Tv Members And Political Correctness

[garro]

I would certainly not want a stranger touching my child - it is just not worth the risk. Call that being overly PC if you wish.

If your child was falling down on the cement, you would not want a stranger to help them? Political correctness really is a strange disease!

Stopping a child fall is different from touching a child in the normal run of events, but if my son was falling so slowly that a stranger could catch them then I think it would be fine to risk the fall.

[Ulysses G.]

I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position.

Why did you discriminate against that nice Chinese girl? The white man has been abusing the ethnic minorities since the beginning of time.

So what if she did not posses the most basic of job skills? Just think what happened to her family at Nagasaki.

I didn't realise that Nagasaki was in China?

Ever heard of taking the piss?

[bonobo]

I have been in Cambodia for a couple of days and have not been able to post due to a screwy internet connection (yes, much to the pleasure of some of you, I am sure )

But I have been able to read, so here are some comments, even if a little late:

I don't. PC has made it so that people no longer think it's ok to call me a f**king poof and beat me severely enough to put me into hospital. It's all very well moaning about PCism when you're a part of the controlling majority. It's a different matter when you're a member of a minority. And yes - there are idiots who take it too far but, by and large, it's been a good thing.

PC has nothing to do with that. The law has something to do with that. Assault is assault.

PC deals with the usage of terms which are outside of what is considered "correct" by a society or a portion of a society and some actions based on the philosophy of what is then considered PC. Bt to say that crimianl assault is no longer acceptable because of PC is really stretchng the envelope of the term. 

Oh please, there did not seem to be any problem during the last few pages of accusations that people who support PC are Nazis.

There is nothing I write on here that I would not repeat to people's faces. I make no attempt to hide my identity to anyone who wants to know.

I don't think anyone has accused PC'ers of being actual Nazis as in members of the Nazi party. Besides being on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I haven't seen any PC armies marching or committing acts of genocide. But the term is being used to describe one group trying to impose its ideological will on another. The term "nazi" has been to gentrified that on the television comedy Seinfeld, the tell the story of the "Soup Nazi," a rather strange restauranteur who has an iron hold on who can order what at his place.

 

Get over it and move past it. Not happy with your nation's status, then do something about it. And stop expecting a HAND OUT.

The US Govt owes it's Black citizens 40acres and a mule, we never got it so we fought untill we took 40 States and the White House!

And your over here crying about how the rest of the world should be helping the UK now in its time of "need"

GMAFB

Wow, that is rather "un-PC-like!"  Who is this "we" which won 40 states and the White House? I voted for Obama myself thinking that he would be a good American president for all citizens (and rather good for the world as a whole.)

From your post, I have to assume you feel differently? That the president-elect's victory is not my victory, as a white man, as well?  Call me gullible, but I doubt that the president-elect would agree with your sympathies here. And I would have to say your comments are rather against for all that being PC stands.

So what is Anti PC Case so far?

Political Correctness has robbed us of the Black and White Minstrals - No evidence that it has (and was it a big loss anyway)

Political Correctness has lead to the dismissal of an Iowa Teacher for teaching the ills of racism - Proven a case of 'creative remembering'. No dismissal, no Political Correctness, but a large dollop of racism was evident.

Political Correctness robs us of the ability to discuss Muslim Integration in the UK - Google turns up over 160,000 discussions on that subject but fails as a weapon of protection against bayonnets.

Political Correctness has taken Christmas off us - (excuse me while I beat the Carrol Singers from my door).

Political Correctness has robbed us of the Golly <deleted>..... OK.. You've got me on that one.

Once again, you pick and choose what you want and ignore the rest.  You have no "proven case of 'creative remembering.'" I posted about a television show and comments made to me when this came to light. You asked for a link to the situation, and I gave you the first link that came up, one from the Smithsonian. Just because that article mentioned racist reaction to her methods, you contend, somehow, that that precludes any possible negative reaction by PC-like people.  Which, of course, anyone who has taken Philosophy 101 knows isn't the case. The comment which stuck out from the documentary was that one person thought that she was trivializing the African-American experience, which seem to me to be a rather PC-like stance (the women saying this was white, and then immediately after they took a soundbite from a black man who thought her methods were appropriate to teach abotu racism.)  I never wrote that racists attitudes had nothign to do with her firing (and yes, she was fired.) In fact, I specifically wrote that they did.  But that does not mean that there was no PC excess as well.

And while jumping all over this example, you completely ignored the example of the Iowa school principal concerning teaching about various religions.  BUt that has been your modus operandi. You continually ignore examples given to you that you know you can't refute, then boldly state that no one has offered anything.

Wow rott, your either yanking garro's chain or your fully and truly ignorant. Yes those kinds of signs and similar racist forms of segregation were extreamly common during the 1960's.

Hence the rise of civil rights activists like MLK and Malcom X. These days can arguably be considered to have given birth to what is now called Political Correctness. Back then it was more focused on basic human treatment desegrigation. Today because of the ground work thouse freedom fighters (may we never forget them) did we usualy only have to deal with name calling and and less obtuse forms of discrimination.

Ah, finally, quote which puts history in perspective.  Most of the PC-ers here seem to be repeatedly posting that PC gave us equal rights and the great societal strides made in the last half of the 20th century.  PC gave us none of that. Rather it was the struggle for civil rights which gave rise to PC. As people began to examine the justice behind the various civil rights fights, the communal consciousness evolved to what we now call PC. And PC is merely an expression of what most people now believe is the correct way to refer and act towards each other.

Where I disagree with affirmative action, is in the armed forces, where we now have a situation that allows female officers with no combat experience to command soldiers going into action ( themselves safely behind the lines ). The US recently announced that they have promoted their first female general.

I would have no problem with women that have been under fire commanding front line troops, but there's not a lot of them about, are there!

As for most of the other stuff blamed on PC, IMO it's just good manners not to use insulting language or actions directly to another person, regardless of color, race or creed. Why would anyone want to be able to insult someone else- not nice.

