Political Correctness

[Submerged]

The big difference here is that 'white' was always just 'white' whereas 'black' was not just a colour but also a metaphor for stuipid, lazy, uneducated, slave, criminal, less worthy, less than human etc.
I am german living in South Africa and while being called white was never discriminatory, the term black was and is almost always meant in a derogatory fashion.
you need to understand that because of past injustices and discrimination the term black is more than just a colour description.
As much as i don't agree with a lot of the PC excesses, sometimes it is prudent to think about the history behind the need to be more sensitive.

Ah. This would be because of cultural differences between you and I in this case. I can understand that the past meanings of the word "black" could be interpreted in a derogatory fashion, however from what I understand of my culture and experiences, the word itself is just used to describe the colour of the person's skin itself.

With words like these, I take them at their literal point, rather than their word associations as I find it makes the world and the language a simplier place.

To chime in with the hearing loss and the visual loss stuff, I am profoundly deaf but I often have to say that I have a hearing loss or hard of hearing, rather than saying that I am profoundly deaf. Reason is, as soon as you say the word "deaf" itself, people automatically think of the signing community. Thing is, I ain't part of that. Never will. I talk as well as most people and communicate effectively through speech and is degree educated. Additionally, I have a Cochlea Implant. Now, the tricky thing is, if I did not have the Cochlea Implant itself, the sound needs to be above 100dB for me to naturally hear anything. So in all intents and purposes, I am practically as deaf as a doorpost. But with the Cochlea Implant itself, the quietest is around about 30dB. Or thereabouts. Maybe less, as I've not been tested for a while... So most of the time, I am just slightly hard of hearing with it. Other times that I don't use it (sleeping!) I'm completely incapable of hearing normal conversations at all (which is wonderful for sleeping!).


With the PC stuff....it sometimes can be like walking through a room that is forever hazy with possibly meanings of the words used, but never clear-cut. Its very annoying as you do not generally get an idea what is actually meant by the original speaker.

 

[Grand Prix]

Ah. This would be because of cultural differences between you and I in this case. I can understand that the past meanings of the word "black" could be interpreted in a derogatory fashion, however from what I understand of my culture and experiences, the word itself is just used to describe the colour of the person's skin itself.

With words like these, I take them at their literal point, rather than their word associations as I find it makes the world and the language a simplier place.

To chime in with the hearing loss and the visual loss stuff, I am profoundly deaf but I often have to say that I have a hearing loss or hard of hearing, rather than saying that I am profoundly deaf. Reason is, as soon as you say the word "deaf" itself, people automatically think of the signing community. Thing is, I ain't part of that. Never will. I talk as well as most people and communicate effectively through speech and is degree educated. Additionally, I have a Cochlea Implant. Now, the tricky thing is, if I did not have the Cochlea Implant itself, the sound needs to be above 100dB for me to naturally hear anything. So in all intents and purposes, I am practically as deaf as a doorpost. But with the Cochlea Implant itself, the quietest is around about 30dB. Or thereabouts. Maybe less, as I've not been tested for a while... So most of the time, I am just slightly hard of hearing with it. Other times that I don't use it (sleeping!) I'm completely incapable of hearing normal conversations at all (which is wonderful for sleeping!).


With the PC stuff....it sometimes can be like walking through a room that is forever hazy with possibly meanings of the words used, but never clear-cut. Its very annoying as you do not generally get an idea what is actually meant by the original speaker.

That is mostly why I get annoyed when people assume I'm deaf also, they immediately jump to the conclusion you must be one of those guys that use sign language. I'm mostly missing the higher frequencies in my hearing (in both ears). For example, chirping birds, cats, and other sounds of the sort. I also cannot hear the difference between "f" and "th" sounds. This has resulted in a bit of a speech impediment, as I cannot hear "th", so I never learned to pronounce it for much of my life. It is difficult to learn how to pronounce something you cannot hear. I use digital hearing aids which help, and are especially better than the older analog ones as they only boost the frequencies I have trouble hearing. They still cannot stimulate the hairs in the cochlea that aren't there, however.

I tend to notice in most situations, the people that are being defended from a word by PC, tend to think it is ludicrous. It creates an awkward situation if try to use Political Correctness in front of someone with a "disability." The PC person thinks they're being nice, but the "victim" realizes that they're trying to avoid the word. Consequently, he gets more annoyed because he thinks the PC person is assuming they are a bit of a wuss, unable to handle hearing that word.

