Political Correctness

[Johnnypenso]

The intent/context of the word should matter, though. There are some words that simply shouldn't be said, ever.

So, PC is a "culture" now? How is having decency for others now a cultural attribute?. If using your manners isn't indicative of one's cultural status, then why should using PC language be?

Oh, and also, you can't be racist to a race that holds all the political and societal power, and one that has oppressed (and still does, to a lesser extent) all other races for centuries.

That last part just sounds like an excuse to be a racist and not be held accountable for it. I do not know if that is politically correct or not.

 

[Tornado]

Lovely to see how you've learned nothing since the last time you were lectured on your "white people this, white people that" generalizations...

Or when it was last pointed out that taking hardline political stances in the Opinions forum isn't the same thing as making badly researched list threads in the Cars in General forum.

 

[Turbo]

Or when it was last pointed out that taking hardline political stances in the Opinions forum isn't the same thing as making badly researched list threads in the Cars in General forum.

Badly researched? So I've only negatively contributed to that forum now too?

 

[Com Fox]

I will admit, as an Autistic, I do get annoyed when people try to be PC for me when I'm the only Autistic in the group. I know they mean well and don't want to see me hurt but I have thick skin, can fight my own battles and most importantly am an Individual being with my own thoughts and feelings. It might be offensive to some people with Autism but not to others like myself.

That's a massive issue people (including myself) have with PC when trying to impose it on others, because it really depends on the individual otherwise you're being a hypocrite and grouping everyone the same as feeling the same way towards terms.

 

[mustafur]

I don't even understand why this is a debate. "Political correctness" is nothing more than just language/behavior that is inclusive to all and non-offensive. Political correctness prevents marginalized and oppressed people from being left out or even insulted.

Is it really that hard to not discriminate?

Generally, white people, specifically white men, view "political correctness" as far-left, virtue-signaling, and unnecessary. This is a hypocritical viewpoint since we all use politically correct language without even realizing. Examples would be using waitress over waiter, sanitation worker over garbageman, disabled/challenged over retarded, people of color over colored people, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that certain categories of people are against "political correctness", simply because they do not support including and respecting more disadvantaged groups of people, or they feel threatened by more disadvantaged groups of people receiving the same treatment as them.

Victimhood will never end, walking on eggshells will never be enough, having white guilt will never be enough, contradicting your self based on race will be expected.

This is identity politics, people are individuals not a collective, you can't predict how someone fares based on their colour of their skin but the actions they make.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Victimhood will never end, walking on eggshells will never be enough, having white guilt will never be enough, contradicting your self based on race will be expected.

This is identity politics, people are individuals not a collective, you can't predict how someone fares based on their colour of their skin but the actions they make.

If you want to educate yourself on white guilt, you only need to drop in to your local university to attend a White Privilege Symposium and I'm sure you can find such stimulating and exciting topics as:
COLLEAGIAL CHECK-IN FOR POC: NEEDING CONNECTION WHILE MANAGING WHITENESS
IMPLICATIONS FOR ADDRESSING WHITE PRIVILEGE FROM A DISCIPLINARY AND DEPARTMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
IMPLICIT BIAS WORKSHOP
RECONNECTING: DISMANTLING WHITE IDEOLOGY IN THE OUTDOORS
SCIENTIFICALLY USING WHITE PRIVILEGE TO INFLUENCE RACISM DENIERS: THE WHITE ALLY TOOLKIT
THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT RACE IN THE ERA OF OVERT WHITE SUPREMACY
WHITE ACCOUNTABILITY

 

[Carbonox]

If you want to educate yourself on white guilt, you only need to drop in to your local university to attend a White Privilege Symposium and I'm sure you can find such stimulating and exciting topics as:
COLLEAGIAL CHECK-IN FOR POC: NEEDING CONNECTION WHILE MANAGING WHITENESS
IMPLICATIONS FOR ADDRESSING WHITE PRIVILEGE FROM A DISCIPLINARY AND DEPARTMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
IMPLICIT BIAS WORKSHOP
RECONNECTING: DISMANTLING WHITE IDEOLOGY IN THE OUTDOORS
SCIENTIFICALLY USING WHITE PRIVILEGE TO INFLUENCE RACISM DENIERS: THE WHITE ALLY TOOLKIT
THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT RACE IN THE ERA OF OVERT WHITE SUPREMACY
WHITE ACCOUNTABILITY