The only instance I can think of where PC ( if it can be applied in this case ) would be a "good thing", is where it is used to enforce equal access for the disabled/ less able.

Well, to be accurate, the US just promoted its first female 4-star general.  THere have been many female generals and admirals.  And just because a commander is a women does not mean that she sends her troops out to combat while staying in the rear.  It doesn't work that way. And many women are combat vets. A female freind of mine was in fact killed in Ramadi, so they are getting combat experience.

But I do appreciate your post about "good manners."  I totally agree.

 

Thaibeachlover, the case of the banned Christian Festivities has, like so very much more of the Anti PC Hyperbole been debunked.

Again, you asked for examples and examples were provided. No one can force you to believe things you simply do not want to believe. Ultimately, you've been absolutely trounced on this thread, as witnessed by your reticence to actually engage in debate. Garros, despite tying himself in knots, has bravely had a go. You, sir, have been a coward of the highest order.

Second that. While I haven't agreed with much of what I consider Garro's kumbaya stances, I have to respect him and his posts. He is passionate and truly trying to make his point with logic and fairness. (And many of the attacks on him have been off-base, in my opinion.)  GH on the other hand......

[GuestHouse]

Super Hans brings up the question do we want to rid ourselves of the hate gene? You would have to first prove that such a gene existed.

That aside, he, perhaps unwittingly, leads us back to one of the most compelling arguments in favour of Political Correctness, that of the part the use of language plays and has played in the incitement of hate.

History has given is Goebels and the Nazis. The dehumanization, victimization and eventual genocide against a people stirred up by the language of hate. It is Goebels who proves to us that hate can be instilled and spread by language and that with the language of hate a nation can be driven to the most unspeakable evil.

----

I note Super Hans you have now added the term 'Coward' to the stream of personal attacks you make upon those who disagree with you.

Is it not therefore fitting that we ask, what part of Political Correctness do you really object to, that limitting your 'right' to abuse people with offensive language.... perhaps?

You are, I assure you, making a very good case against your own cause.

[bonobo]

Super Hans brings up the question do we want to rid ourselves of the hate gene? You would have to first prove that such a gene existed.

That aside, he, perhaps unwittingly, leads us back to one of the most compelling arguments in favour of Political Correctness, that of the part the use of language plays and has played in the incitement of hate.

History has given is Goebels and the Nazis. The dehumanization, victimization and eventual genocide against a people stirred up by the language of hate. It is Goebels who proves to us that hate can be instilled and spread by language and that with the language of hate a nation can be driven to the most unspeakable evil.

----

Despite what you might think, I am writing this in all earnestness and without rancor. But you write about the language of hate. At the time, this language of hate was "Politically Correct."  Not "correct," in my view, but it was what the establishment deemed as the correct view. 

For the Khmer Rouge, it was politically correct to turn in your parents for having counter-revolutionary thoughts. I just returned from S21 and the Killing Fields yesterday, and this is weighing heavily on my mind right now. People were not supposed to use certain terms or phrases, and the penalty for doing so was death.

During the time of the Papal Inquistions, it was not Politically Correct to say that the earth rotated around the sun. Saying so was evil and heresy. Look at the case of Galileo.

The Nazis thoguht they were in the right in trying to save Germany from the Jews, the Khmer Rouge thought they were rightgeous for trying to form an agrarian society of equality, and the Roman Catholic Church thought it was saving the world from eternal damnation.  All of these were noble causes in their own minds desptie the disgust we now have for them. And all used and enjoined political correctness in trying to control thought.

Now once again, I am in no way comparing any of the modern PC Brigade to any of the three examples above. I believe that the people we now consider to be PC in western society are good-hearted people, and being PC has bettered the world as a whole.

But your usage of phrase "language of hate" does in fact lend credence to the idea that language can be abused, and getting people to kowtow to a certain language ideology can have negative consequences. Just becasue you may not embrace the Khmer Rouge ideology does not make their use of what they consider to be Politically Correct language different in concept, even if it is different in content.

[Ijustwannateach]

I would add, from a mod's eye view, that the "anti-PC" crowd on this thread are far more childish, name-calling, and inflammatory- skirting with violation of the rules, in fact- than the "pro-liberal-policies" group. I've noticed similar trends in real-world social analogues. Certain posters should probably read this message as a veiled warning.

[garro]

Bonobo, again you are comparing two opposite things. The Khmer Rouge used hate speech to to manipulate themselves into power. They used the Khmer mistrust of the ethnic Vietnamese and the fear that minorities had received special treatment in the country. The Khmer rouge convinced the population to turn on their neighbors to ethnically cleanse Cambodia.

[Ijustwannateach]

To be clear: my post wasn't an invitation to discuss moderation, and no individual was named. They know who they are, and if they don't they will real soon now.

[rgs2001uk]

PAPER CARTULARY CONTAINING THE REGISTRATION

OF THE PRIVILEGE BY ADRIAN IV (1154-1159)

FOR HENRY II, THE KING OF ENGLAND (1154-1189)

XVI Century

Paper cartulary of the XVI Century compiled by Domenico Ranaldi, archivist of Castel S. Angelo, containing the registration of the documents attesting the rights of the Holy See over the Kingdom of England and Ireland.

ASV, A. A., Arm. I-XVIII, 4071, f. 1 The file starts with the transcription of the privilege by Adrian IV in 1196, with which the Pope grants the Kingdom of Ireland to Henry II of England.

reproduced from the following site http://asv.vatican.va/en/visit/p_nob/doc_cart_AdrianoIV.htm.

http://www.vatican.va/ clicking on the link the holy see english would appear to indicate this site as being genuine. after opening this link click on the link on the left hand side for vatican secret archives.

[garro]

rgs2001uk, your constant additions of material from various websites is obviously a mission of love for you, but first you have to explain the significance of what you are posting. I am not going to check your sources any more as I do not want my network provider thinking that I am a racist because I visited the sites you have taken your material from.

