They were ELECTED! Do you not understand the political process? LoisOf course I understand they were elected. My position is that people voted for them because of an acceptance of PC. You're funny. Have you ever, no wait, change that, HOW MANY TIMES have women thrown drinks into your face? Or do you only talk like this on anonymous forums? I remember the first time I read about PC. I was in college, 1979 or 80. I thought, this won't last. This is so incredibly stupid. People can't be stupid enough to think they can say that doing what's right is somehow wrong.
I thought it was only religious fundamentalists that wanted to take us back to the 14th century.
TFS
Allen's advice is mostly good. This is an example of talking too much about the symptoms, rather than the disease.What's the disease? LoisPolitical correctness. I read this shortly after you posted that MP, seems to keep coming up in my thoughts like some proverbial cud, and I've been chewed on it, now and again, ever since. I'm really curious about what's going on there… Don't suppose you'd care to add any detail to what you are talking about? Or did you just toss that out there to get a RISE??Add detail about political correctness? They were ELECTED! Do you not understand the political process? Lois PC is a term for the leftoid nonsense that Western society is drowning in. The "symptom" I was referring to is diversity. In the case of the Austin city government, why have women there in the first place? I don't get your point. They are not there for diversity, they are there because that were elected. And they were elected because the constituents feel political correctness - i.e. voting for anyone not a white male, was the right thing to do.
They were ELECTED! Do you not understand the political process? LoisOf course I understand they were elected. My position is that people voted for them because of an acceptance of PC. You're funny. Have you ever, no wait, change that, HOW MANY TIMES have women thrown drinks into your face? Or do you only talk like this on anonymous forums? I remember the first time I read about PC. I was in college, 1979 or 80. I thought, this won't last. This is so incredibly stupid. People can't be stupid enough to think they can say that doing what's right is somehow wrong.Lol
Allen's advice is mostly good. This is an example of talking too much about the symptoms, rather than the disease.What's the disease? LoisPolitical correctness. I read this shortly after you posted that MP, seems to keep coming up in my thoughts like some proverbial cud, and I've been chewed on it, now and again, ever since. I'm really curious about what's going on there… Don't suppose you'd care to add any detail to what you are talking about? Or did you just toss that out there to get a RISE??Add detail about political correctness? They were ELECTED! Do you not understand the political process? Lois PC is a term for the leftoid nonsense that Western society is drowning in. The "symptom" I was referring to is diversity. In the case of the Austin city government, why have women there in the first place? I don't get your point. They are not there for diversity, they are there because that were elected. And they were elected because the constituents feel political correctness - i.e. voting for anyone not a white male, was the right thing to do.As opposed to what? Voting for the white male because voting for a minority would be wrong? Way to go dude.
Allen's advice is mostly good. This is an example of talking too much about the symptoms, rather than the disease.What's the disease? LoisPolitical correctness. I read this shortly after you posted that MP, seems to keep coming up in my thoughts like some proverbial cud, and I've been chewed on it, now and again, ever since. I'm really curious about what's going on there… Don't suppose you'd care to add any detail to what you are talking about? Or did you just toss that out there to get a RISE??Add detail about political correctness? They were ELECTED! Do you not understand the political process? Lois PC is a term for the leftoid nonsense that Western society is drowning in. The "symptom" I was referring to is diversity. In the case of the Austin city government, why have women there in the first place? I don't get your point. They are not there for diversity, they are there because that were elected. And they were elected because the constituents feel political correctness - i.e. voting for anyone not a white male, was the right thing to do. As opposed to the millennia of people voting solely for white males because it was the PC thing to to do--in addition to preventing women and people of color from voting or running for office. We can see where that got us. Why is it called "Political Correctness" only when attempts are made to change the entrenched status quo of white male dominance? Lois
As opposed to the millennia of people voting solely for white males because it was the PC thing to to do--in addition to preventing women and people of color from voting or running for office. We can see where that got us. Why is it called "Political Correctness" only when attempts are made to change the entrenched status quo of white male dominance? LoisExcellent point Lois. You can pretty much define the term out of existence. You could say a "political" action is one that is taken with popularity in mind instead of basic values, but basic values change with time, they are shaped by the politics of the day. And shouldn't politicians be listening to what people say is right, not telling us what is right or good for us? Trying to answer that leads you down the road of problems that come with a strict majority rule. The only correct question is "what's correct"? And that's far from simple. Except for the question of should a person's gender be considered when running for political office. No, the answer is no.
As opposed to the millennia of people voting solely for white males because it was the PC thing to to do--in addition to preventing women and people of color from voting or running for office. We can see where that got us. Why is it called "Political Correctness" only when attempts are made to change the entrenched status quo of white male dominance? LoisExcellent point Lois. You can pretty much define the term out of existence. You could say a "political" action is one that is taken with popularity in mind instead of basic values, but basic values change with time, they are shaped by the politics of the day. And shouldn't politicians be listening to what people say is right, not telling us what is right or good for us? Trying to answer that leads you down the road of problems that come with a strict majority rule. The only correct question is "what's correct"? And that's far from simple. Except for the question of should a person's gender be considered when running for political office. No, the answer is no. That's right, nor should race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Nothing a person does not choose should be a factor, only his or her political philosophy, opinions and intentions.
I think that the term “political correctness” is a misnomer. It is meant as a pejorative. But being correct is not a bad thing. So why would being correct, politically, be a bad thing? I think it is because, sometimes, saying things that sound correct, politically, is not actually correct, in terms of having the best functioning society. i.e., Sometimes an alternative perspective is very much something that needs to be heard.
