The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Manhole or a personhole? A study of political correctness > Comments

Manhole or a personhole? A study of political correctness : Comments

By Rebecca Huntley, published 30/8/2005

Rebecca Huntley argues it is the Left rather than the Right that want to frustrate free speech with the new political correctness.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Rebecca,

What a great piece. It seems to me that there is a tacit acceptance that some minority views (particularly on "buzz issues" like abortion and same sex rights) are considered to be protected by a free speech argument, while other much more mainstream views (i.e. women's right to participation in the workforce post-children) have been constructed in a way that promotes division.

Similarly, the same people who would argue that anti-vilification laws are inappropriate and an impediment to free speech, would suggest that anyone who doesn't hold with "Australian values" should "clear out".

It is important for the community in general to be able to participate in a political dialogue, and surely this can be achieved without resorting to the use of language that is offensive. Perhaps some are unfeeling to the hurt caused by this language because the type of words that have been developed to characterise disadvantage amongst minority groups have never applied to them, and certainly have not entered mainstream syntax: 'whitey' is NOT the new 'refo'.

If a person is of European heritage, can they be expected to be "repatriated" in their country of origin for suggesting that migrants of non-English speaking background "refuse to assimilate" in the same way that Muslim leaders are being challenged for their views on terrorism? Isn't inclusiveness an Australian value?

Like "political correctness", it seems that multiculturalism (and in this I include religious, racial and cultural difference) is under a cloud that is fed by ignorance and fear.
Posted by seether, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 10:53:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would liken (some of) the Left’s marriage to PC language to many protesters refusal to dress well. Bear with me.

I work in a decidedly conservative work environment, close to a certain company that tends to attract a lot of protests. The general attitude from my work colleagues is an immediate dismissal of these protests, based merely on the grounds that they all look like ‘a bunch of hippies’. I’ve become quite sure that if protesters wore neat clothing, had a shave and washed their hair, they would certainly receive more positive attention to their cause. Of course they shouldn’t have to do this, and it’s very sad that people can be so dismissive for superficial reasons. But it’s the message that’s important, and if that’s what it takes to get the message across, then why not?

It’s the same in debates (and I’m working back to my point now): in a typical debate between the Right and the Left, the Left are often at an automatic disadvantage due to the limitations PC language places on an argument. For the Left, everything said must fit into the PC framework, whereas the Right don’t feel the need to follow this rule. The result: the Left often sound flustered and weak, trying to ensure every point they argue is delivered in a PC way. The Right appear more dominant and in control. The debate becomes less about the actual subject matter and more about who appears to be the better debater.

Why can’t the Left grow a pair? What they have to say usually makes much more sense. But they open their mouths and -oops- they’ve blown it. An attack sounds like a whinge. A defence sounds like desperation. Maybe sometimes its better to forget the PC rules and just lay into someone who deserves it.
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 11:18:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its about time we recognized exactly what lies at the nub and heart of a lot of the 'left's issues. .. MARXISM.

The gradual erosion of culture.. is little more than an attempt to destabilize the 'Bourgois' class and open the door to the dictatorship of the proletarian masses..... until of course they gain power and then it all goes haywire and we find a NEW class struggle.. between the privileged members of the party and the 2nd class 'rest'.

Culture, is what holds communities together. It gives us our social ques and sense of identity.

The issue of 'manhole'/personhole' is not political correctness it is purile madness. Words have the content we culturally ascribe to them.

And girls, much as this might 'irk' you, when the rubber meets the road, and some 'foreign power' considers it has more of a right to Australia than the present mob do, it will not be the girls out there engaging in hand to hand combat with a raging mob of wild eyed soldiers with fixed bayonets it will be WE MEN. It will be our blood which soaks the battle field, our skeletons which become bleached in the sun... and Girls.. GOD HELP YOU if we fail to defend you from such.

Though this state of affairs may seem remote, compare the invasion of Vienna by the Ottomans in 1529, with the 2nd attempt in 1683 there was over 100 yrs between them... we have only had 60 yrs since WWII and had Korea and Vietnam in between...

Girls.. I think we all should get on our knees and Thank Almighty God that there was a Count Sobieski who had the guts and grit to fight an overwhelmingly large force of Turks, and prevent the whole of Europe being overun... and girls.. preventing you from becoming 1 of up to FOUR wives of some man. (after you recoved from the trauma of your men having been slaughtered and the rapes you were subjected to)

PC will not give happiness, nor justice. The golden rule will. Words don't mean much outside of actions.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 11:48:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Urgh. Way to turn a worthwhile discussion into…into…well, I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

*spendocrat does the ‘Not Worth It’ dance*
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 12:16:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good one Rebecca, I've been wanting to point this out to many here in this forum for a while now. They'll no doubt read it as an attack on them and their "freedom of speech to be hateful" and spin off in a completely uninteresting and irrelevant direction in their critiques of your article. Why ? Simple answer - its because they think with their personholes.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 1:21:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great piece.
I always thought so called Political Correctness was often little more than common courtesy...like, not referring to women as girls, perhaps.
If someone wants to be referred to as an Arab Australian why shouldn't they be, and if disabled is more acceptable to the disabled than crippled, well, fair enough. I have always preferred humankind to mankind, because one feels like it might include me, while the other doesn't.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 5:25:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
seether

"inclusiveness" to indoctronate hatred for infidel Australia? come down for the liberalist ivory tower and see what is happening - all other cultures have coloured Australia - immigrats have kept their culture and have become Australian, but unique Australians as Italians to Chinese... BUT, as long as Islam educates hatred for infidels, Lebanese Muslims will never see themselves as Australian.

Put on a Hijab, leanr Arabic, convert to Islam, get rid of our constitution, our courts and democratic laws seether, for its time to be liberal and respect other cultures and the rape of this our Australian culture... this is what all Muslims truely want, although you may not realise it - Islam teachers that it is the "DUTY" of a Muslim to "propagate" Islam...

If i went to Saudi Arabia i would be killed for not wearing the Hijab by the religious police!! lets be "inclusive" and adopt such a system, then we can be the minority... do you think they wil allow us to be christians - in Suadia Arabia you will be arrested and likely killed for carring a christain bible!! this is Islam in society...
Posted by Thor, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 5:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
seether

in an ideal peaceful world you are correct - liberal respect for other values would be the rigth thing to do - but where those other values mean the stoning of women for adultury, the "honour killings" for daughters who have relationships, the "beheadings" of infidels etc, the law of Islam is law to these people, and not ASustralian law... if they had the chance they would get rid of our whole socei system and take on Islamic law for this country,,, you cant be liberal when people want to do that... are we supposed to just let them do that in the name of liberalism? it just does not work.

As the people whoes ancestors built this country we do have a right to say what cultures we want here - Islam is not one of them - and as Plato wrote, the people are not educated enough to rule [vote] in their own interest, ie people like you seether - i suggest you downlaod a beheading video published on the net of islamic arabs behaeding a western man because he is an infidel - this is the lanscape lebanese muslims emigrate from - they come here form that!! they are a 'blood culture' and have no respect for women, infidles, or Australia - but you want to be nice to them and 'tolerate' them - lets see you tolerate them when they gang rape your daughter for being Australian, bash and stab your son for being Asutralian, and cut your head off for ebing an infidel - lets tolerate it all - and while we're at it, lets tolerate all the other criminals in our society whi are just 'different' and 'expressing; their culture whether it be macquarie fileds aussie culture or whatever other name - IT HAS NO PLACE IN SOCEITY, ISLAM HAS NO PLACE IN AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY!! wake up!!
Posted by Thor, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 5:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve sometimes wondered about feminism and PC.

For example:- “She's not going to wipe your father's bottom."

This statement was made earlier this year in a speech to the National Press Club by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward, who would be the No. 1 person for PC in Australia. In fact, she is paid a lot of tax payer’s money to be highly articulate, very feminist and extremely PC, so people could regard her as a type of well paid role model.

But she did not add “and he's not going to wipe your mother’s bottom”. It is possible that she did not add this as well, as it would not be PC.

So there could be some things that are feminist and PC, and some things that are just not feminist and PC. Pru could be contacted for further details.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 7:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To my Muslim brothers and sisters reading the 'extremist' bile in this forum - do not despair. Love will overcome. As an Indigenous person who knows what its like to be excluded and not considered ‘Australian’ (whatever the hell this means) , I know how you must be feeling. From me to you- you are welcome in 'my' country and we are all enriched by your presence.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your article Rebecca

Yes, there are many plusses for PC language.

Even so, the downside is quite alarming in my view. For example - the notion that Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day is going to be replaced by "Special Persons' Day". And there is a woman in Brisbane who is campaigning to stop the use of terms such as Grandma, Grandpa and the like - on the grounds that they are "too old fashioned". What next? Stop the use of Mum and Dad or Mother and Father?

I bet radical leftist feminists would be up in arms if instead of manhole - it's called womanhole!

Sadly, I think that most of this bulldust has been thought up by women.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've seen no one gagged or films censored by the Howard Govt.Free speech is alive and well as is witnessed by Rebecca's article.Where is the evidence of right wing PCism?

The weak left that concerns itself with rights and inclusive socialism,cannot exist without the strong right,that must confront the realities of the survival of all society,rather than the sensitivities and ideals of minorities.

We are into our 11th yr of economic growth and still more money for the poor than any socialist Govt could ever achieve.

Since when is raising children a neanderthal chore.Most women who work boring and menial jobs would much prefer the joy of raising a child.Ordinary jobs make up the bulk of our employment.Many women feel cheated by the womens lib movement,since they not only have to raise the children and do the housework,they have also to bring home the bacon.Women working have simply pushed up the price of housing and we are now all slaves to the banks.The result is that very few families have enough time to be just that,and thus we have marital breakdown.There are lots of intellectual activities women can be involved in while raising children.It is the most important job on this planet.It was the womens lib movement that made them feel inadaquate and enslaved them.