If you are attempting to reduce the Irish problem into a mere argument between Protestant and Catholic then you are going down the wrong path.Many of those who fought for a united Ireland were in fact Protestant and members of the Presbyterian church suffered from almost as much discrimination, from the main Protestant church, as Catholics. If you are saying that the Pope gave permission for England to invade Ireland then I am at a loss as to the significance. The question is not really why people arrive somewhere (after all the original Irish came from Britain) but how they act when they arrive; that is the point. Ireland just like the larger island was frequently invaded by Norman, Celts, and other people who quickly settled in.

Edited December 24, 2008 by garro

[rgs2001uk]

http://irishcriminology.com/index.html

About Irish Criminology

This web site is provided primarily for the pleasure of Mr. Seamus Breathnach. It is essentially a discourse between Mr. Breathnach and himself (between me and myself) concerning the people and the institutions which, invited and non-invited alike, invade and frame his environment. Needless to say, talking to oneself begins in the personal realms of fado fado. And in the author’s case it began long before he acted as Director of Criminological Studies at the CDVEC (City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, Rathmines, Dublin) where he lectured in Postgraduate Criminology between 1982 and 2002. In the early eighties the author contracted with the late Jim Hickey (College of Commerce, Rathmines), and, later on, DIT (the Dublin Institute of Technology, Rathmines), to research some of the more prominent concerns in Irish Criminology, and to make such researches available to students. And to some extent the present website, despite the unfortunate direction taken by DIT later on, is done in partial fulfilment of that relationship.

However much the needs of students have moulded the contents of the Diploma Course in Postgraduate Criminology and, derivatively, the contents of this web site, other forces – too numerous to mention – have also played an influential part.

(Hereafter, rather than use the personal pronoun, ‘I’, I would rather refer to myself as ‘The author of this website’ or simply ‘The author.’)

The author has had experience as a member of the Garda Siochana, as a journalist and as a lawyer. In a long career he acknowledges his debt to others, some from the North, some from the South, some who served in Her Majesty’s Forces, émigré Irishmen, Danish collectives, Danish women, ordinary English men and women (would-be writers) who, at one time gathered around the Automobile Association, Leicester Square; Carlovian ex-pats in London (also writers and artists); and a host of influences picked up along life’s highway. The author also practised criminal law as a Barrister for some considerable time before yielding to more primary passions, which drove him more and more into the social sciences. These experiences have no doubt also served to shape the contents as well as the tone of this website.

Irish-criminology.com

(Cursai Coireolaiochta Na h-Eireann)

Created By Seamus Breathnach.

2. History/Anthropology

Studies In Irish Criminology: Book 3

2.b. A Criminological History Of Ireland

Sile, Sean and Seamus:

Sean: Well, you know my stance on this WebPage. I’m afraid I am one of those doubting Thomases you speak of.

Sile: I could have guessed.

Sean: I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are.

Sile: What about the five documents, Appendices i to v. I mean, have your read them?

Sean: Yes, I have. They are most impressive. I never even heard of some of them -- but I don’t doubt the authenticity of their scholarship for one moment. I never heard of the Donatio Constantini -- at least not in the Irish context. And I never heard of that most impressive document the Remonstrance of the Gaelic Chieftains.

Sile: Perhaps that's because it wasn’t so available until more recent times. Or, was it, that it was all hidden in a most peculiarly Irish Catholic way.

Sean: What do you mean by that prejudicial remark?

Sile: I don’t mean it as prejudice, but as insight. You can leave documents in every public library in Ireland, but if people are not disposed to read them, or if you have tucked them away under lock and key and, in addition, you are careful not to have any debate about them, then it makes no matter: they shall not be read.

Sean: Anyway, the Remonstrance is rather impressive. But the truth is, we were brought up to think little about Laudabiliter, and in so far as we thought of it -- or other such documents at all -- we were disposed to think that they were the genius of British or Protestant propaganda.

Sile: But you still persist in this view, even though the Vatican itself has come to admit it!

Sean: I don't believe that.

Sile: Well, it may not be proof, but if you read the Catholic Encyclopaedia, you will find that that is the case. Further, I have a little surprise for you.

Message:

The following documents, purporting to come from the Vatican's Secret Archives, appeared on a website recently. I don’t rightly know their status but since the contributor's name is Reggie Perrin, one suspects some 'rising damp' cannot be discounted.

And yet the documents are rather impressive in an ordinary way. Here is a painting no less, which captures (H) Adrian IV in flagranto delicto, a 'smoking pistol' as it were, the very act of treachery itself, where Pagan Ireland and all its centuries of torments, its hangings, maimings and butcheries, are calmly created by one man in the cool of some self-important religious room far away in Holy Rome, where you cannot hear a pin drop or a baby cry...

The painting can be found on the following website:

www.asv.vatican.va/en/visit/p_nob/p_nob_3s_08.htm

The other documents, dating from the sixteenth century, are no less interesting. They seem to confirm the content of Laudabiliter, a document so often disputed by so many persons who spoke in the past if not 'on behalf of’ the Church, then with their implicit approval. Is the Church now trying to come clean about its murky Irish past?

These other documents concerning Laudabiliter can be seen on this Website:

www.asv.vatican.va/en/visit/p_nob/doc_cart_AdrianoIV.htm

Both of the above sources came casually if originally from

www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=13427

Sean: Yes, but you are aware that these further documents -- neither the painting nor the other written documents -- verify the document Laudabiliter.

Sile: Of course they do.

Seamus: Personally, I find these documents remarkable. Given that there are still people who, like Sean, prefer to think that the whole middle ages was a hoax, they constitute an interesting item. I might point out that however interesting these items are, they have little or nothing to do with the documents or proofs provided in this WebPage.

Sean: Of course, if these documents are true, as you say, you know what they mean?

