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

[dilloduck]

what is micro-agressed?

The latest silly buzzword of the oppressed.

why are you so offended when people assert they would like to be treated with dignity?




Microaggression is a term which some use to refer to unintended discrimination.

Psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce coined the word microaggression in 1970

The term “microaggression” was used by Columbia professor Derald Sue to refer to “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

I'm not.
and I don't expect that everyone is going to treat me with dignity. It's an irrational expectation.

 

[Asclepias]

It's all but certain that no black person, regardless of whether they use the "N-word," truly believes that blacks are inferior in any dimension because they are black.

Surely you jest.

Actually, no, I don't, and unless you are being semantic about it, which unless you are you are, I don't see why you'd think I am kidding. The fact is that I did write "no" rather than something like "most" or "nearly all," so sure "no black person" may not be accurate because it requires 100% compliance. It may be that there are some very small number of blacks who think blacks on the whole are inferior because they are black, but I very seriously doubt that there are enough black folks who feel that way to cite them as representative of the race.

Then it's time for them to ignore the N word and move on and quit acting like it cuts them to the quick.

You are subscribing to the logical fallcy known as the sticks and stones argument. Again science has proven that your brains reaction to any threat is the same as your reaction to a physical threat. Its physically harmful to be in a constant state of readiness. Short of cutting off your sensory input how does one un-hear or un-see something? Of course I am assuming you have the ability to answer this without deflecting.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's all but certain that no black person, regardless of whether they use the "N-word," truly believes that blacks are inferior in any dimension because they are black.

Surely you jest.

Actually, no, I don't, and unless you are being semantic about it, which unless you are you are, I don't see why you'd think I am kidding. The fact is that I did write "no" rather than something like "most" or "nearly all," so sure "no black person" may not be accurate because it requires 100% compliance. It may be that there are some very small number of blacks who think blacks on the whole are inferior because they are black, but I very seriously doubt that there are enough black folks who feel that way to cite them as representative of the race.

Then it's time for them to ignore the N word and move on and quit acting like it cuts them to the quick.

???

• On what basis are you equipped to attest to whether it does or does not cut any black person to the quick, let alone whether it does so to the entire population of black folks?
• On what basis are you able to credibly assert that when expressing hurt, anger, or "whatever" re: having had the N-word applied to them, any black person or group of blacks is acting?
• Who granted you the authority to promulgate that anyone ignore slurs directed at them?

 

[Valerie]

what is micro-aggressed?

The latest silly buzzword of the oppressed.

why are you so offended when people assert they would like to be treated with dignity?




Microaggression is a term which some use to refer to unintended discrimination.

Psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce coined the word microaggression in 1970

The term “microaggression” was used by Columbia professor Derald Sue to refer to “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

I'm not.
and I don't expect that everyone is going to treat me with dignity. It's an irrational expectation.

raising awareness of unintentional indignities is not the same as expecting everyone to be dignified.

you mock legitimate concerns of indignities cuz pc...and you mock the term micro-aggression.

if you aren't offended, are you just doing it for fun?

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not.
and I don't expect that everyone is going to treat me with dignity. It's an irrational expectation.

Good....

 

[Asclepias]

what is micro-agressed?

The latest silly buzzword of the oppressed.

why are you so offended when people assert they would like to be treated with dignity?




Microaggression is a term which some use to refer to unintended discrimination.

Psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce coined the word microaggression in 1970

The term “microaggression” was used by Columbia professor Derald Sue to refer to “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

I'm not.
and I don't expect that everyone is going to treat me with dignity. It's an irrational expectation.

This speaks very loudly to your character flaws. Your view is a fault of your dysfunctional culture. In more advanced cultures treating others with dignity is seen as a admired character trait. The fact that you dont expect to be treated with dignity is revealing and sheds light on your dysfunctional views.

 

[Mac1958]

No, actually you were employing PC exactly as described by Mac and myself.

Note how you still did not actually address either Mac's point, or mine.

