Debate Now Why Is Being "Politically Correct" A Bad Thing To Some People?

[Mac1958]

More "you're a racist if you criticize Obama" from Matthews:

 

[Correll]

maybe i should type slower for you next time...

vile things were said, and continue to be said, about obama and others...

to some people, vile rhetoric is excusable cuz PC!

And you avoid dealing with my point, by setting up a strawman and implying that I am vile.

And that completely fails to explain how or why Bill Clinton received the same treatment as Obama IF the reason conservatives "hate" Obama is race.

I pointed that out when you first posted it.

Furthermore stating that "vile things were said" does not support the idea that "conservatives" as in the majority of conservatives are saying "vile things" or that those "vile things" are said because of Race, or really, that all the things you consider "vile" are really vile, or just upset you.

 

[Valerie]

^ missing the point, as usual...


ol' bigots love to hide behind "PC" victimhood and the dreaded "race card" ...

 

[Correll]

answering your lame strawman yet AGAIN...while.typing.very.slowly...........

your logic fails repeatedly, correll... "just as anti-Clinton as we are Anti-Obama."

so what? vile things have been said about each of them... ^

are you denying that vile things are said, or just excusing vile things..?

it's one or the other, here...

"so what"?

It destroys a central meme of the Left ie that Conservatives Hate Obama because of Race, that is "So what".

Which I guess is only relevant if you CARE whether or not the things you say and believe are true.

maybe I am just projecting in assuming that is important to you?

 

[Correll]

v.e.r.y v.e.r.y. s.l.o.w.l.y

you excuse vile things while crying PC.

And you ignore my point and call me vile.

is it shameless dishonesty or just lack of comprehension? i'm guessing both.

And as I said, before, i care not for your semantic games or self rationalizations for your personal attacks.

You might fool yourself into thinking you didn't call me vile, but no one else.

 

[Valerie]

have a 4th grader explain it to you...

 

[Correll]

just because some partisans may use"racist" or "bigot" as some sort of blind bludgeoning tool, a tool that i have been on the receiving end of, does not mean that saying racist or bigoted things is excusable rhetoric... and it most certainly is not effective leadership.



Are you aware that the term ‘anchor baby’ — that’s an offensive term. People find that hurtful,” Llamas said to Trump.

“You mean it’s not politically correct and yet everybody uses it?” Trump responded, adding that he would continue to use the term.

Anchor baby describes the issue being discussed. It is not a racist or bigoted term.

The attempt of the Left to shut down debate by, AFTER THE FACT, deciding that it is "offensive" is bullshit and worthy of being dismissed as bullshit.

Not allowing dishonest partisan hacks to control the language AND the debate is great fucking leadership and the type we have been sorely needing for quite some time.

 

[Correll]

^ missing the point, as usual...


ol' bigots love to hide behind "PC" victimhood and the dreaded "race card" ...

No, you tried to change the subject.

It is important to realize that the Right is not upset with Obama because of Race.

The fact that blacks have been lied to that that is the reason is poison for our society.

The differences between Conservatives and Obama are Ideological and Partisan.

Why are you afraid to admit that?

It does not equal AGREEING with conservatives on ANY of the issues.

Because Race Baiting serves the Lefty Agenda and keeps the Black portion of the Dem Base nicely riled up and in line.

 

[Correll]

have a 4th grader explain it to you...

I understand you better than you understand yourself.

Your behavior here has completely demonstrated that Political Correctness is, as we have discussed,

a purposeful hypersensitivity used to put an opponent on the defensive and to control the conversation.

And NOT just conservatives being rude or hateful or bigoted.

And that is why it is viewed as a "bad thing". Because it is a bad thing.

It is dishonest, and rude and destructive.

 

[Ravi]

You're doing the same stupid thing Mac is doing. You are simply making things up.

So you're denying that Obama critics have been called racist simply for being Obama critics?

Yes. They are either known to be racially disparaging or they include racial disparagement in their criticism.

