The term "politically correct" originated from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Why is this term so widely used today? Is this doing good or harm to societies in general?
-
I believe it is very harmful
I think being politically correct infringes on freedom of speech, expression, and religion. I know where I live(NJ, US) nobody is allowed to offend anyone else, even if they are just expressing an opinion. Everyone has to be super-sensitive to everyone else, and careful what might come out of their mouth for fear of it offending others(harassment-!).
Examples: Congress is pushing the "Homegrown Terrorism Act" which could jail people for THOUGHTCRIME. yes, thoughtcrime! If the government believes that you have a radical belief system, you can go to prison. Which could sound all nice and "anti-terror" and all that crap; but when it comes down to it, politically opposing the government's policies could be deemed a "radical belief system".
Two girls were suspended for 5 days from high school for wearing crucifix necklaces.
Another high school girl was suspended for wearing a t-shirt that said "I’m pro-life".
In California, teachers and students are not allowed to use the terms "mom" or "dad" anymore. They are also not allowed to teach that people are born male and female, and not in-between(which is scientifically inaccurate). Also, the boys and girls(yes, this extends from K-12 graders) can use each other's bathrooms(whatever sex they choose to identify themselves with at the moment). This is all for fear of being insensitive; but this I think is a bit ridiculous. At the same time this can seriously infringe on many people's personal beliefs and morals.
The ACLU is defending Larry Craig(he's the one that was soliciting sex in a public bathroom) because sex in a public bathroom stall should be considered private sex(who knew?)
I think political correctness is slowly causing everyone not to be individuals with individual thoughts and opinions and beliefs; but to think collectively(groupthink, if you will); to be careful not to offend anyone else. How is anyone going to express a belief or opinion and try not to offend anyone that may not have the same view. This is ridiculous. "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky
66%
Voted for by
Carpool,
RebelRebel.
-
From the other side of the fence
I think it does more good than harm. being able to call anyone whatever you want, regardless of how they feel is wrong. if you want to look at rights, what about the right to the pursuit of happiness? would it make you more happy to be able to call people derogatory names?
Voted for by
Kazrith.
None of the choices fit your opinion? Add one →
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Weydon
March 3
Two girls were suspended for 5 days from high school for wearing crucifix necklaces."
Reference?
"In California, teachers and students are not allowed to use the terms "mom" or "dad" anymore"
I believe this is out of context, if even accurate at all. Most schools, when handing out official fliers or notice slips, will say something about "your parent or guardian". This proposal was an extension of that for the TEACHERS, to have them say generic "parent" or something of the kid who have lost one or both. A little overly sensitive, I agree--which is why I don't think it happened.
"They are also not allowed to teach that people are born male and female, and not in-between(which is scientifically inaccurate)."
Again, out of context. They teach you are born with a particular sex, of course. But, when the classes get around to that, they will teach the sociological argument that GENDER (and not sex) can become a mixed concept, which has happened in all cultures throughout all cultures all over history. This is usually not presented as fact, merely a strong argument, and will encourage the kids to give input either way.
"Also, the boys and girls(yes, this extends from K-12 graders) can use each other's bathrooms(whatever sex they choose to identify themselves with at the moment)."
I'm gonna need another reference on that one. I think you may be blowing specific cases out of proportion, where students more around high school have the gender boundary issue and they--and students of their own sex--may feel more comfortable with them in another bathroom. It's an interesting topic for debate, and not really all that ridiculous. Sexual orientation differences I don't think should matter so much, I've used a public bathroom with gay men before and was fine with that. But what about a transsexual? Which should they use? Why? How do they prove it? Really it's all a little moot anyway, because honestly I don't think any of us are walking around bathrooms naked.
"The ACLU is defending Larry Craig(he's the one that was soliciting sex in a public bathroom) because sex in a public bathroom stall should be considered private sex(who knew?)"
I don't know what this has to do with political correctness, but the ACLU did not release a blog or even an editorial saying "Well, we kinda think that should be allowed..." They referenced a case from the Minnesota Supreme Court that said those having sex in closed stall of a public bathroom have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Take it as you will, it is merely presenting a fact.
I agree that political correctness can often get out of hand, but much of it isn't legal based. I can release the most racist book in the world and be hated for it by most people. But I'm completely allowed to. I just can't (and shouldn't) be a racist at my job. If I was an employer, I certainly wouldn't want a racist working for me, and as an employer it is my right to fire someone because of it. Yes, it often gets out of hand, but this is not a instance of rights being infringed.
March 4
"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however."
The crucifix story is from foxnews.com;
And I understand what you mean as being allowed to put out the most racist book in the world; but my point was soon you won't be allowed to do that. I'm not prejudice against anybody; and I'm not trying to protect bad people. But what about the rights of people with morals? This is becoming a very bad thing for people that have high morals or have a religion; what is going to happen when stating your morals or beliefs become hate-speech by some new bill being passed; or a new executive order or presidential directive; not because it actually is any kind of hate-speech or thoughtcrime; but because these bills and directives and orders change the meanings of the very words.
