Do No Evil – They call it partisanship; in reality, it is cowardice. Thinking is not what the partisans want for the American population. They seek an unquestioning multitude. They seek the obedience of blinded eyes and heads pressed to the earth.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
290)
Bravo! Well said!!!
Political Correctness was designed to censor free speech. It places an umbrella of protection over certain groups and paints a target on the back of all the rest.
Sound Bites grew out of PC. When you regurgitate back a sound bite, you don't have to think it thru or worry that what you say is not PC. Just spew out the sound bite.
Sound Bites and PC are the antithesis of debate. And guess which side of the fence invented these?
Methinks the lady (in this case Libs) doth protest too much.
Your post is riddled with ludicrous and tenous assumptions.
"Political correctness was designed to censor free speech."
I don't think so. It was intended, firstly, to prevent dehumanization, demonization, vilification and bigotry. Secondly, it was intended to raise the intellectual level of discourse.
"Sound bites grew out of PC."
Sound bites is a media term for a specific technique employed for its impactfulness and brevity. As all media are businesses and money is their bottomline, sound bites are both cost effective, as they save on-air time, and sensationalistically focused, thereby pulling ratings, which ultimately drive advertising revenue.
Political correctness is not about revenue. It is about social evolution.
"And guess which side of the fence invented these?"
This one sentence alone illustrates precisely what this article is about. Over-simplification. The dumbing down of debate to Left vs Right.
"tenuous" (In case somebody wants to make a spelling error the focus of discussion).
PC also stifles debate.
Example:
1. It is PC to debate the extent of homosexual rights. It is not PC to debate the morality of homosexuality. If you are following strict PC rules of debate, part of the issue will never be debated.
2. It is PC to debate what is proper free speech. But if you follow PC rules and decide that certain words are proper for some groups and not for others (and that is precisely the case in the US today) you have established a double standard with no debate possible.
I have no problem with people abiding by common rules of civility when addressing each other. But participation should be optional to each individual. PC uses a ramrod to force PC speech down everyone's throat. And the definition of what is PC and what is not has been drawn by the Left with no input from the Right.
Join me, if you are so inclined, in saying "HELL NO" to any and all aspects of PC.
PC is oneway censorship.
>PC is oneway censorship.
...that goes both ways.
The term `political correctness` was created by the right-wing to define left-wing pressure in a negative light. However, political pressures from one side or the other have been around as long as politics has been around.
For example: voicing ones opinion against the Bush admin`s policies, actions, or lack of actions after 9/11 and through the early Iraq invasion period was definitely not `PC` according to the right-wing and most of the media.
Mudslinging.
Emotionalism alone is not reason enough when defining governmental authority.
PC has, among other things, stifled free speech, killed humor, and institutionalized intolerance!
Why is it "PCP for a black to call another black, "hey ******!" - while when a white man saying that would most assuredly cause another riot?
Why would it be "free speech" when a preacher inveighs against homosexuality in the rawest of terms, while when a community enacts laws insuring the homosexual freedoms EQUAL to all other citizens, that same preacher calls that SPECIAL RIGHTS?
blowback - I see from your bio that you're new to Nutscape. My take-away from this op-ed piece is a little different. As you "debate" on this forum, you may come to the conclusion - as I have - that there is no "debate" going on here. A lot of name-calling, sloganeering, mostly "libs" this and "neo-cons" that. I don't mind "PC" because, in my opinion, it means trying to keep bigotry and race, religion, sexual-orientation biases in check. But this forum, like a lot of political debate, has degenerated into stubborn one-upmanship...not an honest exchange AND CONSIDERATION of opposing views. An example is one poster who sent me a message that he's waiting for the "inevitable civil war" to begin here in the US (he's not a "lib") and he won't be "messing around" when it comes. A guy who might be just one comment away from pulling the trigger.
Well said i.e. no debate here, name calling, stubborn one-upmanship (except you and I of course). But sometimes its fun isn't it? (When you see a lost cause, name calling commenter).
Tired - "But sometimes its fun isn't it?" Well..it was, yes. The msg that I got about the "civil war" (see my post above) scared the hell out of me. Not fearing for my own safety, but realizing (duh!)that anybody can have access to a computer.(There's background on the poster that, if true, explains a lot, gives reason to take it seriously) And that what I might consider "fun" in retaliation to a poster's extreme comments might be enough to set something in motion. That's the problem with the anonymity of the web. Everyone is not as well-adjusted as me (and you).
Tired - And...in the end, it's just worth it.
