What Is It You Think You Can't Do Because of Political Correctness?

[martybegan]

I want to sound like an ass, but don't want the dirty looks that follow...fucking PC.

But if you sound like a certain type of ass, you can get fired, not just dirty looks.

And only certain people get to decide which flavor of ass is offensive enough to deserve "special" treatment.

Yeah...certain people...like religious folks. You can fire me for being gay, but I can't fire you for being Christian. Fix one of them.

I probably can't fire you for being gay, as I live in New York State. However firing someone for being christian is probably easier, as the media doesnt give a rats ass if someone is fired for being christian. You would just have to come up with some bullshit story about work performance suffering.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But if you sound like a certain type of ass, you can get fired, not just dirty looks.

And only certain people get to decide which flavor of ass is offensive enough to deserve "special" treatment.

Yeah...certain people...like religious folks. You can fire me for being gay, but I can't fire you for being Christian. Fix one of them.

I probably can't fire you for being gay, as I live in New York State. However firing someone for being christian is probably easier, as the media doesnt give a rats ass if someone is fired for being christian. You would just have to come up with some bullshit story about work performance suffering.

Wrong again, as usual.

Employment discrimination based on religion violates Federal law, unlike sexual orientation.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah...certain people...like religious folks. You can fire me for being gay, but I can't fire you for being Christian. Fix one of them.

I probably can't fire you for being gay, as I live in New York State. However firing someone for being christian is probably easier, as the media doesnt give a rats ass if someone is fired for being christian. You would just have to come up with some bullshit story about work performance suffering.

Wrong again, as usual.

Employment discrimination based on religion violates Federal law, unlike sexual orientation.

But good luck proving it. Religous people, while protected, are not a "protected class." The media is ready and willing to jump on the moral bandwagon for someone who gets grief for being gay, or black, or muslim (the one protected religion), or a woman, but someone who purports to get fired for being a chrisitan is probably gonna get laughed at by the oppression hucksters.

 

[packerbacker]

Seawytch.....you posted this statement:
You can't call a Jew a ****
You can't call a Mexican a Wetback
You can't call an African American the N word
You can't call an Asian a Chink
You can't call someone of Middle Eastern descent a Towel Head
Notice you didn't say "You can't call a Jew the "K" word?
Notice you didn't say "You can't call a Mexican the "W" word?
But, in the case of African American you used the term "N" word? For some reason you can't even say "******" when protecting them. What's with that? Have you been led to believe they can't be called ******* even when refering to the fearful "N" word as a reference? You've been PC'd to the max!!

 

[dblack]

I probably can't fire you for being gay, as I live in New York State. However firing someone for being christian is probably easier, as the media doesnt give a rats ass if someone is fired for being christian. You would just have to come up with some bullshit story about work performance suffering.

Wrong again, as usual.

Employment discrimination based on religion violates Federal law, unlike sexual orientation.

But good luck proving it. Religous people, while protected, are not a "protected class." The media is ready and willing to jump on the moral bandwagon for someone who gets grief for being gay, or black, or muslim (the one protected religion), or a woman, but someone who purports to get fired for being a chrisitan is probably gonna get laughed at by the oppression hucksters.

I don't know if it's worth pointing out, but it sounds like maybe you're misconstruing the concept of 'protected class', at least in regards to anti-discrimination law. The idea is that there are protected classes of traits (not classes of people) which can't be used as criteria for discrimination. In other words, the law doesn't say you can't discriminate against religious people, it says you can't discriminate against people because of their religion. It's a subtle, but important, difference.

I still think it's bullshit as a legal concept, bit to suggest that anti-discrimination law seeks to protect certain classes of people isn't accurate.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong again, as usual.

Employment discrimination based on religion violates Federal law, unlike sexual orientation.

