Political Correctness

[Pyrrho]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

It is politically correct to not call black people "niggers" and all women "bitches."  Do any of you really object to that, or are you unclear on the meaning?

It's deemed politically incorrect to call Catholics child fuckers or Russian Orthodox Commies or Drunkards, but in the US and Europe they're generally not socially disadvantaged or marginalized.

It's also not politically incorrect in several parts of the US to call gays agents of satan, and they do suffer social stigma in many places. I don't think this definition really suits the PC problem most face.

First of all, it is politically incorrect to call gay people "agents of satan," no matter where you are.  You are confusing political correctness with something being socially accepted.  The two are not the same thing.  The fact that you can get away with calling gay people "agents of satan" among some religious bigots does not make it politically correct, even though it is something that that social group may find acceptable.  If you call black people "niggers" at a KKK meeting, the KKK members are not likely to have a problem with it.  But it is still politically incorrect.

Also, the problem with calling Catholics "child fuckers" is partially explained by Dystopia earlier; it is factually incorrect.  One ought not judge a group based on the actions or attributes of a subset of the group (or perceived actions or perceived attributes).  This is bigotry, and is a bad thing.  People should be judged on their individual merits, not on the merits of other members of their racial, ethnic, etc., group.

Also, there is a difference between criticizing someone and insulting them.  And there is a difference between insulting an individual and a group.  So if I were to say, "if the allegations are true, Bill Cosby is an evil scumbag rapist who deserves to die," then I would not be insulting black people, I would be insulting one man.  And frankly, if the allegations are true, then Bill Cosby is an evil scumbag rapist who deserves to die.  Even so, I would not call him a "nigger" because that would be taken to be an insult to black people generally, as well as the fact that his race has nothing to do with it.  Notice, in my condemnation of Cosby, I made no mention of his race, as his race is completely irrelevant to the issue.  Bringing up race in the insult would automatically be, at the very least, suspicious, because of its complete irrelevance to the issue.  He is certainly not an evil scumbag because he is black.

[Pyrrho]

It has become quite strict. For example you can't criticise a religion because it is politically incorrect, stuff like that.

Fuck moses.  Fuck jesus.  Fuck allah.

See?  It can be done.

Fuck three nonexistent things.  Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

Also, in reference to what you quote, it is possible to criticize a religion without being bigoted about the members of it.  Many people seem to be confused about this point, but there is a significant difference between saying that you believe a religion is false and that everyone who is a member of it is a child molester.  Catholicism is false, but not every Catholic is a child molester.  However, a significant number of Catholic priests are child molesters, and the organization systematically protected them, which means that the Catholic Church (the organization) is evil.  Of course, that should have been obvious from the Inquisition, but we can be sure that they continue to do much evil in our time as well as in the past.

It would be wrong, though, to say that all Catholics are child molesters, or even that all priests are child molesters.  Probably, some of the priests low in the organization had nothing to do with hiding the child molesters.  But, they are part of an evil organization that has done that, and very likely continues to do that.


We can do the same sort of thing with other religions.  Not all muslims are murderous terrorists, and so it would be wrong to call them all murderous terrorists.  Some, though, clearly are evil scumbags, and some of their evil is religiously motivated (at least in part).

Of course, getting things right (that is, being accurate) is harder to do than to just judge entire groups of people.  This is why people with shit for brains often are bigoted racists, misogynists, etc., because it is easier to judge entire groups than to judge people individually by their merits.  Thinking to too difficult for some people, and so they don't do it.

[KUSA]

Is it wrong of me to call Vorlon an ass bandit?

[Minimalist]

Catholicism is false, but not every Catholic is a child molester.

They don't have to be.  By wilfully remaining members of that corrupt outfit and thus continuing to support it they are enablers.

[Pyrrho]

Catholicism is false, but not every Catholic is a child molester.

They don't have to be.  By wilfully remaining members of that corrupt outfit and thus continuing to support it they are enablers.

Yes.  For this thread, the thing that people should notice in this is that your remark is not politically incorrect.  You are not simply hurling insults or racial slurs or anything like that; you are engaged in intelligent criticism.  Many people have a problem making such distinctions.

People who have been giving money to the Catholic Church have been financing the efforts to hide and protect child molesting priests.  And those who publicly identify as Catholic are promoting the activities of the Catholic Church.  Which includes child molesting and hiding the criminals.

[Longhorn]

I only want people to hug and sing kumbaya. But noooooooo -_-

I think everybody should say what they think, doesn't matter if it offends someone. That way we know who's the asshole in the room.

Cos you know, free speech and all that

[Pyrrho]

I only want people to hug and sing kumbaya. But noooooooo -_-

I think everybody should say what they think, doesn't matter if it offends someone. That way we know who's the asshole in the room.

Cos you know, free speech and all that

Being an advocate of political correctness does not entail wishing for it be enacted into law.  I don't want people to call black people "niggers," but I do not want it to be illegal to do so.  

If someone does call black people "niggers," it is likely to influence my decision on whether or not to associate with the person.  And, depending on the circumstances, I may criticize someone for doing so.  You may choose for yourself with whom you will associate.  My guess is that you will act in a similar manner to me on this particular point.

[SteelCurtain]

This is now becoming an issue because everyone has a voice. The PC police is nothing more than a result of the anonymity of the internet combined with the ease of voicing your opinion or response to someone.

The same number of people were 'outraged' when a celebrity or politician said something stupid 10 years ago, only now they can tweet directly at them in response, or log onto the politician's FB page and launch a diatribe, and it's all centralized and easily accessible. The 'viral' effect is a big one. People see the diatribe, agree, and it spreads. Now there is an 'outrage' across multiple platforms, and advertisers and media outlets are subject to pressures from the public.

People just have a platform for their 'cause' now.

As far as PC goes, society continues its onward march, and once popular opinions, as they always have, get marginalized.

[Regina]

It's contextual in my opinion.

Sometimes there's real downright racism, misogyny or homophobia that has to be challenged. I don't consider calling Charleston "racially motivated terror" and having discussions about race in response politically correct, it needs to happen in this instance. But if you find everyone getting offended over the tiniest of things, it becomes a walking on eggshells society which is unpleasant. Life's too short to find oppression in everything, pick your battles. There's also nothing wrong with satire or dark humour in the right context.

I don't like seeing religion defended for the purpose of being politically correct. The fact is Christianity and Islam in particular are the cause of a great deal of oppression in the world. Of course it's not all Christians and all Muslims who are responsible, but you don't help the discussion by derailing it constantly reminding us that.

[Dystopia]

They don't have to be. By wilfully remaining members of that corrupt outfit and thus continuing to support it they are enablers.

Isn't this a fallacy of guilty by association? what if I don't go to church? does that mean that if I'm a marxist I am responsible by Stalin's policies even if I personally disagree with his take on Marxism?

I think most people made good points - Sometimes being politically correct is not bad - Let's imagine a priest is giving a lecture inside a church and someone goes inside and screams "GOD IS NOT REAL FUCKERS!" - That's not necessarily wrong or illegal, but it's annoying and incorrect as fuck because people are just having a good time inside a place specifically made available for believers.

Free speech is great, but it doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your words - You can say whatever you want, but you don't have the right to enter my house just to say what you want, and I don't need to give you a megaphone to help highlight your words. If I'm the owner of some place (let's say it's a bar) and a white supremacist wants to give a speech, I can refuse it and I don't think it matters if it is politically incorrect.

The truth is that, to some extent, people consider politically correct whatever they don't like and can't criticize (at least without any drawback) - Just like indoctrination. When you agree with something, suddenly it stops being indoctrination and becomes a normal teaching, right?