed by them, that the person can not smoke. They are doing this due to the increased health insurance costs related to those individuals. Now, this is fully legal and the employee has the simple choice of don't smoke and keep their job with the company, or smoke and leave the job. The government can not make this policy however.
 
:bananen_smilies022: This can go on forever......no time or desire to go further......better things and more fun things to do!

Signing off now.......Barney

So how does a administrator being stupid and a teacher being reinstated prove that PC impeded rights? You kinda just made my case for me.

I never said that PC couldn't hurt you, only that it can't LEGALLY take or impede your rights. Heck, if you chose not to be PC, your own mother may be embarrassed by you and not invite you to certain events, but she can't take away your rights because of it.

As far as the Christmas tree. As was already mentioned it's has nothing to do with Christmas in reality. It was borrowed from Pagan religion. Santa Clause also has no origins in the religious holiday of Christmas. But here in the States people don't seem to know how to not equate one with the other. If the person doesn't take down their decorations, what happens? Has anyone pushed this? Tell them to put a Crucifix up in their cubicle and see if they can be forced to take it down.

The Duke Rape Case. You mean the one where the prosecutor that pushed it has been disbarred and can not longer practice law. The one where the boys were invited back to Duke after everything came out? Do you think the administrator was wrong for removing them from campus when they were indicted (regardless that it was by an overzealous prosecutor)? What if they had been left on campus and actually did rape the girl, and raped another while waiting for the trail? Administrators are charged with protecting the student body, I think he did the right thing given the information he had at the time.

Again, I don't see where anyone has legally had their rights taken away in anything you've mentioned above as a result of PC. Except for that prosecutor that took it too far.
 
Duke rape case? Good grief this thread is really getting off the tracks.

derail2.jpg
 
I have to admit that I have yet to know anyone who has been fired, axed, ex-laxed, or stabbed because they were politically incorrect.

Marc

I never said that PC couldn't hurt you, only that it can't LEGALLY take or impede your rights.
A few years back a local mechanic asked out loud in the shop he worked in if anyone had seen his dikes, otherwise known as side cutters. A woman who has chosen to live an alternative life style just happened to be in the shop and overheard his reference. She immediately went to his employer and threatened him with a "sexual discrimination" law suit. To avoid the law suit, the mechanic was laid off for an indefinent amount of time. He had to seek employment elsewhere.

Perhaps PC itself did not directly cause this mechanic to lose his job but it sure played a major role in it. PCness is a tool used by those who are seeking to push a certain agenda. Even though PCness itself isn't instituted by law, those who weild it, do so in such a way as to manipulate the law!

And yes, PCness can impede one's rights. Because of PCness, where I work, one must be cautious of what they say. PCness keeps some from expressing themselves as they would freely like to. So much for their right to freedom of speech. PCness keeps some from hanging the calenders they would like. PCness keeps me from even hanging a decoration that says "Merry Christmas" on my tool box or in my office window. Again, there goes freedom of speech/expression. And PCness will scream the loudest if their right to freedom of speech has been impeded or stiffled.
 
Last edited:
Mike,

Technically legally in most cases you are right, but "in reality" most people can't stand up to lawsuits or risk of being firing by their bosses. People who feel slighted by a breach of PCness can often and will get pro bono or ACLU lawsuit support. Win or lose, no money out of their pocket. BUT the worker or mom & pop store owner make juuuust enough money that they can't get a pro bono lawyer and they certainly can't hire a competent lawyer with their own funds. So, in reality they loose their job or conform to PCness.

On the Mom & Pop business - When we were home (stateside) in the early spring or '06, passing in the area of Louisville to Cincinnati, and back down to Lexington, we listened to several local news and one account that made the news on several stations for the day was about a small restaurant in Ohio that put up a sign saying "we only know and speak English here". They were being sued or made to provide an employee who could speak at least bilingually. The report mentioned that the owner said he was barely making ends meet and this would force him to shut down rather than financially comply. Some from Ohio might remember this and enlighten us. As we came back to Japan, I did not hear any more of this. But in reality, law suits such as this, while probably weak and unenforceable can not be defended by many people who cannot get a "pro bono" defense and can't afford anything else.

The same thing applies to workers who use words like "dike" for side cutters and have been for many many years. Yes they can get fired, and yes they can sue and probably be re-instated, but the reality is that they can't afford that down time and are thus forced to conform.

