Too Much Political Correctness(usa)

[RedFlames]

People in the United States have been cultured against racism so much that it has become a hinderance.
People cry racism when you simply state their ethnicity in their description. When someone says "that black guy" or "that asian kid" is simply stating, informally, that they are either that of Asian or African/African American descent. A person who is discriminated against for being a certain race or creed however does have the right to cry racism.

Related to this there are some words involved in racism that are misused

Anti-Semetism
Accepted meaning: Irrational hatred of Jews
Real meaning: Irrational hatred of the semetic peoples (those from the middle east or those who speak Arabic, Arameic, or Hebrew etc.)

Homophobia
Accepted meaning: Irrational hatred of homosexual persons
Real meaning: Irrational fear of homosexual persons
Most people who use this word against those who hate homosexuals target those who hate them, not who fear them.

Nazi
Accepted meaning: One who hates Jews
Real meaining: One who follows the political views of the National Socalist Labor Party.
Although the Nazi party of America supports discrimination calling a person a Nazi simply because of the past is wrong.

If you want to be so politically correct you have to at least be correct in these cases to not be a hipocrite

any opinions?

[HibiscusKazeneko]

Ugh. I agree with you on so many levels.
I was kicked off another site this past December for failing to adhere to the site's "code of conduct" that basically suppresses freedom of speech under the guise of "maintaining a welcoming environment." Mind you, this is a site where fellow natural-minded individuals gather (it's a forum directly connected to a popular magazine, the title of which I am forced to leave you to guess), so there is an overall anti-mainstream aura to the place. As you may know from reading my past posts, I am totally against many aspects of mainstream society, so at first I felt at home. But I soon learned that there is a shitload of forum-specific rules (WAY more so than Newgrounds has) that are up to individual interpretation, and the mods and admins there are fucking Nazis (another use of the word you failed to mention) so this equaled me not being able to post much. What eventually led to my account being "suspended" (i.e. one step away from a permaban and two steps from an IP ban) was I pointed out the fact that keeping your son's Plastibell ring (part of a popular circumcision device which remains on the penis for several days until the foreskin becomes necrotic and falls off) is tantamount to aborting a fetus and keeping the remains in a jar. Most people there would agree with me, but Fräulein Administrator (not her actual username) thought this was more of a User Agreement violation than anything else that was posted in the same thread (which was soon removed because its very content was outside the narrow realm of "acceptable") and she "suspended" my account for 30 days. The way it works there is you have to ask the mods to give you your account back after such a ban, and I never did because I couldn't stand how hypocritical the administration was.

Despite their obvious hypocrisy in how they treat different and possible dissenting opinions, I do believe the site has a lot to offer mothers and families. I figured rather than press my luck now I'd wait a few years and ask to rejoin when I'm married with a family.

TL;DR - I was booted from a site for failing to adhere to their standards of political correctness.

Is it just me, or do most high-traffic Web sites have butthurt rules like these?

[RubberTrucky]

It's not only American.

I live in Belgium and once read that Belgium was accused for violating the human rights because a lot f people are racist. that's preposterous. The reason why the nation is racist is because there are so many ways to voice raism, to sue for it. Western nations are so afraid for being called a racist it can at times become a trump card to play when you don't get what you want.

"I want a raise!"
"You're not getting it."
"What, because I am black? that's racist. I'm gonna sue your butt off!"

Racism is not something to be encouraged, but it should be reasonable. And also, it should work both ways. So if a foreigner blatantly calls my wife a slut she may retort by calling him a baboon.

And the Jewish people, I can muster respect for them and I feel the holocaust did happen and was a terrible thing. But be reasonable, it has happened, it is over and it is not necessary to use it against us all of the time.

2 examples:
1. a while ago a cooking show showed how to prepare trout in buttersauce, the so called favorite dish of Hitler. Jews protested and got the episode cancelled. I was furious. Hitler has done bad stuff, but does that mean he can not be represented as a regular guy?
2. Curent political figure Bart de Wever defended the police force of Antwerp after the mayor appologise for the atrocities commited during WW II for reporting and deporting Jews in Flanders. De Wever replied that this was quite exaggerated since during German occupation they were forced to do so. He got flamed by the Jewish community for being a negationist and n anti-Semite.

