Tough Questions & Answers

Correct on most points, Ken! Might I add that the term "politically" correct is not lost on most of us. Politicians say what they think their constituents want to hear. For us mere citizens, we have to be PC by lying to people while telling them what they WANT to hear, not what is obviously the truth. Maybe the problem is in how we say something.

Disclaimer: I am NOT prejudice against different races, and I believe most are honest & hard-working, just using an example from an actual event I witnessed:

An "African American" was to be fired from her job. She used the 'race card' to to try to get out of acknowledging what she had done, even though the proof was on her computer. She said to our boss, in front of many of the employees, "You are a racist! I knew you didn't like blacks, and this is proof! I'm getting a lawyer!"

To be PC, the manager responded with: "Wait, let's discuss this. You are a wonderful person and I can't imagine that you actually erred in this important assignment that you were given. That mistake caused the company to lose thousands of dollars in revenue, but I'm sure you didn't mean it. Let's go have some lunch." Those that witnessed this were dumbfounded!

Picture the scenario if she were not a minority: "J___, you are an absolute idiot! You didn't think and it cost us a lot of money! Pack up your things, turn in your keys & name badge. You are so out of here!"

Please, no letters . . .this actually happened, and WAS a political move. Our company had to employ a certain percentage of minorities as a part of a corporate-community agreement (no problem with that), and the manager told me the owner was afraid of the notoriety this would generate, even though they would have been right in the 'termination'. Economically, the company couldn't take on the risk. Being PC was a good economic decision, but it strained the social environment within the company and did not help relationships between the races. Lying is rarely a good idea. Being PC often makes it necessary.

RIGHT ON.

And sometimes free speech is all about knowing when to shut up, like NOW.

Eagerly looking forward to your future posts -- Spike

that SHOULD read INveritably!...NOW I'm am offended by that damned spell check!...making me look like an uneducated fool!...Law suit!!!

Veggie ..

PC= crock

Free Speech = crock of shit

Froggy

PeeEss ...Ah Ha Ha

I guess we should all begin our opinions with "por favor?". Since I entered the TBD discussions about 1 1/2 weeks ago, I have been called names, insulted, & accused of things I'm not guilty of, all because I gave my opinions. I never called anyone a name; & I tried to use smiley faces & lol to help ease my statements.

It doesn't work. PC is here to stay, because the younger generation has not heard of the phrase, "Sticks & stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me", and the older generation has apparently forgotten.

My philosophy re: persons who insult me, use revenge tactics, refuse to acknowledge me as having feelings, etc. is this . . .

If they are right & I can fix it, I do.

If they are right & I can't fix it, then I leave it up to God to handle the situation.

If they are wrong, I just smile and know that one day they may have to eat those words, or I try to give them more factual information to back up my views, then run!!

People in the minority (& there is always going to be someone there, if not in this discussion, then in another) need to learn to relax (easier said than done, I know) & not take life so seriously. Yes, if what is being said falls under libel & slander, causes physical harm or incites a riot, then use the legal system to address the problem if you want.

Bottom line, though, I don't want to keep going through life walking on eggshells, trying to prevent someone from having their feelings hurt or becoming angry because I oppose their view.

We can say "How are you?" to someone one day and they are happy & cheerful. You say the same thing to the same person the next day, and they are wondering what you meant, and why did you say it that way, and why didn't you smile when you said it, etc. Pretty soon, you're losing your job, getting kicked off a school campus, in the News, and Oprah uses you as an example of a racist, bigot, etc.

Cathiosu, that isn't entirely true. Too many use PC as a means of drawing attention to their race instead of who they are as an individual or their skills.

I'm of Irish decent. Since I'm white, nobody has a problem with referring to it. Drunks, roust abouts, bafoons. My eldest two children are referred to as "Irish Twins" (they are 10 months apart). Does that mean we are also considered major baby makers?

