Will PC silliness ever end? (Limbaugh, free speech, March, 9/11)

[Unsettomati]

The term "political correctness" is, by definition, phrases or actions used to refrain from causing offense.

In practice, when someone says "political correctness" they are almost always referring to such phrases and actions meant not to cause offense except when they agree with said practice.

Here's an example:
When religion is portrayed negatively in fiction (television, a book, by a comedian) and the usual suspects object, those people never consider their objections - which are demands to refrain from offense-causing criticism of religion - to be political correctness.

Another example:
When Rush Limbaugh referred to liberals as 'retards', Sarah Palin pitched a fit, taking offense because she has a child with Down Syndrome. Her demand that 'retard' not be used as an insult is the very definition of political correctness, but neither Palin nor her followers - the same crowd that incessantly carps about the boogeyman of political correctness - consider it to be political correctness.

And why do these people never consider their own political correctness to be such? Because their self-absorbed definition of political correctness is this: "The modification of speech or actions so as to not cause offense - except when I agree that it's offense."

This same crowd likes to pretend that this sort of thing - which is really nothing more than social norms - is something new. It's not. Why did some television stations (mostly in the South) refuse to air the episode of Star Trek where Kirk (a white man) and Uhuru (a black woman) kiss? Because it was seen as offensive. Political correctness in action. Why did the Cincinnati baseball team change their name from 'Reds' to 'Redlegs' in the McCarthyist 1950s? Too avoid offending those who saw commies lurking behind every bush (and in every dugout) - again, political correctness. Why did the Hays Code (the set of rules for motion pictures enforced by the studios from the early 1930s to the mid-1960s) prohibit negative portrayals of the clergy, law enforcement, or the institution of marriage (among a great many other limitations)? So as to not offend sensibilities - once again, political correctness. The list is endless.

I have yet to meet someone who is genuinely offended by political correctness. The people who say they are, in fact are not - they just don't like political correctness when they disagree with what it targets, but like it just fine when they agree with where it's directed.

[Upstate67]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

The last time I went to a mexican restaurant I remember seeing sombreros and other "mexican" decore hanging on the walls but since no one took those down and wore them I guess that is OK?

Jesus H seriously...

Also, the Cancun airport is filled with hungover gringos with giant sombreros every day of the week. I've got one, along with a Mayan calendar and a Chichen-Itza. How can you not have one - they practically force them on you.

Oh, but now they're offensive? GTFO.

[Upstate67]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

That's the problem with this story, IMO. These sorority sisters decided to hold a party for themselves and their non-Mexican friends that parodied and stereotyped Mexican culture only because the alcohol being served was tequila. There was no celebration of Mexican culture, just drinking.

And that differs from St. Patrick's Day..... how?

[mkpunk]

I noticed a weird one tonight in CNN's post-debate panel. A female Trump supporter joined liberals complaining about Sanders' "Can I finish" response to an interrupting HRC. Now when Trump would do it to others, the Trump supporter called it fair but yet a female getting interrupted for interrupting is wrong, I'm going ESPN level "c'mon man!" on that one. If it's fine for Trump to interrupt interruptions, why is it all of a sudden a problem when one is a woman. Also, I have to wonder her stance when it's Trump being called that for giving the same response (you know that will come if it's HRC vs. Trump.)

[Creekcat]

I bet if they were wearing overalls, no shoes, had teeth blacked-out and drinking moonshine from a jug, nothing would've been said.

[Akonyo]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Good post.

It reminded me of myself back around 1970. I had grown up in an all-White town in western NYS. Our only minority was a dentist and his family who were Jewish. Then I went to a state college in western NYS, which was also predominantly White...very predominantly White. I don't remember a single Black or Latino in any of my classes. What it did have was a surprising number of (mostly) White students from the New York City region. We were going out on a geology field trip one day and one of the NYC kids screamed stop the car, stop the car! He saw 2 cows out in the field mating. He couldn't even imagine what they were doing. We all laughed at him for what we saw as his naivety. Later I got to thinking that how naive would most of the rest of us have looked had we been plopped down in the middle of New York City. Different cultures, different environments, not better or worse, just different. And what I see here on C-D is an awfully lot of posters who have lived a very sheltered life in their own little world...never gotten out into other environments...most never traveled to a foreign county (Canada and Mexico don't count)...never spent any time in a location where they were in the minority...and yet they think they have all the answers. The dumbest people are the ones who don't know how little they actually know.

This isn't really true.

I'm white, but went to a predominantly black high school. I also was in the military and have traveled all over the world to multiple countries.

When I went to those countries, I tried my best to adapt to those cultures....because I was a guest in their country.

It bothers me when other cultures don't attempt to do the same in my country. It bothers me even more when they try to get benefits offered to American citizens (see: illegal Mexican immigrants). I support hostility and violence over this ideal.

Just being honest.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

The term "political correctness" is, by definition, phrases or actions used to refrain from causing offense.

In practice, when someone says "political correctness" they are almost always referring to such phrases and actions meant not to cause offense except when they agree with said practice.

Here's an example:
When religion is portrayed negatively in fiction (television, a book, by a comedian) and the usual suspects object, those people never consider their objections - which are demands to refrain from offense-causing criticism of religion - to be political correctness.

Another example:
When Rush Limbaugh referred to liberals as 'retards', Sarah Palin pitched a fit, taking offense because she has a child with Down Syndrome. Her demand that 'retard' not be used as an insult is the very definition of political correctness, but neither Palin nor her followers - the same crowd that incessantly carps about the boogeyman of political correctness - consider it to be political correctness.

And why do these people never consider their own political correctness to be such? Because their self-absorbed definition of political correctness is this: "The modification of speech or actions so as to not cause offense - except when I agree that it's offense."

This same crowd likes to pretend that this sort of thing - which is really nothing more than social norms - is something new. It's not. Why did some television stations (mostly in the South) refuse to air the episode of Star Trek where Kirk (a white man) and Uhuru (a black woman) kiss? Because it was seen as offensive. Political correctness in action. Why did the Cincinnati baseball team change their name from 'Reds' to 'Redlegs' in the McCarthyist 1950s? Too avoid offending those who saw commies lurking behind every bush (and in every dugout) - again, political correctness. Why did the Hays Code (the set of rules for motion pictures enforced by the studios from the early 1930s to the mid-1960s) prohibit negative portrayals of the clergy, law enforcement, or the institution of marriage (among a great many other limitations)? So as to not offend sensibilities - once again, political correctness. The list is endless.

I have yet to meet someone who is genuinely offended by political correctness. The people who say they are, in fact are not - they just don't like political correctness when they disagree with what it targets, but like it just fine when they agree with where it's directed.

Excellent post. It seems that "political correctness" has become shorthand for "liberal offense." The people in this thread who are castigating those who pursue political correctness would probably raise a fit if certain aspects of their ways of life were mocked or denigrated in public. If a news reporter mocked the story of Jesus and dismissed it as modern mythology, I'm certain that many conservatives would be greatly offended and would speak out about it. Somehow, they don't recognize that they are simply seeking political correctness about a different set of issues. This modern rebuke of political correctness by conservative Trump fans is really nothing more than a rejection of progressive cultural relations. It reminds me of the "freedom of speech" uproar surrounding the Chic-fil-a gay marriage comments a few years ago. No one marching in support of Chic-fil-a was defending free speech. Countless groups -- white supremacists, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. -- regularly say things that are met with widespread disdain in the public square. I don't imagine that any of the CFA supporters have ever marched to defend Fred Phelps' right to free speech, however.

There was a time when the N word was socially acceptable among white folks. It isn't anymore. That is a victory of political correctness. I'm not sure that college students caring about this stuff wears off when they get into the "real world." It seems as though America certainly has become more politically correct as a whole over the last 75 years, and I can't imagine that generational shifts aren't largely responsible for that.

I think there have been some instances in which modern college campuses have become overly sensitive. So what? It is unrealistic to expect people to get this sort of thing right every time. I would much rather see more people caring about their neighbor's feelings and wanting to show respect for his or her culture than see a blanket dismissal of cultural respect due to a fear of being categorized as "PC."

[joejhere]

Originally Posted by BusyMeAK

Your people managed to show this part of Italian way of life, eat it.

It is the media that often portrays Italians as mafioso. Italians are not promoting this view of themselves. It is a horrible stereotype that is used too often.

[RememberMee]

I wonder if any of you read your corporate booklets for a PC lesson? PC is pushed by uniform worker bee seeking businesses and semi-autistic society seeking to further isolate itself from other people and people related troubles. University sidekicks are just that, they dont lead the social atomization process, they just prepare youngsters to follow corporate booklets.

[arleigh]

In short one could say these PC people are the root of division in society .