"Black" is a tricky one. African-American sort of works in the US, but which African country did the person come from? Chances are he could be a 4th generation American also. Can you use African-American in Britain? How about African countries? Can you call an African an African-American? Or is he just simply an African? It goes on and on and on.

We could solve this by recognizing that humans are all a shade of brown and not label anyone at all by skin colour. Then we never to worry about offending anyone. This creates a bit of a problem, however, as we wouldn't know how to identify a person by the way they look. Police reports for one, would be a muddled mess. This is why we need labels. Which labels to use... I don't know, thanks to political correctness. Normally I use the term black guy.

We have a funny situation in BC regarding Indians. Baby Boomers in the past have always called North American Aboriginals "Indians", and people from India as "East-Indians" (the other kind of Indians). PC has gone mad in trying to defend both groups, the solution was to refer to "East-Indians" as "Southeast Asians." This creates whole new problems with people from Thailand and other "Southeast Asian" countries.

The Baby Boomers still use East-Indian and Imperial measurement though.

 

[Submerged]

Ironically, in Britain there is a difference in the usage of the word "deaf". I can't believe this, but apparently in the comminity of signers (BSL comminity, BSL stands for British Sign Language) they would prefer to be referred to as "Deaf". With the capital "D" to denote that they belong to a community of deaf, siging community. Even if you were to refer to them in a big long sentence (such as: "This person, a Deaf person, was walking along...") For those who are outside of that community (ie: those that don't sign and is following the mainstream society) they refer them as "deaf". With the little "d".

I'm sure its just sort of PC orientated and also something for the powerful signing community we have here, to keep their own "identity" in the country. And be "proud" of it. I had been a part of some areas of the signing community but tend to stay away with it as their tone of life, whenever they look out to the world outside the signing community, was always quite negative and scathing onto hearing people. Plus, there were some rather passionate people with some very deep-rooted (slightly misguided) beliefs as well...

Anyway, it kinda leads to a difficult situation. I'm deaf, in all intents and purposes of being physically deaf without help, but not really in that sense of being Deaf as I am not actually part of the signing community. But there are quite a lot of other people who are nowhere nearly as severely deaf as I am (such as hearing loss either 40dB or above, conversational level could present some problems) be a part of the signing community and call them Deaf themselves. Even though, they could fairly easily hear fairly naturally without any hearing help whatsoever but choose not to. And choose to sign.

Oh, talking about that kinda makes me a bit ranty.

Nice to know I am not the only one on gtplanet that requires some form of help with hearing! Mind you, my hearing loss was pretty high but it turns out I have almost no understanding of high pitched tones at all. With the Cochlea Implant, I managed to actually experience it....and hated it. This is why I am not very keen on the feathered birds. I tolerate them, just don't like them! And yes, I am not particularly great on "s" sounds and some silent sounds as well, such as "th" as you've mentioned and some others.

Ah, that Indian and East-Indian sounds like a right mess there! There is a similar thing in Britain which I noticed when I was in Shanghai talking to an Australian co-worker. She referred to people from India as (quite rightly) Indian and the people from China/Taiwan area as Asians. In England, we call people from India, Pakistan and Bangelesh (sp) as Asians and people from China "Orientals" or Chinese. Although you rarely now hear anyone say Orientals though as I've found out its kinda not really a word you're supposed to say due to PC rules.

It does lead to some very strange wordplays at times.

 

[DG_Silva]

If I can interrject with an example in the UK of where political correctness has become abused to empower people at the expense of others:

There was a case recently of a Christian couple who were running a Bed & Breakfast (or motel for those unfamiliar with the term) in Cornwall who turned away a gay couple, stating that they only allow married couples to share rooms with double beds. The couple had committed to each other with a civil partnership ceremony (giving them same legal rights as married hetrosexual couples). So the question raised is; who has the legal right under law? The couple running the B&B? Or the gay couple? Seeing as the law protects them both, surely the case should have been thrown out. But no, according the judge 'Christians have no need to outwardly express their religion' (unlike Muslims, Hindus, etc.), so the gay couple won compensation.