Sile: What?

Sean: They mean that we are the enemy: we, the Irish, the inheritors of Ireland, the beneficiaries of Adrian IV's and Henry 11's Ireland, are no more than baron robbers ourselves. Have you thought of that?

Sile: We are not arguing to make ourselves feel good, are we?

Sean: You are certainly not arguing to make yourselves popular. I’ll say that!

Seamus: I agree. We argue to find the truth, to understand it and to build upon it.

Sean: But you yourself wrote -- what was it you said, back in WebPage O1.a? Let me quote the entire passage:

Seamus:

Bfhuel duirt me go raibh dha rud gur mhian liom tagairt futhu. Rinne me an chead cheann nuair a thug me cursios ar an neamhfhorbairt a deineadh o aimsear na meanaoiseanna i leith agus sa drochfhorbairt nuaaimseartha ata le feiceail i gceartlar an bhaile mar da mba rud e nach raibh aon sibhialtacht ag’s na daoine ata lonnaithe ann. Anois taim a ra nach bfhuil aon fhorbairt ar bith deanta d’anamnacha na ndaoine o aimsear na meanaoiseanna. An rud a fheictear duinn leasmugh, tagann se on rud cungaithe leastaigh. Agus pe caint a chloistear maidir le cursai spioradalta, is cungacht spioradalta ata i gceist, lofact intleachta, saol agus beocht neamhforbartha an phearsain ata i gceist, agus lofacht chumhachta phearsain agus moraltachta ata i gceist. Is ionann an laige leasmuigh agus an brisseadh leastaigh. In aimsear an chaisleain bhi cumhacht ann, cumbacht na bpaganach agus cumhacht na gcriostaithe (na Cambro-Normans). Nuair a togadh an caislean ba fireann amach is amach cumhacht na Roimhe, agus nuair a briseadh ar na paganaigh briseadh ar rud fireann, and e sin d’aineoin go raibh bandia ag conai taobh leis an gcaislean in aimsear na Druids. Cuireadh na criostaithe deire leis an bfhireann san, faoi mar a chuireadar Sile-na-gCioc faoina chosa impiriulacha. Ach caithfimid a thusicint gur o aimsear Phadraigh go dti na meanaoiseanna do bhailigh na criostaithe i gcoinne na pagannaigh. Chuireadar na paganaigh agus a gcultur faoi chois agus chun an gniomh a dheanamh i gceart mholadar go deo na Normanaigh agus na h- Anglici agus bhiodar de shior ag fail locht leis na daoine ag a’ baile. Criostaithe coigriocha iad na Normannaigh agus na h-Anglici fre cheile. Mhol an Papa an sliocht armalta seo isteach chun an ghniomh fhada a chriochnu agus chun Ard-Riocht na nGael a bhriseadh sara d’eirigh lei aibiocht a dhothain Banban a chosaint ona namhaid. As san amach ceanglaiodh na Gael le ropai beaga bainisneacha an chleir Romhanach.

Both here and elsewhere you have claimed several things. One was that where the Normans landed, they straight-a-way built a Castle. They took a stone and threw it a few times, as if to keep the God of Christianity at 'arms' length' from the Castle, and there they built a Cathedral for the Pope. As in Carlow, Kilkenny, Wexford, Clonmel, etc., etc., the pattern is spread throughout Ireland. This, you say, was the practical side of the deal done between the Papacy and the Normans.

You then say that this caricature of history is the only thing that architecturally marks the landscape in Ireland. It is, as you say, as if nothing existed before or after the Norman conquest.

You even go further and claim that this antagonism, first sown by the Christians, splits Gaelic society and redoubles its efforts century upon century in order to maintain its initial assault. The Reformation, therefore, compounds the tension for violence. What was Roman and Norman Christian against native Pagan before the Reformation, now becomes English Protestant versus Irish Catholic, the Roman Church now making its peace with the pagan natives in order to stir them to battle against the British.

In this vein you construct all Irish history as part and parcel of the Christian conquest. The religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are merely Christian with a progressive secular (Nation State) sense of community going against Christians with a more abstract, universal sense of conquest. The penal laws against Irish Catholics, in this context, were no more than the same laws as the Catholics applied to the Pagan natives. In this vien all those grand tussles about tithes in the 1830s, Fenians in the '60s and Land Reform in the '80s, were merely the several forms of Catholic Emancipation. As further proof of this theory, we have O'Connell, who was the Church's main man. And when he fought, he merely fought for Catholic Emancipation. So, when he then fought for the repeal of the Union, the Catholic Church let their displeasure be known. Only then did O'Connell realise that the Church had been part and parcel of the Act of Union. But it was too late for him to do anything but assign his heart -- where? To Rome! And then Parnell came on the scene: and here again we have the murky fingerprints of a Church, which brought him down because he loved a grown woman. The same Church, which, according to you, was indicted across the world for its unnatural obsession with young male children in its charge. What a prospect! Indeed, according to you, the struggle in Northern Ireland was merely a struggle for more Catholic Emancipation, the return of the Catholic Schools to the Pope being the raison d’etre for Cardinal Daly's new Red Cap.

Sile: Are you finished?

Sean: Not quite. On top of all these observations, you then say that our personalities are made up so as to incorporate and correspond to these historic lesions, the treacheries and deformities of our historical struggles -- those between Gael and Gall, Pagan and Christian Native and Planter, Catholic, Presbyterian and Protestant etc., are in us still, such that when we socialise, we try to do so across these awful historical lesions. You say we developed nothing. We are as -- what phrase did you use? -- we are as phosphorous in water, you said. What was narrowly within became the expression without. And that's why we have had nothing historically but Castles and Cathedrals. We meet each other with so many prejudices and hatreds that we know it is better not to meet at all. You go so far as to suggest that maybe we are not a society at all, but merely a horde or a herd of some description or other.

Sile: Are you finished?

