View Poll Results: Are you tired of Political Correctness?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Don't care one way or the other

    2 8.70%
  • I'm really tired of Political Correctness

    19 82.61%
  • Political Correctness is a good thing!

    2 8.70%
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 195

Thread: Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

  1. #21
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,036
    Amen (Given)
    6516
    Amen (Received)
    6340
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Yes, and the "acceptableness" of language or terminology or certain topics has long been governed by varying social norms. We use phrases like, "Well, I can't really discuss this in polite company", which is a recognition that there are accepted limitations one should not violate.

    Many years ago, I worked at a truck terminal where tractors and trailers were matched up for their journeys, and there was a large cafeteria where these truckers would eat or relax, waiting for their loads from dispatch. My job was to move tractors around the yard, but union rules required others to do the actual combining of tractors and trailers.

    One of my favorite things to do was to come into the cafeteria on my break, and truckers would have they Playboy and Penthouse magazines, and be telling their "colorful" stories and using foul language, but I would plop open my King James Bible onto the table, and open my lunch kit and just sit there. The "slickback" magazines would disappear, the language would clean up a bit..... truckers would be talking about their wives instead of their girlfriends....

    I really doubt that would work in this day and age. I'd probably be cussed out and run off.

    So, yeah, 'political correctness' may have begun with this recognition that we really need to be civil when we talk about the under-privileged or minorities or whatever --- but it has gotten WAY out of hand.

    I think that's actually something that helped elect Trump - that political correctness had gotten so out of hand, and he was slapping it down. Granted, he could well have gone too far - but at the time he was campaigning, it was getting really crazy.

    It really hit home to me when I saw comedians mock PC by attempting to tell a joke.... "There was this fat guy... no, sorry, can't say fat guy... there was this MIDGET... nope, can't... ok, so there was a black ... um... person of color... African-American..... no, um..... a JEW.... "

    It has just gotten absolutely insane.
    I'm ex-military, so, yeah...I get the truck driver analogy. Like you, I had/have my own (admittedly silly) way of corralling language. When people blaspheme Jesus or God in my presence I make a little joke about it. So people will say something like "Jesus Christ," and I'll humorlessly finish it with, "of latter-day saints." Or they'll say something like "GD it", and I'll teasingly correct them and say "gosh-darn it." I won't tell them to not use that language around me, but eventually they get the point that I'm not comfortable with that language in my own way. This works better than you'd think. I don't know how often my friends or co-workers find themselves either stopping half way, or quickly apologizing for their language. It's actually kinda cool. And if they don't get it, then I don't let myself get offended, and call them on it. I just know that's how people mindlessly talk. They don't usually know they might as well be dragging my mom's name through the mud when they use "Jesus Christ" as a swear word. They're just so culturally acclimated to it that it slips out of their mouths unthinkingly. And, honestly, I wouldn't want a government mandate that prevents people from talking that way (not that our modern secular government would ever institute such a thing).

    On Trump, yeah, I totally get your point there. I think he goes too far the other way though. The President of the United States calling people "loser" or other derogatory name on social media dirties the office that he holds. He ought to be above that, and not for any abstract or absurd reason, but because as Commander-in-Chief, tact and diplomacy should be guiding principles, and as the leader of America (and arguably the free world), he's a reflection of America and Western (and Christian) social mores as a whole. But that's how it goes with people. Whenever we see what we believe to be error, we seek to correct it, but we often go to the other extreme. It's hard for people to find the even-keeled middle. That's nothing new though. We see that going as far back as history records.

  2. Amen One Bad Pig amen'd this post.
  3. #22
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,609
    Amen (Given)
    1567
    Amen (Received)
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Right, many people claim to be for absolute freedom of speech. Few are in practice, and those who are I generally don't want to be around.
    I'm probably not for "absolute" freedom of speech, but I'm so close that you probably wouldn't want to be around me, say, on Facebook or IRL.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  4. #23
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,779
    Amen (Given)
    1060
    Amen (Received)
    17926
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Yes, and the "acceptableness" of language or terminology or certain topics has long been governed by varying social norms. We use phrases like, "Well, I can't really discuss this in polite company", which is a recognition that there are accepted limitations one should not violate.

    Many years ago, I worked at a truck terminal where tractors and trailers were matched up for their journeys, and there was a large cafeteria where these truckers would eat or relax, waiting for their loads from dispatch. My job was to move tractors around the yard, but union rules required others to do the actual combining of tractors and trailers.

    One of my favorite things to do was to come into the cafeteria on my break, and truckers would have they Playboy and Penthouse magazines, and be telling their "colorful" stories and using foul language, but I would plop open my King James Bible onto the table, and open my lunch kit and just sit there. The "slickback" magazines would disappear, the language would clean up a bit..... truckers would be talking about their wives instead of their girlfriends....

    I really doubt that would work in this day and age. I'd probably be cussed out and run off.

    So, yeah, 'political correctness' may have begun with this recognition that we really need to be civil when we talk about the under-privileged or minorities or whatever --- but it has gotten WAY out of hand.

    I think that's actually something that helped elect Trump - that political correctness had gotten so out of hand, and he was slapping it down. Granted, he could well have gone too far - but at the time he was campaigning, it was getting really crazy.

    It really hit home to me when I saw comedians mock PC by attempting to tell a joke.... "There was this fat guy... no, sorry, can't say fat guy... there was this MIDGET... nope, can't... ok, so there was a black ... um... person of color... African-American..... no, um..... a JEW.... "

    It has just gotten absolutely insane.

    Awhile back Jay Leno's wife was on TV having recently returned from a trip to Africa and in order to avoid saying "black" she described the black Africans as "African-American Africans."

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  5. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  6. #24
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,903
    Amen (Given)
    5197
    Amen (Received)
    3480
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post

    Awhile back Jay Leno's wife was on TV having recently returned from a trip to Africa and in order to avoid saying "black" she described the black Africans as "African-American Africans."
    She should have used the phrase "rich in melanin", or "African melaninaires".



  7. Amen Adrift, Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  8. #25
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,305
    Amen (Given)
    937
    Amen (Received)
    2844
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    I don't agree with this. Communities, religious institutions, work places, and the like have all had rules on what was considered acceptable or unacceptable speech for various reasons. I don't believe that political correctness was/is the same thing. Political correctness seemed to be the ideology that society at-large ought to talk and behave a certain way, that took into consideration the under-privileged, disadvantaged, and powerless.
    Yet Christian Conservatives, both in the US and in Denmark have done the same thing. Though they've used different words for it, but they've actively wanted television policed, as well as what sort of pictures can be shown in educational materials, what sort of things that can be discussed, tried to get art pieces removed from a museum, advocated for the return of blasphemy laws. And not just in the particular setting of a religious private school, but in public schools and in media outlets in general.

    Same with blasphemous speech, like you and Cow Poke went off on a thick paragraph about. And here's there's a bit of an irresistable parallel to what you call the Politically Correct view. Because as far as I know there are no laws that prevent people from saying politically incorrect things, there's just them being shamed and criticized for it.

    You have a point that people don't like that, and society will swing the other way. The Simpsons for instance was a response to that, showing a dysfunctional family, instead of the Brady Bunch, and people loved it because of that. Mostly I think because reality isn't so utterly sanitized as television had become at that point.

    On the topic of 4Chan; That website is populated with both children, and man-children. They're not really a reflection of society with free-speech taken to it's extreme, than they are the grubby, Doritos-eating, Mountain Dew-chuggin, anime/video game-obsessed, unwashed masses living in their mom's basement. They represent Peter Pan syndrome taken to it's extreme under the veil of total and utter anonymity. And even that website has censorship (it's not very broad, but it's there). If larger society had even an inkling how degenerate and childishly stupid that website was, they'd be horrified. So, no, it's not really an accurate representation of "free speech" in society.
    This is one of the better character assassinations of that website I've seen in a world.

    But they are the bastion of free speech. If "free speech" is defined to be the ability to say anything you want, without personal repercussions because of what you said, then those places are some of the only places on the internet where you can do that. You can say anything there. And anything that can't be said there, like organized targeted harassment and bullying campaigns, can be said on 8chan or Kiwi Farms, or whatever random BBS board is quickly put up to provide a place to organize those events in.

    If free speech is defined solely that the government can't punish you for what you say. Then even then you don't have free speech. You can't use your free speech to advocate for violence against minorities, or terrorism. You're not legally allowed to slander a person in public. There are and will always be restraints on what can legally be said.

    In Denmark radical Muslim groups have gotten in trouble for some of the prayers that called for the eradication of Jews, even though technically that could fall under religious freedom. Legal repercussions were had against them. The US has similar reasonable restrictions about how far you can push religious freedom as an excuse to say whatever you want. But that's not what Conservatives are complaining about. They're calling it an attack on free speech when a campus, or a college, or another private forum, doesn't allow a hyper right-wing radical a platform to spew racism like Richard Spencer.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 07-07-2019 at 12:44 AM.

  9. #26
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,305
    Amen (Given)
    937
    Amen (Received)
    2844
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    On Trump, yeah, I totally get your point there. I think he goes too far the other way though. The President of the United States calling people "loser" or other derogatory name on social media dirties the office that he holds. He ought to be above that, and not for any abstract or absurd reason, but because as Commander-in-Chief, tact and diplomacy should be guiding principles, and as the leader of America (and arguably the free world), he's a reflection of America and Western (and Christian) social mores as a whole.
    I really hope he didn't become a trend setter for the Republican Party. Though thankfully it seems no one else has as much success when trying to replicate his style.

  10. #27
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,036
    Amen (Given)
    6516
    Amen (Received)
    6340
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Yet Christian Conservatives, both in the US and in Denmark have done the same thing. Though they've used different words for it, but they've actively wanted television policed, as well as what sort of pictures can be shown in educational materials, what sort of things that can be discussed, tried to get art pieces removed from a museum, advocated for the return of blasphemy laws. And not just in the particular setting of a religious private school, but in public schools and in media outlets in general.

    Same with blasphemous speech, like you and Cow Poke went off on a thick paragraph about.
    I feel that you didn't even bother reading the rest of my post before replying to this. Yes, Christian society censored, but it did so with clear and present "oughts," based on Judaeo-Christian values. Offence wasn't taken simply for the sake of offence, but it was clear on why those offences were taken. Furthermore, I think few here would defend the stretches that even those censorship rules reached in, say, Victorian or Edwardian society. We eventually reached a pinnacle where even Christians were like, "eh, this is getting ridiculous."

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    And here's there's a bit of an irresistable parallel to what you call the Politically Correct view. Because as far as I know there are no laws that prevent people from saying politically incorrect things, there's just them being shamed and criticized for it.
    Well I don't know if that speaks for all of Europe and Canada (where political correctness actually does seem to be enforced by law, or is threatened to be policed by law), but in the States, it's more than just shaming and criticism, it also includes loss of jobs and social standing. Breaking the taboo of political correctness is no small thing in the States, believe it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    You have a point that people don't like that, and society will swing the other way. The Simpsons for instance was a response to that, showing a dysfunctional family, instead of the Brady Bunch, and people loved it because of that. Mostly I think because reality isn't so utterly sanitized as television had become at that point.
    Eesh. You're showing your age (or maybe it's just your nationality). Archie Bunker and Soap were doing this well before The Simpsons were.


    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    This is one of the better character assassinations of that website I've seen in a world.

    But they are the bastion of free speech. If "free speech" is defined to be the ability to say anything you want, without personal repercussions because of what you said, then those places are some of the only places on the internet where you can do that. You can say anything there. And anything that can't be said there, like organized targeted harassment and bullying campaigns, can be said on 8chan or Kiwi Farms, or whatever random BBS board is quickly put up to provide a place to organize those events in.
    They are a petri dish of scum. Storm Front has been doing it longer and better way before 4Chan came around. Like I said, they don't necessarily represent what free speech at it's extremes would represent. They represent anonymous man-children with nothing better to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    If free speech is defined solely that the government can't punish you for what you say. Then even then you don't have free speech. You can't use your free speech to advocate for violence against minorities, or terrorism. You're not legally allowed to slander a person in public. There are and will always be restraints on what can legally be said.
    Just so we're on the same page here, I haven't been advocating for repercussion-free free speech. I'm not sure if that's what you think I'm saying, but it isn't. I'm just highlighting some facts about free speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    In Denmark radical Muslim groups have gotten in trouble for some of the prayers that called for the eradication of Jews, even though technically that could fall under religious freedom. Legal repercussions were had against them. The US has similar reasonable restrictions about how far you can push religious freedom as an excuse to say whatever you want. But that's not what Conservatives are complaining about. They're calling it an attack on free speech when a campus, or a college, or another private forum, doesn't allow a hyper right-wing radical a platform to spew racism like Richard Spencer.
    I'm not sure what this is addressing in my post. In my opinion Denmark's Muslims shouldn't be getting in trouble for prayers on the eradication of Jews. It's a dumb thing to pray about, but Islam is filled with dumb things. I can't think of any similar restrictions on religious free-speech in America. You'll have to be specific. What Conservatives complain about has little to do with these sorts of things. What they're complaining about is the absurdity of people taking offense at the slightest slight. Finally, I think you'll find that most conservatives aren't for extreme-right radical Neo-Nazis holding platforms in college campuses. What they're for is allowing far less extreme right wing voices taking platforms in college campuses (as they might be for less extreme left-wing voices taking platform). The whole point of UNI-VERSITY, is the idea of many ideas, many voices coming together in one, but American Universities are leaning further and further left with absolutely no room whatsoever for right-leaning voices to hold the balance. Perhaps this is alien to you since European universities have leaned so left for so long that it seems the norm to you anymore.
    Last edited by Adrift; 07-07-2019 at 02:11 AM.

  11. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  12. #28
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,036
    Amen (Given)
    6516
    Amen (Received)
    6340
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I really hope he didn't become a trend setter for the Republican Party. Though thankfully it seems no one else has as much success when trying to replicate his style.
    I think (hope) he's a rare case. My main concern isn't that he'll be a trend setter for the Republican Party, but that he'll be a trend setter for politics in general. How many years before we have a John Stewart in office? Probably not many.

  13. #29
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,305
    Amen (Given)
    937
    Amen (Received)
    2844
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    I feel that you didn't even bother reading the rest of my post before replying to this. Yes, Christian society censored, but it did so with clear and present "oughts," based on Judaeo-Christian values.
    I'm sorry if I misread you. I just don't like censorship in general, not even when its Christians doing it.

    I'm a Christian so I get the sentiment, but I don't know about you but I find the hyper-sanitized television shows back then nauseating to watch. Even if something represented something that was wrong, I wouldn't create laws, or lobby against it. I prefer liberty over correctness. Though from reading your post I think you seem to lean in the same direction.

    Well I don't know if that speaks for all of Europe and Canada (where political correctness actually does seem to be enforced by law, or is threatened to be policed by law), but in the States, it's more than just shaming and criticism, it also includes loss of jobs and social standing.
    I included those things as well. I think actions like that are fair game.

    Eesh. You're showing your age (or maybe it's just your nationality). Archie Bunker and Soap were doing this well before The Simpsons were.
    Early thirties, but I also didn't have access to all pieces of US entertainment. The Simpsons did make it all the way over here, as did King of the Hill and Beavis and Butthead.

    Like I said, they don't necessarily represent what free speech at it's extremes would represent.
    Can you elaborate on this. We both agree its a hive of scum and villainy. And aside from producing a lot of hillarious politically loaded memes, including a lot that have been crossposted by people here, its pretty much an unkosher place. Its anti-politically correct. But your main objection is that they don't have anything interesting to say. Yet, does free speech have to be interesting?

    Just so we're on the same page here, I haven't been advocating for repercussion-free free speech. I'm not sure if that's what you think I'm saying, but it isn't. I'm just highlighting some facts about free speech.
    Once we move beyond the notion that governments shouldn't actively punish ideas or limit their distribution, and start talking about specific actions that jobs, communities and social platforms make, we are either talking about 'absolute, repercussion-free free speech' or we will have to admit that when a university says no to someone like Richard Spencer (who you yourself point out is a Neo-Nazi), then him being deplatformed isn't an attack on free speech.

    So either we admit that there isn't much of a problem regarding freedom of speech, or we have to redefine freedom of speech in absolute terms in order to be consistent. I would rather resist a redefinition where its only something that favors Conservative views, even if some of those values would be grounded in objective truth.

    What they're complaining about is the absurdity of people taking offense at the slightest slight.
    Now here's something I think we'll both agree on. The talk about microaggressions, which was a train wreck for me to watch as a leftist. Its as if the leftist movement I'm watching in the US can't function without something to object against, which means they've gone from reasonable examples such as racial profiling, black people getting hired more often if you blind a person as to their skin color, women getting more code commits accepted in pull requests (how source code changes are approved - for those who are not developers) if they use male sounding email accounts... to something so minor, that its politically useless to talk about.

    Like meeting someone who grew up in a foreign country, yet speaks without an accent and asking them about that. Supposedly that counts as a micro-aggression, yet to me that's just me being impressed. I've spoken English since I was ten, and I still have a bit of an accent.

    My feminist background is coming out there of course, but whereas those concerns are entirely reasonable, concerns about a Finish man sporting dreadlocks is not worth talking about. Nor are whatever microaggressions are supposed to be.

    Perhaps this is alien to you since European universities have leaned so left for so long that it seems the norm to you anymore.
    I can't remember the last time someone got deplatformed at a danish university. Except maybe someone who was using an auditorium to advocate for 9/11 trutherism at Aarhus University. We have several conservative groups in Denmark. Conservative Youth recently had Jordan Peterson over, as well as some speakers who talked critically about whether ethnic immigrants could successfully integrate into Denmark's culture.

    I can't answer for Britain or other countries, when it comes to details I can only talk about Denmark.

    That's not like those examples I gave. Where you're talking about a Conservative group at a university in the US, challenging the status quo by calling in not a seasoned politician, or a professor of Conservative political philosophy, but some ultra-right wing crank or provocateur invited to talk openly about "Racial realism". This is protested, the university agrees that the person there has nothing of value to add, and FoxNews/Breitbart/Theologyweb flips out about evil leftists shutting down free speech, etc...

    That's the example I had in mind. And the reason I talk about it is that it is example. I wouldn't consider that an attack on freedom of speech, at all.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 07-07-2019 at 02:58 AM.

  14. #30
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,609
    Amen (Given)
    1567
    Amen (Received)
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Yet Christian Conservatives, both in the US and in Denmark have done the same thing. Though they've used different words for it, but they've actively wanted television policed, as well as what sort of pictures can be shown in educational materials, what sort of things that can be discussed, tried to get art pieces removed from a museum, advocated for the return of blasphemy laws. And not just in the particular setting of a religious private school, but in public schools and in media outlets in general.
    Some do. They're theocratic idiots.

    Same with blasphemous speech, like you and Cow Poke went off on a thick paragraph about. And here's there's a bit of an irresistable parallel to what you call the Politically Correct view. Because as far as I know there are no laws that prevent people from saying politically incorrect things, there's just them being shamed and criticized for it.
    Blasphemous speech should be permitted.


    You have a point that people don't like that, and society will swing the other way. The Simpsons for instance was a response to that, showing a dysfunctional family, instead of the Brady Bunch, and people loved it because of that. Mostly I think because reality isn't so utterly sanitized as television had become at that point.
    I haven't watched the Simpsons in at least ten years, except maybe the Family Guy and Futurama cross-over episodes. I do recall that both Ned Flanders and Reverend Lovejoy spoofed different flavors of Christianity. But despite the spoofing, they were both arguably more admirable characters than Bart and Homer. I always found that interesting.

    ...
    In Denmark radical Muslim groups have gotten in trouble for some of the prayers that called for the eradication of Jews, even though technically that could fall under religious freedom. Legal repercussions were had against them. The US has similar reasonable restrictions about how far you can push religious freedom as an excuse to say whatever you want.
    I can't think of any such restriction that I would consider "reasonable."


    But that's not what Conservatives are complaining about. They're calling it an attack on free speech when a campus, or a college, or another private forum, doesn't allow a hyper right-wing radical a platform to spew racism like Richard Spencer.
    I've heard of Richard Spencer, but don't know who he is. Most of the complaints I've heard have been about the treatment of Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Candace Owen, and maybe Andrew Klavan. In those cases, it's clearly a case of anti-Conservative bias on the part of the institutions.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •