Political Correctness

[Aesir]

Since the other PC topic is old and I didn't want to bump an old thread I'll make a new one. I wanna start with issue that actually came up election night after Barack Obama was Elected.

He is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations who are running America into the ground.

On fox news Shepard Smith took issue with the Uncle Tom comment, and not surprising, Uncle Tom has been used as a racial slur in the past. If Nader did call him a uncle tom then I would understand the fuss about it.

However historically that word has been used by blacks to describe their own leaders being subservient toward to the status quota. And if you look at Naders statement it's clear he's asking the question is it he going to be a leader for the people or just another corporate democrat? Could he have said that and been done with it? Sure but his original statement packs more of a punch.


The reason I brought this up is because it's a very serious question. Is our language being hijacked? I can understand going on stage and calling someone a ****** and then being criticized for it, because that's clearly an ad hominem (or something to that effect) attack and it's also very unprofessional to call someone out because of their race. But in the Nader case here when it's clearly a question on what kind of President will he be? (And it's definitely a serious one especially after all that rhetoric of change and hope. And bringing reforms into Washington.) Was the calling him out on racial remarks right? or was it just political correctness rearing it's ugly head?

 

[Jam Stunna]

At least we're not as bad as Europe.

 

[aeghrur]

The thing is, what's the point of being so politically correct?
If someone is thinking this hard for every single racial slur there could possibly be, aren't they trying to hard to be racist? Not everything has to carry a secret meaning. =/ People are just trying to hard.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

The thing is, what's the point of being so politically correct?
If someone is thinking this hard for every single racial slur there could possibly be, aren't they trying to hard to be racist? Not everything has to carry a secret meaning. =/ People are just trying to hard.

Thank you.

It's annoying the way a word slowly becomes "inappropriate". For example, the word ****** once meant a person who was ******** (logical, eh?). But the word was soon replaced by "mentally ********", which was STILL too offensive. So it was again changed to "Challenged", and then once more to "Special". That last one really gets my goat. Using that word implies that the person might be just as credible as a person with normal intelligence. As it turns out, being ******** usually means you're at a disadvantage. Sugarcoating it is useless.

It's also got this moral relativist vibe to it. It's like "your "world-view" (moar buzzwords) is just as valid as mine is, even though you have Downs Syndrome". And of course, if you extend this philosophy you can say the exact same thing to serial killers, rapist, and people who're clinically insane. There's a point when being "PC" becomes willful ignorance. I think our society needs to be less afraid to tell it like it is.

 

[Mewter]

At least we're not as bad as Europe.

Lol. Please don't tell me it's true.
The world is mad with trying to be politically correct.

The thing is, what's the point of being so politically correct?
If someone is thinking this hard for every single racial slur there could possibly be, aren't they trying to hard to be racist? Not everything has to carry a secret meaning. =/ People are just trying too hard.

Exactly.

 

[Darxmarth23]

The thing is, we will always be politically incorrect. Thats what you get when you have a country with such diverse people. You have sooooo many different morals and objectives that are hungry for power and contradict each other. Eventually, it boils down to race and religion going against each other and we still have that today, in both the U.S and the rest of the world.

 

[RDK]

At least we're not as bad as Europe.

I just refer to people as "comrade" anyway, so I'm all set.

*PULLS OUT BOLSHEVIK HAT*

 

[Pr0phetic]

The thing is, we will always be politically incorrect. Thats what you get when you have a country with such diverse people. You have sooooo many different morals and objectives that are hungry for power and contradict each other. Eventually, it boils down to race and religion going against each other and we still have that today, in both the U.S and the rest of the world.

This is too true. Most political incorrectness is for lack of tolerance and morals, and ofcourse, self-gain.

 

[Darxmarth23]

This is too true. Most political incorrectness is for lack of tolerance and morals, and ofcourse, self-gain.

There is competition all over the place. Not everyone is satisfied and will resort to anything (including political incorrectness) to achieve what they want. After all, wants provide happiness, and the pursuit of happiness is one of our fundamental rights which should be achieved. We can't do that though because the government restricts us with laws and such.

