Political Correctness

[LeMansAid]

The thing is Down's sufferers can be magnificent beings too, it all depends on your criteria for being "magnificent". Again if it's to do with disease we can go a lot further.

So let's go further then. Sight unseen, why wouldn't we go for the humans with the best odds of not bogging their parents down for the rest of their lives with otherwise unnecessary care, followed by that burden being shifted to some other poor sod once they die or become incapable of the care, and/or with tax payers footing the bill? It's short-sighted and deluded sentimentalist fluff. "We" look at cousin Downy and mourn his hypothetical non-existence, when there's every possibility that Downy's existence prohibited the existence of another person that would have started with no known hindrances. Why would we not go with an option with no known hindrances? Religion? An inspirational story?

If we're finding that we need to bring diseased and crippled new lives into the world (in place of likely not diseased and crippled lives) to find perspective and warmth of heart, we're seriously messed up creatures that probably shouldn't be procreating to start with. Below the point where there's instantaneous human rights abuses taking place if parents choose to go full term, they should be able to proceed or not, as long as they are ready to accept the consequences. I just find it weird, possibly sick, and maybe rather politically correct to advocate that we shouldn't discriminate based on the little bits of information we actually can glean. It ends up at the irony of resembling special snowflake-ness-like attitudes.

You may have deduced by now that I'm really not all that fussed about the ad itself.

 

[Dotini]

We may want to suffuse this thread with the golden hues and patina of nostalgia and fond remembrance. Donald Trump and the global populist movement is killing PC.

 

[Scaff]

We may want to suffuse this thread with the golden hues and patina of nostalgia and fond remembrance. Donald Trump and the global populist movement is killing PC.

Or arguably bringing in its own form of it, in which the Theater must be a safe space, film is biased against the poor white male and Christianity can't be spoken about critically.

I've always found it rather odd that 'PC' is a pejorative aimed at the liberal left, yet a version of it arguably exists for the Nationalistic right.

 

[Dotini]

Or arguably bringing in its own form of it, in which the Theater must be a safe space, film is biased against the poor white male and Christianity can't be spoken about critically.

I've always found it rather odd that 'PC' is a pejorative aimed at the liberal left, yet a version of it arguably exists for the Nationalistic right.

We used to call it conformism. If you didn't conform, you were labeled a communist, a beatnik, a bum or hobo.

 

[Imari]

Why would we not go with an option with no known hindrances? Religion? An inspirational story?

Generally, because the road to eugenics is a bit of a slippery one. It can be done, but you have to be super-vigilant that the births that you're not allowing are for sound reasons that have the good of the entire species at heart and not to fulfill someone's personal agenda. We have historical evidence of what happens in that case, and it's not pretty. That we still have white supremacists is a bit shameful.

And then if you're confident that the people in control are doing it all for the right reasons, there's also the question of whether our understanding of genetics is sufficient for us to take control over natural evolution. Potentially there are benefits in the genes of those people. If it's not sufficient to get them killed then perhaps it's worth keeping them around just in case.

On the other hand, there's an argument that natural selection no longer works very well in a modern society that goes a long way to protecting it's citizens. I'm not so sure, I see a lot of people disabling or killing themselves for being [INSERT ATTRIBUTE HERE] enough, but it's certainly a consideration.

I'm not of the opinion that all people are equal, but I certainly think that there are good social reasons to act as if that were true.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Lets just say them southern folk didn't think it was politically correct.

There's no link so I don't know the whole story, but objecting to something you don't like doesn't make it, nor the objection, politically incorrect. If you pass a law or use current legislation to stifle this exercise of freedom of speech, on either side, then PC becomes an issue. Another example might be, if people who don't like or believe in atheism, exert enough influence on social media so that the owner of a billboard chooses to take down the advertisement, then PC becomes an issue. We should expect vigorous discourse in a democracy, trying to stifle that discourse because it doesn't agree with someone's personal opinion, on either side, is when PC becomes an issue, IMO of course.

