Political Corectness Makes Me Gag

[Sonthert]

No, the spider and the person are not on the same level. What the two cases do have in common is a person that is upset. The point I'm trying to make is, a person has a reaction to another person (or a spider). Why try to correct another person for our reaction to them or what they say? Its our reaction, why should there be PC that regulates other people's actions because of the unpredictable and volatile reactions of people who want people to be PC?

The dog example is perfect. The point is, the person who doesn't like dogs wants to infringe on the way the dog-owner lives their life...thats not right is it? Anymore than expecting people to be politically correct is. Expecting people to be politically correct (or castigating them for not being PC) infringes on how they live their life.

A lot of people have spoken about consideration. I don't think most of us want to hear about a person's personal relationship with Satan the Dark Angel or their intimate relationship with goats. Keeping these things to ourselves is consideration; mentioning them out-of-hand is inconsiderate...yes? So why is correcting a person's behavior or speech because it isn't PC not inconsiderate as well? It all revolves around moral imperatives. One person feels their moral imperative to PC speech and actions superior to another person who unwittingly calls a person a janitor. Why open areas of conversation that are potentially unwelcome...like whether a person is to be called a janitor or a sanitation engineer?

I tend towards being politically correct, but like anything else, I don't think its right to tell other people about it (outside of the appropriate venue, like this forum) or tell them why a particular term is inappropriate. In short, I live my life the way I choose, including being Politically Correct, but I don't feel the need to make everybody else live their lives by the same standards. If you want to call him a maintenance engineer, by all means, do so. On the other hand, don't be PC and tell other people why their terms are incorrect. What makes being PC morally superior to being not PC? If the answer is nothing, then why tell people what consists of being PC.

I think the people that object to PC object to the arrogance that some PC people conduct themselves with, like telling you why he's not a janitor. I don't want to have a conversation about semantics, I want a janitor.

Tolerance is the cure-all for all of these problems. It used to be standard in the United States to try to be tolerant, now its correcting other people for the way they speak.

[Bye bye now have fun]

It sounds to me that most people here are white, and don't see why it is such a big deal sometimes. You forget that just a few decades ago minorities didn't even have the right to vote, etc. This wasn't centuries ago, this was just a generation ago.

A few decades ago women didn't have the right to vote either, but I'm not all upset about it. ;p
But seriously. Some people, regardless of race, are just more sensitive. And there's no reason to hurt people if you can help it.

you are also from canada so you cant vote in the us at least. also iirc women could vote by the 1920s which is more than a generation ago

[Boricua]

Boricua, there are places where the " whitey keeps us down" philosophy is a wonderful vote-getter for polticians. Being originally from (and working in downtown )Montgomery, AL, the idea that the civil rights movement never really happened is widely promoted by career politicians who continue to collect paychecks from a black constituency that seems more than happy to languish in poverty instead of taking control of their lives and pulling themselves out of their living conditions. It's so much easier to blame someone else and give up than to accept that it's no longer the 1960's and take advantage of the myriad programs available to the underprivileged, start a new promising career, and live the American dream. This is the twentyfirst century. The only thing holding blacks back is VICTIMHOOD.

Yes, my view is tainted. I lived through the civil rights movement, and I am sick of modern day politilcal ' robin hoods ' keeping most of their voting bloc ignorant and powerless by repeating the mantra " We Shall Overcome " decades after it already happened.

Victimhood is what's keeping black people down in this country? Really? It's not institutionalized racism, police harassment, more difficult access to education, etc?

If you think that just because the civil rights act was signed everything turned rosy for black and minority communities then you are sorely mistaken.

I think that many of those politicians might be alluding to the fact that while the civil rights era changed many things, there are still countless minority communities left in abandon and disrepair because many local governments want nothing to do with these communities.

While I do agree there always has to be a degree of personal responsibility and initiative - it's not always that easy.