The weird thing is, political incorrectness gives us a status among others. It makes you stand out, and show another side of your personality, ideas, and beliefs. That can and will help and hurt you because the way you originally became politically incorrect is favored by at least some group of people in the U.S.A.
So in each form of political incorrectness there are three main things:

1) The politically incorrect person or group
2) Advocates of the politically incorrect person or group
3) The Haters of the politically incorrect person or group

To clear this up I will provide a historic example:

The person: Adolf Hitler
The advocates: Nazi Germany and the Axis Forces
Da Haters: U.S.A and the Allied Forces

What Hitler did was bad, and politically incorrect. We all know that. But the thing is, he was supported by people with the same beliefs, such as the Nazis that he won over with propaganda techniques. The reason he wasn't booted from the top seat was because he was supported by enough advocates beforehand to remain on top. But that was the population of the Axis Forces.

Then you take into account the rest of the world, or the Allied forces to be specific. There were more people with force in this group that opposed Hitler and his advocates. Eventually Nazi Germany fell with Reichstag and Hitler committed suicide.

Bottom line is, everything ended up being fair. There were more people(with power) against Hitler than there were for him. Therefore the majority wins and Nazi Germany defeated.

But if Hitler had more advocates, more than the allied forces, his politically incorrectness would have helped him more than hurt him. Lets hope something like that doesn't happen in the future.

Political Incorrectness only succeeds when you have more advocates than haters. And most likely you won't because of Americas diversity. There are so many different beliefs that you will not be supported.

The Real Bottom Line Is: Political Correctness Will Not Benefit Anyone In America Because Of So Much Diversity. With That In Mind It Should Be Easy To Ignore Any Political Incorrectness.

These are my arguments. Cheers, dudes!

 

[Aorist]

Right, I'm going to jump in here because this is another of those topics that the majority tend to be little off on.

Every single person has the right to title themselves however they want. And people can and ought to address them as such if they respect them as a person.

Addressing an entire subset of people (the mentally handicapped, black, women, whatever) by things that demonstrate a lack of respect is racist, sexist, anti-handicapped and so on.

Who even cares if you have to stop using a tiny word and start using another one? It doesn't inconvenience you at all, and allows a group of people that much more self-respect. Nobody will kill you for getting it wrong once, but if you don't change your ways, you're showing intentional disrespect of a group of people.

You're all saying "political correctness" like it's a dirty word, but all it does is afford people their dignity.

Was the calling him out on racial remarks right? or was it just political correctness rearing it's ugly head?

Calling someone out on racist remarks is always a good thing to do.

If someone is thinking this hard for every single racial slur there could possibly be, aren't they trying to hard to be racist? Not everything has to carry a secret meaning. =/ People are just trying to hard.

Er, no. It's really not that hard to remember how not to insult people. Seriously, try it. I'm going to go an entire post without it.

It's annoying the way a word slowly becomes "inappropriate". For example, the word ****** once meant a person who was ******** (logical, eh?). But the word was soon replaced by "mentally ********", which was STILL too offensive. So it was again changed to "Challenged", and then once more to "Special". That last one really gets my goat. Using that word implies that the person might be just as credible as a person with normal intelligence. As it turns out, being ******** usually means you're at a disadvantage. Sugarcoating it is useless.

It's also got this moral relativist vibe to it. It's like "your "world-view" (moar buzzwords) is just as valid as mine is, even though you have Downs Syndrome". And of course, if you extend this philosophy you can say the exact same thing to serial killers, rapist, and people who're clinically insane. There's a point when being "PC" becomes willful ignorance. I think our society needs to be less afraid to tell it like it is.
03-24-2009 07:22 AM

It's annoying, is it? That way you have to just use a different word when you're talking? Okay, the next bit I'm going to say is fairly important, so I'm going to use fancy fonting to draw attention to it.

