What is being PC?

Your example is horrible. It doesn't fit the definition of PC. It doesn't matter if it's a minority of people, it comes down to a basic level of respect. Would the Christian have the same standard if it was a different couple? If so, then he's treating the gay couple differently, and imposing an unfair standard on them. This is what being PC is about, simply treating people with respect.

Again, your example makes no sense. The klansman is imposing an unfair standard on the couple. Unless the klansman treats all couples the same way, he's in the wrong.

Interesting example is interesting.

Really? PF says I'm not allowed to flame bait. That's not attacking anyone but it certainly is degrading the quality of a conversation. Seems like you do have the right not to be offended. Or another way of saying it, you have the right to be treated with respect.

Who said I am? Remember the test, Is a group imposing unfair standards onto another group of people? In this case, the Klansmen is in the wrong because he's only treating interracial couples this way. If it were any other couple, they wouldn't care.

There is a fine line between humor and insulting a group.
[video=youtube;P5KgvYRsbFw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5KgvYRsbFw[/video]

This is a good example. Sure, it's funny but that doesn't mean it isn't any less racial insensitive. Now if it's funny, then it's comedy. If not, then it's insulting to a group. It comes down to how the message is being presented. Does it leave people thinking the stereotype is a joke or does it degrade people?

Now I think you're confusing something. Just because a show is popular doesn't mean it isn't morally wrong. The Hunger Games might not be good for the districts, but everyone tuned in to watch that. Now we have to talk about roles. Why does the Gay character have to be flamboyant? Why can't he be something else?

I'm trying hard on my end not to laugh. I am trying hard on my end not to laugh. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Why? Because I am respecting their right to watch shows they like. In other words, I'm treating fans of a show with the same level of respect as I would have for any viewers. Think of it like this. Let's say I don't like Supernatural but love Doctor Who. I'm being PC if I treat viewers of both shows with respect. I'm not being PC if I degrade Supernatural fans while holding Doctor Who fans to a higher level. I'm not changing behavior, I'm treating them with respect. There is a difference between persuading and listening to another person.

How am I putting them down? I'm asking whether or not Warner Bros. would hold another character who wasn't a Mexican rat to the same standards as any other character.

If there were African Americans, then that would just negate Lee's original claim, thus not even a question of being PC or not.

The reason I'm not going to change it is because I don't think you hold the same standard to everyone. If you did and could prove it, then there would be an argument for being PC.

A person can have an opinion on a group of people, and that doesn't have to change. But they still have to treat them with respect. All being PC does is keep people respectful.

.

By asking that you treat them with respect? Sure, it might seem more confusing but then again isn't learning something new confusing in of itself? Placing a new piece in the puzzle is hard to do without references to where it should go, but that doesn't mean it has to be any more or less of a right to be in the puzzle.

Also, Miku for the win.

- - - Updated - - -

If an African American asked you to use "person of color" when talking about black people, would you do it?

 

PC is when the political right wing believes it is always right in every debate and in every issue.

Of course, they always lose each debate because their beliefs are based on mysticism and delusionalism whereas we patriots base our beliefs on rationalism and reality.

 

Oh, c'mon. I think you're playing dumb. You know why PC is out of control.

I often view PC as a moral approach to civil discourse, and attempt to reconcile and find common ground. In principle, it's a wonderful concept, to sort of standardize our vernacular to be less offensive and more sympathetic. It's an attempt to remove stereotypes. It really has noble ideals.

Why is it bad now? How is it out of control? It's bad because now because it tries to ignore certain realities in favor of advancing leftist agendas. For example, it's politically incorrect to call out the black subculture of violent youths, meanwhile they're killing each other by the dozens every day across the nation. That has to be the most glaring example of how PC is out of control. When we're willing to let people die rather than find solutions to the real problems, that's out of control stupidity.

 

No, no I don't.

It's not a problem to talk about youth violence. It's a problem to talk about the solutions to the problem without having an understanding of how the group itself is trying to deal with the problem. No group wants another group to impose upon it its own solutions. Would the US want China telling it how to run elections? Now imagine a person who doesn't know anything about city problems and watch as he tries to convince urbanites he knows how to solve their problems. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Here's the problem, and the truth -- being un-PC will offend some folks, being PC will offend others. If you don't like the words I use, then shush up and move on. If I don't like your words I'll shush up and move on. We have the freedom to get on a stump and say what we please. We have freedom of movement to avoid those we think will offend us Those who want to ban certain words from the public square need to be careful of what they are wishing for.

 

The U.S. and China is a poor analogy. Blacks and whites are Americans. The truth is partisans won't even listen to a person like Ben Carson, a black man who grew up poor, because his ideology and political affiliation aren't liberal Democrat. So, it doesn't matter what you think the person knows based on experiences that gives him credibility. It's his political identity, and also religious identity. That's symptomatic of our broken two-party system.

 

I don't disagree, but that's just being polite, not PC. Being PC is adding minority characters to a show because it's the "PC" thing to do, not because they are part of the plot. PC is the excuse used for all sorts of shutdowns and revoked invitations. PC is responsible for people being fired from positions where their views on an issue don't matter to their job. I don't disagree that we should encourage polite conversation where people aren't just denigrating their opponent, but PC is something way past there and it's dangerous.

 

I suppose that is a more apt analogy. I try to avoid nazi references as best I can because people usually spout off about Godwin and end the conversation whether the analogy works or not.