Why does the left always want to fix things that aren't broken
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 10:20:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been a long time campaigner against the PC movement for no reason other than the bastardisation of the English language.

For those that care to understand the language the prefix and suffix "man" is usually derived from the Latin "mannus" meaning "hand". Do the translation and it's obviously not offensive language. Work-hand, for example, gives a better understanding of the original intent of the word.

I refuse to be corrected by feminists when I'm using the language correctly. I'm not making up new words (altho I may have in the first sentence of this post).

As for other PC phrases, some are just dumb. Blind and deaf are much more succinct than sight and hearing impaired. To argue otherwise just demonstrates you are intellectually unincumbered.
Posted by chollins, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 12:53:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spendocrat,
can't say that I'd noticed the left overall being unwilling to "just lay into someone".

Certainly some well mannered people on these forums from a range of political perspectives but also some who are most noticable for the unpleasantness of their posts. The speed with which posts become personal attacks is sometimes stagering and both the left and right have their share of posters who seem to prefer the nasty personal attack over open and friendly debate. No need for a list of names I hope.

Am I missing some key point that you are trying to make? Are you suggesting that the left is unwilling to talk about issues involving minority groups which need addressing?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 7:54:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like to think that PC means Personal Courtesy. Political Correctness has a rather authoritarian sound to it. As for terms like manhole, womanhole (tee hee) and personhole - all equally ridiculous. What is wrong with access hole? (I know they are all double entendres)

However, I believe that the scorn and ridicule cast upon political correctness was just a way to be able to continue to being rude and patronising to one another eg refering to women as girls and men as little men;-).

Until now I had no idea that PC was about Left or Right wing political orientation. Far as I know lack of courtesy knows no political boundaries. Seems Rebecca wants to make it political though. Hmmm, this article is beginning to look more and more like a waste of time. All I can do is quote Bill and Ted and say

"Be excellent to one another."
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:05:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thor,

thanks for your post...think I'll join spendocrat in the *not worth it* dance.

Posted by seether, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:34:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPENDO.....
I’d much rather you did not waste a post with ‘uurgh’..... etc.
Look at what I’m really saying, and counter it with argument.

I am deliberately speaking partly ‘out’ of the discussion, and challenging many of the assumptions on which some PC is based. I am also saying “If the most important thing we can discuss is whether its a ‘personhole’ or a ‘manhole’ then we are a pitiful bunch.

I mentioned some conflicts, which if you think about them, is drawing a line in the historical sand, to show that we only have what we have today, (i.e. the relative peace in which such purile and trivial matters as person/man hole can be the center of discussion) because of such incredible struggle, so many lost lives, so much suffering... about which we say on the 11th hour of the 11th month “Lets we forget”.....please....dont ! (forget)

Its like a child, who has been given an upbringing by sacrificial parents, who does not know of what they went through and gave up just to provide for that child, and then acts as though it was nothing.. as if HE/SHE HIM/HERSELF had achieved all they now have.

Perhaps the difference between my appreciation for these things, and yours, is that I’ve lived on the edge, where the next meal you get can depend on what you can scrounge from the river, or catch in the jungle.. whether its a Cicada or a lonely prawn, or a wild pig or a monkey.... and all this mixed in with at times hostile Muslims. (many of who’s lives were saved by our medical people)
When u goto the market every day, and walk past the Muslim head man of ‘Kampung Seberang’ and know that he was the one who’s job it was to MURDER every single missionary, and white person during a local power struggle, it focuses the mind. ( he never did seem very friendly)
He was also a butcher... slaughtering buffalo every morning.

Most of us are just plain too sheltered from the real world.

Trinity, courtesy yes... pc no :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 10:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
seether: it’s the dance craze that’s sweeping the nation!

BOAZ – I ignored your previous post because I believe anyone who so cheerfully attacks all Muslims isn’t worth responding too. And as for whatever else you’re talking about, yeah, I’ve read it twice now and still have no idea what your point is, if there is one. Give me something to work with if you want a proper response.

Moving on to the actual discussion:

Those who aren’t arguing against PC language as a whole, but rather what they consider to be the more absurd examples, like ‘personhole’ or whatever: I think you’ll find many feminists and PC advocates would probably agree with you. Quite often these examples are highlighted (or even dreamt up) by the right, as a way of making the PC concept look silly. The more sensible PC advocates agree with you that some of these terms are quite dumb. Those who advocate them lack an understanding of the reasoning behind political correctness.

R0bert – you may have misunderstood, when I was speaking of debating, I wasn’t referring to this sort of forum we’re speaking on now. I was thinking more of the televised, public kind. I’ll concede my opinion of this has probably been skewed a little from certain instances dominating my memories of such debates.

