I am convinced that political correctness has made the world a better place, and I have already provided examples of this.

You are ignoring the many situations in which PC hurts more than it helps.

Yep, I enjoyed the book anyway.

Respect due, Garro.

An interlude.

Well there's a hefty protest going on round the corner from my digs and they're getting pretty vocal. On the other side is about 500 riot police in full battle gear.

So, for the first time, I feel safer on this thread than out on the street.

Just another night in Seoul, soul of Asian paranoia.

Free speech will not be stopped by political correctness but people should be prepared to pay the price when they cross the line.

As ever, tell me where the line is, and who draws it. Is it you, garro?

You want to insult minority groups in public then you go for it but be ready to be punished.

Good god!

What don't you understand about the words "constructive discussion" and "debate". Why are you SO scared of them?

An interlude.

Well there's a hefty protest going on round the corner from my digs and they're getting pretty vocal. On the other side is about 500 riot police in full battle gear.

So, for the first time, I feel safer on this thread than out on the street.

Just another night in Seoul, soul of Asian paranoia.

Out of curiousity, what are the protests there about?

The Scots have a lengthy tradition of flyting - intense verbal jousting, often laced with vulgarity

Sounds about right!

Not in The Fox, not whispering and not in darkened corners. I'm not sure I'd describe the discussion as constructive but it was certainly often across a crowded room.

Not in my Fox, thankfully. The emphasis here is on discussion. Many of us who are suspicious of PC are fed up with being harangued on the subject. Let all speak without fear or prejudice.

Why is it you have to bring everything down to aggression? Can you not just put your point of view across without making baseless claims regarding the manhood of those you disagree with?

It's genuinely an observation. PC thugs are vocal bullies, but who will they turn to in the event of WW5? Oh yeah, those nasty chav scumbags, the type that turn up and sacrifice their lives in unimaginable numbers every time the call comes. If I were an ex-serviceman I'd be absolutely livid at how the PC brigade have acted. Why fight Hitler, only to have hundreds of thousands of tin-pot dictators to do his job instead?

Don't let anyone curtail your right to free speech. It's pretty much all we have.

Free speech will not be stopped by political correctness but people should be prepared to pay the price when they cross the line.

As ever, tell me where the line is, and who draws it. Is it you, garro?

You want to insult minority groups in public then you go for it but be ready to be punished.

Good god!

What don't you understand about the words "constructive discussion" and "debate". Why are you SO scared of them?

Well you have come a long way from earlier pages when you were telling me what 'us' think, but I am not sure that 'them' is much of an improvement. Who is 'them'?

Dialogue needs to be carried out respectfully and for this to happen the vocabulary needs to not be offensive. I have said this already.

Just another night in Seoul, soul of Asian paranoia.

I've always been a greater admirer of the advertising execs who managed to rhyme 'Soul' with 'Seoul'. Brilliant.

Free speech will not be stopped by political correctness but people should be prepared to pay the price when they cross the line.

As ever, tell me where the line is, and who draws it. Is it you, garro?

You want to insult minority groups in public then you go for it but be ready to be punished.

Good god!

What don't you understand about the words "constructive discussion" and "debate". Why are you SO scared of them?

Dialogue needs to be carried out respectfully and for this to happen the vocabulary needs to not be offensive. I have said this already.

But, and I want to make this extremely clear, the discussion is not happening in whatever vocabulary. YOU won't allow it. You are busy redrawing your 'line' in order to prevent ANY debate.

Well you have come a long way from earlier pages when you were telling me what 'us' think, but I am not sure that 'them' is much of an improvement. Who is 'them'?

Who is them? 'They' are the words "constructive discussion" and "debate". My, you really do forsake reading skills for baseless paranoia!

Free speech will not be stopped by political correctness but people should be prepared to pay the price when they cross the line.

As ever, tell me where the line is, and who draws it. Is it you, garro?

You want to insult minority groups in public then you go for it but be ready to be punished.

Good god!

What don't you understand about the words "constructive discussion" and "debate". Why are you SO scared of them?

Dialogue needs to be carried out respectfully and for this to happen the vocabulary needs to not be offensive. I have said this already.

But, and I want to make this extremely clear, the discussion is not happening in whatever vocabulary. YOU won't allow it. You are busy redrawing your 'line' in order to prevent ANY debate.

Well you have come a long way from earlier pages when you were telling me what 'us' think, but I am not sure that 'them' is much of an improvement. Who is 'them'?

Replying in Tv Members And Political Correctness - Thailand Forum

Who is them? 'They' are the words "constructive discussion" and "debate". My, you really do forsake reading skills for baseless paranoia!