I personally cannot see the need to ever have brought the case to court, and it only goes to show how people in the UK are too quick to claim they are a 'victim', whether they are an 'ethnic minority' (something of an untruth here in Birmingham, UK). And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I am qualifiied to speak.

I was hoping the new coalition Government might have done something about this ridiculous European Human Rights Act that has infected our society, but alas it doesn't seem to be likely....

 

[Joel]

If I can interrject with an example in the UK of where political correctness has become abused to empower people at the expense of others:

There was a case recently of a Christian couple who were running a Bed & Breakfast (or motel for those unfamiliar with the term) in Cornwall who turned away a gay couple, stating that they only allow married couples to share rooms with double beds. The couple had committed to each other with a civil partnership ceremony (giving them same legal rights as married hetrosexual couples). So the question raised is; who has the legal right under law? The couple running the B&B? Or the gay couple? Seeing as the law protects them both, surely the case should have been thrown out. But no, according the judge 'Christians have no need to outwardly express their religion' (unlike Muslims, Hindus, etc.), so the gay couple won compensation.

I personally cannot see the need to ever have brought the case to court, and it only goes to show how people in the UK are too quick to claim they are a 'victim', whether they are an 'ethnic minority' (something of an untruth here in Birmingham, UK). And before anyone accuses me of homophobia, I am qualifiied to speak.

I was hoping the new coalition Government might have done something about this ridiculous European Human Rights Act that has infected our society, but alas it doesn't seem to be likely....

In that instance, the gay couple shouldn't get anything. The B&B is private property, the owners should be able to have any sort of rules they want.

 

[-Cheezman-]

Yeah, but the B&B is a place of business, therefore, aren't there laws stating that a business can't discriminate against it's customers (I don't know Britain's laws too well)? How is it really any different than if they turned away a black, asian, or white couple based purely on their race?

I have to agree with the ruling, but I'm bias, because I hate everything about christianity (and all religions); and I don't care if that's a PC statement or not.

 

[Joel]

Yeah, but the B&B is a place of business, therefore, aren't there laws stating that a business can't discriminate against it's customers (I don't know Britain's laws too well)? How is it really any different than if they turned away a black, asian, or white couple based purely on their race?

I have to agree with the ruling, but I'm bias, because I hate everything about christianity; and I don't care if that's a PC statement or not.

There are laws, but I think they're ridiculous. If I told someone they weren't allowed in my house, there's no problem with that, but if I let some people pay to come in my house, and turn some people away, then it's suddenly a problem.

It's unfortunate that private property is regulated because it's a business.

 

[Submerged]

Well, how would you like it if we were to suspend reality and say that businesses now have no laws on how private they make their properities?

This could lead to an interesting situation where you get gatekeepers and people with machineguns that has a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy, even if the person had a reasonable reason for being there in the first place. The original reasons for the law on businesses was to give everyone the confidence and the knowledge that they won't be killed/maimed/injuried if there was no signs saying: "Don't trespass, trespassers will be shot!" as they arrived at the place of business. It is a way of standardising expectations with businesses for the customers and laypeople.

However, in this case, my personal feelings is mixed. Largely because I have not read up on the case itself due to no link to an artcle and I require more information. If they have stated that there is a couples-only double bed policy, then in the eyes of the law (i assume and in my eyes with my low knowledge of it), this was illegal to deny the gay couple who had a civil partnership to be effectively "married" the chance to be in a double bed itself.

Interestingly, when the judge ruled on it and said that the Christian owners of the business had no need to outwardly express their religion....I took that to mean that because they were in England, it was expected that they would be of Christian religion and that everyone would know that they are going to be Christian. Which is understandable as England is ruled using Christianity (supposely).

As it is technically a business, they cannot discriminate on the basis of sexuality. So they cannot make their own rules on that. But they are free to make rules and regulations on the upkeep of the room and the behaviour of their guests.

 

[Famine]

In fact they didn't - their reason for not allowing them to stay in the same room was because their beliefs meant they'd only allow married couples to stay in the same room, and because civil partnership is equivalent to marriage rather than actual marriage, the couple weren't married - nothing to do with sexuality at all. If anything it should serve to highlight the discriminatory nature of civil partnerships!

The law as it applies to discrimination in the hospitality industry doesn't cover B&Bs - which are exempted as private residences - so this should never have made court, let alone a ruling against them on spurious grounds.


Incidentally, the point is that private places can (should be able to) install their own additional laws, rather than subtract from existing legal structure. You can't be murdered legally because it's a private place, but you can (should be able to) be turned away because you're white.

 

[Submerged]

....Oh.

I obviously wasn't that well read up on the business law then. Or on the definition of civil partnership either.

One wonders if there was two people, one a man and the other a woman who were either in a relationship or became good friends just sharing a room to save on cost, whether that owner was going to actually prevent that from happening....

 

[Famine]

It was their policy to only admit married couples to shared rooms, so yes. That's Catholicism for you.

 

[Submerged]

Ah I understand. Oh, I very well understand that aspect of Catholicism!

 

[Omnis]

Submerged, there is no such lawful thing as "Shoot first, ask later." I'm pretty sure trespassers-will-be-shot requires some kind of warning mechanism besides the sign. Either verbal warning ("Freeze," "Halt," etc.) or a few warning shots.

 

[Tesla]

@Omnis . The sign should be warning enough. That sign, if in clear view, means that you aren't allowed to trespass. That is their rule. If you break the rule, they say, you suffer the consequences. And anyway, I doubt they would be shooting to kill. Of course, I know very little about law, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

 

[InSight]

PC is the opposite of common sense. They are more concerned with human rights of a criminal than a victim. They are turning everything upside down.

Example: Muslim douche rapes a girl is Stockholm and god forbid you give him pork in prison cos that somehow violates some of his rights. Just one example of such lefty PC nonsense that's ruining everything.

 

[Northstar]

PC is the opposite of common sense. They are more concerned with human rights of a criminal than a victim. They are turning everything upside down.

Example: Muslim douche rapes a girl is Stockholm and god forbid you give him pork in prison cos that somehow violates some of his rights. Just one example of such lefty PC nonsense that's ruining everything.

Your example fails on so many levels.

No matter what someone does, they still have basic rights, nothing PC about it. There are much better ways to get your point across, like TV, job training, crap like that that isn't needed, religion however needs to be respected.

 

[DG_Silva]

PC is the opposite of common sense. They are more concerned with human rights of a criminal than a victim. They are turning everything upside down.

Example: Muslim douche rapes a girl is Stockholm and god forbid you give him pork in prison cos that somehow violates some of his rights. Just one example of such lefty PC nonsense that's ruining everything.

Again, this is something we have infecting the UK. It makes me so angry that one prisoner can sue the prison service because he wasn't allowed access to drugs (thus causing 'torture' by going through cold turkey), then another one sues the prison service for allowing him to be exposed to drugs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Another case we have is where an illegal immigrant ran over a 9 year old girl, dragging her under the car for 100m, killing her. After the judge said he should be deported immediately after his release, he launched an appeal suggesting his human rights to a family life would be breached. What about the rights to a family life of the family he wrecked?

Now where am I going with this, in connection to PC. Because of PC, we have to put up with undeserving people getting something they should have no rights to. Why should Muslims get Government funding for their places of worship, when Christians and Catholics are told that no money is available (quite apart from the former Labour Government who were so biased in terms of electioneering)? Why should we have to restrict what we say, or think, or commit to paper, because one group of people are pre-disposed to violence? It's about time we made brainwashing illegal, because that is what is going on in certain buildings.

One other thing: it's funny how certain groups of people want Government money to 'help them intergrate into British society', yet they don't want to help us fight terrorism because they don't want to 'tell on brother Muslims'. Two-way street peeps, it works both ways. About time we started striking back. You can't say Christianity is evil, and they deserve to die, yet go mad when someone says the same thing about you...

 

[Northstar]

Again, this is something we have infecting the UK. It makes me so angry that one prisoner can sue the prison service because he wasn't allowed access to drugs (thus causing 'torture' by going through cold turkey), then another one sues the prison service for allowing him to be exposed to drugs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

That has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with what is/isn't cruel and unusual punishment.

Another case we have is where an illegal immigrant ran over a 9 year old girl, dragging her under the car for 100m, killing her. After the judge said he should be deported immediately after his release, he launched an appeal suggesting his human rights to a family life would be breached. What about the rights to a family life of the family he wrecked?

What do you propose they do?

Like I said, people have basic rights no matter what they do, one more of those things is the ability to appeal a decision.