I was referring to fun in retorting to those who are hopefully mentally stable. Sorry about that email and the scariness of it. If it got too scary here I would just quit netscape.------
On another subject, the comment by blowback down this page is a good example of what you said (lib vs. con). I read it and noticed all the "sound bites" are ones that Bush or conservatives made. So I thought up a few slogans/phrases I recalled seeing here on netscape that were left leaning and mentioned them to balance it off.
"But this forum, like a lot of political debate, has degenerated into stubborn one-upmanship...not an honest exchange AND CONSIDERATION of opposing views."
I agree with you b4thewind. I joined Netscape because I enjoy reading,hearing and writing about politics. This is my first day back on this site, in many months, and I'm very happy to see that someone else sees the deterioration of this blog.
i agree i have scene the two sides on the war slam one another wish them dead and so on. i stand on one side of the opinion and have scene very little attempt to debate me into believing otherwise. i think the internet has done a lot to destroy honest debate and free thinking in that a person will say something through text they would never say to my face for fear that i just might take offense to their statement with the expected response being far more than just words. i know i am a barbarian but if people remembered that thier is a person on the other end of these things and not just a nikname who has noway of knowing who you are and thier for cannot be held accountable people say things they normally would not.
"Over-simplification. The dumbing down of debate to Left vs Right."
Well said blowback...
blowback
The PC debate is most accurately portrayed as right vs left. This is not an oversimplification. All of the protected groups under PC are on the left.
The intentions of PC and its actual use are 2 very different things. In use, PC demands the protected groups be treated respectfully while painting a target on the back of unprotected groups.
Your definition of a sound bite is also different from mine. While the phrase may have originated in the nedia, it is now used by special interest groups to give their supporters "pat" answers to criticism.
PC is not about revenue. It is about ramming a particular viewpoint down the throats of a free people who may disagree. Ramming this viewpoint by guilt and intimidation.
Your view of PC is looking through rose colored glasses. The actual effect of PC is much darker than your view.
You see PC as respect and good manners. I see Big Brother lurking around the corner as the PC enforcer.
No, PC is NOT about protecting any group it's about keeping to the subject and not merely smearing someone or a group. Generally, most things considered to not be PC are simply gross oversimplifications and can be attributed to both "right" and "left". The concept of PC forces people to discuss the details of any given topic.
Political correctness is also used as a blunt instrument to suppress dissenting viewpoints via control of language. It's stated intent is to minimize the use of statements that groups find offensive. A problem arises when you want to earnestly talk about something that a group might find offensive.
Consider the current state of incarceration of black men in the United States. It's disgusting to say the least and should be at the forefront of political discussions. However, one must be very careful in public discourse about the subject as to not espouse viewpoints that could be interpreted to degrade blacks. An argument such as 'blacks need to stop joining gangs in large numbers' could not be explored.
If that was a root cause of the problem it could now not be treated because of the politically correct environment.
Unforunately political correctness is used by both sides of the aisle as a thought suppression tool, to the detrement of all Americans.
(cont'd) Ironically, I half expect netscapers to scold me for my hypothetical assertion.
"Blacks joining gangs", the topic of crime and gang activity can be discussed since there is nothing PC being said. If you made your point and left out discussion about Spanish or skinhead gangs,zeroing in on blacks only then you wouldn't be PC, you would give the appearance at least of being bigoted. You can say one thing about a particular group and it wouldn't be PC. The same thing said about another group might not call out the PC police. Why? Bigotry? Perhaps, but usually it's a matter of historical context. If the word or phrase was historically used by one to degrade another then it might be insensitive and not PC. If the same word was used in a different context or by a different person it might not be offensive. For example" Ferman using the "N word" (OJ trail) is very offensive (Police mistreatment of Blacks is the historical context). The word being used by a black is probably not offensive.
Being PC should not suppress intelligent discussion.
((Being PC should not suppress intelligent discussion.))
Perhaps it shouldn't, but it certainly does.
I agree with the context and non inflammatory nature of what you said.
/deepbow.
Gungnir - I understand your point, but I might add that there are "shades" of PC, and the definition is in the eyes of the beholder. Except for politicians sniffing after every possible vote, I don't think that the majority (of thinking people) practice the extreme version that you use for your example. In fact, I think that your very point about young, urban black men in gangs IS openly discussed. (not debated, because I don't think anybody other than gang members think it's a good idea). That aside, though, I read an op-ed in our paper this AM - written by a black man - about what you would call "PC." It was another of the endless follow-up to the Imus firing. I liked his perspective, though. he suggested the "bully test." His point was, if Imus had called C. Rice or Oprah a "natty-headed ho" he would not be offended, as those are powerful black women who can take care of themselves. College basketball players, on the other hand, are not.
I'm glad the paper you read and you yourself have the courage to discuss topics that might trample sensitivities in the open. Many don't.
Let's try another example, illegal immigration. A few years back before I started on netscape on another message board I stated that I'm against illegal immigration because it imbalances local labor markets (especially in the Southern US) in favor of employers, which causes unemployment and low wages. I was called a racist and ironically had anti-Caucasian slurs used against me. No debate around the substance of my argument - just bluster.
The idea of a bully-test is a dangerous one. If your target is powerful or weak, what's the difference? It's still the suppression of an idea. It's still the closing of the mind. Without honest discussion how do we know what ideas are worth implementing?
As for Imus he was just spewing vitriol for ratings, and got what he deserved. He didn't advance any new ideas, just hate.
G - I will agree with you about the bully-test in that it's probably a better concept than easy to execute. I'm sure the editorialist was not suggesting it was OK to call anybody those names - just that it's particularly vile against people or groups without a "voice."
As for your illegal immigration example - I understand your point. I assume that you framed your argument just as you did to me. There are certainly lots of reasons to control immigration - lots of goods ones, and lots that cross the border (no pun intended) into racism and jingoism. When the topic comes up again, you'll certainly see my point.
jeffrey1 is incredibly knaive if this is all he sees in PC.
I met a wise old man in a Hooters one night and bought him a natural grain beverage to impart some of his wisdom my way.
He said "The blindest people are not those who can't see but those who chose not to see."
Sounds like a pretty good description of every poster today supporting PC.
Youre so off the mark, its disgusting. you are this articles case in point.
the term "Political Correctness" should never have come about. It is name calling. Plain and Simple. And that's not big brother because name calling is not covered under the first amendment. It's harassment.
I.e. If one calls a gay person a homosexual as opposed to a fagggot, you can argue that you are simply being politically correct but in actuality you are avoiding harrassment. You're not allowed to call someone a fagggot anyway because it's harassment.
This grew into people picking their labels, i.e. african-americans rejecting the term 'black', preachers rejecting the term 'bible-beaters', women opting for Ms. over Miss or Mrs., etc. Now respecting those self-appointed labels is called political correctness, when in actuallity it is common decency. It is common decency to refer to someone in the manner in which they choose to be referred. for whatever reason. that should be their choice.
Now what happens, though, is someone will go past being indecent, (i.e. refusing to use a group or a persons self appointed term) and go into harassment. such as Don Imus calling women 'hos'. then they will look at political correctness as the enemy and say that they are being made an example of because they weren't being politically correct. But that's not true. They weren't being lawful. You can't call someone a ho. its harassment. its degradation of character. Its slander. its any number of things. it has nothing to do with being politically correct. and people should stop making political correctness the scape goat for their lack of morality.
get rid of this PC word altogether, and just go back to calling these things what they are... decency and harassment.
You are either protected by PC or you have a target on your back. There is no condition in between.
Protected groups include gays/lesbos, Blacks, Hispanics from Mexico and Puerto Rico, anyone with a physical or mental handicap, Muslims, women seeking an abortion and animals.
Target-on-the-back groups include straights, whites, Hispanics from Cuba, anyone without a physical or mental handicap, Christians, white males and gun owners.
Does anyone out there really disagree with this statement?
No doubt about it, `PC` is fluid.
It`s OK for blacks or Mexicans to insult their own races, but if a white guy does the same joke, forget about it. His career is OVER.
I hardly see Muslims in the PC protected arena though. I have seen Christians try to become part of that protected group, and I think many in politics make great efforts to move Christians into that group to protect their words/actions from critical review.
Gun-control advocates would certainly suggest they are the ones with targets on their backs.
The anti-Bush crowd was a target long before the 2006 election or before Americans in general started getting sick of his action/words. Now PC has flipped and Bush-backers are being painted as the anti-american ones.
By definition, although we can agree on certain generalized areas of PC, some of what is considered PC depends on who you are and what month it is.
"It`s OK for blacks or Mexicans to insult their own races, but if a white guy does the same joke, forget about it. His career is OVER."
It's ok for me to make fun of my sister, too, but if i see her boyfriend do it i'll beat the $hit out of him. what's your point?