Sean: Yes.

apologies to the mods, i know its against forum rules to post other than in english or thai, however i felt that for the benefit of completeness it was best to copy the entire text,

if you in your wisdom and within forum rules wish to remove the non english text, feel free, once again i apologise.

[DC1066]

130 posts and I've had my first one deleted - ironically on a thread discussing free speech.

The reason for the deleted post - I questioned "respectfully", why all those supporting the anti-pc side of the debate should be associated with 'every' other supporter of the view. The Classic PC response for daring to ask a question - censorship.

Every group has its extremist - both pro and anti pc amongst them - but the majority who can be bothered to debate a topic do so out of genuine interest and concern, myself included.

Through this thread I believe I've put my side of the argument with respect. Any points I've raised with reference to others have been factual and without hyperbole or direct attack on individuals.

The final response by the PC brigade is censorship.

So on that point (for the third and final time - unless I change my mind again ) I'll leave this debate for good because you've finally gone and made a better argument for the anti-PC side than I could ever do.

[garro]

rgs2001uk - despite the fact that your latest production even contains pictures I am still at a loss as to the point you are trying to make.

[rgs2001uk]

rgs2001uk, your constant additions of material from various websites is obviously a mission of love for you, but first you have to explain the significance of what you are posting. I am not going to check your sources any more as I do not want my network provider thinking that I am a racist because I visited the sites you have taken your material from.

If you are attempting to reduce the Irish problem into a mere argument between Protestant and Catholic then you are going down the wrong path.Many of those who fought for a united Ireland were in fact Protestant and members of the Presbyterian church suffered from almost as much discrimination, from the main Protestant church, as Catholics. If you are saying that the Pope gave permission for England to invade Ireland then I am at a loss as to the significance. The question is not really why people arrive somewhere (after all the original Irish came from Britain) but how they act when they arrive; that is the point. Ireland just like the larger island was frequently invaded by Norman, Celts, and other people who quickly settled in.

Garro, a quick search revelaed the following,

<h3 id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</h3>

The Vatican Secret Archives (Latin: Archivum Secretum Vaticanum), located in Vatican City, is the central repository for all of the acts promulgated by the Holy See. These archives also contain the state papers, correspondence, papal account books,^[1] and many other documents which the church has accumulated over the centuries. In the 17th century, under the orders of Pope Paul V, the Secret Archives were removed from the Vatican Library and remained absolutely closed to Vatican outsiders until the late 19th century, when they were opened by Pope Leo XIII.

I would hardly call wikipedia a racist site.

Nowhere have I attempted to reduce the Irish problem into a mere argument between Protestant and Catholic, as you put it.

I have stated all along I am against the, denying, suppressing or covering up of the truth.

We live in a world where one of the most horrific genocides ever carried out is now being denied in certain parts of the world.

Do we blame the people for denying these facts or the government that controls them for rewriting their own version of history?

[garro]

Come now rgs2001uk, you submitted from an article earlier which concluded that;

Ireland will only truly enjoy peace and liberty when the chains of Roman Catholicism are broken by the Gospel of Christ, and the blight of priestcraft and Popery are banished from our island home for ever.

You have already admitted that you were aware that this was the conclusion of the article.

If this is not your view why post the article in the name of truth?

[Gravelrash]

Being Christmas, here is an excerpt from The Australian with yet another example of how the stupidity of PC is destroying both western culture and society.

"IN Santa's grotto at a top London department store, Santa in his big white friendly beard sits on a bench and there is a large X marked on the bench a safe distance away where the child is firmly directed to sit, allowing a wide corridor of clear and unsullied air between the child and the potential kiddie-fiddler from the North Pole, with his red cheeks, strange reindeer and unaccountable affection for children....

Those Santa-based examples above, drawn from the liberal, developed, democratic world, do not contain absolutely everything that annoys people about how we are now, but they cover a fair few bases. Utter stupidity and ignorance, an irrational and institutionalised fear of pedophiles, an institutionalised but perfectly rational fear of litigation, vexatious litigation, the triumph of health and safety legislation over everything (allied to a fear of vexatious litigation), the notion of equal rights taken to absurd conclusions, the ability of an individual to become enraged when an imagined right has been infracted, corporate and local council obeisance to a politically correct agenda with which no sane person would concur, and so on..."

Oh, so you think it is irrational and ignorant to fear pedophiles. Are they just misunderstood? I would certainly not want a stranger touching my child - it is just not worth the risk. Call that being overly PC if you wish.

Get a life Garro. Such a typical PC retort. Live your life fearing pedophiles then, plus murderers. rapists, thugs, Jehova Witnesses, Muslims and the endless list. Getting rid of Santa Claus isn't dealing with pedophilia, it is about an over reaction of fear, massaging the masses into thinking something is being seen to be done. As a male I find this guilty until proven innocent approach utterly abhorant. It just paints evety male as a potential pedophile. Santa never fondled me, my friends or family, so why condemn all these guys that give their time over the holiday period to make kids happy. So guys that get accused by their wives during an ugly divorce must be guilty as well then?

Pedophiles are a vile sickness in society, but merely being born male should not make you a suspect. They are a minority, take your own reasonable safeguards, as that is the only thing that will ever protect your kids, not condemning every male and attending empowerment meetings.

I note you didn't even pick up on the female Santa getting sacked because the kids didn't like her...she is suing the firm for $US67,000 ($98,000) through the state commission on human rights, for injured feelings and sexual discrimination. This is a sad joke and indicative of how the western world is self destructing.

Our forefathers (sorry, forepersons) built our societies to what they are today, **no flaming!!**

[rgs2001uk]

Come now rgs2001uk, you submitted from an article earlier which concluded that;

Ireland will only truly enjoy peace and liberty when the chains of Roman Catholicism are broken by the Gospel of Christ, and the blight of priestcraft and Popery are banished from our island home for ever.

You have already admitted that you were aware that this was the conclusion of the article.

