13085
Post by: jackinthetank
You sir, have made me happy my creating this thread.
I know about problems regarding Political Correctness however I find it a subject that is too iffy to discuss on a forum where some users may be offended.
Many thanks,
Jack.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Totally agree. I guarantee almost every "It's PC gorn maaddd!!!" or "Health and Safety nazis" story you care to read about in the press consists of either:
Exaggerations
Comments or circumstances take totally out of context
Outright lies
or more likely a combination of all 3. The 'Winterville' myth which is trotted out year after by the right wing press was shown to be total bollocks years ago and yet is still writen about is a classic example of this.
Every year were are warned of the governments and liberal lefts 'war on Christmas'. Yet every year it passes by without incident, nobody gets nicked for buying a tree and the money made by the shops goes up and up. Basically people with agendas are lying to us.
Heres another classic example from a couple of years ago. Ive taken the text from a blog:
To blatantly steal another story from the Eye, it follows the emergence of the claims that the Healey Primary School in Rochdale had "banned Christmas cards" when they had in fact asked parents to send just one card to a whole class. A spokeswoman for the school added:
“The cost of so many cards is prohibitive for some families and we feel that children are often pressurised to act in the same way as their peers.”
Incredibly similar then to the story from last year about JobCentres in Tower Hamlets which had "banned" Christmas decorations when they had actually not put them up because they were concerned it might upset some of the families that weren't able to afford decorations themselves. A questionable decision perhaps, but not to avoid offending people of other faith as it was rapidly turned into. The Rochdale school hasn't banned the sending of cards, just gave a suggestion. The school is also putting on three Christmas productions and a carol service, so it's certainly nothing to do with political correctness either.
The Eye mentions how it was featured in the Express (which I can't find online) and in the Star which ignored all the facts with its front-page headline "Ban on Christmas cards in case they upset Muslims!", but the story was still working its way around Fleet Street up till yesterday, when the Daily Mail featured it alongside a quote from Nick Seaton, the chairman of "Campaign for a Real Education", whose pseudo-manifesto recommends that "Circle Time" (a more grown-up version of show and tell involving discussion, and completely harmless) shouldn't be allowed in schools and that drug and sex education, if provided at all, should aim at prevention, not harm reduction:
So the school makes a faily sensible decision given that:
Many of the pupils are from poor area and xmas cards are pricey.
Kids giving out 20-30 cards each is disruptive, causes lots of litter and is time consuming.
It's rapidly turns into a polarity contest with tears and tantrums when for whatever reason Timmy gets less cards than Tommy.
Yet as soon as the press get hold of it, it becomes:
"School bans Christmas cards" A total Exaggeration given that they done nothing of the sort.
and from one utter rag:
"Ban on Christmas cards in case they upset Muslims!" A complete and total lie. A lie told with the sole intention of stirring up racial tensions.
Show me a PC gone mad story and I'll show you a lying bastard with a twisted agenda.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You can't have Halloween parties in elementary school. The teachers, with implicit approval of the principals have "spider day" where they discuss spiders and other insects. Everyone brings a home made spider model. If kids accidentally dress in "alternative clothing options" and kids homeroom moms show up with surplus baked goods celebrating a previous brithday, well, there you go.
241
Post by: Ahtman
jackinthetank wrote:I know about problems regarding Political Correctness however I find it a subject that is too iffy to discuss on a forum where some users may be offended.
I find this characterization offensive. 
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Political Correctness is a lie. It is a myth perpetuated by the Right Wing Gutter Press, as they are now no longer allowed to attack people based on Colour, Creed, Gender or Sexual Persuasion. They cannot say [ see forum posting rules], Spik, Wog, Wop, Kraut, Frog, Nip, Poof, Queer, Queen, Rag Head, Towel Head, Paki etc, so they claim some sort of lefty conspiracy to force everyone to have a Nergoplasty. Lying bunch of witches. *wow! All of those cuss words and only the N word was blocked. I guess Dakka has a handle on it!
221
Post by: Frazzled
I find your connotation of witches and lying offensive. 
9132
Post by: PanamaG
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
*wow! All of those cuss words and only the N word was blocked. I guess Dakka has a handle on it!
Hahaha exactly!!!
4042
Post by: Da Boss
hah! I made an accidental clone because I missed your post. Sorry! Mine's more specifically about language though.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Strangely derivations of raccoon as well.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Put it this way, I am 28, going on 29. I am 6'3", pretty solidly built, and can walk about town in my long Kilt (which admitedlly looks more SKirt than Kilt) flouncy shirt, clumpety Boots and long coat. The worst I've ever encountered? Being compared to Haggrid, which I quite liked.
And yet, if you ask my Gran, a life long Daily Mail reader, there is a Romany Rastafarian, Gay, Drug Dealing, Paedophile Pimp just waiting on every street corner to bum me to death. Hoodies swarm like Sharks around blood.
It's all made up. Every. Last. Bit. Of. It. I live in the real world. I live on a Council Estate. Feral Kids? Hardly. Just a couple of wee gaks out of control who know better than to pick on someone twice their weight. They may well carry knives, but so what? Knife Crime is no higher, per head of populace, than it was 20 years ago as far as I understand, and in most cases, Violent Crime is way down. OF course, this is all due to the Police not counting some, just as high School Results are down to tests being easier. It most certainly is NOT because the Police are doing their job, as are Teachers. This is broken Britain, don't you know? Where the Lefties have wrecked the family home, leading everyone to become a complete witch. Yeah, well, not as much of a witch as you, Mr Journalist.....
241
Post by: Ahtman
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Put it this way, I am 28, going on 29. I am 6'3", pretty solidly bui, and can walk about town in my long Kilt (which admitedlly looks more SKirt than Kilt) flouncy shirt, clumpety Boots and long coat. The worst I've ever encountered? Being compared to Haggrid, which I quite liked.
And yet, if you ask my Gran, a life long Daily Mail reader, there is a Romany Rastafarian, Gay, Drug Dealing, Paedophile Pimp just waiting on every street corner to bum me to death. Hoodies swarm like Sharks around blood.
It's all made up. Every. Last. Bit. Of. It. I live in the real world. I live on a Council Estate. Feral Kids? Hardly. Just a couple of wee gaks out of control who know better than to pick on someone twice their weight. They may well carry knives, but so what? Knife Crime is no higher, per head of populace, than it was 20 years ago as far as I understand, and in most cases, Violent Crime is way down. OF course, this is all due to the Police not counting some, just as high School Results are down to tests being easier. It most certainly is NOT because the Police are doing their job, as are Teachers. This is broken Britain, don't you know? Where the Lefties have wrecked the family home, leading everyone to become a complete witch. Yeah, well, not as much of a witch as you, Mr Journalist.....
Silly honky.
Edit: HA! It got through!
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Do bogans and hoons live in Brittan, or is it just Australia?
I know you guys got "chavs"...
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
England has Chavs, Wales has Valley Boys (or so my ex infromed me) and Scotland has N.E.D.S. (Non-Educated Delinquents)
I think every country does. A largely self made underclass, leeching off the state. But that is a sore point with me right now.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Northern Ireland has Spides, the Republic has Skangers.
8021
Post by: JD21290
As for the people in thread with the 'eff off back to your own country if you want to speak your foreign language' attitude, that's exactly the same sort of ignorant crap people were saying during the Windrush, same cloaked racism, different target
not 100% my attitude, but close.
if people plan on living in a certain country then they should atleast know how to read and speak english, not just to make it easier for everyone, but to avoid any risks.
how many warnings signs do you see about on the roads that are written in different languages?
a friend of mine works as a school caretaker, they have recently employed a polish caretaker there, he decided to clean the urinals with bleach, because that didnt work he then threw acid in them, casing a similar effect to mustard gas and causing the school to be evacuated, when he was asked why he did it (a translater was needed for this)
he simply said he could not understand the labels on the chemicles.
if that safe?
its all well and good for people to preach PC and try and enforce it, but it works both ways.
we must respect everyone, but they must also respect us, i can think of plenty of examples of PC gone mad, which is why im happy that im off to aus once ive finished up my 2 more years in the army.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Examples of PC gone mad please?
As the OP said, it's either people getting Health and Safety confused, or outright lies and misinformation.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Doc, ill leave the thread a little while before i start throwing in examples, last time i was in a thread like this i had some dick head throwing accusations at me, only to be shown up to be not only wrong, but badly wrong.
the way i tend to word things comes accross in not the best way, so ill take some time with this one to make sure no one can pick any faults with it.
13053
Post by: Pigeon616
latest update on PC gone mad! As some may have heard you are not allowed to say "Brainstorming" as when a person with epilepsy has a an epileptic fit it feels like a storm in you brain and so they may find that offensive. instead the phrase "brainshower" should be used as it is less violent and shouldn't cause offense...
what the hell? i ask anyone who suffers from epilepsy, would you find offense in the phrase brainstorming? I personally think this is beginning to be a little bit silly. 
EDIT: i apologize as i got it slightly wrong, it is incase it is offensive to people with braindisorders, here is proof http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jun/26/uk.politicalnews
7209
Post by: Nofasse 'Eadhunta
The Yellow and Black Power Rangers were politically incorrect.
OH MY GOD WHAT DO WE DO!!!!!
8021
Post by: JD21290
the old nursery rhyme ba ba black sheep is also banned from schools.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Pigeon616 wrote:latest update on PC gone mad! As some may have heard you are not allowed to say "Brainstorming" as when a person with epilepsy has a an epileptic fit it feels like a storm in you brain and so they may find that offensive. instead the phrase "brainshower" should be used as it is less violent and shouldn't cause offense...
what the hell? i ask anyone who suffers from epilepsy, would you find offense in the phrase brainstorming? I personally think this is beginning to be a little bit silly.
Load of crap. Supposed to have originate from my local Borough Council. I have three friends wo work in the Council Offices, all of whom say its utterly untrue.
Likely it's been someone sending an Email who had a brainfart and wrote shower instead of storm.
JD21290.....proof please? Linkage to a genuine report? Otherwise, without proof, it gets put in the big bin of 'Right Wing Rag Bollocks' IIRC, this is just a class example of the Daily Hate misreporting to further Middle England Persecution Complex. When asked, the teacher explained it hadn't been banned, but went on in different verses with different colours of sheep as a way of teaching colours to young children.
8021
Post by: JD21290
Doc, here we go, and your just reinforcing my comment on another thread we are talking on.
if you do not agree with someone (like here) you either say they are 100% wrong (with no proof atall that they are) or you try to make it hard for them to prove.
your now asking me for proof or your just going to class it as bollock? i then call up this statement and ask for proof please:
Load of crap. Supposed to have originate from my local Borough Council. I have three friends wo work in the Council Offices, all of whom say its utterly untrue.
as for proof of the rhyme, have a chomp on this one mate 
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/education/s/207/207086_black_sheep_banned_at_nursery.html
ba ba rainbow sheep aint quite the same is it?
11544
Post by: IRPurple
OFF TOPIC:
i wonder how long this will take to get out of hand.....?
anyway, i have nothing to creativly add apart from saying yes its gone toooooooooo far...( PC if yah dont know what i mean)
11544
Post by: IRPurple
Doubled poast feel free to delete
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
JD21290 wrote:Doc, here we go, and your just reinforcing my comment on another thread we are talking on.
if you do not agree with someone (like here) you either say they are 100% wrong (with no proof atall that they are) or you try to make it hard for them to prove.
your now asking me for proof or your just going to class it as bollock? i then call up this statement and ask for proof please:
Load of crap. Supposed to have originate from my local Borough Council. I have three friends wo work in the Council Offices, all of whom say its utterly untrue.
as for proof of the rhyme, have a chomp on this one mate
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/education/s/207/207086_black_sheep_banned_at_nursery.html
ba ba rainbow sheep aint quite the same is it?
Changing (well, adding actually) words for educational reasons does not a song banning make. To band the song is to not allow it to be sung at all. Adding verses is something UTTERLY different, and has precisely sod all to do with Political Correctness, I am sure you will agree.
As for the Brainstorm one, I first heard about this.....18 months ago, perhaps longer, relating to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (my Town. YAY!). The only report I can find online is this onw www.guardian.co. uk/politics/2005/jun/26/ uk.politicalnews which relates to a different Council. However, note here, http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/section.asp?catid=1569&docid=5786 where my local council says it's all a load of monkeynuts. So, one council may or may not have banned it (Can't find anything overly official beyond 'sources' and 'spokesperson') but it seems utterly untrue in one case...
8021
Post by: JD21290
erm, i do not agree atall, you seem way too sure of yourself there.
swapping out the colour black for rainbow is nothing like you have said there.
it is not another verse atall.
* i dont see how this was for an educational reason.
also, the rhyme ba ba black sheep is no longer allowed, so yes, it has been banned.
do you enjoy trying to disprove everything, even when there is solid evidence?
doc, thats in one case, it doesent really support what you said atall, you mentioned that you have 3 friends who have said its not true.
Edit: add on to earlier part of post*
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I think LuciusAR might be a clone of Grotsnik.
