The black Labrador was the mascot for RAF 617 squadron, which during World War II destroyed dams in Germany with Barnes Wallis's famous bouncing bomb.
Owned by the squadron's wing commander, Guy Gibson, the animal was run over and killed during the planning of the Dambuster raids, and was buried at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire - from where the operation was launched.
Stephen Fry told BBC Radio 5 Live: "It's no good saying that it is the Latin word for black or that it didn't have the meaning that it does now - you just can't go back, which is unfortunate.
"You can go to RAF Scampton and see the dog's grave and there he is with his name, and it's an important part of the film.
"The name of the dog was a code word to show that the dam had been successfully breached.
"In the film, you're constantly hearing 'N-word, N-word, N-word, hurray' and Barnes Wallis is punching the air. But obviously that's not going to happen now.
"So Digger seems OK, I reckon."
Phil Bonner, from Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre, a privately run Bomber Command museum, said: "I think for the Second World War generation that word was acceptable - but with my daughters growing up in Lincolnshire - they have been taught that the word is unacceptable now.
"The film is not about the dog - my big concern would be if they watered down what the Dam Busters had achieved."
The 1955 film, which starred Sir Michael Redgrave and Richard Todd, told the story of Barnes Wallis' struggle to develop the bomb and the subsequent raids on Nazi Germany - codenamed Operation Chastise.
The remake is being produced by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson.
I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?
So what do we think? Should history be tweaked so as not to offend? Is it an insult to Gibson's dog? Is it an insult to historical accuracy, or is it just more of the same "Hollywood History" that shouldn't ever be taken as a basis for actual historical learning, but will be anyway just like Saving Private Ryan or Pearl Harbour ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe they should have gone with "See Forum Posting Rules" for the dogs name, instead of Digger.
Considering the original wasn't 100% accurate either I don't see what the fuss about purposely avoiding something that would create a great deal of trouble and generate very little in return. People looking to movies to inform them with absolutely accurate history have already failed the first step. Is the dog's name so important to the crux of the story that we would forget everything else that these men did if they change it? I would rather inform people as to what happened in a general sense and remind people then to throw a hissy fit because they changed one letter in the dogs name.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. Words change, their usage and meaning change, and what used to be acceptable, such as a British officer naming his dog [see forum posting rules], just doesn't fly anymore, especially to an international audience.
As well, in this case, who cares about something as historically irrelevant as what a dog was called?
The only thing you can say about the ops question
I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?
is that it's probably one of the silliest hypothetical to grace OT in quote some time. Either he didn't bother to read the article he posted
Phil Bonner, from Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre, a privately run Bomber Command museum, said: "I think for the Second World War generation that word was acceptable - but with my daughters growing up in Lincolnshire - they have been taught that the word is unacceptable now.
"The film is not about the dog -
or he fails to grasp just how the situations might be different. The dog's name is absolutely irrelevant to everything, whereas, as seems to have escaped the OP, in Mississippi Burning the way the races interacted, including the language, is absolutely vital to the history.
I saw the original at a screening at the local cinema several years ago. Was taken aback when they called the dog by his name. But the film is not about a black labrador as gorgeous as they are. The lab is barely in the 50's film and I doubt if he will be taking a co-starring role alongside whoever plays Guy Gibson.
It won't be worth all the recriminations if they adhere to the pooch's original moniker. Digger is fine. Tell the story about the bravery of the aircrew and not get sidetracked over a dog's name.
Portugal Jones has called it well imho N Brown was the name of the colour of a boot polish back in the last century and people thought nothing of the implications. There was no deliberate racist intent in giving the dog that name in the 1930's/40's.
But it is no longer acceptable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: " my big concern would be if they watered down what the Dam Busters had achieved."
Portugal Jones wrote:This has nothing to do with political correctness. Words change, their usage and meaning change, and what used to be acceptable, such as a British officer naming his dog [see forum posting rules], just doesn't fly anymore, especially to an international audience.
As well, in this case, who cares about something as historically irrelevant as what a dog was called?
The only thing you can say about the ops question
I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?
is that it's probably one of the silliest hypothetical to grace OT in quote some time. Either he didn't bother to read the article he posted
Phil Bonner, from Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre, a privately run Bomber Command museum, said: "I think for the Second World War generation that word was acceptable - but with my daughters growing up in Lincolnshire - they have been taught that the word is unacceptable now.
"The film is not about the dog -
or he fails to grasp just how the situations might be different. The dog's name is absolutely irrelevant to everything, whereas, as seems to have escaped the OP, in Mississippi Burning the way the races interacted, including the language, is absolutely vital to the history.
I believe the term for naming the dog that particular word would be "egregious." The proper use of which can only be accomplished by shouting it as an incomplete sentence.
halonachos wrote:What about movies like Pulp Fiction?
It is all about the context. It's not that you're forbidden from ever using [see forum posting rules] ever, it's just that in the context it's used in The Dam Busters, it's no longer remotely appropriate.
Considering that I see all of this as a marketing gimmick, the fact that they are making such a big deal out of not naming the dog "something offensive" is causing just as much controversy as if they had named it... that other thing.
It's being discussed, so mission accomplished. I hope the guy that had this idea gets a big fat raise.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I assume from this we should be seeing a remake of Mississippi Burning any time now, with all the "unacceptable words" removed, and bugger the truth of things?
I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard, and you really need to spend some time thinking about what the truth of a story really is.
The oppression suffered by black people in Mississippi Burning was the central truth of the story, and that's perfectly captured in the use of the n-word. On the other hand, the Damnbusters is about a really crazy weapon being used in a really dangerous plan, in which the dog is just a dog, and whatever you call the dog doesn't really matter.
Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.
The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.
The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.
The crew went to the lavatory during the mission. It's outrageous that the crapping scenes are being cut from the film for no other reason than because some people might be offended. The gaks were part of the historical event.
It's not a massive change...
Dozens of films 'adapted' from rea events or books change things...
This is a surprisingly small and IMO well thought out change.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.
The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.
As Kilkrazy pointed out with his usual understatement, a great number of historically-factual details are commonly left out, glossed over, distorted or outright changed in any movie based on any historic event. 100% historical fidelity doesn't necessarily make a movie better, or even good. While I would be strongly opposed to changing the dog's name in a history book or in a documentary, when we're talking about a movie made for entertainment, it's another matter. A remake of a fun war movie is primarily made for entertainment purposes, not educational. The word is presently inflammatory and offensive when used out of context, and using it in a fun movie like this would be the wrong context and likely cause unnecessary offense.
I'd like to think that there's an element of truth to Monster Rain's conspiracy theory, though. Stephen Fry is awesome, so I tend to trust him. I wonder if discussing the change is in part intended by him or others as a way to provide context for the original, and encourage people to see it. Often remakes are a good impetus for a revival of interest in the original film.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Seems that a lot of people don't read articles properly. The Dog itself is, at best a cameo in the great scheme of things. Its not about whether the original film was spot on accurate either.
The problem comes from the fact that the dog's name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it. Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone. The used of [see forum posting rules] in Dambusters is not "inappropriate" even if it is now inappropriate to name your pets racial epithets because it is part of the story of the event. Nor was it introduced to cause publicity or a marketing stir..its there because its part of the historical event.
If you read the article correctly this issue is raised and Stephen Fry I believe says that one can't really get away with it.
I appreciate your comment on this point tbh but it will be see by the general public and it won't really affect their overall understanding of the plot and they won't have a need to know the detail.
The historically minded will know or get to know the true code name regardless so it won't be a problem.
I am more concerned with psuedo historical true life stories that really bend the actuality of history, yes you Gibson!
No not you Guy, the mad mullet crazy eyed Gibson.
It can be acceptable applied to people if relevant to the story, characters, and setting.
It can even be perfectly acceptable applied to a dog, in the right context. This isn't the right context. It'd just be an irrelevant distraction which would actually screw up the audience's focus and detract from the effectiveness of the storytelling. At least so (apparently) thinks Stephen Fry. If you fancy yourself a better writer than him, by all means, give him some competition.
I'm sorry, but if I ever make a story about history I'll make sure to rename everything to be less offensive.
Nazis will be "Socially Misunderstood Persons" and their flag will just be a red flag with no symbols on it. Guns will shoot paintballs instead of bullets, I mean as long as the story of D-Day is told who cares if the "Socially Misunderstood Persons" riddle the attacking forces with paintballs?
halonachos wrote:Nazis will be "Socially Misunderstood Persons" and their flag will just be a red flag with no symbols on it. Guns will shoot paintballs instead of bullets, I mean as long as the story of D-Day is told who cares if the "Socially Misunderstood Persons" riddle the attacking forces with paintballs?
Halo, I suspect that you're a nice person, but that argument doesn't seem like a sincere attempt at dialogue or the exchange of ideas in pursuit of mutual understanding.
I agree that real historical facts are important, even if ugly and unpleasant. If this were a historical documentary, or a history text, I'd agree with you. But it's not. Yes, the name of the dog would be a substantial distraction to many people. The context of our lives and the acceptable applications for it are significantly different than they were when the real dog was named, or even when the original movie was released.
IIRC Stephen Fry also supports downloading stuff illegally from the internetz. He's one outspoken and opinionated Brit, good stuff.
Anyway imo its a good move to change the name since it can piss off audiences and shift the attention of the picture. Plus you now have an extra tidbit for the DVD special features.
This is a different era we're living in and its hard to imagine even a comedy like Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles being made but shows like Family Guy's not too far from trying to follow its lead of being politically incorrect. Now only if Seth MacFarlane was as good as Mel Brooks....
Its not a historical document, but I for one don't believe in political correctness. Sure its being directed by Peter Jackson, but that doesn't mean they could at least try to make it as close to history as possible.
I mean for all things, to change the name of a dog for political correctness? I can't wait for them to remake Pulp Fiction and any other movie where its in 'context' and have them say something else, like 'Digger'?
I can see it now; "Why is there a dead digger in my garage?". That whole scene where the guy from Mad TV was accidentally killed by John Travolta in the car will just be filled with the word 'digger'.
The next closest thing this is to is when Spike Lee complained about Clint Eastwood's Letters of Iwo Jima and Flags of our Fathers because there were no black people in the movies.
"The film is not about the dog - my big concern would be if they watered down what the Dam Busters had achieved."
Which was not a great deal, the raid's only real benefit was as propaganda. Yes it's political correctness, yes it's bad that the facts have to be changed for films. But that is what happens whenever something changes medium. It's not U-571 bad though. By the way, things could have been much, much worse.
Peter Jackson via BBC News wrote:He came back and said that [film company] Icon had the rights and that Mel Gibson was going to direct and possibly act in it...
Oh, if Mel Gibson is in charge there will most likely be some other shots at other races of people so I guess that changing the name to 'digger' was to prevent too much protesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
halonachos wrote:Its not a historical document, but I for one don't believe in political correctness. ...
...
That did not need to be stated.
Maybe not, I don't subscribe to treating people differently due to race, color, or creed whether its positive or negative to do so. I'm a big believer in MLK Jr's philosophy on equality and political correctness is not how we shall obtain it in my opinion.
It's not political correctness to try not to really piss off a bunch of your consumers for no real good reason. It's good business. The purpose behind this film is primarily to generate profit, not be an in depth study of the subject.
halonachos wrote:I mean for all things, to change the name of a dog for political correctness? I can't wait for them to remake Pulp Fiction and any other movie where its in 'context' and have them say something else, like 'Digger'?
halonachos wrote:Again, movies like Pulp Fiction where the use of the N-word was exclusively used to refer to black people.
I was wrong, you are that naive. Your understanding of complex social and cultural dynamics in this area are staggeringly simple minded.
The trouble I see is that by changing the name of the dog it implies that Gibson was a shameful racist, which is not the case. The name was innocently used and it would be better if that was reflected rather than the implied disgrace of the alternative. It would have been better if they used the nickname of the dog, 'nigsy' instead. That at least had some accuracy, the oter decent alternative is not to include the dog at all.
As long as they don't change it to an American crew in an American bomber who happen to pick up all the Enigma codes and singlehandedly win the war on their way over I don't really mind...
Orlanth wrote:The trouble I see is that by changing the name of the dog it implies that Gibson was a shameful racist, which is not the case. The name was innocently used and it would be better if that was reflected rather than the implied disgrace of the alternative. It would have been better if they used the nickname of the dog, 'nigsy' instead. That at least had some accuracy, the oter decent alternative is not to include the dog at all.