And no I wasn’t saying the left was trying to avoid certain topics, not at all. I meant the MANNER in which these topics are debated by the left can be detrimental to their cause (Because of how PC language can be limiting to phrasing, etc). But anyway, it’s kind of a side-note, I just thought it was worth mentioning. Carry on folks, nothing to see here.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 11:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People are who they are and say what they say... in their own way.

They may speak harshly, truthfully, with subterfuge, behind coded smoke screens and euphemisms, with a painful patronage to exagerated delicate sensibilities, 'correcting' the discourse... whatever.

Most of that guff just clouds the message and makes it hard to say anything or understand what is being said. It gets real tedious, real fast, when one has to constantly skirt around weak and frail minds and emotive personalities in an effort to communicate in the way that the speaker does not make the listener uncomfortable. Constant self censorship, factual and political revisionism of language and generally having to think five steps ahead is tiresome. Whats wrong with saying 2+2=4 instead of 2+2-2+2*0+2=2? Its quicker and less confusing.

The point of political correctness has little (nothing?) to do with so called respect and regard for a persons emotional sensibilities and their propensity to be endlessly offended. Politics is about POWER and CONTROL. Correctness is about validating the body politic, ie validating the pursuit of power and control. In fact l would suggest that the term 'political correct' is in fact a wounderful example of a political correction. It sounds good, laudible and proper. That is the point. But it is merely a euphemism for SELF CENSORSHIP.

This is pretty much what George Orwell was on about in his seminal classic 1984, that language is a very powerful tool in CONTROLLING people. Control is at the heart of POLITICS. Once you subvert the language, definitions and discourse you control the very ability of people to think independently, because the linguistic building blocks of thought have been corrupted. Once you have removed the capacity for independent thought you essentially nueter the people's ability to express discontent and their capacity for dissent. This is to politicians what junk is to a junkie.

That is the essence of political corrections... to nueter the people and their capacity for self determination thru the process of re-engineering language and getting the people to CENSOR themselves.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 1:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redifining language is a very powerful tool in controlling a persons range of perception and their ability to conceive ideas.

Independent thought is a disease to the apparatus of centralised control and governance. The herd will not go in the same unified direction if it can think for itself. If it looks over the horizon to where the herd is headed, it will question the shephard and that is the beggining of dissent, which is cancerous to control. Enter the newspeak dictionary of linguistic revisionism... politcal correctness.

So if you want to live life under the thumb, safe, highly risk averse, non-confronting, if you need protection from yourself and your feelings then sign up for a long life of the warmth and censorious safety of the nanny state... buy youself a newspeak dictionary and STOP being a rational independently thinking human being. Embrace political correctness and discard the very thing that makes you human... your OWN consciousness.

ps. l often employ very short and sharp political corrections that are deliberately wrapped in ironic cliches and euphemisms when l want to disguise my intent or at least make my contrary challenges difficult to pin down for the intellectually lazy. When l do this in the company of acquaintences it doesn't go very far. People just switch off, take it with a grain of salt, whatever. People close to me get frustrated and cant figure out what is actually being said. My view of self censoring or cryptic political correction is that people just stop listening to each other and/or get frustrated. Its a great way for DISCONNECTING, if that is the sort of life experience one pursues.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 1:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPENDO

Firstly, I attack "Islam" not 'all muslims' there is a very important point there. Most muslims are just cultural reproductions of their parents like we are. That in itself is quite normal, but Islam as outlined in another thread, rests on a man who did some inhuman things. So it is valid to attack. Just like it is valid to declare King DAvid a murdering adulterer... because he was. But he did have remorse, and recognized the sinfulnes of his behavior. Mohammed DID NOT.
Hence. Muslims today will justify his behavior rather than condemn it. The first 'objective' of the Islamic council of Victoria is to follow the Quran 'as practiced by Mohammed'. Now, if the National Socialists of Victoria said that their goal was to treat Jews 'as practiced by Hitler'....and you were a Jew... I think you might take exception to it.

Now.. this discussion is about PC. What I was attempting to do, was show how 'small' such a discussion rates in the bigger picture of 'how we got to where we are'.

Remember I mentioned before, "All peace is the result of a war". In saying this, and in drawing a direct historical line between 'us now' and the last conflict which gave us our freedom and peace, I'm trying to illustrate how silly it is to be rabidly campaigning about 'manhole' or personhole (trinity has a good solution 'access hole' no drama with that).

But I see why the term 'man'...hole is being attacked, and by whom. It probably relates to the suggestion that such work is 'mens' work (groveling around in the sewers and what not) and the idea of 'mens work/womens work' is anathema to the marxist left and the not so marxist left. But it happens to be part of our culture. Nothing is set in rock, girls can do many things we can do, but by and large, it is a good thing to know ones role.