[RedFlames]

Valid points
People can't just throw racism into people's face because somebody is doing something they don't like.
For example in my town a school trip to the movies (Polar Express) was cancelled because the mother of a Jewish boy said that it was forcing christian ideas on her son.
First of all no other Jewish parents complained and second of all there is no religious aspects in that movie, the movie is purely based off of the pagan tradition of Santa Claus

[RubberTrucky]

I think we should mind that our thoughts about others don't influence our treatment of those people. We should be able to hate Blacks for being black, as long as we don't demand black people to be thrown out of public spots or we don't treat them with disrespect.

Another case:
People get angry when you say homosexuality is abnormal or a disease. But I think it matters more whether that idea leads you to believe that gays are inferior to 'normal' people because of this. If you treat homosexuals as inferiors you are a dickhead, otherwise, there is no real issue.

[Malachy]

At 6/21/10 05:18 AM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote: Ugh. I agree with you on so many levels.
I was kicked off another site this past December for failing to adhere to the site's "code of conduct" that basically suppresses freedom of speech under the guise of "maintaining a welcoming environment."

"freedom of speech" only stops the government from telling you to STFU. Technically it is that website's own freedom of speech to control what is said on it, since it is a private company. Websites have a "terms of service" document that you agree to follow when you sign up or use features on it. If you don't agree with the guidelines they ask that you follow the proper course of action is to not create an account or use the site features.

A lot of people do not realize that on the internet they are primarily utilizing other people's freedom of speech as opposed to their own by posting information on websites. One could effectively say that is no free speech on the internet because even subscribing to an ISP could come with certain terms of use that they could shut off your feed if you break them. But luckily they don't do that. For the majority of us, when you are posting opinions on another website, you are basically adding to that website's 'free speech' and their public appearance. If they don't like what effectively is information presented to the public on their website (like posts on a message board), it is their right under 'free speech' to remove it.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/21/10 01:21 PM, RedFlames wrote: People can't just throw racism into people's face because somebody is doing something they don't like.

Very true, and that has become a small issue in this country. I say small, because it's not like the majority is being hindered in any substantial way by any of this.

For example in my town a school trip to the movies (Polar Express) was cancelled because the mother of a Jewish boy said that it was forcing christian ideas on her son.

First, this is not racism. This is a case of the school unintentionally favoring one view over another. The problem lies where either the Jewish kid will either be forced to see something that directly (or at could be claimed to directly) conflict with his view or be left out because of his beliefs. It is unintentional, but favoritism nonetheless. In the end, this boils down to the school making a boneheaded decision about what movie to go see.

First of all no other Jewish parents complained and second of all there is no religious aspects in that movie, the movie is purely based off of the pagan tradition of Santa Claus

Don't give me that crap. Santa, while originating from pagan roots, has clearly been associated with the Christian holiday of Christmas. The existence of Santa has become synonymous with Christianity, in the same way a draedel has been associated with Chaunakah.

This was a poor example of too much PC.

[RubberTrucky]

At 6/21/10 06:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
First, this is not racism. This is a case of the school unintentionally favoring one view over another. The problem lies where either the Jewish kid will either be forced to see something that directly (or at could be claimed to directly) conflict with his view or be left out because of his beliefs. It is unintentional, but favoritism nonetheless. In the end, this boils down to the school making a boneheaded decision about what movie to go see.

Why should a school care for that? It's not like the school really picks these movies to force Christianity upon none-Christians, especially if the movie is not about Christianty itself (despite the debatable symbolism)
It is like saying that kids shouldn't see the Lion King, cause black kids might be offended to see africans being portrayed as a bunch of animals. The movie after all takes place in Africa and the beasts act like humans.

Religious tolerance also requires that you accept that your children's school shows movies with symbolism of different cultures. If anything, that mother is being intolerant toward different cultures.

[Masterzakk]

I do agree with most of the post. However hatred is usually born out of fear of something. Say most homophobes hate homosexuals because they think that homosexuals will turn them gay, or their kids gay. Phobias are also irrational and homophobes in the "accepted" version is exactly what it is; A phobia.
Do you have any rational hatred against anyone? Because most of the time even if other races are "Breeds" (races) doesn't really mean anything. It's all fear my friend. And those people are cowards!

[RedFlames]

At 6/21/10 01:46 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I think we should mind that our thoughts about others don't influence our treatment of those people. We should be able to hate Blacks for being black, as long as we don't demand black people to be thrown out of public spots or we don't treat them with disrespect.