As for the victim's rights, there is a thing called civil court, I'm guessing it exists in England.

group of people are pre-disposed to violence?

What group is this?

About time we started striking back.

When you start throwing punches back, the only thing that gets accomplished is two bruised egos and a few broken bones.

You can either be the "better" man or go to their level.

 

[DG_Silva]

To answer those points, yes they are to do with our justice system, and the way it is skewed towards the 'victim', as it should be, even if they don't morally deserve such treatment. Civil cases are fine, but it won't bring back a child, killed by somebody who shouldn't even have been in this country.

To answer your question about 'which group is that', one only has to look at the violent protests by 'radicalist Muslims' over a set of cartoons that weren't even printed, or the 'student protestors' over a proposed increase in tuition fees, that hasn't been confirmed or even communicated properly (student unions saying the fees will all be £9000 pa, where this is not true).

For years and years, we have tried to 'be the better man', we have countered violence with calm words, we have treated the 'ethnic minority' with respect and empathy, and this leads to the inner-city areas with heavier densities of said minorities having higher levels of crime and disorder, as they see themselves 'above the law'. You should try being on a bus in a mainly Pakistani community during Ramadan when the surround the bus and try and tip it over. You should try talking to a policeman who says they can't do anything about it.

 

[InSight]

That has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with what is/isn't cruel and unusual punishment.



What do you propose they do?

Like I said, people have basic rights no matter what they do, one more of those things is the ability to appeal a decision.

As for the victim's rights, there is a thing called civil court, I'm guessing it exists in England.



What group is this?



When you start throwing punches back, the only thing that gets accomplished is two bruised egos and a few broken bones.

You can either be the "better" man or go to their level.

Dude, if you really live in Minnesota, no wonder you have no idea. Stop believing how PC is good for society, it's not. PC is ANARCHY, where everyone is allowed to do whatever he wants and if he's somehow forbidden from doing that (even crime), he sues the state and rants about how his civil liberties, culture, religion,... rights are violated, DESPITE him being a criminal.

Tons of cases exist where your heart hurts, because it's such upside-down nonsense. And if you (concerned taxpayer) say "Hey, this is Birmingham UK", you're branded as racist, intollerant, nazi, fascist,...

PC is good for unicultural environment, but in a multikulti, it's a powder keg

 

[DK]

In fact they didn't - their reason for not allowing them to stay in the same room was because their beliefs meant they'd only allow married couples to stay in the same room...

Which discriminates against non-married couples. But then again, they can just find somewhere else in the area to stay.

 

[Famine]

Yes it does - but since it's the policy of individuals on private property selling a service, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Northstar]

To answer those points, yes they are to do with our justice system, and the way it is skewed towards the 'victim', as it should be, even if they don't morally deserve such treatment. Civil cases are fine, but it won't bring back a child, killed by somebody who shouldn't even have been in this country.

So they should have their rights stripped completely?

To answer your question about 'which group is that', one only has to look at the violent protests by 'radicalist Muslims' over a set of cartoons that weren't even printed, or the 'student protestors' over a proposed increase in tuition fees, that hasn't been confirmed or even communicated properly (student unions saying the fees will all be £9000 pa, where this is not true).

Not the "All Muslims are evil terrorists" argument again, it's been done and overdone a thousand times already, give it a rest.

Islam is the 2nd largest religion, if they were as violent as people act like they are we would all be dead.

For years and years, we have tried to 'be the better man', we have countered violence with calm words, we have treated the 'ethnic minority' with respect and empathy, and this leads to the inner-city areas with heavier densities of said minorities having higher levels of crime and disorder, as they see themselves 'above the law'. You should try being on a bus in a mainly Pakistani community during Ramadan when the surround the bus and try and tip it over. You should try talking to a policeman who says they can't do anything about it.

It's called a riot, happens all the time and *gasp* every group has partaken in them. Hell look at the L.A. riots in the early 90's, doesn't mean all black people are going to kill everyone.

Also, you should go through a gang territory at night, nothing to worry about as long as you have the right color.

Dude, if you really live in Minnesota, no wonder you have no idea. Stop believing how PC is good for society, it's not. PC is ANARCHY, where everyone is allowed to do whatever he wants and if he's somehow forbidden from doing that (even crime), he sues the state and rants about how his civil liberties, culture, religion,... rights are violated, DESPITE him being a criminal.

