Is Political Correctness toxic?

[fatmt]

The PC concept of gender is expecting someone else to modify their views on what gender means.

Well, and that's one of the points I'd like to drive home, here. Like most other things, there's gradients of Political Correctness.

I'm going to link to an article in the Daily Mail. For the record, I will be politically incorrect and state that I think Daily Mail and a few other tabloids belong to rubbish journalism.

Having said that, here's the article: Google VP told employees to stop using the word FAMILY after staff complained the term was 'offensive, homophobic and excluded unmarried people without children, animals and those with multiple trans-feminine partners'

Now, I do not know whether the article's claims are true or not but let's assume for a moment they are.

If they are true, this would be an excellent example where Political Correctness goes too far. It's even worse than what you said. It's not about changing views, it's about banning words such as 'family' because they (according to the originator) do not conform to their view of the world.

Where are you with this post?

 

[Jon]

Apparently the word America has become a no-no. At least from memory. It demeans the south America, or something like that.

It is just plain daft to say family is offensive. People are looking for things to have offense over because they have nothing better to do.

Who defines what hate speech is? Does saying "White lives don't matter" fall into that category?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The simple problem is that PC - as it is most frequently used today - is an attempt to shame someone into avoiding plain language that would expose the duplicity of the other party who doesn't want to have clear opposition to his/her/its ideas. It is an attempt to "muddy the waters" by forcing use of some euphemism that blunts the argument.

For example, in the "abortion" debate, people talk about having an abortion is killing a child. But there IS no child according to strict scientific language. A fetus is not a child. Not only that, but there are religions that do not agree with the idea of "life begins at conception." They believe that life begins either at "first breath" (based on the Solomonic phrase) or that life begins when the umbilicus is severed so that the fetus becomes an independent entity and a child at the same exact moment.

Some critics will say "abortion stops a beating heart." True, but so does stepping on a cockroach.

Some critics will say "we have prevented another Mozart." But we could equally have prevented another Hitler.

The simple truth is that PC arguments are verbal legerdemain to try to falsely gain the high moral ground.

 

[fatmt]

Who defines what hate speech is? Does saying "White lives don't matter" fall into that category?

I think some of these issues depend on context. For example, saying "all lives matter" as a general statement is fine. Saying it in response to "black lives matter" finds me in agreement with the following

According to professor of critical race theory, David Theo Goldberg, "All Lives Matter" reflects a view of "racial dismissal, ignoring, and denial".[13] Philosopher Chris Lebron describes "All Lives Matter" as a "disingenuous retort" that misunderstands the problem raised by Black Lives Matter proponents.[14] On Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill Maher expressed support for use of the "Black Lives Matter" phrase, stating that "'All Lives Matter' implies that all lives are equally at risk, and they're not".[15]

 

[Jon]

'All Lives Matter' implies that all lives are equally at risk, and they're not"

But it doesn't. He made that up. It doesn't imply anything. It just means all lives matter. It doesn't address risk at all.

But let's pretend for a minute that it was true. Are you suggesting that a white soldier on the front line in Afghanistan is equally at risk to a black man in his 50's living rurally?

There is the same problem with the fictional statement "White Privilege". Tell that to the white trash living in a trailer as he sees Obama driven around in his limousine. Dividing people into groups based on race, gender and so on and then making blanket assumptions about them just leads to division and prejudice.

 

[fatmt]

But let's pretend for a minute that it was true. Are you suggesting that a white soldier on the front line in Afghanistan is equally at risk to a black man in his 50's living rurally?

You're shifting the discussion onto a context which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. We are not dealing about risk for people in a war zone.

There is the same problem with the fictional statement "White Privilege". Tell that to the white trash living in a trailer as he sees Obama driven around in his limousine. Dividing people into groups based on race, gender and so on and then making blanket assumptions about them just leads to division and prejudice.

Well, I agree with you - the term "White Privilege" is divisive. What if we stopped using colours altogether?

 

[Jon]

You're shifting the discussion onto a context which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. We are not dealing about risk for people in a war zone.

But we are dealing about if lives are equally at risk or not. And that is exactly the context we are discussing. To say a black man is at higher risk than a white man depends on circumstances, not race.

Well, I agree with you - the term "White Privilege" is divisive. What if we stopped using colours altogether?

I say stop inventing reasons to divide us all. Some people have more privilege than others, but that is just nature.

 

[fatmt]

This is an extreme case, but when a thug gets shot and killed while attempting to rob a store, his parents/friends say "he didn't do anything wrong." (I'm avoiding the opportunity to do a dialect comment here because that WOULD be politically incorrect.) The fact that the thug waved a gun in someone's face and got shot for his foolish notion of how to get money doesn't register. All they know is "He was a good kid. To then tell his mother that she raised a thug is considered heartless."

So, I agree with the above. If you get shot and killed while attempting to rob a store, or even trying to rob someone's house for that matter, too bad. You were in the wrong place at the wrong time. If someone says 'he didn't do anything wrong' I would not even class that as PC. That's just being shameless.

