Political Correctness

[MisterWhiskers]

Pretty sure we already found the offended chap here.



Why?

EDIT: Who has said they were annoyed by the breast cancer cars?



Neither are gay people.



That's your objection to homosexuality? You do know the meaning of that word, right? Anybody's mouth ever touched your fun bits? If not, you should try it, I highly recommend it. If so, then congrats, you're a Sodomite yourself.



Religion has no place in a public job like law enforcement. The First Amendment is quite clear on that.



What's political about love?

No, I'm not offended lol.

I'm not exactly sure but someone claimed they were annoyed by seeing breast cancer promoted but were perfectly fine with a pride police car.

I don't mean it like that. I mean, they are used as a tool by the liberals against conservatives, to expose us as "hateful". And no, I'm doing that after marriage. Not too long of a wait now .

Fair enough, but people have the right to object due to religious reasons. That also falls under the 1A.

It's not political exactly but it's used as a tool.

@Danoff my reply also apply to your statements.

 

[huskeR32]

No, I'm not offended lol.

If you say so.

I'm not exactly sure but someone claimed they were annoyed by seeing breast cancer promoted but were perfectly fine with a pride police car.

Should be pretty easy to go find it and provide a link for us - you started this whole thing only one page ago. I'll wait.

I don't mean it like that. I mean, they are used as a tool by the liberals against conservatives, to expose us as "hateful".

Fair enough, but people have the right to object due to religious reasons. That also falls under the 1A.

Object to it? Sure. Refuse to do their job because of it? Not so much.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I knew there would be a backlash lol.

Here we go the PC guys with excuses defending this. If you knew anything about religion you would understand God is All Understanding (inb4 fedoras get offended), and someone's life who is in danger is more important at that moment. It is a belief, not everyone is supportive of the gay movement. Whether you think I am so hateful or homophobic is of no importance to me. I am opposed to the idea, not the people. That is God's decision.

Breast cancer and homosexuality? Why the Hell would you make that connection? The fact that it annoys you that officers supporting breast cancer sufferers but you aren't annoyed by the pride cop cars is very concerning. People who suffer from breast cancer aren't a political tool, they are real victims. I shouldn't have to drive a cop car supporting sodomy, it's quite simple (hypothetically, if I was an officer). This is more than a legal matter, this is a religious and political matter. It's really not that hard to comprehend that some people have more conservative views.

I didn't make a connection between gay rights and breast cancer, I used the breast cancer car as an example of causes that various police forces around the continent have chosen to support. It establishes that police forces have and continue to support various causes that aren't related in any way to policing.

Now that that is out of the way, police officers are sworn to uphold the law, they aren't sworn to agree with the law. Gay rights are legal rights and police officers are sworn to uphold them. You can disagree with them and still do your job. Religious and personal objections are a bottomless pit. As a private citizen you are entitled to practice whatever religious objections and practices you please so long as it's within the law. As an officer of the law you are an employee and subject to the rules of your employment, likely through your collective bargaining agreement if you are part of a municipal police force. You don't have of exercising personal religious objection unless of course, a particular police force decides of it's own accord to honour them.

EDIT:

I'm not exactly sure but someone claimed they were annoyed by seeing breast cancer promoted but were perfectly fine with a pride police car.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

I don't mean it like that. I mean, they are used as a tool by the liberals against conservatives, to expose us as "hateful". And no, I'm doing that after marriage. Not too long of a wait now .

True. Both the left and the right stage situations to embarrass and shame each other. Even if that is true in this case, and there is no evidence that it is, it makes no difference as to whether a religious objection would be enough for you to choose not to do your job.

 

[Danoff]

I don't mean it like that. I mean, they are used as a tool by the liberals against conservatives, to expose us as "hateful".

OMG

They're doing it to troll you?!? Wow.... wow!!

Edit:

And by the way, if you're doing this to troll me, it's not working. This is way too entertaining.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not exactly sure...

Quite.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Here we go the PC guys with excuses defending this. If you knew anything about religion you would understand God is All Understanding (inb4 fedoras get offended), and someone's life who is in danger is more important at that moment. It is a belief, not everyone is supportive of the gay movement. Whether you think I am so hateful or homophobic is of no importance to me. I am opposed to the idea, not the people. That is God's decision.