Ya forgot the best one at the end:
WHITE FRAGILITY'S EFFECT ON PEOPLE OF COLOR AND OUR ABILITY TO TALK ABOUT RACE

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ya forgot the best one at the end:
WHITE FRAGILITY'S EFFECT ON PEOPLE OF COLOR AND OUR ABILITY TO TALK ABOUT RACE

Curious how you can have privilege and be fragile at the same time.

 

[Carbonox]

Curious how you can have privilege and be fragile at the same time.

I guess when we've got used to cashing in privilege checks, we become so fragile that we start calling out the "🤬 white people" crowd instead of nodding along to the rhetoric that would be coming straight out of Stormfront if the races were reversed.

 

[W3H5]

This is identity politics, people are individuals not a collective, you can't predict how someone fares based on their colour of their skin but the actions they make.

I wish more people would realise this.

 

[mustafur]

Australian politicans are a joke, claiming "it's ok to be white" is some neo nazi slogan.
It's a 4chan troll designed to give those with white guilt a contradiction in their beliefs.

They get angry at it, rip up the poster yet don't answer the question as if they are saying it's not ok to be white but don't have the guts to say it.

https://amp.news.com.au/national/po...g/news-story/c539b87645da213e7a2a23f287dd588f

 

[TexRex]

Curious how you can have privilege and be fragile at the same time.

I mean...

 

[Johnnypenso]

 

[Dotini]

...people are individuals not a collective...

This is a key premise. In my theory I would like to believe it. But have there not been times in the past when it would seem that people may have been a collective and not individuals? Must individualism be the inevitable result of civilization, or could it be otherwise; a foregone conclusion, or an ongoing contest?

 

[Northstar]

Oh, and also, you can't be racist to a race that holds all the political and societal power, and one that has oppressed (and still does, to a lesser extent) all other races for centuries.

Surely you don't think this is an actual way to achieve actual equality? Saying it's ok for certain people to be racist is basically saying it's ok to be hateful, but only if it's directed at the right people.

Take this infamous incident a couple years back, surely you would consider that to be racist?

That's absurd.

Moist.

 

[polysmut]

Oh, and also, you can't be racist to a race that holds all the political and societal power, and one that has oppressed (and still does, to a lesser extent) all other races for centuries.

Why not?

 

[McLaren]

Oh, and also, you can't be racist to a race that holds all the political and societal power, and one that has oppressed (and still does, to a lesser extent) all other races for centuries.

Sweet, so I can go the Middle East and start calling Arabs racist names because they hold all the political and societal power, and have oppressed races, opposite sex, religions, and so forth for centuries as well, even today?


How absolutely asinine of an argument.

 

[Com Fox]

Sweet, so I can go the Middle East and start calling Arabs racist names because they hold all the political and societal power, and have oppressed races, opposite sex, religions, and so forth for centuries as well, even today?


How absolutely asinine of an argument.

...but that's not in America, so it doesn't count.

 

[Johnnypenso]

School bans expensive clothing because it makes some kids feel bad.
After a series of incidents involving students bullying other students from lower-income households, Woodchurch High School in Birkenhead, England banned children from wearing coats made by Canada Goose, Pyrenex and Moncler or other luxury brands.

Canada Goose sells a wide range of coats but some of their products can go for several hundred dollars, with some items even costing upwards of $1,000.

"There has been feedback from children, who say 'Gosh, that is our rent for the month,'" the school’s head teacher Rebekah Phillips told CNN.

Reducing children’s anxiety from failing to keep up with latest fashion of their wealthier peers was one of the reasons given for the decision.

Administrators of the school, just outside of Liverpool, U.K., sent a letter to parents explaining the reason for the ban, which will come into effect after Christmas.