On my post about government preventing churches from publicly endorsing specific candidates - I have a request in to my organizations (largest US protestant denomination) Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the specifics. However, for a quick clarification here are the basics: Religious organizations are (in the US) tax exempt and donations to them are tax deductible. When public officials are endorsed, the _IRS_ deems it stepping over the bounds of Separation of Church and State. Tax exemption can be lost on this issue. I remember about 8 years ago this happening but a good lawyer and lots of wrangling kept the church tax exempt, IIRC. Is it a law? - depends on how you define it, but in reality the US government can enforce the separation of Church and State through this issue.

The Link concerning Churches and what can be said from the pulpit is here: http://ivotevalues.com/legals/
and here: http://ivotevalues.com/legals/church
 
Last edited:
Oh the heck with it. This is a discussion fated to make enemies out of people. I'd rather be PC and respect everyone's right to have an opinion. That way I can use this board without they being political overtones to whatever I happen to be saying.

Marc
 
Last edited:
Oh the heck with it. This is a discussion fated to make enemies out of people. I'd rather be PC and respect everyone's right to have an opinion. That way I can use this board without they being political overtones to whatever I happen to be saying.

Marc

Uh, one doesn't have to be PC to respect one's right to have an opinion!!!! :eek::biggrin:

In fact, as it can clearly be seen, those who are not PC seem to be doing far more of the respecting in this ol' world!!!!!:angel::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
 
Uh, one doesn't have to be PC to respect one's right to have an opinion!!!! :eek::biggrin:

In fact, as it can clearly be seen, those who are not PC seem to be doing far more of the respecting in this ol' world!!!!!:angel::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Amen.......brother!!!!:bananen_smilies022:
 
I am at a total loss about one particular thing - those who want to see this thread let go - keep coming back, reading and commenting that they just want to see it stopped.

We have three groups here:
1. those that like PCness
2. those that don't like PCness
3. those who don't like discussions on subjects in which they don't like either side.

In my experience, 1 & 2 can come to a mutual "agree to disagree," But, number 3 is the one to cause the greatest harm because they wish to squelch freedom from all sides! PeaceMAKERS dialog. PeaceKEEPERS squelch.

Shucks, when a thread comes up on the number of threads in a tap and die set or a lacquer finish which I don't use - I don't keep going back a reading and reading and reading. I let it go for "myself", not badgering others to quit!

Reminds me of the post back in the summer of a newly purchased handgun. Some didn't like it and kept coming back to it anyway. Are we that much of a control freak that we have to come back and complain about both sides? I don't read every single post and no one else has to either.
 
Last edited:
But, number 3 is the one to cause the greatest harm because they wish to squelch freedom from all sides! PeaceMAKERS dialog. PeaceKEEPERS squelch.

So you want people to disagree with you the way you want them to or go away? So much for diversity. I think you just made my point for me.

Let me make it another way. There is no such thing as PC. It's a term invented by the conservative movement so they could have something to blame what they felt was any erosion of their rights, or any action that meant that really different opinions had to be shown respect. Most of the nonPC claims I've heard quickly dissolve into urban legends on close examination. Diversity does exist however, but giving people who already have most of the say more of the say isn't it.

Marc
 
Last edited:
So you want people to disagree with you the way you want them to or go away? So much for diversity. I think you just made my point for me.

Marc

Marc,

Didn't make your point at all - You are mixing apples and oranges. You are moving from "a disagreement" in a discussion on PCness to suggesting I am moving to a dictator process. You can't have disagreements when you are not allowed to discuss. Freedom welcomes discourse, Strength will come to Freedom when discourse is allowed - even freedom to say that one is tired of it and they wish it would stop. BUT the ACT of actually squelching dialog becomes the cornerstone of autocratic, undemocratic, totalitarian, authoritarian, . . .

In other words:
The constant "wanting a discussion to stop" by a third party - of two other parties is a "right" of free speech for sure. But when that _becomes enforced_ then the focus changes from "a disagreement dialog" to dictatorship by the third party. The third party isn't required to read this post at all. They can comment as a right, but the attitude of squelching has as its 'core intent' the prohibition of your and my discourse. I say you have that freedom and I do too, and the third party does too but the third party's wishes is basically a ideology of squelching.