Haven't you heard of a semicolon?

Otherwise this sentence is ambiguous with no clear subject.

Not so. It is perfectly clear.

Uh, it would be hard to mention PC when the term did not exist when the crimes were committed

Then how on earth can you blame Political Correctness for causing a crime at that time... Doh!

---

Super Hans, you clearly have difficulty refraining from name calling and hurling insults at those you do not agree with - as I have mentioned before, with this in mind it is difficult to believe that your objections to Political Correctness are not based on the fact that it curbs your 'right' to go around insulting people.

The argument that Political Correctness denies free speech and the ability to address pressing social issues can be demonstrated as the hogwash that it is by simply looking at the speeches and writings that have provided the positive changes to society - They are made without recourse to abusive language, or the language of hate.

The speeches and writings that have driven societies to the worst attrocities in history did however rely on abusive language and the language of hate.

Uh, it would be hard to mention PC when the term did not exist when the crimes were committed

Then how on earth can you blame Political Correctness for causing a crime at that time... Doh!

Uh, "doh" back at you. If you read my post, I caveated it with the statement that since other posters here were equating PC directly with the fight for racial equality, I was going to use this example because it was so well known, even if it was before the time when we even used the term. And I have been pretty careful in my posts to write things such as "PC-like" and "what we would now call PC" in my posts, particularly when referring to anything which pre-dates the actaul advent of the term.

And one more time (although if you can't understand this the first several times, I am not sure why you might suddenly comprehend this simple fact), I am not "blaming" PC for "causing" this crime.  I blame the KKK throwbacks for this crime, pure and simple. However, no matter how much you rightly blame these men, they still did it in reaction to other people fighting for racial equality. That absolves them for absolutely nothing. The are criminal thugs. BUt not to see why they did it is having blinders on, and anyone fighting for a just cause should realize that some people are going to resist to the point of violence.

It seems we just might agree on the Caveat Lector... This incident had Nothing to do with Political Correctness... Political Correctness being the subject of this thread

Or, look at it another way: Innocent people are frequently killed by vicious thugs for any number of stupidly insignificant reasons - So what?! The only conclusion to be drawn is, that vicious thugs are exactly that, vicious thugs, they don't need a reason to commit their crimes and it is folly to draw conclusions that the excuses handed to them mean anything other than and abdication of responsibility... worse still a Pardon.

Uh, it would be hard to mention PC when the term did not exist when the crimes were committed

Then how on earth can you blame Political Correctness for causing a crime at that time... Doh!

---

Super Hans, you clearly have difficulty refraining from name calling and hurling insults at those you do not agree with - as I have mentioned before, with this in mind it is difficult to believe that your objections to Political Correctness are not based on the fact that it curbs your 'right' to go around insulting people.

The argument that Political Correctness denies free speech and the ability to address pressing social issues can be demonstrated as the hogwash that it is by simply looking at the speeches and writings that have provided the positive changes to society - They are made without recourse to abusive language, or the language of hate.

The speeches and writings that have driven societies to the worst attrocities in history did however rely on abusive language and the language of hate.

It's funny, that, as the only real hate I see anywhere is from the PC fascists. They just LOVE to hate. They go looking for it everywhere and get a real kick out of "finding" it. Weird behaviour...

I don't want to insult anyone, but you've been pretty slow at grasping things so a little frustration is to be expected. You've been given enough smoking gun evidence to make even George W Bush blush, but have chosen to ignore it.

In response to the OP, borrowed the following definition of Political correctness from Wikipedia:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term applied to language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term "politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

On the positive side, PC can go hand-in-hand with showing respect for members of some identity group. Obviously no harm in that, on the contrary.

But on the negative, as implied by the term itself, PC can amount to public censorship: a lid is kept on controversial topics. Or else, stand to be corrected if you're not PC enough.

I think the point was well made by the post by Bassmaster50 where strong PC culture apparently got inmates killed for BS reasons.

I would think that Jane Elliot's teachings earlier referred to were not exactly PC in Riceville in 1968 as they caused offense among whites.

My point is: PC that keeps inconvenient but important topics away from public discussion is bad. Also, if PC distorts or keeps inconvenient but important facts out of the discussion. In such cases, it can actually undermine a good cause as "minimizing offense" to others may be the PC way but not the right way to go ahead.

edit: English

Uh, it would be hard to mention PC when the term did not exist when the crimes were committed

Then how on earth can you blame Political Correctness for causing a crime at that time... Doh!

---

Super Hans, you clearly have difficulty refraining from name calling and hurling insults at those you do not agree with - as I have mentioned before, with this in mind it is difficult to believe that your objections to Political Correctness are not based on the fact that it curbs your 'right' to go around insulting people.

