Tv Members And Political Correctness

[Super Hans]

They should ban it for being crap cheese.

[dumball]

Strange , my children had gollywogs when they were young , we never even connected them with racism as that word was not bandied about in our home city of Bristol . Bristol was a famous shipping port and many sailors brought home wives from wherever they had sailed , in our schools as chidren we had <deleted>/wops/yids/blackies/limeys/apachies(Welsh)/frogs/krauts etc , but we all played happily together , and there was quite a lot of interacial marriages .

When i sold my house prior to emmigrating , my neighbour ( a staunch church goer) asked me if that 'Black man ' was going to buy our house , my response "I do not recall having such a person to view the house , are we not all gods chidren ?" The reason this man gave me for wanting to move into our totally white neighbour hood ? "I am fed up with the niggers where i live , always on the scrounge because they are too lazy to work and asking me to put their relatives up when they visit from Jamaica because they cannot afford to feed them " Racism , what is that ?

I could write more such incidents but what would be the point ?

[tomahawk]

Stereotypes exist because there is almost alwayssome truth in them. Some stereotypes like irish are drunks. French people smell bad. Farangs in pattaya are perverts. Liberals are gutless. These are stereotypes and anyone is a liar who knows about these groups and claims they do not understand how these stereotypes came about. The problem is not all Irish are drunks, and not all farangs in Pattaya are perverts. But if someone is an honest and forthright person they will admit they can at least understand why stereotypes exist, even if they are somewhat harmful. I am native American, and I understand why Indians have stereotype as alcoholic. it is because so many of us are. I am not, but I still understand why people think this way. The problem with this whole PC argument is so many people spend so much time worrying about basically meaningless petty crap instead of important, life and death issues. And as for what people should or should not say, I can say just about anything I want, and so can you. And if someone tries to tell me what I cannot say, then we will have to fight.

[Super Hans]

Stereotypes exist because there is almost alwayssome truth in them. Some stereotypes like irish are drunks. French people smell bad. Farangs in pattaya are perverts. Liberals are gutless. These are stereotypes and anyone is a liar who knows about these groups and claims they do not understand how these stereotypes came about. The problem is not all Irish are drunks, and not all farangs in Pattaya are perverts. But if someone is an honest and forthright person they will admit they can at least understand why stereotypes exist, even if they are somewhat harmful. I am native American, and I understand why Indians have stereotype as alcoholic. it is because so many of us are. I am not, but I still understand why people think this way. The problem with this whole PC argument is so many people spend so much time worrying about basically meaningless petty crap instead of important, life and death issues. And as for what people should or should not say, I can say just about anything I want, and so can you. And if someone tries to tell me what I cannot say, then we will have to fight.

Well said. Good on you.

[GuestHouse]

Stereotypes exist because there is almost alwayssome truth in them. Some stereotypes like irish are drunks. French people smell bad. Farangs in pattaya are perverts. Liberals are gutless. These are stereotypes and anyone is a liar who knows about these groups and claims they do not understand how these stereotypes came about. The problem is not all Irish are drunks, and not all farangs in Pattaya are perverts. But if someone is an honest and forthright person they will admit they can at least understand why stereotypes exist, even if they are somewhat harmful. I am native American, and I understand why Indians have stereotype as alcoholic. it is because so many of us are. I am not, but I still understand why people think this way. The problem with this whole PC argument is so many people spend so much time worrying about basically meaningless petty crap instead of important, life and death issues. And as for what people should or should not say, I can say just about anything I want, and so can you. And if someone tries to tell me what I cannot say, then we will have to fight.

Stereotypes exist and become accepted for a whole range of reasons, allowing prejudicial/bigoted views to go unchallenged is clearly one of them. Maliciously fabricating and spreading derogatory stereotype views is another.

As you rightly point out, some Irish drink and some French people smell (this can be said of any race or nationality on the planet) the bigoted view that the Irish are all drunks or that all French people stink gains a currency not because it is any more true of the Irish and French, but because it goes unchallenged, it becomes a common unchallenged belief.