If this is not your view why post the article in the name of truth?

Garro,

I think I have answered your question already, but I will reiterate unless you didnt understand the last time I answered, that isnt my point of view.

You are the one who posts the quotation, not I.

Can you please let me know from a historical and or factual point of view, if what I posted was incorrect.

You are the one who pointed out it came from a racist website, despite the fact that I have already posted links and or quotes from other websites containing the same information I posted originally, are you now claiming that these sites are also racist?

You appear to be in denial mode, I have asked you to prove me wrong, something as of yet you have been unable or unwilling to do.

I posted picture of a document from the Vatican archives, am I to assume that this is also a racist site, a document whose very existence you seem to be at pains to deny.

I have stated already, I dont believe any man has the right to impose his will upon another, if you chose to deny the authenticity of what I post, thats your choice.

However I post to offer an alternative point of view to yours,for others to draw their own conclusions.

As I have stated before, and I will repeat, I am against the suppression, denial or covering up of the truth, for political and or religious ends.

If that makes me unpc, so be it.

I feel sure the other readers would rather be in possession of the full facts before drawing any conclusions.

[bonobo]

Bonobo, again you are comparing two opposite things. The Khmer Rouge used hate speech to to manipulate themselves into power. They used the Khmer mistrust of the ethnic Vietnamese and the fear that minorities had received special treatment in the country. The Khmer rouge convinced the population to turn on their neighbors to ethnically cleanse Cambodia.

Garro,

I really don't think I am mixing up anything, if you look at what really "Politically Correct" is. Look at the very first word.  It is "Politically."  That really divorces itself from any sort of universal truth, if you can determine what that is. It means that people are swayed to the prevailing views, the political views of the times.

To the Khmer Rouge, their views were the righteous ones, the ones which anyone could defend. They were working, in their minds, at least, for an equal and fair society without the vices and materialsim of the west. Well, it was extremely destructive, and we look upon it now with horror, but the fact is that those views were those which were in fact "politically correct." (ANd it really had little to do with ethnic cleansing, but one of class cleansing. In actuallity, while a slightly smaller percentage of Chinese were killed as per their percentage of the population at large, the percentages of Chinese, Khmer, and Vietnames killed approximately mirroed their overall numbers in the population.)

Currently, PC in the western world tends to focus on racial, sexual orientation, age, religious, and gender-related issues with regards to not offending anyone. However, as with anything "poltical," things shift. And while you undoubtedly find the Khmer Rouge abhorent, the fact is that they were acting in what they construed to be a politically correct manner. You call it hate speech (and I agree) but they called it equality speech.

[sbk]

Posts have now been edited. I cannot comprehend the necessity of resorting to insults when disagreeing with someone. Lets keep this civil, shall we?

[garro]

rgs2001uk, I have repeated more than once to you that I do not understand what your point is. You can continue to post the whole internet, but I still don't know the point you are trying to make. Do you understand what I am saying here? As for proving your posts wrong I am at a loss to what to prove wrong as I do not know the point you are trying to make. So please tell me what you are trying to say. Maybe it will work better if you use your own words. No need for pictures or long-winded conversation by a man speaking to himself.

Now you attempt to express righteous umbrage because you attempted to insert an article from an openly racist organisation. An organisation which is white supremacist. When you posted this gem you failed to provide any link and tampered with it to make it appear slightly less vile. I needed to search for this article myself. If I post something on the internet I stand by it. I check my sources and my facts. The article in question does mention events which may have occurred just like I'm sure every other race hate organisation attempts to warp history to legitimize their aims. The Nazis manipulated their interpretation of historical events to help reach their goals. The article is not offensive for the facts it contains, but for the way these facts have been manipulated to reach a conclusion. That conclusion being; Ireland will only truly enjoy peace and liberty when the chains of Roman Catholicism are broken by the Gospel of Christ, and the blight of priestcraft and Popery are banished from our island home for ever. . If you believed this we could have discussed it, but you have already admitted that you don't. My point is that other than the place where you retrieved this article I can not see anything else relevant in this article. If you think that there is something relevant in this article please state it for me. See if you can do this in your own words if you can. Just a simple statement of what your point is in this matter. Would that be possible?

Edited December 24, 2008 by garro

[thaibeachlovers]

I would certainly not want a stranger touching my child - it is just not worth the risk. Call that being overly PC if you wish.

If your child was falling down on the cement, you would not want a stranger to help them? Political correctness really is a strange disease!

Yes it really is sad what has happened, but as a middle aged single man passing through airports after visiting Thailand I am "convicted" by the customs staff of being a paedophile, and held for hours while they search for the evidence of the crime they believe that I have commited. Needless to say they have not found any evidence, as it never existed, of course. Guilty in their eyes, but no evidence to arrest me!

Therefore, I would NEVER assist ANY CHILD in the west, no matter what was happening, as I would be a sitter for any accusation made against me. I will not even go to the assistance of someone under assault by children, as I will be the one convicted of assault afterwards.

Neither would I assist any woman in trouble, as afterwards she might complain that I took advantage of her. I have not even offered a lift to single women hitch hiking for the past 30 years, in case they accused me of something. Sometimes doing my job, I have to be alone in a room with a woman, but I will always leave the door open, in case they accuse me of something improper.

If I was looking for a new job, I would not get anything to do with children. It's just not worth the risk.

I'm surprised that they can even get men to do the store Santa job anymore.

So this is what PC has reduced the west to. Men are convicted without evidence of heinous crimes in women's ( and their bootlicking male sycophants ) minds. Fathers are afraid to hug their children. Men cannot do their jobs without fearing false accusation, and single men are harrassed for enjoying their holidays in Thailand. No wonder so many of us hate PC and everyone who supports it.

[Boo]

wow!!!

[mogoso]

[quote name='thaibeachlovers' date='2008-12a lift to single women hitch hiking for the past 30 years, in case they accused me of something. Sometimes doing my job, I have to be alone in a room with a woman, but I will always leave the door open, in case they accuse me of something improper.

risk.