The Important Bit of This Post
If you read nothing else in this, check this out
What you guys are doing is analysing the situation from the viewpoint of the oppressors, not the oppressed. Now, don't get all righteously indignant and say "But Aorist, I'm not oppressing anybody!". Thing is, you are. Minority groups, the groups that are the victims of the -isms, they're the ones that are requiring political correctness. The minorities are as such because they experience societal oppression. It's harder for homosexuals, black people, women, the mentally handicapped, etc to do a huge variety of things than it is for those who aren't in a minority group. You are part of a society that allows this to occur, and practically encourages in practice, even if there are overtones of equality. By not fighting against it, you're part of a system that oppresses. Every time a non-minorital person reaps a benefit as part of society over a minorital person, they're contributing to that oppression, even if they don't want to.

Okay, you got that? As a member of an oppressive society, you contribute to the oppression and are thus an oppressor, even if you're really a nice guy and all. It's not pretty, but it's a fact.

Now. As a right-minded member of society, you should seek to minimise that oppression. If this means using different words to normal, so what? Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed. People using words that are demeaning - that aren't politically correct, are influencing society to be less accepting of minorities. By actively being politically correct, you reduce that oppression.

The Real Bottom Line Is: Political Correctness Will Not Benefit Anyone In America Because Of So Much Diversity. With That In Mind It Should Be Easy To Ignore Any Political Incorrectness.

You're fairly wrong here. I don't even see how what you're saying makes any kind of logical sense.

There are lots of people from many different backgrounds in America? And this means that we can't have political incorrectness become institutionalised? What you're saying is that if, say, America started a war with Scandinavia, all of the American people who aren't Nordic would go "Ah, I'm just Chinese/Japanese/Indian/Fijian/whatever, I better not get involved in this!". No. It'll be between the people who are Scandinavian and the people that aren't.

Even if your logic somehow worked, should we not fight injustices even if they aren't prevalent. If a bully is going to break your friend's nose, shouldn't you stop him even if he isn't going after all of your friends?

 

[Hive]

<3 aorist that was a good post!

some amount of political correctness is necessary in order to protect the image of the government's desire to stand for minority rights imo. I would hate to see a president use many of the words I hear on the street lol, it wouldn't be appropriate, as a president he can not be just "another average person" he has to retain the image that he is more tolerant and can listen to all sides. ^^

 

[Darxmarth23]

You're fairly wrong here. I don't even see how what you're saying makes any kind of logical sense.

There are lots of people from many different backgrounds in America? And this means that we can't have political incorrectness become institutionalized? What you're saying is that if, say, America started a war with Scandinavia, all of the American people who aren't Nordic would go "Ah, I'm just Chinese/Japanese/Indian/Fijian/whatever, I better not get involved in this!". No. It'll be between the people who are Scandinavian and the people that aren't.

Even if your logic somehow worked, should we not fight injustices even if they aren't prevalent. If a bully is going to break your friend's nose, shouldn't you stop him even if he isn't going after all of your friends?

What I'm trying to say is that in America, when someone is politically incorrect it doesn't effect many people. Because we are so diverse, not too many people will get offended.

Say a Caucasian child was teasing and Asian child. And African American child would not care. He is different from both of them, thus he is not affected. Same goes to the Hispanic child, and the Finnish child, etc. The amount of damage that political incorrectness does is very small.

Now if someone was running for a government position and used something politically incorrect then there will be little to no affect on his chances of winning. The only thing that will happen is that he will not be liked by the race, religion, or trait that he used to talk about in his politically incorrect statement, and that he will be backed up by people with similar ideas. But that's in America.

When you are talking about a war between two countries, then obviously Scandinavian-Americans will back up Scandinavia. But that's because its two different countries with people who have heritage or pride for the opposite. Then different laws come into play.

And yes, political incorrectness should be punished, but that already happens by having it shunned. At least that's how it should be...

The thing is, I approached this debate with everyone who would take offense to political incorrectness, and you approached it to everyone who would back it up. We are looking at two different places for this debate. Nice job on your arguments.

 

[Aorist]

What I'm trying to say is that in America, when someone is politically incorrect it doesn't effect many people. Because we are so diverse, not too many people will get offended.

Say a Caucasian child was teasing and Asian child. And African American child would not care. He is different from both of them, thus he is not affected. Same goes to the Hispanic child, and the Finnish child, etc. The amount of damage that political incorrectness does is very small.