It is unreasonable to hate any specific race based on appearance. The appearance may be displeasing to you, but that is no reason to hate.

Another case:
People get angry when you say homosexuality is abnormal or a disease. But I think it matters more whether that idea leads you to believe that gays are inferior to 'normal' people because of this. If you treat homosexuals as inferiors you are a dickhead, otherwise, there is no real issue.

Homosexuality is a disease, to be exact a hormonal imbalance or genetic disorder. Whether or not this is seen as an inferiority, they should not be openly discriminated against.

[S4cr3d-Cr4p]

Homosexuality is a disease in the same way that having blue eyes, or black skin is a disease. Which is to say that it's not.
The Oxford English dictionary defines disease as: a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms. Homosexuality is does not inhibit the function of people. It's not a disease.

By the way, I've NEVER run up against a situation in which racism or sexism or homophobia was cited improperly. The norm is people being racist or sexist or homophobic and then being called out on it. And while I'm perfectly happy defending people who weren't being racist/sexist/homophobic, but were called racist/sexist/homophobic, what usually transpires is that the people who complain about to much political correctness are those that are racist, sexist or homophobic, and get frustrated when they are called out for being such.

[Ericho]

At 6/21/10 02:45 AM, RedFlames wrote: Anti-Semetism
Accepted meaning: Irrational hatred of Jews
Real meaning: Irrational hatred of the semetic peoples (those from the middle east or those who speak Arabic, Arameic, or Hebrew etc.)

I never even knew that other people from Jews sere considered semantic, so I am glad that you pointed this out.

Homophobia
Accepted meaning: Irrational hatred of homosexual persons
Real meaning: Irrational fear of homosexual persons
Most people who use this word against those who hate homosexuals target those who hate them, not who fear them.

Exactly. If someone has claustrophobia, they are afraid of enclosed spaces. Has there ever been a claustrophic person who regularly protests against enclosed spaces and say that they should never be used. Why would anti-gay people be afraid of homosexuals?

Nazi
Accepted meaning: One who hates Jews
Real meaining: One who follows the political views of the National Socalist Labor Party.
Although the Nazi party of America supports discrimination calling a person a Nazi simply because of the past is wrong.

Good point. I mean, the Nazis are known for killing Jews or at least starting the Holocaust which is truly something that can never be let down. I guess the reputation forever ruined them.

[BrianEtrius]

At 6/22/10 03:38 AM, RedFlames wrote: Homosexuality is a disease, to be exact a hormonal imbalance or genetic disorder. Whether or not this is seen as an inferiority, they should not be openly discriminated against.

Gee, I don't know, wasn't it back in 1973 when the American Psychological Association stated homosexuality was not a disease? And if it is a hormonal imbalance or genetic disorder, then why are there all these arguments of Nature versus Nurture?

[RedFlames]

At 6/22/10 03:20 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

Gee, I don't know, wasn't it back in 1973 when the American Psychological Association stated homosexuality was not a disease? And if it is a hormonal imbalance or genetic disorder, then why are there all these arguments of Nature versus Nurture?

That is an opinion, widely accepted, but still an opinion

[RubberTrucky]

At 6/22/10 03:38 AM, RedFlames wrote:
Homosexuality is a disease, to be exact a hormonal imbalance or genetic disorder. Whether or not this is seen as an inferiority, they should not be openly discriminated against.

This is quite what I'm wanting to say. Whether you say it is a disease or not, it's important that you don't treat them different than any other person.

At 6/22/10 06:48 AM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote:
By the way, I've NEVER run up against a situation in which racism or sexism or homophobia was cited improperly. The norm is people being racist or sexist or homophobic and then being called out on it. And while I'm perfectly happy defending people who weren't being racist/sexist/homophobic, but were called racist/sexist/homophobic, what usually transpires is that the people who complain about to much political correctness are those that are racist, sexist or homophobic, and get frustrated when they are called out for being such.

I did. A girl friend of mine got fined for racism, all because she threw an insult at some minority after being harassed with dirty proposals and being called a filthy whore for refusing to give in to them. Did she commit racism? Maybe. But it was far more civilised than what those other guys yelled after her. (I don't mean civilised in a racist way, though)

Also, this one time after finals in my high school a teacher told a few people from foreign origin that they could not stay on the playground cause they were no students at the school. He got called a racist.