Bull shit

Ol' Tingly leg Chrissy MAtthews called anyone wanting to repeal Obamacare racist because why else would anyone want to get rid of it?

How about a link?

The Top 20 Worst Chris Matthews Quotes Calling Obama Critics Racist


“What are the Tea Partiers really angry about? Health care reform, or the fact that it was an African American President and a woman Speaker of the House who pushed through major change?”
— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at the top of Hardball, March 29, 2010. - See more at: The Top 20 Worst Chris Matthews Quotes Calling Obama Critics Racist

Well I won't defend him as he is a troll. However much the tea party exposed themselves as bigots.

 

[Ravi]

So you're denying that Obama critics have been called racist simply for being Obama critics?

Yes. They are either known to be racially disparaging or they include racial disparagement in their criticism.

Bull shit

Ol' Tingly leg Chrissy MAtthews called anyone wanting to repeal Obamacare racist because why else would anyone want to get rid of it?

How about a link?

The Top 20 Worst Chris Matthews Quotes Calling Obama Critics Racist


“What are the Tea Partiers really angry about? Health care reform, or the fact that it was an African American President and a woman Speaker of the House who pushed through major change?”
— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at the top of Hardball, March 29, 2010. - See more at: The Top 20 Worst Chris Matthews Quotes Calling Obama Critics Racist

Ol' Chris just loves playing the race card...

Definitely a deputy in the PC Police, at least.


.
.

Why are you quoting me if you have me on ignore?

 

[Ravi]

maybe i should type slower for you next time...

vile things were said, and continue to be said, about obama and others...

to some people, vile rhetoric is excusable cuz PC!

And you avoid dealing with my point, by setting up a strawman and implying that I am vile.

And that completely fails to explain how or why Bill Clinton received the same treatment as Obama IF the reason conservatives "hate" Obama is race.

I pointed that out when you first posted it.

Furthermore stating that "vile things were said" does not support the idea that "conservatives" as in the majority of conservatives are saying "vile things" or that those "vile things" are said because of Race, or really, that all the things you consider "vile" are really vile, or just upset you.

Again, no one brought up Clintons race when criticizing him.

 

[Correll]

maybe i should type slower for you next time...

vile things were said, and continue to be said, about obama and others...

to some people, vile rhetoric is excusable cuz PC!

And you avoid dealing with my point, by setting up a strawman and implying that I am vile.

And that completely fails to explain how or why Bill Clinton received the same treatment as Obama IF the reason conservatives "hate" Obama is race.

I pointed that out when you first posted it.

Furthermore stating that "vile things were said" does not support the idea that "conservatives" as in the majority of conservatives are saying "vile things" or that those "vile things" are said because of Race, or really, that all the things you consider "vile" are really vile, or just upset you.

Again, no one brought up Clintons race when criticizing him.

The discussion was of "Conservatives".

Which in general terminology is assumed to be the majority of Conservatives, perhaps even the large or vast majority of Conservatives.


A couple of guys on the internet does not justify the Meme that "Conservatives hate Obama because of his Race".

Conservatives, as a group, have treated Obama just like they treated the LAST Democratic President, with loads of Partisan Rancor.

And just like they will treat the next one, regardless of Race, or Sex, or Creed.

 

[Ravi]

maybe i should type slower for you next time...

vile things were said, and continue to be said, about obama and others...

to some people, vile rhetoric is excusable cuz PC!

And you avoid dealing with my point, by setting up a strawman and implying that I am vile.

And that completely fails to explain how or why Bill Clinton received the same treatment as Obama IF the reason conservatives "hate" Obama is race.

I pointed that out when you first posted it.

Furthermore stating that "vile things were said" does not support the idea that "conservatives" as in the majority of conservatives are saying "vile things" or that those "vile things" are said because of Race, or really, that all the things you consider "vile" are really vile, or just upset you.

Again, no one brought up Clintons race when criticizing him.