The Black Lives Matter movement needs to take stock of how many cases of black-on-black killing have occurred. But that would be non-PC. And yet they want to fix the problem? But they are rejecting the obvious answer - clean your own house first.

Now, about this, BLM is mainly a US-based movement, I think. I do not want to pretend I know enough about American history or have enough of the facts to make an informed comment.

But there seems to be a divide between people saying 'clean your act first' (not talking about Doc here, just making a general statement) and people saying that the poverty in which certain classes of people live is a contributing factor to their behaviour. In other words, 'equal opportunity' is currently a myth.

This would seem supported by the documented Racial wage gap in the United States.

For example, this video shows an emotional Kimberly Jones making the case for why some black people steal.

I don't condone stealing. I think it's worthwhile to listen to what she has to say just the same.

 

[Jon]

So, I agree with the above. If you get shot and killed while attempting to rob a store, or even trying to rob someone's house for that matter, too bad.

Is it "too bad" if someone who is wrong in the head due to "cloudy thinking" gets shot dead? Should we allow those who cannot control themselves to be shot by those who can control themselves?

 

[Jon]

The lady in the video talks about the only opportunity for the looters to get "stuff" is by looting, because of the poverty. Then why do 95% of blacks hate Trump who brought African American unemployment to its lowest level in history, which directly addresses poverty?

And when someone steals, they affect the person who they steal from. What about them? It is a self destructive attitude that will only lead to the exodus of shops from their neighbourhoods.

 

[fatmt]

Is it "too bad" if someone who is wrong in the head due to "cloudy thinking" gets shot dead? Should we allow those who cannot control themselves to be shot by those who can control themselves?

I think you're oversimplifying mental illness.

 

[fatmt]

Then why do 95% of blacks hate Trump who brought African American unemployment to its lowest level in history, which directly addresses poverty?

Where can I look this up?

 

[Jon]

How am I oversimplifying?

What do you want to look up exactly?

 

[fatmt]

What do you want to look up exactly?

What source did you use that states that 'Trump brought African American unemployment to its lowest level in history'?

Where can I look this up?

 

[Jon]

Try this one for starters: https://www.statista.com/statistics...te-of-african-americans-in-the-us-since-1990/

 

[fatmt]

Try this one for starters: https://www.statista.com/statistics...te-of-african-americans-in-the-us-since-1990/

OK thanks - I too checked a couple of souces about it. We covered this already but chances are neither of us is persuaded about the other's argument

Is it true that African American unemployment rate has gone down to historic levels under Trump? Most likely yes.

Did Trump have anything to do about it? I don't see the evidence that he did.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52907646

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/08/5765...loyment-rates-for-african-americans-hispanics

and a big problem with that claim is that those rates had been falling for long before Trump took office, and their declines don't appear to have picked up speed. This implies that there's nothing specific that Trump did to change this rate.

 

[Jon]

and a big problem with that claim is that those rates had been falling for long before Trump took office, and their declines don't appear to have picked up speed. This implies that there's nothing specific that Trump did to change this rate.

It doesn't imply that. This is just misinformation designed to mislead. Or plain ignorance on the part of the journalist. I am sure you will agree yourself that the closer you get to zero, the harder it is to lower the rate. The fact that the decline does not appear to have slowed down means precisely the opposite of what that quote claims, where they say "there's nothing specific that Trump did to change this rate."

Firstly, not changing the rate means that Trump has done something, because the rate naturally slows as you get closer to what is termed "full employment." And it hasn't slowed. Secondly, there is something very specific he did. He slashed corporation tax by a huge amount. Besides, I thought you agreed that cutting corporation tax will lower unemployment? Can you see any reason why it wouldn't? I've given plenty of examples of why it would.

I think you have made your mind up and don't want to change your view because of your dislike of Trump. You cannot stand the thought of him doing more for the black population than Democrats ever did.

As an aside, the BBC is constantly taking potshots at Trump. They give a quote, leaving out the first part, trying to make him look bad.

Now to NPR...

Various allegations of bias, against conservatives have arisen throughout NPR's history. The Pew survey found that the NPR audience tends Democratic (17% Republican, 37% independent, 43% Democratic) and centrist (21% conservative, 39% moderate, 36% liberal)

Note the accusations of bias against Replubicans regarding the NPR, and their predominantly Democratic audience.

I can see that article is riddled with bias. For a start, they argue that Trump in his first year didn't do much:

By the jobs numbers themselves, it doesn't look like he has changed much here. In fact, the average job creation in Trump's first year is slightly lower than it has been in prior years. Employers added 171,000 new jobs each month, on average, in 2017. In 2016, that figure was 187,000, and in 2015, it was 226,000.

So they say he didn't do much in Year 1. Then go down a few lines and you will read this:

There's also a bigger problem with the idea that Trump has created all these jobs — presidents don't have much immediate control over the economy, period.

So, on the one hand they say he didn't do much in his first year. Next they say he can't do much in the beginning anyway. You can't have it both ways. Biased to the hilt!

And what about year 2 and 3? Let's ignore those...conveniently!

 

[fatmt]

Let's pause this conversation for now - it does not seem like we're going anywhere. It is partly my fault. I want to revisit a few things and then propose a way forward.