Should Al Franken Resign?

[carpedm9587]

I don't get what you're saying here. I am accusing you of redefining words again (and apparently I'm not the only one). What does that have to do with taking the view as a whole?

I don't get what this bit about Trump has to do with your redefinition of the word "PC". First of all, I want to be clear, I think Trump is a terrible person, and I think it's unfortunate that he's the President of the US. I certainly didn't vote for him, so if you're thinking I'm one of the ones who would praise him, have a second thought. Second of all, you keep implying that being labeled not PC and being boorish are mutually exclusive. They're not. In fact, they're often inclusive. Trump can be both not PC and also boorish. I readily suggest that he is.

I think what you are missing is that I am not redefining the word PC - I am saying that the word is being redefined by our modern society and is currently being used to simply convey "I don't want to hear that" or "I don't want to consider that." PC has become the universal dismissal. We don't have to look at it - because it's just being "PC."

What are you talking about? What does TWeb's terms of service have to do with providing a quote from someone who labeled "Jesus of Nazareth as an oath", or "swearing using the name of god" PC. There's nothing in TWeb's term of services that would prevent you from providing that. That said, I'm calling your bluff. I think that you can't provide such a quote because it doesn't exist. If that's questioning your ethics then...sorry.

OK. I thought it was against the terms of service and was avoiding the language out of respect - but if it's not... when a young man in my scout troop would cut themselves, or burn themselves, or struggle with something, I would occasionally catch then shouting or muttering "Jesus H. Christ!" or "I burned my god damn finger!" Sometimes that language is used by adults in groups I am in. When I call people on it, I am fairly commonly accused of being "politically correct." Why? Because a position of "please do not treat other people's cherished beliefs so disrespectfully" is PC, of course. If I suggest that, in this age of gender sensitivity, shifting our language from "ladies" or "gentlemen" to "folks" is not too much to ask, I am labeled "politically correct," especially by people on the right (who aren't really down with this whole gender issue). When I suggest that abandoning he/she/him/her is a little over the top, I am labelled "NOT PC" by those who want me to use that language.

I repeat - in our modern society - PC has come to mean the boundary between what we think is important and what we think is not - and each person has their own boundary. The term has become largely meaningless, and is too often used to excuse what (IMO) should be inexcusable.

Like I mentioned in the previous post, this sounds more like a personal issue than an objective observation.

You are free to make your assumptions, Adrift.

[Cow Poke]

I'm saying on man's tomato is another man's tomahto. Truly being "PC" - so microscopically focused on using the right language so as not to offend ANYONE - is not how the term is used anymore, at least not in my experience and not based on what I see around me locally, regionally, or nationally. Even in my trip across the country last year, passing through all sorts of locations and engaging in conversations with people in Montana, North Dakota, Illinois, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Idaho, and several other states - I found people objecting to things as "PC" that were simple politeness - and applauding as "not PC" things that were just rudenesses - including many things Trump said and did. I could list examples - but somehow I don't think it would make much difference.

Did you ever consider the possibility that it might have something to do with the way you interact with people?

[Zymologist]

I think what you are missing is that I am not redefining the word PC - I am saying that the word is being redefined by our modern society and is currently being used to simply convey "I don't want to hear that" or "I don't want to consider that." PC has become the universal dismissal. We don't have to look at it - because it's just being "PC."



OK. I thought it was against the terms of service - but if it's not... when a young man in my scout troop would cut themselves, or burn themselves, or struggle with them, I would occasionally catch then shouting or muttering "Jesus H. Christ!" or "I burned my god damn finger!" Sometimes that language is used by adults in groups I am in. When I call people on it, I am fairly commonly accused of being "politically correct." Why? Because a position of "please do not treat other people's cherished beliefs so disrespectfully" is PC, of course. If I suggest that, in this age of gender sensitivity, shifting our language from "ladies" or "gentlemen" to "folks: is not too much to ask, I am labeled "politically correct," espeecially by people on the right (who aren't really down with this who gender issue). When I suggest that abandoning he/she/him/her is a little over the top, I am labelled "NOT PC" by those who want me to use that language.

I repeat - in our modern society - PC has come to mean the boundary between what we think is important and what we think is not - and each person has their own boundary. The term has become largely meaningless.



You are free to make your assumptions, Adrift.

I think quotes like these are acceptable, because you're discussing them in an academic fashion. A green or red may override me, though.

[carpedm9587]

For the bolded: would you say that words like "racist" and "Nazi" have gotten to the same point?