Considering that one of the guys you quoted is probably one of the most anti-pc members on this forum, you have a lack of depth in what you're arguing. Especially when you start bringing god into something that has to do with legalities.

What's a belief (guessing we'll have to go to the homosexuality thread for your response), since homosexuality isn't a movement so much as it is become to be understood as biological in nature for some. Thus the only "movement" is to get people who are conservative and don't like reading science journals cause they're anti-religious I suppose in your case, to understand that these people deserve equal rights like anyone else. And I'd argue that even if it wasn't biological, they deserve equal rights because it's none of my business to trample on their human rights or freedoms.

Breast cancer and homosexuality? Why the Hell would you make that connection? The fact that it annoys you that officers supporting breast cancer sufferers but you aren't annoyed by the pride cop cars is very concerning. People who suffer from breast cancer aren't a political tool, they are real victims. I shouldn't have to drive a cop car supporting sodomy, it's quite simple (hypothetically, if I was an officer). This is more than a legal matter, this is a religious and political matter. It's really not that hard to comprehend that some people have more conservative views.

What connection? Penso showed cars with various things from local community that people in said community support and want awareness of. I simply said that I get tired of seeing breast cancer awareness but unlike you I don't see a fault in it. You see a fault and a political agenda it seems to make others either have to accept homosexuals, or something else.

People who suffer from breast cancer are political tools when you think about how certain groups work around to make sure their cancer patients get far more awareness than those of others. Say childhood cancers which are far more concerning. Also my mother had breast cancer so thank you for trying to make me out to be a monster, who had to take care of her for a time. So while I don't care to see breast cancer get plastered on everything when other much less survivable prognosis exist in cancer form that should have equal or more attention, I don't see it as a forced agenda. Much in the same way that I don't see it an agenda of liberals to make us all gay or accept gays, rather it's just local communities they are there for them.

Also no one is forced to drive it, if they have a conflict especially religious, then that can't be infringed on. And I'm sure police departments would be one of the most aware of that. Also it's not a religious matter for all, you may have religious notions on the matter but not everyone. Also your conservative views are fine for you, but they don't dictate or take center stage because you're offended. In reality you claim PC here, yet your the offended one it's quite astonishing and inane.

 

[Carbonox]

Considering that one of the guys you quoted is probably one of the most anti-pc members on this forum, you have a lack of depth in what you're arguing. Especially when you start bringing god into something that has to do with legalities.

When you're far enough into the religious argument, any dissenting user looks PC.

 

[huskeR32]

@huskeR32 - seriously, Sodomy is that broad? Excuse me while I type sodomy into the google search bar here at work...

I've always understood the word to mean basically any form of sex other than, well, the one bit going into the other bit.

It looks like Merriam-Webster is a bit narrower, limiting it to anal, oral, and bestiality.

Either way, the vast majority of heterosexuals I know are sodomites in one way or another.

(Can't say I ever expected my time on GTP to result in writing a post like this...)

 

[Danoff]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ed-making-video-auschwitz-gas-chamber-n779691

- US congressman visits Auschwitz, posts a video extending a message to the people in the US about Auschwitz.
- The message is basically the what that facility now stands for - a historical recognition of the depths of humanity.
- Congressman attacked as insensitive.
- Auschwitz once again causes Dan to lose a little faith in humanity.

I guess it's just still too soon to talk about the broader message.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ed-making-video-auschwitz-gas-chamber-n779691

US congressman visits Auschwitz, posts a video extending a message to the people in the US about Auschwitz. The message is basically the what that facility now stands for - a historical recognition of the depths of humanity. Congressman attacked as insensitive. Auschwitz once again causes Dan to lose a little faith in humanity. I guess it's just still too soon to talk about the broader message.

We live in a culture of offense where people can be offended by almost any thing at any time. In this case however, there are signs posted asking the visitors to maintain silence and show respect for the memory of the dead. When a politician, yet again, simply ignores decorum and disrespects what is a sacred historical monument to score cheap political points by creating a video inside a gas chamber, it deserves to be called out IMO. Not for the content of the video which may be criticized on it's own merits, but for ignoring the requests of the museum curators to maintain silence and respect the dead in what is considered a sacred place. Good taste and manners are even harder to come by these days than common sense.