8021
Post by: JD21290
HBMC, would you accept that PC is a load of bs as an answer?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
"They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black & white sheep etc and they also exchange boy and girl at the end of the rhyme. This encourages the children to extend their vocabulary and use up some energy.
"
Look! They still sing the line. They have have categorically NOT banned the bloody song! They have used it to make it a better educational tool.... Wintermas.....http://bigfluffyclouds.blogspot.com/2006/12/merry-wintermas.html So thats one opinion, without proof (seriously, no council quoted. Just a bunch of accusations) Struggling to find the origins of the work, though I am highly tempted to point out to the poster of the Blog linked that Christmas is a hijacked Pagan festival and thus arguably bugger all to do with Christ. Plus it's had bugger all to do with religion for most people for.....a while now. Though my Google-Fu could well be weak. I've used Wintermas, Christmas V Wintermas, Origins of Wintermas, and Origin of Wintermas. And just now Wintermas Origin. None of these answered the question of where it came from.
8021
Post by: JD21290
no doc, they sing black & white sheep.
if a song has been change dthen in theory its no longer the origional song.
so ill change what i said to: the origional song has been banned.
if your google-fu is weak check yahoo, it sometimes comes up with some better stuff.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
You are making the link of the Black and White being a single line, rather than seperate verses. Very common linkage too. Black and White, Salt and Pepper. However, this comes at the end of a list, and is followed by etc. This is good grammatical practices. Commas in between until the final two, when you use and. SO once again conspiracy theory nonsense from the Right Wing Gutter Press. Class example here, again courtest of the Daily Nazi http://friedbrains.com/?m=200612 Oh no! Schools are going to educate children that yes, homosexuas do exist! And they aren't Paedophiles! And it is a perfectly normal thing! They will undo YEARS of pointless, hate engendering Dogma with their lefty ways! Give me a break. Is this really Political Correctness gone mad, or something we need in school? Homophobia, like Racism and Sexism, is largely learned. It takes someone telling you it is bad for it be seen that way. So explain what it is. Demystify it. Let the kids make their own minds up. Disgusting behaviour. And I like how they call it Homosexual Dogma, whilst in the same paragraph (I think, can't switch tabs, will blank my update) gibbering on about normal sexual morals. Is that not Dogma as well?
8021
Post by: JD21290
once again doc, that is another opinion of YOURS
which proves feth all really.
well, it does prove 1 thing i guess.
no matter what someone says, if you do not agree with it then it has to be wrong.
other peoples opinions and proof means nothing to you if it does not back up your side of the descussion.
now please excuse me so i can spend the next 10 minutes smashing my head against the monitor, i may actually get somewhere with that.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Regardless, you are drawing a conclusion largely unfounded. You are seeking offense where there is none.
Check out the Friedbrains website. Just searched for Wintermas on there, hoping to find a place of origin (still defeated though. Ho hum). As ever, lots of example of 'Political Correctness Gone Mad' but with minimal, if any proof. Not so much examples, as mindless gossip if you ask me.
8021
Post by: JD21290
To be honest with you doc, im not even going to waste my time here trying to prove my point to you.
you either ignore it or simply say its bs, even when proof is provided.
yet when i ask for proof a single opinion is given and is ment to mean something to me.
im pretty much trying to get blood from a stone.
even if i had every single shred of proof possible, you would simply ignore it or say its gak.
so with that, im done here, having a discussion is one thing, having one that seems to fall on death ears is more than pointless.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Dude, I gave you proof. I linked you to a denial about the Thought Shower when the accusation was levied at my own local council.
My entire point, is that to claim a song has been banned is simply incorrect. They have changed the words and renamed it. This is not to say the original song may not be sung. Ergo, the song is not in the least way banned. Thus, the PCGM Brigade are once again caught telling porky pies.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Wintermas.....http://bigfluffyclouds.blogspot.com/2006/12/merry-wintermas.html So thats one opinion, without proof (seriously, no council quoted. Just a bunch of accusations) Struggling to find the origins of the work, though I am highly tempted to point out to the poster of the Blog linked that Christmas is a hijacked Pagan festival and thus arguably bugger all to do with Christ. Plus it's had bugger all to do with religion for most people for.....a while now.
Though my Google-Fu could well be weak. I've used Wintermas, Christmas V Wintermas, Origins of Wintermas, and Origin of Wintermas. And just now Wintermas Origin. None of these answered the question of where it came from.
Wintermas? Are you perhaps thinking of: Decemberween - Comes from Home Star Runner, funny ? Winterweenmas - Comes from Ctrl +Alt + Del, not funny, like the comic ? Festivus - Comes from Seinfeld, also funny ? Otherwise I can't halp you. In other news, I've heard that "Thought Shower" thing over here too. Both seriously and as a " PC gone wild" example.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
A lot of the PCGM stuff is just like Urban Legends.
Lots of people have heard of the case, but it proves exceedingly difficult to nail down an origin, and when you do, it's deviated so far from the truth as to invite ridicule.
See the one JD and I have been discussing. He claims the song was banned. It provably wasn't banned. The School in question simply used the tune, added a few words and verses, and sang a different song. This does not mean the original is banned, does it?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A lot of the PCGM stuff is just like Urban Legends.
Lots of people have heard of the case, but it proves exceedingly difficult to nail down an origin, and when you do, it's deviated so far from the truth as to invite ridicule.
Nonetheless, these things can take a life of their own, regardless of their origin.
For instance, I've heard "thought shower" myself at least twice. The fact that people either (a) think that "brain storm" is offensive to people with neurological disorders or (b) mindlessly follow whatever stupid change someone is told to now be "correct" is disheartening. Even if the whole "thought shower" thing began as a conservative looking to make a point, it doesn't change the fact that there are people out there who accept it.
Then again, there are people out there who think the earth is 5,000 years old, so that's not exactly enough to call it an epidemic. I have heard more people think that "thought shower" was stupid than sensible. Most people reacted to "thought shower" with sort of a "what the feth?" look, and called it a brainstorm themselves.
See the one JD and I have been discussing. He claims the song was banned. It provably wasn't banned. The School in question simply used the tune, added a few words and verses, and sang a different song. This does not mean the original is banned, does it?
It didn't seem like the song was banned from what I read, although I've never heard about the "black sheep" thing myself until this thread.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
It's quite a common one in the UK Press. Though for some reason I think that Twinkle Twinkle Little Star was allegedly banned. Despite tonights Weak Google-Fu, I'll have a search about that. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648037.cms Found this. Meh! Though this would seem to be banned for cultural protection reasons. Wonder what the Right Wing press would make of this.
I wonder. Could this be a kind of Google Whack thing? Name a Nursery Rhyme, see if it's claimed to have been banned.
Though to make absolutely clear the utter contempt I hold for the Right Wing Rags, I think this ought to help illustrate....
5470
Post by: sebster
JD21290 wrote:once again doc, that is another opinion of YOURS
which proves feth all really.
No, you fail and you fail badly. It isn't just an opinion from the Doc, it's the explicit text of his article. Read the article. It starts with an outrageous headline. Then a quote is gievn out of context, which seems to support the headline. Then the text of the article directly contradicts the headline, showing that the nursery rhyme was used in many variations, including white sheep, black sheep, blue sheep, yellow sheep and the infamous rainbow sheep. It is a simple learning game that the nutter press decided to make into a PC gone mad story.
well, it does prove 1 thing i guess.
no matter what someone says, if you do not agree with it then it has to be wrong.
other peoples opinions and proof means nothing to you if it does not back up your side of the descussion.
But some things are actually wrong. In this case, your opinion is directly contradicted by the article you posted.
You have your opinion. It is directly contradicted by reality. It is therefore a wrong opinion. You need to accept that opinion is wrong, and reject the opinion or at least modify it so that it isn't directly contradicted by the real world. That is how people grow.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I swear and make racist jokes all the fething time. People need to chill the feth out. Also political correctness is just the application of social taboo under another name. Being PC is simply being polite and conforming to your societies standards, which regardless of rights is generally what people should do. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be a tool. Well it does, but you shouldn't anyway because thats not what freedom of speech is there for. Freedom of speech is a false tool of society designed to protect the concepts of ideological and personal freedom. It doesn't actually exist, but since I can't put a knife through the face of every mouth breathing fuckshit that walks near me it has power that is difficult to control. Being free means being able to do what you want, being able to do what you want doesn't mean you should. Freedom of speech isn't a crutch to shout to the world your slowed idiosynchracies and beliefs and political correctness isn't a blank check to censor. A balance in society much be achieved and then ignored because it's meant to exist outside of cognisience. No one should be aware of political correctness because there should be a fair balance of it in a functioning society. Anyway anti PC threads are usually pools of idiocy. Political Correctness is a lie. It is a myth perpetuated by the Right Wing Gutter Press, as they are now no longer allowed to attack people based on Colour, Creed, Gender or Sexual Persuasion..
Case in point.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
sebster wrote:You have your opinion. It is directly contradicted by reality. It is therefore a wrong opinion. You need to accept that opinion is wrong, and reject the opinion or at least modify it so that it isn't directly contradicted by the real world. That is how people grow.
Actually, people grow due to cells multiplying.
5470
Post by: sebster
Orkeosaurus wrote:sebster wrote:You have your opinion. It is directly contradicted by reality. It is therefore a wrong opinion. You need to accept that opinion is wrong, and reject the opinion or at least modify it so that it isn't directly contradicted by the real world. That is how people grow.
Actually, people grow due to cells multiplying.
Up until the end of puberty. God help us if that's all the growing that was ever done.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Just gone back over the thread.
JD originally stated that Baa Baa Black Sheep had been banned in Schools, with no link to evidence posted.
Link later provided, good marks for that.
Then we see a simple misreading as leading to confusion and false accusations.
Now, not having a go at JD directly or particularly, but can we now see where most of the PCGM accusations come from?
Original Claim (Not JD's. He's just passing on what he heard, not his own assertion) - Baa Baa Black Sheep Banned in Schools.
Story after a little research - One Nursery (neither plural nor a school) had adapted the song to use it as an educational tool beyond it's original intention.
Through exaggeration, and outright fabrication, the original story (Assuming it's accurate, always a dangerous assumption on the Internet and with the Press of course) is twisted to fit someone else's agenda.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think LuciusAR might be a clone of Grotsnik.
Errmm, not really. I'm not half a foppy as MDG and live somewhat further up north.
Though why having similar opinions on a given subject should make me a clone of somone else is beyond me, by that logic I could just as easily speculate you to be a clone of Trench-Raider.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
Well I know that here in the State of Washington they aren't allowed to call Christmas Vacation by Christmas Vacation instead calling it Winter Break. I know they did this change while I was in School, one year it was Christmas Vacation the next bam, Winter break. The liberal teacher's explanation it was to prevent Muslims and Jews from having their feelings hurt. Also in School they made it so that saying the pledge of allegiance was optional, or if they still wanted to say it they could substitute god out with any word of choice.
PC may be a rightist wacko myth in Jolly Old England, but in the US its the truth, in some cases.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
"I swear and make racist jokes all the fething time. People need to chill the feth out. Also political correctness is just the application of social taboo under another name. Being PC is simply being polite and conforming to your societies standards, which regardless of rights is generally what people should do. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to be a tool. Well it does, but you shouldn't anyway because thats not what freedom of speech is there for. Freedom of speech is a false tool of society designed to protect the concepts of ideological and personal freedom. It doesn't actually exist, but since I can't put a knife through the face of every mouth breathing fuckshit that walks near me it has power that is difficult to control. Being free means being able to do what you want, being able to do what you want doesn't mean you should."
I think you have a gross mis understanding of free speech.
1. you do nothave the right to say anything that may harm another person. I.E yelling fire in a crowed place.
2. you do not have the right to slander another person. No lieing on people
3. you do not have the right to verbaly abuse anybody.
4. you do not have the right to threaten or force anybody using words.
5 you do not have the right to infringe on anybody elses rights. Ie setting up a huge bust of hitler in your front yard.
You can make all the raceist jokes and cuss all you want. But if your cuss around some guy's 3 year old or say a joke in the wrong spot and somebody roughs you up. They can claim they were verbaly instigated, and that does hold up in court.
As for in the us religion can't be tied to federal holidays. Winter break used to be more about farming, like spring break. Christmas was added in the early days of turning it into a consumer bannaza. same and the way "under god and in god we trust were added over the years. The constitution forbids it. The U.S has a long history of racial stupidity, and PC keeps people from beating/killing each other for saying something stupid.
5394
Post by: reds8n
JD21290 wrote:: the origional song has been banned.
.
IN a two nurseries, at the choice of the owners or people who run them. It hasn't been banned or made illegal, which is the little lie that's pushed. other nurseries in the area carried on using the original words quite happily
The other, more infamous case being back in 2000 in Birmingham -- which was changed pretty much straight away.
The example I believe MDG was scrabbling around for earlier is the infamous they're renaming xmas as winterval !!! 111
story that did the rounds a few years back. As you can read it was no attempt to "ban" Xmas or any such, but this has been seized upon-- very memorably by the BNP in several campaigns in and around that area-- and over the years has become " They banned Xmas".
So.... yes, sometimes PC behaviour can go over the top to a ridiculous extreme. So can and does every form of human behaviour.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Orkeosaurus wrote:sebster wrote:You have your opinion. It is directly contradicted by reality. It is therefore a wrong opinion. You need to accept that opinion is wrong, and reject the opinion or at least modify it so that it isn't directly contradicted by the real world. That is how people grow.
Actually, people grow due to cells multiplying.
Unless you're the Blob of course. None of that unneccessary cell replication.
Did I mention I got my head handed to me in 40K last night? constant tourney winner vs. guy who play's once a month or so =s MASSIVE FATALITY 
5394
Post by: reds8n
I hope you went down fighting at least. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yep, my Bloodthirster ate his biker nobs with some fava beans and a nice chianti. Unfortunately 36 shots from Lootas can rain on your parade. Going down...in a lblaze og glorryyy!!!
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
He had biker nobz and lootas? Geez, must have been a high point game. Good to see you went down swinging.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1750ish. If by swinging you mean survived past turn One...
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I think you have a gross mis understanding of free speech.
Actually I think you do.
1. you do nothave the right to say anything that may harm another person. I.E yelling fire in a crowed place.
This is questionable as there are no well defined areas of usage in the constitution. What denotes harm? I can easily find many people insulted by the comedy acts of people like Dave Chapelle (funny) and Carlos Mencia (Not funny), however their speech is protected, even in a public forum. Where is the law that states that one can't shout fire in a crowded theatre? Certainly, that falls under other laws about public endangerment but the speech itself is not what is in question, it is the act and intent.
2. you do not have the right to slander another person. No lieing on people
That ones simply not true. Slander is a civil matter not a enforceable "law". Look at the political system during any election and you'll find literally thousands of cases of slander.
3. you do not have the right to verbaly abuse anybody.
Actually I do. Thats not even vaguely in question. I can tell you what I think of you whenever I want as long as you aren't a child.
4. you do not have the right to threaten or force anybody using words.
Again, as with fire in a theatre thats entirely case dependent. My boss can tell me I'll be fired if I don't do a specific job. My boss can't tell me I'll be fired if I don't vote for McCain (or Obama). "Forcing" people through words is just an unacceptable form of threat.
5 you do not have the right to infringe on anybody elses rights. Ie setting up a huge bust of hitler in your front yard.
Sure I do. Private property laws and all that. If the neighborhood has some sort of obscenity clause or something then my rights are considerably lessoned in this instance, but they are still there. Again, this is a civil matter and not one of law. The law states that I can do so, it's up to a civil court to decide if I violated the "rights" of another.
8021
Post by: JD21290
im not quoting all that, so ill just stick with QFT on shumas post.
5470
Post by: sebster
JD21290 wrote:im not quoting all that, so ill just stick with QFT on shumas post.
That's it? You can in here and made some claims that were proven wrong. I think there's a point of honesty, where you admit you screwed up. It's not that a big a deal, but it'll help people take you seriously in future threads.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
BrotherStynier wrote:Also in School they made it so that saying the pledge of allegiance was optional, or if they still wanted to say it they could substitute god out with any word of choice.
That's a First Amendment issue. It violates freedom of speech and the doctrines of religions that consider it to be idolatry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette
11190
Post by: mcfly
Has anyone mentioned the words and phrases the Obama administration cant use? Talk about political correctness...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Can't say war on terror. Its now a war on fluffy bunnies!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror. Its now a war on fluffy bunnies!
It was never a war on terror, get the hell over it.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror.
Are you guys finally calling it a war in error as well now then ? 'bout time.
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror. Its now a war on fluffy bunnies!
It was never a war on terror, get the hell over it.
Correct-its now an overseas contingency operation
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html
Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."
When did Iraq crash planes into us again? I'm sorry I think I missed that one. Or are you just being flippant here? I can't tell any more.
221
Post by: Frazzled
When was Iraq mentioned...at all?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:When was Iraq mentioned...at all?
The war on terror was the war on Iraq, afghanistan was a "police action" by the administration. They didn't need silly names and the axis of evil to justify Afghanistan.
5394
Post by: reds8n
man-caused disasters
 , nicely phrased. *steals*
......
....*political joke of your preference here*
7783
Post by: BloodofOrks
man-caused disasters
Geez, that's an awfully phrased description. However, I agree with the Daily Show's assessment that these phrases are likely purposely convoluted in attempt to calm people the  down. I would much rather deal with this awkward terminology then terminology design to create blind panic.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You mean like if we don't pass this spending bill (largest in the history of mankind) the recession will be unending talk?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:You mean like if we don't pass this spending bill (largest in the history of mankind) the recession will be unending talk?
Well no, and this is where things might get complicated for you. Iraq was not threat to america. At all. In any way. The total collapse of the banking industry and the collapse of western economic world would have a very adverse effect on peoples lives. The war on terror was a just a crap name used to justify a poorly conceived war by connecting it to some sort of over arching non existent unified islamic jihad front.
Ones a big deal and needs to be treated as such.
The other was a naming convention used to justify something that couldn't stand on its own.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Whats with you? Do you have Iraq on the brain or what?
EDIT: here's more
Investments, instead of taxes/government spending.
Correcting her tax statements, instead of being caught as a tax cheat and paying what you owe to the IRS.
death tax, instead of inheritance tax
and personal
DPS, instead of incompetent boobs at the motor vehicle office who can't even take a picture right and make me come back three times...
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:Whats with you? Do you have Iraq on the brain or what?
Well we're talking about the war on terror, and thats what that is. They are the same thing. In a discussion on Obamas renaming of things (like renaming toxic assets) its going to come up as a needed change. The war on terror was incredibly inaccurate and manipulative in its presentation. If you want to discuss some of the relabeling of economic issues I'll be all with you (though fearmongering harms economic recovery), but when you lulz up the renaming of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm going to disagree.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Frazzled wrote:Can't say war on terror. Its now a war on fluffy bunnies!
It was never a war on terror, get the hell over it.
Correct-its now an overseas contingency operation
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html
Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."
The collapse of the Lake Pontchartrain levee might come under that heading too.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No thats "unintended impacts from redeployed waterway funds" (ie using the money to build casinos and non-levee projects for 40 years-thank you state of Louisiana).
remember boys and girls
*Its pronounced Lake Ponchentrain
*There are gators in the Lake.
*Sometimes sharks coming into it as well.
*If someone offers you chickory coffee without offering cream (not half and half but real cream) and a pound of sugar, they are your enemy and are tryign to poison you. If they offer cream and sugar they are you friend but be sure to drop in 8-10 spoonfuls of sugar. Even then your head might explode.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Frazzled wrote:No thats "unintended impacts from redeployed waterway funds" (ie using the money to build casinos and non-levee projects for 40 years-thank you state of Louisiana).
I would prefer to blame the CNN reporters who were standing on it.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Better than "mtn dew".
Seriously, what the hell was with that?
6887
Post by: Greebynog
JD21290 wrote:As for the people in thread with the 'eff off back to your own country if you want to speak your foreign language' attitude, that's exactly the same sort of ignorant crap people were saying during the Windrush, same cloaked racism, different target
not 100% my attitude, but close.
if people plan on living in a certain country then they should atleast know how to read and speak english, not just to make it easier for everyone, but to avoid any risks.
how many warnings signs do you see about on the roads that are written in different languages?
a friend of mine works as a school caretaker, they have recently employed a polish caretaker there, he decided to clean the urinals with bleach, because that didnt work he then threw acid in them, casing a similar effect to mustard gas and causing the school to be evacuated, when he was asked why he did it (a translater was needed for this)
he simply said he could not understand the labels on the chemicles.
if that safe?
its all well and good for people to preach PC and try and enforce it, but it works both ways.
we must respect everyone, but they must also respect us, i can think of plenty of examples of PC gone mad, which is why im happy that im off to aus once ive finished up my 2 more years in the army.
How about instead of 'send the buggers back' we say 'train all staff dealing with hazardous chemicals correctly'. That seems to be the problem here, not the language, the incompetence. If you get a spare half an hour, please watch the video from the first post (it's on iplayer too), I promise you'll laugh, and you might learn something.
11374
Post by: Ktulhut
I know I've kind of walked into the middle of all this, but there's an observation I'd like to put out there.
It's one of the few aspects of PC that I've noticed making me have to think before I speak. It's when you have a problem with someone of a different colour to you. The problem isn't their colour, it's some personal dispute (IE; they've wasted your time, been rude to you, proven themselves to be an incompotent individual, done something bad to you or your property, etc) but the second that I (a white guy, with freakin dreadlocks I might add ) complain about "Jack Hsu at the micky-Ds" being the slackest staff member and always cocking up orders, someone jumps down my throat and accuses me of only saying that coz he's chinese. I could go on but there's little point in repeating the same story with different actors. So, do other people get this? The assumption that if you have a problem with someone of a different ethnicity, that the reason you have the problem is RACIAL, when it's really obviously NOT?
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Sounds like racism by stupid people to me. Not being able to see someone's faults due to their race is no different from not being able to see someone's strengths.
With extra ability to be self-congratulatory, maybe.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Don't forget its no longer a terrorist attack. Per the new Secretary its now to be referred to as "man-caused disasters."
Which is ridiculous, but has nothing to do with PC. The trick here is that once 'man-caused disasters' become an issue for the Dept of Homeland Security, then you can start spending Homeland Security money on stuff like global warming. It's a trick for the sake of politics, nothing to do with PC at all.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ktulhut wrote:I know I've kind of walked into the middle of all this, but there's an observation I'd like to put out there.
It's one of the few aspects of PC that I've noticed making me have to think before I speak. It's when you have a problem with someone of a different colour to you. The problem isn't their colour, it's some personal dispute (IE; they've wasted your time, been rude to you, proven themselves to be an incompotent individual, done something bad to you or your property, etc) but the second that I (a white guy, with freakin dreadlocks I might add ) complain about "Jack Hsu at the micky-Ds" being the slackest staff member and always cocking up orders, someone jumps down my throat and accuses me of only saying that coz he's chinese. I could go on but there's little point in repeating the same story with different actors. So, do other people get this? The assumption that if you have a problem with someone of a different ethnicity, that the reason you have the problem is RACIAL, when it's really obviously NOT?
Except that isn't PC. That's playing the race card.
PC would be the idea that when you complain about someone you don't call him by a racial perjorative. It means that before you say something you stop and think 'will this offend the other person', and is really nothing more than simple tact.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Political Correctness is not defined in an iron-clad manner.
It can mean a huge variety of things, even when it contradicts itself.
Like "conservative" and "liberal".
11374
Post by: Ktulhut
Orkeosaurus - It's not blindness to someones faults because of race, its the attitude that anyone saying something bad about a person of a different culture is saying that bad thing for racially motivated reasons rather than normal ones.
Sebster - Good points, but what I'm trying to say is, that at least in my part of New Zealand, it is politically un-correct to critisize anyone of different creed or culture, because you're obviously doing it as an act of racial or religious hatred as opposed to a personality or behavioural conflict.
I'm not sure if I've explained myself any better though...
11190
Post by: mcfly
"WHAT!! All you people are being racist towards those of caucasian heritage!"
Just something ive always wanted to say, even though its not politically correct...white people cant call any race other than other white people racist. Thats racist man.
11374
Post by: Ktulhut
Yeah, you have to call it reverse racism for anyone to understand what you mean. Reverse? Anyone can be racist! The whole thing is ass-backwards.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Ktulhut wrote:Orkeosaurus - It's not blindness to someones faults because of race, its the attitude that anyone saying something bad about a person of a different culture is saying that bad thing for racially motivated reasons rather than normal ones.
Hmm, I can see that too. Annoying, I'll agree.
"Reverse racism" is a ridiculous euphemism. The opposite of racism is not judging others based on race, not more racism.
Also, more silliness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics
Not terrible, just really, really pointless.
11190
Post by: mcfly
If people just didn't get mad about when they are treated the same as everyone else when they're a different race, everything would be hunky-dory.
Racism and anything that deals with it annoys me.
11374
Post by: Ktulhut
Silly is the best word for the entire situation I brought up, really. More sillyness - I've been called a nazi (that's right, not just any racist, but a card carrying member of the third reich ) for having this discussion before. 
5470
Post by: sebster
Ktulhut wrote:Sebster - Good points, but what I'm trying to say is, that at least in my part of New Zealand, it is politically un-correct to critisize anyone of different creed or culture, because you're obviously doing it as an act of racial or religious hatred as opposed to a personality or behavioural conflict.
I'm not sure if I've explained myself any better though...
Yeah, I'm not trying to diminish people using race as a defence in an unrelated issue, it's certainly a real situation. I'm just saying I don't think it's really a political correctness issue, and that lumping the two things together doesn't really help either.
5470
Post by: sebster
Orkeosaurus wrote:Ktulhut wrote:Orkeosaurus - It's not blindness to someones faults because of race, its the attitude that anyone saying something bad about a person of a different culture is saying that bad thing for racially motivated reasons rather than normal ones.
Hmm, I can see that too. Annoying, I'll agree.