If you want the movie to be about institutional racism versus 'shameful' racism this would be a good place to look, but it isn't about that and would only cuase a derailment of the film. I think anyone with a sense of history already nows that that kind of casual racism wasn't unusual during that time period and, again, wouldn't be worth the loss of revenue for something insignificant to the point of the film. If you want to see a major and odd change to history look into what SilverMK2 is referencing.
halonachos wrote:I mean for all things, to change the name of a dog for political correctness? I can't wait for them to remake Pulp Fiction and any other movie where its in 'context' and have them say something else, like 'Digger'?
halonachos wrote:Again, movies like Pulp Fiction where the use of the N-word was exclusively used to refer to black people.
I was wrong, you are that naive. Your understanding of complex social and cultural dynamics in this area are staggeringly simple minded.
Complex social and cultural dynamics? You do realize that I was referring to Chibi's post when I mentioned Pulp Fiction again right?
Chibi wrote:It is not acceptable to refer to Black people with that word, as you will notice if you have read some posts in this thread.
Is there really that complex of a social dynamic about the use of the N-word? Seriously Ahtman there really isn't, it was a word originally used to describe trash which was later used derogitavely towards blacks and that use has stuck in America. I don't know how England used the word or if they never once in their culture used it in that way as much as we did since the 1800's. But its pretty much well known that in America its bad to say the N-word because of its history. Wow, that was pretty simple.
Will people get mad about it, yes people like Al Sharpton and other people who are ignorant to the history of the name's meaning. If he kept it as the N-word it would create controversy and controversy is free publicity, would it dent their demographics you bet it would. But then again, who sees movies based off of history now? It would be refreshing from the rash of modern set films and super hero movies but those are the types of movies people want to see in this current market.
You have some sort of controversial part of the movie and then you have people saying, "Ooh, I wonder why its so controversial." and people will buy into it, maybe enough to make up the loss of potential revenue from people who are going to protest it because it has the N-word in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:As long as they don't change it to an American crew in an American bomber who happen to pick up all the Enigma codes and singlehandedly win the war on their way over I don't really mind...
Oh don't worry, I haven't seen Valkryie because of similar actions by Hollywood.
halonachos wrote:
Maybe not, I don't subscribe to treating people differently due to race, color, or creed whether its positive or negative to do so. I'm a big believer in MLK Jr's philosophy on equality and political correctness is not how we shall obtain it in my opinion.
You realize that MLK was basically a leading figure in creating what we now consider "political correctness", right?
Everyone is politically correct. You have to be in order to actually not die. You wouldn't call your mother a c-bomb, or the guy holding a gun to your head an idiot.
Orlanth wrote:The trouble I see is that by changing the name of the dog it implies that Gibson was a shameful racist, which is not the case. The name was innocently used and it would be better if that was reflected rather than the implied disgrace of the alternative. It would have been better if they used the nickname of the dog, 'nigsy' instead. That at least had some accuracy, the oter decent alternative is not to include the dog at all.
Not really
As I mentioned earlier the word was in common parlance with no intentional racist overtones.
It was used to describe something of a dark hue, rather than a person of black skin, in Britain in the first half of last century.
The racist connotations would not have been widely appreciated back in Gibson's day on ths side of the Atlantic, pre-1950's immigration.
It was then that the word was used with pejorative intentions.
As also mentioned the labrador was something of a mascot and the commemorated his loss by using his name for a successful call sign.
So it would be worse imho to leave him out altogether.
Is political correctness not calling a guy with a gun to your head an idiot? I don't think that calling your mother a c-bomb falls under political correctness as well.
MLK said that he had a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't see political correctness anywhere in that, I see people using a person's character and actions to judge them despite their color.
A white guy who steals a car is as much a crook as a black guy who steals a car and a white guy who saves somebody's life is as much a hero as a black guy who saves a person's life. Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin, a white guy who saves an evil guy's life is less of a hero than a black guy who saves an innocent person's life of course.
dogma wrote:
Everyone is politically correct. You have to be in order to actually not die. You wouldn't call your mother a c-bomb, or the guy holding a gun to your head an idiot.
Not everyone is politically correct, thank goodness.
Politeness or wisdom are not necessarily political correctness, and political correctness is not necessarily polite, let alone correct. In fact political correctness is very often political, but as often incorrect and hypoctritical regarding its goal iof avoiding offesnse and abuse. The Modus operandoi of the PC is often a warning not to appear to discriminate or we the politcally correct will overtly discriminate against you and call ourselves good in doing so. Where it claims to bring unity and promote equality it brings division and accusation.
Sorry Holanchos but since we are not going to change each others opinions on this it is time to say ta-ta.
Personally I would prefer that the original name be used, but it would have been a distraction not worth screwing a film over for.
Jackson has spent a lot of pennies recreating some full scale Lancasters for the film so the issue is obviously not big enough a deal for him to wind up people.
So Digger is fine imho and I look forward to seeing the film on release.
halonachos wrote:Is political correctness not calling a guy with a gun to your head an idiot? I don't think that calling your mother a c-bomb falls under political correctness as well.
To be politically correct is to do anything which is intended to maintain a politically positive relationship with another person, or group of people.
Politics are literally everywhere and are not just about being a Democrat or Republican.
dogma wrote:
To be politically correct is to do anything which is intended to maintain a politically positive relationship with another person, or group of people.
No its not. Thats called politeness, possibly even diplomacy depending on scale. Political correctness is a modern movement, politeness is part of basic human interaction.
Besides politcial correctness is only about niceties on the surface, scratch beneath and it's about empowerment politics.
Orlanth wrote:
Not everyone is politically correct, thank goodness.
Yes, they are.
Orlanth wrote:
Politeness or wisdom are not necessarily political correctness, and political correctness is not necessarily polite, let alone correct.
Every bit of that is completely wrong. Political correctness is always correct for the purpose of politics, and is always polite given the people the politically correct behavior is aimed at. Its also always wise.
Orlanth wrote:
In fact political correctness is very often political...
Really? I wonder what would have given you that idea.
Orlanth wrote:
...but as often incorrect and hypoctritical regarding its goal iof avoiding offesnse and abuse. The Modus operandoi of the PC is often a warning not to appear to discriminate or we the politcally correct will overtly discriminate against you and call ourselves good in doing so. Where it claims to bring unity and promote equality it brings division and accusation.
Wait, are you pretending that political correctness is some type of conspiracy? Or a particular list of behaviosr?
If either is the case, you are terribly mistaken. When I stand in front of a group of people, or a person that is significant to a group of people, and behave in a way that is deliberately inoffensive, then I am being politically correct. Being politically correct is not just not being racist, in fact racism can be politically correct (and has been throughout history) given the right audience. You seem to be using at as a conservative pejorative, which is just naive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
No its not.
Yes, it is.
Orlanth wrote:
Besides politcial correctness is only about niceties on the surface, scratch beneath and it's about empowerment politics.
halonachos wrote:Is political correctness not calling a guy with a gun to your head an idiot? I don't think that calling your mother a c-bomb falls under political correctness as well.
To be politically correct is to do anything which is intended to maintain a politically positive relationship with another person, or group of people.
Politics are literally everywhere and are not just about being a Democrat or Republican.
websters wrote:: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated
Insulting someone isn't under the jurisdiction of political correctness, however discriminating against a race and or sex is under the jurisdiction of political correctness. Not calling a mugger an idiot is common sense.
halonachos wrote:
Insulting someone isn't under the jurisdiction of political correctness, however discriminating against a race and or sex is under the jurisdiction of political correctness. Not calling a mugger an idiot is common sense.
When a definition notes something using the words "as in" it isn't being exclusive. Just as you wouldn't say calling a black man the n-word isn't an insult.
You are correct though, my example of the mugger was poorly chosen, as he is not necessarily part of a group of people. Your mother, however, certainly is.
Orlanth wrote:
Not everyone is politically correct, thank goodness.
Yes, they are.
I am not, so are many others.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Politeness or wisdom are not necessarily political correctness, and political correctness is not necessarily polite, let alone correct.
Every bit of that is completely wrong. Political correctness is always correct for the purpose of politics, and is always polite given the people the politically correct behavior is aimed at. Its also always wise.
Nope, political correctness emerged in the 1980's. Human interaction goes back a bit further. So to clarify someone being polite in the 1970's wasn't being poltically correct, as poltical correctness wasnt around then.
Now the politcally correct might try to hijack the concept of politeness and self identify with it. For those duped into using PC honestly that makes no difference, they are simply trying to be polite under new formal guidelines. For those who see political correctness as a tool for changing the politcial dialectic then masking poltically correct dogma as 'politeness' is a useful mask for baser ends.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
...but as often incorrect and hypoctritical regarding its goal iof avoiding offesnse and abuse. The Modus Operandi of the PC is often a warning not to appear to discriminate or we the politcally correct will overtly discriminate against you and call ourselves good in doing so. Where it claims to bring unity and promote equality it brings division and accusation.
Wait, are you pretending that political correctness is some type of conspiracy? Or a particular list of behaviour?
I am pretending nothing, I am observing. Political correctness is often used as a beatstick for political ends, failure to adhere to political correct dogma can lead to punishment of some form, and its is often unevenly applied. It preaches fairnes and equality, but does not deliver, in fact it can be a to by which unfairness is delivered, by inference that people who fail to adhere to politically correct terminology are offensive, ignorant or bigoted and that those who do are culturally superior.
Orlanth wrote:
When I stand in front of a group of people, or a person that is significant to a group of people, and behave in a way that is deliberately inoffensive, then I am being politically correct. Being politically correct is not just not being racist, in fact racism can be politically correct (and has been throughout history) given the right audience. You seem to be using at as a conservative pejorative, which is just naive.
Naive? Have you any idea what you are talking about? Rhetorical question by the way. You should try and live through New Labour, you would have seen the hard reality of political correctness and how easily it can be weaponised politically. Part of the OFFICIAL training I and many others had was to swallow the idea, packaged as political correctness, that women could not be sexist and ethnic minorities could not be racist. Both could be discriminatory, but at a lower level than someone who was in the 'political majority'. Political correctness enabled differing levels of treatment for similar offences and differing levels of opportunity based on blanket criteria. This dogma was enforced in the training, that 'disempowered persons' can be given advantages without surrendering the concept of equality, with the concept of empowerment being limited to blanket group identity membership. One had to formally agree with it being 'correct' in order to pass government accreditation (and keep your job). It is the root behind how you can marry the twin doctrines of claiming to be 'pro-equality' while openly practicing 'positive discrimination', even well beyond the point by which minorities are represented demographically in the workforce.
This is but one type of example, political correctness can do a whole lot of evils, and relabel them good. It can be used innocently but it is also an Orwellian concept depending on how it is applied.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Besides politcial correctness is only about niceties on the surface, scratch beneath and it's about empowerment politics.
What do you think politeness is about?
Politeness is about positive interaction, it makes no statement of itself about power balance.
halonachos wrote:
Insulting someone isn't under the jurisdiction of political correctness, however discriminating against a race and or sex is under the jurisdiction of political correctness. Not calling a mugger an idiot is common sense.
When a definition notes something using the words "as in" it isn't being exclusive. Just as you wouldn't say calling a black man the n-word isn't an insult.
You are correct though, my example of the mugger was poorly chosen, as he is not necessarily part of a group of people. Your mother, however, certainly is.
Not necessarily, if you normally use the term c-bag as an insult and just decided to use it against your mother it doesn't mean that you're being sexist or trying to offend her in relation to her sex, you could just really hate her because of how she acts.
Calling a black man the n-word is another fun concept because in my high school some of the black kids called each other the n-word when greeting each other.
In fact I have an aversion to the N-word because when I was 8 I was listening to some rap outside with my friends, a black kid from another neighborhood happened to be riding by on his bike when the rapper decided to use the N-word. The black kid thought that we were saying it and he got his older brother, and let's just say that when you're 8 years old and a highschooler comes up to you and your friends and threatens to get his friends and beat the living crap out of you, you try to avoid the word as much as possible. I don't avoid the use of the word out of political correctness, I avoided it out of fear for my life.
I had all sorts of fun with different races and culture when I was younger, in fact there was about a week in time when I thought that black people had tiny holes in their hands because a black kid in my class had managed to use soap to stick wet paper towels to his hand and told me that the holes allowed him to do so.
Negro isn't as offensive as the N-word for some reason, but 'colored' is more offensive than negro for some reason(maybe due to the 'colored only' signs that were common during the time period).
Although we have organizations known as the United Negro College Fund and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The use of those words are really off.
halonachos wrote:Its not a historical document, but I for one don't believe in political correctness.
As Dogma pointed out, the essential point behind what we label "Politically Correct" behavior is simply politeness. Sensitivity to words and actions which may offend others, whose values and experience are different from our own. Too often, a rejection of "Political Correctness" is a rejection of common courtesy and common sense. There was a backlash against PC starting in the 90s when overzealous advocates of PC took it to the level of parody and silliness, but the basic concept is just not giving unnecessary offense. Not giving unnecessary offense, and taking the perspectives of others into account, are for most of us part of being respectful and thoughtful adults.
Stephen Fry evidently agrees, as he concluded that using the word as the dog's name, in the present day version of this movie-made-for-entertainment (not an educational film, which, I reiterate, would have a stricter duty to historical accuracy), would be inappropriate.
halonachos wrote: Sure its being directed by Peter Jackson, but that doesn't mean they could at least try to make it as close to history as possible.
This is the kind of bad reasoning which leads overenthusiastic Tolkien fanatics to decry stuff like Tom Bombadil being left out of Fellowship of the Ring. I LIKE Tom Bombadil, and I appreciate what he brings to the book. But the book and the movie are two different things. And what works in one context does not necessarily make sense in another, especially when you're making a movie for a mass-market audience which doesn't universally possess the knowledge and context to understand everything. Just as mass-market audiences would not have gotten WTH was going on with Bombadil, modern mass-market audiences would be jarred and distracted by the casual use of this word as a dog's name.
halonachos wrote:I mean for all things, to change the name of a dog for political correctness? I can't wait for them to remake Pulp Fiction and any other movie where its in 'context' and have them say something else, like 'Digger'?
That doesn't make any sense at all. Within the CONTEXT of Pulp Fiction's setting, the use of the word in the way those characters use it makes perfect sense. It is evocative of their culture and mindsets, and Tarantino doesn't use it to denigrate or abuse anyone. Audiences are also familiar (at least from movies and TV, and that's the pop culture language Tarantino is pretty expert with) with the kind of criminal and street culture these characters are part of, and their vocabulary makes sense in that context. Bear in mind, too, that these characters aren't put forth as role models or heroes. The guys casually slinging around this kind of language aren't really glorified. They mostly come to bad ends.
Contrariwise, while historically, naming your dog that might not have been a denigration of anyone, but you can be darn sure that modern audiences would see it as derogatory and insulting. And the dog's name really doesn't have anything to do with the story.
Orlanth wrote:Politeness is about positive interaction, it makes no statement of itself about power balance.
Except when we're trained to be extra polite to those in authority.
It seems to me that you're trying to make an overly fine distinction. Politeness has always been about maintaining social order, usually the status quo. The Pc movement of the late 20th century is disgtinguishable not because it attempts to foster political content into etiquette, but because it politeness was changing because of groups aside from the ruling elite.
halonachos wrote:
Not necessarily, if you normally use the term c-bag as an insult and just decided to use it against your mother it doesn't mean that you're being sexist or trying to offend her in relation to her sex, you could just really hate her because of how she acts.
Calling a black man the n-word is another fun concept because in my high school some of the black kids called each other the n-word when greeting each other.
You're correct, context is everything, but as you'll no doubt know, that holds true for political correctness as well. What is politically correct in a Communist meeting is not politically correct in one of your chosen Conservative party.
@Mannahin, what's funny is the use of denigration which has the same stem as the N-word. From the Latin meaning 'to blacken' or 'defame'.
So what you're saying is that context is more important than what actually happened? In the context of Pulp Fiction they didn't have to use the N-word, Tarantino just did.
In this movie they actually named the dog that word and in context they meant it innocently enough compared to the context of Pulp Fiction where they used it derogitavely. So it is more acceptable for the N-word to be used derogitavely as long as the movie is about fake people who use it in a derogative context because they're 'street' compared to the use of the N-word being used innocently in context in a movie based off of history where it was actually used.
I am wondering exactly why context matters so much for Pulp Fiction and not for the dambuster movie.
halonachos wrote:Its not a historical document, but I for one don't believe in political correctness.
As Dogma pointed out, the essential point behind what we label "Politically Correct" behavior is simply politeness. Sensitivity to words and actions which may offend others, whose values and experience are different from our own.
Political correctness sometimes hijacks the concept of politeness, it doesn't embody it. One can be politically correct and rude, one can be politcally correct and offensive. One can be polite without refering to politically correct terminology or otherwise being politcally correct. The term has specific subset meaning of supposedly positive interaction, rather than general.
Really? If you were to address a group of people, say employees, you would refer to them with epithets?
Well, you might, but even if you were to do so you would be doing in order to elicit a particular political effect, which may or may not be correct. Unless you weren't smart enough to consider the politics of the situation important.
Orlanth wrote:
Nope, political correctness emerged in the 1980's. Human interaction goes back a bit further. So to clarify someone being polite in the 1970's wasn't being poltically correct, as poltical correctness wasnt around then.
That's utter nonsense. The absence of the existence of a term has nothing to do with its applicability. If it did, then translating the word for "jump" in Ancient Greek into "jump" would be a farce.
Orlanth wrote:
Political correctness is often used as a beatstick for political ends, failure to adhere to political correct dogma can lead to punishment of some form, and its is often unevenly applied.
Of course it is, it's political.
Orlanth wrote:
It preaches fairnes and equality, but does not deliver, in fact it can be a to by which unfairness is delivered, by inference that people who fail to adhere to politically correct terminology are offensive, ignorant or bigoted and that those who do are culturally superior.
You very clearly don't understand what "fair" or "equality" means. "Fair" means in accordance with whatever standard of justice the speaker wishes, and equality follows from equal treatment according to a standard. If that standard is "don't be a sexist man" and all men are treated in a way which punishes them for sexism, then the standard is applied equally.
And that's all before you start thinking about progressing to those states, and not actually being in them right now.
Orlanth wrote:
Naive?
Yes.
Orlanth wrote:
Have you any idea what you are talking about?
Yes.
Orlanth wrote:
Rhetorical question by the way.
I didn't ask a question in the bit you quoted.
Orlanth wrote:
You should try and live through New Labour, you would have seen the hard reality of political correctness and how easily it can be weaponised politically.
That's not relevant to my point that everyone is politically correct.
Orlanth wrote:
Irrelevant rant.
You're just upset because you had to do something you didn't like, and are now calling anything you don't like "politically correct". Its yet another entry in a long list of reasons that I consider you not worth speaking to.
Orlanth wrote:
Politeness is about positive interaction, it makes no statement of itself about power balance.
I didn't say that it did. You're putting words in my mouth.
Though, again, that's utter nonsense. Politeness is predicated on etiquette, and etiquette is all about standards set by society, which is governed by power. The curtsy wasn't polite because everyone liked it when women did it, it was polite because men held power over women, and viewed that gesture as indicative of submission.
Political correctness is avoiding the use of 'offensive' terms or actions in relation to sex or race, and avoiding discriminating policies. Affirmative action isn't politcally correct because it does discriminate based on race. Not saying the N-word can be called political correctness in most cases although some people don't say it for other personal reasons.
I for one am not politically correct, I say what I want to in disregard of race, creed, or sex.
halonachos wrote:Political correctness is avoiding the use of 'offensive' terms or actions in relation to sex or race, and avoiding discriminating policies. Affirmative action isn't politcally correct because it does discriminate based on race. Not saying the N-word can be called political correctness in most cases although some people don't say it for other personal reasons.
I for one am not politically correct, I say what I want to in disregard of race, creed, or sex.
Is what you say intentionally offensive, or do you make some effort to respect the race, creed, or sex of those around you?
If in any way the latter, you are being politically correct.
halonachos wrote:@Mannahin, what's funny is the use of denigration which has the same stem as the N-word. From the Latin meaning 'to blacken' or 'defame'.
So what you're saying is that context is more important than what actually happened? In the context of Pulp Fiction they didn't have to use the N-word, Tarantino just did.
In this movie they actually named the dog that word and in context they meant it innocently enough compared to the context of Pulp Fiction where they used it derogitavely. So it is more acceptable for the N-word to be used derogitavely as long as the movie is about fake people who use it in a derogative context because they're 'street' compared to the use of the N-word being used innocently in context in a movie based off of history where it was actually used.
I am wondering exactly why context matters so much for Pulp Fiction and not for the dambuster movie.
In Pulp Fiction, the characters are (at best) anti-heroes. They are criminals who speak and act in a way that we enjoy watching, but now both that it is fake, and that they are not to be emulated. Nobody thinks, after watching the movie, that Vincent Vega is a bad guy because he uses racial slurs. They know he's a bad guy because he shot a black person in the face and showed zero remorse.
Compare that the an air crew that are actual people, and portrayed as actual, bona fide, heros. Seeing them use racial slurs now is a negative thing.
halonachos wrote:Political correctness is avoiding the use of 'offensive' terms or actions in relation to sex or race, and avoiding discriminating policies. Affirmative action isn't politcally correct because it does discriminate based on race. Not saying the N-word can be called political correctness in most cases although some people don't say it for other personal reasons.
I for one am not politically correct, I say what I want to in disregard of race, creed, or sex.
Is what you say intentionally offensive, or do you make some effort to respect the race, creed, or sex of those around you?
If in any way the latter, you are being politically correct.
I actually make no effort to respect anything, I'll joke about just about anything and if someone outside my conversation gets upset I kindly tell them to mind their own business. I went on a spiel about Nazi-druids one time, and that caused issue with some people.
Polonius wrote:
Compare that the an air crew that are actual people, and portrayed as actual, bona fide, heros. Seeing them use racial slurs now is a negative thing.
To put it another way, the concept of an anti-hero exists in order to show that heroism is hollow. If you don't want to show that, then you don't make the hero do things which indicate as much.
Actually, as I said I don't use the N-word out of fear established when I was younger. That and the spanking I got when I said it in front of my parents.
As far as sexist epithets go I am comfortable saying stuff like 'make me a sammich' and as far as homophobic language I'm not too sure what you mean. I will use slang, but I have no utter hatred for homosexuals or really any kind of person to warrant me to insult them for being so.
halonachos wrote:Actually, as I said I don't use the N-word out of fear established when I was younger. That and the spanking I got when I said it in front of my parents.
As far as sexist epithets go I am comfortable saying stuff like 'make me a sammich' and as far as homophobic language I'm not too sure what you mean. I will use slang, but I have no utter hatred for homosexuals or really any kind of person to warrant me to insult them for being so.
Let me try another question. Have you always told every boss you've had exactly what you think of them, or have you kept stuff back?
It's unlikely that you are completely unfiltered in your speech.
halonachos wrote:Actually, as I said I don't use the N-word out of fear established when I was younger. That and the spanking I got when I said it in front of my parents.
That's political correctness.
Politics is involves in everything. Many Americans just don't like to admit it.
halonachos wrote:Actually, as I said I don't use the N-word out of fear established when I was younger. That and the spanking I got when I said it in front of my parents.
As far as sexist epithets go I am comfortable saying stuff like 'make me a sammich' and as far as homophobic language I'm not too sure what you mean. I will use slang, but I have no utter hatred for homosexuals or really any kind of person to warrant me to insult them for being so.
Let me try another question. Have you always told every boss you've had exactly what you think of them, or have you kept stuff back?
It's unlikely that you are completely unfiltered in your speech.
I've only had one boss and I've actually always thought highly of him, he gets on register when needed and actually does the work everyone else does so I'll have to get back to you when I have a bad boss.
If you want to count my mom as a boss, I have told her that she was nuts and paranoid once. We usually get into fights because I do voice my opinion about her to her face. I do odd jobs and my brother and I were unable to finish a large project within a short amount of time and the guy who hired us said that we did a fine job and that we were done, basically we were fired. I sent him a message telling him not to sugar coat it next time. I wear my heart on my sleeves and if someone is doing something I don't like I will tell them regardless of who they are.
Politics's fifth definition says that its used in social interaction, and I believe that's even the secondary part of the fifth definition of politics. I don't say the N-word because I wish to not offend anyone, I don't say it because it was never really part of my vocabulary to begin with.
Well, it's certainly possible you've led a life free from people you thought little of that could negatively effect your life, and were raised to be polite, but that's still politically correct behavior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Politics's fifth definition says that its used in social interaction, and I believe that's even the secondary part of the fifth definition of politics. I don't say the N-word because I wish to not offend anyone, I don't say it because it was never really part of my vocabulary to begin with.
But why wasn't it part of your vocabulary? It's a really useful word in a lot of different social circles.
Polonius wrote:Well, it's certainly possible you've led a life free from people you thought little of that could negatively effect your life, and were raised to be polite, but that's still politically correct behavior.
How is living a life free from people I don't like considered to be politically correct? I would call it luck personally, as far as being polite I wouldn't say that I am the most polite but I do understand certain social cues. I don't do anything to avoid offending anyone based on sex or race, which puts me well clear of the definition of political correctness.
halonachos wrote:I don't say the N-word because I wish to not offend anyone, I don't say it because it was never really part of my vocabulary to begin with.
It very obviously is. You know the word, therefore its part of your vocabulary.
Polonius wrote:Well, it's certainly possible you've led a life free from people you thought little of that could negatively effect your life, and were raised to be polite, but that's still politically correct behavior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Politics's fifth definition says that its used in social interaction, and I believe that's even the secondary part of the fifth definition of politics. I don't say the N-word because I wish to not offend anyone, I don't say it because it was never really part of my vocabulary to begin with.
But why wasn't it part of your vocabulary? It's a really useful word in a lot of different social circles.
Never really said it for some reason, I guess I never had reason to. Never had a lot of 'ghetto' friends who used it, never really saw any films with the word in it until I saw Pulp Fiction actually. Can't say really, but like I said I guess I never had cause to.
Polonius wrote:Well, it's certainly possible you've led a life free from people you thought little of that could negatively effect your life, and were raised to be polite, but that's still politically correct behavior.
How is living a life free from people I don't like considered to be politically correct? I would call it luck personally, as far as being polite I wouldn't say that I am the most polite but I do understand certain social cues. I don't do anything to avoid offending anyone based on sex or race, which puts me well clear of the definition of political correctness.
I was being sarcastic.
You don't need to put effort into being politicfally correct because it comes naturally to you. If you understand social cues, and respond to them, there is a 100% chance you are doing things that are politcally correct.
If you have a social circle where others enjoy jokes that might be considered offensive, than telilng those jokes, in that context, is PC.
halonachos wrote:I don't say the N-word because I wish to not offend anyone, I don't say it because it was never really part of my vocabulary to begin with.
It very obviously is. You know the word, therefore its part of your vocabulary.
halonachos wrote:Never really said it for some reason, I guess I never had reason to. Never had a lot of 'ghetto' friends who used it, never really saw any films with the word in it until I saw Pulp Fiction actually. Can't say really, but like I said I guess I never had cause to.
Yeah, I don't mean to sound horribly dismissive, but it sounds like part of the disconnect here is that you might not have the widest exposure yet. The advantages of not offending people go up the more diverse your experiences are.
It also doesn't exactly sound like you behave in a way that isnt' PC, so while you may not be making any effort to do so, you're accomplished the same thing.
Polonius wrote:Well, it's certainly possible you've led a life free from people you thought little of that could negatively effect your life, and were raised to be polite, but that's still politically correct behavior.
How is living a life free from people I don't like considered to be politically correct? I would call it luck personally, as far as being polite I wouldn't say that I am the most polite but I do understand certain social cues. I don't do anything to avoid offending anyone based on sex or race, which puts me well clear of the definition of political correctness.
I was being sarcastic.
You don't need to put effort into being politicfally correct because it comes naturally to you. If you understand social cues, and respond to them, there is a 100% chance you are doing things that are politcally correct.
If you have a social circle where others enjoy jokes that might be considered offensive, than telilng those jokes, in that context, is PC.
Political correctness is the avoidance of saying or doing things that are offensive to a person's political sensibilities in regards to race and or sex. Again, if you want to use politics in reference to social life then its about the second half of the 5th definition for 'politics'.
In the context of the Nazi-druid spiel, that was in public and it happened to offend a jewish kid. At that point I called him a Nazi-druid supporter mainly because I didn't care about his religious affiliation while I was making a jestful rant. It was also around the time that somebody was being made fun of for saying that they were the Rosa Parks of some sort of movement and when he told me to take my soap box elsewhere I declared that I was the Rosa Parks of anti-Nazi-druidism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
halonachos wrote:Never really said it for some reason, I guess I never had reason to. Never had a lot of 'ghetto' friends who used it, never really saw any films with the word in it until I saw Pulp Fiction actually. Can't say really, but like I said I guess I never had cause to.
Yeah, I don't mean to sound horribly dismissive, but it sounds like part of the disconnect here is that you might not have the widest exposure yet. The advantages of not offending people go up the more diverse your experiences are.
It also doesn't exactly sound like you behave in a way that isnt' PC, so while you may not be making any effort to do so, you're accomplished the same thing.
I grew up in a multicultural neighborhood actually; Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Blacks, Italians, people from Alabama... so I have seen diversity but I missed out on racism 101 apparantly.
halonachos wrote:Political correctness is the avoidance of saying or doing things that are offensive to a person's political sensibilities in regards to race and or sex. Again, if you want to use politics in reference to social life then its about the second half of the 5th definition for 'politics'.
Unless you are always offending everybody (unlikely), than you are being politically correct.
In the context of the Nazi-druid spiel, that was in public and it happened to offend a jewish kid. At that point I called him a Nazi-druid supporter mainly because I didn't care about his religious affiliation while I was making a jestful rant. It was also around the time that somebody was being made fun of for saying that they were the Rosa Parks of some sort of movement and when he told me to take my soap box elsewhere I declared that I was the Rosa Parks of anti-Nazi-druidism.
Good for you, you're a smart-ass kid with enough education to be clever.
I'm not sure what the point of the story was.
Polonius wrote:I grew up in a multicultural neighborhood actually; Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Blacks, Italians, people from Alabama... so I have seen diversity but I missed out on racism 101 apparantly.
Yes, because racism is poliltically incorrect.
See where I"m going with this?
Just because being PC is something you think about doesn't mean you're not doing it.
I grew up in a middle eastern neighborhood. My reactions to offensive things about Arabs isn't based on conscious thought, I just know from experience what is, in many circles, PC.
Polonius, you have no idea about how many times I've been called a smart ass or any other variation of that word. I'm kind of used to it, but ooh, you called me clever! That was a nice thing to say. Thank you Polonius, I appreciate that.
I'm not too sure if I follow political correctness though, its the institution that believes offensive words and practices should be eliminated. Like getting rid of the n-word for example, I don't want that though. I want it to be so that anyone can say anything.
You know those "don't say gay" commercials, like the one with Wanda Sykes in it? That's political correctness because they want to eliminate the word's use. We have a culture that tells us we shouldn't say certain words because it could offend people when we believe in the first amendment, instead of having some sort of self-censorship I would like to see the removal of the beliefs that cause the self-censorship.
Political Correctness is essentially self-censorship. I self-censor whenever I am more polite in criticizing a coworker than I would be with a personal friend. Everyone self-censors when they choose not to express themselves and their innermost thoughts freely in front of any given group. Whether it's choosing not to tell your boss that you think his idea is stupid, or choosing not to use offensive words in front of the people those words directly denigrate.
If Wanda Sykes or George Takei choose to point out when people are being offensive jerks, that can be a good thing. Part of society is reacting to offensive things and encouraging people not to be jerks.
Sometimes people overreact too, and that's part of why there's a backlash against Political Correctness. The other reason is because some people (like straight white dudes, such as myself) are in a privileged position and used to enjoying the perquisites of that privilege, such as talking crap about other people, and they don't like to lose that privilege.
halonachos wrote:Polonius, you have no idea about how many times I've been called a smart ass or any other variation of that word. I'm kind of used to it, but ooh, you called me clever! That was a nice thing to say. Thank you Polonius, I appreciate that.
I assumed that being a smartass was your goal. So, you know, goal achieved. You'll find that you need to step up your game as life moves on, but upsetting minorities is god's work.
I'm not too sure if I follow political correctness though, its the institution that believes offensive words and practices should be eliminated. Like getting rid of the n-word for example, I don't want that though. I want it to be so that anyone can say anything.
Well, no, PC is the idea that in order to gain, keep, or avoid losing support amongst a group certain language should be used. When you hang out with a neo-nazi bowling team, the term "african-american" would be offensive.
The actual PC movement is based on the idea that words and terms are hurtful, both in a historical context and in current useage. There are certainly fringes that would want to somehow remove a word from the vernacular, but most want, more than anything, the recognitiion that the words are hurtful.
And that's what a lot of anti-PC people seem to forget. It's not about restricting speech, it's about the understanding of the effects of speech. The result is the same, but nobody wants to ban an epithet because they want to control how people talk. They want to ban it because of the effect it has on people.
A broader approach is that when referrring to people, one should be respectful, and one way to show respect to a group is to use the term they wish to describe them.
You know those "don't say gay" commercials, like the one with Wanda Sykes in it? That's political correctness because they want to eliminate the word's use. We have a culture that tells us we shouldn't say certain words because it could offend people when we believe in the first amendment, instead of having some sort of self-censorship I would like to see the removal of the beliefs that cause the self-censorship.
there is a lot packed into this, and it's charming in it's earnestness.
The first amendment is about governmental interference. I have the right to be unfettered by law from calling a minority any slur I choose. I support your god given right to be a racist tool.
And yes, we have a culture that tells us what we can and can't, or should or shouldn't, say. That's how culture works. It extends past you and your circle of freinds, and encompasses a lot of people. And a lot of people don't like hearing swear words on network TV, or hearing minorities referred to by racial slurs.
There is also the theory, which I think has a lot of merit, in that words have meanings. They can be complext, they can shift, and they aren't always easy to pin down, but they have meanings. The very fact that many racial slurs have powerful connotations of hate is what makes them worth having in the language, as that makes them symbolic.
Choosing to use those words, without being aware of their history and the effect it will have, is at best naive and insenstivie and at worst anatagonizing. The words itself are used to express the beliefs. Which is why, when I'm with a gay friend that knows me, he doesn't care when I'll describe an unpleasant situation as "gay." He knows I'm not homophobic, so doesn't mind. But not everybody knows that I'm not homophobic, so a term used in that way could easily be construed as such.
You also get into the idea that language shapes thought. Calling people by slurs instead of with positive language reinforces negative feelings about those groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Sometimes people overreact too, and that's part of why there's a backlash against Political Correctness. The other reason is because some people (like straight white dudes, such as myself) are in a privileged position and used to enjoying the perquisites of that privilege, such as talking crap about other people, and they don't like to lose that privilege.
It does seem that people in the majority seem to value the use of slurs more than the people in the minority. It's so weird...
Well, no, it does matter. If you know the word, and don't use it, then there's probably a reason for it, and that reason is likely political correctness.
Polonius, you can say all you want about Political Correctness and what it should mean but the actual definition says that is the institution that seeks to elminate behavior and vocabulary that may offend a person's political sensibilities.
I don't seek to eliminate derogatory terms because at one point and time most of those words meant something else.
I don't use the N-word, as I stated before, because I have had no cause to do so, words such as dumb ass are sufficient most of the time. Now if someone made me sufficiently angry then I probably would. Seriously, if somebody bumped into me and made me mess up painting my model would it be reasonable for me to shout the N-word? Not really, if a cashier takes my order incorrectly is the N-word the first thing that comes to mind? The answer is no, there are so many insults and varying levels of insults that can be used appropriately at different levels; dummy, moron, and so on and on you know.
Now if I got shot in the chest I would probably say it.
halonachos wrote:Polonius, you can say all you want about Political Correctness and what it should mean but the actual definition says that is the institution that seeks to elminate behavior and vocabulary that may offend a person's political sensibilities.
I would be interested to see that definition.
I don't seek to eliminate derogatory terms because at one point and time most of those words meant something else.
Not that words don't have meanings and value, but how do you get past what they mean now?
I mean, how useful is the word "peckerwood" really to a discussion of ornithology? I had to look it up to see what it meant other than "poor white trash."
Really? If you were to address a group of people, say employees, you would refer to them with epithets?
Well, you might, but even if you were to do so you would be doing in order to elicit a particular political effect, which may or may not be correct. Unless you weren't smart enough to consider the politics of the situation important.
You are labouring under the delusion that political correctness is synonymous with positive social interaction, this is simply not bourne by the facts either in how it is defined or how it is applied. Political correctness is a specific political-linguistic movement with its own style and culture independent of previous attempts to define norms for societal conduct.
dogma wrote:
The absence of the existence of a term has nothing to do with its applicability. If it did, then translating the word for "jump" in Ancient Greek into "jump" would be a farce.
The absence of the term is also marked by the absence of the doctrine accompanying it. We had concepts for polite interaction long before we had doctrines over non use of words like black in 'blackboard' renamed to 'chalkboard'. Political correctness introduces forms of offense that simply were not offensive prior to its introduction.
dogma wrote:
You very clearly don't understand what "fair" or "equality" means. "Fair" means in accordance with whatever standard of justice the speaker wishes, and equality follows from equal treatment according to a standard. If that standard is "don't be a sexist man" and all men are treated in a way which punishes them for sexism, then the standard is applied equally.
And that's all before you start thinking about progressing to those states, and not actually being in them right now.
You unwittingly defeat your own argument.
I understand 'fair' and 'equal', both those terms have a neutral meaning. Equality has an absolute definition: two equals two, political equality need not be equal, and fairness can be redefined. As indicated in my previous posts on this subject (including those you write off as irrelevant rant). Part of the damage regarding poltical correctness is how it can be used to redefine fairness on the grounds that it is considered of itself to be progrssive and even, even when it favours preferential treatment of one group overr another through the dialectic.
While political posturing and propoganda are as old as politics, political correctness has a seperate distinct methodology, which helps define it as a distinct movement in dialectic doctrine, and seperate it as a specific code of conduct for human interaction rather than a definitive term for positive human interaction.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Irrelevant rant.
You're just upset because you had to do something you didn't like, and are now calling anything you don't like "politically correct". Its yet another entry in a long list of reasons that I consider you not worth speaking to.
Here we come to the crunch. I give a personal experience account, purely as an example, and it is received as a personal hangup, which is not the case. I disagree with political correctness for far more than my own personal experiences. I prefer to give my expereinces because I am freer to describe them than the experiences of others I see meet or hear about who have similar tales. Were my experiences isolated it would behoove me to simple consider them as such, isolated incidents that do not show a pattern. Sadly this is not the case. In any event I heavy emphasise on the general nature of political correctness rather than my own testimony, and so mentioned it here once, while speaking about political correctness in general terms at length.
You see I can argue calm rationally. Sadly it doesn't appear you can, but cause you just cannot help but be rude and obnoxious. You resort to trying to redefine others arguments into simple matters of want or hate without good reason, and showing how quickly you are trapped by the same by your own hate speech justified by the above.
It all comes back to your usual retreat of ad hominem attacks when twisting or ignoring arguments fails to progress a disagreement as fast as you would like.
After long experience of your misbehaviour I cant say I expected better from you, I do however attempt to remain on topic and to refrain from being rude in turn to you in spite of your obnoxious rhetoric. However you do reply rather a lot for someone who considers me 'not worth speaking to'. Rather contradictory that, perhaps you are just lashing out blindly, is your psyche so shallow you cannot control yourself? If so perhaps its time you learn to grow up.
halonachos wrote:Polonius, you can say all you want about Political Correctness and what it should mean but the actual definition says that is the institution that seeks to elminate behavior and vocabulary that may offend a person's political sensibilities.
I would be interested to see that definition.
I don't seek to eliminate derogatory terms because at one point and time most of those words meant something else.
Not that words don't have meanings and value, but how do you get past what they mean now?
I mean, how useful is the word "peckerwood" really to a discussion of ornithology? I had to look it up to see what it meant other than "poor white trash."
Peckerwood meant 'poor white trash'? That must be some northern colloquialism or slang.
I got that definition from Merriam-Webster himself, had to dig him up to ask him, but it was worth it. Any which way I find it, its always avoidance or removal of terms and actions that may offend.
Mannahnin wrote:Political Correctness is essentially self-censorship. I self-censor whenever I am more polite in criticizing a coworker than I would be with a personal friend. Everyone self-censors when they choose not to express themselves and their innermost thoughts freely in front of any given group. Whether it's choosing not to tell your boss that you think his idea is stupid, or choosing not to use offensive words in front of the people those words directly denigrate.
If Wanda Sykes or George Takei choose to point out when people are being offensive jerks, that can be a good thing. Part of society is reacting to offensive things and encouraging people not to be jerks.
Sometimes people overreact too, and that's part of why there's a backlash against Political Correctness. The other reason is because some people (like straight white dudes, such as myself) are in a privileged position and used to enjoying the perquisites of that privilege, such as talking crap about other people, and they don't like to lose that privilege.
The trouble with this viewpoint is the political correctness is not necessarily self-censorship. It can be only if one is mentally tied into the political culture of political correctness, via training or otherwise. Otherwise the censorship may well be external. Self-censorship comes essentially from the idea 'I should not say this because its wrong and it might cause offense', external censorship might follow along the lines of 'I should not say this because I am liable to reap negative consequences'. While both require a personal choice to censor the former is a state of mind achieved by following a particular culture, the latter is a foreign imposition of will and does not reflect the individuals true choices.
Political correctness holds its own form of threat, it also holds a social code as to who can say what they is entirely arbitrary. A good example being the idea that ther N-word is an insult in some poeples mouths, and a term of endearment or community in others. The same word can be liberally promoted or lead to shame - as is the case here. This particular culture is unique to modern politcal correctness and helps indicate how it is a seperate movement different and distinct to other forms of standards for social interaction.
Proponents of political correctness can have good copy in trying to pass of their doctrine as polite interaction per se, however this is grossly unfair and disempowers, perhaps deliberately those who disagree with its cultural outlook. One can be polite and utterly reject political correctness. This by extension means that you can be delierately and intentionally polite, yet have offence taken nonetheless if one or other parties follows political correctness and the other does not.
I don't think Political Correctness is a new phenomenon, although the way it is presently labeled is fairly recent. I can agree with you that it's not always self-imposed. Often (like George or Wanda) other people are telling you that a given expression or phrase is inappropriate. But that's not necessarily oppressive. That's just part of human society. We communicate with each other about acceptable or offensive or harmful behavior, including speech, and we try to come to some accord and mutual agreement under which we can interact harmoniously.
I don't think it represents a unique or insidious threat. For the most part even the most zealous and annoying purveyors of it are merely trying to reduce the number of instances in which weaker or marginalized groups are consciously or unconsciously put down through derogatory language. Sometimes their attempts to do that are heavy-handed and dumb in their execution. Some years ago I did some reading on the Romany, the Gypsies, because I was interested in them, and I learned that the word "gypped" a synonym for cheated or swindled, is a slur against them. So I stopped using it and encouraged others not to do so. I was a teenager at the time, so I'm sure sometimes I was rude or clumsy in how I expressed it, but the essential point was trying to reduce the use of a racial slur. Which virtually everyone I corrected didn't even KNOW was a slur, but which I'm sure would have been felt by anyone of Romany heritage who heard them use it.
Mannahnin wrote:Orlanth, I disagree with your thesis.
I don't think Political Correctness is a new phenomenon, although the way it is presently labeled is fairly recent. I can agree with you that it's not always self-imposed. Often (like George or Wanda) other people are telling you that a given expression or phrase is inappropriate. But that's not necessarily oppressive. That's just part of human society. We communicate with each other about acceptable or offensive or harmful behavior, including speech, and we try to come to some accord and mutual agreement under which we can interact harmoniously.
I don't think it represents a unique or insidious threat. For the most part even the most zealous and annoying purveyors of it are merely trying to reduce the number of instances in which weaker or marginalized groups are consciously or unconsciously put down through derogatory language. Sometimes their attempts to do that are heavy-handed and dumb in their execution. Some years ago I did some reading on the Romany, the Gypsies, because I was interested in them, and I learned that the word "gypped" a synonym for cheated or swindled, is a slur against them. So I stopped using it and encouraged others not to do so. I was a teenager at the time, so I'm sure sometimes I was rude or clumsy in how I expressed it, but the essential point was trying to reduce the use of a racial slur. Which virtually everyone I corrected didn't even KNOW was a slur, but which I'm sure would have been felt by anyone of Romany heritage who heard them use it.
We don't exactly see eye to eye on this, fair enough.
The recent labelling in my mind is the political correctness, from your comments you see it as something larger. However the larger 'theoretical' political correctness from my perspective doesnt fully exist in manistream society. A social code of conduct requires proliferation to work. The early forms of political correctness as it was first coined in the early 70's are not really relevant as they had no real influence, thus until it gained influence enough to work on society it shouldn't be included as a factor of societal culture as a whole. Therefore 'recent' political correctness embodies the culture of political correctness, with its preceding history being just an embryonic form within (primarily) the feminist movement.
The second point you raise is (paraphrased) a reasonable appeal that even the most zealous are attempting to improve the lot in society of disadvantaged people. This could well be the case, however the motive for teaching the doctrine and may or may not be about empowerment depending on the individual. by its definition and how it is utilised politcal correctness will almost walys work to the benefit of those considered 'disempowered', by eliminating negative language and challenging practices. This indeed was what I was taught. However the bugbear can appear in the methodologies for enfcoring politcal correctness and also the consequences for those sections of society not considered disadvantages.
If politcal correctness is applied at face value then it will elevate the disadvantaged to the level of the poltical/social majority. However it can also be managed to replace them as a new elite, which can have politcal dividends and thus be poltically desirable.
In this i see a real danger, but by no means will I accuse every practitioner of poltically correct doctrine guilty of, many problably the vast majoirty are attempting to use the doctrine as a means of bettering society for all. If that is all there was to it, it would suffer littel objerction excrpt from hardened bigots. as it happens many people have a fear or wariness of political correctness, which is a shadow of the other application of the movement.
Orlanth wrote:
You are labouring under the delusion that political correctness is synonymous with positive social interaction, this is simply not bourne by the facts either in how it is defined or how it is applied. Political correctness is a specific political-linguistic movement with its own style and culture independent of previous attempts to define norms for societal conduct.
No, utter nonsense. And, before you say it, no, I'm not making an argument. I'm flat-out stating that you are incorrect because there is no other possible response to someone who has imagined a thing into existence. Maybe there was a political movement in England that you call "PC" but the reality is that "PC" extends far beyond that movement, if it exists or existed.
Orlanth wrote:
The absence of the term is also marked by the absence of the doctrine accompanying it.
Even if there was no doctrine, the word still apply. Politically correct has a meaning which extends beyond the cliffs of Dover. It can, and has, been generalized by many people; you simply like using it as an epithet.
Orlanth wrote:
Part of the damage regarding poltical correctness is how it can be used to redefine fairness on the grounds that it is considered of itself to be progrssive and even, even when it favours preferential treatment of one group overr another through the dialectic.
That's not damage. That's what politics is.
Orlanth wrote:
While political posturing and propoganda are as old as politics, political correctness has a seperate distinct methodology, which helps define it as a distinct movement in dialectic doctrine, and seperate it as a specific code of conduct for human interaction rather than a definitive term for positive human interaction.
No, you're fabricating a pejorative. As I've said, this is normal for you, and why I don't reply to you if you don't first reply to me.
Orlanth wrote:
Were my experiences isolated it would behoove me to simple consider them as such, isolated incidents that do not show a pattern.
That's false. There are many reasons for you to consider your experiences as not being isolated that have nothing at all to do with honest consideration.
Orlanth wrote:
Sadly it doesn't appear you can, but cause you just cannot help but be rude and obnoxious.
Though I am at fault for saying things you believe to be rude or obnoxious, I have no interest in adjusting my behavior for a random person in England of whom I am not fond.
Orlanth wrote:
You resort to trying to redefine others arguments into simple matters of want or hate without good reason, and showing how quickly you are trapped by the same by your own hate speech justified by the above.
No, it isn't redefinition, its reduction. Its a nuanced form of RAA that I rather like, and so use very often. It isn't hate speech, its my appraisal of what is being said. I'm not an emotional person, its not how I function in these conversations, were I speaking now this would be deadpan.
Orlanth wrote:
It all comes back to your usual retreat of ad hominem attacks when twisting or ignoring arguments fails to progress a disagreement as fast as you would like.
I have not used an ad hominem attack in this thread, and I almost never use them. When I do, they are of the legitimate kind. Yes, they can be used legitimately.
Orlanth wrote:
However you do reply rather a lot for someone who considers me 'not worth speaking to'.
I can count on one hand the number of times that I've replied to one of your posts without first being replied to. I do occasionally find what you have to say sufficiently wrong to be worth correcting.
Orlanth wrote:
You are labouring under the delusion that political correctness is synonymous with positive social interaction, this is simply not bourne by the facts either in how it is defined or how it is applied. Political correctness is a specific political-linguistic movement with its own style and culture independent of previous attempts to define norms for societal conduct.
No, utter nonsense. And, before you say it, no, I'm not making an argument. I'm flat-out stating that you are incorrect because there is no other possible response to someone who has imagined a thing into existence. Maybe there was a political movement in England that you call "PC" but the reality is that "PC" extends far beyond that movement, if it exists or existed.
Some imagination. For a start the negative politicisation of political correctness goes beyond the UK, its global. A good example (by no means exhaustive) is the 'that's racist meme'.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Part of the damage regarding poltical correctness is how it can be used to redefine fairness on the grounds that it is considered of itself to be progressive and even, even when it favours preferential treatment of one group over another through the dialectic.
That's not damage. That's what politics is.
You just dont get it. Its damage actually, politics can be honest, however offering preferential treatment for one group in an limited resource pool means taking elsewhere, using a dialectic to support that usually if not always results in a victim being found as well as a beneficiary. When victims highlighted under points of doctrine very bad things tend to happen to them..
I have been stating that political correctness is a weapon in the toolbox of malign politics, inadvertently you stumble upon agreeing with me. Where political correctness supports honest concern for equality is not my concern, once its politicised it can become a tool of repression.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Were my experiences isolated it would behoove me to simple consider them as such, isolated incidents that do not show a pattern.
That's false. There are many reasons for you to consider your experiences as not being isolated that have nothing at all to do with honest consideration.
Care to explain why, denial in itself is not an answer.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Sadly it doesn't appear you can, but cause you just cannot help but be rude and obnoxious.
Though I am at fault for saying things you believe to be rude or obnoxious, I have no interest in adjusting my behavior for a random person in England of whom I am not fond.
Orlanth wrote:
It all comes back to your usual retreat of ad hominem attacks when twisting or ignoring arguments fails to progress a disagreement as fast as you would like.
I have not used an ad hominem attack in this thread, and I almost never use them. When I do, they are of the legitimate kind. Yes, they can be used legitimately.
So you think you have a license to troll. Ok, moving on.
Orlanth wrote:A good example (by no means exhaustive) is the 'that's racist meme'.
And the fact that you can recognize, and dismiss, it as a meme is also politically correct.
Orlanth wrote:
Its damage actually, politics can be honest...
Giving more of X to group Y is not necessarily dishonest. This is why I called you naive, and why I'm withholding a choice of certain other words.
Orlanth wrote:
...however offering preferential treatment for one group in an limited resource pool means taking elsewhere, using a dialectic to support that usually if not always results in a victim being found as well as a beneficiary.
Good job, you've "discovered" economics.
Orlanth wrote:
When victims highlighted under points of doctrine very bad things tend to happen to them.
And you took a politics class, good job.
Orlanth wrote:
I have been stating that political correctness is a weapon in the toolbox of malign politics, inadvertently you stumble upon agreeing with me.
No, that's not what I've been saying. I said that political correctness is a tool, I never said that it was malign.
How do you think nations are made?
Orlanth wrote:
Where political correctness supports honest concern for equality is not my concern, once its politicised it can become a tool of repression.
You're being political right now the only difference between you and your hypothetical PC conspirators is the label.
Orlanth wrote:
Care to explain why, denial in itself is not an answer.
None of them are flattering, if you wish them given voice, you need to say so explicitly (and I'll still need to PM you).
Well, one is alright:
1: You made a mistake.
Orlanth wrote:
So you think you have a license to troll. Ok, moving on.
Negative personal comments on/about other users are against the rules.
We're borderline or a little over it with the two debating parties, but they're heated/rude at about the same level and managed to carry on a dialogue (not completely degenerating into insult) despite it, so the Mods have left it be for now. No need to stick in comments about either of them as a person, thanks. -Mannahnin
ArbeitsSchu wrote:The problem comes from the fact that the Dogs name was the code-word for "Dam Gone." Its a part of the historical event whether it is offensive or not, and thus historically accurate to use it.
Films are not historically accurate. They can't be. They can't be because they are made for modern audiences, who watch them in a totally different context to how those events took place, and told as a narrative, which doesn't allow the creators to stop the narrative to explain that although something might appear offensive to us, it was really just a product of the time and we shouldn't be drawing any conclusions based on our modern understanding.
Good storytelling, especially in film, cuts things that aren't relevant. In this way a whole staff of men might be turned into a single gestalt entity represented by one minor character, and secondary stories will be cut.
For example, the film about Oscar Wilde's life didn't go into much detail in his involvement in the aestheticism movement, and instead just showed he was an important figure in the arts, then got on with telling the story of his marriage, divorce, homosexual relations and eventual prosecution. Whereas a film about the aesthetics movement mightn't bother to mention Wilde's greater life at all, and just show his role in that movement.
You don't cloud a story with unecessary distractions. In this day and age, the name of that dog is an unecessary distraction.
Surprisingly enough a great deal of words and events in history are offensive to our modern sensibilities. Doesn't mean we should go round changing everything to avoid offending someone.
If they're irrelevant and distracting to the story, then yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I'm sorry, but if I ever make a story about history I'll make sure to rename everything to be less offensive.
No-one is saying that every possible source of offense should be removed . That's you inventing stuff so you can sit on a little soapbox. Stop it.
People are saying that distracting and unnecessary parts should be removed to focus on the story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Just irate.
I like movies about historical events to be as close as possible.
Then you understand little about how storytelling a real world, highly complex and highly contextualised thing as a military operation, might work on the big screen.
Go look up the very long list of errors made in the first movie, the number of parts invented as complete fiction just for the sake of the narrative.
I doubt that would happen, just as much as the N-word prevented people from enjoying Pulp Fiction.
The n-word was a big part of the tone of Pulp Fiction. The dog's name is an irrelevant bit of trivia to the dambusters operation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Seth's pretty good. If anything convinced me of that, it was when Quagmire ripped into Brian.
That's one of my favourite monologues, and the major reason I've kept given family guy a chance even as it's gotten more and more preachy, and more obvious and lazy in it's leftwing politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Well, it won't be getting my money. Sure they'll lose a whole $10 and that's like spitting in the ocean, but oh well personal feelings and what not.
That's pathetic.
It presumably never bothered you that the original film invented a whole subplot about RAF bureacracy just to make the chief designer look more impressive. It presumably never seemed to bother you that they pretended that the strategy of bombing dams was the inspired genius of that same designer, when it was identified by RAF long before the war started. It presumably never bothered you that the raid achieved little, but was portrayed in the movie as a magnificent success?
But calling a dog a racial epithet? That's important enough to not see a movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:A white guy who steals a car is as much a crook as a black guy who steals a car and a white guy who saves somebody's life is as much a hero as a black guy who saves a person's life. Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin, a white guy who saves an evil guy's life is less of a hero than a black guy who saves an innocent person's life of course.
And here we see the fantasy of the poor oppressed white man. Who's so oppressed and picked on that all he's left with is vast majority of the nation's resources, and almost all the top positions in government and business.
It is a mind eating fantasy. It gets so bad it leads to people saying that won't see a movie about a dambusting military operation because they changed the name of one character's dog.
halonachos wrote:A white guy who steals a car is as much a crook as a black guy who steals a car and a white guy who saves somebody's life is as much a hero as a black guy who saves a person's life. Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin, a white guy who saves an evil guy's life is less of a hero than a black guy who saves an innocent person's life of course.
And here we see the fantasy of the poor oppressed white man. Who's so oppressed and picked on that all he's left with is vast majority of the nation's resources, and almost all the top positions in government and business.
It is a mind eating fantasy. It gets so bad it leads to people saying that won't see a movie about a dambusting military operation because they changed the name of one character's dog.
First of all, I have no idea where I'm presenting some sort of fantasy of a poor oppressed man when I was saying that two people of different races doing the same thing in the same context are of the same character. You were reading far too much into it sebster, perhaps just trying to find something to argue about.
At the second part, mostly I'm not going to see the movie because it supports political correctness which is an institution I do not support.
halonachos wrote:I do enjoy the sound of bomber planes but for me the siren from the Stuka is more exciting, at least in movies.
And stukas were outdated, too slow to perform their role effectively.
Yet you won't see that any comment from Nazi commanders about that as they raid the British at Dunkirk, because it would be distracting and only serve to dilute the narrative. A bit like a dog being called by a racial slur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Actually, as I said I don't use the N-word out of fear established when I was younger. That and the spanking I got when I said it in front of my parents.
But not because it might needlessly cause someone offence?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:First of all, I have no idea where I'm presenting some sort of fantasy of a poor oppressed man when I was saying that two people of different races doing the same thing in the same context are of the same character. You were reading far too much into it sebster, perhaps just trying to find something to argue about.
You said that a black person who does a heroic thing will get more credit for it than a white person who does a heroic thing. That's a ludicrous fantasy.
At the second part, mostly I'm not going to see the movie because it supports political correctness which is an institution I do not support.
It doesn't support political correctness. That's you hyperfocusing on a trivial element of the film, for the sake of a crusade against an entirely fictitious thing.
Who do I have to fellate around here in order to be able to watch a WWII film about the heroic exploits of the RAF, in which the main protaganist's pet animal is named N***er?
It's political correctness gone mad. Still, perhaps they'll see sense and call the dog Jungle Bunny, or something. I might go and see it then.
Pimm's is a brand of fruit cups, but may also be considered a liqueur. It was first produced in 1823 by James Pimm and owned by Diageo since 2006. Its most popular product is Pimm's No. 1 Cup.
History
Pimm's was first produced in 1823 by James Pimm, a farmer's son from Kent who became the owner of an oyster bar in the City of London, near the Bank of England. Pimm offered the tonic (a gin-based drink containing quinine and a secret mixture of herbs) as an aid to digestion, serving it in a small tankard known as a "No. 1 Cup", hence its subsequent name. Pimm's began large-scale production in 1851 to keep up with sales to other bars. The distillery began selling it commercially in 1859 using hawkers on bicycles. In 1865 Pimm sold the business and the right to use his name to Frederick Sawyer. In 1880 the business was acquired by future Lord Mayor of London, Horatio Davies, and a chain of Pimm's Oyster Houses was franchised in 1887.[1] [2]
Over the years Pimm's extended their range, utilizing a number of other spirits as bases for new "cups". In 1851 Pimm's No. 2 Cup and Pimm's No. 3 Cup were introduced. After World War II, Pimm's No. 4 Cup was invented, followed by Pimm's No. 5 Cup and Pimm's No.6 Cup in the 1960s. In 1946, the corks were replaced by twist-off bottle caps.[1]
The brand fell on hard times in the 1970s and 1980s. The Oyster House chain was sold and Pimm's Cup products Nos. 2 to 5 were phased out in the 1970s due to reduced demand. In 2005, Pimm's introduced Pimm's Winter Cup, which consists of Pimm's No. 3 Cup (the brandy-based variant) infused with spices and orange peel. In 2006 the Pimm's Company brand was bought by Diageo.[1]
[edit]Contemporary advertising and use
The brand experienced a revival following a 2003 advertising campaign featuring a humorous classic upper-class Hooray Henry called Harry Fitzgibbon-Sims[3] (portrayed by Alexander Armstrong) with the catchphrase It's Pimm's O'clock!,[4] somewhat mocking their own traditional advertising and appeal. Diageo's 2010 campaign features a more diverse range of characters representing different elements of the Pimm's cocktail (Pimm's No.1 being an Englishman in red and white blazer, lemonade being three young women in yellow, ice represented by a mature man), coming together to the theme tune of classic 1970s British television show The New Avengers.[5]
Pimm's is most popular in Britain, particularly southern England. It is one of the two staple drinks at Wimbledon, the Henley Royal Regatta, and the Glyndebourne opera festival, the other being Champagne. A Pimm's is also the standard cocktail at British and American polo matches.[1]
[edit]
There are six Pimm's products, all of which are Fruit cups, only Cups #1, #3 and #6 are still available at present. The essential difference among them is the base alcohol used to produce them:[1]
Pimm's No. 1 Cup is based on gin and can be served both on ice or in cocktails. It has a dark tea colour with a reddish tint, and tastes subtly of spice and citrus fruit. It is often taken with "English-style" (clear and carbonated) lemonade, as well as various chopped fresh ingredients, particularly apples, cucumber, oranges, lemons, strawberry, and borage, though nowadays most subtitute mint. Ginger ale is a common substitute for lemonade. Pimm's can also be mixed with champagne (or a sparkling white wine), called a "Pimm's Royal Cup". Its base as bottled is 25% alcohol by volume.
can also be purchased as a pre-mixed fortified lemonade (Pimm's & Lemonade) in 250 ml cans or 1-litre bottles, at 5.4%.
Pimm's No. 2 Cup was based on Scotch whisky. Currently phased out.
Pimm's No. 3 Cup is based on brandy. Phased out, but a version infused with spices and orange peel marketed as Pimm's Winter Cup is now seasonally available.
Pimm's No. 4 Cup was based on rum. Currently phased out.
Pimm's No. 5 Cup was based on rye whiskey. Currently phased out.
Pimm's No. 6 Cup is based on vodka. It is still produced, but in small quantities
halonachos wrote:First of all, I have no idea where I'm presenting some sort of fantasy of a poor oppressed man when I was saying that two people of different races doing the same thing in the same context are of the same character. You were reading far too much into it sebster, perhaps just trying to find something to argue about.
You said that a black person who does a heroic thing will get more credit for it than a white person who does a heroic thing. That's a ludicrous fantasy.
It doesn't support political correctness. That's you hyperfocusing on a trivial element of the film, for the sake of a crusade against an entirely fictitious thing.
Firstly Sebster I would have to tell you to actually read the post in question, I said that if a white person saves an evil person's life then they are less of a hero than a black person who saves an innocent person's life. That was said to serve as an example of when I said that "Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin" to show that in different context they would be different despite doing the same action(saving life).
I would kindly ask you to step off of your pseudo high-horse and maybe put on a pair of glasses.
Political Correctness is very much alive and well Sebster, the stigma of being declared a bigot lasts forever and is commonly associated with white trash(you know all of the hillbilly jokes that use backwards hicks as their main component right?) which in and of itself is not very positive. Racism is usually related to ignorant white trash and nothing else really, its just another enjoyable stereotype.
Polonius wrote:Sebster: don't forget the #1 rule of OT: nobody is more opressed than white christians!
Do you think if we suggest that for the windows header thingies they'll accept it?
Frazzled wrote:Wait I thought the #1 rule was rum superior, gin inferior?
In card games sure, but not in liquor.
halonachosquote wrote:Firstly Sebster I would have to tell you to actually read the post in question, I said that if a white person saves an evil person's life then they are less of a hero than a black person who saves an innocent person's life. That was said to serve as an example of when I said that "Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin" to show that in different context they would be different despite doing the same action(saving life).
Sorry, I misread you. My mistake.
Political Correctness is very much alive and well Sebster, the stigma of being declared a bigot lasts forever and is commonly associated with white trash(you know all of the hillbilly jokes that use backwards hicks as their main component right?) which in and of itself is not very positive. Racism is usually related to ignorant white trash and nothing else really, its just another enjoyable stereotype.
There is no political correctness movement. There was an idea that bubbled around leftwing academia, always more dismissed than accepted, that finally arrived in the late 80s and early 90s, that was mocked into silliness from arrival. It contributed far more to stand up comedy routines than anything else.
Well, every other group except that rare group of aggressively outspoken folk that like to say things without thinking about whether or not they offend other people. For those folk, previously accepted values like courtesy and manners have become this new thing called political correctness, something to wage against. For those folk, the old fashioned idea that there was no point saying an offensive thing without a good reason suddenly became this 'political correctness'.
This became such a fixation they went looking for every possible instance in which someone checked their language, and declared it was surrendering to political correctness, no matter how trivial the check, no matter how offensive the alternative might have been.
I mean here we are, in the middle of a thread about the name of a dog in a movie about blowing up a dam. Do you realise how trivial that dog is? Yet the idea that the name of the dog might be changed in a war film that was never noted for it's historical accuracy has you claiming you'll never see the movie.
That's what political correctness is. It's a braineater. It makes people fixate on the ridiculous, to stand their ground nobly in defence of nothing.
To be fair seb, there were some notable issues in the 90's, at least in the US, with things like "speech codes" on college campuses and the like.
As you said, most people (even racists) feel that using racial slurs after being asked not to is, well, rude. But there's a chunk of people that don't wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do.
Whats interesting is the number of posters on this thread that have directly or indirectly called other posters racists on other threads (me likely also).
Polonius wrote:To be fair seb, there were some notable issues in the 90's, at least in the US, with things like "speech codes" on college campuses and the like.
Political correctness was the idea of changing language to make it more inclusive. It meant telling people not to say black, and saying african american instead, stuff like that.
It never meant 'don't say offensive things'. We'd already figured that out.
With or without political correctness, it wouldn't have been acceptable to make a film in 2011 with a called by the n-word.
But there's a chunk of people that don't wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do.
We used to call them two year olds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Whats interesting is the number of posters on this thread that have directly or indirectly called other posters racists on other threads (me likely also).
Political Correctness is not saying terms to offend people due to race, creed, or sex. Age is not a protected catagory.
Sebster, you do realize that in hiring practices there is actually a standard of measure the relates the number of white males to the number of minorities hired right? Yes the practice is still very much alive and it has caused some people who test for a raise in fire departments or police departments to have their results canceled out because a minority was unable to pass. There was a notable case where a fire department told some passing candidates that their results were not taken because of the fact that not enough minorities passed the test and so the test was thrown out.
I would have thought political correctness is just a new term for not being rude.
Language evolves and so does society. We have to change our language to suit the times. If anything it is a good thing. If you aren't intending to cause offense and you do anyway it just makes you look like a fool.
If you are intending to cause offense then that is a different thing entirely...
purplefood wrote:I would have thought political correctness is just a new term for not being rude.
Language evolves and so does society. We have to change our language to suit the times. If anything it is a good thing. If you aren't intending to cause offense and you do anyway it just makes you look like a fool.
If you are intending to cause offense then that is a different thing entirely...
I believe its called comedy in some circles; I'm looking at you Dave Chapelle, Carlos Mencia, Daniel Tosh, and George Lopez. Maybe a bit of Robin Williams as well, but Robin Williams is better than the others.
I think you're making the argument larger than it actually is.
We're talking about the name of a dog in a movie, not a global crackdown by the mind police. In many respects I happen to agree with you on this topic, halonachos, I just don't think this is the venue.
Let me qualify that statement though, I agree with you to the point that someone's freedom of speech overrides someone else's desire to not be offended. Of course, if you call a black person a SEE FORUM POSTING RULES() and you get your teeth knocked out I'm perfectly okay with that, as well.
halonachos wrote:Political Correctness is not saying terms to offend people due to race, creed, or sex. Age is not a protected catagory.
Sebster, you do realize that in hiring practices there is actually a standard of measure the relates the number of white males to the number of minorities hired right? Yes the practice is still very much alive and it has caused some people who test for a raise in fire departments or police departments to have their results canceled out because a minority was unable to pass. There was a notable case where a fire department told some passing candidates that their results were not taken because of the fact that not enough minorities passed the test and so the test was thrown out.
Again, the legal standard is not a simple rule where there has to be a given ratio. But courts generally question (rightly so) why one race passes a test vastly more often than another one.
Even then, if the test is shown to evaluate essential skills/knowledge/aptitude, it'll hold up.
There is an older, 80% rule. Basically, the idea is that if all things are equal, the ratio of one group hired should be 80% of the ratio of the most hired group. So if 50% of white applicants are hired, at least 40% of black applicants should be hired.
This is only true when the employer can't show a reason why they hired the white people at a higher rate (better education, etc) that actually related to the job.
Monster Rain wrote:I think you're making the argument larger than it actually is.
We're talking about the name of a dog in a movie, not a global crackdown by the mind police. In many respects I happen to agree with you on this topic, halonachos, I just don't think this is the venue.
Let me qualify that statement though, I agree with you to the point that someone's freedom of speech overrides someone else's desire to not be offended. Of course, if you call a black person a SEE FORUM POSTING RULES() and you get your teeth knocked out I'm perfectly okay with that, as well.
As am I, if the person feels offended to the point of kicking my teeth in I'll probably still say it to him around the straw I'm sucking baby food through though. Either that or press charges for assault... I would be more accepting of him spewing racist terms towards me though, words for words, fists for fists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean that if a black guy comes up to me and calls me some derogatory term for whites I would respond with a derogatory word for a black person. That would be an equal response to what was going on.
Now if a black person called me a derogatory term and I kicked him in the face, that's not really equal because I escalated the situation and I should be charged for assault.
Now if I punched him and he punched me back, that's equal yet again although I would probably still be charged for assault because I punched first.
Well, I don't know about the mind police but there are the dream police who arrest people while they're in their beds. They don't get paid vacation though so that's something to consider.
halonachos wrote:Sebster, you do realize that in hiring practices there is actually a standard of measure the relates the number of white males to the number of minorities hired right?
And you realise that isn't political correctness. Words have meanings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Let me qualify that statement though, I agree with you to the point that someone's freedom of speech overrides someone else's desire to not be offended.
I think we're all okay with that.
The point here is that the writer has every right to keep the name of the dog, if he so wanted to. It's just he's looked at what's actually important in the story, and what is not, and decided there's no value in causing needless offence.
Because, you know, it's a dog. In a movie about blowing up a damn.
Halonachos appears outraged at the decision of the writer to exercise personal judgement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:As am I, if the person feels offended to the point of kicking my teeth in I'll probably still say it to him around the straw I'm sucking baby food through though. Either that or press charges for assault... I would be more accepting of him spewing racist terms towards me though, words for words, fists for fists.
At the end of the day, this is all just idealistic poppycock, though, isn't it?
I mean, ultimately you're so fixated on your right to say a word, that you've stopped to consider if you should say that word.
@ Sebster, political correctness deals with actions and words. Making sexual motions in the direction of a female is as politically correct as making fun of a woman for menstruation.
Is it idealism, sure why not, ideals are good to have because without them we wouldn't have a starting point for negotiations.
halonachos wrote:@ Sebster, political correctness deals with actions and words. Making sexual motions in the direction of a female is as politically correct as making fun of a woman for menstruation.
Which is still communication, and only communication. Meanwhile, political correctness never had anything to do with diversity quotas or anything like that, which existed before and after political correctness.
Is it idealism, sure why not, ideals are good to have because without them we wouldn't have a starting point for negotiations.
Ideals are great. But there is a point at which you are just chasing ideology for the sake of purity, and it's a foolish place to be. Insisting on calling someone by the n-word, just for the sake being able to do so, is way past that point.
If I wish to call my brother the N-word I am within my rights to do so. I never said that I would call someone the N-word out of the blue though. Again you are looking for a fight for some reason and you're either short sighted or near sighted.
Political correctness sought to remove discrimination in all facets of life, that includes hiring practices. I mean come on Sebs.
halonachos wrote:If I wish to call my brother the N-word I am within my rights to do so. I never said that I would call someone the N-word out of the blue though. Again you are looking for a fight for some reason and you're either short sighted or near sighted.
No, I'm just a little puzzled by the I can if I wanna attitude, that gives absolutely no consideration to whether or not you should. It's a very odd way to approach, well, anything.
Political correctness sought to remove discrimination in all facets of life, that includes hiring practices. I mean come on Sebs.
No, it didn't. For someone so obsessed with it, you really haven't done any reading at all on what political correctness is, have you?
Sebster, I have posted the definition according to Merriam-Webster many times. This definition says that its about the removal of offensive actions and vocabulary. After all, punishing someone for using something causes aversion which is a way of eliminating someone from repeating that behavior.
Calling a black person the N-word will get you punished and saying anything sexist to a woman will also get you punished. Seriously Sebster, everywhere I look I see political correctness meaning the avoidance or removal of discriminatory actions/vocabulary.
There are cases when discrimination is used and should be used, Hooters restaurants for example discriminate against males when it comes to the waitress position. I couldn't join the Future Black Leaders of America club in my high school because I am white. There are places that discriminate, but have valid reason to do so, even the military discriminates. Most special forces don't allow females to join for several reasons; upper body strength is lower and menstruation leads to dehydration which is critical in the field if they're already possibly facing dehydration.
Lynching is bad of course, but making sexual gestures doesn't really hurt anyone until you make contact which is bad. It infringes on a person's personal space to grab someone unwantedly and borders on physical assault.
Then there's language, remove derogatory terms and a lot of comedians lose their material. That and words are how we express ourselves on a daily basis.
All political correctness does is make the racism covert instead of overt, it doesn't really remove it anyways.
halonachos wrote:Sebster, I have posted the definition according to Merriam-Webster many times. This definition says that its about the removal of offensive actions and vocabulary. After all, punishing someone for using something causes aversion which is a way of eliminating someone from repeating that behavior.
You can post the Merriam-Webster definition a dozen more times if you want, it doesn't change the fact that your limited understanding of what political correctness is has caused you to misinterpret that definition.
It does not include actions such as quota systems. They are entirely different, existed before political correctness, and existed afterwards.
Calling a black person the N-word will get you punished and saying anything sexist to a woman will also get you punished. Seriously Sebster, everywhere I look I see political correctness meaning the avoidance or removal of discriminatory actions/vocabulary.
If you think 'don't say offensive words at work' was the beginning and end of political correctness, I think you greatly underestimate the ambitions of fringe leftwing academia.
If you think you could have said offensive words at work before political correctness, then you need to read more.
See there was a difference back during the 70's and even before with the whole Jim Crow Law era. You see during this era 'colored only' and 'white only' signs were common because they were supposed to be seperated. After awhile the government decided that segragation was indeed a bad thing because "Separate but Equal" did not actually exist.
However saying the N-word and other such terms was still acceptable in most places. Even during the Vietnam War it was still acceptable and if a person said the N-word it wasn't usually dealt with.
Later, and even today you can get into trouble for saying the N-word. Expulsion from school, suspension, firing, etc all are possible punishments now. (Seriously, this stuff wasn't actually dealt with until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was later updated in 1968 for housing).
This stuff is all fairly recent in world and US history.
Before 1964 it was perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people based on race, sex, creed, and whatever else they wanted to.
So Sebster, I would think that calling someone an offensive word at work was okay at work up to 1964 at least.
In 1991 the Civil Rights Act was further changed so that people could actually get a trial by jury in cases of supposed discrimination.
Political Correctness has been around since the 18th century, in the 1970's the left began to use it in the modern usage context(removal of offensive language; ie: firefighter vs fireman, police officer vs policeman, and mail carrier vs mailman).
So I would say that you could say offensive things at work before political correctness was used in the way it is now.
American history is filled with racism Sebster, and for the most part this racism was accepted. Sad part of history yes, but history none the less.
halonachos wrote:So Sebster, I would think that calling someone an offensive word at work was okay at work up to 1964 at least.
Which is 30 years before political correctness reached the world at large.
What you're talking about are different movements, with diffrent names. Call things by what they are.
Political Correctness has been around since the 18th century, in the 1970's the left began to use it in the modern usage context(removal of offensive language; ie: firefighter vs fireman, police officer vs policeman, and mail carrier vs mailman).
The movement to make those terms inclusive... that's what political correctness is. All the other stuff you've mentioned (like employment quotas) are other things. Please just fething accept this.
So I would say that you could say offensive things at work before political correctness was used in the way it is now.
Used to be you'd get in a lot of trouble for blasphemy. What you're actually seeing is the sensibilities of society change, and therefore what people can and can't get away with in general conversation changes.
There's always been rude language, and sufficiently rude language would get you in a lot of trouble.
Sebster, quotas are used to test for discriminatory behavior. Why would there be a quota in the first place?
Quotas are used to see if there are discriminatory hiring practices going on in a government run business. These have been around for awhile, but again they really didn't pop up until after the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was only a short 6 years before the modern usage of the phrase 'politically correct' came to be. The only difference between the modern usage of political correctness and the 1970's version is that in the 1970's it was championed and now its looked on in less favorable light.
Again Sebster, everywhere I look, at online dictionaries, even online answer sites (like yahoo answers), and wikpedia give descriptions of Political Correctness as a policy that seeks to remove discriminatory terms and practices. This stuff started in the 70's as a way to give minorities the same footing as whites and included fething quotas in government jobs to make sure that the job sites weren't being fething discriminatory against minorities. Geeze sebster, that's a novel concept, having a way to see if your idea of removing discriminatory hiring practices has taken effect who would've figured that the government would ever want to see if they've had results from this act?
Political Correctness is a broad topic Sebster, you can't just say that political correctness is just making words inclusive because it isn't just about the words, its also about the actions. Words are used so much that its hard to monitor word usage, actions are easier to monitor, hiring practices especially. You have a job most likely so you know what its like going through the hiring process, your information is taken by the company and you register as having a job for tax purposes. The government can investigate the company you work for and see who's been hired and they can find the matching tax record that lists your race and sex. For a government job they have a quota system in place to prevent discrimination, because if the government passes something they will more than likely find a system of measurement to see if its actually being used.
In private sector businesses an employee has to complain about alleged discriminatory practices and yet again there is a system of measure to see if they are indeed discriminating against certain people.
Did you honestly think that there was no system in place to check for discrimination in hiring practices or in other workplaces? Seriously Sebster if the government wanted PC to go around they would put something in place to make sure it went around, fines were a punishment but you have to have something to determine whether or not they were being discriminatory and that's where quotas come in.
You seem to have gone from wanting the dog in The Dambusters to be called [see forum posting rules] because future generations otherwise will misunderstand history, to statistical analysis as a tool for measuring unfair discrimination in recruitment and selection.
I can't tell if you think that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Quotas don't test for discriminatory behavior. If you're allluding to disperate impact, than that's a different story. Actual racial quotas, at least on paper, have been illegal for decades.
But there's a difference between a movement to change language to be more inclusive and less offensive, and a body of law that prohibits discrimination in employment.
It's completely PC to write a test that favors one race, as long as it does so in a respectful way. Hell, if it's necessary to the job, it's even legal. But if it's not, it's illegal, no matter what thought or intention the writers had.
LIkewise, if a Germa-american boss told his Irish-american subordinate that he was getting a big promotion that would allow him to make more money for his drinking and giant family, that's not PC at all.
Yeah, some actions aren't PC: holding a "christmas party" can be a problem when you have non-christians in the office.
But racial discrimination in hiring generally isn't covered by politcal correctness, for the same reason that sexual assaut isn't covered by sexaul harrassment.
Actually racial discrimination in hiring practices is covered in PC.
PC also seeks to redress wrongs made against historically disadvantaged races. This is where affirmative action came from, they were trying to redress the wrongs of the past. Which in turn lead to quota systems to avoid looking like there is disparate treatment which can be a sign of discrimination in some cases.
@killkrazy, I don't believe in quota systems for the simple fact that I believe people should be hired because the person hiring them wants them there. Why would anyone force a racist to hire a person from the race they hate, that just sounds like a no-win situation. The boss hates having a minority in the workplace and the minority employee is going to suffer for it.
halonachos wrote:Actually racial discrimination in hiring practices is covered in PC.
PC also seeks to redress wrongs made against historically disadvantaged races. This is where affirmative action came from, they were trying to redress the wrongs of the past. Which in turn lead to quota systems to avoid looking like there is disparate treatment which can be a sign of discrimination in some cases.
As I discuss in my next post, PC is more about a message of inclusion, and less about the actions to ensure equality.
Yes, you can find defintions that discuss broad changes, but virtually all examples regard language. One way you know that affirmative action isn't political correctness is because AA far predates PC.
halonachos wrote:Actually racial discrimination in hiring practices is covered in PC.
PC also seeks to redress wrongs made against historically disadvantaged races. This is where affirmative action came from, they were trying to redress the wrongs of the past. Which in turn lead to quota systems to avoid looking like there is disparate treatment which can be a sign of discrimination in some cases.
@killkrazy, I don't believe in quota systems for the simple fact that I believe people should be hired because the person hiring them wants them there. Why would anyone force a racist to hire a person from the race they hate, that just sounds like a no-win situation. The boss hates having a minority in the workplace and the minority employee is going to suffer for it.
I don't think you really believe in rewarding racists.
KK: well, there's a line of reasoning, that makes some sense, that holds that while a person's right to their own business is greater than the right of a person to equal employment (or housing, or service, etc). Basically, that as a business owner, it would be my property which is constitutionally protected, and that my right to use my property trumps any person's statutory (not consitutional) right to a job.
It's a pretty strong legal argument, and while it didn't help much agains the Civil Rights act, it really only failed due to policy, not because of being incorrect.
Halo: so, I talked with a buddy about PC, and I think I see more of where you are coming from.
Things like hiring decisions, as actions, aren't really PC or not-PC. But, the message sent by making those decisions, or fighting them, can be very much a part of the PC question. In essence, PC is about the message sent.
But, things like affirmative action aren't, by themselves, PC or not PC, if for not other reason than the audience switches.
Making a statement such as "we adjusted our hiring test to eliminate racial bias to comply with the law, and protect ourself against litigation" is pretty PC neutral to any audience. It's a sound business decision. Stating "we've change our hiring test to increase the diversity in our workforce" is PC in the stereotypical sense of appealing to progressive values, but would be less PC at the board meeting. Likewise, saying "we've adjusted the hiring test to prevent BS lawsuits by dumb minorities" would not be PC as typicallyl heard, but would probably go over well at the golf course.
In all three cases, the action was the same, but the message is very different.
I can see your point about it being different ways of looking at the same thing, no disagreement there at all.
@KK
Did anything in my post say something along the lines of rewarding racism? All I said is that there are some people who think lesser of other races and would prefer not to work with them. If that person owns the place of business I would not be one to force that person to hire a minority that they dislike.
Unlike forcing a kid to eat a vegetable they don't like, the minority employee has feelings and would be harassed by the employer who would more than likely find ways to get them to quit.
halonachos wrote:Did anything in my post say something along the lines of rewarding racism? All I said is that there are some people who think lesser of other races and would prefer not to work with them. If that person owns the place of business I would not be one to force that person to hire a minority that they dislike.
Unlike forcing a kid to eat a vegetable they don't like, the minority employee has feelings and would be harassed by the employer who would more than likely find ways to get them to quit.
I think his point is that saying "well, allow racists not to hire minorities" prevents one problem (people being racially harrassed at work) at the expense of a larger problem (minorities having fewer and worse job opportunities). All the while, the racist employer doesn't suffer.
It's not that he's rewarded, but rather the cost of racism is placed on the minority, rather than on the employer.
Although this is one reason that employment discrimination laws don't apply to companies with fewer than 15 employees.
Oh, I thought it would be more of a win-win there. The employer doesn't have to hire people he doesn't like and the minority can find a job where he/she isn't harassed.
halonachos wrote:Oh, I thought it would be more of a win-win there. The employer doesn't have to hire people he doesn't like and the minority can find a job where he/she isn't harassed.
that's not win/win, because the minority could already could go there. So, the minority has his options limited, while the racist gets to do what he wants.
You're theory also presupposed fungible jobs, which is unlikely. If the job with the racist is preferable to other jobs available, why should the minority suffer just because of his race?
I should try that theory next time a friend get's dumped. "it's win/win! She doesn't have to date your sorry ass, and you can date a girl that doesn't hate you!"
You should try it, it may just be enough to get him out of the dumps.
I see, but what if the minority presents skills that are necessary to the job and would allow better efficiency or some other way of measuring working quality?
I would use ancient Spain and some other history. The Jews were not readily appreciated in certain areas and they were expelled from those regions. However the jewish population provided various services important to them(banking, other business management), also Einstein left Germany and look what happened there.
halonachos wrote:You should try it, it may just be enough to get him out of the dumps.
The response is always "but i wanted to date her." And that's why it's not win/win. If I lose my job through no fault of my own, I might be able to find another job, but I really like this one.
Even if the guy is being harassed, if it's close to home and has good hours, he might prefer it to other options.
I see, but what if the minority presents skills that are necessary to the job and would allow better efficiency or some other way of measuring working quality?
I would use ancient Spain and some other history. The Jews were not readily appreciated in certain areas and they were expelled from those regions. However the jewish population provided various services important to them(banking, other business management), also Einstein left Germany and look what happened there.
I would still think that Einstein prefer he not have to leave his home country in fear. Yeah, he didn't die, but he had to leave his home and family.
The problem is that, as a country, we've passed laws that essentially say that, while a person has no right to a job, they have the right not be discriminated against, employment wise, based on race. Once we establish that as what's considered "proper," the person who deviates from that course shoudl bear the brunt of the cost, not the person who is discriminated against.
If you're arguing that employment discrimination laws, in general, are bad, that's not a bad argument. It's terrible policy (as a disproportionate number of employers are white), but you can argue that from a sort of libretarian mindset.
The problem is that most people dont' really have any valuable skills. Most people work at jobs where they're pretty easily replaced, which means that there really isn't a massive economic cost to discrimination for the employer. Even in economic boom times, jobs are scarce for unskilled or even inexperienced workers, which would mean that, intentionally or not, employers would probably hire more of whatever race they were, which means for the most part white people would get more jobs.
Discrimination laws tend not to worry about highly talented individuals much anymore.
halonachos wrote:Oh, I thought it would be more of a win-win there. The employer doesn't have to hire people he doesn't like and the minority can find a job where he/she isn't harassed.
Alternatively, the minority can be protected from harassment by the law.