 

Politically correctness is simply speaking in such a manner so as not to offend the people around you. So it all depends on who the people are around you are. If you live in NYC, most people around you are liberal, so being PC means not using racist language, not using homophobic language, etc. If you live in Mississippi, most people around you are conservative, so being PC means not disrespecting Jesus Christ, not making fun of gun owners, etc.

 

That implies that his experiences growing up poor, gives him credibility, which is kinda dumb, if you ask me. He's a pediatric neurosurgeon. He has specific expertise in pediatric neurosurgery. It doesnt really qualify him for anything that's not pediatric neurosurgery, IMHO.

 

Being PC is being what we teach our children.

Be nice to everyone.
Don't call people names.
If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say it at all.

 

On the local, person to person level yes, but there's a whole nation wide social level which results in people being silenced and fired. Being polite in a conversation is good and should be encouraged, but when you take political correctness to the point of chasing off speakers before they can say a word there's a problem. Hell even in personal conversation it can be a bit much. No one should feel they have to walk on egg shells because a person could be offended. For the most part I tend not to associate with those people, but I do have a friend and his sister who will get annoyed over weird perceived slights that no one else cares about.

 

We should teach them to be polite, yes, but we should also teach them to have a thick skin and listen and understand to people them don't agree with. PC comes with a bad side that should not be taught to our children.

 

I take the opposite position. I think that unless you are stupid, you must ALWAYS walk on eggshells no matter where you go. The only time you can speak freely on controversial subjects is when either 1) the people around you agree with you or 2) the people around you are unable to affect you or 3) on an internet forum like this anonymously. If you do otherwise, you risk endangering your job, your reputation, and your relationships with other people.

Political correctness is VERY important. It is human nature to react to emotions and words can trigger emotions. A sophisticated person understands exactly the emotions that are being triggered in the person they're speaking to. If you say the wrong words, that triggers the wrong emotions, and you either don't care or are unaware, then you are either antisocial or just lack social skills.

This true both on a local level and on a national level. People are people. It's the same wherever you go.

 

I tend to believe that catering to the easily offended is stupid and has caused serious issues in our society. People can and will be offended over anything, and it seems all they need to do is scream loudly enough and others lives are affected negatively due to their slight discomfort. It's a horrible precedence to set and goes against the very core of a free society by destroying free speech. Certainly people should not go out and try to offend others, but political correctness basically declares "these thoughts are acceptable and expressing any other point of view could put your livelihood in danger". That's not good, that's bat (*)(*)(*)(*) insane.

 

I hate Ben Carson because he's bourgeois scum, not because of his party affiliation or race.

The dice rolled in his favor so he thinks that all anyone ever has to do is break out those bootstraps in order to "succeed" (as much as anyone can be said to succeed in a society where the concept of success is tied to financial gain and society is divided into the exploited workers and owners of capital)

 

I think you are living in an unrealistic world. Perhaps in a world of robots, your ideas would work. But America is not a country of robots; it is a country of people, of human beings. And human beings have a strong emotions about what is right and what is wrong. And when those emotions are affected, people will act on them--it is the nature of being human.

What you are asking is that people stop being human. And that seems a departure from reality, if I ever saw one.

The larger point, is that this country has made national decisions about what is and isnt moral. For example, we used to think that slavery was moral. Today, we think that slavery is immoral. If you get on a national stage and start saying that blacks should be enslaved, well guess what--you will lose your job!!! Big surprise? The same is true for homosexuality. It used to be that homosexuality was immoral. But today, we think that homophobia is immoral. If you get on a national stage and start saying homophibic things, you will lose your job. This is no big surprise at all. It is simply a shift in America's moral fiber, and americans defending the new principles of that moral code.

 

The problem is what constitutes the "right words" for the "right situation"? Who gets to decide this for all and by what authority? PC is contextual, subjective, and often relative to the individual. IMO there is no simple answer to such a complex question.

 

I think that everyone should be free to speak their mind....tempered with a dose of tact.
My bottle of tact is empty.

 

i hate him because hes delusional. he has an incredible amount of personal experience, which would quality him to be a good life coach. but that doesnt quality him to be president.

 

What I'm saying is not unrealistic, unhuman, nor unreasonable. People should not fear losing their jobs because they don't support gay marriage (I support it myself, but this is an example which happened at the CEO level of a major corporation). People should be able to address an audience on a topic without having to worry about the audience screaming them down. People should generally be thicker skinned, and those who are easily offended should not be catered to by default. It's not hard, just stop catering to the 1 person in the room that's offended by something the other 20 don't really care about.

If you are down for a little reading, here's a column http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html
I found it interesting to see people on the left, who seem to love political correctness, opposed to political correctness because it's blocking though on college campus.

 

the problem is that an issue like gay marriage is different than other political issues, because it involves a question of morality. And whether you like it or not, it is becoming increasingly clear that opposition to gay marriage is seen not only as an incorrect position, but rather as an immoral position. Thus, when someone espouses such a position, they are increasingly viewed as an immoral person, and that's when they can be subject to actions such as termination. It would be the same as if someone supported enslaving black people. They too, would be seen as immoral and would be terminated in a similar manner.

this is why i stay away from such issues in daily life. cauase i cant afford to make enemies based on my political views. that's what this forum is for

 

So wouldn't it make sense then just to ask what terms they prefer to be used when dealing with them? There's a difference between being purposefully disrespectful and ignorance.

 

from a practical standpoint, there is no difference.

 

Why don't you give me an example of when this happened. I can't really see a situation where this would happen.