Weydon
March 4
I suggest you do. Unless it's easier pretending you did in order to tout over people that actually do keep up with current events, while making references to George Orwell. No where in SB 777 does it make any references on how one should refer to parents or restrict words like "mom, dad, mother, father, husband, or wife".
"said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute"
Well, had I known that the paranoid, right wing, family values watchdog Capitol Resource Institute was saying this, I wouldn't have put up such an open-minded fuss...I'm surprised the word "communist" wasn't mentioned.
That's not keeping up with current events, that's quoting someone else's OPINION on the matter. An opinion that, regardless of its ridiculous slant, ended up outright lying to you about what the Bill was about.
"The crucifix story is from foxnews.com; "
That's http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332333,00.html for those interested in the entire story. There are, oddly, 2 sides to the story. Students were told to remove their necklaces, one a crucifix and one large rosary beads, because of possible relation to gangs. A little overzelous perhaps, but in my high school--my Catholic high school--no exposed jewelry was allowed for similar reasons.
March 4
Don't you have a clue what is going on in your own society? What school is scared of "jesus" gangs? They were just taking away freedom of religion and expression, because the public education system has no morals anymore. That one less right people have now under the guise of something good.
Would you like some more examples that I just made up in my head?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/01/nedu301.xml
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=217808
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978714/posts
http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/free-speech-on-trial-christians-arrested-for-praying-silently-at-gay-event/
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=215765&Disp=4
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/700FC7268D7677C9862573CB0061DDA9?OpenDocument
I'm not here to educate you. Do some research and submit an opinion. I was merely citing examples of how much political correctness changed society and changed(or restricted, rather) people's way of thinking.
Weydon
March 4
That was the only Bill you mentioned.
"nd YES saying things like 'mom', 'dad', 'male', female' and having gender-specific bathrooms will now be considered DISCRIMINATION"
So was that unicorns are our creators! Show me where, I didn't see that.
"Don't you have a clue what is going on in your own society?"
No. How could I? I don't read obscure, paranoid, slanted news articles and shove them down people's throats with the powers of condescension.
"What school is scared of "jesus" gangs?"
Well, being the cooky little nut I am, I read the article (or "current event" if you will) you told me about. And in that article the police backed up the claim.
"They were just taking away freedom of religion and expression, because the public education system has no morals anymore."
Tell me about it. Public education wants kids to be drug addict criminals, that's why they take away our religious jewelry until after we leave the building. At least that's the way the Brothers in charge of my private Catholic school explained it to me...
"
Would you like some more examples that I just made up in my head?"
Well, the first 2 article were--for some reason--about mandatory sex ed classes. This is something I support, but would really rather not start 500 debates within this topic.
The third one was the horrid ruling that the homeschooling must end for ONE family. This is despicable! And outrage! 1984!!!! Wait...19...84.....was a tool to teach us a lesson about swallowing whatever media outlets tell us without questions....so I will question this....and find out that one of the Long's younger daughters ran away from home and complained about corporal punishment and even sexual abuse (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF). Turns out embracing George Orwell's ideas, and not just the cool image, let's you obtain the whole story and a broader scope. Crazy.
This all feels rather pointless continuing on now, as I'm sure you'll ignore the glaring contradictions and inconsistencies and instead send me 5 other links to the same news sources that skew the truth.
March 5
You need
To better understand the history of political correctness; the sex-ed classes AND homeschooling issues have A LOT to do with it. I realize it was about ONE family; it is an EXAMPLE.Please tell me specifically, which news sources you believe skew the truth, or rather, which ones you trust. Is it only what I've shown you? You should also research the media; I suggest you watch this video on how the CFR controls the media:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2664283203476025347
And here is some history on political correctness; b/c obviously you have no idea what I'm trying to say
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236&q=history+of+political+correctness&total=249&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Weydon
March 6
Edit | Reply
You never answered my questions about SB 777 and the claims you insist upon it. I am not going further into anymore of yours until you do.
Lost to Apathy
March 3
March 4
Edit | Reply
agreed
TeChNoWC
March 5
1984
Was somehow meant to be a weird reflection on the life of pure O sufferers such as myself, but I don't quite see how. There are SOME indirect references but nearly any deeply involved text could be relatable if you wanted it to be.Weydon
March 5
Edit | Reply
I also have no idea how 1984 is related to it lol
Alexander Hine
March 5
Edit | Reply
A. H.
Alexander Hine
March 5
Edit | Reply
In the case of sex (that is, genitalia), there are many cases of XX males and XY females, as well as hermaphrodites, transsexuals etc. So, while it is obvious that people should be taught about the main sexes, those who reproduce together, male and female, I feel it is appropriate, and a positive step, to educate people about the many ambiguities in gender, not only for the sake of interpersonal understanding, but simply because it is a more comprehensive sex education.
In the case of 'gender', I think it is appropriate (as mentioned by Weydon) to teach people, especially older students, about the complex nature of gender construction, in which biological, social and psychological elements all interact in fascinating and diverse ways.