I support your right to speak out your beliefs even if I disagree with it. I just don't think third party people realize their squelching ideology is best handled by them not coming to this thread. I am FOR speaking out - right or wrong, but "squelching ideologically" is mutually exclusive to both parties.

I know this is not the US of A and is IAP. I think Jeff has all right to close it and I, along with probably you and others would not mind it. However, as a Freedom issue, I don't think many people realize the squelching of freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy lost. It is not about one side trying to ban another, it is a LACK of understanding what Freedom IS and its core principles.

It is not about who gets their way, but the continued right to speak - versus the prohibition of speaking. The US of A was established to allow the freedom of speech, not the squelching of speech. People don't know what they are doing when they say they wish a post would be stopped or slam it for flogging a dead horse. The killing for Democracy begins here because it begins with an attitude in individuals.
 
Last edited:
WOW

Work a couple extra shifts, take a vacation to see the family, work a couple extra shifts and miss the longest debate I have seen on this list since I joined.

To those that celebrate Christmas. Merry Christmas. To those that don't. Merry christmas. Please send your greeting on to another and if they don't understand what you are saying please educate them in your seasonal greeting. I think the only way for everyone to get along is to try and teach and learn what you are a believer in. Most people and most religions follow the do onto other rule in some form. All we have to do is figure out the form.

Hope everyone has a great pen giving season.
Russ
 
You're being extremely unclear. I'm not accusing you of anything except misusing the terms PC and diversity. And I find the athletic intensity of your comments in response alarming. The idea that there is some creeping PC plot to disenfranchise the rights of... well, who exactly? I don't get it. My rights certainly aren't being eroded that way. I can stand proudly in more places now than I ever could in the years right after I was born. I've been beaten up for being Jewish -- I hope you've never had a similar experience.

The first amendment, after all, doesn't guarantee freedom of expression, it guarantees that Congress won't pass a law limiting freedom of expression. And this is often applied in turn to the states. The irony is that there are any number of laws limiting what freedom of speech means, but most of them aren't about being PC, they are about responsible citizenship. So you are never exempt from the results of whatever you might say, and you may very well feel that the quid pro quo is a limitation on your rights. It isn't, though, it's justice.

However, I see no signs that Democracy is under attack just because people have to think twice before they dump their religious or political attitudes on anyone and everyone. What's happening is that achingly slowly this country is opening up to groups other than the mainstream. We are going through the growing pains of becoming a truly diverse society. Democracy is growing, not shrinking, despite every effort of the current administration. That's both frightening and exciting, but we need to embrace the change, since it will either happen with us or without us.

PS - I don't think conservatives are 'moving toward a dictator process.' But I don't think liberals are 'squelching dialog' either.

Marc

Marc,

Didn't make your point at all - You are mixing apples and oranges. You are moving from "a disagreement" in a discussion on PCness to suggesting I am moving to a dictator process. You can't have disagreements when you are not allowed to discuss. Freedom welcomes discourse, Strength will come to Freedom when discourse is allowed - even freedom to say that one is tired of it and they wish it would stop. BUT the ACT of actually squelching dialog becomes the cornerstone of autocratic, undemocratic, totalitarian, authoritarian, . . .
 
Ughh, the English language sure is hard to understand sometimes! :eek: :biggrin: :biggrin:

OK, so we didn't have the same "English" teacher, (or philosophy teacher) . . :biggrin:

Marc,
You do great work and I enjoy your input on this forum's purpose! We CAN agree on this. :) If you look back, you will see I was the first one to wish you a Happy Hannukah!

Happy Hannukah to you and Merry Christmas to all!
 
I have to admit that I have yet to know anyone who has been fired, axed, ex-laxed, or stabbed because they were politically incorrect.

Two high-profile examples:

- Bill Maher for being politically incorrect on his ABC show "Politically Incorrect" (Can you say "irony"?)

- Don Imus after he called members of the Rutgers team "nappy-headed hos"
 
So you want people to disagree with you the way you want them to or go away? So much for diversity. I think you just made my point for me.

Let me make it another way. There is no such thing as PC. It's a term invented by the conservative movement so they could have something to blame what they felt was any erosion of their rights, or any action that meant that really different opinions had to be shown respect. Most of the nonPC claims I've heard quickly dissolve into urban legends on close examination. Diversity does exist however, but giving people who already have most of the say more of the say isn't it.