"Reverse racism" is a ridiculous euphemism. The opposite of racism is not judging others based on race, not more racism.
There's are meanings for racism which are quite different to basic xenophobia most people use the term for.
There is an idea that power structures can be racist, when they tend to place people of a certain race at the top and others at the bottom. It doesn't take a genius to note that in the US there's a lot more white people at the top and a lot more black people at the bottom. This is called racism and very explicitly refers to white folk at the top. When a system evolves or is deliberately created that reverses that and puts white folk at the bottom, it is legitimate to call it reverse racism.
This is also how you get the famous line 'black people can't be racist'. It's using a different defintion of the word, one referring to power among different ethnic groups. When your group is at the absolute bottom, you really can't be racist towards the priviledged groups. You can still, of course, be xenophobic.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
sebster wrote:There's are meanings for racism which are quite different to basic xenophobia most people use the term for.
There is an idea that power structures can be racist, when they tend to place people of a certain race at the top and others at the bottom. It doesn't take a genius to note that in the US there's a lot more white people at the top and a lot more black people at the bottom. This is called racism and very explicitly refers to white folk at the top. When a system evolves or is deliberately created that reverses that and puts white folk at the bottom, it is legitimate to call it reverse racism.
This is also how you get the famous line 'black people can't be racist'. It's using a different defintion of the word, one referring to power among different ethnic groups. When your group is at the absolute bottom, you really can't be racist towards the priviledged groups. You can still, of course, be xenophobic.
I don't know who uses those definitions, but I've never heard that to be the definition of racism.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
The second use is by far the most commonly used, both by minorities and the racial majority. The first definition is really only held by supremacist groups, and similar outliers. If a white person crosses to the other side of the street because a black person is walking down it, that's a racist reaction, but it's unlikely that white person has an actual conviction that being white makes him inherently superior.
Power structure has nothing to do with it, judging others based on race is the sole criteria.
You're definition of xenophobia makes even less sense. White people are not so strange and foreign to black people as to trigger xenophobia. There is still a lack of integration in some areas, but I doubt very much that animosity held by black people for whites is a "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign".
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
I have to say that although I understand Political Correctness when it comes to subjects such as offending people who are a different colour or sexuality etc, some of the reasons given for Political Correctness are truly bizzare
For example: My mum works in the special needs department of a school and she's engouraged to offer support to the students and to help them when needed, but recently she has been told that she cannot say "Good boy/girl" if they have done good work and she cannot ask if someone is someone's brother/sister. This is because apparently because if she calls them a "good boy/girl" they might be offended if they have been sexually abused and she cannot ask about being related to someone else incase they are pressured to live up to other standards.
Im sure that some people might disagree but I think that reasons such as these are going beyoid the limits of "Accectable Political Correctness"
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Valkyrie wrote:
For example: My mum works in the special needs department of a school and she's engouraged to offer support to the students and to help them when needed, but recently she has been told that she cannot say "Good boy/girl" if they have done good work and she cannot ask if someone is someone's brother/sister. This is because apparently because if she calls them a "good boy/girl" they might be offended if they have been sexually abused and she cannot ask about being related to someone else in case they are pressured to live up to other standards.
Quite frankly I object to the phrase "good boy" because it sounds condescending, its the sort of thing someone says to a dog. As for the brother sister thing well it can be quite pressuring living in the shadow of a more intelligent sibling, if you have special needs I imagine this would be magnified ten fold.
I know that to people without disabilities this may seem bizarre but you never know what kind of effect these small things can have on someone with special needs. I imagine these rules have been devised by people with far more knowledge regarding child special needs than anyone on this board. So whilst it may be easy for us to scoff, we only really do so from a position of ignorance.
221
Post by: Frazzled
LuciusAR wrote:Valkyrie wrote:
For example: My mum works in the special needs department of a school and she's engouraged to offer support to the students and to help them when needed, but recently she has been told that she cannot say "Good boy/girl" if they have done good work and she cannot ask if someone is someone's brother/sister. This is because apparently because if she calls them a "good boy/girl" they might be offended if they have been sexually abused and she cannot ask about being related to someone else in case they are pressured to live up to other standards.
Quite frankly I object to the phrase "good boy" because it sounds condescending, its the sort of thing someone says to a dog. As for the brother sister thing well it can be quite pressuring living in the shadow of a more intelligent sibling, if you have special needs I imagine this would be magnified ten fold.
I know that to people without disabilities this may seem bizarre but you never know what kind of effect these small things can have on someone with special needs. I imagine these rules have been devised by people with far more knowledge regarding child special needs than anyone on this board. So whilst it may be easy for us to scoff, we only really do so from a position of ignorance.
"Good boy good good boy yes you aw oh yes you aw. " Is it something GC says to her dog or something Mrs. Frazzled says to babies and teenagers? You be the judge (answer - both)
8316
Post by: J.Black
Why the devil is it called 'Political' correctness? Politicians are, in general, a pack of lying scumbags so having some sort of moral correction associated with them is a bit like having Hunter Thompson* asking people to 'go easy on the drugs'.
PC only applies in tabloid papers where the hipocrisy it generates can never be accounted for.
*Yes, i know he's dead but i couldn't think of a better example.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.
A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.
Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.
What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I have a part caucasian mount dog. When I say that people look at me funny, until I show them the density of his fur where he came from the Caucusis Mountains.
6887
Post by: Greebynog
halonachos wrote:Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.
A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.
Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.
What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.
Do I really have to explain this for you? Seriously? You can't see the reason for this?
12061
Post by: halonachos
I understand the whole caucasian thing, but there are people who are white and did not come from anywhere near the Caucus mountains. Swiss people (following the same logic) should then be called Alpians as they are closer to the alps than the caucuses.
@Greebynog
Go ahead, try to explain this in a way that I CANNOT cancel out. Make my day.
12061
Post by: halonachos
ShumaGorath wrote:
When did Iraq crash planes into us again? I'm sorry I think I missed that one. Or are you just being flippant here? I can't tell any more.
Look at american history, America invades countries and overthrows dictators. Its kind of like our thing.
11190
Post by: mcfly
halonachos wrote:Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.
A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.
Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.
What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.
I totally agree with you. I absolutely, cannot STAND things like this. I have white South African friends, and one of them was joking the other day that when he goes to college he's gonna apply for a bunch of African American only scholarships and not show up in person, and when he goes to the school they'll find out he's white. But seriously, its like how some stores are closed for not having enough minorities represented. My Boy Scout Troop was fussed at for not representing any minorities once, so we got a puerto rican kid who was born in the usa and is a preppy redneck. If you want to stop racism and hate, then just don't bring it up. Can't stand this stuff...grumbledontlikeitgrrrr
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
halonachos wrote:Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.
A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.
Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.
What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.
These examples either stem from ignorance on a spectacular level or are pure trolling.
12061
Post by: halonachos
The news is not trolling my friend. A university did try to make a scholarship exclusively for "caucasians". It was deemed rascist by the college board and by many "african amercian" scholars. When asked why it is okay then to have "african american" only scholarships they responded by saying it was compensation for slavery.
Very few politicians use the word "caucasian", they use white. I think that white is a more accurate term as white people can come from anywhere.
The term "african american" is also total bull as you are then being rascist by saying that anyone who is black or of a darker complexion are from africa. There are black people from the caribbean as well.
@ lucius
I don't see any ignorance in my examples, they came from the news.
I also don't see the truth as trolling.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Ok then: halonachos wrote:
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too. halonachos wrote:Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.
Caucasian is a commonly accepted term for white Americans. The term 'European American' whilst technically correct just isn't to be found in common usage. You'll find plenty of people identifying themselves as German/Irish/Italian American though. Sound like a total non point. halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system. The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club. halonachos wrote:Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.
In a geographical sense this is correct, Russian is mostly physically in Asia. However physically most Russians have more in common with Europeans than Asians. That’s why. halonachos wrote:Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.
Are you seriously suggesting people cannot be mixed race?
241
Post by: Ahtman
LuciusAR wrote:Ok then:
halonachos wrote:
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too.
I'm not sure it's really your place to tell families that have lived on the continent for generations and consider themselves that they aren't African's. It's like telling American's who's families have been in North America for several hundred years that they aren't Americans becuase they aren't Sioux or Apache. now you could say they aren't Sioux or Apache, but you can't say they aren't Americans (in the broader sense).
I don't disagree that that the person should not get the scholarship that was meant for a certain group, but the error is more in the language use in the scholarship. Its the trouble of trying to find labels to apply to something as diverse as human society. It is a necessary evil I suppose as we need something to work with, but it is always going to have flaws.
What it means to be of a certain group is really quite interesting and fluid. Groups that are considered white now where not considered white that long ago. Ask the Irish or Italians about that. I was just reading about the Sacco and Vinzette case and in the background of it talked of a miscegenation case in which a woman married a black man and the case was thrown out because the woman was of Italian descent and thus not considered white, thus not breaking the law. Even within the black community I'm sure we've heard someone complain that someone wasn't 'black enough' or some other foolishness.
12061
Post by: halonachos
LuciusAR wrote:Ok then:
halonachos wrote:
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too.
As I stated above, some black people originated from the caribbean and nowhere near africa.
LuciusAR wrote:
halonachos wrote:Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.
Caucasian is a commonly accepted term for white Americans. The term 'European American' whilst technically correct just isn't to be found in common usage. You'll find plenty of people identifying themselves as German/Irish/Italian American though. Sound like a total non point.
I consider it a point in saying that PC is ultimately a fail. If people are too lazy to be PC in all occassions then why be PC at all?
LuciusAR wrote:
halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system.
I wish that this was true. If I was black I would have at least 1000+ more scholarships available to me. Whites have no exclusive scholarships and obviously cannot apply for "african american" scholarships. This is rascist as it is denying resources towards specific groups. Just because blacks are a minortiy doesn't mean that they should get special scholarships.
LuciusAR wrote:
The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club.
A definition of racism. Any catering towards anyone is racism. If you neglect the majority for the rights of the minority that is racism.
LuciusAR wrote:
halonachos wrote:Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.
In a geographical sense this is correct, Russian is mostly physically in Asia. However physically most Russians have more in common with Europeans than Asians. That’s why.
halonachos wrote:Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.
Are you seriously suggesting people cannot be mixed race?
But if you call whites "caucasians" then you are using geography so the word for their race should be based on geography and the should be called asians.
I'm getting at the point that being politically correct is inherently being a rascist. If all whites are caucasians then you say to them "Screw your heritage, you could be from anywhere but as long as you are white, you are caucasian."
The term african american is used too loosely, that white kid from south africa is more of an african american than most "african americans" I know. "Oh you're from Jamaica? But you're black so you're an african american now."
5394
Post by: reds8n
I consider it a point in saying that PC is ultimately a fail. If people are too lazy to be PC in all occassions then why be PC at all?
That's not even an argument is it ? People aren't always polite/sober/law abiding/myriad of other things, but that doesnt mean you stop doing it at all ever.
12061
Post by: halonachos
There's a slight difference here though.
PC involves changing your words so it doesn't "offend" people. Obeying the law and staying sober affect society. If no one obeys the law, then there is anarchy and decay. Getting drunk every night can kill your liver and may lead to drunk driving which is dangerous.
I do disagree with saying the n-word as much as I oppose being called a cracker. Although, it is much more acceptable for a black guy to call a white guy a cracker or a honkey.
About the whole being polite thing, most people have given up on it.
12061
Post by: halonachos
By being PC in all occassions I mean being PC for each race/ heritage, not in the way of quantity or how many times you do it. I'm saying that african american is rascist and should be replaced by *insert country of origin*. Deciding whether or not someone is from a certain place solely on the color of skin is rascist.
5394
Post by: reds8n
I don't think being "PC" is about changing what you say so as not to offend people, that's just the BS that rightwing bigots put out.
If you dislike being called "X" then tell/say it, just as another person has the right not be referred to or defined entirely by their skin colour/sexual orientation/whatever.*
It's about treating people with respect, that's it. Sure it gets misused and abused or even taken too far, but so does everything humans make/say/do/drink etc tc as we're totally flawed.
You talk about laws and sobriety affecting society in a positive/negative fashion but somehow seem to miss the point that society is made of the people that "PC" is trying to minimise harm too.
EDIT : aahh 2nd post ! I see what you mean now. Hmm.. to a point yes. I suspect it is largely just a matter of convenience.
*Except the French, obviously.
12061
Post by: halonachos
"minimize harm"? Thats the sort of thing that the left wingers use to control every aspect of a person's life. If someone gets drunk and kills someone then I consider it worse than making fun of a stereotype.
Showing respect is relevant to society. In some countries its respectful to belch after eating a meal, in some countries it isn't. You should get respect if you earn it. No one is entitled to respect from birth.
You're whole last serious sentence makes no sense to me with the wording, please explain it. What I am getting from it is that laws protect everyone while PC only protects minorites. I mean, I don't think you were trying to say that.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Everyone is a minority in society in some way or fashion.
I fail to see how minimizing harm is controlling people's lives, it just shows awareness of the way that society is a whole mesh of interconnections. NO one's denying or saying that killing someone isn't worse than making fun of someone, that's why we have different. But it all depends upon what impact this "making fun" of has, for example..