The argument that Political Correctness denies free speech and the ability to address pressing social issues can be demonstrated as the hogwash that it is by simply looking at the speeches and writings that have provided the positive changes to society - They are made without recourse to abusive language, or the language of hate.

The speeches and writings that have driven societies to the worst attrocities in history did however rely on abusive language and the language of hate.

It's funny, that, as the only real hate I see anywhere is from the PC fascists. They just LOVE to hate. They go looking for it everywhere and get a real kick out of "finding" it. Weird behaviour...

I don't want to insult anyone, but you've been pretty slow at grasping things so a little frustration is to be expected. You've been given enough smoking gun evidence to make even George W Bush blush, but have chosen to ignore it.

Repeatedly calling your openents the name of the thing they are against is just silly. I hate nobody. In my view hatred is just like a sickness, and I don't hate people for being sick. I do believe thought that these people need to be stopped from sreading their disease. The people who I have met who have been full of hate have all been against PC because they want a platform for their hate.

I have no problem with anybody saying anything about me. I can defend myself. Other groups in society are not in a position to defend themselves and so others have to stand up with them against the bullies who use speech to stir up racial tension.

It seems we just might agree on the Caveat Lector... This incident had Nothing to do with Political Correctness... Political Correctness being the subject of this thread

Or, look at it another way: Innocent people are frequently killed by vicious thugs for any number of stupidly insignificant reasons - So what?! The only conclusion to be drawn is, that vicious thugs are exactly that, vicious thugs, they don't need a reason to commit their crimes and it is folly to draw conclusions that the excuses handed to them mean anything other than and abdication of responsibility... worse still a Pardon.

Ah, thread-maester.  Once again, I failed to graps the rules here. It is OK for the PC-is-perfect crowd to equate the fight for racial equality as the same thing as PC, but anyone who has the least bit of criticism for PC is not allowed to do the same. I didn't see you jumping up to castigate Huey for making the same connection, well not even a connection but a statement that they were one and the same, that PC brought about the gains made in the civil rights fights well before the term was even imagined.

So please forgive me for dreaming that we were all on equal footing here. I had dared to think that by making my caveats and by saying that this was "PC-like" behavior it might allow me to make a simple point.  My mistake. Are there anymore one-sided rules you have that we must all follow?  Any more ideology that you need to jam into our heads just because you want to?  You see, I would hate to make another comment which seems to be making a logical point only to have you get the least upset that your worldview might be nudged a little (althought I really don't think there is much a chance of that--your worldview seems very much set in stone). 

I thought one of the fine points of being PC is that everyone is supposed to be treated equally. You have shown me that this was a silly assumption on my part.  Mea culpa. So why don't you just list your rules and we will take it from there.

"Abdication?" "Pardon?"  I thougth I was specifically clear that this did nothing fo the sort. All people have reasons for anything they do, be it greed, fear, anger, whatever. I have seen men kill in combat, men who wouldn't hurt a fly back at home. But in combat, they had a reason which they felt was just. So forgive my complete lack of English language skills. I thought this quote was pretty clear:

That absolves them for absolutely nothing

But I guess my grasp of English is not as good as I hoped, so please forgive me for being unable to convey a simple thought.

Garro could you please identifty these groups in society that cannot defend themselves.

One hates to drag up the past, but in post 787 when you state that "vocabulary needs not to be offensive", are you forgetting that you are the same Garro who previously labelled me with "bigotry" and described me of being of "limited intelligence" for the heinous offence of quoting verbatim from the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

No doubt I am thin-skinned but I thought that was f---ing offensive.

No hard feelings mind.

Garro could you please identifty these groups in society that cannot defend themselves.

One hates to drag up the past, but in post 787 when you state that "vocabulary needs not to be offensive", are you forgetting that you are the same Garro who previously labelled me with "bigotry" and described me of being of "limited intelligence" for the heinous offence of quoting verbatim from the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

No doubt I am thin-skinned but I thought that was f---ing offensive.

No hard feelings mind.

Could you please refer to the post where I referred to you personally as having "limited intelligence?"

I am not aware of having made such a quote. I attack the post and not the poster.

Out of curiousity, what are the protests there about?

Not a clue mate. There's been a bunch camped out on the street under polythene tenting for best part of a week. Funnily enough they're not opposite the National Assembly building so I don't think it's political. Maybe just a protest against a particular business. I would ask but in this part of Seoul English is suprisingly rarely spoken. I say suprisingly as Yeouido is the financial centre and you would expect it to be more cosmopolitan. Maybe, given it's the financial centre, they're folks who've lost all recently.