The discussion was of "Conservatives".

Which in general terminology is assumed to be the majority of Conservatives, perhaps even the large or vast majority of Conservatives.


A couple of guys on the internet does not justify the Meme that "Conservatives hate Obama because of his Race".

Conservatives, as a group, have treated Obama just like they treated the LAST Democratic President, with loads of Partisan Rancor.

And just like they will treat the next one, regardless of Race, or Sex, or Creed.

No, I'm sure they will make many slurs against her gender.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, this is how PC can fail if it becomes a blame game.
You answer your own question by example, Asclepias
Very good!

We arent talking about choices. We are talking about causes. You would cause the shut down. We know because prior to your comment we would be talking and afterwards we wouldnt be.

This sentence makes my "unpc" alarm go off.
The conflict between you can cause both of you to go off on each other and cause the shutdown.
It takes two people to express a conflict,
and it is not your fault you do not see or say things the same way.

The conflict between you and dilloduck is not fair to blame on either of you.
If you both keep working to address it, you will overcome this conflict,
and will avert a shutdown. You are both adept people and I support you in
finishing this through and not shutting down. Blaming it on dilloduck gets the buzzer from me.
Out of bounds, foul shot, not a hit.

I'm not blaming the conflict. I'm blaming the person that first broke the protocols of conversation (PC) for the shutdown.

You set it up where it's not about mutual responsibility for change, you start the count at a place
where YOU can blame the other person first. You don't consider the greater process
where both people learn and grow together so the changes are mutual and equal.

Now, if you start the process at "what does it take to have an honest open equal dialogue
between liberals and conservatives, Christians and nonchristians, theists and nontheists"
and leave it open to all sides to bring in their standards, grievances, issues, conflicts and experiences
of what works and doesn't work to form a solution,
you might get a better response and conclusion that is fair to all people, as to what kind
of process works and doesn't work and why.

I don't see any progress or insights gained by just saying "you messed up first and shut the process down"

From my understanding and experience of what makes a correctional process work,
it's more like, DESPITE the mistakes on both sides, we both listened and tried to correct
those and move forward, tried to understand each other's points, and reach an agreement.

That process will work with or without PC as a tool in it.

But the path you are on with "first person to call out the other person wins"
seems to fail whether you are trying to use PC or a CDZ or flame thread, that is not going to work
period but is asking to shut the conversation down by blaming it all on the other person.

Now, if you are saying dilloduck was trying to blame you first to shut it down,
that is mutual. You are both playing the game of first one to call out the other wins.

The way you could win is if you don't play that game, but keep working together.

I want to see you both win, because the changes in perception would prove to be mutual.
Both sides have to give and take equally to embrace where the other is coming from.

If you haven't done that for dilloduck yet then you haven't gone full course with the whole process yet.

I didnt make the person break the rules of conversation. They did that on their own. They made a choice to offend instead of adhering to the protocol of conversation. How can I blame myself if someone calls me a dodo head because I disagreed with them?

You CAN'T blame them any more than you can blame yourself if you EQUALLY tend to call or think people by names as well. Even your attitude can attract the same. You're right, how can you blame others for thinking you're the dodo if you also think the same of them, spoken or not? Asclepias

BTW I found that both you and dilloduck were put upon by the burden
of having to "read each other's minds" or be judged for your failure to do so.
Can you not see that you impose an unfair burden on each other when clearly NEITHER of you
can read each other's minds. Even couples married 20-30 years will have that same old
argument that "you knew what I was thinking/what I meant! HOW could you NOT KNOW?"
I had fights with friends I've known 10-20 years, in person, where we made mistakes in
what the other person meant, and went forever thinking the wrong thing. we CANNOT read
each other's minds, even if we are age old friends who know each other inside and out.
How can you take offense if you make mistakes and speak past each other online? Even the
best of friends, even successfully married partners are going to totally miss the boat, even obvious things!

 

[emilynghiem]

Youve said lots of things I found offensive. I was speaking hypothetically though. You made a claim a few pages back that implied you could read my mind. I find that offensive and that was what I was talking about.

If I had overtly said that I could read your mind would you have taken offense ?

Yep.

I would have never in a million years guessed that you would take offense if someone said they would read your mind. Do you expect everyone to know that about you ?

I'm not going to fall over and roll up into a ball or something. Its the unmitigated gall that someone would really think they could read my mind.

No I wouldnt expect anyone to know that. I would expect them to consider that its possible.

Then you may as well make out a list of all the things that are going to bother you and pass them out BEFORE you converse with anyone because ANYTHING is possible.

In truth dilloduck and Asclepias I find that if
people are willing to forgive and correct things, then any such condition that arises can be worked with.
And if people have a GRUDGE and are NOT willing to forgive "except on the CONDITION that the
OTHER person correct XYZ first" then nothing is going to work, they will always find fault with the other.
The problem is not so much the physical flaws or words, but the deeper process of resolving the root conflicts
behind those words. So these words ARE important, they help diagnose the mechanics underneath.

The real healing and resolution comes with the mindsets, perceptions, associations and emotions
tied to the words, that the words are being used to sort out. It's the deeper healing taking place that matters.

Once you set up and restore trusting working relations, then all those verbal mechanics will follow from there.

The issue is if the people trust each other to work this out.
I trust you both to work this out, so if you notice, I don't hang or condemn you for anything.
You don't fully trust each other, so there are sticking points that come up.
If you finish working them out, then we can all talk freely without FEAR of being strung up
on the gallows to make a statement for everyone else. I don't agree with putting people
under that kind of pressure to "prove they are willing to try".

If you are even posting and explaining where you have conflicts,
to me, that is trying. the words we use will take care of themselves
as long as we honestly try to communicate. I trust you both on that!

Thanks and take care. I see nothing offensive, and clearly nothing intended to be negative.
I see two people trying to pinpoint what is it that causes the offense and problem.

dilloduck I like how you stated that it comes across as A trying to blame on the other person
and not taking responsibility. I get your point and tried to say similar. If A doesn't get what we
mean, this needs to be explained in a way that works. I thought yours was more clear than mine!

the main problem I see is that people's intent is NOT how we come across.
there is a gap between what we are trying to accomplish,
how we say it, and what the other person perceives from how we said it.

These 3 levels are not aligning yet. When we truly communicate,
it is clear across the board. we are still talking past each other.
The main difference with me is I can forgive the conflicts causing the miscommunication.
I try not to judge people for that. But too often people mistake things for something
they fear they are judged for, or they judge the other person. So that judgment
back and forth is what is putting pressure on people, and I encourage you to remove that burden instead of dumping it back and forth. Get it out of the way first, and it will get easier.

can we focus more on where there are differences and conflicts and try to address
them *WITHOUT assessing blame* on one person more than anyone else.
If you like blue and I like red, that is nobody's "fault". We just agree to use
both colors in balance, take turns, and not fight over making all things red or blue or blaming anyone.
Why can't all differences be like our "taste" in colors or art, music or movies, sports or humor?
Just because we see things differently shouldn't be a negative, but a chance to learn and understand things from another perspective. Why isn't this seen as positive to have differences in how we say or see things?

sorry for the long msg. me bad! blame me for that....

 

[Correll]

maybe i should type slower for you next time...

And you avoid dealing with my point, by setting up a strawman and implying that I am vile.

And that completely fails to explain how or why Bill Clinton received the same treatment as Obama IF the reason conservatives "hate" Obama is race.

I pointed that out when you first posted it.

Furthermore stating that "vile things were said" does not support the idea that "conservatives" as in the majority of conservatives are saying "vile things" or that those "vile things" are said because of Race, or really, that all the things you consider "vile" are really vile, or just upset you.

Again, no one brought up Clintons race when criticizing him.

The discussion was of "Conservatives".

Which in general terminology is assumed to be the majority of Conservatives, perhaps even the large or vast majority of Conservatives.


A couple of guys on the internet does not justify the Meme that "Conservatives hate Obama because of his Race".

Conservatives, as a group, have treated Obama just like they treated the LAST Democratic President, with loads of Partisan Rancor.

And just like they will treat the next one, regardless of Race, or Sex, or Creed.

No, I'm sure they will make many slurs against her gender.

Who? Those "couple of guys" on the internet and you'll use that as a lame excuse to smear a third of the country?

That is pretty dishonest of you lefties.

 

[emilynghiem]

maybe i should type slower for you next time...

And you avoid dealing with my point, by setting up a strawman and implying that I am vile.

And that completely fails to explain how or why Bill Clinton received the same treatment as Obama IF the reason conservatives "hate" Obama is race.

I pointed that out when you first posted it.

Furthermore stating that "vile things were said" does not support the idea that "conservatives" as in the majority of conservatives are saying "vile things" or that those "vile things" are said because of Race, or really, that all the things you consider "vile" are really vile, or just upset you.

Again, no one brought up Clintons race when criticizing him.

The discussion was of "Conservatives".

Which in general terminology is assumed to be the majority of Conservatives, perhaps even the large or vast majority of Conservatives.


A couple of guys on the internet does not justify the Meme that "Conservatives hate Obama because of his Race".

Conservatives, as a group, have treated Obama just like they treated the LAST Democratic President, with loads of Partisan Rancor.

And just like they will treat the next one, regardless of Race, or Sex, or Creed.

No, I'm sure they will make many slurs against her gender.

Ravi Correll
RE: race vs. gender

Yes, to steer the emotions and psychology of the masses,
the target factor is the easiest thing that stays stuck in people's minds.

For Hillary it is being a female and a scary [one] at that.
For Palin, she was played up as stupid as possible in the media so that image STUCK.
With Romney, it was him being a rich man (either out of touch, or didn't care or looked down on others) so nobody would think of him as someone with a big heart who volunteered and genuinely cares.

With Obama, his associations with Communists who just want govt power for control,
his associations with vigilant Black militaristic type groups, and with pro-Muslim sympathizers
who don't care WHICH enemy takes down the power structure in America they feel is oppressing the poor.
They blame 9/11 on the rich powers that be.

So this conflict is imaged in the media as black vs. white for simplicity.
It is really a political conflict of ideology. But that is complex and doesn't work with visual and radio media.

People will pick the easiest angle on image to target
to mobilize around. You can see the double standard.

What's okay to do to Hillary isn't okay with Palin and vice versa.
What's okay to do to Bush isn't okay with Obama and vice versa.

So it's more about politics, and trying to pick an issue to BULLY someone for.
You learn this trick in grade school.
People fighting over turf are going to use some target angle,
but that's NOT the REAL REASON they are going after that person.

They really want social dominance in the eyes of others watching.

 

[dilloduck]

It's simply down to us vs. them. Everyone knows the players and what side of the fence they will come down on. No one is making any attempt a unifying the country because that strategy won't get you elected.

 

[320 Years of History]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

That one might use or allow the guidelines of "political correctness" to hide material aspects of their beliefs or character is more than enough for me to frown upon both political correctness and one's use of it.

Doing so shows manipulative intent and a lack of integrity. I have no desire to involve myself with lily livered curs who do that. I'd sooner deal with a mean spirited, bigot who is honest about who s/he is than someone who hides behind the veil of political correctness. I can respect an individual who "owns" their failings as well as their positive traits, thoughts and deeds, regardless of how objectionable, perhaps even reprehensible, I may deem some of their failings.

That they are honest with me, and I with them, tells us each exactly where will lie the limits of our ability to interact. If that means there will be very little interaction, well then so be it. Better that than either of us wasting time vainly trying to ingratiate ourselves with the other.