There wasn't a point to address aside from his hypersensitivity, which I addressed with my statement, "you are easily put on the defensive."

There was nothing in his post you replied to that implied he was offended. He was simply and accurately describing standard lib use of PC.


And you changed the subject from Poltical Correctness to Mac and his alleged personal flaws.

Does that sound familiar?

BTW, my definition of PC indicates that you still will refuse to address what Mac had to say about PC and again continue your focus on Mac and/or myself and our alleged personal flaws.

Because that is what PC is and that is what libs do.

Yep, it's who they are, and they don't stop, even when it's pointed out.

That's how zealots behave.
.

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd. Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Just as I can my other little stalker friends, those who still have to post to me even though I have them on ignore. Which is creepy, but does illustrate why they're on ignore in the first place.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

 

[Valerie]

ravi's posts aren't politically correct enough for mac...

 

[Ravi]

There wasn't a point to address aside from his hypersensitivity, which I addressed with my statement, "you are easily put on the defensive."

There was nothing in his post you replied to that implied he was offended. He was simply and accurately describing standard lib use of PC.


And you changed the subject from Poltical Correctness to Mac and his alleged personal flaws.

Does that sound familiar?

BTW, my definition of PC indicates that you still will refuse to address what Mac had to say about PC and again continue your focus on Mac and/or myself and our alleged personal flaws.

Because that is what PC is and that is what libs do.

Yep, it's who they are, and they don't stop, even when it's pointed out.

That's how zealots behave.
.

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

 

[Asclepias]

There was nothing in his post you replied to that implied he was offended. He was simply and accurately describing standard lib use of PC.


And you changed the subject from Poltical Correctness to Mac and his alleged personal flaws.

Does that sound familiar?

BTW, my definition of PC indicates that you still will refuse to address what Mac had to say about PC and again continue your focus on Mac and/or myself and our alleged personal flaws.

Because that is what PC is and that is what libs do.

Yep, it's who they are, and they don't stop, even when it's pointed out.

That's how zealots behave.
.

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I like best when he posts that he has you on ignore which is actually telling everyone he is reading your posts.

 

[Correll]

Yep, it's who they are, and they don't stop, even when it's pointed out.

That's how zealots behave.
.

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I like best when he posts that he has you on ignore which is actually telling everyone he is reading your posts.

Wow. It's so interesting that someone who has someone on ignore can see their posts sometimes and then sometimes responds to those comments.

No, wait..

It's the exact opposite of interesting. It's who the fuck cares about that.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I like best when he posts that he has you on ignore which is actually telling everyone he is reading your posts.

Wow. It's so interesting that someone who has someone on ignore can see their posts sometimes and then sometimes responds to those comments.

No, wait..

It's the exact opposite of interesting. It's who the fuck cares about that.

Bizarre, huh? They're obsessed with me.

This is like dealing with children. I don't even get to write them off my taxes.


.

 

[baileyn45]

For anyone that doesn't believe this pc stuff isn't a problem needs to look at what's going on at college campuses.

Start with this:


Here's a humorous look.:



This ones a full length documentary but might be the most frightening thing I've ever watched

 

[Ravi]

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I like best when he posts that he has you on ignore which is actually telling everyone he is reading your posts.

Wow. It's so interesting that someone who has someone on ignore can see their posts sometimes and then sometimes responds to those comments.

No, wait..

It's the exact opposite of interesting. It's who the fuck cares about that.

It's interesting because of the dishonest factor. And the wimp factor.

 

[Ravi]

They're obsessed with me.


.

^mad irony

 

[Asclepias]

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I like best when he posts that he has you on ignore which is actually telling everyone he is reading your posts.

Wow. It's so interesting that someone who has someone on ignore can see their posts sometimes and then sometimes responds to those comments.

No, wait..

It's the exact opposite of interesting. It's who the fuck cares about that.

I dont think its interesting. I think its funny. Obviously you care about it. You replied to my post when I was talking to Ravi about Mac. None of that concerned you yet you cared enough to comment. Now thats interesting.