It's genuinely an observation. PC thugs are vocal bullies, but who will they turn to in the event of WW5? Oh yeah, those nasty chav scumbags, the type that turn up and sacrifice their lives in unimaginable numbers every time the call comes. If I were an ex-serviceman I'd be absolutely livid at how the PC brigade have acted. Why fight Hitler, only to have hundreds of thousands of tin-pot dictators to do his job instead?

Don't let anyone curtail your right to free speech. It's pretty much all we have.

But you're not an ex-serviceman and have plumbed new depths in even trying to elevate your opinions alongside those who did sacrifice their lives, or the best parts of their lives, in the defence of freedom. Who the hel_l appointed you, an anonymous internet ketboard warrior, as spokesman for those men and women of many nationalities and faiths who made the ultimate sacrifice? Or is only the select few you speak for?

Now I remember. You are referring to this post aren't you Rott?

Protestant, i.e. The Primacy of Scripture.

Any doctrine not proven from Holy Scripture is not a true Christian doctrine.

Doctrines not warranted by Scripture include, a sacerdotal priesthood (celibate or otherwise) including the office of the papacy, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the mother of God(?), the mother of the mother of God (St. Anne apparently), indulgences, holy water, rosary beads, votive offerings (lighting candles that is), enough for now.

Well you asked about religion.

This is the real problem I have with certain religions. The insistence that their particular brand of interpretation of a book is the correct one and that others are misguided. This is what leads to ignorant bigotry. If you believe in the Bible then you take on faith some fantastic claims which may sound quite absurd to many people. To then go and poo-poo others for making similar fantastic claims from the same book, but yet try to ridicule them is the sign of a very limited mind. Good luck to you.

Could you please point out where I referred to you personally as having a limited mind? If you decided that my comment applied to you then surely that has got more to do with you than me? I criticise the post and not the poster.

If you want to accuse me of things in the future then please provide a link. Especially as in this case the claim has proved to be false; unless of course you are referring to a different incident.

I criticise the post and not the poster.

'GuestHouse' post='2432290' date='2008-12-27 16:12:13']

Now I would point out that me agreeing with Garro is a rare thing, oddly not so rare in this discussion since I also agree with another post of his in this thread.

The problem is that the anti-PC brigade miss 'the good old days' when you could openly call black people 'darkies' or 'coons' and call the disabled 'spastics'. They resent the fact that society wants to try and control the worst aspects of the darker side of their natures. They fondly remember the days when you could openly spit on your neighbor (or worse) because they looked or spoke different or because they went to a different church. They miss the days when being an ignorant bigot or racist wasn't frowned upon so much.

Is this "ignorant racist" remark not supposed to apply to anyone who is anti PC?

Garro yes I apologise the phrase was limited mind.

But those words were certainly meant to describe my opinions at least, splitting hairs you could possbly say not me personally. So my comments are very far from false.

And these groupings that cannot defend themselves?

I criticise the post and not the poster.

'GuestHouse' post='2432290' date='2008-12-27 16:12:13']

Now I would point out that me agreeing with Garro is a rare thing, oddly not so rare in this discussion since I also agree with another post of his in this thread.

The problem is that the anti-PC brigade miss 'the good old days' when you could openly call black people 'darkies' or 'coons' and call the disabled 'spastics'. They resent the fact that society wants to try and control the worst aspects of the darker side of their natures. They fondly remember the days when you could openly spit on your neighbor (or worse) because they looked or spoke different or because they went to a different church. They miss the days when being an ignorant bigot or racist wasn't frowned upon so much.

Is this "ignorant racist" remark not supposed to apply to anyone who is anti PC?

Come now, surely you know the difference between a general comment and a personal attack. My comment was not directed at any one poster but instead a general observation.

Rott said;

One hates to drag up the past, but in post 787 when you state that "vocabulary needs not to be offensive", are you forgetting that you are the same Garro who previously labelled me with "bigotry" and described me of being of "limited intelligence" for the heinous offence of quoting verbatim from the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

This statement is false because I did not describe you of being anything.

As for the marginalised people in society there are still many struggling to be heard. Those with intellectual and physical disabilty, those suffering from the stigma of mental illness, those who choose to live a life different from the mainstream, and so on -many people.

As for the marginalised people in society there are still many struggling to be heard. Those with intellectual and physical disabilty, those suffering from the stigma of mental illness, those who choose to live a life different from the mainstream, and so on -many people.

