The Forum > General Discussion > How Corect is Politcaly Correct?
How Corect is Politcaly Correct?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 9 September 2012 6:35:12 PM
| |
Belly, how sure are you that PC actually stops some of those debates?
You may need to be more specific as to where PC has stopped freedom of speech on that issue (or most). There are certainly those who try to divert those discussions from the issues you are concerned about back to the bullet point stereotypes which help their agendas and which often looks like PC but without official backing its in my view a dirty tactic rather than PC. There is also the difficulty in the line between fact and intepretation of "fact" when we get to debate. Often our facts are mixed up with a broader group of opinions and some confirmation bias, statements touted as fact may well be a bit of fact combined with generalisations which just dont apply in a lot of situations. Those who are not closely impacted by one side of an issue may have little empathy for those on the downside of that issue but may have a lot of empathy for the other side especially if sterotypes are at play. I'm not convinced that PC actually shuts down a lot of debate (especially on OLO) but there are a lot of factors which do make it hard to havea worthwhile discussion of some issues. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Monday, 10 September 2012 7:39:19 AM
| |
Belly raises a very interesting question; the more so because there's no clear right or wrong answer.
Here's my take. There are indeed some things that as a society we should require not be said. I think racist insults can be an example. Encouragement of violence, especially against the weak is another. But should such strictures be enforced? I believe, not by law. i say that because this is, in a sense, a moral issue, and society's efforts to legislate a moral position do not have a record of success, e.g, prohibition, drugs, etc. So, if not by law, then how? This, for me, is the crux of the matter. I believe such goals should be met by us all as a society recognizing that freedom and responsibility are two words that mean the same thing. So, if we are to be free as individuals to speak our minds, and I believe we should, then we must individually accept responsibility for the consequences of our words. Anthony http://www.observationpoint.com.au Posted by Anthonyve, Monday, 10 September 2012 10:00:08 AM
| |
I'm right with you on this one Belly.
Robert it is some of the PC legislation under which Andrew Bolt was stopped from talking about the phenomena of white aboriginals. This is a typical use of PC, & perhaps the most damaging legislation on the books. We can no longer live by that old ditty, "sticks & stones may brake my bones, but names will never heart me", thanks to PC legislation. It is a very good way for the con men to make a quid, & prevent any public exposure of their rip off. Exactly the same thing is going on in the "multicultural" communities, with many cons not investigated, for fear of getting caught by this bit of bleeding heart rubbish. Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 10 September 2012 10:11:50 AM
| |
Belly and Hasbeen
I agree with you, take the illegal boat arrivals as another example. They are illegal and yet they are called differently to portray them as poor victims and get sympathy for them , when in fact they are liars, cheats and gate crashers who take advantage of us. Then what about the non disclosure of ethnicity in relation to street crime and violence, How long did it take to reveal that the Indian students being bashed and robbed was being done by Lebs in sydney and Africans in Melbourne. Politicians do not help with the ammount of spin and lies they tell. Only this week the PM and Treasurer were smearing Gina Rinehart by telling outright lies about what she said. Disgusting. Posted by Banjo, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:00:17 AM
| |
Banjo,
Now, here's an irony. Your post is a perfect example of why we need to take care with our use of language. Your assertions are pejorative, demeaning, (not least of yourself), and, worst of all, just plain wrong. To give one example of your error, refugees are not, both in law and by international convention, 'illegal'. Ironic indeed. Anthony http://www.observationpiont.com.au Posted by Anthonyve, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:17:40 AM
| |
refugees are not, both in law and by international convention, 'illegal'.
Anthonyve, Yes we're all aware of that. I suppose what most of want to know is what you'd call those who come here as refugees but aren't. Like the one who was on one of the boats, said he's not running away, he just wants to go to Australia. Would you classify them as refugees or as illegals ? What about those who get all the way to Indonesia but then suddenly somehow lose their papers. I call them illegals, what do you call them ? Posted by individual, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:34:53 AM
| |
Individual,
Sighh... this is getting boring. Look, I don't have to describe him. We have a process, established by UN charter, to establish whether refugee claims are valid. But that process specifically prohibits an assumption of illegality without verification. Anthony http://www.observationpoint.com.au Posted by Anthonyve, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:57:27 AM
| |
Banjo I too take issue with you on your comments re just what Gina said, lies?