I think the left jumps on "racist" FAR too quickly. I have a mixed race family. We adopted both of my boys and they are both black. As we were working our way through the school system, it was a constant challenge to sort out "stuff kids say" from "true racism." Kids pick on each other for differences all the time. So, if a child is picking on my son for his black skin in the same vein as they might pick on someone for having red hair, freckles, or a funny nose, then I want to address it as such. It's still teasing, it's still pointing out difference, it's still harmful, but it's not racism. It just happens to be about race.

Likewise, when the right engages in policies (like the voterID discussion of another thread) that has disproportionate impact on minorities, it is not "racist" unless the INTENT is to disenfranchise a race. If the intent is to gain leverage at the polls, that is still an issue to be addressed - but it does not deserve to be called racist. I know of very few instances where someone in office was truly, demonstrably "racist," and I don't personally know a lot of racist people. I know they're out there, but I seldom encounter them. Thus far, no one I have met here strikes me as "racist," though many hold positions I see as disproportionately harmful to minorities. I do not think that is their intent or objective, however.

Unfortunately - there is intent and there are optics. When members of the right are regularly coming to the defense of truly racist people (e.g., Milo Yiannopoulos, David Duke, etc.), they just make matters worse. Do these people have a right to speak? Absolutely - much as I revile their message. Do they deserve our support? Absolutely not. If asked, I will absolutely assert their right to free speech. But I am not going to go out of my way to defend them.

Same, in general, for "Nazi."

[carpedm9587]

Did you ever consider the possibility that it might have something to do with the way you interact with people?

Nah. I'm a sweety and beloved by all

Surely you know that...?

[Adrift]

I think what you are missing is that I am not redefining the word PC - I am saying that the word is being redefined by our modern society and is currently being used to simply convey "I don't want to hear that" or "I don't want to consider that." PC has become the universal dismissal. We don't have to look at it - because it's just being "PC."

It isn't. At least, not nearly to the level you're asserting it is.

OK. I thought it was against the terms of service and was avoiding the language out of respect - but if it's not... when a young man in my scout troop would cut themselves, or burn themselves, or struggle with something, I would occasionally catch then shouting or muttering "Jesus H. Christ!" or "I burned my god damn finger!" Sometimes that language is used by adults in groups I am in. When I call people on it, I am fairly commonly accused of being "politically correct." Why? Because a position of "please do not treat other people's cherished beliefs so disrespectfully" is PC, of course.

carpe, I know what it is to use the Lord's name in vain. I'm not asking you what that is. I'm asking you to provide proof that people think it's politically correct to tell them not to do so. I don't believe your story. I think you're either misremembering it, or you're making it up. Furthermore, you made it sound like this was a relatively common thing, "Some think it is 'politically correct' of you to want people to not use the name of Jesus of Nazareth as an oath, or to swear using the name of god." People do not think that. At least, no one I've ever met.

If I suggest that, in this age of gender sensitivity, shifting our language from "ladies" or "gentlemen" to "folks" is not too much to ask, I am labeled "politically correct," especially by people on the right (who aren't really down with this whole gender issue). When I suggest that abandoning he/she/him/her is a little over the top, I am labelled "NOT PC" by those who want me to use that language.

But...that is PC. That's practically the definition of PC. There really isn't a better example. The people who are telling you it's not PC are lying to you, or you're making them up. I don't know what to believe anymore.

I repeat - in our modern society - PC has come to mean the boundary between what we think is important and what we think is not - and each person has their own boundary. The term has become largely meaningless, and is too often used to excuse what (IMO) should be inexcusable.

I don't think that's the case for most people. If you're being called PC relatively often (as it sounds you are), then I can see why you'd feel some sensitivity about it, and make up this idea.

You are free to make your assumptions, Adrift.

I will, and I have.

[carpedm9587]

It isn't. At least, not nearly to the level you're asserting it is.

As you wish

carpe, I know what it is to use the Lord's name in vain. I'm not asking you what that is. I'm asking you to provide proof that people think it's politically correct to tell them not to do so. I don't believe your story. I think you're either misremembering it, or you're making it up. Furthermore, you made it sound like this was a relatively common thing, "Some think it is 'politically correct' of you to want people to not use the name of Jesus of Nazareth as an oath, or to swear using the name of god." People do not think that. At least, no one I've ever met.

Short of introducing you to the people involved, I have no clue how to "prove" my experiences to you, Adrift. You will believe what you will believe about me, and there is not much I can do about it. It doesn't alter the experiences. But if you don't accept my word...so be it.

But...that is PC. That's practically the definition of PC. There really isn't a better example. The people who are telling you it's not PC are lying to you, or you're making them up. I don't know what to believe anymore.

Umm... it's PC and not PC to you, apparently. The bounds of what is and is not PC, in my experience, shift from person to person. What is PC to one is NOT PC to another. What is NOT PC to one is PC to another. And, lately, as I have noted, it has become a dismissive mantra by the right to either write off what they don't want to be bothered with - or to excuse what they want to excuse. As I noted, the applaud for Trump not being "PC" is used as an excuse for his bullying and rude behavior.

I have come to simply ignore the term as meaningless for the most part. It has simply become a convenient dismissal.

I don't think that's the case for most people. If you're being called PC relatively often (as it sounds you are), then I can see why you'd feel some sensitivity about it, and make up this idea.

I'm actually not sensitive about it, in the least. And I am not commonly called it. I'm not complaining about how I am being treated. I'm not whining about it. I'm simply expressing that I find the word useless these days - and a cover people hide behind, or a hammer people use, to simply dismiss what they don't want to look at or affirm what they think is important. The whole, "I'm tired of this PC stuff" is pointless, IMO. I get that you disagree. I get that my POV is apparently bothering you. I'm not sure what I can say/do about that.

I will, and I have.

That much is clear. I cannot control what people think about me, Adrift. I can only control what I say and do. I am comfortable that I am recounting my experiences accurately, and accurately reflecting my impression of our larger society, which is based on fairly extensive travel around the country. That you do not believe me is not something I can control.

[carpedm9587]

I think quotes like these are acceptable, because you're discussing them in an academic fashion. A green or red may override me, though.

What on earth is a "green" or "red?" And what color are you?

[Adrift]

Short of introducing you to the people involved, I have no clue how to "prove" my experiences to you, Adrift. You will believe what you will believe about me, and there is not much I can do about it. It doesn't alter the expeiences. But if you don't accept my word...so be it.

Okay, so no quotes from anyone to back you on this. Fair enough. So then, you're at least admitting that this is not at all a common thing. Limited mostly to an incident(s) you claim to have had.

Umm... it's PC and not PC to you, apparently. The bounds of what is and is not PC, in my experience, shift from person to person. What is PC to one is NOT PC to another. What is NOT PC to one is PC to another.

And I'm telling you that, generally speaking, this view of yours is not correct. Most people have a relatively good idea what's considered "politically correct".

And, lately, as I have noted, it has become a dismissive mantra by the right to either write off what they don't want to be bothered with - or to excuse what they want to excuse.

So what if it's a mantra the right sometimes use to write something off? That doesn't mean it isn't still "politically correct". Your issue then isn't that "PC is something different to all people", it's, "the right should take PC ideas more seriously".

As I noted, the applaud for Trump not being "PC" is used as an excuse for his bullying and rude behavior.

Again, so what? Your issue then isn't that "PC means something different to people on the right than it does people on the left", it's "Trump is a bully, and the right needs to stop making excuses for him", which is an entirely different discussion. I agree with you that Trump is a bully. I also agree that he's not PC. I don't think these are unpopular views even among those on the right.

I have come to simply ignore the term as meaningless for the most part. It has simply become a convenient dismissal.

Well, I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to people using it as a term with meaning (especially on this forum). Most people find it a meaningful phrase, and for good reason.

I'm actually not sensitive about it, in the least. And I am not commonly called it. I'm not complaining about how I am being treated. I'm not whining about it.

I'm simply expressing that I find the word useless these days - and a cover people hide behind, or a hammer people use, to simply dismiss what they don't want to look at or affirm what they think is important. The whole, "I'm tired of this PC stuff" is pointless, IMO. I get that you disagree. I get that my POV is apparently bothering you. I'm not sure what I can say/do about that.

Ok, I have an idea about something you could do. Would you stop posting things like "'PC' has become the umbrella dismissal for 'something I don't want to hear.'" That's a silly thing to say, since it's not universally true, or even commonly true.

That much is clear. I cannot control what people think about me, Adrift. I can only control what I say and do. I am comfortable that I am recounting my experiences accurately, and accurately reflecting my impression of our larger society, which is based on fairly extensive travel around the country. That you do not believe me is not something I can control.

Yeah, well you're not really leaving much choice carpe. In my opinion, your recounted experiences strain credibility. They don't mirror reality as I'm familiar with it, and I don't think I'm alone in that (though I could be wrong). For the record, I too am well traveled. Never in all my years have I heard people say the things you're claiming they say with some regularity.

[Adrift]

What on earth is a "green" or "red?" And what color are you?

Types of mods. He's a blue.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, so no quotes from anyone to back you on this. Fair enough. So then, you're at least admitting that this is not at all a common thing. Limited mostly to an incident(s) you claim to have had.

And I'm telling you that, generally speaking, this view of yours is not correct. Most people have a relatively good idea what's considered "politically correct".

So what if it's a mantra the right sometimes use to write something off? That doesn't mean it isn't still "politically correct". Your issue then isn't that "PC is something different to all people", it's, "the right should take PC ideas more seriously".

Again, so what? Your issue then isn't that "PC means something different to people on the right than it does people on the left", it's "Trump is a bully, and the right needs to stop making excuses for him", which is an entirely different discussion. I agree with you that Trump is a bully. I also agree that he's not PC. I don't think these are unpopular views even among those on the right.

Well, I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to people using it as a term with meaning (especially on this forum). Most people find it a meaningful phrase, and for good reason.



Ok, I have an idea about something you could do. Would you stop posting things things like "'PC' has become the umbrella dismissal for 'something I don't want to hear.'" That's a silly thing to say, since it's not universally true, or even commonly true.

Yeah, well you're not really leaving much choice carpe. In my opinion, your recounted experiences strain credibility. They don't mirror reality as I'm familiar with it, and I don't think I'm alone in that (though I could be wrong). For the record, I too and well traveled. Never in all my years have I heard people say the things you're claiming they say with some regularity.

I have to admit to being curious as to why this is such a major issue for you that it merits all of this exchange. I made a simple observation concerning my opinion of the use of PC in both my personal experience (local, travel) and on a regional/national basis (how I see it being used politically). You're certainly welcome to disagree if you wish. But why all of this fuss and why call into question my honesty?

Just say you don't agree and be done with it. This just seems like a lot of ado about something fairly minor.

[carpedm9587]

Types of mods. He's a blue.

So do the colors have a significance?

[Adrift]

I have to admit to being curious as to why this is such a major issue for you that it merits all of this exchange.

I'm pretty sure you've gone off on this PC tangent a few times recently. That's pretty much what struck my initial interest. Why is it such a major issue for me? I suppose it comes down to my love of truth. But I suppose I could ask you the same, why is it such a major issue for you that it's merited so much exchange?

I made a simple observation concerning my opinion of the use of PC in both my personal experience (local, travel) and on a regional/national basis (how I see it being used politically). You're certainly welcome to disagree if you wish. But why all of this fuss and why call into question my honesty?

I gave you my reason, "In my opinion, your recounted experiences strain credibility. They don't mirror reality as I'm familiar with it, and I don't think I'm alone in that (though I could be wrong). For the record, I too am well traveled. Never in all my years have I heard people say the things you're claiming they say with some regularity."

Just say you don't agree and be done with it. This just seems like a lot of ado about something fairly minor.

You realize you could have done the same at any point, right?

[MaxVel]

I think the left jumps on "racist" FAR too quickly. I have a mixed race family. We adopted both of my boys and they are both black. As we were working our way through the school system, it was a constant challenge to sort out "stuff kids say" from "true racism." Kids pick on each other for differences all the time. So, if a child is picking on my son for his black skin in the same vein as they might pick on someone for having red hair, freckles, or a funny nose, then I want to address it as such. It's still teasing, it's still pointing out difference, it's still harmful, but it's not racism. It just happens to be about race.

Likewise, when the right engages in policies (like the voterID discussion of another thread) that has disproportionate impact on minorities, it is not "racist" unless the INTENT is to disenfranchise a race. If the intent is to gain leverage at the polls, that is still an issue to be addressed - but it does not deserve to be called racist. I know of very few instances where someone in office was truly, demonstrably "racist," and I don't personally know a lot of racist people. I know they're out there, but I seldom encounter them. Thus far, no one I have met here strikes me as "racist," though many hold positions I see as disproportionately harmful to minorities. I do not think that is their intent or objective, however.

Unfortunately - there is intent and there are optics. When members of the right are regularly coming to the defense of truly racist people (e.g., Milo Yiannopoulos, David Duke, etc.), they just make matters worse. Do these people have a right to speak? Absolutely - much as I revile their message. Do they deserve our support? Absolutely not. If asked, I will absolutely assert their right to free speech. But I am not going to go out of my way to defend them.

Same, in general, for "Nazi."

Milo is racist?

Got any quotes (with context) to support that?

You do know that he's in a relationship with a black man, right? I think the 'Milo is racist' accusation is an attempt by some on the left to disqualify anything he might say without actually addressing it. Which is what you say you reject.

[Adrift]

So do the colors have a significance?

Yep, just like on the old forum, they designate the moderation hierarchy. There used to be a FAQ or thread or something on it, but I can't find it now.