Marc
Let's just clarify here...the term 'politically correct' actually has been credited to Mao Tse Tung. IT COMES FROM COMMUNISM. True, in the 1990s the political right used it to try to discredit the left, but it certainly wasn't invented by the 'conservative movement'. What's more, there are those who propose that if you can change the way people speak, than you can change the way they think. So, political correctness is NOT just a way to preserve anyone's rights, but to CONTROL. Mao Tse Tung was a master of control, so let's just keep that in mind here.

What I find interesting is how we seem to hear 'politically correct' and 'diversity' in the same argument. That doesn't do much to make me take the argument seriously because those two concepts just don't mix. PCness tries to strip away our differences and make us all the same. How can we 'celebrate diversity' unless we are willing to accept that there are differences and learn to get along inspite of them? Take offense when neccessary, but don't look to take offense. We can take offense to just about anything, but that rarely means that the object of our offense is in deed offensive. There is a difference.

Oh, and free speech doesn't mean that we have the right to just say whatever we want. Slander and libel laws prove that. Also, try standing up in a crowded restaurant and shouting "Fire!" when there is no fire and see where that gets you.
 
Last edited:
Oh piffle. If it's necessary to resort to red-baiting this argument has dissolved into fantasy. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who believes there is a vast liberal conspiracy to control the minds of conservatives. For what reason, I can't imagine. Some in the right have simply seized on the term as a straw man to have a shibboleth to point at. Despite the fact that its impossible to find a party, movement, or organization with 'political correctness' as one of its goals.

The irony of this is that the nonPC argument is often being used in an attempt to limit discussion and control what people say or think in much the same manner as PCness is accused of. In an interesting reversal, antiPCness and PCness have switched roles. 'Happy Holidays' is hardly anti-Christian any more than 'Merry Xmas' is anti-semitic. I don't find either term the least bit offensive. I can conceive of situations where the former might be less appreciated, but most people understand the sentiment and accept it on face value.

Oh, and thank you for re-affirming what I said about freedom of speech.

Marc

Let's just clarify here...the term 'politically correct' actually has been credited to Mao Tse Tung. IT COMES FROM COMMUNISM. True, in the 1990s the political right used it to try to discredit the left, but it certainly wasn't invented by the 'conservative movement'. What's more, there are those who propose that if you can change the way people speak, than you can change the way they think. So, political correctness is NOT just a way to preserve anyone's rights, but to CONTROL. Mao Tse Tung was a master of control, so let's just keep that in mind here.

What I find interesting is how we seem to hear 'politically correct' and 'diversity' in the same argument. That doesn't do much to make me take the argument seriously because those two concepts just don't mix. PCness tries to strip away our differences and make us all the same. How can we 'celebrate diversity' unless we are willing to accept that there are differences and learn to get along inspite of them? Take offense when neccessary, but don't look to take offense. We can take offense to just about anything, but that rarely means that the object of our offense is in deed offensive. There is a difference.

Oh, and free speech doesn't mean that we have the right to just say whatever we want. Slander and libel laws prove that. Also, try standing up in a crowded restaurant and shouting "Fire!" when there is no fire and see where that gets you.
 
Last edited:
Let's just clarify here...the term 'politically correct' actually has been credited to Mao Tse Tung. IT COMES FROM COMMUNISM. No, it comes from a dictator, not Communism. Communism is a socio-econonic system where people work for the good of the group (The Amish are an example of a communist society that no one even blinks an eye at, as long as you aren't stuck behind them on the road). But that's another lesson.

What I find interesting is how we seem to hear 'politically correct' and 'diversity' in the same argument. That doesn't do much to make me take the argument seriously because those two concepts just don't mix. I don't understand this. Midget is a non-PC term, but Dwarf is PC (as the condition is called Dwarfism). How does Dwarf not point out the differences between "Normal" people and someone with Dwarfism? Or African-American as opposed to Black, Or Asian as opposed to Oriental (which I still don't understand why that term is non-PC, but according to my Asian wife it is).

Oh, and free speech doesn't mean that we have the right to just say whatever we want. Slander and libel laws prove that. Also, try standing up in a crowded restaurant and shouting "Fire!" when there is no fire and see where that gets you.
On this last part we agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom