In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[BDBoop]

I'm invisible again, aren't I.

Good day.

No, but I was not willing to sidetrack the discussion by dragging in a legal issue. We can either discuss the issue or we can discuss the legal definition of a word. We already put the legal definition of words to bed many pages back. Did you comment when I was making the point that this is not an issue of law or legality? This is the ethics of a cultural phenomenon. So if I am not invisible when you don't respond to my argument, which you didn't, then you aren't invisible if i skim over a legal definition that I really think would muddy the waters here.

Nor did you answer my direct question to you awhile back which was, are you okay with what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson? If so, why? If not why?

If you, personally, get to decide what constitutes physical harm then no. I'm not entertaining this discussion anymore.

 

[RKMBrown]

we have a classic example of those who are claiming intolerance towards them and also to be very tolerant themselves to be actually the most vile and militant intolerant bigots under the sun - LGBT and the left overall.

Be careful about the left and right analogy though because yes, GLAAD is very left. But the American Family Association is conservative right and they went after Ellen Degeneres not for anything she said or because the AFA had any problem with the content of an ad, but purely because Ellen is gay. If we are looking at this from a non hypocritical perspective, that deserves as much or more condemnation as what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson.

This is not a partisan issue or an ideological issue or an us vs them issue. This is good people demanding that we turn away from a culture of hurting people for no other reason than they are who and what they are and return to a culture where people are allowed to be who and what they are so long as they don't tread on the rights of others.

I'm impressed Fox. You may just be leaning a bit away from dogmatic authoritarian right wing republican thought to constitutional conservative/libertarian thinking here Careful, the far right wingers, can turn on ya when you go against them for liberty sake.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm invisible again, aren't I.

Good day.

No, but I was not willing to sidetrack the discussion by dragging in a legal issue. We can either discuss the issue or we can discuss the legal definition of a word. We already put the legal definition of words to bed many pages back. Did you comment when I was making the point that this is not an issue of law or legality? This is the ethics of a cultural phenomenon. So if I am not invisible when you don't respond to my argument, which you didn't, then you aren't invisible if i skim over a legal definition that I really think would muddy the waters here.

Nor did you answer my direct question to you awhile back which was, are you okay with what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson? If so, why? If not why?

If you, personally, get to decide what constitutes physical harm then no. I'm not entertaining this discussion anymore.

there is no honest discussion when one will set herself up with a handicap.

 

[Montrovant]

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

BEING that way is UP to the individual, and acting upon it as to infringe, nay, PUNISH another merely FOR their speech is where it all goes awry, and precisely what GLADD did through his employer (A&E whom capitulated under their MINORITY pressure), as their INTENT was to stifle such speech OPENLY and SHOW their intolerance.

Exactly. Phil Robertson stated a personal belief/opinion in answer to a direct question. I believe he had no intent other than to be honest about what he believed. He made it very clear that he wished no harm or ill will on anyone. Is he intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. He is intolerant of anything he considers to be a sin. That does not mean he loves the 'sinners' any less.

GLAAD intended to physically and materially harm Phil Robertson and they wished him no good will of any kind.

AFA intended to physically and materially harm Ellen Degeneres not for the content of the Penney's ad she appeared in--they had no problem with the content--but they went after her for no other reason than she is gay--she is who she is. They wished her no good will of any kind.

And that is the difference between intolerance expressed--somethng that should be tolerated by all of us--and intolerance acted out which is something none of us should be okay with.

Would your opinion change if either of those groups tried to have the people fired not simply because of their opinions, but because they saw their employment in television as an implicit support of their lifestyle or beliefs?

In other words, what if GLAAD honestly thought that by continuing to employ Phil Robertson, A&E was agreeing with the content of his GQ interview. What if the AFA believed that by continuing to employ Ellen DeGeneres, J.C. Penny was supporting homosexuality?

I realize it may seem like splitting hairs, but there really can be a distinction made. How many times have we seen or heard a company put a caveat before a program, letting us know that their airing of the program in no way means the views expressed are supported by the station?

I'm asking this as a hypothetical, I'm not claiming to know the reasoning behind the actions of GLAAD or the AFA.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm invisible again, aren't I.

Good day.

No, but I was not willing to sidetrack the discussion by dragging in a legal issue. We can either discuss the issue or we can discuss the legal definition of a word. We already put the legal definition of words to bed many pages back. Did you comment when I was making the point that this is not an issue of law or legality? This is the ethics of a cultural phenomenon. So if I am not invisible when you don't respond to my argument, which you didn't, then you aren't invisible if i skim over a legal definition that I really think would muddy the waters here.

Nor did you answer my direct question to you awhile back which was, are you okay with what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson? If so, why? If not why?

If you, personally, get to decide what constitutes physical harm then no. I'm not entertaining this discussion anymore.

The topic is tolerance. So who do you think should be the authority as to what constitutes physical harm? Am I not allowed my opinion as to what constitutes physical harm from my point of view? Or do you think you should get to define what constitutes physical harm? If somebody gets me fired, I will definitely feel like I have been harmed physically and materially. Am I allowed my opinion on that? Or not?

 

[BDBoop]

No, but I was not willing to sidetrack the discussion by dragging in a legal issue. We can either discuss the issue or we can discuss the legal definition of a word. We already put the legal definition of words to bed many pages back. Did you comment when I was making the point that this is not an issue of law or legality? This is the ethics of a cultural phenomenon. So if I am not invisible when you don't respond to my argument, which you didn't, then you aren't invisible if i skim over a legal definition that I really think would muddy the waters here.

Nor did you answer my direct question to you awhile back which was, are you okay with what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson? If so, why? If not why?

If you, personally, get to decide what constitutes physical harm then no. I'm not entertaining this discussion anymore.

The topic is tolerance. So who do you think should be the authority as to what constitutes physical harm? Am I not allowed my opinion as to what constitutes physical harm from my point of view? Or do you think you should get to define what constitutes physical harm? If somebody gets me fired, I will definitely feel like I have been harmed physically and materially. Am I allowed my opinion on that? Or not?

Who should be the authority? The law, of course.

Or as I see all over the nets - you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, but I was not willing to sidetrack the discussion by dragging in a legal issue. We can either discuss the issue or we can discuss the legal definition of a word. We already put the legal definition of words to bed many pages back. Did you comment when I was making the point that this is not an issue of law or legality? This is the ethics of a cultural phenomenon. So if I am not invisible when you don't respond to my argument, which you didn't, then you aren't invisible if i skim over a legal definition that I really think would muddy the waters here.

Nor did you answer my direct question to you awhile back which was, are you okay with what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson? If so, why? If not why?

If you, personally, get to decide what constitutes physical harm then no. I'm not entertaining this discussion anymore.

The topic is tolerance. So who do you think should be the authority as to what constitutes physical harm? Am I not allowed my opinion as to what constitutes physical harm from my point of view? Or do you think you should get to define what constitutes physical harm? If somebody gets me fired, I will definitely feel like I have been harmed physically and materially. Am I allowed my opinion on that? Or not?

and legally you have nothing. Thats why you need to stay within those borders you created. Your argument falls apart instantly you cross over.

 

[Foxfyre]

BEING that way is UP to the individual, and acting upon it as to infringe, nay, PUNISH another merely FOR their speech is where it all goes awry, and precisely what GLADD did through his employer (A&E whom capitulated under their MINORITY pressure), as their INTENT was to stifle such speech OPENLY and SHOW their intolerance.

Exactly. Phil Robertson stated a personal belief/opinion in answer to a direct question. I believe he had no intent other than to be honest about what he believed. He made it very clear that he wished no harm or ill will on anyone. Is he intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. He is intolerant of anything he considers to be a sin. That does not mean he loves the 'sinners' any less.

GLAAD intended to physically and materially harm Phil Robertson and they wished him no good will of any kind.

AFA intended to physically and materially harm Ellen Degeneres not for the content of the Penney's ad she appeared in--they had no problem with the content--but they went after her for no other reason than she is gay--she is who she is. They wished her no good will of any kind.

And that is the difference between intolerance expressed--somethng that should be tolerated by all of us--and intolerance acted out which is something none of us should be okay with.

Would your opinion change if either of those groups tried to have the people fired not simply because of their opinions, but because they saw their employment in television as an implicit support of their lifestyle or beliefs?

In other words, what if GLAAD honestly thought that by continuing to employ Phil Robertson, they were agreeing with the content of his GQ interview. What if the AFA believed that by continuing to employ Ellen DeGeneres, J.C. Penny was supporting homosexuality?

I realize it may seem like splitting hairs, but there really can be a distinction made. How many times have we seen or heard a company put a caveat before a program, letting us know that their airing of the program in no way means the views expressed are supported by the station?

I'm asking this as a hypothetical, I'm not claiming to know the reasoning behind the actions of GLAAD or the AFA.

You do present a different and interesting perspective. But after giving that some thought, no, it would not change my opinion because A&E is as entitled to their opinion as anybody else is entitled to their opinion. What GLAAD thinks anybody thinks is not sufficient ground to do them physical and/or material harm. What anybody thinks should be an unalienable right no matter what it is they think. It is only what people do that physically and/or materially affects another that should be grounds for retaliation of any kind.

I would have no problem with A&E preceding the Duck Dynasty shows with that disclaimer that the opinions expressed on the program or by any of its participants do not necessarily reflect those of A&E or some such.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you, personally, get to decide what constitutes physical harm then no. I'm not entertaining this discussion anymore.

The topic is tolerance. So who do you think should be the authority as to what constitutes physical harm? Am I not allowed my opinion as to what constitutes physical harm from my point of view? Or do you think you should get to define what constitutes physical harm? If somebody gets me fired, I will definitely feel like I have been harmed physically and materially. Am I allowed my opinion on that? Or not?

Who should be the authority? The law, of course.

Or as I see all over the nets - you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

What set of facts have I put out there that have not been linked and supported again and again during the course of this thread? And as I have now repeatedly stated again and again--speaking of being 'ignored'--this is not a legal matter. It is a moral and ethical matter of what we should and should not tolerate in politics and society.

If you object to the term 'physical harm' as I have used it, then by all means offer us a better term. I was not using it in a legal sense--I was using it in the fact that Phil Robertson was physically removed from a television show and materially harmed by losing at least a portion of his livelihood. I was using it in the fact that AFA intended to persuade J.C. Penneys to physically remove Ellen DeGeneres from their advertising and materially harm her by costing her a portion of her livelihood. So if you don't like the words I use to describe what I mean, give me a better word to use.

Do you think it was okay for GLAAD to do that?
Do you think it was okay for AFA to do that?

What word would you use for the harm that GLAAD and AFA intended for those two individuals?

 

[BDBoop]

The topic is tolerance. So who do you think should be the authority as to what constitutes physical harm? Am I not allowed my opinion as to what constitutes physical harm from my point of view? Or do you think you should get to define what constitutes physical harm? If somebody gets me fired, I will definitely feel like I have been harmed physically and materially. Am I allowed my opinion on that? Or not?

Who should be the authority? The law, of course.

Or as I see all over the nets - you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

What set of facts have I put out there that have not been linked and supported again and again during the course of this thread? And as I have now repeatedly stated again and again--speaking of being 'ignored'--this is not a legal matter. It is a moral and ethical matter of what we should and should not tolerate in politics and society.

If you object to the term 'physical harm' as I have used it, then by all means offer us a better term. I was not using it in a legal sense--I was using it in the fact that Phil Robertson was physically removed from a television show and materially harmed by losing at least a portion of his livelihood. I was using it in the fact that AFA intended to persuade J.C. Penneys to physically remove Ellen DeGeneres from their advertising and materially harm her by costing her a portion of her livelihood. So if you don't like the words I use to describe what I mean, give me a better word to use.

Do you think it was okay for GLAAD to do that?
Do you think it was okay for AFA to do that?

What word would you use for the harm that GLAAD and AFA intended for those two individuals?

Seriously? I need to 'give' you a better word or phrase? I think not. Are you saying that if I don't, you'll just keep using 'physical harm,' whether it is logical, rational or not?

Go ahead.

Does GLAAD have a legal right to do what they did? Does AFA? Yes. I believe they do. And if they have a legal right, then yes, it is fine that they did so.

What word would I use? Why do I get the impression you're trying to overwhelm me into silence with a blizzard of test questions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who should be the authority? The law, of course.

Or as I see all over the nets - you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

What set of facts have I put out there that have not been linked and supported again and again during the course of this thread? And as I have now repeatedly stated again and again--speaking of being 'ignored'--this is not a legal matter. It is a moral and ethical matter of what we should and should not tolerate in politics and society.

If you object to the term 'physical harm' as I have used it, then by all means offer us a better term. I was not using it in a legal sense--I was using it in the fact that Phil Robertson was physically removed from a television show and materially harmed by losing at least a portion of his livelihood. I was using it in the fact that AFA intended to persuade J.C. Penneys to physically remove Ellen DeGeneres from their advertising and materially harm her by costing her a portion of her livelihood. So if you don't like the words I use to describe what I mean, give me a better word to use.

Do you think it was okay for GLAAD to do that?
Do you think it was okay for AFA to do that?

What word would you use for the harm that GLAAD and AFA intended for those two individuals?

Seriously? I need to 'give' you a better word or phrase? I think not. Are you saying that if I don't, you'll just keep using 'physical harm,' whether it is logical, rational or not?

Go ahead.

Does GLAAD have a legal right to do what they did? Does AFA? Yes. I believe they do. And if they have a legal right, then yes, it is fine that they did so.

What word would I use? Why do I get the impression you're trying to overwhelm me into silence with a blizzard of test questions.

I don't know why you think I'm trying to overwhelm you. You are the one who complained about being ignored. Perhaps you would like to give me some guidelines of what would be acceptable to you somewhere between ignored and overwhelmed?

But yes. I have defined physical harm as I use it. If you don't like the term, I'm open to suggestions for a better term. If you don't have a better term to offer, then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on to criticize the term I use. Okay?

I presume you don't intend to answer my direct questions to you as to whether you think it was okay for GLAAD to do what they did. For American Family Association to do what they did. I guess such questions are a bit overwhelming.

For now I'm going to bed. But I shall return.

 

[BDBoop]

What set of facts have I put out there that have not been linked and supported again and again during the course of this thread? And as I have now repeatedly stated again and again--speaking of being 'ignored'--this is not a legal matter. It is a moral and ethical matter of what we should and should not tolerate in politics and society.

If you object to the term 'physical harm' as I have used it, then by all means offer us a better term. I was not using it in a legal sense--I was using it in the fact that Phil Robertson was physically removed from a television show and materially harmed by losing at least a portion of his livelihood. I was using it in the fact that AFA intended to persuade J.C. Penneys to physically remove Ellen DeGeneres from their advertising and materially harm her by costing her a portion of her livelihood. So if you don't like the words I use to describe what I mean, give me a better word to use.

Do you think it was okay for GLAAD to do that?
Do you think it was okay for AFA to do that?

What word would you use for the harm that GLAAD and AFA intended for those two individuals?

Seriously? I need to 'give' you a better word or phrase? I think not. Are you saying that if I don't, you'll just keep using 'physical harm,' whether it is logical, rational or not?

Go ahead.

Does GLAAD have a legal right to do what they did? Does AFA? Yes. I believe they do. And if they have a legal right, then yes, it is fine that they did so.

What word would I use? Why do I get the impression you're trying to overwhelm me into silence with a blizzard of test questions.

I don't know why you think I'm trying to overwhelm you. You are the one who complained about being ignored. Perhaps you would like to give me some guidelines of what would be acceptable to you somewhere between ignored and overwhelmed?

But yes. I have defined physical harm as I use it. If you don't like the term, I'm open to suggestions for a better term. If you don't have a better term to offer, then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on to criticize the term I use. Okay?

I presume you don't intend to answer my direct questions to you as to whether you think it was okay for GLAAD to do what they did. For American Family Association to do what they did. I guess such questions are a bit overwhelming.

For now I'm going to bed. But I shall return.

I did answer them. Last post.

The legal definition is the correct definition. As I said previously, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seriously? I need to 'give' you a better word or phrase? I think not. Are you saying that if I don't, you'll just keep using 'physical harm,' whether it is logical, rational or not?

Go ahead.

Does GLAAD have a legal right to do what they did? Does AFA? Yes. I believe they do. And if they have a legal right, then yes, it is fine that they did so.

What word would I use? Why do I get the impression you're trying to overwhelm me into silence with a blizzard of test questions.

I don't know why you think I'm trying to overwhelm you. You are the one who complained about being ignored. Perhaps you would like to give me some guidelines of what would be acceptable to you somewhere between ignored and overwhelmed?

But yes. I have defined physical harm as I use it. If you don't like the term, I'm open to suggestions for a better term. If you don't have a better term to offer, then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on to criticize the term I use. Okay?

I presume you don't intend to answer my direct questions to you as to whether you think it was okay for GLAAD to do what they did. For American Family Association to do what they did. I guess such questions are a bit overwhelming.

For now I'm going to bed. But I shall return.

I did answer them. Last post.

The legal definition is the correct definition. As I said previously, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

No. A legal definition does not answer the question:

Do YOU think it was okay for GLAAD to do what it did to Phil Robertson?
Do YOU think it was okay for AFA to do what it did to Ellen DeGeneres?

Those questions are answered with a yes or no, and not with a link to a legal definition.

Good night all. Back probably after church tomorrow unless I get up a lot earlier than I expect to.

 

[BDBoop]

Who should be the authority? The law, of course.

Or as I see all over the nets - you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

What set of facts have I put out there that have not been linked and supported again and again during the course of this thread? And as I have now repeatedly stated again and again--speaking of being 'ignored'--this is not a legal matter. It is a moral and ethical matter of what we should and should not tolerate in politics and society.

If you object to the term 'physical harm' as I have used it, then by all means offer us a better term. I was not using it in a legal sense--I was using it in the fact that Phil Robertson was physically removed from a television show and materially harmed by losing at least a portion of his livelihood. I was using it in the fact that AFA intended to persuade J.C. Penneys to physically remove Ellen DeGeneres from their advertising and materially harm her by costing her a portion of her livelihood. So if you don't like the words I use to describe what I mean, give me a better word to use.

Do you think it was okay for GLAAD to do that?
Do you think it was okay for AFA to do that?

What word would you use for the harm that GLAAD and AFA intended for those two individuals?

Seriously? I need to 'give' you a better word or phrase? I think not. Are you saying that if I don't, you'll just keep using 'physical harm,' whether it is logical, rational or not?

Go ahead.

Does GLAAD have a legal right to do what they did? Does AFA? Yes. I believe they do. And if they have a legal right, then yes, it is fine that they did so.

What word would I use? Why do I get the impression you're trying to overwhelm me into silence with a blizzard of test questions.

Allow me to repeat myself.

 

[Bfgrn]

Just saw this. It is right on the mark.

Here's Everything We Learned From the Duck Dynasty Controversy Summed Up in Just One Sentence

You can say whatever you want, including that gay people are sinful and full of "murder, envy, strife, hatred" and are in the same league as those who enjoy being penetrated by barnyard animals and that black people were "happy" and were not "singing the blues" when Jim Crow laws ruled America, and as long as you later tack on "I love all of humanity" and I would "never incite or encourage hate" and throw around the word "tolerance," and as long as there's enough money and publicity swirling and more ready to be made, you will face absolutely no consequences and if anything you'll be celebrated as a hero and lauded as an icon of freedom -- some will even go so far as to call you the "Rosa Parks" of our generation -- while the people you were talking about will still be vilified and will have to fight even harder against society's belief that they are -- even in the 21st century, even in a country that is not supposed to be ruled by religion or heartless, hateful zealots -- at their very core all of those vile and (let it be said once and for all) patently untrue things that you said about them.

 

[Mac1958]

When you think about it, maybe we are seeing a push back. When is the last time you saw one of these big guns back down when they fired somebody over a flap like this? But A&E blinked under the pressure of millions of viewers who love Duck Dynasty and the Robertson family and expressed their support for them.

That is rather encouraging. Maybe the pendulum is swinging back to something more normal than the politics of personal destruction that we've been subjected to for the last 20 years?

Here's hoping. And I do think it's happening.

In my warped little world, here's the bottom line: Once the PC Police realize that they can no longer play their little game -- diverting from an important issue by putting their targets on the defensive -- everyone will need to calm down and start discussing/debating the issues in a free, open, civil, mature and honest environment. I'm thinking this will marginalize the screamers and the absolutists and the perpetual liars.

That's when the real heavy lifting begins. It'll be difficult as hell. We'll have an environment, a culture, in which we all have to be able to defend our positions with minimum bullshit -- and that includes the narcissists bigots on both sides. But at least we'll be able to do so honestly. Everyone will win some and lose some. God bless America, we're so lucky to live in a country that allows for such debate. But it needs to be honest debate. We are NOT there right now.

In my zillions of posts screaming about this topic, that's what it boils down to. And I refuse to believe that we're not capable of improving to that point.

Goofy, huh?

.

 

[Bfgrn]

When you think about it, maybe we are seeing a push back. When is the last time you saw one of these big guns back down when they fired somebody over a flap like this? But A&E blinked under the pressure of millions of viewers who love Duck Dynasty and the Robertson family and expressed their support for them.

That is rather encouraging. Maybe the pendulum is swinging back to something more normal than the politics of personal destruction that we've been subjected to for the last 20 years?

Here's hoping. And I do think it's happening.

In my warped little world, here's the bottom line: Once the PC Police realize that they can no longer play their little game -- diverting from an important issue by putting their targets on the defensive -- everyone will need to calm down and start discussing/debating the issues in a free, open, civil, mature and honest environment. I'm thinking this will marginalize the screamers and the absolutists and the perpetual liars.

That's when the real heavy lifting begins. It'll be difficult as hell. We'll have an environment, a culture, in which we all have to be able to defend our positions with minimum bullshit -- and that includes the narcissists bigots on both sides. But at least we'll be able to do so honestly. Everyone will win some and lose some. God bless America, we're so lucky to live in a country that allows for such debate. But it needs to be honest debate. We are NOT there right now.

In my zillions of posts screaming about this topic, that's what it boils down to. And I refuse to believe that we're not capable of improving to that point.

Goofy, huh?

.

Dogma to the end. There are no PC police.

politically correct

A pejorative term, and straw man for a political movement fabricated by United States conservatives in about 1980 to discredit the liberal cause, and its ideas.

Whether it be any poorly handled incident where a home office minister gets ticked off for using 'nitty-gritty' in a speech, school children brought before judges for playground racial taunts, to reports of doctors reprimanded for not giving men cervical smears, they all propel an instruction of disapproval about 'politically correct madness' and for one purpose: to mock the entire liberal cause in the process. Plain-talking conservatives who yearn for 'common sense and clear thinking debate' would never fall to such liberal follies.

Thus, any environmental campaign, any discussion about global warming, any case of sexual harassment, or any response to racial prejudice, can be portrayed as the irrational exponents of 'political correctness'.

 

[Mac1958]

When you think about it, maybe we are seeing a push back. When is the last time you saw one of these big guns back down when they fired somebody over a flap like this? But A&E blinked under the pressure of millions of viewers who love Duck Dynasty and the Robertson family and expressed their support for them.

That is rather encouraging. Maybe the pendulum is swinging back to something more normal than the politics of personal destruction that we've been subjected to for the last 20 years?

Here's hoping. And I do think it's happening.

In my warped little world, here's the bottom line: Once the PC Police realize that they can no longer play their little game -- diverting from an important issue by putting their targets on the defensive -- everyone will need to calm down and start discussing/debating the issues in a free, open, civil, mature and honest environment. I'm thinking this will marginalize the screamers and the absolutists and the perpetual liars.

That's when the real heavy lifting begins. It'll be difficult as hell. We'll have an environment, a culture, in which we all have to be able to defend our positions with minimum bullshit -- and that includes the narcissists bigots on both sides. But at least we'll be able to do so honestly. Everyone will win some and lose some. God bless America, we're so lucky to live in a country that allows for such debate. But it needs to be honest debate. We are NOT there right now.

In my zillions of posts screaming about this topic, that's what it boils down to. And I refuse to believe that we're not capable of improving to that point.

Goofy, huh?

.

Dogma to the end. There are no PC police.

politically correct

A pejorative term, and straw man for a political movement fabricated by United States conservatives in about 1980 to discredit the liberal cause, and its ideas.

Whether it be any poorly handled incident where a home office minister gets ticked off for using 'nitty-gritty' in a speech, school children brought before judges for playground racial taunts, to reports of doctors reprimanded for not giving men cervical smears, they all propel an instruction of disapproval about 'politically correct madness' and for one purpose: to mock the entire liberal cause in the process. Plain-talking conservatives who yearn for 'common sense and clear thinking debate' would never fall to such liberal follies.

Thus, any environmental campaign, any discussion about global warming, any case of sexual harassment, or any response to racial prejudice, can be portrayed as the irrational exponents of 'political correctness'.

Yes, I know, it's politically incorrect to use the term "Political Correctness".

This is just delightful beyond words.



.

 

[Bfgrn]

Political correctness

1990's
The term "political correctness" in its modern pejorative sense became part of the US public debate in the late 1980s, with its media use becoming widespread in 1991. It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in academia in particular, and in culture and political debate more broadly. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term "Thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination". "Political correctness" here was a label for a range of policies in academia around supporting multiculturalism though affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority "hate speech", and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as "canon busting"). These trends were at least in part a response to the rise of identity politics, with movements such feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received significant direct and indirect funding from conservative foundations and think tanks, not least the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded D'Souza's book.

In the event, the previously obscure term became common-currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities (public and private) of the U.S. Hence, in 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, U.S. President George H.W. Bush (1989–93) spoke against: "... a movement [that would] declare certain topics ‘off-limits’, certain expressions ‘off-limits’, even certain gestures ‘off-limits’...."

Herbert Kohl (1992) pointed out that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term "politically correct" in the early 1990s were actually former Communist Party members, and as a result familiar with the original use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended "to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic."

Mainstream usages of the term politically correct, and its adjectival derivatives – “political correctness” and “PC” – began in the 1990s, when right-wing politicians adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideologic enemies – especially in context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Generally, any policy, behavior, and speech code that the speaker or the writer regards as the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy about people and things, can be described and criticized as “politically correct”. Jan Narveson has written that "that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrollering the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting..."

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination – such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality – against people whom the right-wing do not consider part of the social mainstream.

In the course of the 1990s, the term was increasingly commonly used in the United Kingdom, with the expression "political correctness gone mad" becoming a catchphrase, usually associated with the politically conservative Daily Mail newspaper. In The Abolition of Britain (1999), Peter Hitchens wrote that: "What Americans describe with the casual phrase ... “political correctness” is the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation."

In 2001 Will Hutton wrote:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid–1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism.... What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism – by leveling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents – they could discredit the whole political project.
—“Words Really are Important, Mr Blunkett”, The Observer (16 December 2001)

Similarly Polly Toynbee, writing in 2001, said “the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user”, and, in 2010 "...the phrase “political correctness” was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer..."

 

[Bfgrn]

Here's hoping. And I do think it's happening.

In my warped little world, here's the bottom line: Once the PC Police realize that they can no longer play their little game -- diverting from an important issue by putting their targets on the defensive -- everyone will need to calm down and start discussing/debating the issues in a free, open, civil, mature and honest environment. I'm thinking this will marginalize the screamers and the absolutists and the perpetual liars.

That's when the real heavy lifting begins. It'll be difficult as hell. We'll have an environment, a culture, in which we all have to be able to defend our positions with minimum bullshit -- and that includes the narcissists bigots on both sides. But at least we'll be able to do so honestly. Everyone will win some and lose some. God bless America, we're so lucky to live in a country that allows for such debate. But it needs to be honest debate. We are NOT there right now.

In my zillions of posts screaming about this topic, that's what it boils down to. And I refuse to believe that we're not capable of improving to that point.

Goofy, huh?

.

Dogma to the end. There are no PC police.

politically correct

A pejorative term, and straw man for a political movement fabricated by United States conservatives in about 1980 to discredit the liberal cause, and its ideas.

Whether it be any poorly handled incident where a home office minister gets ticked off for using 'nitty-gritty' in a speech, school children brought before judges for playground racial taunts, to reports of doctors reprimanded for not giving men cervical smears, they all propel an instruction of disapproval about 'politically correct madness' and for one purpose: to mock the entire liberal cause in the process. Plain-talking conservatives who yearn for 'common sense and clear thinking debate' would never fall to such liberal follies.

Thus, any environmental campaign, any discussion about global warming, any case of sexual harassment, or any response to racial prejudice, can be portrayed as the irrational exponents of 'political correctness'.

Yes, I know, it's politically incorrect to use the term "Political Correctness".

This is just delightful beyond words.



.

You really are exposing who and what you REALLY are...a brainwashed right wing parrot. And you are HYPER-partisan. You accept ONLY the right's definitions and refuse to even CONSIDER that conservatives have fabricated the term to attack liberalism.