And carlos mencia (whom i despise) is not mexican and every word out of his mouth is "beaner" and "wet back." he gets a way with it. maybe the key is to NOT be funny.
you're out of your mind.
christians? targets on their back. i'm so sick of christians making themselves out to be the victims in this country. As a catholic, i can honestly say that I have NEVER in my LIFE been victimized, even slightly, because of my christian beliefs. NOT ONCE! and i live in NEW YORK CITY and LOS ANGELES!
people with a physical and mental handicap are off limits because of political correctness? whatever happened to common decency?! are you saying that you crave the opportunity to make fun of people with handicaps, were it not for the PC persecution you would face?! poor you, invest. one day. one day in a perfect world you will be able to freely make fun of handicapped people. those damn liberals, always taking away your fun!
Ludicrous!!! Not all groups "protected" by PC speech are on the left. That is a gross simplification. By your logic, everyone is on the left, as PC speech can be applied to any situation: all Blacks are on the left; all Jews are on the left; all Gays are on the left; all Arabs are on the left; ad infinitum...
The term "politically correct speech" was invented by the early communists and was first in print in Vladimir Lennin's early works after the 1917 revolution. Political Correct speech was designed to change how people think -- by limiting the words that were said, it would limit the thoughts of the proletariat. Nothing in that about "villification" etc. Political correctness is not the same as politeness or gentility -- which seems to have confused you. "Political correctness" is an evil that is left over from the communist era. Political Correctness is the death of intellectual freedom and we should all shun it with vigor (to borrow a word from JFK.)
INVEST07:
"Political Correctness was designed to censor free speech."
What nonpartisan, academic citations do you have to support this questionable hypothesis? There are no laws preventing individuals from using bigoted language in their homes. Those who use bigoted language publicly (Imus) risk losing customers and therefore their jobs; this is free capitalism and market forces at work, which traditional conservatives usually support.
Political correctness is simply an extension of the good manners taught to children by their parents. There are other ways to convey controversial ideas without being offensive. Use your words. I would think that traditional conservatives, as members of the "party of family values," would support decency.
INVEST07:
"Sound Bites grew out of PC."
What nonpartisan, academic citations do you have to support this questionable hypothesis? These two ideas are diametrically opposed to each other. Political correctness resists the over-generalizations created by stereotyping large groups of people; it seeks to recognize and distinguish the infinite shades of gray in each and every individual, no matter what group that individual belongs to. Individuals can't be depicted with broad-brush stereotypes.
Sound bytes attempt the opposite. Sound bytes attempt to distill a story into one pithy phrase, thereby sacrificing accuracy, comprehensiveness, and the nuances in the story. It is to paint with a broad brush, which is exactly what the PC movement opposes.
INVEST07:
"And guess which side of the fence invented these?"
How ironic that you resort to partisanship on a thread that decries blind allegiance to partisan ideology. Some people never learn...
No academic citations just common sense:
"Sound Bites grew out of PC. When you regurgitate back a sound bite, you don't have to think it thru or worry that what you say is not PC. Just spew out the sound bite."
Sound bites are a "pat" answer invented by some special interest group to give their supporters a quick, easy and brainless way to answer criticism.
Examples : "war for Oil" in spite of the fact that there is zero scientific evidence to support this.
"9/11 was an inside job" ... ditto
"abortions should be more readily available for all becasue some are victimes of rape" Rape victims constitute less than 1% of abortions.
You definition of a sound bite is idealistic. In reality, sound bites are used as I described above.
PC does not oppose painting all groups with a broad brush. It opposes painting protected groups but favors painting the target-on-their-back groups with broad brushes.
PC = censorship.
"Examples : "war for Oil" in spite of the fact that there is zero scientific evidence to support this."
It's not a matter of scientific evidence. It's a conclusion determined by historical and political understanding. Science and whatever evidence it can provide has little to do with it other than to verify that there is indeed oil in Iraq. If you wish to dispute that, I'm all ears.
As for sound bites, I'm surprised you haven't included the ones that have garnered the most media attention these past few years, thus truly qualifying them as 'sound bites.'
"With us or against us."
"Wanted dead or alive."
"Mushroom cloud."
"Bring 'em on."
"Flip flop"
"Cut & Run"
"Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."
These are without a doubt, sound bites.
They are such because they all tap simply and directly into two things, and then fully exploit them.
Nationalism and Fear.
How about "He lied to us", "He's a traitor, "Impeach him", "War mongers", "Its all about oil", "I would have done it different", "I support the troops, not the war", and on and on. All phrases used by political candidates and supporters. And don't forget "Read my lips". (Bush I regarding tax hikes).
Oh, and I forgot to mention, they're all really short.
Journalists jump on that stuff and run with it.
Politicians know this and feed it to them like you'd feed chickens.
The next step is frequency. Keep saying it over and over again so that people such as you stand around in the office pantry or come on to blogs such as this and then just simply parrot them over and over again.
This is what we've witnessed like never before these past 6 years.
tow
It's fair to say that, but those sound bites never ever received anywhere near the same media coverage, now did they?
In fact, they were actively and consistenly suppressed and smothered.
Now they are given much more scope because the political environment has changed, courtesy of November 2006.
We'll see how well they stand up to the truth, because as we're beginning to realize, what Bush and his administration had to say (in their sound bites) doesn't.
blowback: The ones I mentioned are what I've heard more than many others and see here all the time on netscape. I doubt they were actively suppressed. It seems, with the frequency of these phrases, commenters just parrot each other. And my real point was these are left wing sayings that you seemed to entirely avoid mentioning. So I did to make it "Fair and Balanced" - (hah - another sound bite).
I do support voluntary decency. I reject any and all aspects of the insidious form of censorship known as PC.
PC does not require good manners be exhibited towrd ALL people, only to those protected by PC. Anyone else is fair game for any comment.
Society is divided by PC into 2 groups:
1. Those protected by PC
2. Everyone else
Manners are demanded towards the protected class and optional when directed at the target-on-their-back group.
I invite anyone so inclined to join me in saying "Hell No" to any and all aspects of PC.
Mandated charm will never work. Its the gradual interaction with minorities and respect derived from same that works and is working. It can take many years and generations. Sometimes I think PC has the opposite effect as what it wants to accomplish.
Political Correctness can be destructive to truth and debate. It is an attempt to limit debate to 'acceptable' terms and premises. The nut of the problem: WHO decides what is offensive or unacceptable or biased etc. Any message (and messenger) will be discarded, whether it contains a truth or not, because it comes in unacceptable form or from unacceptable source. Shout downs, bans, censorship, boycotts, speech codes, and even firings can be inspired by political correctness.
Sometimes comedy can expose social commentary. One reason for this is because it has been a forum that escapes political correctness....usually (ask Imus).
Periodically, there are calls for a open and honest debate about race. Unfortunately, these discussions fail to satisfy all sides. This is because one side usually wants a debate under THEIR terms.
The best results from debates: More talk, less PC.
The ones who decide what is acceptable for debate and what is not are those that are protected by PC.
You are either protected by PC or you have a target on your back. There is no condition in between.
Protected groups include gays/lesbos, Blacks, Hispanics from Mexico and Puerto Rico, anyone with a physical or mental handicap, Muslims, women seeking an abortion and animals.
Target-on-the-back groups include straights, whites, Hispanics from Cuba, anyone without a physical or mental handicap, Christians, white males and gun owners.
The right Rev JJ and Bullhorn Al can say any d*mn thing they want to. But let a Don Imus mouth the same words the Black rappers say and he has to pay and pay dearly.
Those who are defending PC in this forum are either incredibly knaive or partisan hacks looking to maitain the PC status quo.
PC and censorship are one in the same.
If you are so inclined, join me in saying "HELL NO" to any and all aspects of PC.
I think PC has gone a bit overboard. I was already PC in all personal relations before the word was invented. But I see some PC being applied in the news media and government every day that seems too much. One example is profiling to catch possible terrorists at airports is supposedly illegal. It is of course irritating and offensive to middle easterners but is not designed ot do that, just to narrow down the field. Another is not mentioning race or color in crimes. e.g. wouldn't it be nice to know that the rapist, bank robber etc. is white or black or whatever narrows it down?
I loved the "over my dead body" sound byte from charlton and the "I bought this microphone byte from Reagan.
How about the "you're no John Kennedy".
You're fighting against your own people now!
The best sound byte of them all was from King george declaring victory (well his first of 8 ongoing definitions) on the battleship. How about ""shock and awe"?
Your people loved that one!
Time to realize that the Bush name-calling, although he was going to be the "uniter", has alienated former Republicans (like me), moderates, independents, undecideds and even true old fashioned conservatives. He has "aborted" the true meaning of conservative and only a few stubborn fools continue to apologize for him. We have never been more divided. What happened to Caesar when he spread the great armies of the empire too thin and ignored domestic matters?
Where is Brutus? (I'll supply the knife)
Sure you're not a Roman?