Tons of cases exist where your heart hurts, because it's such upside-down nonsense. And if you (concerned taxpayer) say "Hey, this is Birmingham UK", you're branded as racist, intollerant, nazi, fascist,...

PC is good for unicultural environment, but in a multikulti, it's a powder keg

I'm against being PC, if you would have read the whole thread you would realize that. None of the examples you or DG posted are dealing with being PC, they are dealing with human rights issues.

Also, what does me being from Minnesota have to do with anything?

 

[BrutherSuperior]

So they should have their rights stripped completely?

That's kind of the point now isn't it?

When you break the law, you lose your rights. Very simple concept, let me explain; if you're ticketed for speeding, you pay a fine. You have a 'right' to private property, in this case it's money, and that right is taken away once you break the law.

When someone is murdered, someone else has broken the law. In addition, said murderer has taken the victim's right to life. Thus, the murderer goes to jail and loses most of their rights.

The argument is what rights they lose and which they keep. Should they have the right to a surf & turf dinner every weekend? Should they have the right to an education (GED, trade) when law abiding citizens would have to pay for such services? What about the right to write a book on how they committed their crime? Is it right that they can 'profit' from being a criminal?

Lots of questions and even more lawyers and judges willing to shred law and replace it with their ideology.

In my opinion, if you're convicted of ghastly crimes such as murder, rape, etc you should remain uncomfortable and in a constant state of suffering for the rest of your sentence. That's the point of the prison system. It's not a resort.

 

[OG_Wretch]

That's kind of the point now isn't it?

When you break the law, you lose your rights. Very simple concept, let me explain; if you're ticketed for speeding, you pay a fine. You have a 'right' to private property, in this case it's money, and that right is taken away once you break the law.

When someone is murdered, someone else has broken the law. In addition, said murderer has taken the victim's right to life. Thus, the murderer goes to jail and loses most of their rights.

The argument is what rights they lose and which they keep. Should they have the right to a surf & turf dinner every weekend? Should they have the right to an education (GED, trade) when law abiding citizens would have to pay for such services? What about the right to write a book on how they committed their crime? Is it right that they can 'profit' from being a criminal?

Lots of questions and even more lawyers and judges willing to shred law and replace it with their ideology.

In my opinion, if you're convicted of ghastly crimes such as murder, rape, etc you should remain uncomfortable and in a constant state of suffering for the rest of your sentence. That's the point of the prison system. It's not a resort.

Absolutely, truth.
Prisons neither punish or rehabilitate but they still claim to be trying to do both.

I say do one or the other or maybe one then the other.

 

[A2K78]

Absolute codswallop lol. There is no legislation involved whatsoever.

As far as I know there has never been a single political correctness law passed in the US or the UK banning certain words. Nobody has ever been charged and convicted with being politically incorrect.

Political correctness is simply a kind of formal language used by public institutions to promote equality.

Any other meanings you have for it are likely invented by the media who like to make fun of any ideas that are remotely progressive.

First and foresmost political correctness isn't about promoting equality but rather silencing certain viewpoints and actions on social level.

I don't know if you remember the controversey surrounding Tim Hardway and his comment about gays or Carrier Prejean's view on marriage, but in both situations political correctness reared its ugly head out.

In the end idea of political correctness bad for society and its bad because its one step away from threatening free speech.

 

[DG_Silva]

@Justin, when did I suggest that all Muslim are terrorists? I was saying that a small minority of a population cause trouble because they are easily led by very successful brainwashers. Yes, I understand that groups are within their rights to protest, but when there is any suggestion of whites protesting, we are expected to stand still and quietly chant 'Down with this sort of thing'...

As an example of PC, how about the former Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who was lambasted for daring to suggest that groups of Pakistani men (note, he didn't say all) regard white girls as 'easy meat'. Despite this going on since the 70's, the police have never been able to publically make the link because of fears of being seen as 'institutionally racist'.
http://inmytrends.com/white-girls-easy-meat-for-pakistani-rapists-says-straw.htm

As for removing rights after committing a crime, is that so bad? 'Help those who trespass against me', one of the lines in the Lord's Prayer. The prison service, in the UK at least, is neither a punishment or a rehabilitation service, but simple a hotel without wallpaper. Some people would respond well to an education-based rehabilitation system, and we should encourage that. For those who don't wish to learn, especially those who habitually break the law, prison should be absolute hell, and an effective deterent.

