Do you respect the rules of political correctness

Post Reply New Topic

But people are allowed to infer what they will from someone's refusal to answer a simple question.

For instance, if I posted endless anti-black threads, and I was, shall we say, equivocal on the subject of blacks actually being the victim of racist attacks and not particularly willing to castigate their persecutors, would it not look rather dodgy if I refused to answer a question put to me that asked whether I supported or endorsed slavery?

You might be undecided or ambiguous on the issue.

ruveyn

Which is almost as bad, n'est ce pas?

It depends. In the days before machines, slaves were an important source of labor. It was not until the eleventh century that bridles and tethers made horses more economical than humans as a source of muscular energy. In Rome, the Romans exploited Greek slaves for their brain power.

Armies which conscript are using slave labor to fill the ranks.

If a more economical source of either brain power or energy can be found using animals and machines then it would be a sin to enslave a human except as a punishment for a crime he committed. For example, if a thief could not repay what he stole, then making him work for the difference might be a moral act.

ruveyn

OK, if I never actually answered the question on whether U.S. blacks should have been slaves.

I don't see that as the case. i think the term, as its used now, is mostly an invention of right wing talk radio. What it is is the Soviets used to accuse people of political correctness for not confroming to Communist ideology. They'd send people to gulags and mental hospitals over the accusation. When hate speech was discussed in the 90's, people like Rush Limbaugh would call the proponents of hate speech laws as PC police as a snide way of placing them on the same level as Soviet commisars. Its only degraded with time, and the political correctness label is affixed to people not even advocating hate speech laws at all, just people who are reccommending politeness with no political agenda or angle at all.

Now tying it back into the original, Soviet definition, I think any ideology is capable falling into a politically corect paradigm. Some people get very offended if you dare challenge or question their stance on an issue, be they liberal or conservative, Libertarian, or whatever. Well I guess they're not guilty of it because they onbiously have a monopoly on truth, but that's what everyone thinks. Look at how much people fight over evolution and global warming as well. You can't have a real discussion with some, because they're so stuck in their political construct, and once they've mentally framed you as their political adversary, once you've offended their sense of what's coreally just rrect to them politically, they pretty much write you off.

I don't really have much use for the term "politically correct", as its used now. Its mostly a buzz phraze. It really just ammounts to name calling.

Indeed the expression was popularised on the Right as those who used it demanded the right to announce their belief that there's a hierarchy of races and to use words like "ret*d" and not be criticised for that.

It's really hard to be against the idea political correctness when those quotes are a prime example of the attitudes expressed by the majority of the anti-PC crowd. They feel it's rebellious and hardcore when really they're just generating a 1st Amendment-based free ticket to be an a-hole.

Political correctness is a flawed concept that gets people riled up. Many PC terms that I use, I use to be courteous, not to be PC, or otherwise is just the way I will naturally refer to it. I go back and forth on terms such as "black" or "African American" and will sometimes use them interchangably or use whichever one would be the most specific in a certain situation.

I don't think it's about being sensible. It's about having a brain and knowing when it is appropriate to use a certain term to express something. Inexperience people do make mistake and we shouldn't be harshed about that. However the ones that do it intentionally just use the 1st Amendment as an excuse for their unprofessional attitudes towards anything they have little knowledge about.

You are allowed to infer that the moon is made of green cheese from his refusal to answer, but that wouldn't make it right, or reasonable, or sane.

You asked him a question designed to make him look bad. He is not under any obligation to answer or even read any question you might ask him. What conclusions can you *reasonably* draw from that? None whatsoever.


Refusing to answer a question would not look dodgy, but posting "endless anti-black threads" would.

BTW, being equivocal about blacks being subject to racism could easily be evidence-related rather than prejudice-related, and if someone thinks such events are not occurring, why would they be particularly eager to castigate the non-existent perpetrators?

The proper response to this hypothetical situation would be to take you to task for *actually* making a bunch of anti-black threads, not for *seeming* like you *might* think something racist about black people.

Not when they are used to suppress legitimate constructive debate.

Last edited by ripped on 14 Feb 2013, 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The long sword was properly used to cut off the victim's head by his best friend; he gutted himself with a horizontal slash across his abdomen, using the short sword. No tip sticking out of his back; that guy^ is doing it wrong.

^ Maybe that's a side view of the friend trying to slowly saw his suicidal bud's head off -- maybe the friend is the one who is doing it wrong.

http://unpchaven.proboards.com/index.cgi

I've made a internet forum. Mainly due to some issues centering around another internet forum (nothing to do with here, which I think is a pretty fair site).

It's called "The UN-PC Haven" in which you can discuss anything and everything, without having to put up with political correctness. Feel free to join if you wish.