Certainly there are still groups who have not made the leap forward vis-a-vis civil rights as other groups, and certainly being PC-like has helped foster a better environment to address issues of concern for them. Your example of those suffering from mental illness is probably right on.

But other than setting the stage for help such as by convincing people to use more humanizing terms for people suffering so, and I admit this is important, how can being Politically Correct alone help these people have a better medical care or a better life in general?

Especially in my home country (the USA) where medical care is excellent for the financially well-off, we need a drastic change on the medical care system to be able to reach those less financially well-off. This is a matter of public and governmental discourse and concrete action, not merely a matter of being PC.

As for the marginalised people in society there are still many struggling to be heard. Those with intellectual and physical disabilty, those suffering from the stigma of mental illness, those who choose to live a life different from the mainstream, and so on -many people.

Certainly there are still groups who have not made the leap forward vis-a-vis civil rights as other groups, and certainly being PC-like has helped foster a better environment to address issues of concern for them. Your example of those suffering from mental illness is probably right on.

But other than setting the stage for help such as by convincing people to use more humanizing terms for people suffering so, and I admit this is important, how can being Politically Correct alone help these people have a better medical care or a better life in general?

Especially in my home country (the USA) where medical care is excellent for the financially well-off, we need a drastic change on the medical care system to be able to reach those less financially well-off. This is a matter of public and governmental discourse and concrete action, not merely a matter of being PC.

Well bonobo, when you see the histories of people with mental health problems you often see that these people waited until they reached some crisis point before seeking help. The reason cited for this is quite often fear of being stigmatised as mentally ill. There is a lot of name calling in regards to mental illness and this has directly caused harm.

For example; you might get a woman suffering from post-natal depression who puts off seeking help because of fear of people calling her 'a nutcase'. This avoidance in seeking help might lead to an eventual breakdown or even suicide just because she was afraid of what people might say about her. When a society stops name-calling those with mental illness then I feel sure that people will be far quicker in seeking help. This is an area where PC needs to apply more effort.

As for the marginalised people in society there are still many struggling to be heard. Those with intellectual and physical disabilty, those suffering from the stigma of mental illness, those who choose to live a life different from the mainstream, and so on -many people.

Certainly there are still groups who have not made the leap forward vis-a-vis civil rights as other groups, and certainly being PC-like has helped foster a better environment to address issues of concern for them. Your example of those suffering from mental illness is probably right on.

But other than setting the stage for help such as by convincing people to use more humanizing terms for people suffering so, and I admit this is important, how can being Politically Correct alone help these people have a better medical care or a better life in general?

Especially in my home country (the USA) where medical care is excellent for the financially well-off, we need a drastic change on the medical care system to be able to reach those less financially well-off. This is a matter of public and governmental discourse and concrete action, not merely a matter of being PC.

Well bonobo, when you see the histories of people with mental health problems you often see that these people waited until they reached some crisis point before seeking help. The reason cited for this is quite often fear of being stigmatised as mentally ill. There is a lot of name calling in regards to mental illness and this has directly caused harm.

For example; you might get a woman suffering from post-natal depression who puts off seeking help because of fear of people calling her 'a nutcase'. This avoidance in seeking help might lead to an eventual breakdown or even suicide just because she was afraid of what people might say about her. When a society stops name-calling those with mental illness then I feel sure that people will be far quicker in seeking help. This is an area where PC needs to apply more effort.

OK, that was a rational point. And I can't refute that logic.

(That's twice now in this thread you have forced me to reconsider a previously-held opinion, so I guess I should thank you for that.)

Uh, it would be hard to mention PC when the term did not exist when the crimes were committed

Then how on earth can you blame Political Correctness for causing a crime at that time... Doh!

---

Super Hans, you clearly have difficulty refraining from name calling and hurling insults at those you do not agree with - as I have mentioned before, with this in mind it is difficult to believe that your objections to Political Correctness are not based on the fact that it curbs your 'right' to go around insulting people.

The argument that Political Correctness denies free speech and the ability to address pressing social issues can be demonstrated as the hogwash that it is by simply looking at the speeches and writings that have provided the positive changes to society - They are made without recourse to abusive language, or the language of hate.

The speeches and writings that have driven societies to the worst attrocities in history did however rely on abusive language and the language of hate.

Isn't Political Correctness just Karl Marx's theory of Political Conciousness. If I remember old Joe Stalin followed that to the murder of millions of his own people. Most for not beliving in the society they lived in. They weren't involved in hate speech, race or gender wasn't a factor, and their deaths certainly weren't a positive change to society.

Anything whether PC, global warming, whatever, that is allowed to accepted as the absolute dogma that must be followed without any debate will always end up a burden on the common man.