So I view my political statements, which I believe, whether they may be controversial, or in line with mainstream etiquette and thought, as correct (and therefore good, not pejorative). MidA seems to take this to a whole other level, at times. But, hey, outliers serve a function, too. (They define the edges.)
As opposed to the millennia of people voting solely for white males because it was the PC thing to to do--in addition to preventing women and people of color from voting or running for office. We can see where that got us. Why is it called "Political Correctness" only when attempts are made to change the entrenched status quo of white male dominance? LoisBecause thats what it is by definition - po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness noun noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. White male dominance is the natural way in a white society. Anything else is pathological.
... White male dominance is the natural way in a white society. Anything else is pathological.Being politically incorrect, should not be your first concern. Just being far out incorrect period, should.
... White male dominance is the natural way in a white society. Anything else is pathological.Being politically incorrect, should not be your first concern. Just being far out incorrect period, should. That would never occur to Mid-Atlantic. Lois
As opposed to the millennia of people voting solely for white males because it was the PC thing to to do--in addition to preventing women and people of color from voting or running for office. We can see where that got us. Why is it called "Political Correctness" only when attempts are made to change the entrenched status quo of white male dominance? LoisBecause thats what it is by definition - po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness noun noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. White male dominance is the natural way in a white society. Anything else is pathological. Alright, you're a complete idiot mid atlantic, but that's what forums are for right? For people with opposing views? You slip in the word "perceived" there, although oddly, you don't seem to be arguing against the idea that there are people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. So, are you also agreeable to the notion that those people are ACTUALLY excluded, marginalized and insulted? And how can you tell the difference? How can you tell if drawing a cartoon caricature of someone that exaggerates their ethnic features is just all in good fun or an attempt to keep people with those features marginalized?
... White male dominance is the natural way in a white society. Anything else is pathological.Being politically incorrect, should not be your first concern. Just being far out incorrect period, should. And insane into the bargain. Lois
I thought it was only religious fundamentalists that wanted to take us back to the 14th century. TFSNo, it's also reactionary Republicans plus Mid-Atlantic. But maybe he's a religious fundamentalist. Tnat might explain some things.
White male dominance is the natural way in a white society. Anything else is pathological.About that white society that can't see past their ego...
In 2014, Latinos will surpass whites as largest racial/ethnic group in California BY MARK HUGO LOPEZ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043 The latest census numbers show: The population younger than 5 stood at 49.9 percent minority in 2012. For the first time in more than a century, the number of deaths now exceeds births among white Americans. This "natural decrease" occurred several years before the government's original projection, a sign of the white population decline soon to arrive. For now, the white population is still increasing slightly, due to immigration from Europe. As a whole, the nonwhite population increased by 1.9 percent to 116 million, or 37 percent of the U.S. The fastest percentage growth is among multiracial Americans, followed by Asians and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent of the U.S.; Hispanics, 17 percent; blacks, 12.3 percent; Asians, 5 percent; and multiracial Americans, 2.4 percent. About 353 of the nation's 3,143 counties, or 11 percent, are now "majority-minority.It's getting scarier and scarier for the white supremacy fantasists. . . . . . and the beat goes on.
Oh no! What will we humans do with all that extra melanin? Use less sunscreen? Take more vitamin D? Other than that, I suspect that, as usual, the beat will go on.White male dominance is the natural way in a white society. Anything else is pathological.About that white society that can't see past their ego...In 2014, Latinos will surpass whites as largest racial/ethnic group in California BY MARK HUGO LOPEZ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpass-whites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043 The latest census numbers show: The population younger than 5 stood at 49.9 percent minority in 2012. For the first time in more than a century, the number of deaths now exceeds births among white Americans. This "natural decrease" occurred several years before the government's original projection, a sign of the white population decline soon to arrive. For now, the white population is still increasing slightly, due to immigration from Europe. As a whole, the nonwhite population increased by 1.9 percent to 116 million, or 37 percent of the U.S. The fastest percentage growth is among multiracial Americans, followed by Asians and Hispanics. Non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent of the U.S.; Hispanics, 17 percent; blacks, 12.3 percent; Asians, 5 percent; and multiracial Americans, 2.4 percent. About 353 of the nation's 3,143 counties, or 11 percent, are now "majority-minority.It's getting scarier and scarier for the white supremacy fantasists. . . . . . and the beat goes on.
ma, Would you consider perhaps the man (men) in the race sucked, and that the woman (women) who ran were better thinkers and deserved representing the people more than the pompous white guy(s) with their over-weaned and ultra-sensitive egos??? just wondering :kiss:... I don't get your point. They are not there for diversity, they are there because that were elected.And they were elected because the constituents feel political correctness - i.e. voting for anyone not a white male, was the right thing to do.
You slip in the word "perceived" therePerceived was in the definition I copied from google.
you don't seem to be arguing against the idea that there are people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. So, are you also agreeable to the notion that those people are ACTUALLY excluded, marginalized and insulted? And how can you tell the difference?I agree some groups are disadvantaged, but American women aren't one of them. You're out to lunch if you think there is systematic, official discrimination against women in this day and age.
How can you tell if drawing a cartoon caricature of someone that exaggerates their ethnic features is just all in good fun or an attempt to keep people with those features marginalized?It depends on who is being caricatured and who's doing the caricaturing.
I already said who is being caricatured. Sure, who is doing it matters. But what does that answer? Are you saying you know it's an attempt to marginalize if the person who does it is one who is known to marginalize? Doesn't really answer the question does it?How can you tell if drawing a cartoon caricature of someone that exaggerates their ethnic features is just all in good fun or an attempt to keep people with those features marginalized?It depends on who is being caricatured and who's doing the caricaturing.