Political correctness - good or bad?
acar
isolationism. PC, like anything else, (indeed like lynching and
burning at the stake), can be overdone, and frequently is. But the
concept itself is not going away because it is profoundly American. It
represents the defining American respect for the rights, sensibilities
an dignity of other human beings. I would rather live with too much
political correctness than becoming a victim of the summary judgment
of ideologues. God bless America.
Charles Bell
> God bless America.
It's not PC to say "God bless America."
Arnold Broese
news:509a043a-0784-4669...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> I would rather live with too much
> political correctness than becoming a victim of the summary judgment
> of ideologues. God bless America.
PC is telling others what to think. Not a part of any free society. There is
no such thing as a right not to be offended. Are you happy banning cartoons?
--
Arnold
Piet de Arcilla
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
If people generally agree that certain behaviors are unacceptable,
that doesn't make it a totalitarian regime.
acar
> no such thing as a right not to be offended.
It's a social grace, Arnold. If you don't protect ugly women from the
truth, you must be a redneck.
.
.
.
Arnold Broese
news:8e562228-71bf-4c60...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
That is true, and I think standards are important in social contexts.
However, the point of this thread is not so much about behavior as about
what one says and thinks. Generally one avoids those one finds offensive,
but political correctness goes beyond polite behavior. It descends into
telling people how they should think. When you find yourself breaking the
law because of something you said, drew or wrote, there had better be more
behind the charge than simply offending someone somewhere. As always, the
standard should be whether rights have been violated. Thus, if a man gets up
and says he hates a certain group, that alone is not grounds for censorship.
However, if that same man calls for initiating force against that group, it
is no longer a matter of free speech, it is a matter inciting violence.
If offence is enough to restrict speech, there is no free speech, because
someone somewhere will silence you in the name of offence.
Acar, if I don't tell a woman she is ugly, it is because of common courtesy,
not because of thought control. Red necks can also be polite.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
news:008d3943$0$26896$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:32:26 -0800, Arnold Broese
> <arnold_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> PC is telling others what to think.
>
If it is not PC, then it is more likely telling them what *you* think, than
what they should think.
--
Arnold
acar
wrote:
>
> Acar, if I don't tell a woman she is ugly, it is because of common courtesy,
> not because of thought control. Red necks can also be polite.
>
correctness would be just politeness. But here is the shocking news
for Objectivists: REALITY matters. In the REAL world Objectivism fails
and politeness is sometimes overdone. Instead of whining about reality
we need to use our intelligence to keep trying to approach the ideal
even as we know that it is unattainable in full measure. The fact that
we are tainted by innate limitations (so-called "original sin") should
not stop from trying to do our best.
Malrassic Park
I don�t like political correctness because it is a form of racism and
sexism and is based on a double standard. The primary target of the PC
movement is dominant white male Western society.
..
..
..
..
..
..
acar
>
> I don�t like political correctness because it is a form of racism and
> sexism and is based on a double standard. The primary target of the PC
> movement is dominant white male Western society.
> ..
definition. But IMO it is the result of the American concept of
equality and respect for all people. Its like when Marylin Monroe
insisted on being promiscuous. She was still more beautiful than Linda
Hunt.
Malrassic Park
..>> I don�t like political correctness because it is a form of racism and
>> sexism and is based on a double standard. The primary target of the PC
>> movement is dominant white male Western society.
..
>I don't like it either because it is politeness overdone, by
>definition. But IMO it is the result of the American concept of
>equality and respect for all people. Its like when Marylin Monroe
>insisted on being promiscuous. She was still more beautiful than Linda
>Hunt.
Do you believe something isn't racism unless it comes from white males
or white females?
acar
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:29:11 -0800, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you believe something isn't racism unless it comes from white males
> or white females?
No. Anybody can overdo tolerance and condescension. Some politically
correct blacks are called Uncle Toms. IMO political correctness (in
the context of race) is about a racist who either doesn't know that he
is a racist or else a racist who feels guilty about his racism. I
don't think that it manifests as a racist consciously pretending that
he is not a racist. The worse (and also the best) thing about PC is
that is sincere. On the other hand many critics of political
correctness are trying to justify their ism, whatever that ism happens
to be.
Malrassic Park
How about Americanism? - As in: NOBODY tells me what to think or what
opinions to hold. I believe racism is wrong, not as determined by some
invisible collective opinion, but because I determined, long before
any PC movement came along, that it is illogical. What is the root
source of both PC and racism? An unwillingness to take responsibility
for one's own rational thinking, and it replace it with the will of
some collective entity - a race or a political movement - that doesn't
exist.
And anyway, it does no good. This sort of thing only drives racism
underground where it still thrives, and any racist can pretend not to
be a racist, all they have to do is avoid racial Freudian slips.
acar
>
> And anyway, it does no good. This sort of thing only drives racism
> underground where it still thrives, and any racist can pretend not to
> be a racist, all they have to do is avoid racial Freudian slips.
IMO racism is a default condition of humans. It is a manifestation of
provincialism which in turn is a result of self esteem and egoism.
Those are some of the innate traits that reason has to overcome after
it works out the concept of rights. You are correct that racism needs
to be buried and kept in Al Gore's lock box. IMO the efforts to
struggle with the indwelling racism are what often gives rise to
overcompensation: political correctness.
I don't understand why Arnold and you are saying that PC is telling
people what to do. If you are referring to civil right laws, you have
to decide if you support The Constitution. The Constitution says that
law will be written by a show of hands.
Malrassic Park
>On Nov 19, 10:34�pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't understand why Arnold and you are saying that PC is telling
>people what to do. If you are referring to civil right laws, you have
>to decide if you support The Constitution. The Constitution says that
>law will be written by a show of hands.
That sounds more like a felony traffic stop. Anyway, I don't have to
support any law that violates my natural rights, no matter how many
hands were shown. PC is clearly in violation of the right to freedom
of speech.
acar
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0800, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> >The Constitution says that
> >law will be written by a show of hands.
>
> That �sounds more like a felony traffic stop. Anyway, I don't have to
> support any law that violates my natural rights,
Then you should move to a desert island. And take several passive
virgins with you.
> no matter how many
> hands were shown. PC is clearly in violation of the right to freedom
> of speech.
"... no matter how many hands are shown..." is clearly a rejection of the
philosophy of government that the Constitution advocates. That frame
of mind is a substantively un-American. The beautiful thing about the
Constitution is that it will protect you even if you disagree with it,
as long as you don't advocate violence. The latter (advocating
violence against the government) is an example of how even freedom of
speech has limitations. The laws that you see as advocating political
correctness (if laws is what you are talking about) are laws intended
to protect other people's rights. Nobody has a right to violate
rights.
I personally think that community standards should play a larger role
on defining speech crimes. For example now you have a right to use
extreme profanity in public or insult anybody with words that are
odious to the community as a whole. I believe those to be examples of
how the concept of individual freedom can be taken to the extremes of
political correctness upside down; in other words the perpetrators are
favored by political correctness in the form of protecting the abuse
of freedom. But I also believe that if you disagree with a law, you
have a right to express your disagreement, as you are doing. However I
throw you to the mercy of the majority. I don't see a need to advocate
that kind of amendment to the Constitution. Whatever the Supreme Court
decides I am prepared to live with in an imperfect world.
Malrassic Park
>On Nov 20, 11:22�am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:00:55 -0800, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
..
>> >The Constitution says that
>> >law will be written by a show of hands.
..
>> That �sounds more like a felony traffic stop. Anyway, I don't have to
>> support any law that violates my natural rights,
..
>Then you should move to a desert island. And take several passive
>virgins with you.
This country was based on the attitude that the people come before the
government. Maybe you should move to a desert island and start your
own dictatorship of one.
>> no matter how many
>> hands were shown. PC is clearly in violation of the right to freedom
>> of speech.
>
>"... no matter how many hands are shown..." is clearly a rejection of the
>philosophy of government that the Constitution advocates.
> That frame
>of mind is a substantively un-American. The beautiful thing about the
>Constitution is that it will protect you even if you disagree with it,
>as long as you don't advocate violence. The latter (advocating
>violence against the government) is an example of how even freedom of
>speech has limitations. The laws that you see as advocating political
>correctness (if laws is what you are talking about) are laws intended
>to protect other people's rights. Nobody has a right to violate
>rights.
The Constitution was not based on political correctness, there was no
such thing in 1776.
It is not a violation of civil rights to willfully hire a white male
over a black male. It is definitely a violation of civil rights to
force me to hire a black simply because he is not white, or a woman
simply because she is not male.
>I personally think that community standards should play a larger role
>on defining speech crimes. For example now you have a right to use
>extreme profanity in public or insult anybody with words that are
>odious to the community as a whole. I believe those to be examples of
>how the concept of individual freedom can be taken to the extremes of
>political correctness upside down; in other words the perpetrators are
>favored by political correctness in the form of protecting the abuse
>of freedom. But I also believe that if you disagree with a law, you
>have a right to express your disagreement, as you are doing.
Usenet doesn't count, this is a multinational kind of forum. Anybody
can express their disagreement here without consequence. Furthermore,
disagreeing with a law on usenet is not going to get you very far.
Civil disobedience on usenet is a joke.
However, in the real world, if you disagree with the politically
correct majority you stand a real chance of losing your livelihood and
being blacklisted in some kind of leftist version of McCarthyism.
> However I
>throw you to the mercy of the majority. I don't see a need to advocate
>that kind of amendment to the Constitution. Whatever the Supreme Court
>decides I am prepared to live with in an imperfect world.
If community standards are based on the majority opinion found in the
community, then that is simply the kind of absolute democracy which
the Founders stood against. So I see your attempt to uphold the
Constitution as being little more than hot air.
acar
>
> If community standards are based on the majority opinion found in the
> community, then that is simply the kind of absolute democracy which
> the Founders stood against.
What is absolute democracy? What is relative democracy?
> So I �see your attempt to uphold the
> Constitution as being little more than hot air.
Explain why you oppose elections. Even if we grant that community
standards was what the original settlers were trying to escape, this
was only to enable them to set their own community standards. Those
are OK by me, but I don't see you going anywhere.