Bigoted views which started in what you regard as meaningless petty crap, have frequently led to the the denigration of whole peoples, it is a step on the path the the dehumanizing and victimizing that were the foundations of the Holocaust, Rwanda, The Balkans and yes, what was visited upon Native Americans.

History is replete with the lesson of exactly where Bigotry and Stereotypes take us.

[Super Hans]

Stereotypes exist because there is almost alwayssome truth in them. Some stereotypes like irish are drunks. French people smell bad. Farangs in pattaya are perverts. Liberals are gutless. These are stereotypes and anyone is a liar who knows about these groups and claims they do not understand how these stereotypes came about. The problem is not all Irish are drunks, and not all farangs in Pattaya are perverts. But if someone is an honest and forthright person they will admit they can at least understand why stereotypes exist, even if they are somewhat harmful. I am native American, and I understand why Indians have stereotype as alcoholic. it is because so many of us are. I am not, but I still understand why people think this way. The problem with this whole PC argument is so many people spend so much time worrying about basically meaningless petty crap instead of important, life and death issues. And as for what people should or should not say, I can say just about anything I want, and so can you. And if someone tries to tell me what I cannot say, then we will have to fight.

Stereotypes exist and become accepted for a whole range of reasons, allowing prejudicial/bigoted views to go unchallenged is clearly one of them. Maliciously fabricating and spreading derogatory stereotype views is another.

As you rightly point out, some Irish drink and some French people smell (this can be said of any race or nationality on the planet) the bigoted view that the Irish are all drunks or that all French people stink gains a currency not because it is any more true of the Irish and French, but because it goes unchallenged, it becomes a common unchallenged belief.

Bigoted views which started in what you regard as meaningless petty crap, have frequently led to the the denigration of whole peoples, it is a step on the path the the dehumanizing and victimizing that were the foundations of the Holocaust, Rwanda, The Balkans and yes, what was visited upon Native Americans.

History is replete with the lesson of exactly where Bigotry and Stereotypes take us.

Oh please.

[rott]

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. Poor them. The world has gone PC mad.

And I bet you really object to people being stereotyped.

If your only response to an opposite point of view is to twist it, distort it and lie about it you must be feeling on dodgy ground yourself.

According to you everybody who is anti-PC is just wanting to be able to call people 'darkies' or 'coons' or 'spastics', or spit on them. These people are obviously bigots and racists who have prejudices, and not PC, fair-minded people with logical opinions such as yourself.

My experience of anti-PC people is that in their own country(ies) they feel they are being marginalised and being made to feel uncomfortable about their own culture, with outsiders, minorities-call them what you will being given preferential treament. There is a feeling that there is respect for every culture but their own.

PC generally means being left wing, if a right wing post with equivalent sentiments had appeared I can imagine your howls of sanctimonious, self-righteous indignation.

I have never read such nastiness and hypocrisy.

If somebody was posting equivalent sentiments as mine then they wouldn't be right-wing so there would be no howls from me.

If you have never read such nastiness and hypocrisy as my post then you have led a very privileged life. I have not only read far nastier, but also seen far nastier acts done by the anti-PC crowd. I remember working in Southwark in London just over a decade ago and having people ask a good friend, "where she got her monkey from?" - they were referring of course to the fact that her baby was half-Chinese. Those lovable anti-PC people who after all are only trying to protect their culture from the loony-left. Of course these people were able to justify their racism by crying that their jobs were been given to 'blacks'. You had to ask yourself though, who would employ these guys in the first place.

Garro you are being disingenuous, I meant right wing nosense as against your left wing nonsense.

The rest of the post is irrelevent waffle, please re-read your post above, cringe, and admit that it is bigoted, reactionary and nasty. It makes you a hypocrite because you accuse other people of faults that you display yourself.