 

[Danoff]

We live in a culture of offense where people can be offended by almost any thing at any time. In this case however, there are signs posted asking the visitors to maintain silence and show respect for the memory of the dead. When a politician, yet again, simply ignores decorum and disrespects what is a sacred historical monument to score cheap political points by creating a video inside a gas chamber, it deserves to be called out. Good taste and manners are even harder to come by these days than common sense.

I don't see any other people in there to be disturbed by his comments. It's not the other people visiting who are disturbed (which is what the signs are for), it's people who aren't there, who don't need a moment to have personal reflection while they visit a historical monument because they are sitting at a computer clicking on videos where they expect someone to start talking and informing/entertaining them.

It does not deserve to be called out.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't see any other people in there to be disturbed by his comments. It's not the other people visiting who are disturbed (which is what the signs are for), it's people who aren't there, who don't need a moment to have personal reflection while they visit a historical monument because they are sitting at a computer clicking on videos where they expect someone to start talking and informing/entertaining them.

It does not deserve to be called out.

Do the people need to be disturbed for it to be in poor taste? Respect for the dead doesn't need someone else to be in the room does it? It's like saying it's ok to Facebook Live at a funeral showing because no one else is around to be disturbed by it, except the dead person who can't object. It's in bad taste IMO, no matter how you slice it. He could have made his point from outside the museum just as easily.

 

[Danoff]

Do the people need to be disturbed for it to be in poor taste? Respect for the dead doesn't need someone else to be in the room does it? It's like saying it's ok to Facebook Live at a funeral showing because no one else is around to be disturbed by it, except the dead person who can't object. It's in bad taste IMO, no matter how you slice it. He could have made his point from outside the museum just as easily.

Except that the funeral showing would have people there to be disturbed... and the point isn't well made from outside the museum.

If we're really talking about "respect for the dead" the concern is never for the dead. They're dead. The concern is always for the people that survived them, whose emotions and memories should not abused by disrespectful acts of others toward the lives that have been lost. Exactly how is that happening here? That's why I said "I guess it's just still too soon to talk about the broader message". Out of respect for the dead, it's still too soon to discuss the political implications of Hitler?

It's nonsense.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Except that the funeral showing would have people there to be disturbed... and the point isn't well made from outside the museum.

If we're really talking about "respect for the dead" the concern is never for the dead. They're dead. The concern is always for the people that survived them, whose emotions and memories should not abused by disrespectful acts of others toward the lives that have been lost. Exactly how is that happening here? That's why I said "I guess it's just still too soon to talk about the broader message". Out of respect for the dead, it's still too soon to discuss the political implications of Hitler?

It's nonsense.

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing. I have not said anything about the message or about it being politically incorrect to talk about Hitler. It's my opinion that it is in incredibly poor taste to make his point from inside the gas chamber itself when there are clearly written signs asking you not to and the space is considered sacred ground. All I see when I read this article is, "I have something important to say and I don't give a damn about your memorial or the hundreds of thousands of people gassed here, I have a political point to make so 🤬 you and your rules".

I'm not sure I understand your point about the funeral showing either. If no one was around at the showing and you Facebook Live'd it to farm likes would that be ok?

 

[Danoff]

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing. I have not said anything about the message or about it being politically incorrect to talk about Hitler. It's my opinion that it is in incredibly poor taste to make his point from inside the gas chamber itself when there are clearly written signs asking you not to and the space is considered sacred ground. All I see when I read this article is, "I have something important to say and I don't give a damn about your memorial or the hundreds of thousands of people gassed here, I have a political point to make so 🤬 you and your rules".

I'm not sure I understand your point about the funeral showing either. If no one was around at the showing and you Facebook Live'd it to farm likes would that be ok?

I'm not sure who you're defending, it appears that you're defending no-one.