According to the letter, the decision came after school administrators became “mindful that some young people put pressure on their parents to purchase expensive items of clothing."

"These coats cause a lot of inequality between our pupils," Phillips said. "They stigmatize students and parents who are less well-off and struggle financially."


Haha next thing you know they'll be coming for the pencil cases. Oh wait...

The trend towards so-called “poverty shaming” has been seen in other U.K. schools, including a national initiative seeking to ban expensive pencil cases, earlier this year.

 

[Imari]

School bans expensive clothing because it makes some kids feel bad.
After a series of incidents involving students bullying other students from lower-income households, Woodchurch High School in Birkenhead, England banned children from wearing coats made by Canada Goose, Pyrenex and Moncler or other luxury brands.

Canada Goose sells a wide range of coats but some of their products can go for several hundred dollars, with some items even costing upwards of $1,000.

"There has been feedback from children, who say 'Gosh, that is our rent for the month,'" the school’s head teacher Rebekah Phillips told CNN.

Reducing children’s anxiety from failing to keep up with latest fashion of their wealthier peers was one of the reasons given for the decision.

Administrators of the school, just outside of Liverpool, U.K., sent a letter to parents explaining the reason for the ban, which will come into effect after Christmas.

According to the letter, the decision came after school administrators became “mindful that some young people put pressure on their parents to purchase expensive items of clothing."

"These coats cause a lot of inequality between our pupils," Phillips said. "They stigmatize students and parents who are less well-off and struggle financially."


Haha next thing you know they'll be coming for the pencil cases. Oh wait...

The trend towards so-called “poverty shaming” has been seen in other U.K. schools, including a national initiative seeking to ban expensive pencil cases, earlier this year.

God forbid the school attempts to teach children not to be horrible to each other, or at least enforces some sort of behavioural discipline. You know, like the sort of discipline that is actually enforced in adult society that these children will one day have to enter and operate within. Much easier to ban any item that's too expensive...

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you logic from the fine brains that are supposedly teaching your children to think.

 

[Lord Protector]

School bans expensive clothing because it makes some kids feel bad.
After a series of incidents involving students bullying other students from lower-income households, Woodchurch High School in Birkenhead, England banned children from wearing coats made by Canada Goose, Pyrenex and Moncler or other luxury brands.

Canada Goose sells a wide range of coats but some of their products can go for several hundred dollars, with some items even costing upwards of $1,000.

"There has been feedback from children, who say 'Gosh, that is our rent for the month,'" the school’s head teacher Rebekah Phillips told CNN.

Reducing children’s anxiety from failing to keep up with latest fashion of their wealthier peers was one of the reasons given for the decision.

Administrators of the school, just outside of Liverpool, U.K., sent a letter to parents explaining the reason for the ban, which will come into effect after Christmas.

According to the letter, the decision came after school administrators became “mindful that some young people put pressure on their parents to purchase expensive items of clothing."

"These coats cause a lot of inequality between our pupils," Phillips said. "They stigmatize students and parents who are less well-off and struggle financially."


Haha next thing you know they'll be coming for the pencil cases. Oh wait...

The trend towards so-called “poverty shaming” has been seen in other U.K. schools, including a national initiative seeking to ban expensive pencil cases, earlier this year.

ridiculous, but I can imagine this could lead to bullying... but I think UK schools are one of the craziest in the world... speaking of which:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/11/08/scotland-first-country-lgbt-school-lessons/

I dont know about others but my child will not spend time studying at a primary school about people having sex with each others' excretory systems... There are much more important things to learn in this age.

 

[UKMikey]

I dont know about others but my child will not spend time studying at a primary school about people having sex with each others' excretory systems... There are much more important things to learn in this age.

Like educating them against bullying minorities. The school isn't teaching them to be gay. Relax.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I dont know about others but my child will not spend time studying at a primary school about people having sex with each others' excretory systems... There are much more important things to learn in this age.

What if your child has the overwhelming desire to mate with a person whose sexual organs mirror their own? Gotta stick something somewhere, it's the natural way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Saw this on the local news a few days ago.
Eastern Michigan University group ends 'The Vagina Monologues,' citing exclusion of some women

Eastern Michigan University's Women's Resource Center will no longer host productions of "The Vagina Monologues," noting that the play's version of feminism excludes some women.

So at this point some of you are probably scratching your heads wondering, "How can a play about women's vaginas exclude some women?"

The WRC announced its decision in an email, which came after the center evaluated responses from a survey. Survey respondents opposing the production consistently indicated they were concerned that the play centers on cisgender women, that the play's version of feminism excludes some women, including trans women, and that overall, "The Vagina Monologue" lacks diversity and inclusion.

The survey was launched as a result of conversations with current students, as well as feedback from a WRC workshop titled "Not all women have vaginas," during the 2017-18 academic year.

That's right kids, you can't have The Vagina Monologues anymore because it excludes women without vaginas.

"Oh Johnny, you're so silly. This is an isolated incident. These people are crazy and it'll all be straightened out once logic and reason prevail."

Mount Holyoke College
"At its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman," Murphy explained, according to Campus Reform.
"Gender is a wide and varied experience," Murphy continued, "one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable presenting material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive."

 

[Lord Protector]

What if your child has the overwhelming desire to mate with a person whose sexual organs mirror their own? Gotta stick something somewhere, it's the natural way.

No problem... It is not something I can unteach him, but let the decision come from his head, not from perverted primary schools' program.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Imari]

No problem... It is not something I can unteach him, but let the decision come from his head, not from perverted primary schools' program.

I don't think the decision will come from his head or the primary school, but rather from the quite closeted and intolerant example that he's being set by his primary male role model.

 

[MatskiMonk]

No problem... It is not something I can unteach him, but let the decision come from his head, not from perverted primary schools' program.

Well, I'm not condoning or proposing any particular method of sex education in schools as I don't know what the best way to handle it is, but as a general rule, leaving kids to figure stuff out for themselves on topics they're embarrassed to talk about, or worse, think it's wrong of them to want to ask, often really isn't the best way of doing things. In the UK we're talking about ~2% of the population, so I don't think there needs to be a massive deal made about the specifics of it, but teaching the 98% that the 2% isn't evil, wrong, perverse or abnormal can't be a bad thing for anybody, or at least any reasonable person. Most of us want to be in a sexual relationship at some point, why not give everyone an open and honest starting point in terms of knowledge early on in life.

Besides all that, kids these days are learning about sex from hardcore porn, if you're worrying about your kids not having sex the way god intended, that's what you should worry about, not what they teach in schools.

 

[Lord Protector]

Well, I'm not condoning or proposing any particular method of sex education in schools as I don't know what the best way to handle it is, but as a general rule, leaving kids to figure stuff out for themselves on topics they're embarrassed to talk about, or worse, think it's wrong of them to want to ask, often really isn't the best way of doing things. In the UK we're talking about ~2% of the population, so I don't think there needs to be a massive deal made about the specifics of it, but teaching the 98% that the 2% isn't evil, wrong, perverse or abnormal can't be a bad thing for anybody, or at least any reasonable person. Most of us want to be in a sexual relationship at some point, why not give everyone an open and honest starting point in terms of knowledge early on in life.

Besides all that, kids these days are learning about sex from hardcore porn, if you're worrying about your kids not having sex the way god intended, that's what you should worry about, not what they teach in schools.

Sexual education is okay (given it is a study for an appropriately aged child, say, 12 years old. I would actually like my child to be able to study about this, your points are totally valid. What I do find unacceptable is them studying how it is okay to be gay and they are supposed to be proud and all this progressive, liberal and pervert enrichment crap I cannot even think of out of my head. Or premature sexual education like how to masturbate at the age o 8. This is wrong. Both of which I have read about, this is happening at some schools in our world. And not in the developing countries.

 

[MatskiMonk]

What I do find unacceptable is them studying how it is okay to be gay and they are supposed to be proud and all this progressive, liberal and pervert enrichment crap

Just for clarity, are you saying it's not okay to be gay, and that people should not be taught it's okay to be gay?