Your later argument that "MAYBE all anti-pc types are not racists" etc. is very weak and just digs you deeper into the hole. Come on, just admit it, that post was a bad mistake, you were wrong pure and simple.

[garro]

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. Poor them. The world has gone PC mad.

And I bet you really object to people being stereotyped.

If your only response to an opposite point of view is to twist it, distort it and lie about it you must be feeling on dodgy ground yourself.

According to you everybody who is anti-PC is just wanting to be able to call people 'darkies' or 'coons' or 'spastics', or spit on them. These people are obviously bigots and racists who have prejudices, and not PC, fair-minded people with logical opinions such as yourself.

My experience of anti-PC people is that in their own country(ies) they feel they are being marginalised and being made to feel uncomfortable about their own culture, with outsiders, minorities-call them what you will being given preferential treament. There is a feeling that there is respect for every culture but their own.

PC generally means being left wing, if a right wing post with equivalent sentiments had appeared I can imagine your howls of sanctimonious, self-righteous indignation.

I have never read such nastiness and hypocrisy.

If somebody was posting equivalent sentiments as mine then they wouldn't be right-wing so there would be no howls from me.

If you have never read such nastiness and hypocrisy as my post then you have led a very privileged life. I have not only read far nastier, but also seen far nastier acts done by the anti-PC crowd. I remember working in Southwark in London just over a decade ago and having people ask a good friend, "where she got her monkey from?" - they were referring of course to the fact that her baby was half-Chinese. Those lovable anti-PC people who after all are only trying to protect their culture from the loony-left. Of course these people were able to justify their racism by crying that their jobs were been given to 'blacks'. You had to ask yourself though, who would employ these guys in the first place.

Garro you are being disingenuous, I meant right wing nosense as against your left wing nonsense.

The rest of the post is irrelevent waffle, please re-read your post above, cringe, and admit that it is bigoted, reactionary and nasty. It makes you a hypocrite because you accuse other people of faults that you display yourself.

Your later argument that "MAYBE all anti-pc types are not racists" etc. is very weak and just digs you deeper into the hole. Come on, just admit it, that post was a bad mistake, you were wrong pure and simple.

It may seem to you that I am wrong pure and simple, but I have written it as I see it. I have always found that once you dig around in the reasons why people are anti-PC you will find an underlying cause of hatred or petty jealousy of another group. As for me being 'bigoted, reactionary, and nasty' well my conscience is clear in that department. I also put my faith in the many moderators on TV who do a sterling job of in removing posts which are bigoted, reactionary, and nasty.

Perhaps my later argument was a bit weak, but I added it for fairness. I can't recall though ever meeting an anti-PC person who didn't also have issues with minorities and others different from themselves. The whole anti-PC has actually seemed to get worse over recent years with the racists and bigots feeling safer to sprout their hatred unchallenged. Any attempt to argue against the hate-mongers will lead to shouts of political correctness. This is why the far-right seems to be on the rise once again in many countries.

So I am sorry if this disappoints you, but I don't feel that I have made any bad mistake.

Edited December 16, 2008 by garro

[Ulysses G.]

Garro you are being disingenuous, I meant right wing nosense as against your left wing nonsense.

The rest of the post is irrelevent waffle, please re-read your post above, cringe, and admit that it is bigoted, reactionary and nasty. It makes you a hypocrite because you accuse other people of faults that you display yourself.

Your later argument that "MAYBE all anti-pc types are not racists" etc. is very weak and just digs you deeper into the hole. Come on, just admit it, that post was a bad mistake, you were wrong pure and simple.

I concur. Garro twist things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, he seems as full of hate as any right-wing redneck.

[Ijustwannateach]

I'd like to caution our members on this thread in regard to their comments about each other personally- address the topic, not the person.

[garro]

Garro you are being disingenuous, I meant right wing nosense as against your left wing nonsense.

The rest of the post is irrelevent waffle, please re-read your post above, cringe, and admit that it is bigoted, reactionary and nasty. It makes you a hypocrite because you accuse other people of faults that you display yourself.

Your later argument that "MAYBE all anti-pc types are not racists" etc. is very weak and just digs you deeper into the hole. Come on, just admit it, that post was a bad mistake, you were wrong pure and simple.

I concur. Garro twist things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, he seems as full of hate as any right-wing redneck.

You know nothing about me, so please try and keep your personal insults to yourself. I have no problem with people criticising my posts, but personal insults are crossing a line.

Edited December 17, 2008 by garro

[Huey]

campainers are trying to ban this cheese for its racist name.

I took this picture right here in Thailand, at Seacon Mall a couple months back. I guess I must be genetically good at moping floors and dusting!!! LOL, this kind of racist crap was busted in the US about 40+ years ago. And for good reason, its F'ing ignorant. What next, yellow man rice?, white man hot dogs??? PC was started to combat the Anti PC's racist crap.

[Plus]

My question remains Why are women " Girls" but men , " Men"

I can't take this anymore. I'm going out with the boys!

Imagine he said:

I can't take this anymore. I'm going out with the men.

[bonobo]

It may seem to you that I am wrong pure and simple, but I have written it as I see it. I have always found that once you dig around in the reasons why people are anti-PC you will find an underlying cause of hatred or petty jealousy of another group. As for me being 'bigoted, reactionary, and nasty' well my conscience is clear in that department. I also put my faith in the many moderators on TV who do a sterling job of in removing posts which are bigoted, reactionary, and nasty.

Perhaps my later argument was a bit weak, but I added it for fairness. I can't recall though ever meeting an anti-PC person who didn't also have issues with minorities and others different from themselves. The whole anti-PC has actually seemed to get worse over recent years with the racists and bigots feeling safer to sprout their hatred unchallenged. Any attempt to argue against the hate-mongers will lead to shouts of political correctness. This is why the far-right seems to be on the rise once again in many countries.

So I am sorry if this disappoints you, but I don't feel that I have made any bad mistake.

Garro, you haven't met me, but I think I am like many people who scoff at the rabid PC crowd. I am not a racist bigot with a hatred and jealousy of another group, as you describe it.

I do not condone racism, sexism, or any other form of discrimination. I have never in my life called someone by a racist term. But that whole aspect of being PC is only one small piece of the pie.

I do object when people try to take religion out of a religious event or holiday, no matter that that religion is. I think that is ridiculous. I object when doctors are criticized for giving lectures where they say that obesity is bad. (That does not mean there should be discrimination towards anyone who is fat (yes, I know that is not the PC-correct term) but the scientific evidence is that being obese has serious health consequences.) I think adding a Mulsim woman to the Robin Hood BBC series, to take an example from another post, is ridiculous. And to state that calling someone a "janitor" is somehow demeaning is to me, the ultimate insult. Why should a descriptive word be bad? By saying "sanitation engineer," are we trying to hide what a person really does? If we are, then are are essentially saying that his or her job is somehow not worthy and something of which to be ashamed. That is pretty insulting to that hard-working janitor who has done a fine a honorable job all his or her life.

Being polite and considerate to all people is the key to living harmoniously together. That is not PC. That is just common sense. And if we use a term which we don't realize has some serious emotional baggage to someone, OK, that is a good thing. And there, being PC is appropriate. But for the legions of PC police who try to bland down everything about life, well, that is just going too far.

[garro]

It may seem to you that I am wrong pure and simple, but I have written it as I see it. I have always found that once you dig around in the reasons why people are anti-PC you will find an underlying cause of hatred or petty jealousy of another group. As for me being 'bigoted, reactionary, and nasty' well my conscience is clear in that department. I also put my faith in the many moderators on TV who do a sterling job of in removing posts which are bigoted, reactionary, and nasty.