"I have something important to say and I don't give a damn about your memorial or the hundreds of thousands of people gassed here"

His message was the opposite in fact - care about the memorial and the people that died here. There is no such thing as respect for the dead, only respect for the living. I'd hash this out further but I don't care enough to go around on this one.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not sure who you're defending, it appears that you're defending no-one.
His message was the opposite in fact - care about the memorial and the people that died here. There is no such thing as respect for the dead, only respect for the living. I'd hash this out further but I don't care enough to go around on this one.

When I wander in to Tim Horton's and someone in front of me is on the phone at the front of the line, talking on the phone instead of ordering but standing in front of the cashier anyway, I'm the guy that says, "can you get off your phone and order your coffee, I'd like to get back to work today?". If they don't respond I just step in front of them. I'm defending one of the cornerstones of civilization - civility, good manners, politeness, respect. Just thought I'd clarify although it looks pretty clear to me already. Moving along..

 

[Danoff]

When I wander in to Tim Horton's and someone in front of me is on the phone at the front of the line, talking on the phone instead of ordering but standing in front of the cashier anyway, I'm the guy that says, "can you get off your phone and order your coffee, I'd like to get back to work today?". If they don't respond I just step in front of them. I'm defending one of the cornerstones of civilization - civility, good manners, politeness, respect. Just thought I'd clarify although it looks pretty clear to me already. Moving along..

It's not a good analogy. There was no one else in there (as best I can tell).

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is no such thing as respect for the dead, only respect for the living.

That's very subjective. Places can be as important as artefacts of respect as human remains themselves can.

 

[Danoff]

That's very subjective. Places can be as important as artefacts of respect as human remains themselves can.

I understand that sentiment. My statement was that there is no reason to "respect" any of it except out of respect for the living. What you do with a particular place or artifact or even dead body doesn't matter to anyone who isn't alive.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I understand that sentiment. My statement was that there is no reason to "respect" any of it except out of respect for the living. What you do with a particular place or artifact or even dead body doesn't matter to anyone who isn't alive.

I see your point more clearly now. That said, showing respect isn't necessarily always about demonstrating it to somebody else. I could go to a graveyard this evening and urinate on a grave or jump up and down on one - but I couldn't do that through the sense of "respect" that we're discussing, regardless of whether anybody could see me or whether or not I knew the interred person or their family/friends.

Surely that sense of "respect" is just as valid even if it's just a personal, unobserved social instinct?

 

[Danoff]

So I said I wasn't going to do this because I don't care enough, but I don't like ignoring direct questions.

I see your point more clearly now. That said, showing respect isn't necessarily always about demonstrating it to somebody else. I could go to a graveyard this evening and urinate on a grave or jump up and down on one - but I couldn't do that through the sense of "respect" that we're discussing, regardless of whether anybody could see me or whether or not I knew the interred person or their family/friends.

Surely that sense of "respect" is just as valid even if it's just a personal, unobserved social instinct?

You're talking about respecting your own emotional responses to your own actions. It's still directed to a living person (you). This guy did not feel he was being disrespectful to the memory of the event or the people (even his own emotional connection to it). Quite the opposite I imagine, he most likely did what he did out of a sense of honoring that event.

There are a few people to be a social justice warrior on behalf of in this instance:
- The dead? No. They're dead, can't hurt them any more.
- Survivors of the holocaust
- Relatives of the dead.
- The people who were visiting Auschwitz at the time.
- The guy himself.
- Anyone with an emotional connection to the holocaust (everyone).

Was this disrespectful to survivors? No, it's not too soon to take lessons from the holocaust, even at a memorial. Anyone can get offended at anything, even the existence of a memorial can be offensive. The question is whether we should actually care that these people are offended. No, there has been enough time to move on.

Was this disrespectful to relatives of the dead? No. See above.

Was this disrespectful to the people visiting at the time? I don't know, but I don't see anyone else in the portion of the video that was linked in the article, so I'm having a hard time finding an injured party.

Was this guy being disrespectful to his own emotional state? I kinda doubt it, people don't usually behave that way. From what I can tell, he felt that this was a way of honoring the event.