But good luck proving it. Religous people, while protected, are not a "protected class." The media is ready and willing to jump on the moral bandwagon for someone who gets grief for being gay, or black, or muslim (the one protected religion), or a woman, but someone who purports to get fired for being a chrisitan is probably gonna get laughed at by the oppression hucksters.

I don't know if it's worth pointing out, but it sounds like maybe you're misconstruing the concept of 'protected class', at least in regards to anti-discrimination law. The idea is that there are 'protected classes' of traits (not people) which can't be used as criteria for discrimination. I still think it's bullshit as a legal concept, bit to suggest that anti-discrimination law seeks to protect certain classes of people isn't accurate.

The law may not, but the enforcement of said law sure as hell does.

 

[dblack]

But good luck proving it. Religous people, while protected, are not a "protected class." The media is ready and willing to jump on the moral bandwagon for someone who gets grief for being gay, or black, or muslim (the one protected religion), or a woman, but someone who purports to get fired for being a chrisitan is probably gonna get laughed at by the oppression hucksters.

I don't know if it's worth pointing out, but it sounds like maybe you're misconstruing the concept of 'protected class', at least in regards to anti-discrimination law. The idea is that there are 'protected classes' of traits (not people) which can't be used as criteria for discrimination. I still think it's bullshit as a legal concept, bit to suggest that anti-discrimination law seeks to protect certain classes of people isn't accurate.

The law may not, but the enforcement of said law sure as hell does.

True enough. In practice, it tends toward granting special rights to special interest groups, which is the hallmark of corporatism.

 

[packerbacker]

I used to work for the federal government. We were constantly getting training in computer security and a vast array of other topics. Another was "Sensitivity" training. In this training we were told we are ALL equal, no matter sexual preference, race, religion etc., etc. In this same training where we were all considered equal, we were told we should pay "Special attention to the needs of those of, or could possibly be of, Arab decent". Apparently WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!! Protecting Arabs is the flavor of the month; another PC directive from the feds. Don't feed me this horseshit kum-bye-ya crap!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can you call anyone names at work?

Yep

But I cannot use sexually offensive terms... anti-PC, if you will.. or I can be fired ON THE SPOT... you can call someone a jerk, you can even call them white... you call someone a fag or use the a term for like 'black' when describing a co-worker, and LOOK OUT FOR THE FALLOUT

So you believe political correctness is preventing you from calling your co-workers names? Really?

He often confuses "civility" with Political Correctness.

 

[martybegan]

Yep

But I cannot use sexually offensive terms... anti-PC, if you will.. or I can be fired ON THE SPOT... you can call someone a jerk, you can even call them white... you call someone a fag or use the a term for like 'black' when describing a co-worker, and LOOK OUT FOR THE FALLOUT

So you believe political correctness is preventing you from calling your co-workers names? Really?

He often confuses "civility" with Political Correctness.

One can be civil all they want, however with non-PC viewpoints, no matter how innocuous, they can be exposed outside of work, and if found out by your co-workers, you can be accused of creating a hostile work environment without saying anything at work.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So you believe political correctness is preventing you from calling your co-workers names? Really?

He often confuses "civility" with Political Correctness.

One can be civil all they want, however with non-PC viewpoints, no matter how innocuous, they can be exposed outside of work, and if found out by your co-workers, you can be accused of creating a hostile work environment without saying anything at work.

So? Ppl CAN accuse people of all kinds of shit. This is like going to the nut house and telling me what the guy in the rain boots and speedos opinion of United Nations is.

 

[martybegan]

He often confuses "civility" with Political Correctness.

One can be civil all they want, however with non-PC viewpoints, no matter how innocuous, they can be exposed outside of work, and if found out by your co-workers, you can be accused of creating a hostile work environment without saying anything at work.

So? Ppl CAN accuse people of all kinds of shit. This is like going to the nut house and telling me what the guy in the rain boots and speedos opinion of United Nations is.

The difference is that when it comes to certain classes, HR takes thier claims far more seriously, i.e. how A&E bent over backwards the second GLAAD raised a stink.