My heritage and culture are insulted frequently, but I cope because I know I don't fit the stereotypes. I'm fed up with those that would prefer to bring their heritage into the forefront while burying their own personal flaws.

The gal Judi referred to, I would have fired. I don't care if you're the only Martian on my employee roster, and I need you to make some quota. If you can't do the job, you don't get the opportunity to screw it up again.

I'm also fed up with the frequently changing PC words. For a while there, the 'proper' word for black changed more often than the months. By the time you broke yourself from saying 'black' to saying 'of color' it changed to 'African American'. BLEH

If I'm white, they are black. If I'm Irish American, they are African American. One doesn't become more or less true based on the preference of a few. It was ridiculous.

And suppose a white child born and raised in South Africa came here for college. Are they being misleading when they check the box marked African American? They are indeed African, and by getting citizenship here, they are American.

Many American blacks have never been to Africa anymore than I've been to Ireland, but I don't see a special box for Irish Americans. My ancestors had their crappy time in American history (and European too) as well. And many Irish/Irish Americans have nappy hair, can we pull that one off of the table? I know my hair can get its curl on if I don't do something about it.

I'd like to see PC set on a shelf in favor of just plain ol' common courtesy. N*gger is a nasty word, created as such. Negro comes from the Spanish word meaning black. Simple enough.

There are way too many people out there who have some kind of inner need to feel insulted. They crave to be outraged by something, so that they can feel victimized. They go out of their way to be offended, and then they attack the perceived offender.

Pattycake..

I call that '''imposed PC'' that is, the belief that "one must be PC'd to" ..not to, implies that you are an "offender" at being out of place or at fault. Thus guilty for not responding to understanding that persons feelings!

Such shallow people !

BadFrog

I'm just saying that you're upset with me for expressing my opinion, not because I have one, but because you don't like it. I don't believe I ever said you could not have an opinion or that your opinion even upsets me.

The discussion was on Freedom of Speech vs. Political Correctness. You keep making my point for me . . . if it were up to people who just gave the kind of responses to me that you have, we would no longer have freedom of speech. So, let's just go with politically correct. You are right, then.

The problem is--we get it all too well!

And apparently, you don't.

and when "everyone is attacking you" it is time to do what?

Pattycake

I didn't do very well in my Freshman Solutions of Logic 101 ..got a D+

AGREEING ..

But I had yah guessing didn't I ..That logical to me ..yah see it's mah Braincloud that does that...

Froggy

No, you dont get it Wmans.

Read my discussion that I just posted. I'd love to hear where you're coming from.

Disclaimer: I write what I write because it should be said. I am not discriminating against anyone or calling anyone names. I vote issues, not partisan groups. I am not angry at anyone, either. With that said . . .

Well, no, I think that what Imus said was unwarranted and in very poor taste, and I think EVERYONE took offense to that . . . & he payed for it. I think, generally speaking though, as a civilization we are just looking to be insulted, or daring someone to say or do something we don't like.

What I AM saying is that every American should have a RIGHT to be offensive - freedom of speech thing and all. What is "offensive" to one person is "the truth" or "not a problem" to someone else.

Imus was actually being paid for being offbeat and controversial if it brought in good ratings. The problem he came up against, though, was that the NAACP, advertisers, and other organizations who believe a person really doesn't have freedom of speech if it "offends" someone, got involved. And I really find no problem with them slapping him silly, because they, too, had a right to speak their piece [maybe not slap him, I guess :)].

I have seen many, many mean and offensive things said by minorities about other groups, & even their own, and a federal offense was never made of it. Those person(s) were often not even mentioned in the news!

Speaking of news, I don't like a lot of the biased reporting we get, and that is "offensive" to me, but I don't begrudge their "right", under freedom of speech, to have that bias, say what they want, and put the slant they want on the stories.

Yes, you may be right, we may just all need to quit talking (or writing - freedom of the Press is at issue, also), because someone will not like what we say, how we say it, what our motives were for saying it, or what we were wearing when we said it. We couldn't have that. Down with Free Speech!! I'm mad, too, Eddie!