 

[PzR Slim]

That's kind of the point now isn't it?

When you break the law, you lose your rights. Very simple concept, let me explain; if you're ticketed for speeding, you pay a fine. You have a 'right' to private property, in this case it's money, and that right is taken away once you break the law.

When someone is murdered, someone else has broken the law. In addition, said murderer has taken the victim's right to life. Thus, the murderer goes to jail and loses most of their rights.

The argument is what rights they lose and which they keep. Should they have the right to a surf & turf dinner every weekend? Should they have the right to an education (GED, trade) when law abiding citizens would have to pay for such services? What about the right to write a book on how they committed their crime? Is it right that they can 'profit' from being a criminal?

Lots of questions and even more lawyers and judges willing to shred law and replace it with their ideology.

In my opinion, if you're convicted of ghastly crimes such as murder, rape, etc you should remain uncomfortable and in a constant state of suffering for the rest of your sentence. That's the point of the prison system. It's not a resort.

Absolutely spot on. Make prison a place that people don't want to go. Not because their freedom is taken away but because it is a horrible place to be. Make them do hard labour and seriously limit any enjoyable activities down to a minimum. When I was at school the main reason I stayed out of trouble was becasue I didn't want to have my hands rapped with the cane. It was unpleasant, it hurt like hell. The punishment has got to fit the crime and it seems to me that prison really isn't too much of a punishment.

 

[Submerged]

Absolutely spot on. Make prison a place that people don't want to go. Not because their freedom is taken away but because it is a horrible place to be. Make them do hard labour and seriously limit any enjoyable activities down to a minimum. When I was at school the main reason I stayed out of trouble was becasue I didn't want to have my hands rapped with the cane. It was unpleasant, it hurt like hell. The punishment has got to fit the crime and it seems to me that prison really isn't too much of a punishment.

Or it is a punishment but due to the mis-lead media and also the false bravado of some criminals, they could be making it sound better than it actually is.

Although, it really should be quite bare and basic. In America, don't the prison system use their prisoners to create workers that they don't have to pay? That seems reasonable, using the prisoners to work a standard working week for no extra charge.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I detest political correctness and it has nothing to do with whether I'm fair to people - since I am.

Political correctness isn't about fairness and equality. It's about legislated, enforced denial of culture to minimise perceived offence. Tolerance isn't about who can pass what laws to make sure no-one's discriminated against - it's about knowing that there are differences between people (gender, age, physical and mental form, heritage, religion, race, nationality - the list goes on, and on, and on) and choosing - choosing - to act accordingly.

Pretending there aren't differences and smoothing everything out to a grey hegemony is the goal of political correctness - if there's no differences between people, no-one can be offended - and it denies individuals and groups the free expression of their culture, for better or for worse.


Don't force people to put up with me because offending me is wrong. Allow them the choice of putting up with me or not.

I quite agree with a lot in the statement above.

People are different, we need to accept this.
Individuals have equal rights, we need to accept this.

But for me political correctness is not about:

* enforced denial of culture to minimise perceived offence
* grey hegemony ... the goal of political correctness

If I state job offer for a White Male Manger of 35 years old, I will create a "grey hegemony".

If I do it politically correct: looking for a Manger, to lead a team of 15 in the domain of ... and with a management style in line with my corporate culture.
I will probably get a lot of colour and ages in, I might find the little touch of difference that will make the team work better.

Now it still remains talking vs doing. But the inclusion of all is essential in political correctness.

The legislation should have as one of its goals to stimulate using the resources of a country in the best way. Political correctness, even enforced can contribute to this, but you might think of a more effective measure.

I do believe that Political Correct statements can help:
* to avoid to oppress certain groups
* to bring people up with a more open mind

e.g.: in a business context always using males as managers and females as secretaries in teaching examples is oppressing females.


On the other hand, I'm still struggling with you to have to state I want a Male/Female Bra salesperson, when you know you will only hire female since you believe a male can not give the same service to your clients.

1) I'm not convinced a male could not, but certainly some people will feel this way.
2) I actually think that Male/Female Bra salesperson is the lesser evil of avoiding oppressing vs misleading information. To get this it would have to be imposed by legislation, since it is not serving the goals of the person writing it.