You fail to see it because the policies defend positions you like, and castigate positions you dont like.

 

[ClosedCaption]

One can be civil all they want, however with non-PC viewpoints, no matter how innocuous, they can be exposed outside of work, and if found out by your co-workers, you can be accused of creating a hostile work environment without saying anything at work.

So? Ppl CAN accuse people of all kinds of shit. This is like going to the nut house and telling me what the guy in the rain boots and speedos opinion of United Nations is.

The difference is that when it comes to certain classes, HR takes thier claims far more seriously, i.e. how A&E bent over backwards the second GLAAD raised a stink.

You fail to see it because the policies defend positions you like, and castigate positions you dont like.

Ahh the old chicken and the egg argument. A&E cancelled because they wanted to! That is a fact anything else is conjecture.

Dont tell me what some wackoo loon thinks and use that as a basis for their arguments...but I was told never to argue with stupid people.

So dont use them in your examples either. Sure there are hyper sensitive folks out there...So? there are assholes out there too! what about it?

 

[martybegan]

So? Ppl CAN accuse people of all kinds of shit. This is like going to the nut house and telling me what the guy in the rain boots and speedos opinion of United Nations is.

The difference is that when it comes to certain classes, HR takes thier claims far more seriously, i.e. how A&E bent over backwards the second GLAAD raised a stink.

You fail to see it because the policies defend positions you like, and castigate positions you dont like.

Ahh the old chicken and the egg argument. A&E cancelled because they wanted to! That is a fact anything else is conjecture.

Dont tell me what some wackoo loon thinks and use that as a basis for their arguments...but I was told never to argue with stupid people.

So dont use them in your examples either. Sure there are hyper sensitive folks out there...So? there are assholes out there too! what about it?

The hyper-sensitve folks are the ones who we cater two with our current methods of policing how people act in public, speak in public, or even speak or act when not in public. We have lost the ability to see that if we piss off say 40-60% of people, then OK, that person needs to go/be punished/be helped, but now if 0.5% of the population is butthurt, and they are part of the right group, then punishment is meted out to satisfy them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The difference is that when it comes to certain classes, HR takes thier claims far more seriously, i.e. how A&E bent over backwards the second GLAAD raised a stink.

You fail to see it because the policies defend positions you like, and castigate positions you dont like.

Ahh the old chicken and the egg argument. A&E cancelled because they wanted to! That is a fact anything else is conjecture.

Dont tell me what some wackoo loon thinks and use that as a basis for their arguments...but I was told never to argue with stupid people.

So dont use them in your examples either. Sure there are hyper sensitive folks out there...So? there are assholes out there too! what about it?

The hyper-sensitve folks are the ones who we cater two with our current methods of policing how people act in public, speak in public, or even speak or act when not in public. We have lost the ability to see that if we piss off say 40-60% of people, then OK, that person needs to go/be punished/be helped, but now if 0.5% of the population is butthurt, and they are part of the right group, then punishment is meted out to satisfy them.

No that is called civility. No one is stopping you from being an asshole. You just dislike the fact that when you're an asshole people will treat you...LIKE AN ASSHOLE.

There always have been and always will be societal norms.

A&E punished them because THEY WANTED TOO. Anything else about some .5% of the population is bullshit conjecture. It cannot be proven. Which is why you keep using it as a "fact".

I say Duck Dynasty was punished because they pissed off Odin! That is just a real as your .5% pissed off so A&E ignored money and catered to .5% because....uhhh...BECAUSE DUH.

 

[martybegan]

Ahh the old chicken and the egg argument. A&E cancelled because they wanted to! That is a fact anything else is conjecture.

Dont tell me what some wackoo loon thinks and use that as a basis for their arguments...but I was told never to argue with stupid people.

So dont use them in your examples either. Sure there are hyper sensitive folks out there...So? there are assholes out there too! what about it?

The hyper-sensitve folks are the ones who we cater two with our current methods of policing how people act in public, speak in public, or even speak or act when not in public. We have lost the ability to see that if we piss off say 40-60% of people, then OK, that person needs to go/be punished/be helped, but now if 0.5% of the population is butthurt, and they are part of the right group, then punishment is meted out to satisfy them.

No that is called civility. No one is stopping you from being an asshole. You just dislike the fact that when you're an asshole people will treat you...LIKE AN ASSHOLE.

There always have been and always will be societal norms.

A&E punished them because THEY WANTED TOO. Anything else about some .5% of the population is bullshit conjecture. It cannot be proven. Which is why you keep using it as a "fact".

I say Duck Dynasty was punished because they pissed off Odin! That is just a real as your .5% pissed off so A&E ignored money and catered to .5% because....uhhh...BECAUSE DUH.

The problem is also we have defined "asshole" down. So thinking gay marriage is not a right, but something to be granted by a legislature would make me an "asshole" to the hyper sensitive people. Thats A-OK in your book because you agree with that, and thus the rules allow you to punish me even though you are too chickenshit to do it yourself.

Your last statement gets a neg for you being a condescending douchebag.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The hyper-sensitve folks are the ones who we cater two with our current methods of policing how people act in public, speak in public, or even speak or act when not in public. We have lost the ability to see that if we piss off say 40-60% of people, then OK, that person needs to go/be punished/be helped, but now if 0.5% of the population is butthurt, and they are part of the right group, then punishment is meted out to satisfy them.

No that is called civility. No one is stopping you from being an asshole. You just dislike the fact that when you're an asshole people will treat you...LIKE AN ASSHOLE.

There always have been and always will be societal norms.

A&E punished them because THEY WANTED TOO. Anything else about some .5% of the population is bullshit conjecture. It cannot be proven. Which is why you keep using it as a "fact".

I say Duck Dynasty was punished because they pissed off Odin! That is just a real as your .5% pissed off so A&E ignored money and catered to .5% because....uhhh...BECAUSE DUH.

The problem is also we have defined "asshole" down. So thinking gay marriage is not a right, but something to be granted by a legislature would make me an "asshole" to the hyper sensitive people. Thats A-OK in your book because you agree with that, and thus the rules allow you to punish me even though you are too chickenshit to do it yourself.

Your last statement gets a neg for you being a condescending douchebag.

You are still trying to make sense out of non sense. The hyper sensitive people are crazy. Again how often do you consider the opinions of the certified crazy? Do you ask the guy who mumbles to himself what stocks to buy?

Then why do you keep bringing up the hyper sensitive? Because they are easy targets but once you decide to talk to ME or one of the people who arent hyper sensitive then you have to engage in serious discussions.

Its easier to argue with the crazies tho isnt it.

Lets make one thing clear. I dont care if you want to say any of that people are too fucking sensitive and too many make snap judgements (like you did claiming this is what I want like you know me)

So again you argue against your strawmen...and the crazies. Makes you feel strong.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Btw the only way I was being condescending is if A&E didnt punish Duck Dynasty because Odin was pissed. You cant prove that Odin didnt have a role in it NOR can you prove that GLAAD had anything to do with it.

See the point? You'll say no but you do..

 

[martybegan]

Btw the only way I was being condescending is if A&E didnt punish Duck Dynasty because Odin was pissed. You cant prove that Odin didnt have a role in it NOR can you prove that GLAAD had anything to do with it.

See the point? You'll say no but you do..

What point, that you are trying to corner me into proving a negative? one of the cheap-hooker tactics in debating?

When you see someone using "can't" and "didn't" during a discussion that close to each other, you know you are dealing with a person not entirely up to the challenge.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't know if all 11 pages of this thread devolved into Phil Robertson discussion..

But what caught my attention was the HUGE # of "thanks" this OP got from folks that I thought SHOULD KNOW how PC rules and regs affect their lives.. Here's just a primer from ONE organization who can tell you --- What's wrong with "political correctness" -- especially in academia..

Top Cases - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE
Top Cases
■Dixie State University: School Rejects Student Group Because Its Name Includes Greek Letters
■University of Kansas: Anti-NRA Tweet Results in Professor's Suspension
■Modesto Junior College: Students Barred from Distributing Constitutions on Constitution Day
■University of Alabama: Pro-Choice Group Ordered to Get Permit for Non-Disruptive Expression or Face Arrest
■University of Central Florida: Professor Suspended for In-Class Joke
■Departments of Education and Justice: National Requirement for Unconstitutional Speech Codes
■Trinity College: New Social Code Erodes Freedom of Association
■Johns Hopkins University: Viewpoint-Based Rejection of Pro-Life Group
■DePaul University: Student Punished For Exposing Vandals of Pro-Life Display
■Montclair State University: Student Barred from Campus for Violating Unconstitutional 'Gag Order'

Bucks County Community College: Ideological Loyalty Oath for Professors - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

Bucks County Community College: Ideological Loyalty Oath for ProfessorsProfessor of Sociology Myles Kelleher contacted FIRE after discovering that applicants for new faculty (and other) positions at Bucks County Community College (BCCC) would be required to "provide a brief statement of your commitment to diversity and how this commitment is demonstrated in your work," and to "certify" their understanding that "any false or misleading statement on this application constitutes sufficient grounds for dismissal." FIRE appealed to the court of public and moral opinion and wrote to BCCC's Board of Trustees and its major donors. The story became the focus of local and national. Due to FIRE's efforts this threat to liberty and privacy was overturned.

Political Litmus Test for Faculty at Virginia Tech - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE
Of the similar requirement now threatening academic freedom at Virginia Tech, Peter Wood writes that

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University—Virginia Tech—has imposed a political test on candidates for promotion and tenure. Specifically, Virginia Tech's College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences is making active support and advancement of "diversity" a requirement for faculty to keep their positions and for promotion.

To start with, "Contributions to diversity" begin with "self-education." [Emphasis in Wood.] The first duty of the faculty member is to achieve ideological conformity, and the Dossier Guidelines gently explain how. This consists of submitting to training by the good folks at the Equal Opportunity Office, and at CEUT (Center for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching), and attending lots of events such as "the Diversity Summit, identity group celebrations, Campus Climate Checkup, MLK events, special speakers, annual AdvanceVT, Scholarship of Diversity conferences, events hosted by Cranwell Center or Disability Services," and etc.

"Identity group celebrations" is an interesting way to demonstrate commitment to diversity. Is a pro-Israel celebration of the defeat of Palestinians going to count? What about a pro-Palestinian celebration of the defeat of Israelis? Or a pro-Catholic celebration of California's Proposition 8, or a pro-homosexual celebration of the possible defeat of Proposition 8? Is a racist or sexist identity group going to count?

All this stuff testifies to the conviction of the senior Virginia Tech administrators that the University's faculty members give little credence to the concept of "diversity." Many of those faculty members apparently have to be coerced into agreeing with the doctrine. No such assumption comes with the other kinds of service. It is assumed on those cases that the value of going to workshops, serving on committees, and assisting students in extra-curricular activities is self-evident. Only "diversity" requires reprogramming the ideas, ideals, and social attitudes of faculty members.

Tomorrow we can do "what's wrong with political correctness in your child's school".. Where WEEKLY common sense and reason is tossed COMPLETELY out the winder so that Political Correct Police can impose order..

Don't remember harrassing 8 yr olds for chewing their toast into the shape of a gun? Or the New England middle school that painted over the musket of their "patriot" mascot and put a broom in his hand?

Or last week -- the nine yr old that got tossed for kissing the hand of a girl??

What are you teaching these kids? Other than we don't live in a free country anymore and they are treated as INMATES in the public schools??