Was this disrespectful to society at large who cares about the holocaust? No. Anyone who actually clicked and watched the video should have known what they were in for. If you can't handle a discussion of the holocaust from your couch or computer chair because you're just that emotionally sensitive, you're in far more serious trouble than this guy represents.

My conclusion... no injured party, this is PC nonsense - people claiming offense on behalf of no one just to push back against someone who has a particular political affiliation.

 

[Carbonox]

👍👍👍👍👍

Antifa declared a terrorist organization in New Jersey

About time these cowards get the right kind of recognition.

 

[JKgo]

...Oh, the irony. They wanted to fight fascism, but have been labeled as monsters themselves. Shakespearean at its finest, really.

Or is it the case of "fight fire with fire?" Then well, mission accomplished, I guess.

 

[PeterJB]

They should be renamed the Kristallnacht Reconstruction Society.

 

[Dotini]

no injured party

Weren't the published rules violated? Who owns and operates the museum? The state of Germany? Jewish people? Conceivably the solemn dignity of the German people and/or the Jewish people were offended, at least nominally. Although the congressman may have had good intentions, his actions may inspire nut jobs into acting out, and talking BS openly in the museum, vitiating the purpose of the museum for the Germans and the Jews.

Along with Locke, I hold that a decent respect for the oddball or differing opinions/beliefs/lifeways of others is a cornerstone of western civilization and our pluralistic freedoms and democracy. Without it, we are bound to the shorter, more brutal lives under the absolute authority envisaged by Hobbes.

 

[Danoff]

Weren't the published rules violated?

...and the rules were for...

Who owns and operates the museum? The state of Germany? Jewish people? Conceivably the solemn dignity of the German people and/or the Jewish people were offended, at least nominally.

...on what basis?

Although the congressman may have had good intentions, his actions may inspire nut jobs into acting out,

...we don't hold people responsible for the actions of others.

 

[Rallywagon]

Why does respect only have to be for people? That's a bit like being good only because God is watching. Respect goes for more than just people. I see where you're coming from Danoff, why worry about offense if there is no one to offend. But that's not how respect should work. You should be respectful of the place, not for the curator, or the visitors, but for place and the actions that happened.
Clearly you don't share the opinion, and truly, this argument is only over a difference of opinion, but respect is can be for more than just a living person.

 

[Danoff]

Why does respect only have to be for people? That's a bit like being good only because God is watching. Respect goes for more than just people. I see where you're coming from Danoff, why worry about offense if there is no one to offend. But that's not how respect should work. You should be respectful of the place, not for the curator, or the visitors, but for place and the actions that happened.

Clearly you don't share the opinion, and truly, this argument is only over a difference of opinion, but respect is can be for more than just a living person.

Not only do I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. I think, I'm out on a limb here, you're talking about having respect for your own emotions (you're a living person). There is no need to respect a rock for the rock's sake. You can respect it out of your own love of nature though, you're respecting yourself.

 

[Rallywagon]

Not only do I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. I think, I'm out on a limb here, you're talking about having respect for your own emotions (you're a living person). There is no need to respect a rock for the rock's sake. You can respect it out of your own love of nature though, you're respecting yourself.

I know what I mean, and clearly I am not the only one. Further, we aren't speaking of just a rock. That's a fair bit of a dismissive comparison I am thinking. My point is, respect isn't only reserved for a person. If some sort of grand event happened on said rock, then yes, perhaps that rock is indeed worthy of respect.
If Auschwitz had been ripped down, perhaps then, that spot of land wouldn't be. But, as it stands, that area, and those chambers hold a great deal of significants and is also worthy of respect on its own, not just in memory of those who died, or the family members that survive them.

 

[Danoff]

I know what I mean, and clearly I am not the only one. Further, we aren't speaking of just a rock. That's a fair bit of a dismissive comparison I am thinking. My point is, respect isn't only reserved for a person. If some sort of grand event happened on said rock, then yes, perhaps that rock is indeed worthy of respect.

Ok, since you know what you mean, articulate exactly why that rock (Auschwitz in this case) is worthy of respect.

You say that it "hold [ s ] a great deal of significan[ce]" - to whom? To the universe? Absent humans? Please, feel free to bring your knowledge of what you mean to bear here.