There was a famous evangelist, Billy Graham, who lived his adult life never being alone with a woman other than his wife. He was far as I know a good man, who never did anything wrong in his life, but never wanted tongues to wag or finger pointing outta his love and respect for his wife and God.

Maybe as men we're nearing the ridiculous point in society where we must adhere to a similar position solely for our own protection

[sylviex]

girls

and i always thought it was a gentle term of endearment !

if the use of a word like "girl" can make you see yourself as the subjugated victim of some imaginary evil male plot , then perhaps you should get out more and consider the plight of some of the worlds true victims .... both male and female.

While I see your point, taxexile, old boy, I have noticed that some young women now refer to their male friends/companions of various kinds as "boys". I do find it a little odd ... but suppose the intention is to suggest some light heartedness in the relationship.

Would you refer to your wife or husband/long term partner as a girl or boy ?

Makes me think of those couples with kids who call eachother "Mum" or "Dad" !

Personally -- and for the following comments I will be flamed to a crisp -- I note that Western men who insist on referring to Asian women of various ages as "girls" tend to have a certain agenda that most of us will be more than familiar with.

"Ladies" is also a popular term. Often oddly capitalized, as in "My Thai Lady"/Wife . Rarely see use of "woman/women".

Just an observation.

Season's Greetings to all .

[Ijustwannateach]

As Boo says, insults and personal remarks are not necessary. If you are unsure what qualifies as an insult or personal remark, you should probably stop posting.

[thaibeachlovers]

I'll respond on one point, however. Google turns up 160,000 anonymous discussions on muslim integration.

I think you'll find there is not a lot of anonymity when many of the discussions carry the title of the people/organistions discussing the issue.

The 'Black and White' issue here, is 'Black and White' evidence of discussion that you deny is taking place, is once more denied.

Putting asside the Golly &lt;deleted&gt;, have you one single case where you can demonstrate Political Correctness is causing the ills which you attribute to it?

You have told us of your many years on the civil service, and you mentioned Shysters, Snake Oil Salesmen and men in Shiney Suits but you have not given us a single example of how Political Correctness stopped you from doing your job as a Civil Servant. Not withstanding anything you are not allowed to talk about under the OSA, is there any example you can give us?

OSA? That's not stopped me so far!

Ok, here's the scenario I was faced with a few years ago. There is a recruitment exercise for low level admin staff. I have a second/third generation asian girl working for me as a casual. I'm her boss, but she does actual work for someone else - a PC thug as it happens - so I don't really see much of her day to day output. Girl applies for job, then does some work for me whilst PC thug is on holiday. I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position. The application process involves a line manager's assessment, which simply states "if this person is successful at interview, would you like them working for you?" This is a fairly euphemistic way of sifting out people who are no good - tick the "no" box and the applicant will not be offered a job, irrespective of their application and how they perform at interview. I am immediately (and very publicly) called into the director's office and asked to explain my decision. I do this robustly, with examples of her work as evidence. I'm told that that is irrelevant and I must revise my assessment as it is open to legal challenge on racial grounds. I refuse, my assessment is forcibly withdrawn and my director writes it instead. She is ranked 26th at interview, yet offered a job.

Just for those getting a twitch-on at this, I have made the exact same decision about dozens of other, white, people who did not meet the minimum requirements - none of these were queried.

Incidentally, the girl gets placed in the team dealing with community integration, along with every other asian people in the building. She is promoted within months of being made permanent against her will. She is unable to cope with new demands and is extremely unhappy. She resents management interference and hates PC with as much passion as I do. She also has some rather extreme views on immigration.

There are also countless examples of people being promoted because of their background, not their abilities. Some have even failed their interviews, yet been given the post. If you really think banging square pegs into round holes is the way to go, good luck to you. Is having a workforce that is reflective of the community more important than having the most competent workforce possible?

In terms of the job itself, there are examples too numerous to mention of how PC has been crowbarred into public policy. All government programmes have been adapted in recent years, many unnecessarily in my view.

The problem lies more within the recruitment policies; at least for now. In order to succeed you need to be able to demonstrate you've "out-diversified" your opponents. This is leading to a spiral of often unnecessary schemes, propagated by people whose intentions are nothing but naked ambition. They have spotted a mechanism for making pretty bloody comfortable careers for themselves, often with little or no added value. In such circumstances, PC becomes a runaway train.

I dont know how many can remember the days of affirmative action,(however well intentioned it may have been) or how many know of its consequences..

I can remember the days of affirmative action, and indeed I directly benefitted. Back in 1985 I applied for nurse training ( there were almost no males in nursing in my country back then ), and was accepted, despite better female applicants not even being interviewed, due, I am certain, to a desire to have more male nurses. This would be supported by the other 2 males on the course being totally unsuitable applicants ( IMO ), one of whom did not complete the course, and the other stopped nursing on graduation.

However, in my defence, I am still nursing, while the majority of the females on my course long ago gave it up ( mainly after getting married ), so I was probably one of the most cost effective students they enrolled.

Incidentally, there are lots more male nurses in the UK, where I now work in the NHS, to the extent that some days I work with no female nurses at all! Makes a change from being the only guy.

I also spent time in Antarctica in the '70s, when they were trying to get females down there. In fact they created a new position on the base just to be able to employ a female. While she was capable of doing the job ( kitchen duties ), she caused all sorts of tensions amongst the men, which is understandable when you have up to 60 males and two women ( one was a scientist ) on a very small base! I'm not saying there shouldn't be women there ( that would be very politically incorrect ), but the numbers should be more balanced, or not at all. ( I believe there are indeed lots of women down there these days. )

Where I disagree with affirmative action, is in the armed forces, where we now have a situation that allows female officers with no combat experience to command soldiers going into action ( themselves safely behind the lines ). The US recently announced that they have promoted their first female general.