Again, this is simply teaching people about facts, and not promoting outdated myths that boys wear blue, girls wear pink etc.
:-)
A. H.
P. S. I do admire your topic choice here. For, though I disagree with you on many things, you are challenging something that is not questioned enough - the forcing of sensitivity and cowardice on people. It is one thing to teach people the facts of life, but quite another to try legally to control what people make of those facts (the "Homegrown Terrorism Act", assuming you present it correctly, sounds potentially terrifying!). The desire not to offend anyone can take a big toll on genuine debate and on getting at facts; look at the hyper-sensitivity around talking about Islamic terrorism, or innate differences between men and women.
TeChNoWC
March 5
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
March 5
Alexander
http://understanding_ocd.tripod.com/ocd_obsessions.htmlconstant extreme pain, is a good way to sum it up.
Alexander Hine
March 6
Edit | Reply
I hope you find strength to deal with it,
A. H.
Weydon
March 6
Edit | Reply
Alexander Hine
March 6
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
March 6
Those who take control of their obsessions, learn acceptance and avoid compulsions can easily have a 50% decrease in their reaction and inability to handle the anxiety, yet anxiety will increase (avoidance and relief dissapears) but this allows for a chance at mind habituation and pain tolerance to increase. Problem with pure O sufferers is that compulsion is, for some part, automatic re-assurance, and for some this means the only way to get better is to initiate anxiety spiking, a painful endeavour that takes a long time and I would, with some confidence, wager that the pain involved in the technique, which is why it requires massive amounts of dedication, is near to that of childbirth. I tried it once and started convulsing with pain - which is why you would usually be required to undertake the aid of medication to not make the endeavour as painful as this, and many even find that medication itself is enough to almost relieve one of pure O symptoms, yet avoiding behaviour modification therapy and simply relying on drugs puts you at serious risk of later life relapse, more so than a combination of both therapies. I have also talked to a man who relapsed immediately after coming off the medication and so was faced with attempting the procedure of anxiety spiking. Anxiety spiking for pure O, unfortunately (normal OCD'ers can usually do exposure and ritual prevention so would only spend say an hour a day spiking) has to be uber aggressive and uber anxiety seeking. This is to prevent automatic re-assurance and proper habituation. Once a spike has finished (intense pain where the mind is forced to reset because the anxiety levels are so high that the mind and body simply cannot handle input levels of anxiety that high, so I am talking really painful stuff), pure O sufferers are obliged to instantly seek to spike again, and purge any non-anxious states. This is an all day effort, mentally draining, and very, very, very painful.
I have heard that a third type of OCD, usually a mixture of compulsive and pure O, called responsibility OCD, is worse still. I'm not sure if it is harder to treat but it is usually causes a lot more distress of a different nature to the individual. I had low levels of responsibility OCD that faded quite quickly, thankfully.
Worse again is autism, where the comprehension levels usually deny sufferers complete recovery. My best mate is like this and it hurts me to see how much he suffers.
Weydon
March 6
Edit | Reply
Eventually, with the help of the Lord, I was able to find peace in my life again. I threw my caution and anxiety and horror to the wind and put my faith in God. After the first week of the most minimal of rituals and thoughts, it was a wonderful breath of fresh air. Nothing changed in my world around me, nothing changed about me except that I was much happier. I was in control of my life, and whatever fleeting, unwanted thoughts that may pop up drifted away like an odd breeze. Their stimulation to my brain because of the anxiety I felt from them made them happen less and less. It got better and better as time went on.
I'm not sure if a similar idea would be helpful with PURE, pure O and not the mix of ritual and over-thinking like I suffered, but I know you have strong faith in God and thought maybe it could help. We've had our differences in the past (and likely will in the future lol), but as far as I can tell you are a good person that strives to do the right thing in situations, and are in control of your life. I wish you well with this.
Weydon
March 6
Edit | Reply
Reading that whole thing made me feel dark and sad again
Alexander Hine
March 6
Edit | Reply
How old are you, technowc? If that's not a rude question; I just didn't realise you were a teenager.
A. H.
TeChNoWC
March 6
Edit | Reply
So the marijuana didn't give you any relief? I'm not sure, it may have different effects on different people... They are only recent studies and I have seen an example of it in someone else.
Yes personal character and strength of will is certainly integral to recovery, that is why I feel so strongly for children who would have to go through this stuff. For people our age it is painful, scary and disruptive, but for children, it must be so horrible when they are already presented with a scary world they are slowly trying to adapt to. This is the reason why autism during childhood can be particularly traumatic.
I think my strength of will was firstly my downfall, in that I did not want to accept what was going on, and that I was striving so hard to be something that OCD was just practically lying around waiting to hit me. I was doing everything I shouldn't do. I've had various episodes throughout my childhood but it never seemed to be anything full blown or extreme, and I would say that as I got older, each episode was worse than the one before it.
Alexander: I am 18.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free