[Boricua]

No, the spider and the person are not on the same level. What the two cases do have in common is a person that is upset. The point I'm trying to make is, a person has a reaction to another person (or a spider). Why try to correct another person for our reaction to them or what they say? Its our reaction, why should there be PC that regulates other people's actions because of the unpredictable and volatile reactions of people who want people to be PC?

The dog example is perfect. The point is, the person who doesn't like dogs wants to infringe on the way the dog-owner lives their life...thats not right is it? Anymore than expecting people to be politically correct is. Expecting people to be politically correct (or castigating them for not being PC) infringes on how they live their life.

A lot of people have spoken about consideration. I don't think most of us want to hear about a person's personal relationship with Satan the Dark Angel or their intimate relationship with goats. Keeping these things to ourselves is consideration; mentioning them out-of-hand is inconsiderate...yes? So why is correcting a person's behavior or speech because it isn't PC not inconsiderate as well? It all revolves around moral imperatives. One person feels their moral imperative to PC speech and actions superior to another person who unwittingly calls a person a janitor. Why open areas of conversation that are potentially unwelcome...like whether a person is to be called a janitor or a sanitation engineer?

I tend towards being politically correct, but like anything else, I don't think its right to tell other people about it (outside of the appropriate venue, like this forum) or tell them why a particular term is inappropriate. In short, I live my life the way I choose, including being Politically Correct, but I don't feel the need to make everybody else live their lives by the same standards. If you want to call him a maintenance engineer, by all means, do so. On the other hand, don't be PC and tell other people why their terms are incorrect. What makes being PC morally superior to being not PC? If the answer is nothing, then why tell people what consists of being PC.

I think the people that object to PC object to the arrogance that some PC people conduct themselves with, like telling you why he's not a janitor. I don't want to have a conversation about semantics, I want a janitor.

Tolerance is the cure-all for all of these problems. It used to be standard in the United States to try to be tolerant, now its correcting other people for the way they speak.

I think the thread has been dealing with two related but slightly different issues. The extreme issue of janitor vs other term and the using of racist terms.

Personally, I don't care much for being PC because I believe people who have to make a show of it usually don't really mean it.

On the other hand, if someone is using terms like the n word, etc I do not think that is anything like your example of the dog vs dog owner. Terms like the n word are abusive and do indeed mean harm. If I hear anyone using it I feel that I have to say something just like if I saw someone getting beat up in an alley.

[TheScotsman]

---> Even though slavery was 400 years ago, why do people still regard its existence as a great crime, so much to the effect that many black and white people live with a strong bias of the other purely on this basis which in turn leads to much larger racial separation in the social stratification system in american society today.

Why is it such a big deal? Look who still has the most economic power in this country. Guess why? Yup, it goes all the way back to slavery, then general disenfranchisement. How do you expect a people to automatically achieve equality and parity when only 5 decades ago they didn't even have the right to vote?


The state of most black communities today are linked to slavery and to the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression, simple as that.

I think some people might better understand it this way: If you're born black it's like you 'owe' someone $500,000 in terms of all the adversity you have to fight against (crappy schools due to lower property values in ethnic neighborhoods, lack of connections, covert racism in hiring, etc etc) while when you're born white (especially a white male) is like you came to this world with $500,000 in the bank in terms of all the advantages you get in this society.


Not saying it's your fault for being white, but you look at white activists working on race and they say they do what they do because it's everyone's responsibility to change a society that is still plagued by heavy overt and covert racism.

You're making the most logical sense here in my opinion - in all your posts not just this one.

My personal opinion...........First of all, if you're going to knowingly wound somebody verbally, how about just not doing it? It is not in any way necessary to diminish another human being for any reason. It doesn't build you up, it doesn't make you better and it shows you actually lack something rather valuable in my opinion - common courtesy and compassion. Second of all, until words that are descriptive such as black, white, etc., become purely descriptive and have no emotional impact, they shouldn't be used. I'm Native American. I don't look it, and you'd be positively amazed at the things I hear because a lot of people don't realize they're talking to a "minority". Does it really cost you something to offer someone dignity even though it's through nothing more than a job title? What do you lose by letting them have that titular dignity? People will live up or down to your expectations. How about we give them more reasons to live up than down?