[Patton3]

At 6/22/10 04:23 PM, RedFlames wrote:
That is an opinion, widely accepted, but still an opinion

Isn't that what everything boils down to as far as social issues are concerned? When you get right down to it, the idea that all men are created equal is just an opinion that is widely held. At some point, doesn't an opinion on social issues get enough support, both from psychological research and demographic studies and the like and support of people in general, to for all practical purposes be called a fact?
Also note that there is a distinct difference between genetic disorder, and genetic difference. Down Syndrome is a genetic disorder; homosexuality is a genetic difference. But let's ask a
Mr. Dean Hamer to explain the gay gene. What he discovered doesn't mean a person is gay 100% of the time, but it's a marker on the X-chromosome that predisposes males too homosexuality. He also found a few other markers that seemed to be associated with homosexuality. These findings were also replicated elsewhere, by the way.
As well, here is an article over markers on chromosomes 7 & 8 which have been proven to be tied to male sexual orientation. 60% of the group in the article, all of whom were gay, had these markers which are thought to be linked to it.
All in all, it would that it is far more likely that homosexuality is just determined by genes, and isn't a mutation or disorder. And it's certainly not a pyschological problem.

[RubberTrucky]

Another case that made me think. A while ago, renowned gen researcher Jim Watson got into trouble for claiming that people from African decent are proven to be not in the same way intelligent as the Caucasians.
He was even forced to retire and all...

Now I won't debate whether his claim was a truth or a mere opinion, but I was wondering if we should censor scientific truths to maintain political correctness. Overall, if a test shows that let's say Hispanics do in fact score less on a test than White American people and that this is biological, rather than due to environmental, should such results be prevented from reaching the general public?

[S4cr3d-Cr4p]

My main point was simply that the percentage of wrongly accused racism out of all racism claims is tiny. Yes there are some exceptions. But the majority of cases are legit, and that is why we have political correctness.

[Malachy]

At 6/22/10 05:37 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Now I won't debate whether his claim was a truth or a mere opinion, but I was wondering if we should censor scientific truths to maintain political correctness. Overall, if a test shows that let's say Hispanics do in fact score less on a test than White American people and that this is biological, rather than due to environmental, should such results be prevented from reaching the general public?

But that in itself could have room for bias in preperation of the test. I'm assuming you are referring to linking say an IQ test with a genetic disposition. It has been debated that standardized tests often inadvertently have a bias towards white, middle-class children in the examples, names and assumptions on shared culture in forming questions. These kinds of tests can give a lower-class Hispanic person a disadvantage simply because the test had examples that didn't connect with the test taker.

And trying to prove that somebody got a question wrong on a multiple choice test because of some type of gene in their body would have to be impossible to solve. Every Hispanic in the world could get the same type of questions wrong but that could because of differences beyond genetics, like different rhythm of speech/sentense structure used in everyday language in a culture that may take some of its language from Spanish and less from English. A group of New England WASPs forming tests may not form questions that would connect well to a second generation Hispanic living in the Southwest USA who's primary language at home is Spanish.

I doubt that you could prove a test of intelligence is at all related to genetics when there are far easier variables to blame it on.

I doubt that the scientific community would "censure" somebody based on the findings of a study. If anything he probably neglected to follow principles like having a a control group, double-blind studies or a large enough subject size.

A few years ago there was a study pointing out that gay black men were forced to partake in homophobic society because of pressures from peers and that many weren't open. But when I read where the author got his subjects from, it was a sampling of a dozen black men the author met at gay pride parades in DC, Chicago and Detroit. This study does not seem sound in the least. He had a small sample size, he got his subjects from a gay-pride parade who were observing it and not partaking in it and he made assumptions on Black Gay culture based on those few interviews.

[RedFlames]

I applaud you on how much you thought this out. Genetics cannot be used as a weapon against the minorities. There are simply too many variables involved to determine that.

[EclecticEnnui]

At 6/21/10 02:45 AM, RedFlames wrote: Homophobia
Accepted meaning: Irrational hatred of homosexual persons
Real meaning: Irrational fear of homosexual persons
Most people who use this word against those who hate homosexuals target those who hate them, not who fear them.

"Homophobia" is an "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality." Even if you look up "phobia", it also means hatred and aversion. Ergo, if you hate homosexuals, but are not afraid of them, you're still homophobic.