The lady is un Australian! heard her every word did you? Anthony, differ here, yes some things should not be said. In saying that I both underline my own case, and preserve peace. I despise Bolt. But lets look, do any of us question why we, every single one of us, can trace back to ancestors from Africa. And in my case 4 British Islands country's, see the 1/7th Aboriginals saying they can not be questioned? Why? race, culture, or benefits. Why must I contain a genuine fear Muslim Migration is unwise and a threat. Are my opinions protected as much as those who hide behind the PC barrier. Is PC a protection from truth? a barrier to free speech. Post the election Labor lost to Howard, a Nation wide question and answer meeting was held. 25 people told our facilitator we are sick of PC.I remain sick of every form of it. Once under a Liberal much loved leader, indeed its maker, Sir Robert Menzies. A man not even Howard equaled in knowing what voters want, he failed to get a referendum up to Ban the Communist party. Todays PC blinded country may have passed it. See we let fools like communists Nazis and much more walk our street but damn ordinary folk for? not being PC. Posted by Belly, Monday, 10 September 2012 12:01:44 PM
| |
Sighh... this is getting boring.
Anthonyve, I just hope you'll find it less boring when you're under the yoke. I suspect you actually want that. Posted by individual, Monday, 10 September 2012 12:37:38 PM
| |
It's really not that difficult, Belly… Just make a point of avoiding injurious words in public discourse.
For example, it's why you wouldn't talk about sluts – whether male or female – who are acting like slags and producing rug grubs whilst expecting or demanding taxpayer support. But you could describe them as fecundily inappropriate. Originally the term politically correct meant the consideration of using gender neutral or inclusive terms. Firefighters, unless you are talking about a specific fireman or firewoman – that sort of thing. Those who rail against PC (just to be clear, I do not include you) are usually too stupid or lazy to make the effort and realise that politically correct speech can actually be great fun since it encourages creativity in expression – 'pigmentally challenged' might just be a description of the situation in which redheads find themselves under the Australian sun. Maximum points are obtained when you insult a fwit without them realising it or thinking it a compliment. Just make any point you want without resorting to unnecessarily offensive descriptions or inexact expressions. Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 10 September 2012 12:41:15 PM
| |
Hasbeen I've not chased down the detail but my understanding is that they got Bolt on issues of factual correctness of claims made about specific issues rather than a general "you can't talk about that topic". There is obviously plenty of debate about the correctness of his claims and the background to them as well as the appropriateness of the penalty but its still a different issue to PC prohibitions about topics.
I don't mind some kind on limits about what can be said about individuals especially where one has access to the kind of public space Bolt has. I'd need to be more confident in the detail to have a strong view about the application of the limits in Bolts case. More to the point it is possible to talk about issues if race and other topics in public without being immediately at risk of penalty. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Monday, 10 September 2012 2:28:49 PM
| |
Those arriving by boat from Indonesia or Sri Lanka are illegal.
The government says so. The Immigration Dept describes them so. Try arriving in a non "Port of Entry" and see what happens. That they are claiming to be refugees under threat does not change their status. It is not politically incorrect to call them illegal. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 10 September 2012 2:34:17 PM
| |
Antony and individual,
Sorry, been to town. See link to DIAC below. http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/about/background.htm Now look up a dictionary, 'unlawfull' means the same as illegal, so they are committing an illegal actby entering Australia without a valid visa. No if or buts about that, we require all non citizens to have a valid visa to enter, it is against our law not to do so. the illegals are breakin out law. Even the UN says intending refugee must obey a countries laws, they have no right to go wherever they like. Why do you suppose we can, and do, lock them up? Because they are breaking our laws, we do not detain those that enter legally, do we? Those that arrive legally and then apply for asylum are free to go whilst their application is being assesed. It is getting tiring to have to keep repeating this as the illegals advocate do not seem to be able to comprehend the simple fact. Last month I had this out with david f Posted by Banjo, Monday, 10 September 2012 2:45:26 PM
| |
Belly,
Yes I did see and hear exactly what Gina said and the attempted smears by Gillard and Swan. Gina made the point that wages are cheaper in Africa and we should consider our costs here if we want continued mining investment here. Martin Ferguson understood what she said perfectly and agreed. Gillard and Swan each tried to spin that into Gina advocating Aussies work for $2 a day. What liars they are. We all know our mine workers are very well paid. By the way, if you wish to check, Bolt has the vids of Gina, Gillard, Swan and Ferguson all on his blog yesterday. Gillard is a patholodgical liar, she cannot help herself. Posted by Banjo, Monday, 10 September 2012 3:01:11 PM
| |
RObert>> Belly, how sure are you that PC actually stops some of those debates? You may need to be more specific as to where PC has stopped freedom of speech on that issue (or most).<<
Belly is correct; we have been manipulated into a scenario where it has become etiquette not to discuss counter arguments to the PC view on the subject. The forums are open for all viewpoints so the act of stifling an opinion has not yet been enacted,(Remember the threats to the freedom of our press from the Fabians in Canberra only a few months ago.) Political correctness can only flourish if the public servants are on board, and these public servant positions have been filled by the Fabians regardless of which party is in power. So it does not matter what we say, we get what they say. So counterpoint discussion is still rife, but it is like piddling into the wind because neither party has the will for common sense. RObert in regard to the line between fact and interpretation, most politically correct mandates stop verbs, they stop us doing things. I would like the decision on whatever the “PC prohibition” concerns to be put into a percentage. That is: We prohibit this action or interaction because it affects 22% of the population. I know you would find that many of the PC prohibitions would be fractions when talking about effect. We stop 99.5% of the population doing this because .5% object, but I am free to whinge about it. Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 10 September 2012 4:37:00 PM
| |
I remain convinced the extreme left, and the extremely under informed impose PC on us.
Leave, but we should not have to, boat people and Gina,s view a starving work force is needed for our country,s sake. Why Ms instead of Miss. Why do we hide Christian crosses at Christmas. Why must we focus on the gigantic issues not the every day mundane ones PC intrudes on? Is truth of value, is free speech, can both be by passed by the need to act PC? YES How can within the known for century's bounds of decency, speech be not correct. I am not looking to pillory politicians, on any side. My firm view those behind PC are in no way Representative of the most, but use this tool to silence us. Posted by Belly, Monday, 10 September 2012 5:37:55 PM
| |
belly,
Comon, Gina did not say anything like that, nor imply it. She was talking about the cost of mining here. Just like many of our industries went to Asia, because costs were lower, so mining investment can go elsewhere if our costs get too high. I can get the video links up if you want. What is your opinion of Martin Fergurson? he had no problem with Gina's words. Posted by Banjo, Monday, 10 September 2012 11:00:36 PM
| |
Banjo not because I want the thread to be a big one.
But as is always my reason for posting one, I want to see the subject given air. For that reason I will not further divert the thread, last word here, if you want to talk about it start a thread. So many flee any thread about politics. Others if its about religion, maybe some PC thoughts have infiltrated our life for century,s. Like all PC we must judge why, to stop us speaking the truth? To hide the truth. To bend the truth? Protect just plain wrong? When is truth lessor to PC. Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 5:07:43 AM
| |
Hi All,
This is from a training program that is widely used by recruitment agencies to train & select staff. <<Sexual Harassment and the Law Everyone has the right to be safe and free from harassment while at work. Behaviour that is sexually offensive to somebody else in the workplace is against the law, and all workplaces and employees are responsible for keeping the work environment free from inappropriate sexual conduct. Sexual conduct that amounts to sexual harassment includes a number of things. Making any gesture, action or comment of a sexual nature in another person’s presence is sexual harassment,even if the person you’re talking about can’t hear your comments – that’s right, they don’t even need to hear your comment or see your actions. You might think this is taking the harassment thing a bit too far. After all, if the person you’re talking about can’t hear you there’s no harm done right? Wrong! Behaving in this way isn’t good for anybody. It can make your workmates uncomfortable, who might not agree with your conduct, and may find it offensive.Aside from being against the law, inappropriate sexual behaviour is so not welcome in today’s workplace!>> Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 6:02:39 AM
| |
Ahhh, but then what is inappropriate ?
Some behaviour I have seen condemned means that many of us would not be here ! Men have been harassing women since time began. Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 8:39:00 AM
| |
Bazz and what to some is harassment is to others a right and or necessity.
I consider the amount taken by CSA and given to my ex (curently around $17,500pa after tax without any monitoring of use) financial abuse. Because it suits some peoples agendas my objections and lack of consent is dismissed. That is one of the problems with a lot of this stuff, it gets very subjective, some peoples sensitivities and rights to control over their own lives are considered far more important than that if others. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 9:13:06 AM
| |
Belly,
OK no prblems. I get particularly incenced when media are reluctant to say what ethnicity or otherwise describe persons that are involved in crime, The SMH is one of the worst at this. It is simply because they do not wish to offend somebody. Look at the restrictions that were placed on victorian police by the former commissioner. I was very upset about the bashings and robberies of the Indian students. Our authorities were willing to allow the world media to portray the attacks as racially motivated and carried out by anglo Aussies, when in fact they were carried out by ethnic groups with robbery as the motive. We need to work at eliminating PC by exposing it whenever we come across it and work toward truth and straight talking. Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 10:45:44 AM
| |
Here's another nice little PC inspired initiative (Multiculturalism PHASE TWO)
“A children's play centre has barred fathers from attending with their children and is now facing an investigation by equality watchdogs. Kids Go Wild is believed to be the first such play centre in the country to introduce a ‘women only’ policy – which also bans boys over the age of nine. Bosses at the centre, which opened less than a fortnight ago, claim the policy was instigated for ‘cultural reasons’ and was in the interests of the ‘predominantly Asian’ local community.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185041/Fathers-banned-play-centres-women-decree.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DAndy%2BDolan Wait till the Greenies get to hear about this, it will at the top of their *progressive* agenda. Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 11:39:46 AM
| |
SPQR thanks, a good every day look at PC.
Some spend more time seeing grand parents are not taking photos of their G kids on the Beach than insuring they are safe in the water. Men are being driven out of teaching for the same reasons. A great deal of PC comes from Blond women. Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 12:02:16 PM
| |
If we read the link and consider its content, we see how far we have traveled from the time this PC stunt was introduced.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/287100.html And its all down hill! Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 6:17:44 PM
| |
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm
I will, yet again, be in trouble, ignored, for this link. It takes PC head on, and is far from PC. Even tells us about MULTI CULTURES! Struth! get a stick and chase me under the veranda! How dare I! It is a no no, telling it like it is. Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 6:25:06 PM
| |
Ray Mangum on Political Correctness:
http://anarchyandculture.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-01T00_49_15-07_00 The Ideology Of Totalitarian Humanism, by Keith Preston. http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-ideology-of-totalitarian-humanism/ A Leftist Critique Of Political Correctness, by Jeremy Weilland. http://socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2012/06/12/a-leftist-critique-of-political-correctness/ Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 6:31:20 PM
| |
Seek and you will find.
The headlines may not tell it all. But raids have taken place folk have been arrested, one charged. Under Australian terrorism laws. Now it is a truth no one may be convicted. But the PC blanket has been put in place. In their habitual way, it is just that! An Islamic Council meeting this weekend. Has put fourth this view, we are not all terrorist/Australia,s terrorist laws are a disgrace. Others too, briefly, just before stamping on the Chest of us all, including them selves, say it. We are not all terrorists, and they most certainly are not! Yet the[aways there] follow up informs us they fear being branded as such. Let us be clear. The idiots who blame ALL MUSLIMS are of as much use to this country as the primitive brain dead who are planning terrorist acts. And those nice folk who dragged Americans to their deaths . PC is but a weapon miss used by the lessor folk. Do we call the idiot who made the film to order? or just as we have done for years refuse to take him/her as other than a fool. Posted by Belly, Friday, 14 September 2012 5:13:52 AM
|
Even the pursuit of truth is stymied by the thought we should not say that, why?
I have no problem with people telling me my side of politics is on the nose.
But my questions about unnecessary waste, even payments that should not be paid in Social Welfare snag in the PC web.
Just what is PC?
Why is it good to hide truth, why indeed is PC good?