Perhaps my later argument was a bit weak, but I added it for fairness. I can't recall though ever meeting an anti-PC person who didn't also have issues with minorities and others different from themselves. The whole anti-PC has actually seemed to get worse over recent years with the racists and bigots feeling safer to sprout their hatred unchallenged. Any attempt to argue against the hate-mongers will lead to shouts of political correctness. This is why the far-right seems to be on the rise once again in many countries.

So I am sorry if this disappoints you, but I don't feel that I have made any bad mistake.

Garro, you haven't met me, but I think I am like many people who scoff at the rabid PC crowd. I am not a racist bigot with a hatred and jealousy of another group, as you describe it.

I do not condone racism, sexism, or any other form of discrimination. I have never in my life called someone by a racist term. But that whole aspect of being PC is only one small piece of the pie.

I do object when people try to take religion out of a religious event or holiday, no matter that that religion is. I think that is ridiculous. I object when doctors are criticized for giving lectures where they say that obesity is bad. (That does not mean there should be discrimination towards anyone who is fat (yes, I know that is not the PC-correct term) but the scientific evidence is that being obese has serious health consequences.) I think adding a Mulsim woman to the Robin Hood BBC series, to take an example from another post, is ridiculous. And to state that calling someone a "janitor" is somehow demeaning is to me, the ultimate insult. Why should a descriptive word be bad? By saying "sanitation engineer," are we trying to hide what a person really does? If we are, then are are essentially saying that his or her job is somehow not worthy and something of which to be ashamed. That is pretty insulting to that hard-working janitor who has done a fine a honorable job all his or her life.

Being polite and considerate to all people is the key to living harmoniously together. That is not PC. That is just common sense. And if we use a term which we don't realize has some serious emotional baggage to someone, OK, that is a good thing. And there, being PC is appropriate. But for the legions of PC police who try to bland down everything about life, well, that is just going too far.

You are right bonobo, I do not know you. I can only speak from my own experience. The people who I have met that have been vocal about their grudges against political correctness have always quickly moved the subject on to their grudges against immigrants or other minorities. In the beginning of course they will often be able to give examples of the excesses of political correctness, but these examples are almost always in the form of second-hand information and many seem more related to urban legend than anything else. Yes, I am sure there have been excesses in attempts to prevent discrimanation, but these are nowhere near as bad as people make out. Far more good has come from attempts to prevent discrimination than bad.

Anti-political correctness has worked like 'manna' for those on the extreme-right. It allows for their hate ideas to creep back into the center of society. They realise that their screams of 'political correctness gone mad' will cower some people with a conscience into keeping quite. I do not believe that these people should be given any platform.

Of course you hear the argument that free-speech must be protected and that allowing the hate-mongers a platform will eventually lead to them realising the error of their ways as they see reason. This is not my belief. I believe that hate speech has a snowball-effect in society and only leads to more hatred. A few decades ago people could spout their racist rants with no fear and this did nothing to end racism.

[Ulysses G.]

Garro you are being disingenuous, I meant right wing nosense as against your left wing nonsense.

The rest of the post is irrelevent waffle, please re-read your post above, cringe, and admit that it is bigoted, reactionary and nasty. It makes you a hypocrite because you accuse other people of faults that you display yourself.

Your later argument that "MAYBE all anti-pc types are not racists" etc. is very weak and just digs you deeper into the hole. Come on, just admit it, that post was a bad mistake, you were wrong pure and simple.

I concur. Garro twist things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, he seems as full of hate as any right-wing redneck.

You know nothing about me, so please try and keep your personal insults to yourself. I have no problem with people criticising my posts, but personal insults are crossing a line.

Sorry, you are right. Is this better?

Garro twists things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, his posts seem as full of hate as those of any right-wing redneck.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[twschw]

UG, you're a trip

[garro]

Garro you are being disingenuous, I meant right wing nosense as against your left wing nonsense.

The rest of the post is irrelevent waffle, please re-read your post above, cringe, and admit that it is bigoted, reactionary and nasty. It makes you a hypocrite because you accuse other people of faults that you display yourself.