So, attacking this word, (and others which are valid cultural expressions of legitimate difference between male/female roles) is also attacking our culture
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 2:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point the author is trying to make is of course the manhole/personhole argument is not a big issue. It was the Right that blew it up into such a big deal, to discredit the Left but also the broader agenda that PC language was connected to - that of diversity and respect. Basically anti-PCers want to call people 'niggers' and 'dykes' and get away with it. But suddenly that became hard and man they got pissed. And let's not pretend we all don't self-censor and watch what we say - and that can sometimes be a good thing. But in the end the whole PC movement has nothing on the current government and their desire to crush opposition voices, no matter how legitimate. I reckon too this author thought a piece on PC language (with feminist undertones) would draw out the crazies with their bad logic and completely screwed view of the world good and proper. How right she was ...
Posted by rebelrebel, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 3:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rebelrebel may I assume that what you mean by "the broader agenda that PC language was connected to - that of diversity and respect" is illustrated by your description of some posters

"the crazies with their bad logic and completely screwed view of the world"

Personally I'd take the view that that kind of comment is more about wanting causes and groups you support treated with respect and to hell with what you don't support. In a similar vein as someone with no passion for the Labor party please take note that they don't have a real good reputation for supporting the freedoms of those who disagree with them. All the big parties tend to play the same games - it's just harder to see when it is being done to other viewpoints. I guess though that they are only silencing "crazies with their bad logic and completely screwed view of the world" so it does not really matter much.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 3:19:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ - you dragged me into it.

"Islam…rests on a man who did some inhumane things…so it is valid to attack." I know as little about Islam as I do about Catholicism, but I do know they are very similar fundamentally, in that you can find teachings in either to justify just about any foolish act. Of course the vast majority of followers of both these religions are peaceful and moderate. Killers or people who advocate killing can be born out of any culture, race or religion. They may use their religion to justify their acts, this does not mean the religion is to blame. No, it is not valid to attack.

“What I was attempting to do, was show how 'small' such a discussion rates in the bigger picture..” Surprisingly enough, I don’t disagree with you here. I too believe that while political correctness is important, there are far bigger issues at stake. However this does not mean the topic warrants ridicule.

“All peace is a result of war” This is a blank pointless statement that has nothing to do with anything. Please stop trying to work war into every issue.

“I'm trying to illustrate how silly it is to be rabidly campaigning about 'manhole' or personhole” No one is actually debating about which of those terms is more appropriate. You’ve completely missed the purpose of the discussion by literally interpreting this title. Chill out, no one is actually seriously attacking ‘manhole’.

“by and large, it is a good thing to know ones role” Oops! Sexist. YAWN. Prejudice is boring, get a new platform.

"But it happens to be part of our culture" Your idea of culture seems to be a bit warped too. You’re suggesting that working to stamp out sexism (and yes, defining male and female roles is sexist, no matter how you spin it) is somehow an attack on Australian culture. Here’s a list of some of the things that are wrong with that logic:

• everything.

There it is. Let me know if there’s anything else I can help you with.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 3:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert
You make a grave error when you confuse attacking the argument with disrespecting the person. I don't think it would be inaccurate to characterise Boaz's comments as a racist and off-the-wall reaction to this article. But fair call, I shouldn't be so flippant. I was just being robust in my argument, trying to 'grow a pair' as one poster encouraged. In the future, I may just be able to call Boaz a fag or a wog and be done with it. No PC police to arrest me.
Don't like the ALP? Join the club. Both parties have traditionally be less than gracious with dissenters - but this government takes the cake! But attacking the government doesn't automatically mean you are defending Labor. There's that flawed logic again ...
Posted by rebelrebel, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 4:24:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not surprised - liberalists never can address the realist content of one post here...

keep “dancing” in your ivory tower seether - you disrespect the Australian girls who WERE gang raped by Lebanese Muslims because they were Australian.

Educate yourself about Islam...

or take a walk about Lakemba, Punchbowl or Bankstown at night - let me know how peaceful and ‘Australian’ the Lebanese Muslims are you come across... ;)
Posted by Thor, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:20:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
let us not mistake it - last week Lebanese Muslims stated that they felt “betrayed” by Australia for Australia’s participation in Iraq...

I am against the war... yet I do not feel “betrayed” because I am Australian and I realise the war is not against me even though I object to it- to feel “betrayed” I would have to see myself other than Australian...

I do not have more affinity for Christians in say any other Christian country as Muslims do for Iraqis - they have more affinity for Iraqis than Australians... this says something!

I have more affinity for a Chinese Buddhist Australian - because he is an Australian - than some other Christian in some other country because I am an Australian before I am Christian - the point is these people do not see themselves as Australian, they only see themselves as Islamic, so why do you want to see them as such - they proudly call themselves “Lebs” and side with the Iraqis because they are Muslim...

...this is alarming and elucidates the ingrained thought and attitude of these people and leads to an understanding of why they can not assimilate - if they feel closer to Iraqis than Australians when they are Lebanese then what does that say!!

For those liberalists who cant quite grasp it, it means these people put Islam before Australia - and all that comes with Islam - oppression of women etc and a will to place such on our society.

It would be nice if the world were as you would like to see it where all other cultures can coexist - but if one culture wants to convert the other and uses bloody methods to that end, then it will not happen.