'Rani

Verbally wound someone?
How the hell does that work?

If anyone thinks they run a risk of being "verbally wounded" they need mental help.
Words are words, nothing more. Weather they "wound" you or not, is your own choice.

Words do wound - deeper than the physical. Your body will heal and forget, your mind does not. It is not a personal attack to say that you have likely never been abused to say that. There is a 9 year old girl living alone with her mom next door to me. The walls are thin. I hear her mother speak to her badly almost daily and over the 2 years they've lived there, I've watched the change in that beautiful little girl as she begins to believe what her mother says about her. When the opinion of someone matters to you and that opinion negates or diminishes you, you are wounded.

'Rani

Comparing child abuse with a racist slur yelled at you in a street is, well, again silly.
Unless, of course, you are inferring that child abuse is a form of political incorrectness. Which, it turn would be just as silly, and demean the dangers, and true damage of child abuse.

Or is it that you are saying that the opinion of some racist nutjob should be important to a person? Why?

Your comparison is irrelevant.

You are contributing to the abuse of said child by not contacting social services. Doing so is your obligation, both under the law of most states, and the basic morality that should bind every person. Typical lib stand, more of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

[smokeytheclown]

Boricua, there are places where the " whitey keeps us down" philosophy is a wonderful vote-getter for polticians. Being originally from (and working in downtown )Montgomery, AL, the idea that the civil rights movement never really happened is widely promoted by career politicians who continue to collect paychecks from a black constituency that seems more than happy to languish in poverty instead of taking control of their lives and pulling themselves out of their living conditions. It's so much easier to blame someone else and give up than to accept that it's no longer the 1960's and take advantage of the myriad programs available to the underprivileged, start a new promising career, and live the American dream. This is the twentyfirst century. The only thing holding blacks back is VICTIMHOOD.

Yes, my view is tainted. I lived through the civil rights movement, and I am sick of modern day politilcal ' robin hoods ' keeping most of their voting bloc ignorant and powerless by repeating the mantra " We Shall Overcome " decades after it already happened.

Victimhood is what's keeping black people down in this country? Really? It's not institutionalized racism, police harassment, more difficult access to education, etc?

If you think that just because the civil rights act was signed everything turned rosy for black and minority communities then you are sorely mistaken.

I think that many of those politicians might be alluding to the fact that while the civil rights era changed many things, there are still countless minority communities left in abandon and disrepair because many local governments want nothing to do with these communities.

While I do agree there always has to be a degree of personal responsibility and initiative - it's not always that easy.

Boricua, I admit I can only attest to what I've seen in my neck of the woods. I've sat in a state office building and heard career black polititians blame racism for every ill that comes down the pike. The emphasis is constantly on what the State Govt. can do for me. These people are lifelong Democrats who have been told that they have no chance at improvement, and the government is the only way to get back at The Man.
Institutionalised racism? Not from my end. I have only to walk around a local Mall on a Saturday night and count the teenage mixed couples with infants proudly strolling through the corridors. I have yet to see a single lynching in the parking lot.
Difficulty getting a good education? NO. Vast numbers of minority ( oops, not any more in Montgy, they are at present, the Majority! ) Montgomerians are told that to aspire to something better is to become ' Uncle Tom ', and risk ostracization within their poor community. The ' whitey owes me a living ' mentality is alive and well in the Deep South.
Police harrassment? When two teenage boys are on Montecello Drive, firing a 9 millimeter into the air, and explaining to the arriving officers that " We're practicing for when we rob somebody " , they know nothing will come of it. One accusation of " Racism" and The Fear will take hold. These boys are victims of an oppressive white society, and can't be held responsible for their actions. It's Whitey's Fault!

No, there is no perfect society. Yes, racism still exists. But every race on earth has been enslaved by another at some point in history, and most have moved on to conquer that experience. The main problem in the US is institutionalised Government intervention. We, all of us, black, white, whatever color, are rapidly heading towards the day when life on a government plantation wil be an accepted way of life.
I'm sick of my government trying to protect me from myself. I'm sick of seeing my $$ go to people who have rarely held a job in their lives other than polishing a chair in D. C. with their ass and deciding how much of an allowance I get.
You want real change? Cut taxes into one fourth. Cut giveaway programs. Let everyone, regardless of color, keep 90% of their paycheck, and watch what happens. It's a proven fact that people are more inclined to give to charities and philanthropic causes when they have more to give. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Government has been described by one supposedly libertarian talk show host as a ' necessary evil '
Talk about an oxymoron.

[Boricua]

Or is it that you are saying that the opinion of some racist nutjob should be important to a person? Why?

I think the issue is that it's not usually just some nutjob. If you think racism comes solely from nutjobs, then you are sorely mistaken.

Typical lib stand, more of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Hmm I think both sides of the spectrum could say that about one another. Conservatives are usually mighty hypocritical in my book.

Mark Foley ring a bell? Larry Craig? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

[Bye bye now have fun]

Typical lib stand, more of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Hmm I think both sides of the spectrum could say that about one another. Conservatives are usually mighty hypocritical in my book.

Mark Foley ring a bell? Larry Craig? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

actually they do and ironicly they are neocons which arent conservatives. i live in bumble fuck pa where 10 eyar old kids are 150lbs wearing camo and stealer hats and their parents are driving truck with dead dear in them. last weekend when shopping for food i saw 4 mixed couples 2 had kids. if anyone is going to "hold the man down" is pennsyitucky (minus the deep south). as for education, my brothers friend got in here because hes 1/2 mexican and guess what they have minority scholarships that non minorities cant get. so if i minority can get scholarships that theoritically i can get plus more i fail to see the problem. conversely it would be interesting to see if i could get a minortiy scholarship to southern or grambling

[Bye bye now have fun]

oh i forgot what about your old mayor that was elected multiple times, smoked the NHT that starts with a C and never went to jail, then didnt file his taxes and never went to jail. good thing hes an eagle scout and white, that way they new world order protected him. wait what? hes black? nevermind

[Sonthert]

Interesting point, Smokey. The muckity mucks say taxing tobacco (and alcohol) discourages use. Increasing excise taxes on tobacco reduces it use...could the same thing be said for employment?

[ahwahoo2006]

Interesting point, Smokey. The muckity mucks say taxing tobacco (and alcohol) discourages use. Increasing excise taxes on tobacco reduces it use...could the same thing be said for employment?

From a strictly economic viewpoint, yes: you can plot it on a supply/demand curve.

[TheScotsman]

Interesting point, Smokey. The muckity mucks say taxing tobacco (and alcohol) discourages use. Increasing excise taxes on tobacco reduces it use...could the same thing be said for employment?

eloquently put.

I love it.

[judgeposer]

Interesting point, Smokey. The muckity mucks say taxing tobacco (and alcohol) discourages use. Increasing excise taxes on tobacco reduces it use...could the same thing be said for employment?

Was the Laffer curve ever proven? Even if not, doesn't Laffer's theory have something to say here: that increases in taxation don't necessarily produce increased tax revenue.

[Sonthert]

Fuckin' Laffler Curve!


Another reflection on the point of being considerate of other people, really an amplification of what I said earlier...

I remember, some time ago, it was polite for people to ask: "Would you mind if I made a personal comment?" before criticizing them on how they spoke or what they said. It would be presumtuous and arrogant to do otherwise. I find people's going after people that make non-PC comments don't do this at all...they just say what they are thinking...thats inconsiderate. Two wrongs don't make a right...er two inconsiderates don't make a situation right.

Payroll and employment taxes aren't part of tax revenue, they are to administer employment programs...I think the Laffler curve refers to income taxes per se.

[judgeposer]

Interesting point, Smokey. The muckity mucks say taxing tobacco (and alcohol) discourages use. Increasing excise taxes on tobacco reduces it use...could the same thing be said for employment?

Fuckin' Laffler Curve!

Another reflection on the point of being considerate of other people, really an amplification of what I said earlier...

[...]

Payroll and employment taxes aren't part of tax revenue, they are to administer employment programs...I think the Laffler curve refers to income taxes per se.

Ahh...we're talking about some other type of taxes than I thought. But, given these two posts, I thought you were asking whether we could say that since excise taxes on tabacco reduces its use, that we could say that increased income taxes would reduce employment, or as I understood it, our interest to work.

I see now you meant employment taxes, not employment, per se. I gotcha now.

Gotta love that Leffer Curve though...haha.

[Rani]

No, the spider and the person are not on the same level. What the two cases do have in common is a person that is upset. The point I'm trying to make is, a person has a reaction to another person (or a spider). Why try to correct another person for our reaction to them or what they say? Its our reaction, why should there be PC that regulates other people's actions because of the unpredictable and volatile reactions of people who want people to be PC?

The dog example is perfect. The point is, the person who doesn't like dogs wants to infringe on the way the dog-owner lives their life...thats not right is it? Anymore than expecting people to be politically correct is. Expecting people to be politically correct (or castigating them for not being PC) infringes on how they live their life.

A lot of people have spoken about consideration. I don't think most of us want to hear about a person's personal relationship with Satan the Dark Angel or their intimate relationship with goats. Keeping these things to ourselves is consideration; mentioning them out-of-hand is inconsiderate...yes? So why is correcting a person's behavior or speech because it isn't PC not inconsiderate as well? It all revolves around moral imperatives. One person feels their moral imperative to PC speech and actions superior to another person who unwittingly calls a person a janitor. Why open areas of conversation that are potentially unwelcome...like whether a person is to be called a janitor or a sanitation engineer?

I tend towards being politically correct, but like anything else, I don't think its right to tell other people about it (outside of the appropriate venue, like this forum) or tell them why a particular term is inappropriate. In short, I live my life the way I choose, including being Politically Correct, but I don't feel the need to make everybody else live their lives by the same standards. If you want to call him a maintenance engineer, by all means, do so. On the other hand, don't be PC and tell other people why their terms are incorrect. What makes being PC morally superior to being not PC? If the answer is nothing, then why tell people what consists of being PC.

I think the people that object to PC object to the arrogance that some PC people conduct themselves with, like telling you why he's not a janitor. I don't want to have a conversation about semantics, I want a janitor.

Tolerance is the cure-all for all of these problems. It used to be standard in the United States to try to be tolerant, now its correcting other people for the way they speak.

I don't think I was clear enough in what I was saying. Letting someone know they've offended you, is a you personally issue. Not a matter of being overall politically correct. If someone says or does something that directly offensive towards you personally, then yes, I believe you should let them know - because they may not know unless you tell them. It's more a matter of respecting the individual you're interacting with and their ideas than following overall accepted "rules" of behavior. What is offensive to one person is not offensive to another. I have friends who strongly prefer to be called black. Others who strongly prefer African American. If in discussion it comes up, I use the terms they personally perfer because I offer them individual respect for their beliefs and feelings. I once asked a drag queen which she/he preferred - He or She. She said that's easy. When dressed as a woman she's a she. As man he's a he. It's the perfect example of how respect can be fluid. It doesn't have to be spceific rules carved in stone and applied arbitarily to every person on the planet. In no way do I believe that I have the right to tell someone else they're not speaking politically correct towards another person. Only when I find something directly offensive towards myself, because the only feelings I can successfully monitor are my own. I'm assuming if a maintenance engineer prefers that term over janitor, then he has the right to directly tell me so when I call him a janitor. He should correct me so I'll know how he feels and when he tells me what he prefers, it's up to me to then respect that and use his preferred term in the future.

Something occurred to me last night that hadn't before in this debate. There may be gender issues here. By that I mean, women are the great communicators. We share our feelings, we bond over them - hell when the girls go out drinking we end up talking about relationships and our feelings in the parking lot long after we've closed the bar. How many times has the woman in your life wanted to know how you feel, and share in return what she's feeling and you just want to drop the issue because you're over it? You're not hurt or offended, or non-offended - you're just over it. Women even when young interact differently. So we're more inclined to look towards how our words and actions effect the feelings of other. That's a very generic statement, but according to every study ever done, women in general are feelings focused, whereas men are results focused. Which is why we women are constantly told to quite sharing our feelings with me unless we want you to actually fix it. And why men are equally told sometimes you need to just listen and not fix anything when your women needs to share her feelings.

As far as tolerance is concerned.... Hell yeah, we need a lot more of it. The world would certainly be a much better place if others were more tolerant.

'Rani

[Rani]

Double post but I only clicked once..... SOS sent to Mushy.....

'Rani

[Sonthert]

I am a moderator, I can do that sort of thing too...

I can ban people and edit my posts whenever I feel like, too. The insane sense of power I feel right now!

[Rani]

---> Even though slavery was 400 years ago, why do people still regard its existence as a great crime, so much to the effect that many black and white people live with a strong bias of the other purely on this basis which in turn leads to much larger racial separation in the social stratification system in american society today.

Why is it such a big deal? Look who still has the most economic power in this country. Guess why? Yup, it goes all the way back to slavery, then general disenfranchisement. How do you expect a people to automatically achieve equality and parity when only 5 decades ago they didn't even have the right to vote?


The state of most black communities today are linked to slavery and to the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression, simple as that.

I think some people might better understand it this way: If you're born black it's like you 'owe' someone $500,000 in terms of all the adversity you have to fight against (crappy schools due to lower property values in ethnic neighborhoods, lack of connections, covert racism in hiring, etc etc) while when you're born white (especially a white male) is like you came to this world with $500,000 in the bank in terms of all the advantages you get in this society.


Not saying it's your fault for being white, but you look at white activists working on race and they say they do what they do because it's everyone's responsibility to change a society that is still plagued by heavy overt and covert racism.

You're making the most logical sense here in my opinion - in all your posts not just this one.

My personal opinion...........First of all, if you're going to knowingly wound somebody verbally, how about just not doing it? It is not in any way necessary to diminish another human being for any reason. It doesn't build you up, it doesn't make you better and it shows you actually lack something rather valuable in my opinion - common courtesy and compassion. Second of all, until words that are descriptive such as black, white, etc., become purely descriptive and have no emotional impact, they shouldn't be used. I'm Native American. I don't look it, and you'd be positively amazed at the things I hear because a lot of people don't realize they're talking to a "minority". Does it really cost you something to offer someone dignity even though it's through nothing more than a job title? What do you lose by letting them have that titular dignity? People will live up or down to your expectations. How about we give them more reasons to live up than down?

'Rani

Verbally wound someone?
How the hell does that work?

If anyone thinks they run a risk of being "verbally wounded" they need mental help.
Words are words, nothing more. Weather they "wound" you or not, is your own choice.

Words do wound - deeper than the physical. Your body will heal and forget, your mind does not. It is not a personal attack to say that you have likely never been abused to say that. There is a 9 year old girl living alone with her mom next door to me. The walls are thin. I hear her mother speak to her badly almost daily and over the 2 years they've lived there, I've watched the change in that beautiful little girl as she begins to believe what her mother says about her. When the opinion of someone matters to you and that opinion negates or diminishes you, you are wounded.

'Rani

Comparing child abuse with a racist slur yelled at you in a street is, well, again silly.
Unless, of course, you are inferring that child abuse is a form of political incorrectness. Which, it turn would be just as silly, and demean the dangers, and true damage of child abuse.

Or is it that you are saying that the opinion of some racist nutjob should be important to a person? Why?

Your comparison is irrelevant.

You are contributing to the abuse of said child by not contacting social services. Doing so is your obligation, both under the law of most states, and the basic morality that should bind every person. Typical lib stand, more of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Not irrelevant. You've never been in an abusive environment. It's such that this child has now learned to respond negatively to hurtful words. Beat a dog enough and all you need to do is raise your hand for it to crings. Same reaction in a human being. We respond in whatever way we have been reared to respond. So people do respond fearfully to a slur from a stranger if they've been raised to respond that way.

And as far as calling DPSS, I put myself through junior college working for the health department of which DPSS is a part. Nothing she has done crosses the line into legal abuse according to the system in which there are not enough foster homes and adoptive families or even beds in facilities for abused children. I have spoken to the mother. She doesn't like me much anymore but hey, maybe it will make her think about her actions and she at least know I can hear so perhaps it will keep her from going futher. So please don't accuse me of taking a typical liberal stand. I don't judge you based on a few posts on a bulletin board, why are you making assumptions about me?

'Rani

[Rani]

I am a moderator, I can do that sort of thing too...

I can ban people and edit my posts whenever I feel like, too. The insane sense of power I feel right now!

I'm not much for banning people 'cuz I think the stupid generally go away on their own given time, but I am intensely jealous of your ability to edit after 5 minutes! Especially when I'm thinking so fast my fingers are fudging it up on the keyboard!

'Rani

[Sonthert]

Bwah hahah!

I feel like banning somebody right now! Who wants it? Who wants a can of Kirkland Kickbutt!??

How do you know he hasn't been in an abusive environment? Its not really relevant. We are entitled to an opinion, whether we have experience or not. In fact, I would offer the idea that people without emotionally charged experience can be more detached and objective and might be able to make better decisions in the matter...isn't that what professional mediators are about?

Still love ya, Rani.

[Sonthert]

I don't know, Scotsman, my opinion is that people have the right to rear their children, good or bad, and I like to mind my own business, not butt into other people's business.

Its funny. People seem baffled why there is so much violence in the U.S. compared to the rest of the developed world. Its quite simple. There are two mutually exclusive paradigms that operate in American culture:

1) Mind your own business. If you come messing around in my business or interfere with me, I'll kill you. Its the foreign policy of the United States in general.
2) Watch for crime, child abuse, drunk drivers, suspicious strangers, terrorists cells, etc. ad nauseum...call the police and have them handle the situation, report, observe, etc. I.E. butt your nose into other people's business.

So, you mix the two, and boom! violence. 'Round where I am, over here in this part of San Diego, you butt your nose into people's business gets you shot or jacked.

[TheScotsman]

I don't know, Scotsman, my opinion is that people have the right to rear their children, good or bad, and I like to mind my own business, not butt into other people's business.

I agree most completely.

My earlier comment was aimed at demonstration of the hypocrisy, no, complete idiocy of thinking that society as a whole needs to make laws governing a word/thought/expression as a result of someone's crappy childhood. All the while sitting next door and not taking an action against someone perpetrating the abuse that causes the (supposed) sensitivity to those words/thoughts/expressions that they want to outlaw or control. It is foolish to make a control on a word/thought/comment just because someone drank the touchie-feelie-warm&fuzzy-kool-aid and now thinks a word is going to damage someone's being. If someone thinks someone's treatment of anyone is so wrong, man-up, and go do something about it. If you get punched in the face, that was the price of being a nosey PITA. Maybe at that point the self-righteous would realize their need to control everyone they see isn't worth said punch in the face. But to expect me not to call my neighbor a scrawney-polock because it's going to damamge him on some psychic level is just plain retarded.

Its funny. People seem baffled why there is so much violence in the U.S. compared to the rest of the developed world. Its quite simple. There are two mutually exclusive paradigms that operate in American culture:

1) Mind your own business. If you come messing around in my business or interfere with me, I'll kill you. Its the foreign policy of the United States in general.
2) Watch for crime, child abuse, drunk drivers, suspicious strangers, terrorists cells, etc. ad nauseum...call the police and have them handle the situation, report, observe, etc. I.E. butt your nose into other people's business.

So, you mix the two, and boom! violence. 'Round where I am, over here in this part of San Diego, you butt your nose into people's business gets you shot or jacked.

I have so often heard people comment "there should be a law against {fill in the blank}". Every time I hear it I cringe. All I can think is there should be a law against people who want laws to interveen with other people's lives. All a person has to do is listen to the police scanner for a while to realize this nation is full of 30-somethings with a cell phone, just looking for a chance to call 911 on anyone they see doing anything from jaywalking to riding on the flatbed carts at Sam's (Aye, some lady actually called the coppers on someone allowing their kids to ride on one. I would have never believed if I had not been there when 2 cops came in to terrorise the poor parent othe the heanous offense of endangering the riders)

Frankly, people, being what they are, will need a means to lash out at someone doing what they precieve to be stupid/wrong. I would far rather have some tosser call me names, then keep the stress building until they go nuts, find a tall building and a hunting rifle. People are emotional creatures, until that fact is no more, there will be a desire to call the guy that runs a red light, nearly killing you exactly what you think of him. In the heat of the moment you will pick an insult to get a reaction. Names are just words, anyone that takes them as an injury has been attending too many euphorian education courses.

[Rani]

Scotsman, Eric....... Here's the point I've been trying to make and failing miserably..... We don't get to be right just because we think we are.

Each of us, me included, has control over the thoughts and feelings of one person and one person only. Myself. I do not get to decide what does or does not injure someone elses feelings. What is offensive to me isn't necessarily offensive to you. Scotsman you made the statement that you thought someone who was wounded by words needed mental help. You don't get to decide that. You don't control what someone else thinks or feels. Neither do I. Or Eric. Or anyone else. Because we don't walk in any shoes but our own and live only through our own experiences. You don't get to decide if that one last derrogatory remark by a stranger is what sends someone over the edge onto a ledge with a gun. Neither do I. And making that remark levels the person who made it with the responsibility of having made it. Doesn't matter if the person they made it to is oversensitive. Doesn't matter if they're in need of mental health intervention. You or I or Joe Blow still made a hurtful remark. And we are still responsible for having done so. Eric, you were right that I was assuming Scotsman had never been abused. It was unfair of me to do so. How people handle abuse differs from person to person. For some victims they cracks in their psyche never heal. For some they put up a block wall that will never crack again.

The polnt of political correctness is that it may error on the side of acknowledging that an inadvertant remake may hurt someone's feelings. So what? Is it not the responsibility of a thinking, feeling, compassionate human being to monitor their own behavior so as to avoid inadvertently harming someone else?

'Rani

[Sonthert]

When people have the freedom of speech, sometimes people might get hurt by what other people say, they might be offended. Some people might rightfully try to exercise restraint and be considerate. Thats fine. Thats good. Going to far is something else altogether.

I don't object to PC, I object to people presuming its their right to tell other people about PC or how their words/actions aren't PC. Like when several people sit down together who aren't familar and somebody offers a person some beef and they say "I'm a vegetarian." Who cares? "No, thank you." is perfectly adequate. That person doesn't eat meat, they don't need to tell everybody else who might be eating meat and might feel uncomfortable because of the vegetarian. Its a matter of consideration, of manners. Saying "Hes not a janitor, he's a maintenance technician." is rude, in my opinion. I don't go to parties saying "You shouldn't drink beer, its fattening."or to gay friend's houses saying "Oh, I'm straight.". Its not place to offer my opinion uninvited, where it might offed someone.

Be PC, that fine, how you refer to the maintenance technician is your business. Don't tell other people about it. Maybe they don't want to hear it.