I would have no problem with women that have been under fire commanding front line troops, but there's not a lot of them about, are there!

My main beef with PC, is where it is used by ignorant bureaucrats to justify being killjoys, mainly in forcing a majority of the population to suppress it's own culture/ religion in deference to a minority/ immigrant culture/ religion. In the UK there are countless instances of Christian rituals being banned "in case people of other religions object".

As for most of the other stuff blamed on PC, IMO it's just good manners not to use insulting language or actions directly to another person, regardless of color, race or creed. Why would anyone want to be able to insult someone else- not nice.

The only instance I can think of where PC ( if it can be applied in this case ) would be a "good thing", is where it is used to enforce equal access for the disabled/ less able.

Interesting what you say. I admire anyone working in the NHS.

Affirmative action, or positive discrimination, is fine until it's YOU that needs help. If I'm lying bleeding on the battlefield I really couldn't give a toss what the nurse looks like.

Do you have a view on which sex makes the more effective nurse?

I personally don't think it makes any difference, and that is after 23 years of nursing during which I have worked with hundreds if not thousands of nurses ( mainly female, obviously ) from all over the world.

Of course, there are always people who go nursing for the wrong reasons, and they are usually pretty rubbish. It's a fact, you can't teach uncaring people to care.

One benefit of working in a predominantly female occupation, is that I have lost any illusion of females being the "gentle" sex!

Edited December 24, 2008 by thaibeachlovers

[rgs2001uk]

rgs2001uk, I have repeated more than once to you that I do not understand what your point is. You can continue to post the whole internet, but I still don't know the point you are trying to make. Do you understand what I am saying here? As for proving your posts wrong I am at a loss to what to prove wrong as I do not know the point you are trying to make. So please tell me what you are trying to say. Maybe it will work better if you use your own words. No need for pictures or long-winded conversation by a man speaking to himself.

Now you attempt to express righteous umbrage because you attempted to insert an article from an openly racist organisation. An organisation which is white supremacist. When you posted this gem you failed to provide any link and tampered with it to make it appear slightly less vile. I needed to search for this article myself. If I post something on the internet I stand by it. I check my sources and my facts. The article in question does mention events which may have occurred just like I'm sure every other race hate organisation attempts to warp history to legitimize their aims. The Nazis manipulated their interpretation of historical events to help reach their goals. The article is not offensive for the facts it contains, but for the way these facts have been manipulated to reach a conclusion. That conclusion being; Ireland will only truly enjoy peace and liberty when the chains of Roman Catholicism are broken by the Gospel of Christ, and the blight of priestcraft and Popery are banished from our island home for ever. . If you believed this we could have discussed it, but you have already admitted that you don't. My point is that other than the place where you retrieved this article I can not see anything else relevant in this article. If you think that there is something relevant in this article please state it for me. See if you can do this in your own words if you can. Just a simple statement of what your point is in this matter. Would that be possible?

Garro,

I believe you mentioned the following

Not to mention the other seven hundred years of terror. You can play down what happened to people in Ireland, but it is all very well documented and even your own government has apologised.

I am not in dispute with the above, however what you forgot to mention is a very important, but often overlooked fact, the British were acting with Papal authority.

When I post historical fact from as you call it, a white supremacist (have I disputed that with you?) I am met with the following

but the bigoted tripe that you just quoted in your last post is beyond the pale

As I mentioned later, I didnt know to which post you were referring, a la

but the bigoted tripe that you just quoted in your last post is beyond the pale. So as not to confuse me which post are you referring to? the Popes speech or the one about Ireland?

As I said before can you please tell me if it is historically or factually wrong? If it is I apologize for any offense it may have caused, if the article is wrong can you please point me to a site or book that covers this in greater detail from a historical angle.

I still dont know to which post you were replying, you then however make the following remark

This article was produced by an organisation that makes no secret of the fact that it is bigoted and racist.

I no more need to prove this article wrong than I need to prove Mein Kempf wrong

Nowhere am I disputing your first sentence.

However as to your second sentence, I will answer your second remark first, I am not here to discuss the (imo) rantings of a madman.

However I have asked you what part of what I quoted was historically wrong, I am still awaiting an answer, as I said before if you dont believe it from a historical point of view, so be it, just say so and there is nothing further to discuss.

As you put it,The article in question does mention events which may have occurred. I then take the same information from various other sites and provide links, to something you say, may have occurred.

As I stated earlier, others reading this may have a different interpretation, its not my intention to try and subvert others point of view, only to offer an alternative to what you have said, may have occurred.

You state,The article is not offensive for the facts it contains, but for the way these facts have been manipulated to reach a conclusion.

I have already stated my feelings on the conclusion, what I am trying to understand, is your remark,The article is not offensive for the facts it contains. Are you now saying that what I posted was in fact factual from a historical point of view not from the conclusion it reached? A simple yes or no will do.

[Super Hans]

I'll respond on one point, however. Google turns up 160,000 anonymous discussions on muslim integration.

Coming from an anonymous keyboard warrior on an anonymous internet forum that has to be the most pathetic response of the year.

You miss the point. I want the debate to be open and rigorous, face to face. I want the truth to out, which is an impossibility in today's climate.

[Super Hans]

I am not going to check your sources any more as I do not want my network provider thinking that I am a racist because I visited the sites you have taken your material from.

It is very depressing the world has come to this. You may as well tattoo your wrists yourself, get in line and head straight for the showers. How did our society become self-censoring?

[rott]

;

What's racist about that quote?

Erm, would that be fact that this organisation believes that the British, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world are the chosen people and that this organisation aims to build the '"new Israel' in Britain. They have been kind enough though to extend the hand of friendship too Ireland if they give up their popeish ways. This offer does not apply to non-whites though. Come on, tell me who this sounds like.

Well give us a clue, what part of the world are they from. I know it can't be S.E. Asia.