Anyway, address the content or shut up!!
Posted by Thor, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thor makes a good point.

People of Greek and Italian heritage say just that - they acknowledge their heritage - and then they proudly call themselves "Aussie".

Not so with Islam. They call themselves "Muslim Australians".
Posted by kalweb, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 10:55:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rebelrebel, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I have no problem with disagreeing with some of David's view points. I go there occasionally for some reason. trying to teach myself not to bother but sometimes I'm a slow learner. I personally think David's issues are to do with religion and gender and not much to do with race.

I'm not real convinced that the presence of "a pair" has much to do the ability to insult rather than discuss, nor am I convinced that personal insult is a technique that the "right" hold any patents on. Hopefully you won't decide that it helps to call David a "fag" or "wog" even if it seems like fun at the time.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 1 September 2005 8:39:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thor,
If you want to address the content, then I think you should be talking about PC – not Islam, iraq and ‘being Australian’.

R0bert, spendocrat,
Both well said. Have to agree with you both.
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 1 September 2005 11:41:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thor,

To suggest that I endorse, countenance or am in any way ambivalent to the acts or threat of violence against women is deeply offensive. There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to commit acts of violence against women (or men for that matter).

Although how you got that from my comments I can't be sure: my point was (and remains) that protection by the term "freedom of speech" seems to apply only (as Rebecca's piece gently suggests) to a group of people on one end of the spectrum at this point, and can be exclusionary of anyone deemed to be "un-Australian". Who gets to decide who that is? As I recall it, I did not suggest that 1) it was okay to incite terror; 2) it was okay to be violent towards women.

My examples were intended to illustrate that point: that a freedom-of-speech argument extends to protect those with a minority view on one side of any "buzz" issue in the current context. If you want to re-examine the argument I ran, let's put it a different way: is it really okay for anyone to advance a racial stereotype that that race finds offensive, and where do we draw that line?
Posted by seether, Thursday, 1 September 2005 12:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spendocrat:

"Killers or people who advocate killing can be born out of any culture, race or religion."

They may, yes, but it happens that 98% of terrorists are Muslims. How do you explain this?

"They may use their religion to justify their acts, this does not mean the religion is to blame."

Then what is to blame, if not the religion? Terrorists regularly tell us that they are 'fighting for Islam' - and in fact, the koran supports this view. The koran is full of incitements to fight and oppress the 'infidel' (thats us!)

Koran 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers”

Koran 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

" I know as little about Islam as I do about Catholicism, but I do know they are very similar fundamentally"

If you know little about either religion, how can you possibly make this claim? In what ways are Catholicism and Islam alike?

" in that you can find teachings in either to justify just about any foolish act. "

We are not referring to 'foolish acts' - we are discussing people who are convinced that they have the right to murder anyone who disagrees with them politically and morally. When was the last time anyone claiming to act in the name of Christianity hacked somebodys head off and posted the video? Or cut someones throat in full public view because the person had said something he disliked? Or carried out terrorists attacks killing thousands of innocent people?

“All peace is a result of war”

Freedom must be defended with eternal vigilence - peace is usually the result of defeating ones enemies, not appeasing them.
Posted by dee, Thursday, 1 September 2005 3:12:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“98% of terrorists are Muslims. How do you explain this?” It would be incredibly arrogant of me to claim to have an answer to such a complicated question. To blame Islam, of course, would be more than arrogant, it would be ignorant and moronic. Next.

“Then what is to blame, if not the religion?” I dunno...you?

Seriously though. There’s no one thing to ‘blame’. It's a vast complex culmination of factors, far too involved to even touch on within 350 words. And please don’t try to claim that the Koran incites violence any more that the Bible, you’re embarrassing yourself. What the Islamic consider ‘infidels’ aren’t any different to what Christians used to consider ‘heathens’. Of course western religion and culture is more advanced in this respect nowadays (although you may not know it looking at some of these posts), and therefore has less people interpreting this sort of thing literally. Maybe some education is the answer.

“When was the last time anyone (in the name of Christianity)…. carried out terrorists attacks killing thousands of innocent people?” This made me laugh. There's a mountain of history here, but I assume you’re looking for something recent…geez, I’m almost embarrassed to break this to you…there’s been this war going on, you may have seen it on the news…it’s already resulted in at least 10,000 innocent deaths – far more than any Islamic terrorists have managed.

Ok so war technically isn't terrorism, details details. You can’t deny Bush evokes God quite often in relation to war. But if you believe the problem is Islam, what do you suggest? There are over a billion of them out there…most of them obviously don’t follow their religion that closely, because by your logic they should be out killing all the infidels, right? But no…they just seem to be going about their peaceful daily lives, not hurting anyone…weird.

There was a time when the blame for the ills of society was placed on a popular race/religion…I think it was in the 30s. You might wanna read up on it, see how it went.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 1 September 2005 4:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Muslim terrorists say they are inspired by their religion and that it is their aim to create a 'worldwide caliphate'. I believe them.