 

[mustafur]

That billboard lasted 2 hours before it was taken down: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/lou...ning-atheist-christmas-billboard-out-of-town/

 

[Scaff]

There's no link so I don't know the whole story, but objecting to something you don't like doesn't make it, nor the objection, politically incorrect. If you pass a law or use current legislation to stifle this exercise of freedom of speech, on either side, then PC becomes an issue. Another example might be, if people who don't like or believe in atheism, exert enough influence on social media so that the owner of a billboard chooses to take down the advertisement, then PC becomes an issue. We should expect vigorous discourse in a democracy, trying to stifle that discourse because it doesn't agree with someone's personal opinion, on either side, is when PC becomes an issue, IMO of course.

I would say that 2 hours would fit that criteria quite well.

 

[Johnnypenso]

delete..nvm...found it

That billboard lasted 2 hours before it was taken down: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/lou...ning-atheist-christmas-billboard-out-of-town/

Sad. I feel bad for the owner of the billboard, forced into a no-win situation but that's how the PC culture operates. Stifling discourse, legal discourse, does no one any favours.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Or arguably bringing in its own form of it, in which the Theater must be a safe space, film is biased against the poor white male and Christianity can't be spoken about critically.

I've always found it rather odd that 'PC' is a pejorative aimed at the liberal left, yet a version of it arguably exists for the Nationalistic right.

Could you expand on this a bit, I haven't been following what Trump has said re: theatres and film and Christianity 👎 (the thumbs down was a mistake but there's a glitch on phones where you can't delete emojis.)

LMA I'll respond to your thought provoking post when home.

 

[polysmut]

(the thumbs down was a mistake but there's a glitch on phones where you can't delete emojis.)

The plain text editor should enable you to do it, reached by clicking the spanner/wrench icon at the top right.

Or try highlighting it as selected text & then either backspace or "cut" might do it. 👍

 

[Scaff]

Could you expand on this a bit, I haven't been following what Trump has said re: theatres and film and Christianity 👎 (the thumbs down was a mistake but there's a glitch on phones where you can't delete emojis.)

LMA I'll respond to your thought provoking post when home.

The Theater one was in reference to Trumps tweet that they should be a safe space after the lead of Hamilton made a (in my opinion perfectly polite) address to Mike Pence.

Films would be around the absurd backlash and attempts to boycott films such as Mad Max Fury Road and Rogue 1 for apparently offering a distorted and biased world view that is anti white male. The 'alt-right' sub-reddit on it is hilarious.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ars-rogue-one-alt-right-boycott-a7464806.html

As far as Christianity goes a good example has already been provided in this thread, but many more exist in that regard, including the fact that as an atheist I would not be able to hold office in a number of states, which despite seeming to be unconstitutional is still on the law books of a number of states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/...-push-to-end-largely-forgotten-ban-.html?_r=0

Now while these are 'dead' laws that hasn't stopped groups trying to use them, even as recently as 2009.

Almost forgot, the boycott Kellogg one from Breitbart followers as well.

Now a number of these are simply people saying 'I don't like x and will say so and boycott it'; however such a distinction has never stopped the same situations on the liberal left being branded as Political Correctness gone mad (example and example). As such I think the same standard should apply in these cases.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Thanks Scaff and S_Bridge.

So much for....

 

[mister dog]

Didn't really know where to put this, but nice conversation about mainstream media, immigration and how the political left could change their discourse to get their credibility back.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

So let's go further then. Sight unseen, why wouldn't we go for the humans with the best odds of not bogging their parents down for the rest of their lives with otherwise unnecessary care, followed by that burden being shifted to some other poor sod once they die or become incapable of the care, and/or with tax payers footing the bill? It's short-sighted and deluded sentimentalist fluff. "We" look at cousin Downy and mourn his hypothetical non-existence, when there's every possibility that Downy's existence prohibited the existence of another person that would have started with no known hindrances. Why would we not go with an option with no known hindrances? Religion? An inspirational story?

If we're finding that we need to bring diseased and crippled new lives into the world (in place of likely not diseased and crippled lives) to find perspective and warmth of heart, we're seriously messed up creatures that probably shouldn't be procreating to start with. Below the point where there's instantaneous human rights abuses taking place if parents choose to go full term, they should be able to proceed or not, as long as they are ready to accept the consequences. I just find it weird, possibly sick, and maybe rather politically correct to advocate that we shouldn't discriminate based on the little bits of information we actually can glean. It ends up at the irony of resembling special snowflake-ness-like attitudes.

You may have deduced by now that I'm really not all that fussed about the ad itself.

In essence you're saying that it's politically correct to not believe in eugenics? I'll ask a question: some groups see homosexuality as something to be engineered out of a "perfect" society. Would we, on discovering a "gay gene" twenty years in the future be comfortable adopting a similar view on people aborting potentially gay children?

 

[Johnnypenso]

In essence you're saying that it's politically correct to not believe in eugenics? I'll ask a question: some groups see homosexuality as something to be engineered out of a "perfect" society. Would we, on discovering a "gay gene" twenty years in the future be comfortable adopting a similar view on people aborting potentially gay children?

Since abortion is legal in all western democracies as far as I know, you can abort a child for literally any reason you want. You don't need a reason.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Since abortion is legal in all western democracies as far as I know, you can abort a child for literally any reason you want. You don't need a reason.

You don't, but my point was if the discovery of a gay gene happened and a subsequent, significant reduction in the gay community happened over the following decade would we be happy with their removal and replacement with "magnificent" straight beings. TBH I could have chosen any factor or disease, since as you point out, you don't need a reason.

*I think Ireland is an exception to the "all western democracies", not sure of any other

 

[LeMansAid]

In essence you're saying that it's politically correct to not believe in eugenics? I'll ask a question: some groups see homosexuality as something to be engineered out of a "perfect" society. Would we, on discovering a "gay gene" twenty years in the future be comfortable adopting a similar view on people aborting potentially gay children?

I don't care. I simply don't care if there is a 0% gay population, or a 100% gay population, or any figure in between. Sure there's be the obligatory tongue in cheek quips about the importance of sustaining broadway, fashion, women's sport, etc., to be made - but nothing that would enter the realms of a serious conversation. Saying that we need gay people would yes, just be political correctness as far as I can see.

I know you're enjoying the "magnificent" thing, but it was only ever a a throwaway adjective, where the point was simply that we tend become preoccupied and blinded by people who are an actuality. People with all sorts of hindrances are amazing humans, but what other amazing humans are we missing out on by again..... "not being permanently knocked up"? One can say "Yeah, but then I wouldn't have had little ________", in "sliding doors" reflections, but familiarity completely colours those thoughts. If a person only has 2 children when they could have had 5, then we've completely missed out on little _____, not quite so little _______, and even littler ___. Who mourns the loss of those potential lives?

Now I aint no sciencer or mediciner, so if there's a reason why we need the variety that might otherwise be vanquished, I'd have to bow to others' knowledge - but on a philosophical level, I would maintain that insisting that putting limits on who should and shouldn't be aborted, amounts to political correctness. Except again, for extreme cases where it would be a human rights abuse to go full term.

 

[huskeR32]

Didn't really know where to put this, but nice conversation about mainstream media, immigration and how the political left could change their discourse to get their credibility back.

Who is exactly is "the left?" Democrats? If so, how did they lose their credibility? By losing an election? That seems a bit of a stretch.

Or do you mean liberals in general? If so, how does one even determine that they lost their credibility? Seems like the only people who would make such a pronouncement are conservatives who would never acknowledge a liberal idea as credible anyways. So who cares?

How does any political group "get (it's) credibility back" in a hyper-partisan environment like the one the US is currently in? Half the country will blindly dismiss whatever you say, simply because you're on the other side.

I'm fairly sure that neither side is too concerned about the other sides' notion of "credibility" at this point.

 

[mustafur]

I think Neo liberalism has lost it's credibility and been very much exposed as well as US Media which really didn't have much to begin with.

 

[huskeR32]

I think Neo liberalism has lost it's credibility and been very much exposed as well as US Media which really didn't have much to begin with.

This comment is no more informative than the original one by @mister dog.

How did liberalism lose it's credibility? According to whom? Is anybody arriving at that conclusion via reasoning outside of blind partisanship?

What have they been "very much exposed" as? By whom?

--

I think 63 million Americans flushed their credibility down the drain by voting for Trump.

And I'm fairly sure that anybody who voted for him is utterly unconcerned with that opinion.

Both sides think the other's viewpoint lacks credibility. Therefore neither side has any. Or they both have it. Or something. It's pointless to try and determine credibility in such a divided landscape.

 

[mustafur]

This comment is no more informative than the original one by @mister dog.

How did liberalism lose it's credibility? According to whom? Is anybody arriving at that conclusion via reasoning outside of blind partisanship?

What have they been "very much exposed" as? By whom?

--

I think 63 million Americans flushed their credibility down the drain by voting for Trump.

And I'm fairly sure that anybody who voted for him is utterly unconcerned with that opinion.

Both sides think the other's viewpoint lacks credibility. Therefore neither side has any. Or they both have it. Or something. It's pointless to try and determine credibility in such a divided landscape.

whom you say:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...in-media-falls-to-all-time-low-in-2016-228168

You say partisan but then you claim nonsense of no credibility for voting for Trump who are you to say what 63 million people vote for?

Either way this Partisan Hacky party game has been pretty exposed in this election, many people on the Bernie sanders left refused to vote for Clinton given the DNC party tricks to ensure he wasn't given a fair chance, I'll be surprised if the DNC isn't forced to change in the next electon even though they are already trying to push Tim kaine for 2020 (like that will ever work).

 

[huskeR32]

who are you to say what 63 million people vote for?

Did you miss this part?

And I'm fairly sure that anybody who voted for him is utterly unconcerned with that opinion.

That's the point I'm getting at.

You and mister dog's opinion that the left somehow lacks credibility is no more or less valid than my opinion about Trump voters. Both sides think the other lacks credibility. It renders the whole thing meaningless.

 

[mustafur]

Did you miss this part?



That's the point I'm getting at.

You and mister dog's opinion that the left somehow lacks credibility is no more or less valid than my opinion about Trump voters. Both sides think the other lacks credibility. It renders the whole thing meaningless.

You need to read what I said, I said neo liberalism.

at the end of the day someone lost and there has to be a reason why, even if that reason was a lack of one to vote for a particular person.

 

[Danoff]

at the end of the day someone lost and there has to be a reason why, even if that reason was a lack of one to vote for a particular person.

Well... Hillary got more votes, so.... it's the electoral college that is the reason why.

 

[mister dog]

Who is exactly is "the left?" Democrats? If so, how did they lose their credibility? By losing an election? That seems a bit of a stretch.

Or do you mean liberals in general? If so, how does one even determine that they lost their credibility? Seems like the only people who would make such a pronouncement are conservatives who would never acknowledge a liberal idea as credible anyways. So who cares?

How does any political group "get (it's) credibility back" in a hyper-partisan environment like the one the US is currently in? Half the country will blindly dismiss whatever you say, simply because you're on the other side.

I'm fairly sure that neither side is too concerned about the other sides' notion of "credibility" at this point.

Did you watch the video? It's pretty clear from the points that they are making.

 

[mustafur]

Well... Hillary got more votes, so.... it's the electoral college that is the reason why.

Yes, but we all know the swing states are the only ones the matter due to it.

and their opinion clearly changed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, but we all know the swing states are the only ones the matter due to it.

and their opinion clearly changed.

Swing states and, more specifically, the small% of people who will actually switch from one candidate to the other for their platform or other reasons. Clearly Hillary didn't attract enough of them, in the states that mattered, to carry the day for the Demos. Obama did, which is why he won..

 

[TenEightyOne]

Since abortion is legal in all western democracies as far as I know, you can abort a child for literally any reason you want.

Not so, unfortunately.

 

[Imari]

Saying that we need gay people would yes, just be political correctness as far as I can see.

Obviously gay people aren't a necessity to the survival of the human race. Most people aren't necessary to the survival of the human race, as long as there's people with enough sense to stick the long bit in the wet bit and enough of them to keep humanity out of the shallow end of the gene pool.

But given that we're nowhere near that, it sure seems a shame to miss out on people with as good a chance as anyone of being the next Einstein/Mozart/Mohammed/(insert influential person here) just because they like people with the same genitals.

There's an argument to be made that people with major negative genetic conditions are doing humanity a service by not existing, or at least not procreating and propagating that particular condition. It's not one I would make, but it's there and it has some validity. But there's no such argument to be made about gays. It's not that we need gays, it's that why would you get rid of them? They're just people, and killing them all benefits humanity not at all.