In a closed system, maybe. Thing is, there are traits that can require political correctness that a whole heap of people would be affected by. Calling a women a b*tch or a c*nt, that's roughly half the population. There's almost 40 million black people (SOURCE) There are plenty of other demographics that comprise a significant portion of the population. America's not as diverse as you think.

And I'd hope that the children would back up the oppressed Asian one, but you know that they'll see the teasing and probably join in. When people hate someone in your community, you're likely to start hating them too. That's psychology.

 

[illinialex24]

I find that in some ways we are way too political correct and I find that political correctness can cause insane absurdities and other times stop very racist remarks.

I have noticed a lot of countries have been accused of prejudice recently because they have been (I can find articles if requested) rejecting Islamic dissenters but not dissenters of other religions. A famous example was in The Week a while back showing how a Islamic critic to an extreme degree from the Netherlands was denied access to the UK, but an even more radical opponent of Judaism or Christianity (forgot which) was allowed entry a few years back and even given a police escort for security.

 

[Deleted member]

Question

Who here thinks that tall people are NOT visible minorities?

 

[RDK]

Is there a point to that question? Because God help me, I tried.

 

[Deleted member]

Just wondering - people comment on my height all the time, and as I consider myself a visible minority, I feel as if political correctness is thrown out the window.

It's one of those weird situations. Because being tall isn't (I guess) seen as a bad thing, people don't think twice about it.

 

[aeghrur]

Er, no. It's really not that hard to remember how not to insult people. Seriously, try it. I'm going to go an entire post without it.

It's not hard, but it's kind of tedious to wonder if everything with "monkey" and "legislative branch" might have something to do with accidentally insulting our new president. >_> Really, do people need to try so hard to find any hints of racism so they can "abolish racism?" Why can't they just accept the equalities presented to people of different ethnic groups currently? Striving for perfection is pointless and stupid. =/

 

[Aesir]

Calling someone out on racist remarks is always a good thing to do.

I think you missed my point, or I probably worded my post wrong which has happened more then a few times. However even if the term is a "racist" term should we just not use it? despite it's relevant political definition?

Uncle Tom is usually used by Blacks against their own representatives who neglect the needs of their caucus and become subservient to the "white power structure." They feel betrayed and thus use the word.

I'm posing the question if it was right for smith to call out nader on the remark, and if so why? when it's clear he was using it as a political word rather then a racist word.

 

[Aorist]

Really, do people need to try so hard to find any hints of racism so they can "abolish racism?" Why can't they just accept the equalities presented to people of different ethnic groups currently? Striving for perfection is pointless and stupid. =/

I can't tell if you're being ironic here. I'll assume you aren't.

We, uh, aren't post-racism. Racism is prevalent in Western Society today. Being equal would be nice, because having people judge you based on things other than your value as a person is bad.

I'm posing the question if it was right for smith to call out nader on the remark, and if so why? when it's clear he was using it as a political word rather then a racist word.

It was right for Smith to call out Nader on the remark. Things can be both racist and political. The precise reason for the statement packing more punch was that it was racist - hearkening back to black people being subservient to white people. The question Nader was posing was one that was fairly unrelated to race - if the CEO's were all black it would have been the same question.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

At least we're not as bad as Europe.

Due to the fact that I heard about this here, and not on the news, it seems that nobody is caring about this.

The EU doesn't govern the way we speak.

 

[Aesir]

It was right for Smith to call out Nader on the remark. Things can be both racist and political. The precise reason for the statement packing more punch was that it was racist - hearkening back to black people being subservient to white people. The question Nader was posing was one that was fairly unrelated to race - if the CEO's were all black it would have been the same question.

If things can be both racist and political then whats the point? Shepard should have realized Naders remark wasn't racist not only by it's context by who Nader is. This is exactly the problem, we effectively can't say words because they've been deemed as racist despite many of their practical uses.

I don't find it wrong at all, for one he didn't call Obama a racist slur he said it's the question he has to answer, leaving it open to Obama if he's going to be a good president or just another mediocre democrat. The question is he shouldn't have to censor himself no one should have to censor himself. It's different if I go up to a black person and call them a ****** for really no reason because he's black. It's completely different if I call an elected political an uncle tom because he's not representing his voters.

One reason I used it is because it's accurate, another reason why I used it is because it makes people like you angry. There's a difference between the word and the Deed.... No no no, you can't get any rise out, this is how you get a rise out of your generation; Ethnic Slur, Gender Slur, Racial Slur, that'll drive you up the wall, And you'll have meetings and protests and demonstrations and "fire the professor." I'm trying to bring you down the abstraction latter, you're entitled to be much much more angry then what these words represent on the ground. Rather then just these words, you focus on words do you think exploiters care a wit about how angry you are about these? as long as you let them off.

Source youtube page

 

[aeghrur]

I can't tell if you're being ironic here. I'll assume you aren't.

We, uh, aren't post-racism. Racism is prevalent in Western Society today. Being equal would be nice, because having people judge you based on things other than your value as a person is bad.

Racism is prevalent in Western Society today? Hm, I don't really see it. Being equal would be nice, but usually, equality isn't fair. Anyway, I really don't see Racism being so prevalent today. Besides, people will always judge you on your values aside from your person, it will happen. Are we really going to control the way people think now? Or try to guess at what people are saying just so we can correct them... when their meanings were actually different?

 

[Eor]

Racism is prevalent in Western Society today? Hm, I don't really see it. Being equal would be nice, but usually, equality isn't fair. Anyway, I really don't see Racism being so prevalent today. Besides, people will always judge you on your values aside from your person, it will happen. Are we really going to control the way people think now? Or try to guess at what people are saying just so we can correct them... when their meanings were actually different?

I live in Texas, and yeah there's definitely still racism. I hear people talking about how my neighborhood is getting worse because it's "getting dark", and know several people who still refer to black people as "******s". It's more underground then before, and most people aren't racist, but it's still there.

You have to realize that barely fifty years ago there were still governors refusing to let black kids into colleges, and not just legally but physically standing in front of the entrances to block them. Not just some hicks from the woods, but elected officials. And they'd win re-election by huge margins. This was the accepted idea. And these people are now many southern kids current grandparents. What they teach is spread down. It's not open, and now it's more against Mexicans then anything else and it's dying, but it's still around.

 

[Darxmarth23]

In a closed system, maybe. Thing is, there are traits that can require political correctness that a whole heap of people would be affected by. Calling a women a b*tch or a c*nt, that's roughly half the population. There's almost 40 million black people (SOURCE) There are plenty of other demographics that comprise a significant portion of the population. America's not as diverse as you think.

And I'd hope that the children would back up the oppressed Asian one, but you know that they'll see the teasing and probably join in. When people hate someone in your community, you're likely to start hating them too. That's psychology.

See, you think that people would fight political incorrectness. I think that they will ignore it. Maybe its a bit of both:

Calling a women a b*tch or a c*nt, that's roughly half the population

True. And people would fight. Which is, to my understanding, what you are stating. (That political incorrectness will be fought).


And I'd hope that the children would back up the oppressed Asian one, but you know that they'll see the teasing and probably join in. When people hate someone in your community, you're likely to start hating them too

I don't think teasing is a sign of hate towards the target. I believe that it is just a self defensive tool that is abused. The Asian child is not hated, but just easy to pick on. Not everyone is going to tease him, just the ones who want to make themselves feel higher or better than the Asian child. And because of the narcissistic traits that humans possess, we already think we are higher and better.

Then again, no one would really come in defense of the child. No one wants to be involved because it would hurt their status or make people think in a different way towards them.
The damage done here is very small.

We both are covering two different aspects of the debate. And now we have merged them together (which is good).

So maybe the bottom line is: The damage that political correctness brings varies by which group of people are affected?

 

[aeghrur]

I live in Texas, and yeah there's definitely still racism. I hear people talking about how my neighborhood is getting worse because it's "getting dark", and know several people who still refer to black people as "******s". It's more underground then before, and most people aren't racist, but it's still there.

Hey, you live in Texas? What town? I used to live in Arlington, xD went there for winter break. Lol, um, off topic.

Exactly, it's underground. It's basically shunned and looked down upon. With this, it will eventually die off. It just has no place, as people look at it as ignorant, illogical, and that it simply won't work. Look at prohibition, there still are prohibitionists, heck there's still a political party for that, but is it going to expand or grow? Nope. It's going to go down ever since the 19th amendment. Same thing is happening for racism, the nation is educating the kids about how wrongly people were treated back then, so racism will continue to decrease.

You have to realize that barely fifty years ago there were still governors refusing to let black kids into colleges, and not just legally but physically standing in front of the entrances to block them. Not just some hicks from the woods, but elected officials. And they'd win re-election by huge margins. This was the accepted idea. And these people are now many southern kids current grandparents. What they teach is spread down. It's not open, and now it's more against Mexicans then anything else and it's dying, but it's still around.

But the point is that it's dying. It's going to continue to die, but realize it never will completely die off. Why are we trying to rush this process so much by looking for it everywhere possible? Can't we just be content with the process that's going on today? After all, there's nothing wrong with patience.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Hey, you live in Texas? What town? I used to live in Arlington, xD went there for winter break. Lol, um, off topic.

Exactly, it's underground. It's basically shunned and looked down upon. With this, it will eventually die off. It just has no place, as people look at it as ignorant, illogical, and that it simply won't work. Look at prohibition, there still are prohibitionists, heck there's still a political party for that, but is it going to expand or grow? Nope. It's going to go down ever since the 19th amendment. Same thing is happening for racism, the nation is educating the kids about how wrongly people were treated back then, so racism will continue to decrease.



But the point is that it's dying. It's going to continue to die, but realize it never will completely die off. Why are we trying to rush this process so much by looking for it everywhere possible? Can't we just be content with the process that's going on today? After all, there's nothing wrong with patience.

But no matter what, there will always be political incorrectness. Everyone is different in some way, and that thing that makes us different is up for grabs by others.

 

[Deleted member]

Racism will never die. Certain stereotypes are made for survival, which is our #1 primal concern.

 

[aeghrur]

But no matter what, there will always be political incorrectness. Everyone is different in some way, and that thing that makes us different is up for grabs by others.

I completely agree with that as well, lol.
That's why I say striving for perfection by trying to squeeze away every ounce of racism is a waste of time.

 

[Aorist]

So, because you think it's impossible to abolish it completely, we shouldn't even try to minimise it?

 

[Aesir]

So, because you think it's impossible to abolish it completely, we shouldn't even try to minimise it?

No he's asking you to be pragmatic, you'll never get rid of it but you should make it less of an issue.

We can't legislate how people think, what we can do is punish institutions that are discriminatory. Whether that's through legislation or through grass roots movements such as boycotting, protesting, ect..

Many people seem to forget that we live in a "free" society. if someone says something that is very discriminatory he risks losing his public image. Public perception is very powerful.

 

[ArcPoint]

Technically, Smith had the right to call Nader out on it because Smith has the right to say pretty much anything he wants under the first amendment.

Technicalities aside, Aesir seems to have it. When addressing a group, I can legally call them whatever I want, and some things that are obviously vulgar and insulting won't exactly help my public image, so (unless I don't care about my public image) it's in my best interest to not say anything offensive. Well, what's offensive? What people decide? What happens when the group in question decides that something is now offensive? You are now no longer allowed to use the word to address them?

What you guys are doing is analysing the situation from the viewpoint of the oppressors, not the oppressed. Now, don't get all righteously indignant and say "But Aorist, I'm not oppressing anybody!". Thing is, you are. Minority groups, the groups that are the victims of the -isms, they're the ones that are requiring political correctness. The minorities are as such because they experience societal oppression. It's harder for homosexuals, black people, women, the mentally handicapped, etc to do a huge variety of things than it is for those who aren't in a minority group. You are part of a society that allows this to occur, and practically encourages in practice, even if there are overtones of equality. By not fighting against it, you're part of a system that oppresses. Every time a non-minorital person reaps a benefit as part of society over a minorital person, they're contributing to that oppression, even if they don't want to.

If you're mentally handicapped, it's rather difficult to succeed, not due to society, due to the handicap.

That aside, what about black or gay people that succeed? Was it PC that allowed them to succeed? Without PC would they have been doomed failures, needing Welfare and Unemployment benefits? Are we being oppressive by merely calling them names? Or are we being oppressive by being LEGITIMATELY DISCRIMINATING against them? (IE, not allowing them into a job FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE that they are in <insert minority group here>).

If I succeed in life, how am I oppressing anyone else? How am I, individually hindering someone else from succeeding? Unless of course, I'm an employer and actually discriminating against people for the sole purpose that they're in a minority group, which should be fought against. But I fail to see how political correctness helps in this.

Okay, you got that? As a member of an oppressive society, you contribute to the oppression and are thus an oppressor, even if you're really a nice guy and all. It's not pretty, but it's a fact.

AS A MERE MEMBER OF SOCIETY, I am oppressing? So each and every member of society that hasn't fought discrimination is oppressing? What if I'm just looking down on it? I'm technically fighting discrimination, so thus I'm not an oppressor? Or am I?

Now. As a right-minded member of society, you should seek to minimise that oppression. If this means using different words to normal, so what? Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed. People using words that are demeaning - that aren't politically correct, are influencing society to be less accepting of minorities. By actively being politically correct, you reduce that oppression.

Of course we should seek to minimize oppression, but WHAT effect do we have MERELY by saying nicer words? What happens if I'm not PC but still helping to fight the cause? Am I oppressing people of African descent when I call them black? You use the word demeaning and politically correct as though they are synonyms. I can be not politically correct and not be demeaning. Calling someone black isn't demeaning, just like calling someone white over European American isn't oppressing.

What people do is oppressing, not what people say. If the world were silent, minorities could still be oppressed.

 

[Darxmarth23]

So, because you think it's impossible to abolish it completely, we shouldn't even try to minimise it?

Minimization will not really happen. There is no true way to engrave it into the human brain that everyone is equal. Its one of our narcissistic qualities.

The only way everyone could be equal is if we are all the same skin color. As the Human race, we would be equal to one another. But then again, you would have feminism and all that. That is another trigger of political incorrectness.

 

[Aorist]

Well, what's offensive? What people decide? What happens when the group in question decides that something is now offensive? You are now no longer allowed to use the word to address them?

Right, in order:
1) Anything that the subject of the offense says is.
2) The people who are going to be offended by it.
3) This is the only way it should happen.
4)Correctamundo.

If you're mentally handicapped, it's rather difficult to succeed, not due to society, due to the handicap.

Yes, but even in things where their mental handicap does not affect them, they are still discriminated against.

That aside, what about black or gay people that succeed? Was it PC that allowed them to succeed? Without PC would they have been doomed failures, needing Welfare and Unemployment benefits? Are we being oppressive by merely calling them names? Or are we being oppressive by being LEGITIMATELY DISCRIMINATING against them? (IE, not allowing them into a job FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE that they are in <insert minority group here>).

In order again:
1) Yeah, I never said it was impossible for them to succeed, merely harder.
2) I imagine it would have contributed somewhat
3) Of course not, see 1.
4) Yes. Even non-physical discrimination can have severe psychological effects. Verbal abuse and being treated poorly have great effect on the psyche. I don't even need to provide a source for that, but I will anyway.(SOURCE)
5) Please, please define "legitimate discrimination". I want to see this. Extra points if you try and get angry at affirmative action.

Right, I could go on and individually attack everything. But I won't. I'm going to just say it right here. This will be the important part of this post.

Important part of This Post

D'you think discrimination just comes out of nowhere? Of course it doesn't. If everyone in the world woke up tomorrow without any memories, I doubt there'd be much discrimination at all. Discrimination is primarily societal. You discriminate against black people or gay people because your parents did, or your pastor tells you to, or because your friends think it's cool, or even just because the things that you read often portray black people in a negative light, or otherise gay people.

It's the attitudes of society that create discrimination, it's not magic. Now, if you live in a society where everybody's mother works in the kitchen and laundry all day, the women in the books you read and the shows you watch always have women as useless characters, so on and so forth, you will unconsciously view that as being the right place for women to be.

It's not hard to see that if you discriminate against people with the words that you use, you are encouraging a society for people in which those people are discriminated against. It is this that we try and stop with Political Correctness.

Minimization will not really happen. There is no true way to engrave it into the human brain that everyone is equal. Its one of our narcissistic qualities.

[[Citation Needed]]

But then again, you would have feminism and all that. That is another trigger of political incorrectness.

What do you mean by this? I'm not understanding

 

[Darxmarth23]

What do you mean by this? I'm not understanding

Like, even if we somehow get rid of racism, we still have feminism to deal with for political correctness.

The only way you can totally eliminate political incorrectness is to have everyone be the same race, gender, age, and level of intellect.

 

[aeghrur]

Exactly Darx, discrimination is not caused by nurture, only specific ideals behind discrimination.
Discrimination, which by definition means "to make a distinction" is caused by differences.
So, if we forgot all memories, we would still discriminate such that, that black man has different color skin from me or that white man looks different than that asian man there. That's discrimination, and it will happen. If I met a mentally ******** person, I'd probably discriminate and say he does not seem to be of equal education than the rest of the populous. Thus, Aorist, discrimination will always be there and trying to get rid of it is futile. With this discrimination, we, the arrogant creatures that we are, will begin to believe one ethnicity is better than another. So, just by human nature, we can see that discrimination will always be there, it is natural, so trying to eliminate it is a waste, and letting it minimize itself like right now is good enough. =/

 

[Aorist]

Like, even if we somehow get rid of racism, we still have feminism to deal with for political correctness.

The only way you can totally eliminate political incorrectness is to have everyone be the same race, gender, age, and level of intellect.

Right, first off, slight pet peeve. Feminism is the movement that fights against sexual prejudice and discrimination. If we "deal with" feminism, you'll increase discrimination. The word you're looking for is sexism.

And you aren't providing any sources for your ideas. Please, it will make argumentation easier than just flat-out saying these things as though they are fact.

Do you discriminate against people because of hair colour? How about eye colour? Face shape? Why are you positing that it is human nature to discriminate against race, gender, age and so on, but not other things? Surely if you're making a distinction like that, there must be some quality that, say, skin colour has that hair colour does not?

From now on I'm just going to slap "[[Citation Needed]]" on stuff.

Exactly Darx, discrimination is not caused by nurture, only specific ideals behind discrimination.

Where in Darx's post did he claim that discrimination is not due to the environment of people?

Discrimination, which by definition means "to make a distinction" is caused by differences.

You're being facetious. According to the OED:

discriminate

/diskrimminayt/

• verb
1 recognize a distinction.
2 make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

Of course I'm not getting angry at recognising a distinction. I'm not going to start a rights group for the blue blocks that were unfortunately segregated from the red blocks. There's not going to be a protest about the classification of animals. The pertinent part of the definition is the second. Therefore, everything that you have said in the quote block quoted below is trivial.

So, if we forgot all memories, we would still discriminate such that, that black man has different color skin from me or that white man looks different than that asian man there. That's discrimination, and it will happen. If I met a mentally ******** person, I'd probably discriminate and say he does not seem to be of equal education than the rest of the populous. Thus, Aorist, discrimination will always be there and trying to get rid of it is futile.

With this discrimination, we, the arrogant creatures that we are, will begin to believe one ethnicity is better than another.

[[Citation Needed]]

Explain to me just what qualities a trait has to have in order for it to be human nature to "make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people". Clearly there must be some trait that certain qualities such as gender, age, intelligence and skin colour have that hair colour, accent, face shape and so on do not, as we do not discriminate against them.

After you have done that, please explain exactly what is it about the quality of the trait that makes it human nature to discriminate against it. Then, it would be nice if you could provide a source that corroborates your argument. You don't have to, though, as I'll admit that I did not, but everything I said was common sense. I don't see "human are inherently discriminatory" as being common sense.

Only after you have done the above will we be able to argue properly and intellectually.

So, just by human nature, we can see that discrimination will always be there, it is natural, so trying to eliminate it is a waste, and letting it minimize itself like right now is good enough. =/

What is your point, in relation to political correctness?