Obviously most Muslims choose not to follow this doctrine, yet many do support the actions and beliefs of Islamic terrorists. Muslim madrassas teach hatred for the west and the glory of murdering 'infidels'. The 'clerics' preaching hatred and intolerance have moral authority within the Muslim world, and they have large audiences, as we saw in Australia recently.

" ..Koran incites violence any more than the Bible,"

The NT is the relevent 'Bible' to Christians - where does Jesus incite violence or hatred? The growth and evolution of the Christian religion is in shocking contrast to that of Islam.

In the 10 years that Mohammad lived in Medina, he either sent out, or went out, on 74 small assassination hit squads, raids, battles, or full-scale wars like the Tabuk Crusade (AD 630). After Mohammed's death, Islamic rulers embarked upon 1,500 years of conquest and subjugation through invasion and war. How do Mohammed's actions measure up against those of Jesus?

The Iraq war as an example of Christians killing Muslims - the war may very well be wrong, but this is not a question of killing Muslims simply because they are Muslims. This is not war of invasion to convert unbelievers and colonise their land.

I suggest that radical Islam be regarded in the same light as Nazism - a cancer on the world. Every country has the right, as a duty to its own citizens, to give preference to immigrants whose culture will permit integration. I dont wish to see the European/UK scenario happen in Australia, although the bombing of a police station by Lebenese Muslim gangs have brought us closer to it.. If keeping this situation out of Australia means offending Muslims, so be it.

One last point - if a country is obliged to make new laws in order to restrain the behaviour of immigrants, then the country is better off without those people.
Posted by dee, Friday, 2 September 2005 8:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoa.

People have managed to turn a discussion about PC into a discussion about Islam and terrorism and what have you.
Please, people, put down the Hickery sticks. I've read many forums, although I haven't posted on many, and I do detect some grudges. I'm sure that if I put some of you in the same room together, some eyeballs might be popped. Scary.

About PC. A long time ago, it was a force for good. I'm half Asian, so I've had to deal with some racist slang against my mother and myself. PC helped to change that quite a bit. People are more polite and more understanding.

But now it's gone way too far. "Personhole"? I think these PC people have too much time on their hands. They go after everyone.
Also, I detect some degree of double standards. PC people will harass you if you make an off-colour comment on ethnic people, but they won't bother if you insult a white person. As someone who is half white, I don't think that's a good thing. PC has gone too far. Too far!

Oh and thanks to Rebecca for a good article.
Posted by The Thieving Magpie, Friday, 2 September 2005 11:06:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are correct, Thieving Magpie. I meant to post about PC and ended up posting about radical Islam. My opinion is that bigoted language - ie, calling people 'niggers', 'wogs' etc, should be socially unacceptable, but not illegal.

Good quote from Theodore Dalrymple:

'Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to'.
Posted by dee, Saturday, 3 September 2005 2:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Discuss what is wrong with the following sentence from a biology textbook.

"We know man is a mammal because he gives birth to live young and suckles his young at his breast."
Posted by Dr Paul, Monday, 5 September 2005 12:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great comment, Dr Paul.
Some people take PC too far, but I find the new PC (favoured by the right) just as bizarre. My current favourite is "aspirational voters", don't they mean social climbers? And the right like "queue jumpers" or "illegal immigrants" while the left prefer "asylum seekers". We all spin language to support our own beliefs and denigrate those we don't agree with, whether we are on the right, the left or neither.
Originally, PC language was meant to include those who language had made invisible, like women in Dr Paul's quote above. Some misunderstood and misused it, but that doesn't make the original intention wrong. I don't like being called a Chairman much, I prefer Chair, in just the same way a bloke would probably hate to be called a Chairwoman, if that was the norm. I also loath being called Mrs husband's initial and last name, I feel I have literally ceased to exist as a separate person. Surely that's not PC, that's just my choice?
Posted by enaj, Monday, 5 September 2005 3:35:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rebecca gives the game away when she says: "...gender-neutral language was only ever an aspect of a larger feminist agenda....". Rightly said dear Rebecca! Legislating for so-called gender-neutral language is a way of enforcing the ideals of feminism, and promoting the false notion that women are in a "class war" with men. Anyone heard those words "class war" somewhere before?
Posted by mykah, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 12:29:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj - another rational down to earth post from you. Thank you. Have always thought that stating the gender of a speaker eg spokeswoman, or chairman to be completely superfluous. Keep it simple. 'Chair' or 'Speaker' is fine. This is why I suggested access-hole as resolving the ridiculous man-hole etc.

PC should simply be about courtesy. However it has been hijacked and ridiculed in order that some people can remain disrespectful. As you say, enaj everyone wants to put their own spin on it.