I do agree, though, there can be too much political correctness in society like being called a racist because you said someone is black or whatnot. Sometimes, political correctness is necessary. Otherwise, for instance, Disney's Peter Pan is an accurate portrayal of natives.

[Light]

At 6/21/10 02:45 AM, RedFlames wrote:

Related to this there are some words involved in racism that are misused

Anti-Semetism
Accepted meaning: Irrational hatred of Jews
Real meaning: Irrational hatred of the semetic peoples (those from the middle east or those who speak Arabic, Arameic, or Hebrew etc.)

Looks like the dictionary disagrees with you on the "real" definition of that word. :P

[yurgenburgen]

At 6/21/10 02:45 AM, RedFlames wrote: Homophobia
Accepted meaning: Irrational hatred of homosexual persons
Real meaning: Irrational fear of homosexual persons
Most people who use this word against those who hate homosexuals target those who hate them, not who fear them.

It can be either. In its broadest sense, "homophobia" incorporates fear of, aversion to, and hatred of, etc.

[Camarohusky]

Maybe if we determine how and why we got to our current level of political correctness we could see what is both good and bad about it.

[Ace360]

You may want to add "marxism/communism/socialism" or "liberal" to that list. Labeling the current president and others as "Socialists" (albeit, incorrectly) has become quite popular since the 2008 elections. Liberalism and progressivism are also apparently becoming bad words, as well.

The above probably vaguely indicates where my political leanings lie.

Anyways, I agree with you. This hyper sensitivity has, IMO, been partly influenced by politics and the media (depending on which channel you watch). When new and old cultures clash, the sh*t hits the fan. Thats where the politicans and media capitalize. Take the 'Tea Party' for example, which gots it's roots from concerns over the new administration's healthcare bill. The GOP took advantage of the confusion. Now it caters to conservatives and the far-right crowd... The same can also be said for the anti-war protests organized by Democrats and other left-wing groups during the Bush terms.

Just my 2 cents.

Wow, I have really gone on, have I? LOL

[RubberTrucky]

Another case. A while back a Congolese student demanded a 30s comic to be banned from public because of racist depiction of Africans.
This is of course mostly due to the times the comic was created in, being heavily colonial, so blackl people in Africa did carry white people around and all. The comic did not invoke hatred or anything.

should we ban items because they mock a stereotype regardless of the time it has been made? Do you think this comic, for instance, should be banned?

[RedFlames]

Good point
Communism/Marxism/Socialism aren't bad systems, they have just been corrupted by certain bad leaders.
Liberalism is being looked at bad because of the obama administration (by some) is being seen in a negative light.
The same went for Conservatism and Republicanism during the bush administration.

[Light]

At 6/27/10 11:22 PM, RedFlames wrote: Good point
Communism/Marxism/Socialism aren't bad systems, they have just been corrupted by certain bad leaders.

Are you fucking kidding me? Every leader who has embraced Communism/Marxism is or was an evil asshole. Kim Jon Il, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara(A leader in one respect), Lennin, and Joseph Stalin being the worst examples.

Let me tell you that Communism/Marxism is a HORRIBLE system that inexplicably encourages human evil to foster. Joseph Stalin was responsible for over 27 million deaths in his lifetime, about 7.5 million from WWII, the rest were because he wanted them dead. There are so many reasons why it is such a terrible system. Socialism on the other hand still sucks major ass, but isn't really associated with all of that poverty and murder that is visibly present in communist countries. But I must say, Socialism still fails to me.

[RosealeeKronner]

Racism seems to be talked about a lot in this thread, I am white, I admit this. What I don't understand that some black people call each other "The N Word" Now I LOATHE that word to the core, I really do. I just never liked it. But that is how some black people call each other friend is by using that word. Yet if a white person uses it to describe a black person as their friend in that joking manner, people are ready to jump or beat the crap out of the white person for using 'their' word. It's just a bad word all around no matter who uses it, and means 'Ignorant person' Not black person. Which most people seem to forget. I mean I don't get offended if someone calls me a honky or a cracker. Anyone understand what I am talking about and do you agree that it's stupid how people fight over a word which they use?

[Camarohusky]

Comparing the N word to cracker or honky is not a good comparison at all...

Very few words carry the same about of hate, invective and hurt toward white people as the N word does to black people. There just has not been the loaded history of the word.