Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

malfred wrote:

I agree, we should all go to Amsterdam that way we won't care what anybody says or what any movie doesn't say.

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.

I thought that avoiding and removing discriminatory actions was a good thing.

Actions... it depends.

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.

I've completely lost track of your argument.

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politcal_correctness

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.