This thread contains the type of 'puffing' that has, in part, caused me to resign as a Moderator and really lose interest in this particular Forum anymore. I had an earnest hope that the fatuous drivel would stop on here post-election, but alas, that hope was apparently forlorn.

Political correctness is much worse and far more sinister than censorship. It is long-term brainwashing of the masses.

"PC" is a term many people throw around but they have different standards as to what exactly is PC.

 

Is calling someone "black" instead of "African American" not being PC?

 

Is gay v homosexual?

 

Is fascist/socialist vs Obama?

 

Some would then say you can't question a black person or you are not racially sensitive/PC.

 

My guess is you have a specific example(s) you want to get off your chest so I say have at it. We can stop talking in theory and get down to brass tacks.

 

Actually, I don't. However, I'll give you an example that was recently reported.

 

A young lady was a contestent in the Miss (or is it now "Ms.") USA contest. From the report, she was believed to be well ahead in the scoring of the judges going into the final question and answer phase. One of the judges, a Perez Hilton, asked her about her beliefs in regard to same sex marriages. He presented the question in such a way as to make his opinion quite clear. The girl, after stating the usual politically correct preamble, stated that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

 

She finished first runneruo and has been attacked by, among others, Hilton who has used his website to call her vulgar names and to question her level of intelligence (you should get the drift).

 

This, I believe, is an example of political correctness used to injure and to censor.

 

Now, I'm sure that some of you are going to come on here and say she probably wouldn't have won anyway. That is, of course, possible. However, If you use that excuse, you are clearly missing the point.

 

And, all of those examples you cite in your post are examples of political correctness.

Political correctness is much worse and far more sinister than censorship. It is long-term brainwashing of the masses.

 

Indeed it is brain washing and it is in rampant use in the public schools. The little minds are being "conditioned" and I find that to be alarming.

This thread contains the type of 'puffing' that has, in part, caused me to resign as a Moderator and really lose interest in this particular Forum anymore. I had an earnest hope that the fatuous drivel would stop on here post-election, but alas, that hope was apparently forlorn.

 

Heresay, you are obviously an intelligent man. Unlike me and most of the others, you present your arguments without being too partisan. However, I can't believe that you entertained the idea that the divide in the country (and on BGP) would narrow after the election. The initiatives coming out of Washington since the installation of the new president have only deepened the abyss. And, to be even-handed, Bush certainly made a major contribution to the division.

 

We can no longer disagree in a civil manner because the levels of hate and distrust are so high. Sadly, it won't change.

Indeed it is brain washing and it is in rampant use in the public schools. The little minds are being "conditioned" and I find that to be alarming.

Let's hear some specific examples, so that we can all be sure that we are arguing about the same thing.

Political correctness is much worse and far more sinister than censorship. It is long-term brainwashing of the masses.

In a certain way, I agree. Like I said, "verbal engineering precedes social engineering."

 

On the other hand, in the sense of PC of restraining one's words to prevent offending people, I don't see it as a bad thing. But if political correctness is used to stifle the arguments of the radicals and the ignored, than it is bad.

 

This entire thread would be much easier if those who are so against political correctness would give us examples of what they mean.

I believe Tancredo not being allowed to speak at UNC is a form PC.

Calling acts of terrorism man-made disaters is PC.

Covering up Jesus in the background when making a speech is PC.

Making it difficult for professors at colleges to speak out against the so-called conventional wisdom on topics like global warming or abortion is PC.

 

PC is about makng people afraid to speak out, so the PC police have an easier job of controlling the oppostion.

In the event that Notre Dame gets their act together and does not allow President Obama to speak at their commencement, is that a form of PC?

Would you add the Dixie Chicks to your list?

 

Why wouldn't I? They had every right to run down their President. I disagree with them and the platform that they chose. Just as I disagree with "O" apologizing for being an American. Just as I disagree with Flag burning.

 

How would you react if someone, not in the political world, an entertainer, said the same thing about Big O? Honestly......

 

But the real question of PC comes not in whether you bad mouth your elected officials, but all of the other worries, Black vs African American, White vs Caucasion, Red Neck vs Appalachian American, Fat vs Obese vs Heavy, Dumb vs slow to catch on, this goes on and on. When I think of political correctness, I don't think of what the Dixie Chicks saidas much as I think of what Jimmy the Greek said. One is a political statement, one is considered a defaming, insensative remark.

 

Start a thread about people using their celebrity status to push their political views on the nation, then we can address the Dixie Chicks, Bette and so forth.

Heresay, you are obviously an intelligent man. Unlike me and most of the others, you present your arguments without being too partisan. However, I can't believe that you entertained the idea that the divide in the country (and on BGP) would narrow after the election. The initiatives coming out of Washington since the installation of the new president have only deepened the abyss. And, to be even-handed, Bush certainly made a major contribution to the division.

 

We can no longer disagree in a civil manner because the levels of hate and distrust are so high. Sadly, it won't change.

 

 

I am going to disagree with you in a respectful and civil manner. There are many on this board that I disagree with and find the debate to be quite civil and I hope others agree. I disagree with virtually everything you post yet I don't hate you for having a differing opinion. I guess the question is why do you hate and distrust those that disagree with you?:confused:

Fair enough. Can I assume that you apply your conclusion to all situations?

 

 

I can only answer in the most general terms, to the most general of questions. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by political correctness, and/or censorship of such. I'm answering based on my interpretation.

You seem hung up on government prosecutions. Actually, most violations of the First Amendment deal with civil offenses involving private legal parties. But, then, I'm sure you really knew that, didn't you?:thumb:

 

I'm sorry, Wyrostek, I'm not following you here. What is a first amendment civil offense involving private parties? My understanding is that the first amendment applies to Congress and, through the 14th amdendment, to the state legislatures. I don't see how private parties come into the first amendment discussion.

In the event that Notre Dame gets their act together and does not allow President Obama to speak at their commencement, is that a form of PC?

 

Obviously not. It would be an institution taking a stand in regard to the basic teachings and beliefs of the organization (Catholic Church) which is its very foundation.

Obviously not. It would be an institution taking a stand in regard to the basic teachings and beliefs of the organization (Catholic Church) which is its very foundation.

 

Which is why I think bballfamily's earlier claims are illogical. An institution has the right to choose who does and who does speak on their grounds, whether it be Notre Dame or UNC.

Which is why I think bballfamily's earlier claims are illogical. An institution has the right to choose who does and who does speak on their grounds, whether it be Notre Dame or UNC.

 

To an extent. However, a private institution has more leeway than does a public institution. Public institutions are far more subject to political correctness. Of course, the rise of political correctness does influence the privates as well.