That is the thing though, someone being annoying by being anti PC is..well okay, it annoys you. But someone using a PC agenda to spread lies and make people feel less safe? That does actual harm. Would you rather feel annoyed or be actually harmed? I know what I'd choose, I know what any sane person would choose.
Thats my point. But its never going to change peoples mind. The fix was in a long time ago.
Just watch Waters World asking people on the street if they know simple basic questions about our country.
No one knows shit about anything anymore. 10 people on this board might be awake. Other then that, its party lines and indoctrination of the publicly educated.
Originally posted by SurturWell, I'd more blame a media that thrives off of badly-construed statistics for all of that. In his own way, Time makes a point when he says we're all being played: play the PC against the anti-PC and take the spotlight away from the corrupt system that is systematically screwing us all every day (and no, Trump isn't going to do anything to fix that, imo). Don't be annoyed at single people taking on the cause of political correctness, be annoyed at the system that has got us to this point. I feel that you generally come from an alright place, but you direct your malcontent towards the wrong aspects of culture.
It came from lies. Like this "1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted" study even the president has cited. What they don't say is in that study the definition of "sexual assault" ranged anywhere from an unwanted kiss to just drunken sex. No not raping someone while drunk, just flat out drunk sex was counted. THAT is where that shit comes, that is how this shit hurts people. It makes them think there is a danger that there isn't. You can literally use the "I saw an instance of so and so getting off easy" for ANY crime. Are we in a murder culture? An identity theft culture? A car stealing culture? You get what I mean?You're actually less likely to get raped on a college campus if you're a female than you are to get raped off a college campus. But you won't hear about that, why would you?
This then leads to lives destroyed. I've seen cases where women have lied about rape and gotten no punishment at all. Yet I'm not saying we live in a "lie about rape" culture because I'm not insane.
Originally posted by SurturThis is a good stance and one that I personally agree heavily with.
It does matter because talking about it is acknowledging that we are getting played.
I don't really know what else to say on this topic; I don't know anyone whose life has been ruined by PC culture because it isn't as prevalent in the UK, so I'm not able to pass judgment clearly on the situation in America or elsewhere.
"Political correctness" is a term people use to dismiss ideas that make them uncomfortable; it is a way to dismiss a concern or demand as a frivolous grievance rather than a real issue.
Case in point, journalist Amanda Taub thinks the name "Washington Redskins" is racist and hurtful to Native Americans, and should be changed. So if someone asks her what she thinks of the debate about the name, that is what she says.
By contrast, Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller likes the name and wants the team to keep it. But rather than making an argument on the merits of the name, he refers to the entire debate as "political correctness on overdrive."
In other words, he is saying, this is a false debate—just another example of "political correctness"—so he does not have to even acknowledge concerns about racism.
Miller, in fact, claimed that it was literally fake, an issue trumped up by a "rich member of the Oneida tribe."
That is a failure of communication and, arguably, of basic respect. Miller is not engaging with critics of the Redskins name by considering why they find it hurtful, and offering his basis for disagreement—he is dismissing the whole conversation as unworthy of discussion.
Most arguments against "political correctness" are fundamentally the same: that consideration of the concerns of often marginalized people are just a bunch of annoying whining, and that efforts to address these concerns are unnecessary.
But they also betray their real concern: that listening to these concerns could potentially burden their lives, or at least change their speech.
They are used to being able to say things without fearing the consequences, and view "political correctness" as a form of social censure, when it really means just treating people with respect.
He makes a good point and if PC stuff was only used to try to fight racism like in his example that would be one thing, but not every case is so cut and dry like that.
It's like a fire hose, you can use it to save people and put out a fire, or you can use it to knock people the f*ck over.
The media does indeed play a key part. Sort of like if a cop kills a black guy, the race of the guy will be mentioned in the headline, but obviously you won't ever see "Cop shoots unarmed white man" as a headline, it would just read "Cop shoots unarmed man".
Originally posted by Surtur
...obviously you won't ever see "Cop shoots unarmed white man" as a headline, it would just read "Cop shoots unarmed man".
Dawg!!! 😆 😆 😆
http://www.westernjournalism.com/uh-oh-black-police-officer-shoots-unarmed-white-man-wheres-riot/
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/white-teen-gilbert-collar-killed-by-black-cop-trev/
https://www.mrconservative.com/2014/08/48057-black-officer-shoots-white-man-no-media-outrage/