Still I request "Be excellent to one another"
Posted by Trinity, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 7:42:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A snippet from a not very famous play. RB: a parady of Bruce Ruxton and Sir Joh, Interviewer: Jana Wendt...oh, I think PC is one of the 'new' bains of our world (meaning oz) along with Islamists and...far out 'man' there are too many...*he he he*

RB: The money I make belongs to my family and me; not some looser who can’t find work or some lesso, pinko drug-addict poofter! My Goodness gracious me, you give people like that an inch, they’ll take a bloody mile: all they’ll do is squirt out more and more babies so they can get more welfare to purchase more drugs! They should all be shot! Welfare will be this country’s downfall, mark my words.

Interviewer: Interesting, and gun laws?

RB: look lassie, it’s a well known fact that it’s not guns that makes one a killer; I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a cricket bat or a car just as easily, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the WACA are they?

Interviewer: I hesitate to ask, rights for minorities?

RB: With regard to feminism, and homosexuals well, I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, which is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia it is an opinion. I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like Abstudy, the Deadly Awards, and Noongar Entertainment Television. Try to have things like White Entertainment Television, or Miss White Australia and see what happens: Charlie Perkins and Yagan, even the bloody enigmatic Waugal will rise from their graves and watering hole and they’ll be knocking down your door! Listen, it’s a plain and simple fact, when 70% of the people who are arrested are black, in communities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the law of statistics
Posted by puzzlesthewill, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 11:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interviewer: Members of the female gender make up more than 50% of the population Mr. Buxom, how can you class them as a minority?

RB: Hmmm, yes, well, I’ll be back in a tick lassie, I need to drain the snake…

Interviewer: Ok, moving along to border protection…ho…
RB: (interrupting) Look, I believe that if you are selling me a milk shake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper, or a hotel room, you must do it in English! In fact, if you want to be an Australian citizen you should have to speak English! I and my father before me, should not have to fight in vain so refos can leave the countries they were born in and come over here and disrespect ours. We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document and open to their interpretations.
Interviewer: OK, so you’re against any immigration or just the intake of refuges?
RB: No, nothing…buggar the lot of ‘em! Furthermore, I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programmes, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.
Interviewer: OK. What about the increasing intolerance in Australia today, how would you, if you won government, tackle that issue?
RB: Look missy, I didn’t come down in the last shower you know, I can see what you are trying to do, you’re trying to entrap me!
Interviewer: Not at all Mr. Buxom, I am merely trying to ascertain your opinions on certain issues…
Posted by puzzlesthewill, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 11:31:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...
RB: OK then, you want my opinion: I know wrestling is fake, but so are movies and almost everything you see on television, and that doesn't stop you from watching them. I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Coffin Cheater with an attitude. I think Bill Gates and Kerry packer have every right to keep every cent they made and continue to make more. It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid and smack their bum when necessary and say NO.I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. Moreover, please stay home until that new lip ring heals, I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me my hamburger… sorry, an Aussie burger, with egg and beetroot and BBQ sauce! I am sick of Political Correctness and of all the suck ups that go along with it. I am a politician for the people. I am a politician void of political correctness, and that my dear: possessing that tenet, as my dogma is the very reason why I will win! I am very proud to be from Australia, I wouldn’t want to be from anywhere other stinking country. These ramblings have been my opinion; if you don't like my point of view, don’t vote for me!
Interviewer: Thankyou Mr Buxom, I will not be voting for you

Political Correctness (affirmative action) along with many facets, not all, but many, of multiculturalism are ripping at the very fabric of our nation. PC should be seen for what it is: Pretentious Courtesy. Don’t be afraid to call a women a sheila or a mate, don’t be afraid to state anything that is blindingly obvious: Islamists and all the other religious zealots are the scourge of the Earth, it’s about time we purge them from the Earth.

Have a nice day!
Posted by puzzlesthewill, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:54:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My understanding of politcal correctness is that it is about keeping irrelevant considerations out of politcal debate. For instance: colour, sexuality, class, disability, life-situation, etc. have little to do with the gist say a person who is arguing to save the the largest pumpkin on earth from being blown up so that it doesn't turn into a carriage and take the cheap labour away to pretentiously mix with the weathly aristocrats who would be just as cruel as her older step sisters if they knew that she was a dependant on dependent beauty rather than her natural prettinees that the chimney sweep loved so dearly about her, but, alas, because he wasn't allowed to the rich side of town because, even though he was the best match for her, he was male cheap labour and male cheap labour is not as romantic as female cheapness. So the male cheap labour got together to blow up the carriage, even though it was the world's largest pumpkin (and could turn into a carriage). During that discussion about the best way to blow up the world's largest pumpkin, someone noted that the chimney sweep was an immigrant and so they changed their minds and wrote to OOL for a grumble.
One day as cheap labour was wandering the streets she the chimney sweep alone amongst strangers. Love blossomed and problem how to get rid of Prince Gayone. Soon the town folk learned he was gay and he had to run far, far away to Sydney.
And that boys and girls is how political correctness could have saved the world from irrelevant incorrectness that has nothing to do with ethical outcomes and stopped the destruction of very fairy tale.

What!
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 8 September 2005 3:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy