|
Morticia
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: 18:21:00, 16-09-2008 » |
|
Well put, strina. An good comparison/observation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #76 on: 19:46:12, 16-09-2008 » |
|
Clear Inspiration For Political CorrectnessThe declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values. Philip Atkinson http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm Mmm! There may be something in some of that - I don't know! I'm still thinking it though. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Dahm
|
|
« Reply #77 on: 20:22:42, 16-09-2008 » |
|
It sounds completely asinine to me. Just because a view is contrary to that of a preceding generation doesn't automatically make it a reaction to the preceding generation. Succession is too often seen as cause-and-effect. The line of reasoning as represented in that quote is so full of holes that there's not really much left to hold onto.
Political correctness is an attempt to ensure that all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, disability, etc are treated with human dignity and respect. The monster that has reared its head in Modern Times is that people have lost sight of the 'dignity' part of it, and are concerned with 'PC'-ness for its own sake.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
harmonyharmony
|
|
« Reply #78 on: 20:50:42, 16-09-2008 » |
|
See here for details of this self-proclaimed champion of 'the vanishing wisdom of humanity'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'is this all we can do?' anonymous student of the University of Berkeley, California quoted in H. Draper, 'The new student revolt' (New York: Grove Press, 1965) http://www.myspace.com/itensemble |
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #79 on: 20:52:29, 16-09-2008 » |
|
It sounds completely asinine to me. Just because a view is contrary to that of a preceding generation doesn't automatically make it a reaction to the preceding generation. Succession is too often seen as cause-and-effect. The line of reasoning as represented in that quote is so full of holes that there's not really much left to hold onto.
Political correctness is an attempt to ensure that all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, disability, etc are treated with human dignity and respect. The monster that has reared its head in Modern Times is that people have lost sight of the 'dignity' part of it, and are concerned with 'PC'-ness for its own sake.
It's difficult to see how any rational person could disagree with anything you said in par. 2. But I'm not so sure that what you said in par. 1 can be so easily accepted (and that is the bit that got me thinking). All the aspirations that PC insists upon (detailed in your par. 2) are values formally accepted in our own generation (despite certain lingering prejudices that remain "institutional"). But these were the very values that were rejected previously (hence the need for the PC-isms to which you allude). Now it seems to me that when one generation - fully schooled within the conventions of the previous one within which it grew up - assumes the power to reject those values and adopt other ones, this can only amount to a rebellion upon its part against those previous values. (Indeed, most of those mentioned have taken very many generations to overcome and change.) I am therefore wondering whether the actual motivation for these changes was quite as noble as we should like to believe (even though we are sure we have, through them, arrived at an incipiently fairer society). I am still not totally convinced that there ever came a completely innocent and above board reason for changing direction apart from gradually rejecting (whether as "spoilt children" or not) the values of our parents and their generation. While this I feel might weaken the conviction and momentum of bringing about these changes, it might also actually explain why some prejudices remain, and why certain reactionary views remain apparently "institutionalised" (i.e. by certain parts of Society that are not quite so willing to reject the values of their parents and forebears). Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 20:54:07, 16-09-2008 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel
|
|
« Reply #80 on: 00:44:09, 19-09-2008 » |
|
The mods have suggested that the following message in the Welcome Section may have the effect of putting off newcomers, so I have opted to place it here instead. Welcome, wympqz. There are some very funny people who visit this forum, some very intelligent, some less so (at which point I should say a personal hello), some considerate, some eccentric, many fascinating and sort of just-pleased-that-they-are-there types And there is Swan Knight, who is very concerned that 'other' people (he does not include himself) are too quickly criticised without proper investigation or understanding of their intention, when they use terms of deeply offensive racial abuse about large groups of people they have never even met. He feels that there may be a small number of these who are not aware that such words can cause offence. He appears to feel that the attempts to stop such people using racially offensive language about people they have never even met, makes his world a greyer place. So you can see it is quite a mixed bunch, and I have personally found a lot of pleasure to be derived from it. Hope you'll join in.  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:35:38, 20-09-2008 by Daniel »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #81 on: 11:49:01, 20-09-2008 » |
|
Daniel seems to have developed some sort of advanced schoolboy passion for me, which I find myself unable to reciprocate. However, if he or one of his friends would like to supply me with his address, I don't mind forwarding a signed photograph to him, so he can abuse himself in private and not embarrass himself on a public forum. Only question is, how old is Daniel? About 12, I'd guess, from his tactics and his writing style. I wouldn't want to do anything that might be construed as corrupting a minor.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
Daniel
|
|
« Reply #82 on: 12:22:11, 20-09-2008 » |
|
Swan_Knight, you're quite right, I can be very immature and am often very uncertain about my judgement, even though I am a little older than twelve. I infer from your superciliousness that you yourself suffer from no such problems. Swan_Knight has asked me to remove the reference to him in my above message, as he says he was only clarifying the position of people who use racist terminology, and that he does not use racist terminology himself in his own conversation. And reading through his posts, he is quite right about the first part of that statement, clarifying 'other' people's position is on the face of it all that he appears to be doing. So therefore I have edited the above message in an adolescent manner that sadly gives away a secret passion for Swan_Knight that I was trying to hide. I cannot comment on the second part. Swan_Knight, in your very first post on this subject, you place a list of words that you know are deeply offensive, on a public forum where anybody can read them, when you could have easily placed one or two asterisks in them, greatly changing the possible impression that you don't care about the effect they have, but you chose not to. Knowing that these words in whatever context DO offend people, you show no sign of caring at all about it. So I think it is not completely inaccurate to say that you don't appear to care about offending large groups of people you have never met, with racially offensive language. Your only expressed concern is for those who use such words, not for those who are the target of them. You are apparently bothered more that the users are criticised too quickly, without proper consideration for their motivation or intention, than that people are deeply wounded and incensed by them. Or is that not true? Anyway, an injustice that Swan_Knight felt had been perpetrated on him has been righted perhaps gracelessly and disingenuously (I admit that I am struggling to hang on to my manners a little) by my editing my first post. And briefly on the subject of 'injustice', let me take the 'n' word, a word that Swan-Knight is fully aware has many connotations of such - lynchings, rape, inhuman abuse and slavery, and see what Swan_Knight asks about it: . And no one has yet explained to me why calling a person of African origin a 'nigger' is any worse than calling someone from Manchester a 'Manc'.
In the light of Swan_Knight's own presumed understanding of the real difference (outside of some semantic game), I find this disgusting. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #83 on: 12:23:22, 20-09-2008 » |
|
Daniel seems to have developed some sort of advanced schoolboy passion for me, which I find myself unable to reciprocate. However, if he or one of his friends would like to supply me with his address, I don't mind forwarding a signed photograph to him, so he can abuse himself in private and not embarrass himself on a public forum. Only question is, how old is Daniel? About 12, I'd guess, from his tactics and his writing style. I wouldn't want to do anything that might be construed as corrupting a minor. This post is a disgrace and should be removed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
Daniel
|
|
« Reply #84 on: 12:44:13, 20-09-2008 » |
|
If it is at all relevant I am quite happy that it stays, as being from Swan_Knight it doesn't bother me. It seems to be the way he manages to deal with world.
(And er, despite my writing style, I AM a lot older than 12, so there is nothing sinister going on, I think.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #85 on: 12:45:48, 20-09-2008 » |
|
If it is at all relevant I am quite happy that it stays, as being from Swan_Knight it doesn't bother me. It seems to be the way he manages to deal with world.
(And er, despite my writing style, I AM a lot older than 12, so there is nothing sinister going on, I think.)
It may be ok with you Daniel, and that does you credit in a way, but the rest of us shouldn't have to read it thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #86 on: 12:54:29, 20-09-2008 » |
|
The Moderation Team have received several complaints about the following post and it will be discussed later when the other Mods have logged in. Thanks. Daniel seems to have developed some sort of advanced schoolboy passion for me, which I find myself unable to reciprocate. However, if he or one of his friends would like to supply me with his address, I don't mind forwarding a signed photograph to him, so he can abuse himself in private and not embarrass himself on a public forum. Only question is, how old is Daniel? About 12, I'd guess, from his tactics and his writing style. I wouldn't want to do anything that might be construed as corrupting a minor.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Swan_Knight
|
|
« Reply #87 on: 12:56:47, 20-09-2008 » |
|
You must do as you think fit, Milly.
However, Daniel would seem to have a particular bee in his bonnet about my comments earlier on this thread. Maybe he's just peeved that I didn't give him my attention when he wrote attacking my views (albeit in civil language) earlier in the week. As he mentions, I asked him politely to remove a posting that the mods had asked him to remove earlier; he didn't respond, leaving me to assume that he was intent on initiating a public spat with me - which he duly got, though maybe one that it was beyond his powers of invective to pursue.
Unlike Daniel, though, I don't have the time, or the inclination, to engage in personal vendettas, either online or off-line. I contacted him first, because I believe in fighting my own battles and not running to the mods whenever I see something I don't like. But I think his attempt to cloak himself in virtue, as the wronged party, is a bit rich, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #88 on: 13:00:25, 20-09-2008 » |
|
You must do as you think fit, Milly.
However, Daniel would seem to have a particular bee in his bonnet about my comments earlier on this thread. Maybe he's just peeved that I didn't give him my attention when he wrote attacking my views (albeit in civil language) earlier in the week. As he mentions, I asked him politely to remove a posting that the mods had asked him to remove earlier; he didn't respond, leaving me to assume that he was intent on initiating a public spat with me - which he duly got, though maybe one that it was beyond his powers of invective to pursue.
Unlike Daniel, though, I don't have the time, or the inclination, to engage in personal vendettas, either online or off-line. I contacted him first, because I believe in fighting my own battles and not running to the mods whenever I see something I don't like. But I think his attempt to cloak himself in virtue, as the wronged party, is a bit rich, to say the least.
During discussions about deeply-held issues that can become emotive in the extreme, things very often get out of hand. Civility should be aimed for at all costs if possible but I accept that we all slip from time to time. Your post however was beyond a step too far. Very nasty. Grandma Whitehouse |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #89 on: 14:22:45, 20-09-2008 » |
|
We find words expressing violence, war, aggression, immorality, and gruesome things in general, twenty times more "deeply offensive" than any mere nick-names for classes of people.
Yet there is no movement to ban or eliminate such language, as far as we are aware.
Indeed if we glance at the poetry thread we find certain "poets" - especially Northern American ones - enjoying and glorifying what is violent, warlike, aggressive, immoral, and/or gruesome. In disgust and distaste we avert our eyes from the page or the screen when we encounter that sort of all too common thing!
We strongly suspect therefore that the proscription of all the "offensive terms" denoting those groups and classes of society whose members are already weaker or disadvantaged is a mere diversion or ploy; or at worst some kind of clumsy attempt to control the thoughts of that large section of the population which does not care to think for itself.
The reality remains that a typically promiscuous "n*ncy b*y" (good) is now no more likely to become Prime Minister or Archbishop than he has been in the past (bad)!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