Your later argument that "MAYBE all anti-pc types are not racists" etc. is very weak and just digs you deeper into the hole. Come on, just admit it, that post was a bad mistake, you were wrong pure and simple.

I concur. Garro twist things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, he seems as full of hate as any right-wing redneck.

You know nothing about me, so please try and keep your personal insults to yourself. I have no problem with people criticising my posts, but personal insults are crossing a line.

Sorry, you are right. Is this better?

Garro twists things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, his posts seem as full of hate as those of any right-wing redneck.

I always feel that if an argument has any merits then there is no need for the conversation degrading to insults.

[Ulysses G.]

It was not meant as an insult. It was meant as an observation and I felt that changing it as I did would make the observation more acceptable or I would not have bothered. Many leftwingers are just as angry and irrational as the most hardcore rightwingers, and it seems worth pointing out.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[Huey]

Garro you are being disingenuous, I meant right wing nosense as against your left wing nonsense.

The rest of the post is irrelevent waffle, please re-read your post above, cringe, and admit that it is bigoted, reactionary and nasty. It makes you a hypocrite because you accuse other people of faults that you display yourself.

Your later argument that "MAYBE all anti-pc types are not racists" etc. is very weak and just digs you deeper into the hole. Come on, just admit it, that post was a bad mistake, you were wrong pure and simple.

I concur. Garro twist things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, he seems as full of hate as any right-wing redneck.

You know nothing about me, so please try and keep your personal insults to yourself. I have no problem with people criticising my posts, but personal insults are crossing a line.

Sorry, you are right. Is this better?

Garro twists things to fit his "liberal" agenda, but underneath all the bullsh*t, his posts seem as full of hate as those of any right-wing redneck.

I always feel that if an argument has any merits then there is no need for the conversation degrading to insults.

I don't feel any hate coming from his posts. Who is he hating? Haters perhaps? Is it wrong to despise and shun those who hate others for such frivolous matters as race, religion, or any other that the staunch anti-PC bigot minority claims? (and yes I think Anti-PC bigot scum are a minority, most people are better than that)

I'm glad the people who despise the simple respects that PCness implys are a minority, because I don't push a broom or shuck and jive nearly well enough to earn a living.

Garro said it right earlier when he said that not all anti PC people are racists, but all racists are anti PC.

[Ulysses G.]

Anyone who models himself after Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party would be pretty certain to agree with Garro. I'm sure that you two have a lot in common!

Huey Newton proved to be as violent as the party he helped to create when he was thrust into the national limelight in October 1967; accused of murdering ...

www.africawithin.com/bios/huey_newton.htm

Edited December 17, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[bonobo]

You are right bonobo, I do not know you. I can only speak from my own experience. The people who I have met that have been vocal about their grudges against political correctness have always quickly moved the subject on to their grudges against immigrants or other minorities. In the beginning of course they will often be able to give examples of the excesses of political correctness, but these examples are almost always in the form of second-hand information and many seem more related to urban legend than anything else. Yes, I am sure there have been excesses in attempts to prevent discrimanation, but these are nowhere near as bad as people make out. Far more good has come from attempts to prevent discrimination than bad.

Anti-political correctness has worked like 'manna' for those on the extreme-right. It allows for their hate ideas to creep back into the center of society. They realise that their screams of 'political correctness gone mad' will cower some people with a conscience into keeping quite. I do not believe that these people should be given any platform.

Of course you hear the argument that free-speech must be protected and that allowing the hate-mongers a platform will eventually lead to them realising the error of their ways as they see reason. This is not my belief. I believe that hate speech has a snowball-effect in society and only leads to more hatred. A few decades ago people could spout their racist rants with no fear and this did nothing to end racism.

If you equate PC with only the racist portion of it, I would tend to agree with most of what you write. And one of your earlier posts showed me that some racists, at least, use the anti-PC platform to justify their views.

My point is that the PC platform is much bigger than just that one portion. And while I can sympathize and agree with the overall philosophy of the concept, I also strongly feel that the far spectrum of the movement are individuals who take things to the extreme. Of course, that can be said with most movements.

When I was a kid in Iowa, we learned about Hanukhah, lit a menorah, and sang Hebrew songs despite no one in our school being Jewish. We were taught about Ramadan and most of us observed one day of fasting despite no one in the school being a Muslim. We learned about the slave trade and sang spirituals despite no one being African-American. And yes, we also had our drawings of the Baby Jesus in a manger put on the bulletin board (and yes, all of us were Christian to one degree or another.)

I rather think the above experiences were good. But the real rabid PC crowd would have argued that this was harmful and not appropriate in a public school.

Edited December 17, 2008 by bonobo

[GuestHouse]

My point is that the PC platform is much bigger than just that one portion [combatting racism]

Well of course, there are far more injustices and prejudices that need to be addressed than just racism. One might argue that the Women's and Black Rights Movements have made a huge contribution to society in general and other discriminated groups in particular by opening the discussion on combatting all prejudice and bigotry.

I rather think the above experiences were good. But the real rabid PC crowd would have argued that this was harmful and not appropriate in a public school.

Or rather you contend that they would have made such an argument.

This is I think a recurring theme, imagined excesses of Political Correctness.

[bonobo]

My point is that the PC platform is much bigger than just that one portion [combatting racism]

Well of course, there are far more injustices and prejudices that need to be addressed than just racism. One might argue that the Women's and Black Rights Movements have made a huge contribution to society in general and other discriminated groups in particular by opening the discussion on combatting all prejudice and bigotry.

I rather think the above experiences were good. But the real rabid PC crowd would have argued that this was harmful and not appropriate in a public school.

Or rather you contend that they would have made such an argument.

This is I think a recurring theme, imagined excesses of Political Correctness.

Of course I "contend" it. The PC movement was not really anything back then.

However, some 15 or 20 years later, in another Iowa school (in Iowa City) a teacher, trying to teach students about prejudice (the entire school was white), put students into two groups based on eye color. On one day, the students of one group were put in the back of the class, made to eat lunch last, had a shorter recess, were told the other group was smarter, etc. On the next day, the roles were reversed. The "oppressed" group scored lower on quizzes each day and showed diminished social skills. When interviewed later, the students all expressed a distaste for any prejudice and avowed that they would never show it.

Good thing, right? Well, this teacher was fired. It seems people spouting the PC mantra thought you cannot tell anyone with green eyes they were not as smart, you could not give students with brown eyes a shorter recess. And to then equate this with the plight of African-Americans was demeaning to the entire African-American fight for equality.

So of course I contend it. Since this was taken as standard practice then, nothing happened. But the Iowa City example would pretty much buttress my contention. And when I went back to a reunion and asked a classmate who was now a school principal about music, he said that they didn't teach it anymore. When I then lamented that students would therefore not be learning one of those Hebrew songs (a favorite of mine when I was a kid) he laughed and said they are not allowed now to teach anything dealing with religion. So yes, I stand by my contention.

When Garro related a direct experience in this thread that went against my perception of things, I had to accept that and change my views to include that. But I guess you know for a fact that excesses in the PC movement are all imaginary, right?

[bonobo]

Maybe one thing about PC which has always bugged me in the very term itself. "Politically Correct." What is wrong with simply "correct," or "proper," or "considerate?"

Politics is hardly something that most people look up to with any diegree of admiration. The connotation of "being political" is of saying something you don't believe or acting as you would not normally act. There is a huge degree of dishonesty in the connotation.

So in being "politically incorrect," that means you are sayings you don't believe. And if someone tells you you are being policially incorrect, then it seems to me that they are saying it is Ok for you to be racist, sexist, whatever, just don't say it.

I guess this is good for something, but I would much rather tell somebody he or she is just flat out wrong for uttering some racist drivel. He or she in "incorrect," not just "politically incorrect."

[GuestHouse]

Of course I "contend" it. The PC movement was not really anything back then.

Again, fear of your own fears.

Can you provide a link or some other such reference to the Iowa case, I'd like to read up on it?

[bonobo]

Of course I "contend" it. The PC movement was not really anything back then.

Again, fear of your own fears.

Can you provide a link or some other such reference to the Iowa case, I'd like to read up on it?

"Fear of your own fears?" Get real.

Is there any part of your ego which could possibly accept that someone else who has a different view from you could possibly be correct? Or at least not be incorrect?

With one easy search, I found this on the internet:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-arch...n_lifetime.html

When I saw this later on television, I do remember the nature of the complaints, but since I don't happen to have a dvd of that on me, I guess I am imagining it. Of course, some of the complaints were also made by people whom would be labeled as what many posters here would describe as the anti-PC crowd. This teacher got it from both sides.

What is personally ironic to me about this thread is that despite having served as a Marine officer, I am one of the most socially liberal people I happen to know. I deplore racism or any kind of discrimination, for example, and I accept just about any lifestyle as long as it doesn't contravene my personal rule of doing no harm. But because I do agree that the PC movement goes too far sometimes, according to some posters here, I must be part of the racist and biggoted sector of the population.

Talk about biggoted! That contention in itself is pretty biggoted.

[garro]

Bonobo, the type of research mentioned in this article was in the sixties and has since been deemed unethical because it conflicts with the moral imperative of autonomy. The Geneva convention and later the Helsinki code arose due to unethical research conducted by the Nazis. These codes became stricter after the sixties because there was an outcry when research such as this one you mentioned proved to be very unethical. Nobody should have the right to deceive you and conduct research which involves risks without your knowledge. Autonomy is viewed as very important in research today and it is rare for any researcher to get permission to deceive their subjects; especially when this deception could cause psychological damage. So the research you mentioned which occurred over forty years ago is condemned not for being un-PC, but for being unethical.

In my view this is where most of the anti-PC bias comes from; half-truths, untruths, and misunderstandings.

Edited December 17, 2008 by garro

[bonobo]

Bonobo, the type of research mentioned in this article was in the sixties and has since been deemed unethical because it conflicts with the moral imperative of autonomy. The Geneva convention and later the Helsinki code arose due to unethical research conducted by the Nazis. These codes became stricter after the sixties because there was an outcry when research such as this one you mentioned proved to be very unethical. Autonomy is viewed as very important in research today and it is rare for any researcher to get permission to deceive the subjects; especially when this deception could cause psychological damage. So the research you mentioned which occurred over forty years ago is condemned not for being un-PC, but for being unethical.

At the time, this classroom exercise (not "research") it was roundly criticized for many reasons, some being the exact same as the PC crowd use today. Whether it does conflict with the moral imperative of autonomy or not, at that time, people who would later be described as being PC and anti-PC had problems with the it for the same reasons these people rant today.

Of course, many people loved it, and the teacher, Jane Elliott, has subsequently been featured (very positively) on television as well as having received a number of citations and awards.

OK, to take this example out of the discussion (and I still feel it warrants mention), the Iowa school system, at least the Des Moines Public School System, can no longer teach anything having to do with religion, at least at the primary school level. So our lighting a menora or fasting for one day during Ramadan is no longer allowed. Hence, my "contention" as posed by Guesthouse is a fairly logical and reasonable contention to make.

[GuestHouse]

Bonobo, thanks for the link it provides some interesting information.

• The teacher was not, as you claimed, dismissed for teaching this lesson (she continued to teach this lesson for a further 9 years)
  
• The Teacher and her family suffered hostility in their own comunity because she was teaching this lesson
  
• Far from Political Correctness being used to control her or shut her up it is quite clear she and her family suffered personal attacks from racist bigots
  

You seemed to have given a link to an incident that has nothing to do with that which your referred to above.

Either that, or...... It's that recurring theme again.... Imagined excesses of Political Correctness.