By the way, my daughter (my only child) & her husband are in the military, fighting & sacrificing their lives so that Don Imus, biased news reporters, and even you, have that freedom. We could be living in other countries that do not have ANY rights.

If by saying what a lot of people are thinking is offensive, then I see my children are fighting for naught . . . how tragic & sad.

You might be surprised to know that I, too, am a minority - I'm a female, I grew up dirt poor and my parents divorced when I was young, I'm overweight, I'm over 50 and chronically ill. Should I apologize for not being black, gay, morbidly obese, or have a disability that is not noticeable? Should you apologize for not being born in a Third World Country that have no rights at all? You know very little about me and yet accuse me of doing the very same thing you are doing . . . being offensive. Shame on you.

Why invoke shame?

So, Cat, if you say something offensive to me, it's alright? But if I say something that you find offensive, it's not? I get it . . . you want to be the one to decide who has offended who. Go for it. I don't want the job!

Judi

At least with the news you can choose your source. There seem to be news channels in the US for every angle, left, right or middle of the road.

The problem with this, of course, is determing what is "offensive."

There are some things that most reasonable people can agree are offensive (Begging the question, of course, of what "reasonable" is) For instance, there are a number of terms that refer to a person's race or ethnicity/religion that are considered derogatory and out of bounds in normal writing or conversation (unless used to make a particular point or as an illustration) I don't believe that these are the kinds of words that are under discussion, here.

The problem comes in, I think, because there are some people who are determined to be offended, if not for themselves, than for others (whether the words/terms are actually offensive or not).

For example, it is Politically "Correct" to refer to people who do not have the ability to see as "Visually Impaired," whereas they used to be called "blind." First question: when did the term "blind" become pejorative? And who made that determination? On top of that, it is also imprecise.

Acorrding to the dictionary: the word "impaired" has the following meanings:

*Diminished, damaged, or weakened: an impaired sense of smell.

*Functioning poorly or incompetently: a driver so tired as to be impaired.

*Having a physical or mental disability: an impaired child in need of special assistance.

By any of these definitions, I could be considered "visually impaired" since I wear somewhat thick glasses and my sense of sight, by that criterion, is "diminsihsed, damaged, or weakened." Yet if I termed myself "visually impaired," I would, no doubt, be jumped on as being un-PC since I can, in fact, use my eyes in a satisfactory manner (albeit with glasses). So the new terminolgy for blindness, while maybe being politically correct, is factually incorrect -- at the very least, imprecise.

Or, take the term "handicapped," which also has apparently taken on a decidedly non-PC characteristic. But take a look athe definition of the word:

1. a race or other contest in which certain disadvantages or advantages of weight, distance, time, etc., are placed upon competitors to equalize their chances of winning.

2. the disadvantage or advantage itself.

3. any disadvantage that makes success more difficult: The main handicap of our business is lack of capital.

4. a physical or mental disability making participation in certain of the usual activities of daily living more difficult.

–verb (used with object) 5. to place at a disadvantage; disable or burden: He was handicapped by his injured ankle.

6. to subject to a disadvantageous handicap, as a competitor of recognized superiority.

7. to assign handicaps to (competitors).

8. Sports. a. to attempt to predict the winner of (a contest, esp. a horse race), as by comparing past performances of the contestants.

b. to assign odds for or against (any particular contestant) to win a contest or series of contests: He handicapped the Yankees at 2-to-1 to take the series from the Cardinals.

what about any of these definitions is pejorative? Are not people who have some pphysical impairment at a disadvantage over the general populace? Why has it suddenly become necessary for people to have to use a euphemism to describe this condition? Why, and when, did the term" handicapped" become derogatory? And who made that determination? And even granting that there might be a derogatory implication, isn't it less precise. If I break my arm, aren't I not "physcially challenged" (at least for the moment). yet nobody would consider me handicapped (although, technically, I might be temporarily) And isn't it somewhat hypocritical to deny that fact?

Part of the problem, I think, is that people do not have a proper understanding of what words actually mean. You may recall the furor a few years ago when an official of the Washington, DC was effectively fired for using the term "niggardly" on the grounds that he made a racial comment when, in reality, the word has absolutely nothing to do with race at all! And whenthis fact was pointed out, it was conveniently ignored by the parties in question until ehuge amounts scorn and ridicule were heaped upon them, such that even they realized that their position was unsustainable

The problem with a lot of PC terminology is that it evolves out of either ignorance. fuzzy thinking, or a delusion that calling something by another name somehow solves the problem. Ask somebody who cannot see to describe his condition. You think he's going to tell you that he's visually impaired? No! He'll undoubtedly tell you that he's blind. How is substituting the term "visually impaired" any less perjorative? Or, for that matter, more descriptive? If anything, it is LESS so.

There is also a cadre of folk who have somehow abrogated the ability to decide for everybody else what is and isn't offensive. (Ironically, they usually do not suffer from the situation they are trying to benignly rename) Quite often, it has nothing to do with whether or not the people involved ARE actually offended but rather whether the cadre in question THINKS they should be offended. Luckily, much of this is 100%, pure equine excretia and often recognized as such.

Lastly, there is the matter of proportion. Generally, if you call someone a f**k-knuckle, you can be pretty sure that he/she is going to take offense at that. What is somewhat amusing about the PC folk is that they get equally as offended by calling a non-seeing person blind. Whether they wish it so or not, thwere IS a difference.

The problem with a lot of PC terminology is that it is not only imprecise but flat-out hyprocritical. And the fact that some of these folks cannot see this is probably as offensive to some as the alleged offensive language.

Another thing Judi, let me be more specific about the opinion that you voiced and I took issue with. You said minorities should just relax and not take life so seriously.

Maybe you meant that in a different way than I took it. Tell me what you meant. I have visions of terrible inequities in my head,(cross burnings, hangings, concentration camps, women being treated like property etc...) and someone in the background saying don't take those things so seriously.

Also, I think a few of you misinterpreted my use of the word "shame". I meant that the situation was a shame, not shame on anyone.

Isn't it amazing how we can reach such different conclusions from one word or one phrase?

I don't think I've insulted anyone's heritage or race, or religion, have I? If so, tell me so I can apologize. I know I've challenged some folks on remarks that I can't believe are still being made in this day and age and I think those remarks need to be pointed out and challenged.

Exactly what was it that I wrote that offended you, Judi?

What comes to my mind when we talk about political correctness is the everyday things we say at work or that are said on television, or other social occassions. I don't think the intention of this group was to address issues of cross burnings, hangings, etc. Those rise to a whole different level.

My basic beliefs on freedom of speech vs PC:

In the USA, we have "inalienable rights"

One of those rights is freedom of speech

People should not say whatever just plops out of their mouths without thought to whom it's going to hurt and what the ramifications will be. If they do, they should expect to either apologize, or suffer the consequences of their actions.

Sometimes we say or write things and don't realize how they are coming across to others. Misinterpretations, like the "shame" thing occur. Asking for clarification before reacting is probably the more prudent thing to do.

People listening to or reading things from other people should count to 10, consider the source, and, if possible, move on. BUT WAIT . . .

If a person believes that the substance of the insult, defamation, etc. rises to such level that they must speak out, yell or take the person(s) to court, picket their place of employment, etc. then they have an inalienable right under the constitution to do just that, and I support that right as long as we keep it within our legal boundaries.

In answer to the original thoughts & questions by Veggie, I say there is a line we must draw in what we say to someone or how we say it, but I don't think it should be legislated, unless it is something that will infringe on someone else's rights (& I'm not referring to hurt feelings), lead to physical injury, or threaten our national sec