No you're spot on. Nowadays everybody is "offended" by this that and the other thing. Instead of the white comment, whatever it was, being looked at for the compliment it was intended to be, it all of a sudden is an offensive strike against all non-whites.
Banned?
- Thread starter mechanicJT
- Start date
No you're spot on. Nowadays everybody is "offended" by this that and the other thing. Instead of the white comment, whatever it was, being looked at for the compliment it was intended to be, it all of a sudden is an offensive strike against all non-whites.
Another great post. The true minority is the individual, who does his own thing and makes his own way.
I must respectively disagree. The whole Politically Correct accusation is a weak deflect from what is really going on; it is faux victimization. Words have power because the speaker intends them to have power. When Ali said in response to a reporter's question about whether he was going to Viet Nam: "No Viet Cong ever called me Nigger," it was powerful precisely because of the intent of the word. Ali said simply and succinctly, Why would I fight for the same system which dehumanizes and degrades me with the use of pejorative words intended to mean that I am less than human." He was not being overly sensitive. When MLK used children as a metaphor, he tapped into the very basic element of humanity, which are children playing without the hangups of their parents accumulated hundreds of years of racism and bigotry. That image was so powerful and universal. It struck to the heart of the whole debate, which is some day, I hope that you will see my children as real people that you will allow your children to play with, go to school with, share a meal with. It was not about a law or the right to drink from the same water fountain. It was the most basic dream of every parent, surely you don't think my very children are unworthy, less than human. He intended to use those words and they had power precisely because of the language chosen.
An accusation of politically correct is a very aggressive way of saying to folks that have undergone significant dehumanization; "Fuck you, get over it." Calling something lame, gay, goes right to the heart of centuries of discrimination against gays. Discrimination that involved death, ridicule and lesser rights--even today. if you are gay in many Arab countries, then they can put you to death. The leading church of christians, by population, still declares you a grave sinner unworthy of salvation--and most evangelicals feel the same and work actively against gay interests. Homo, fag, and the like aren't stray words. They have power because they were used clearly and precisely to dehumanize the powerless for centuries. To make them seem sub human. It is a way of saying that these folks are not real people, they are something less; and if you like something that is "gay," then you are something less as well. Now, what you are saying as someone who has not been subjected to similar degradation; "hey I've gotten over it, fuck you, you're bumming me out and pissing on my fun, get over it too." But you never really had anything to "get over." Then the accuser who cries politically correct attempts to make a moral equivalency argument. Hey, we've all been discriminated against and had to get over it, these folks who still react to the very language used to dehumanize them are just whiners.
Sure, you may not mean the words to be dehumanizing, but that is what the words are. The context for lame as being gay is based upon the context that being gay is unworthy. . . otherwise it has no context. Yes, I think that there are some groups that need to get over it. I would start with all the white men with European roots that want to whine about the discrimination that their great grandparents experienced when they immigrated over in the 19th century. I think that gays still battling discrimination might be afforded a bit longer to be sensitive, as do blacks who still live in substandard housing and watched their white neighbors throw up for sale signs ten minutes after they moved into the new neighborhood, thinks that still occur today and certainly occurred within their parents generation. I'm reluctant to tell them that they need to lighten up a bit. I'm also more likely to cut folks whose grandparents had number tattoos on and narrowly escaped gassing and cremation a bit of slack.
What you are giving me are examples of smart people using political correctness to their advantage because of the power we have given language and its ability to manipulate crowds. That is very disturbing considering we live in a democracy where its the idiotic majority vote that counts, and the point I am trying to make. Something as simple and insignificant as words give people the power to control a nation because people are caught up on words.
Remember guys it's you members who ban people not the mods. We got better things to do than go around banning people . When you members report a post as being bad, spam, nasty or whatever then we show up and try to calm things down. Sometimes it works; sometimes not. If you the members don't report a post with that little red flag thingy then the only time we would find out if something was bad would be by going on the thread accidentaly. There are more than enough threads to read on here so the odds of us finding a thread where people are killing each other really is quite small. We just want people to be nice to each other and treat others and their points of view like they themselves want to be treated!
JonPop
Retired Sr. Administrator , PEGym Hero
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 16,754
- Reaction score
- 482
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Reunited with his dear wife Holly.
I think what Cusp meant when he said "Little red flag thingy," is the triangle with the line in it.
kingpole
Retired Moderator, PEGym Hero
All peoeple are worthy of salvation. Only religous people say the opposite is true. Sodom and Gomorah did not get destroyed because they were all sodomizing each other. It is because they neglected the fatherless, the widow and the poor. They were selfish. Read your Bible people.
Exactly. On one side were people with guns, money and power; on the other were people with the power of language and the spoken word. Are you saying that the people who used language somehow had an unfair advantage? And what does political correctness mean in this context? Isn't it a request not to use specific language targeted to injure and dehumanize specific groups of people who have a long historical history of being the object of deliberate harmful conduct--justified on the basis that they are less than human.
The alternative is a dictatorship where the self interested minority make the rules and the majority goes along. I find that a bit more disturbing.
I must confess that I am missing the point you are trying to make. It appears that you are frightened of people with no real power aside from their ability to persuade others through compelling language; and advocating a political system where the enlightened elite make the decisions on behalf of the majority. If that is the point you are trying to make, it does not appear compelling.
Yes, the power of ideas and language can sometimes be more powerful than guns, money, and political control; provided there is truth to the idea and the language used to express it.
I fail to see how people who have been the object of discrimination are controlling the nation. Nor do I see a significant infringement on the rights of the majority when they use language, social pressure, and faith in their ideas to persuade people that dehumanizing specific segments of the population is wrong. Indeed, the offensive language used was often the product of language, social pressure, and faith to persuade the majority of the population that a specific group was less than human and entitled to lesser rights.
As an aside, I understand the frustration of youth. For someone under age 30, 10 and 15 years seems like ancient history, and 30-50 years is classical archeology. From your perspective, why should you be saddled with a legacy of racism and discrimination that you arguably did nothing to encourage or advance--because it occurred even before you were born or a conscious adult? From where you are sitting, you never called anyone a pejorative term with the intent to dehumanize, why are they putting meanings on your words that you don't intend?
But on the other side of the debate are folks who did see the real issues play out in real time. I don't have to imagine widespread racism, if you grew up in any major city between 1965-1990, you watched your neighbors move out with haste at the mere sight of a black neighbor moving in; you watched people who were respected members in your community create elaborate ruse's to maintain all white swim clubs or separate schools. See these things go to the heart of humanity. A white neighbor can swear up and down he's not racist, but moving out and refusing to even let your kids swim, go to school, or live near a black person is a pretty powerful statement. To the black person, it says, you still not good enough. And given that more than half of the living African Americans living today where affected by this trend, saw it play out in real time, it is deeply personal. And this was up North where yellow buses and for sale signs were the subtle signs of entrenched racism, as opposed to burning crosses. Down south it was white hoods and "Concerned Citizen's Counsel's who were organized for the express purpose of fighting integration and civil rights laws. Sure affirmative action sucks for the majority interests that are affected, but the more shocking thing to the minority member is the fact that laws have to be passed to force the majority to even include them. The obscenity is not just the law, but the fact that laws are required to force one group to treat another group with humanity. The obscenity is that the greatest historical document in our nation's history, The Constitution, enshrines slavery and racism. God is not mentioned once in the original text, but provisions for counting slaves as less than a full person, and specifying that slaves remain slaves even if they escape to a free state are explicitly stated therein. The longest filibusters in the Senate history include two efforts to block introduction of civil rights legislation, and they occurred within the lifetime of most of the Americans living today, and they were still sitting as Senators within the past 10 years. I can drive you through huge swaths of most Northeastern and Midwestern Cities that were emptied out within the span of months in order to avoid school integration and busing--and the population moved to all white suburbs and schools. The Governor of Mississippi, of all places, just waxed nostalgically about Concerned Citizens Councils; and another Governor just declared that only christians were his brothers and sisters. A significant percentage of this country seriously questions the President's citizenship and believes that he is a muslim.
So, no. I am not seeing how political correctness is running amok and threatening the rights of the vast majority of this country. If the only right threatened is the right to call a minority person a pejorative term, then excuse me if I don't equate that right with the right to send children to adequate schools, marry folks of your choice, serve openly in the military, and have full equal rights. And no, the black family who bought a house in a mixed neighborhood, watched his white neighbors move out within months to whiter neighborhoods, and then watched funding and school conditions deteriorate rapidly, is probably not going to be amused by the expression: "that's mighty white of you," even if used in a comical or ironic context.
If you listen to many respected politicians today, they will tell you that the poor, widowed and fatherless brought it all on themselves and helping them is futile. I can't speak for the people of Sodom and Gomorah, but I can say that this country fought the deadliest war in its history to correct the sin of refusing to deal with slavery decisively in the Constitution. The country ripped itself apart and burned cities in the sixties to address the fact that the unfortunate legacy of slavery was not fully resolved during reconstruction. The country has imprisoned a significant percentage of African American males over the past twenty years because they were never integrated fully into the american economy. The children of those males grow up without fathers or any real support. Gay teens still kill themselves because they are not accepted and teased. I hope Phil's generation resolves the issue once and for all so that the next generations do not continue to pay for our sins.
Well you would make one hell of a politician 
how long did that speech take, must admit I am flattered you took so much time and effort in your reply.
The words used shouldnt matter, regardless of how pretty or offensive. Its the message that should matter. Certain people being able to manipulate full crowds or even races of people because they used a few certain words close to everyones hearts is ridiculous. Enforcing political correctness only gives people more power to manipulate. If I say the word Jew in reference to Jewish people I mean no offence, I am simply referring to a group of people, there is nothing wrong with being a Jew, honestly if you take offence at being called a Jew, my question to you is what problem do you have against Jews? Words only have the power we give them.
As for the other option of government being the way we have it or a minority dictatorship, well I hate to break it to you, but the government we have is a minority dictatorship. Give the people the illusion of power with a single vote, then manipulate the most amount of voters to get the most votes. The minority is not only the people intelligent enough to do it, but also the people willing to do anything to get into power. The system is geared towards hiding the truth which would have voters running scared.
Finally my point is simple. Pretty words, and offensive words, should not hold power over the meaning behind the message.
how long did that speech take, must admit I am flattered you took so much time and effort in your reply. The words used shouldnt matter, regardless of how pretty or offensive. Its the message that should matter. Certain people being able to manipulate full crowds or even races of people because they used a few certain words close to everyones hearts is ridiculous. Enforcing political correctness only gives people more power to manipulate. If I say the word Jew in reference to Jewish people I mean no offence, I am simply referring to a group of people, there is nothing wrong with being a Jew, honestly if you take offence at being called a Jew, my question to you is what problem do you have against Jews? Words only have the power we give them.
As for the other option of government being the way we have it or a minority dictatorship, well I hate to break it to you, but the government we have is a minority dictatorship. Give the people the illusion of power with a single vote, then manipulate the most amount of voters to get the most votes. The minority is not only the people intelligent enough to do it, but also the people willing to do anything to get into power. The system is geared towards hiding the truth which would have voters running scared.
Finally my point is simple. Pretty words, and offensive words, should not hold power over the meaning behind the message.
I hope you are being sarcastic. Here are the Southern State's Declaration of cause of secession Declaration of Causes of Secession. They all reference slavery and hostility to slavery as being the principle cause of secession: Some of the relevant parts were:
Here is Mississippi's statement of purpose:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "
Georgia's Statement of Secession is also all about slavery:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "
"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state."
"The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact."
"Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end.
"The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere"
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. "
"A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution."
So, let's look at the actual historical documents instead of the new internet theory of historical revisionism. The Constitution specifically permitted slavery, acknowledged that blacks and africans were ineligible for citizenship (would be counted as 3/5) and, required the return of escaped slaves. The Constitution could be amended by 3/4 of the states, including the provisions permitting slavery. The slave holding states seceded because the Northern non-slaveholding states were hostile to slavery and by admitting new territories as non-slaveholding states (hence the earlier Missouri Compromise) would soon have enough states and votes to amend the constitution to prohibit slavery. They slave states, including South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and others all stated explicitly that they were seceding because they wanted to protect their rights to continue the institution of slavery and were concerned that the admission of new non-slaveholding territories as states would cause the prohibition of slavery; in other words, they wanted to preempt the introduction of the Mexican and western territories as non-slaveholding states who then could vote together with the Northern states to amend the Constitution and abolish slavery.
See, we don't have to guess or speculate why the southern states seceded. We don't even have to debate whether it was about "state's rights" or anything else. The reason we don't have to debate it is because all of the southern states stated explicitly and clearly why they were seceding in written declarations of secession. And they were seceding to protect the institution of slavery from the inevitable expansion of the US into a 3/4 majority non-slave country which would have meant the lawful amendment of the constitution to prohibit. . . . . say it with me. . . . it's OK, it's all over the documents. . . . slavery. The civil war was fought because of the original sin of the Constitution which was not rectified but instead put off for a 100 years with a Faustian bargain. . . in order to reassure the southern states that slavery would not be abolished in the US. The state's rights they were concerned about was the amendment of the Constitution lawfully and properly to prohibit slavery with the introduction of new non slave holding states. In fact, that's why the Missouri Compromise was another delay tactic for addressing the logistical problem caused by US western territorial expansion into areas clearly unsuitable for slave labor.
Now you can tell me how the southern resistance to integration wasn't about integration but was about "state's rights." And that Concerned Citizen's Councils were just benevolent organizations designed to keep out the Klan.
Well you would make one hell of a politician
The words used shouldnt matter, regardless of how pretty or offensive. Its the message that should matter. Certain people being able to manipulate full crowds or even races of people because they used a few certain words close to everyones hearts is ridiculous. Enforcing political correctness only gives people more power to manipulate. If I say the word Jew in reference to Jewish people I mean no offence, I am simply referring to a group of people, there is nothing wrong with being a Jew, honestly if you take offence at being called a Jew, my question to you is what problem do you have against Jews? Words only have the power we give them.
If you refer to a Jewish individual as a Jew, I'm not sure that anyone would ever be offended. If you say that you are going to "jew" the price of something down; or use it as a slur to mean money grubber, cheap, tightwad; or sharp, then yes it is a slur. The expression has power because of its context. Most Jews would consider that context offensive because it has historical significance. As minorities in societies where the lending of money at interest was considered sinful and prohibited by the dominant religious authorities, (i.e. catholic europe and muslim middle east), Jews often facilitated financial transactions within those societies. As members of a religious group that was often forbidden by law to own land or engage in agriculture (which requires land), they often comprised a significant percentage of the merchant class. This is a delicate business where the courts are not secular and you need to collect or enforce a debt against members of the dominant religion. And it was the basis for a great deal of persecution once the majority had no interest in re-paying debts they couldn't pay.
Strange choice of words for someone worried about the power of language. The United States is in no way a minority dictatorship. Really, if you say things like this, it is a waste of time trying to even explain the political structure of the US government. Buy a civics or elementary history book and read about the balance of rights afforded by the US and most state constitutions.
Well, as I explained above, the same word can have multiple meanings. Jew in one context can be respectful and complimentary: David is a very observant Jew who takes the message of the Talmud to respect and honor everyone very seriously. In another context, it's a slur: David came in and complained about the cost of the car repair--man that guy is such a Jew. There are some words that have no real pretty meaning in any context, i.e. the n-word, fag, etc. Some have been coopted by the very minority group to supplant the original meaning but they are only inoffensive when used by that group. N-word with an "a" rather than e used by blacks; Queer when used by gays, etc.
Dsmall I expect you to be intelligent enough not play games with words. Subsitiute nigger for jew if need be, and we both know politics is both a joke and a game. Regardless of the "structure" it goes like this. Manipulate votes from voters to get into power. Why manipulate? Cause no one would elect on honest official if that official actually told the people what was necessary to run a country. However we are getting off track, my point was words are given to much power especially in todays world. Political correctness increases this power, and gives people just one more tool to manipulate voters.
I am beginning to suspect that phil and dsmall are married! You two guys sound like an old married couple bickering. You both have some good points ( and some not good ones too) but I'm going to make a suggestion to you both. Before some third party chimes in without reading all the previous posts ( and understanding them as well) why don't you guys continue this debate via pm's. You can still get your points across, call each other whatever names you want and we'll never know it, and this way someone doesn't come here, read 2 lines of one post, make an off handed comment that sets this whole thing out of control.You 2 guys are having a good debate so why not protect it! ( just let me know who wins!)
NP97
Retired ModeratorPEGym Hero
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,896
- Reaction score
- 211
- Points
- 0
