|
twicehappy -> RE: Political Correctness (8/6/2006 5:43:26 AM)
|
Here is one of my all time favorites from the PC thread i gave you the link for, it is from Bita:
quote:
ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
If you call someone a goat fucker, you're non-PC.
If you call them an animal lover, that's PC.
Same thing.. it's just semantics. Wrapping something up in pretty words doesn't make it more or less acceptable. When you twist those words to make them more acceptable so as not to hurt someone's delicate sensibilities, you may be changing the meaning of what you say.
Someone who justifies their cheating ways. "Poor dear.. so misunderstood. Are you sure this is what you should be doing, dear? Maybe you should think about it. Try to be honest even if it hurts. You'll be better off in the long run if you can just be brave and open with your SO." or.. "Your a fucking liar. Either come clean or be thought of as a liar."
Someone who hates people based on the color of their skin is not culturally challenged, they are a racist. Why call it something it's not? You think a racist is going to give a shitznit?
I don't see any need to be PC around liars, racists, abusers.. etc. Who the hell are we trying to protect the feelings of when we do that? Liars, racists and abusers. Yeah, I want to help them feel better.
And here is my favorite of my own in answer to LadiesBladewing. It is a trifle long and a bit wordy but the best of what i felt on the subject.
ORIGINAL: twicehappy
To compose a post or make a speech in plain understandable terms the writer must be able to compose without fear of verbal reprisal from their peers. What I am seeing more and more often are cliques of self appointed opinion vigilantes who do nothing short of attempt to coerce all other posters to adhere to the overrated highly touted “ I’m ok you’re ok, words have no real meaning other than what you give them and as long as it makes you comfortable and happy” fantasy where in nobody needs to separate their utopian dream life from the harsh demanding reality of the world because everybody loves each and understands each other, let’s grok(Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience; read a Stranger in a Strange Land) it’s all good.
Being a child of the 60’s I wish it were so, but the hard cold truth is it’s not.
Anyone not being sucked into this vapid mindless state of “my opinion is I have no opinion” is ostracized on the boards, flamed, then picked apart like carrion spotted by societal vultures.
I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, simply trying to ensure everyone has the right to voice their opinion in any manner they see fit short of discourtesy without being subject to the salvo of the intellectual armamentarium of the P.C. terrorists.
quote:
LB
but we don't make it universal, because somewhere out there, there may be an owner who wants an egalitarian relationship outside the bedroom, wants to spank his girl in the bedroom, and wants to call her a slave. So be it. At the same time, to stifle the people who want to say "If you feel you are a slave and that's what you want to call yourself, that's ok, labels and words only have the meaning you give them.", then that smacks of censorship, and if 10 people want to disagree with you and give a different opinion, they have as much right to state -their- opinion as you have to state yours.
Do I want to stifle their thoughts? No. I desire only two things from these folks;
The first; if that is their opinion, fine. State it without firing a resounding barrage aimed at those who find it ludicrous that words have no meaning other than what the individual assigns to them.
The second; if it is simply evasive patronizing circumlocutions calculated to avoid provoking or offending the oversensitive masses, I want them to develop a backbone. Declare their cognitive processes without resorting to elaborate stratagems to compensate for their fear of giving pain or being targeted by the politically correct elitist popular crowd.
quote:
LB
And this person was given two different opinions, and made the decision (as an adult, which we -all- are on this forum) to behave in a certain way, based on the opinion she liked best. As an adult, she is responsible for that decision. If a person can't live with the way his or her opinions might be used, maybe he or she should reconsider -giving- an opinion. When I give an opinion, I usually make it known that others opinions may be different. If someone follows my opinion and it doesn't work for them, they have the right to change that opinion. No skin off my nose at all.
(The above quote is partially addressed above and partially below)
quote:
LB
First, I don't see this as being a PC issue. They got two opinions, and had to decide for themselves which worked. A bad decision isn't typically a calamity, even if it is a sucky learning experience. The next time, maybe the'll have a question phrased more clearly, or a better idea of what they believe themselves before they take an opinion. If they learned, they were well served. At least, that's my opinion
Man learns by not only his experiences but by free open debate and discussion with his peers. In order to learn in this fashion there must be honest discourse and guiltless argument. Wrong facts and negative opinions are thereby brought to the fore and give way to positive opinions and correct facts drawn from the knowledge of others. Always remembering each man must judge the truth or fallacy of these opinions and expound on them himself.
How is this then possible if we fail to present our objections, opinions and learned experiences by avoiding presenting them by instead mouthing the meaningless platitudes that have become P.C. ?
quote:
LB
How do you know that the answers that were being given were PC and not genuine opinions of those individuals? Just because an opinion differs from one's own is not sufficient reason to state that it isn't accurate for the person speaking it. At the same time, if someone says he or she has a "service mindset" or wants to live as a servant of slave mien among us, I know -exactly- what that means to us, and if that person doesn't meet the expectations we have, we send them on their way -- we don't diminish their own perception of self, but we DO tell them that they're not a good fit in our home.
For some it may very well be their opinion, for others it appears to be the vacuous rote drivel espoused in the pursuit of gaining entry into the in crowd.
I am not speaking of replying in any fashion in order to diminish a person’s sense of self, rather I am speaking of equipping them with the very tools they require to help them define and empower themselves.
You speak of telling them they are not a good fit in your home; do you provide them with any intelligence as to why? By doing so are you not then arming them with a better perception of your definitions of what they proclaimed themselves to be when they presented themselves for consideration? If you do not aren’t you then guilty of the selfsame crime I am accusing others of? That is;" Failing to present our objections, opinions and learned experiences by avoiding presenting them by instead mouthing the meaningless platitudes that have become P.C.".
quote:
LB
Take what works for you, throw the rest away. Censorship (which is what you're talking about, no matter how much you try to make this sound like it's in the "general interest) is not the answer.
You are way off base with this statement. Censorship in the way you are speaking of is not what I am discussing here at all. What I am railing against is the fact that political correctness has in it self become a form of censorship by eliminating our use of plain language with a vengeance and forcing us to work with euphemisms in an atmosphere of guilt that prohibits the normal give and take of debate and discussion.
"By its nature, evasion is a form of nonintegration. It is the most lethal form: the willful disintegration of mental contents. A man in this condition no longer has the means to determine consistency or contradiction, truth or falsehood. In his conciousness, all conceptual content is reduced to the capricious, the baseless, the arbitrary; no conclusion qualifies as knowledge in a mind that rejects the requirements of cognition. Thus the real evader, like the hypothetical one I mentioned first, reaches only one end and one kind of "safety": all-encompassing blindness." Leonard Peikoff
|
|
|
|