 

[Ravi]

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I like best when he posts that he has you on ignore which is actually telling everyone he is reading your posts.

Wow. It's so interesting that someone who has someone on ignore can see their posts sometimes and then sometimes responds to those comments.

No, wait..

It's the exact opposite of interesting. It's who the fuck cares about that.

I dont think its interesting. I think its funny. Obviously you care about it. You replied to my post when I was talking to Ravi about Mac. None of that concerned you yet you cared enough to comment. Now thats interesting.

I think Mac's trying to shut down conversation by putting so many of us on ignore. Personally, I think Mac is a big fraud and none too bright but the irony he brings to the forum keeps me in stitches.

 

[320 Years of History]

There was nothing in his post you replied to that implied he was offended. He was simply and accurately describing standard lib use of PC.


And you changed the subject from Poltical Correctness to Mac and his alleged personal flaws.

Does that sound familiar?

BTW, my definition of PC indicates that you still will refuse to address what Mac had to say about PC and again continue your focus on Mac and/or myself and our alleged personal flaws.

Because that is what PC is and that is what libs do.

Yep, it's who they are, and they don't stop, even when it's pointed out.

That's how zealots behave.
.

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I get your point, but in fairness, I think when someone else quotes a person one has on ignore, it's more trouble to remove the ignored person's content from the string of quotes than it is to just let them remain there.

I think it's probably best, if one knows another person is ignoring them, to recognize the way the website's ignore programming works and "fail to respond" accordingly when one get's unintentionally quoted. One know's one may have been quoted unintentionally when one's remarks are not the last ones in the string of quotes. For example, in this post, I'm responding only to you, not all the other folks whose remarks appear above yours.

 

[Ravi]

Yep, it's who they are, and they don't stop, even when it's pointed out.

That's how zealots behave.
.

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

Off Topic:
He may not have done so deliberately. Your post is part of Correll's post, so it got "picked up" when he quoted Correll. Then again, maybe he's no longer ignoring you?

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I get your point, but in fairness, I think when someone else quotes a person one has on ignore, it's more trouble to remove the ignored person's content from the string of quotes than it is to just let them remain there.

I think it's probably best, if one knows another person is ignoring them, to recognize the way the website's ignore programming works and "fail to respond" accordingly when one get's unintentionally quoted. One know's one may have been quoted unintentionally when one's remarks are not the last ones in the string of quotes. For example, in this post, I'm responding only to you, not all the other folks whose remarks appear above yours.

That's not really my point though. It's quite obvious from his posts that he is responding to me. He's like a kid hiding behind a door and throwing spitballs and then pretending he's innocent.

 

[Asclepias]

Gawd.

Correct.

Ravi, I can unfortunately see your posts when I'm quoting someone who has quoted you. Get over yourself.

Better yet, please return the favor and put me on ignore, thanks.
.

You are obviously responding to me. If you have someone on ignore you should not quote their posts.

I like best when he posts that he has you on ignore which is actually telling everyone he is reading your posts.

Wow. It's so interesting that someone who has someone on ignore can see their posts sometimes and then sometimes responds to those comments.

No, wait..

It's the exact opposite of interesting. It's who the fuck cares about that.

I dont think its interesting. I think its funny. Obviously you care about it. You replied to my post when I was talking to Ravi about Mac. None of that concerned you yet you cared enough to comment. Now thats interesting.

I think Mac's trying to shut down conversation by putting so many of us on ignore. Personally, I think Mac is a big fraud and none too bright but the irony he brings to the forum keeps me in stitches.

I dont know who all he has on ignore but its weird he thinks he can shut down conversation that way. I honestly think its a way of making him feel superior which is odd. He is obviously passive-aggressive. Now if we had the ability to put people, words, and symbols on ignore in real life this topic regarding PC would not be needed. Its interesting to me that he is using a mechanism that people like Dilloduck would consider weak.