Recent research from Teeside University found that 40% of teenage gay, lesbian or bisexual people had attempted suicide because of bullying at school; 75% had been physically assaulted
at least once; and two had received serious death threats.
That has consequences and repercussions for society.
And that's what people are getting up in arms over ? Not being allowed to drive kids to suicide ? Really ?
When Laura Rhodes – a witty, loud Welsh girl – was twelve, she told her best friend she thought she might be gay. Her friend blabbed, and within a week everybody at their school knew. That’s when Laura was branded “the school dyke” – and the persecution began.
In the corridors, Laura was kicked, her books were punched out of her hands, chairs were hurled in her direction – and vicious laughter always echoed as she walked. Stressed and depressed, she began to comfort-eat, and started piling on weight. In a letter, she described a typical day at school: “There we were, outside the school, people looking at this fat lump which is myself. I did not want to leave the car, I wanted to die. I walked to the doors, down the corridor, here are boys just before the stairs, waiting to trip me up, how wonderful… Why were they doing this? Why me? I saw some boys laughing at the fact I was still fact and possibly a ‘dyke’. [I am] still a person.”
When she finally got home, Laura wrote she would go “into the box room, [and take] out scissors, I knew what I was doing. Maybe this would show them what they are doing. I dragged it over my wrists a few times, the next few times pressing harder, it felt really good. It hurt, but I pressed harder.”
Laura turned to her school for help – but they said she was the problem. Cefn Saesoon School’s education welfare officer, Helen Langford, said Laura’s “verbal indiscretion” – talking openly about her sexuality – was the cause of her bullying, and noted in writing: “Laura fully realises and appreciates she must accept the blame for the current situation.” One lunchtime she was taken into a crowded dining room and told to point out, in front of everyone, who had been bullying her. Another time she was forced to take part in a “circle exercise” with her bullies, in which she had to describe how bad she felt, traumatising her even further. In the end, the school decided the solution was expulsion – of Laura. She was packed off to a Pupil Referral Unit, where she was given just three hours of teaching a day.
But then there was a flicker of joy in Laura’s life. Online, she met another girl – a 14 year old in Birmingham – and it seems they fell in love. They talked and texted all the time, and eventually the other girl – Rachael – went on holiday to Crete with Laura and her family. The day after they got back to Wales, Laura and Rachael couldn’t stand the thought of being separated. They decided to run away together, and headed to Bath, where they were soon tracked down by the police. Rather than going back to their separate, bullied lives, they decided to be “together in the afterlife”. They both took a huge overdose of prescription pills. Rachael woke up and called for help. It was too late for Laura. She died in hospital a few days later.
At the inquest, Laura’s diary was read out. She said about her bullying: [b]“No one believed me while I got fatter and fatter and sadder and sadder. Everyone got meaner and meaner.” Her school insisted they had done nothing wrong. The headteacher, Alun Griffiths, declared, “We have searched our consciences and have to say our consciences are clear.”
Laura’s story is being played out in playgrounds across Britain every day. A study by the Schools Health Education Unit found that in Britain’s schools, 41 percent of gay people are beaten up, and 17 percent receive death-threats. A majority of Britain's gay kids feel so unsafe that they skive off school to avoid abuse. Another three-year study found that more than half consider self-harm or suicide. In every area of British life, gay people have made vast advances – except the schoolyard.
Andrew Morris is a 30 year-old gay man who has been teaching English at a mixed private school for the past three years. He says, “There has not been a single day as a teacher when I have not heard the pupils hurling homophobic insults at each other. ‘Gay’ or ‘battyboy’ is the worst insult in their repertoire. Some of it is really extreme. A fourteen year old boy – who has no idea I’m gay – told me he though gay people have a responsibility to commit suicide. The pupils were amazed if you challenged them on it.”
This homophobia wasn’t confined to the pupils, either. Morris explains: “Whenever I tried to reprimand the kids for homophobic language, they’d say, ‘Well, our P.E. teacher or our music teacher uses that word all the time.’ And it was true. In R.E. debates, one of my colleagues said he thought being gay was “a sin.” One time I was standing with the art teacher outside the school disco and he said to a boy, ‘Why are you wearing those shoes? They make you look like a poofter.’ It was considered totally normal. Whenever I raised the idea of punishing homophobia with the staff, they looked at me like I was mad.”
OFSTED – the Schools Inspectorate – says this is not unusual, with homophobia being “endemic” in our schools system, and 20 percent of pupils saying they have heard teachers make homophobic comments in the past few months. As I wrote this article, my own memories of homophobic bullying started flickering though my mind again.. I remember being shut in a classroom when I was about thirteen with three lads who were in my school’s sixth-form. “I
fething hate queers,” one of them said as he smacked me against the locker. They wouldn’t let me leave; after five minutes of trying to sound tough, I just sat down and cried. For a few years afterwards, there was a rash of name-calling. It wasn’t severe, by Laura’s standards, but it was depressing, and upsetting, and enraging. I still remember feeling sick after a teacher called me a “[ see forum posting rules]” in front of the class, and chuckled.
Phillip James is a 17 year-old studying at the sixth-form of a comprehensive school in Leeds. He says homophobia is “constant” in his school. “No teacher in their right mind tries to stand up to homophobia at my school,” he says. “Where would you start?” He says the word “gay” is “an all-purpose insult. You use it to mean ‘bad’ or ‘gak’ or ‘rubbish.’ Then there’s the more extreme words – ‘[ see forum posting rules]’, ‘bender’. I get that a lot. You just grow up with a sense that being gay is this terrible thing. I think I internalized it a lot. I remember when I first said the words to myself, in my room on my own, ‘I’m gay’, I burst into tears. I felt so sick with myself. It just seemed such an awful thing to be.”
When Phillip first revealed he was gay to his friends, he was 16. Lots of fellow pupils were supportive – most of them girls, but also some straight boys. “My best mate, who is straight, totally stood by me, even though some people started calling him gay too.” But others reacted with violence: “A group of lads in my year said they were going to batter me. They said they were going to cut me up, to teach me that being a ‘[ see forum posting rules]’ is disgusting. I told the school, and they called us all together in a room and told us to stop ‘causing trouble.’ They acted as if I was as bad as them, and when I protested, they told me I was ‘whining.’” Philip wrote an article for his school newspaper talking about the culture of homophobia – and the headmaster refused to let it run. He was told it was “inappropriate”, and “not suitable for discussion among children.”
Eventually, the gang caught up with him. “I was walking home and they dragged me into an alley and beat the gak out of me basically. They got me on the floor and kicked me a lot.” After the humiliation of last time, he didn’t tell the school. While some members of staff smuggled softly pro-gay messages into their lessons, others actively encouraged homophobia. “If you didn’t run fast enough, the P.E. teacher would yell ‘you’re running like a poofter!’ at you. After I came out, not long before my GCSEs, I said to him, ‘Don’t say that. I’m gay and I find it offensive.’ Loads of the lads in the class laughed but I tried to stand by it and not get upset. The teacher looked at the lads who were sniggering and laughed with them. He said, ‘If you’re a poofter why don’t you like being called one?’ and these lads were just pissing themselves laughing. I walked out of the lesson. He never reported it, and I noticed after that he didn’t call anyone a poofter – not in my lessons, anyway.”
There is nothing inevitable about homophobia in Britain’s schools. How do we know?
A generation ago, racist bullying was standard practice in the playground. Today, when it happens, it is almost invariably punished. All state schools automatically discipline pupils for using racist language, and they expel pupils for racist attacks. If a teacher is openly racist, he doesn’t work again. We need now to begin the slow, steady work of making homophobia equally anathemized. Stonewall’s recent study found that while 97 percent of pupils have been told racist bullying is wrong, only 23 percent of pupils today have ever been told by teachers that homophobic bullying is unacceptable.
But there was good news in the Stonewall study too: where there is a clear policy of punishing homophobia, it works. Pupils in schools with a clear policy of punishing homophobic language and intimidation are 60 percent less likely to be bullied, and 70 percent more likely to feel safe. Teenagers might be insecure group-formers, desperate to punish difference, but there is no reason they should fixate on sexuality as the marker of that difference. There have been some excellent pilot schemes proving this. George Green's School, near where I live in East London, has a tough anti-homophobia policy in an area mostly populated by recent immigrants with uber-conservative views. Head-teacher Kenny Frederick has faced down homophobic parents and insisted on equality for all her students. If a pupil uses the word “gay” as an insult, they are automatically punished as if they had used the word “Paki” or “[ see forum posting rules]”; if they bully gay kids, they are chucked out. If she can do it, any headteacher can.
But we are starting from way behind. While a whopping 82% of teachers are aware of gay name-calling at their schools and 26% are aware of anti-gay violence on school property, according to a University of London study, how many schools do you think have a policy to deal with homophobic bullying? Just a pitiful 6 percent. The solution isn’t rocket science. You have mandatory classes in which you explain everywhere in the world, throughout history, around 4-10 percent are attracted to the same sex. There’s nothing unusual about it, and it’s not “immoral” for two consenting adults to give each other sexual pleasure. You punish the pupils who use bigoted slurs. As the Stonewall slogan says: Some people are gay – get over it.
But there is one group of schools that most aggressively refuses to spread this message: faith schools. While there are a few honourable exceptions, pupils there are more than 10 percent more likely to be subjected to anti-gay bullying, and 23 percent less likely to feel they can tell anyone about their sexuality. It’s hardly surprising: they are set up to teach religious texts that demand the most barbaric punishments for gay people in plain language. After writing about anti-gay bullying for the Independent, I was e-mailed by a 17-year old gay boy at a Muslim school who was told by one of his teachers in a lesson that "sodomites should be killed". In the Stonewall study, an 18-year old boy called Matthew said: "It's a Catholic school... and we are told 'gay people will go to hell because the Bible condemns it'... It's horrid, you just want to go and cry at come of the remarks made by the teachers."
The government – backed by all three major political parties – is currently embarked on an expansion of these faith schools. There is a danger that after abolishing Section 28 by the front door, the growth of faith schools unwittingly reintroduces it by the back door. It also risks undercutting the promises by the Labour government to make schools crack down harder on homophobia. The Children's Minister, Kevin Brennan, recently told a gay equality conference: "Just as it took several years for racial equality laws to feed into real cultural change where racist language became unacceptable, we need to achieve the same with homophobic language." This will be hard enough in the normal schools system. But can it be done at all if we make our schools more and more religious?
When Laura Rhodes swallowed her final fistful of pills, the homophobic sneers and jeers of her bullies won. We let them win too many times. Laura deserved better – and so do all the other gay children of Britain. If we begin now the work of driving this bigotry out of our schools, Laura’s can be the last corpse the anti-gay bullies ever get to chuckle over.
That's the sort of harm that I mean about trying to minimise, you telling me that's not worth at least trying to do something about ? Or should we just let 14 year old girls kill themselves because it's easier for us to have derogatory names for gays/ethnic minorities/whatever.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Bullying in general applies to everyone despite being a minority or what not. Being PC only affects minorities.
Stopping bullies affects everyone. Being PC helps minorities.
I see that maybe we should try to help everyone and maybe not just minoritites.
5394
Post by: reds8n
halonachos wrote:. Being PC only affects minorities.
I think that's rubbish, I really don't see how you can say that.
I see that maybe we should try to help everyone and maybe not just minoritites.
Agreed, I don't think being " pc" does just help "minorities", I think it helps everyone in a society.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Because in today's PC world, whitey is the target and as long as it affects whitey's or affects anything remotely christian. So by being PC you are being rascist and that helps no one. Either no one can be made fun of or everyone is fair game.
5394
Post by: reds8n
I don't think "whitey" is a/the target, or any more or less than anyone else. I do think you can make fun of people of every "flavour", it's just there are limits. Only problem as such appears to be where this line is drawn. You've already said you don't use/approve of the use of the N word.... do you think it is alright to.... refer to anyone of colour as "boy" and make watermelon jokes constantly too ? The role of people in society constantly changes-- look at the way women's roles and status has changed. Or are you against women's rights too as that is more "PC bollocks". Times change and attitudes change too.
What I do note is it's generally white christians complaining, which strikes me as if it's more about them suddenly discovering that the world doesn't revolve totally around them and they're not "king of the hill" and any such position they did have was largely due to ...let's be generous here... unfair, perhaps even subconsciously,... interactions or relations with others.
Sure at the moment there's a great deal of tiptoeing around a lot of issues to do with Islam or Muslims on the global scale, but I think that might well be due to the somewhat disastrous actions of certain people making this a sore point. Dressing the whole charade up as some crusade type affair of "good" versus "evil" didn't really help matters now did it ?
I can understand the "fear" that these people feel at their changing role or place, it's quite understandable and a natural reaction to panic or bluster. But what's done more harm to the average white american : Political correctness or gakky economic and foreign policy decisions ?
6887
Post by: Greebynog
halonachos wrote:
LuciusAR wrote:
halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system.
I wish that this was true. If I was black I would have at least 1000+ more scholarships available to me. Whites have no exclusive scholarships and obviously cannot apply for "african american" scholarships. This is rascist as it is denying resources towards specific groups. Just because blacks are a minortiy doesn't mean that they should get special scholarships.
Right, I'm finding it extremely difficult to abide by rule number one here, owing to a spectacular level of bullish ignorance displayed in your posts. Just why are you so angry about people from minorities getting a helping hand? I feel for you, I really do. It must be terrible being a middle-class, heterosexual, white male. All those prejudices, the whole world set up just to grind you down. Boo bloody hoo.
Lucius already spelled it out for you here:
"The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club."
White people statistically have a disproportionately high access to college, good education throughout their lives, good living standards, highly paid jobs and longer life expectancies. Fact is, if you're born black, you're starting the race of life 10 metres behind the start line. Sure positive discrimination is an extremely clumsy way of dealing with the issue, but spitting your dummy out and calling it 'racist' suggests you have very little understanding of the complex and prevailing issues at work here. Do you honestly believe that giving out scholarships to African-Americans (there, I said it) is in any way as harmful as apartide, racial abuse and institutional racism? If you do, you seriously need to re-evaluate a few things.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
Greebynog wrote:
Lucius already spelled it out for you here:
"The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club."
White people statistically have a disproportionately high access to college, good education throughout their lives, good living standards, highly paid jobs and longer life expectancies. Fact is, if you're born black, you're starting the race of life 10 metres behind the start line. Sure positive discrimination is an extremely clumsy way of dealing with the issue, but spitting your dummy out and calling it 'racist' suggests you have very little understanding of the complex and prevailing issues at work here. Do you honestly believe that giving out scholarships to African-Americans (there, I said it) is in any way as harmful as apartide, racial abuse and institutional racism? If you do, you seriously need to re-evaluate a few things.
This is a big assumption. I am a white male and I grew up in a quiet suburban area. By your argument, there should have been college scholarships knocking down my door. Nope. I had friends get Latin Study scholarships (worse GPA than me) and one with an African American Studies (Half white and half black... guess which half he claimed).
I had a better GPA, I was an assist coach for the Jr. High Wrestling team. I was an eagle scout. I did not get the scholarships. So this "default" is a load of bull, based on racist ideas that "If I am white, I must have it easy" Pure Racism.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Good living standards? I don't consider living in a ghetto as "good living standards". My family is a navy family, before I lived in the ghetto I live in now, we lived in a trailer so as far as that goes, feth off Mr."Hes against PC so hes obviously a rascist, white, middle-class, heterosexual, male".
I'm catholic and we have to put up with a lot of crap in the good ol USA. All I'm trying to say is equal rights. My family worked its way up on the social ladder all on its own so why shouldn't everyone else?
You think my parents owned a hotel chain or something, please. Enlisted pay blows.
Equal Rights means that everyone(despite race) is treated equally. I'm tired of people whining about christams trees and wanting them to be called "holiday trees" if they're in a school somewhere. If this is to be, then menorahs should be called "holiday candle holders".
By creating PC we only extend racism, because all of a sudden we have to be careful about what we say about anyone and it creates racial tensions. People are AFRAID of saying anything might be remotely offensive. That is wrong. "Understand the prevailing issues" pffft, please. There are no "prevailing issues" its called white guilt. Is giving out scholarships to blacks wrong, no. But black only scholarships are a form of segregation which is also racist.
Is thisLook at Dave Chapelle and Carlos Mencia, listen to their comments on race and racism. Comedians have better inputs on society than most scholars.
By saying that I believe everyone should be equal and that PC is total BS I am called a racist. If I think it is wrong to classify people by color or race and that makes me "uninformed" then I guess I'm an idiot.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Ahtman wrote:
I'm not sure it's really your place to tell families that have lived on the continent for generations and consider themselves that they aren't African's. It's like telling American's who's families have been in North America for several hundred years that they aren't Americans becuase they aren't Sioux or Apache. now you could say they aren't Sioux or Apache, but you can't say they aren't Americans (in the broader sense).
Fair enough, that was some poor phrasing on my part. This person (and indeed the decedents of Dutch/Swiss settlers) can certainly cagagorise themselves as African, I wasn’t trying to claim otherwise. Just as an African settler in the UK can (one the paperwork's been completed) describe themselves as British. They have the Passport and are afforded to the full protection of the state. They may not be British in terms of ancestry (Mind you between the Romans, Normans, Saxons, Vikings ect who is!), but that doesn’t make them any less British as far as the law of the land is concerned.
I was simply pointing out that the phrase African American does not cover these people. To claim it should is manipulating language to alter the rules intent. Letter vs Sprit and all that.
The use of the word African American as a blanket term which halonachos brought up is interesting. Yes many African Americans did not originate from Africa however if my history serves me right the majority did. African Americans therefore seems the logical phrase. I don’t think I've ever heard of any African Americans protesting the phrase but I may be wrong. Afro-Caribbean American may be more accurate but just doesn’t roll off the tongue in the same way.
12061
Post by: halonachos
But there were black people in the caribbean before anyone else came along.
5394
Post by: reds8n
halonachos wrote:
By creating PC we only extend racism, because all of a sudden we have to be careful about what we say about anyone and it creates racial tensions. People are AFRAID of saying anything might be remotely offensive. That is wrong. "
Rubbish. For starters that seems to hold with the somewhat odd idea that we have never had to or indeed should "be careful what we say" which is patently untrue. YOu go on and on about manners in society and then.. this ?
I've no idea how catholics are treated in the USA... presumably you're barred from certain jobs or bus seats are you ? It's unlucky that would be hard to get round.
And you're the one who suddenly brought "white christian fear" into the thread.
6887
Post by: Greebynog
Halonachos, my assumptions about you were based on fairly solid ground. I know you're white, straight and male from what you have posted in this and other threads, and assumed your class status because you are posting on a Warhammer forum, which is a middle-class pursuit.
I completely agree with you about comedians saying important things about society. Did you watch the clips I posted in the OP?
12061
Post by: halonachos
When did I bring white christian fear into this. Do you live near any minorities? Obviously you have no idea what its like to live in the US with all the racial tension. If any member of the minority is harmed or put at fault, they pull the race card. Like the OJ trials.
Like I said, watch carlos mencia and dave chapelle. The ONLY way to stop racism is to create equality and being politically correct does nothing of the sort. In fact, telling a joke about another race is often grounds for firing in most companies.
Look at the presidents, how many have been catholic? Only one and he was shot.
Another truth is this: If two people apply for a job and have the exact same training, credentials, same schooling, etc then it goes down to race or sex. If one is white and the other a minority, then the minority gets the job. If one is a male and the other a female, the female gets the job.
@greebynog
I'll give you the being right about my skin and such, but not about being middle class. I only have a 1,600 point army and am hoping to extend it, but the truth is I can barely drop any money into it anymore. I am in college and can barely afford that. How did I get into college, its called studying books given to me by the school and not skipping class or doing drugs.
11190
Post by: mcfly
reds8n wrote:halonachos wrote:
By creating PC we only extend racism, because all of a sudden we have to be careful about what we say about anyone and it creates racial tensions. People are AFRAID of saying anything might be remotely offensive. That is wrong. "
Rubbish. For starters that seems to hold with the somewhat odd idea that we have never had to or indeed should "be careful what we say" which is patently untrue. YOu go on and on about manners in society and then.. this ?
I've no idea how catholics are treated in the USA... presumably you're barred from certain jobs or bus seats are you ? It's unlucky that would be hard to get round.
And you're the one who suddenly brought "white christian fear" into the thread.
Hey, we have to be EXTREMELY careful of what we say. If you're middle class white guy, you can be sued for not giving a black guy a job. How is that fair? The very fact that someone calls someone else racist is racist. If you say that, you're being racist as well. The law should be changed.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Anywho, I'm off to be called a rascist for not caring about people being minorities again.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Political correctness is simply a rewording of the concept of social taboos. Those have existed for eight thousand years, probably much longer. They are a necessary function of human society.
Unless people start talking about specific instances like Englands censor-statehood or Chinas iron fist "serene state" then you're discussing nothing.
Discussing whether one thing or another should be PC is pointless as none of you command the opinions of enough people to change it even in the slightest and there are an infinite number of words and actions that could be and could not be considered politically correct.
12061
Post by: halonachos
One man can change the world, oh wait...that's only in movies.
I like that stating of it though shuma. I'm going to have to say that your statement about what PC is, is the best interpretaion of it I have ever heard. Seriously, no sarcasm.
221
Post by: Frazzled
LuciusAR wrote:Ok then:
halonachos wrote:
There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.
So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.
African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too.
halonachos wrote:Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.
Caucasian is a commonly accepted term for white Americans. The term 'European American' whilst technically correct just isn't to be found in common usage. You'll find plenty of people identifying themselves as German/Irish/Italian American though. Sound like a total non point.
halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.
I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system.
The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club.
halonachos wrote:Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.
In a geographical sense this is correct, Russian is mostly physically in Asia. However physically most Russians have more in common with Europeans than Asians. That’s why.
halonachos wrote:Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.
Are you seriously suggesting people cannot be mixed race?
Speaking of PC nonsense...
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
More black people live in poverty than white people.
Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition on:
This thread is derailing into personal attacks and will be closed if it continues. Please argue the point and avoid personal charges. If you cannot do so then simply do not post on this thread.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Orkeosaurus wrote:More black people live in poverty than white people.
Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?
Because federal loans and scholarships already exist for people who are impoverished. They make up a far larger percentage of such forms of aid then race based scholarships.
12061
Post by: halonachos
I see the world's peoples in two colors; pink and blue.
If the inside of the lips are pink they have oxygen, if the inside is blue, they have no oxygen. I think that those are the only colors that really matter.
I prefer seeing people by what country they are from, not by color. I think people born in america are americans and the colors are just extra flavors and varieties of americans. Like I see brits as brits, frenchies as frenchies, russians as russians, etc.
Thats how the world should be.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
ShumaGorath wrote:Orkeosaurus wrote:More black people live in poverty than white people.
Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?
Because federal loans and scholarships already exist for people who are impoverished. They make up a far larger percentage of such forms of aid then race based scholarships.
I'm well aware of that, but that's no reason to not make them all based on income.
If basing it on income is superior to basing it on race then there's no reason for any to be based on race. Shift it from 80% - 20% to 100% - 0% and you do a better job of giving it to those who need and deserve it.
Yet race based scholarships continue to exist, despite being felt to be discriminatory by many people, and continuing to segregate people based on their race. Why?
12061
Post by: halonachos
Another attempt at equality that will fail.
Some people will feel bad about their history like some germans feel bad about the holocaust. I had a german teacher who felt bad for what happened even though his mother was gassed for being mentally disabled, thats some guilt. Most would be willing to do something to make up for it.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Orkeosaurus wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:Orkeosaurus wrote:More black people live in poverty than white people.
Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?
Because federal loans and scholarships already exist for people who are impoverished. They make up a far larger percentage of such forms of aid then race based scholarships.
I'm well aware of that, but that's no reason to not make them all based on income. If basing it on income is superior to basing it on race then there's no reason for any to be based on race. Shift it from 80% - 20% to 100% - 0% and you do a better job of giving it to those who need and deserve it. Yet race based scholarships continue to exist, despite being felt to be discriminatory by many people, and continuing to segregate people based on their race. Why?
Because its believed that the socioeconomic status of the black community makes it hard for them to break through into the upper echelons of American income brackets. The scholarships are meant to counteract other draws like crime, drugs, and similar societal issues that historically effect impoverished minorities. They have a debtateable success rate in raising the black community by its bootstraps, but given the multitudinous forms of aid given to all strata of the lower income bracket it's a tiny percentage and honestly not entirely worth talking about. People who can't get jobs because of "race welfare" are the same people who can't get jobs because they are undereducated or poorly behaved. Placing the blame is easier then fixing your own house.
Another attempt at equality that will fail.
Incorrect. Come back after you've done some actual research on the topic.
12061
Post by: halonachos
You see crime isn't a problem if you have education, many kids drop out and become criminals both white and black. Its a choice people make, not the race as a whole.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
ShumaGorath wrote:
Because its believed that the socioeconomic status of the black community makes it hard for them to break through into the upper echelons of American income brackets. The scholarships are meant to counteract other draws like crime, drugs, and similar societal issues that historically effect impoverished minorities. They have a debtateable success rate in raising the black community by its bootstraps, but given the multitudinous forms of aid given to all strata of the lower income bracket it's a tiny percentage and honestly not entirely worth talking about.
People who can't get jobs because of "race welfare" are the same people who can't get jobs because they are undereducated or poorly behaved. Placing the blame is easier then fixing your own house.
But do you see the irony of policies based soley on the color of skin? That does not ring like racism to you?
12061
Post by: halonachos
Probably sounds like justified racism.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
ShumaGorath wrote:Because its believed that the socioeconomic status of the black community makes it hard for them to break through into the upper echelons of American income brackets. The scholarships are meant to counteract other draws like crime, drugs, and similar societal issues that historically effect impoverished minorities. They have a debtateable success rate in raising the black community by its bootstraps, but given the multitudinous forms of aid given to all strata of the lower income bracket it's a tiny percentage and honestly not entirely worth talking about.
People who can't get jobs because of "race welfare" are the same people who can't get jobs because they are undereducated or poorly behaved. Placing the blame is easier then fixing your own house.
Are white people who live in the same income bracket unaffected by these things then? Actually, to take it a step further, is a randomly selected black person more likely to become entrapped in crime or drug use than a randomly selected person who is below the poverty line? What about the mostly white, rural communities that have gone through massive job loss? What about places like Appalachia? The scholarships may not have a particularly large effect, but that's only more reason to get rid of it. It's racism for very little gain. It's continued segregation based on the color of people's skin, when it could easily be replaced by giving aid out based on economic need.
11190
Post by: mcfly
You know who's racist?
Oprah Winfrey, thats who.
Just watch her show, she only hugs women, and then she shows the most compassion to black people.
She even only gives stuff to African kids, even though she's not from Africa.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Yeah, but shes Oprah.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Are white people who live in the same income bracket unaffected by these things then?
Statistically not as heavily. The "culture" of the impoverished section of the black community is sort of a different animal compared to the same section of the white community. This is likely due to the geographical concentration of the black community in urban centers. But is also likely largely due to generational poverty and acceptance of place given decades of immobility within the wealth brackets. Popular media also likely plays an enormous role.
Actually, to take it a step further, is a randomly selected black person more likely to become entrapped in crime or drug use than a randomly selected person who is below the poverty line?
A black youth below the poverty line is statistically more likely yes. This is not due to genetics or any sort of race argument, but is due to the prevalence of the urban culture that runs throughout the lower strata. This is what bill cosby was shouting about a few years back, and its a touchy subject.
What about the mostly white, rural communities that have gone through massive job loss? What about places like Appalachia?
Those are not systemic of the community, but are based on outside influences. However there is often times aid help for impoverished communities like that specifically because it is impoverished. There are areas here in Maine that have similar forms of aid help because they are so low in the tax bracket.
The scholarships may not have a particularly large effect, but that's only more reason to get rid of it. It's racism for very little gain. It's continued segregation based on the color of people's skin, when it could easily be replaced by giving aid out based on economic need.
Except it's not racism, but race based. When there are demonstrable differences between the capability of different races to finish highschool and proceed to college then you target the problems inherent that cause those issues. This is one such method of targeting generational recidivism in income disparities. A broad stroke approach that takes nothing but income into account may be more fair, but its far less likely to be as effective then something that targets problem areas specifically.
Probably sounds like justified racism.
I don't think you know what that word means. www.dictionary.com Heres a link. Peruse it for a while.
5534
Post by: dogma
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But do you see the irony of policies based soley on the color of skin? That does not ring like racism to you?
The issue isn't simply a matter of skin color, but skin color in concert with a common condition of economic disenfranchisement. Two forces which serve to create a unifying counter-culture which is likely to destabilize the larger social order. Remember the 60's? All these Federal programs, from affirmative action to the CRA, are intended to prevent that type of thing from happening again.
12061
Post by: halonachos
The KKK is rascist but so is the NAACP, any group that chooses to aid a people of certain colors or race are rascist but are socially acceptable and more often than not, seen as not being rascist. The only group I support is the ACLU, they help anyone trying to use the 1st amendment despite beliefs, creeds, colors, or anything.
They'll support a neo-nazi march as much as a pro-semetic march.
Justified racism is something I use to describe racism that people accept as a social norm because it helps instead of hurts. It doesn't matter, its still racism. Shooting a bad guy is the same as shooting a good guy, the former is just more acceptable.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
rac⋅ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
It's not racism, go away.
12061
Post by: halonachos
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
BLACK POWER!!! Sounds like WHITE POWER!! Which one is accepted though?
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement,
Isn't it then racist to say that all minority youths will become criminals and start behind the majority youths?
Thanks for the help.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Isn't it then racist to say that all minority youths will become criminals and start behind the majority youths?
Not when the issue is the sociopolitical standing of that race and not the race itself. It's like saying a woman will be worse at driving when she grew up in the amazon compare to a man who grew up in new england and saying thats sexist.
It just means you don't actually understand the term at all.
Black crime rates are higher because of social and economic factors inherent to being a black youth in america. That is not a part of the black genetic structure, and it's not part of the "race". It's a societal factor.
Thats not racist, learn the damn term.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
ShumaGorath wrote:Statistically not as heavily. The "culture" of the impoverished section of the black community is sort of a different animal compared to the same section of the white community. This is likely due to the geographical concentration of the black community in urban centers. But is also likely largely due to generational poverty and acceptance of place given decades of immobility within the wealth brackets. Popular media also likely plays an enormous role.
Those are not systemic of the community, but are based on outside influences. However there is often times aid help for impoverished communities like that specifically because it is impoverished. There are areas here in Maine that have similar forms of aid help because they are so low in the tax bracket.
I'm not sure how figure that these are completely different animals, with one being systemic and the other based on outside influences. Both are cases of impoverished groups of people who have difficulty moving up in life. Both are a type of institutionalized poverty, where college is not considered a viable option for most people.
Actually, I would argue that there is often more support for college education in impoverished, urban, black communities than there is in impoverished, rural, white communities simply because there is more community support and awareness that develops in large cities in contrast to communities that are far from any cities or colleges and have little interaction with groups from the outside.
A black youth below the poverty line is statistically more likely yes. This is not due to genetics or any sort of race argument, but is due to the prevalence of the urban culture that runs throughout the lower strata. This is what bill cosby was shouting about a few years back, and its a touchy subject.
Except it's not racism, but race based. When there are demonstrable differences between the capability of different races to finish highschool and proceed to college then you target the problems inherent that cause those issues. This is one such method of targeting generational recidivism in income disparities.
The problem is that it's not a matter of race, as you yourself say. It's a matter of culture more than anything.
The problem with trying to award aid to people based on the culture they grew up in comes down to simulationist arguments. Should people be given aid for having parents who drink? What if there parents didn't care about their child's academic success? What if the child's friends pushed them away from college.
The income of your parents is concrete and and has a direct effect on your ability to pay for college. To give people aid based on the culture they grew up in is a different matter entirely. You make a person's motivation and drive into something that's equal to money and similar, material assets. But how are you supposed to award people more aid due to them having less motivation to succeed? What does that accomplish?
A broad stroke approach that takes nothing but income into account may be more fair, but its far less likely to be as effective then something that targets problem areas specifically.
See, this is what I disagree with. The inequity of awarding aid based on race does have negative effects; it cheapens the accomplishment of people by giving them advantages due to the color of their skin, and it patronizes them by making it seem as though their motivation is inherently less than that of a white person, when it is, in fact, a matter of the individual's choice, not the circumstances they were raised in.
In other news, do you have any stats on black enrollment rates compared to white rates?
Going by the 2005 population estimate and the Department of Education statistics for 2005 it looks like black and white college enrollment is nearly even.
Also, it looks like female college enrollment is starting to exceed male enrollment by quite a bit. What's the opinion on financial aid given only to men?
8837
Post by: Trench-Raider
I'm going to stay out of the broader debate here. I've got some very definate opinions and will certainly step on some toes. But I don't want to get into a serious (well, as seious as Dakka is anyway..) debate right now. But I will add this amusing tidbit to the mix.
I'm not sure it's really your place to tell families that have lived on the continent for generations and consider themselves that they aren't African's. It's like telling American's who's families have been in North America for several hundred years that they aren't Americans becuase they aren't Sioux or Apache. now you could say they aren't Sioux or Apache, but you can't say they aren't Americans (in the broader sense).
I had a good friend/co-worker who was a Rhodesian expat. (He's the primary cause of my facination with the Rhodesian Bush War) He used to love to torment the blacks at work by telling them "I'm far more of an 'African-American' that you will ever be. I was born there, ouen!"
TR
12061
Post by: halonachos
Society can shape youths yes, but look at all of the disenfranchised youths who made a living. Look at Bill Cosby and most rappers. They come from hard times but get rich and succeed. Look at Obama, he was pretty poor but he worked hard and became president.
The only reason why black youths are disenfranchised is because of racism. Look at history, blacks were paid far less in the 70s and black only schools were horrible so their children couldn't get good jobs either. Racism caused all of the "social" issues. Racism is a social factor.
@Orkeosaurus
They say that most public schools are focusing on ways women learn and not the way boys learn so more boys are failing now and days. Yes, boys and girls do learn differently.
4977
Post by: jp400
ROFL
Trench thats priceless.
Halonachos, I hate to say it but most rappers are not a very good example to use as a good role model.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Not a good role model, but rich. I could say athletes are definitely better examples. Plaxico Burress came from the same area I live in, the school he went to is called "gang run" for a reason. He shot himself and was stupid, but hes successful.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
halonachos wrote:Not a good role model, but rich. I could say athletes are definitely better examples. Plaxico Burress came from the same area I live in, the school he went to is called "gang run" for a reason. He shot himself and was stupid, but hes successful.
Yes, but so Osama Bin Laden. Success isn't a measure of worth, and being successful doesn't make you a good role model. Sports stars are awful role models to impoverished communities because they provide the false hope of sports success at the cost of the more basic ideals of education and job success. Sports stars are no better than rap stars as role models.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Which is better, false hope or no hope?
I had false hopes of becoming an astronaut, but changed later on. Seeing sports stars can encourage youths to join sports teams and leagues. This:
1)Keeps them off the streets
2)Builds leadership/teamwork
3)Looks good on college applications
4)In school, athletes are pushed to maintain at least C averages in most states.
5)Gives them something to have fun with
6)Can get them a scholarship for colleges
They may never become pro athletes, but they learn skills and of course gives them an incentive to maintain average (if not better) grades.
Yeah, success is based on social environments. But last time I checked, I'm american so suicide bombing isn't a successful career, in fact its often very short lived.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
halonachos wrote:But last time I checked, I'm american so suicide bombing isn't a successful career, in fact its often very short lived.
I think you've got it backwards.
If it's a short lived career when you are successful.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Ah yes, successful careers.
Dr Harold Shipman has been described as our worst serial killer.
But he murdered lots of Grannies, having got himself onto their Wills first. Surely he was in fact a very good, highly competent serial killer?
I put myself forward as Britains worst serial killer, as I was only accused* the once, and had cast iron proof that I was innocent seeing as my Dad (who the Daily Record reckoned I'd bumped off) is still very much alive, living in the Borders of Scotland as a Tourist Information Officer (my parents SUCK at being retired!).......
*well, I say accused. A note was pushed through my Uncles door asking how he felt about my alleged upcoming murder trial. Little more digging, and I had a very over excited Journoscum on the end of the phone, thinking he had an exclusive article with a murderer in the offing. But no, it was me. A mild mannered Telesales Manager wondering exactly who it was I was meant to have killed, the whole shenigan not only being news to me, but to the apparently now Undead victim....
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I think I'm worse at being a British serial killer than that.
Not only have I never killed anyone, but I've never even been accused, nor have I ever been to Britain.
5394
Post by: reds8n
halonachos wrote:Not a good role model, but rich. I could say athletes are definitely better examples.
Like OJ Simpson ! No, wait, he's a bad example.... or a good one .. or ...?
The only reason why black youths are disenfranchised is because of racism. Look at history, blacks were paid far less in the 70s and black only schools were horrible so their children couldn't get good jobs either. Racism caused all of the "social" issues. Racism is a social factor.
So you accept and agree that racism is "bad" and a problem yet you're arguing against moves to try and remove/limit it ?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition on.
gentlemen there have been several comments that could be considered flaming. Cease and desist such posts on this thread or risk disciplinary action.
241
Post by: Ahtman
halonachos wrote:The only reason why black youths are disenfranchised is because of racism.
This is the point where I realized he's just jerking our chain, or is just a kid and hasn't learned that things aren't as simple as a Perils of Pauline serial.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dude I'm older than dirt and don't get that reference-what does Perils of Pauline refer to?
12061
Post by: halonachos
No reds8n, what I am trying to say about the whole rascist thing is that PC isn't removing rascism, its only covering it up.
Einstein said that the only way to end prejudice and racism is through understanding and enlightenment. Changing verbage is not a good way to do so.
Ahtman, if you read the rest of the sentence you see that I say it stems from history.
If you plant dried seeds in a weed filled garden nothing will grow. If you plant good seeds in a weed filled garden, something may grow. If you plant good seeds in a good garden, they are mostly guranteed to grow.
During the 60's, 70's, etc minorities were discriminated against and paid less due to color. Now, low income almost gurantees that the children of the family will get a job right out of highschool, or drop out to get a job. These jobs are also low income but it helps to support the family.
Those that dropped out will more than likely continue the same cycle while those that got a high school diploma may further education or at least get paid a little more.
However, back to the rascist thing, minorities continued to get paid less and so the dead seeds kept getting planted in the weed filled garden. However, some youths found ways to survive and get into higher learning facilities or found other legal means to gain success and were the good seeds that came from the weed filled garden.
There have been very few instances of good seeds in good gardens in the minority community and often richer people make dead seeds and try to grow them in good gardens (Paris Hilton for example).
I don't believe that we should help out only specific groups, we should help out everyone who needs it despite race. The only way to do this is to remove the labels of race and to see people as people, but not as their race.
I ignore race and color. You're black, so what? You're white, so what?You're asian, so what? You're gay, so what? Do you think being a different color makes you special, do you want a prize or something? So you're different from the plain vanilla human, all you are is just a different model of the same thing. Like a different colored car, or even a different model car, its still a car.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:Dude I'm older than dirt and don't get that reference-what does Perils of Pauline refer to?
Old movie serials with broadly drawn characters. Bad guy with a mustache and twirls, ties girl to railroad, ect ect.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Like Dick Dastardly I presume?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I don't believe that we should help out only specific groups, we should help out everyone who needs it despite race. The only way to do this is to remove the labels of race and to see people as people, but not as their race.
You can stop, and the government can stop. The people will continue to do so. Put ten men with blue hats and ten men with red hats into a room and they will segregate themselves. Its human nature. The goal of government is to broadly assess the needs of the whole and generate solutions using the collective power of the people in a way that they can not individually. If that means propping up one race because the culture historically pushes them down then that is what it should do. It's not about being fair or race blind. Its about doing what works and realizing that childish idealism doesn't work because you are not everyone.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
ShumaGorath wrote:
You can stop, and the government can stop. The people will continue to do so. Put ten men with blue hats and ten men with red hats into a room and they will segregate themselves. Its human nature. The goal of government is to broadly assess the needs of the whole and generate solutions using the collective power of the people in a way that they can not individually. If that means propping up one race because the culture historically pushes them down then that is what it should do.
It's not about being fair or race blind. Its about doing what works and realizing that childish idealism doesn't work because you are not everyone.
umm.. wow. Racism is ok then? So long as it works? For the record, I have never "pushed down" any ethnic group. I never owned a slave. I never made anyone sit in the back of the buss. In so cal in the 80s-90s none of this ever happened. So why should the ethnic groups I went to school with get something special based on the fact that decades ago something bad happened to someone of the same color skin?
12061
Post by: halonachos
Yes, I am not everyone. So we've established that life sucks and segregation is inherent...in adults at least.
Obviously helping out only one race doesn't help either as minority crime rates are still higher than majority crime rates and minority unemployment is higher than majority employment.
So, if this doesn't work and idealism doesn't work then what does? We haven't tried idealism so maybe it could work perhaps? Besides, children have some of the best ideas when it comes to society.
11190
Post by: mcfly
Gen. Lee is right. All the new age "racism" is all about what happened a long time ago.
I don't care what my great great grandfather did you your ancestors, you aren't involved.
They also call racism on stupid things.
And the thing is, most Blacks, Asians, Whites, that I have asked about this topic say they don't even care. But the ones who complain the most get the most attention and are annoying everyone with this whole nationalist attitude.
Shuma is correct though, people segregate themselves without help. So we can't stop people not liking people that are different from them. My dad has a big mustach. A long time ago we went over to a friends house and since the babys father did not have a mustach, she cried and wouldn't get near my dad. This shows that it is bred in people to not like people that are different. We can't stop it.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Babies actually prefer smoother faces to rougher ones because most mothers lack facial hais and those with wrinkles are usually old and don't produce milk to give to the baby.
Look at children though. My teacher told a story about how she used to play with another kid and brought the kid home. The mother kicked the kid out because he was black. Kids don't care about color until their parents make them care or they learn about it in school.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
You can stop, and the government can stop. The people will continue to do so. Put ten men with blue hats and ten men with red hats into a room and they will segregate themselves. Its human nature. The goal of government is to broadly assess the needs of the whole and generate solutions using the collective power of the people in a way that they can not individually. If that means propping up one race because the culture historically pushes them down then that is what it should do.
It's not about being fair or race blind. Its about doing what works and realizing that childish idealism doesn't work because you are not everyone.
umm.. wow.
Racism is ok then? So long as it works?
For the record, I have never "pushed down" any ethnic group. I never owned a slave. I never made anyone sit in the back of the buss. In so cal in the 80s-90s none of this ever happened. So why should the ethnic groups I went to school with get something special based on the fact that decades ago something bad happened to someone of the same color skin?
It's not racism. Christ almighty none of you know what that word means. None of this is based on racism, but is based on current racial standings within american culture. Thats not racist. It's not racist.
Yes, I am not everyone. So we've established that life sucks and segregation is inherent...in adults at least.
Obviously helping out only one race doesn't help either as minority crime rates are still higher than majority crime rates and minority unemployment is higher than majority employment.
Yes, you've hit the submit button. Now look at education and employment rates from before and after the programs were initiated. Then never post in this topic again. They have had a questionable impact, but for a time it was deemed they they did a good amount of work to help. Whether it will overcome the semi self imposed minority cultural segregation that America has begun to experience is unknown, but you aren't arguing any of that. You are plugging your ears, shouting racist, and generally carrying on while adding nothing. Just stop.
Gen. Lee is right. All the new age "racism" is all about what happened a long time ago.
I don't care what my great great grandfather did you your ancestors, you aren't involved.
They also call racism on stupid things.
Yeah, new age. Thats why these programs have been around for longer than I've been alive. Because it's new age. Thats all it is, new age racism.
www.dictionary.com
Use this website. It's clear none of you have seen one like it before.
12061
Post by: halonachos
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.
By saying that minorites are treated wrong and need help you are determining the fact that they will become criminals and fail.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
By granting affirmitive action you are discriminating against the majority of the population. No other government has tried this, in fact hitler discriminated against the minority to get support.
So by definitions 1 and 2 of racism, it is rascist.
Sit down, and be quiet. Thanks for helping my argument, here's a cookie.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
ShumaGorath wrote:Gen. Lee Losing wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:
You can stop, and the government can stop. The people will continue to do so. Put ten men with blue hats and ten men with red hats into a room and they will segregate themselves. Its human nature. The goal of government is to broadly assess the needs of the whole and generate solutions using the collective power of the people in a way that they can not individually. If that means propping up one race because the culture historically pushes them down then that is what it should do.
It's not about being fair or race blind. Its about doing what works and realizing that childish idealism doesn't work because you are not everyone.
umm.. wow. Racism is ok then? So long as it works? For the record, I have never "pushed down" any ethnic group. I never owned a slave. I never made anyone sit in the back of the buss. In so cal in the 80s-90s none of this ever happened. So why should the ethnic groups I went to school with get something special based on the fact that decades ago something bad happened to someone of the same color skin?
It's not racism. Christ almighty none of you know what that word means. None of this is based on racism, but is based on current racial standings within american culture. Thats not racist. It's not racist. www.dictionary.com Use this website. It's clear none of you have seen one like it before.
Ok. From the website you gave us (wez po ignant folk). rac⋅ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. So, we have a policy (see #2) that states that minorities have lower cultural achievements (see #1) and thus need help that we wont give to white kids because they are white (see #2 again, the part about discrimination). Yup. Racism. EDIT: halonachos was faster...
12061
Post by: halonachos
Well, I am going to go to class for a bit, I'll be back. Hopefully this won't be locked.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.
By saying that minorites are treated wrong and need help you are determining the fact that they will become criminals and fail.
Yes, throw another logical loophole at me. Treating someone for a cut clearly means I think they are going to bleed to death.
Try again.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
By granting affirmitive action you are discriminating against the majority of the population. No other government has tried this, in fact hitler discriminated against the minority to get support.
Because the government believes that generational economic disenfranchisement exists within the black community it believes that the race in inherently incapable of improving its own situation. Yes, it is racism that propagates these policies. Clearly. No where else in the world has tried these policies, no, not any of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
You have no idea what you're talking about. Try again.
Sit down, and be quiet. Thanks for helping my argument, here's a cookie.
You don't have an argument. You don't understand simple english definitions. You have no conception of racial policies in this country or on this planet.
Ok. From the website you gave us (wez po ignant folk).
rac⋅ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
So, we have a policy (see #2) that states that minorities have lower cultural achievements (see #1) and thus need help that we wont give to white kids because they are white (see #2 again, the part about discrimination).
Yup. Racism.
Glad to see we have english majors here. It's nice to know you think that these policies are based on fostering the idea that certain races are inherently incapable. That is why they are around.
You're a genius.
Fraz, please close this thread. Orkeosaurus stopped posting (and we were getting to a good discussion too) and rebutting the 14 year olds with single paragraphs screaming racism is killing me inside.
5534
Post by: dogma
halonachos wrote:1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.
By saying that minorites are treated wrong and need help you are determining the fact that they will become criminals and fail.
You're entirely missing the point. Saying that minorities are treated poorly is not the same thing as saying minorities deserve to be treated poorly. The former is not racist, the latter is racist. Affirmative action is not racist, Jim Crow laws are racist.
halonachos wrote:
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
By granting affirmitive action you are discriminating against the majority of the population. No other government has tried this, in fact hitler discriminated against the minority to get support.
A policy is racist if it acknowledges that there are genetic differences between the races which determine their relative abilities to achieve success. It is NOT RACIST if it acknowledges that the past belief in genetic variance as a determiner of success has lead to socioeconomic stratification which is potentially destabilizing.
Also, you seem to lack any understanding of how affirmative action works. It is not some quota, or special clause which requires that institutions like schools admit minorities. It is a law which allows citizens denied employment/admission/etc. to mount a legal challenge on the grounds that the denial was based only upon race.
halonachos wrote:
So by definitions 1 and 2 of racism, it is rascist.
Sit down, and be quiet. Thanks for helping my argument, here's a cookie.
No, it isn't.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
ShumaGorath wrote:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.
By saying that minorites are treated wrong and need help you are determining the fact that they will become criminals and fail.
Yes, throw another logical loophole at me. Treating someone for a cut clearly means I think they are going to bleed to death.
Try again.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
By granting affirmitive action you are discriminating against the majority of the population. No other government has tried this, in fact hitler discriminated against the minority to get support.
Because the government believes that generational economic disenfranchisement exists within the black community it believes that the race in inherently incapable of improving its own situation. Yes, it is racism that propagates these policies. Clearly. No where else in the world has tried these policies, no, not any of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
You have no idea what you're talking about. Try again.
Sit down, and be quiet. Thanks for helping my argument, here's a cookie.
You don't have an argument. You don't understand simple english definitions. You have no conception of racial policies in this country or on this planet.
Ok. From the website you gave us (wez po ignant folk).
rac⋅ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
So, we have a policy (see #2) that states that minorities have lower cultural achievements (see #1) and thus need help that we wont give to white kids because they are white (see #2 again, the part about discrimination).
Yup. Racism.
Glad to see we have english majors here. It's nice to know you think that these policies are based on fostering the idea that certain races are inherently incapable. That is why they are around.
You're a genius.
Fraz, please close this thread. Orkeosaurus stopped posting (and we were getting to a good discussion too) and rebutting the 14 year olds with single paragraphs screaming racism is killing me inside.
If the government believes that the black community is capable (a blanket policy on a group of peoples based solely on the color of their skin) then why have extra help.
This was a good discussion until you decided that you own the english language and cried for the thread to be closed.
11190
Post by: mcfly
Well geez, this topic got turned into another "I'm right, you're wrong" idea huh? Why not just state your opinions and then not get mad at someone for disagreeing with you...
EDIT: In fact, why not even stop saying why someone elses opinion is wrong? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
241
Post by: Ahtman
The people who have never been overtly racist and think that means they get a pass to create an imaginary world where minority groups were never kept from resources and education seem to not know about the idea of unearned White Privilege (UWP). By the very nature of being a part of the majority certain things are ignored and are such a fabric of society most people never even notice (part of the perks of being in control is not having to notice).
For example, more often than not if a white male driver gets pulled over for going over the speed limit the cop will give them a speeding ticket. If a black male gets pulled over he will get the ticket as well as a myriad of questions about where he is going, where did he come from, what is he doing, ect ect. This is the kind of passive reality minorities deal with every day. Or being of South American descent but always having to worry about someone thinking you are an illegal even if your family has been here for generations. Even though a white guy blew up the Oklahoma federal building and we know there are white terrorists American citizens (who appear to be) of middle eastern or African descent are far more likely to get "randomly" selected at an airport than white passengers.
The idea that everything is merit based is also a joke. "It's unfair," I hear people yell, "we should be judged on how well we do". Well that is a nice story but it has almost never, ever been the case. Who you know has always been more important than what you know. It is how a C student gets into Yale. When you have been cut off from that type of networking for a century or two it takes time to get it built up. Is affirmative action a perfect solution? No, but it is better than doing nothing and far better than pretending that everything is perfectly fine.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
At its core, Affirmative Action is the opposite of Dr. King's Dream.
It is based on the color of skin. That is the first and only real qualifier. After that there are other questions to decide who gets the help, but the only real qualification is skin color.
How can we say it is a good thing? We are teaching that judgments based on skin color are okay- so long as you like the result. That cannot be a good principle.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I am closing this thread. There are valid arguments to the most recent subpoint on both sides, but that has been lost in the haze of bickering.
|
|
