Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What is "Political Correctness?"
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blaseblasphemener wrote:
...so what should I call people with afros?


folically-extroverted

(sp?..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Manner of Speaking



Joined: 09 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blaseblasphemener wrote:
...so what should I call people with afros?


Afrodisiacs. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Truth is political correctness has far more ULTIMATELY to do with social conformity & submission to projected state authority


Actually, it has more to do with trying to protect people from having their feelings hurt. I think it arose because some people think freedom of speech entitles them to be rude and insulting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
Truth is political correctness has far more ULTIMATELY to do with social conformity & submission to projected state authority


Actually, it has more to do with trying to protect people from having their feelings hurt. I think it arose because some people think freedom of speech entitles them to be rude and insulting.


Good answer, but does that get to the heart of it?

Not to align myself with the OP (I think the case is overblown), but even the President of Harvard cannot speculate on legitimate possible differences between women.

There's a distinction between discriminating speech and provocative speech. Most importantly, Summers was not suggesting that women be denied admission into the Sciences.

Ya-Ta is right, however. Freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to be rude or insulting. The trick is deciding whether a speech raises legitimate points or is merely inflammatory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All dictatorships e.g. are by definition politically correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
daskalos



Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to be rude or insulting.


I disagree. That's exactly what freedom of speech does. Rudeness is a shame, not a crime. People do not have the right not to be offended. Thin-skinned people do have the right to get therapy, however.

The article in the OP, though, is mostly a load of twaddle. Finding oneself in a position where society condemns one for saying the n-word and any of a long list of truly offensive terms is to be found in exactly the place one should be. The working device there is "shame," and each generation of each society works out its own targets for it, for better or worse.

Shame is a sorely overlooked, undervalued commodity. It can work to put the yobs in the their place ("You disgust me. How can you be so vile?") and also to curb liberal PC excess ("Oh, lighten up, Myrna!") We don't have the right not to be offended, but we do have the right to tell people when they're being offensive, which they can take on board or ignore, as they wish. That's what free speech entitles us to, and it's not political correctness, it's just correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

daskalos wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to be rude or insulting.


I disagree. That's exactly what freedom of speech does. Rudeness is a shame, not a crime.


Who said rudeness was or should be a crime?

Freedom of speech was not established, at least in the United States, to protect insults and rudeness. It was established for other reasons.

That rudeness and insults are not actionable in a court of law is a slightly different matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
wannago



Joined: 16 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
daskalos wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to be rude or insulting.


I disagree. That's exactly what freedom of speech does. Rudeness is a shame, not a crime.


Who said rudeness was or should be a crime?

Freedom of speech was not established, at least in the United States, to protect insults and rudeness. It was established for other reasons.


And yet that's what freedom of speech does...and should do. There is also the freedom to decide whether to be offended or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
daskalos



Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Who said rudeness was or should be a crime?

Freedom of speech was not established, at least in the United States, to protect insults and rudeness. It was established for other reasons.

That rudeness and insults are not actionable in a court of law is a slightly different matter.


My issue is with how easily the phrase "has no right" gets bandied about. Just because something "isn't right" doesn't mean one has no right to do it. Freedom of speech wasn't, perhaps, established for the sake of allowing people to be rude or insulting, but it does indeed cover that circumstance (as any political campaign can show), at least up the level of our various laws concerning provocative speech.

At any rate, it seemed a logical connection to make that if one has no right to do something, that something must somehow be proscribed by law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

daskalos wrote:


At any rate, it seemed a logical connection to make that if one has no right to do something, that something must somehow be proscribed by law.


Perhaps. But I didn't say that North Americans had no right to be rude or insulting. I was responding to Ya-Ta's statement:

Ya-Ta wrote:
I think [political correctness] arose because some people think freedom of speech entitles them to be rude and insulting.


At any rate, I don't think its correct to say people have a right to be rude. You can't come onto my lawn and be rude to me, and claim you are protected by first amendment rights. When I call the cops, and you anticipate their arrival by moving to the sidewalk, they're still going to escort you away. You can get up during a Bill Clinton speech and yell, "The Clintons are poopy-heads!" But the first amendment isn't going to protect you from being hauled away by the Secret Service. Of course, what a jury would consider rude or insulting becomes an additional issue.

Neither would I disagree with you, however, that it is not true that people have no right to be rude.

But I do agree with Ya-Ta: Freedom of Speech entitles nobody to be rude. I hope I have managed to make my position more clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
daskalos



Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
At any rate, I don't think its correct to say people have a right to be rude. You can't come onto my lawn and be rude to me, and claim you are protected by first amendment rights. When I call the cops, and you anticipate their arrival by moving to the sidewalk, they're still going to escort you away. You can get up during a Bill Clinton speech and yell, "The Clintons are poopy-heads!" But the first amendment isn't going to protect you from being hauled away by the Secret Service. Of course, what a jury would consider rude or insulting becomes an additional issue.

Neither would I disagree with you, however, that it is not true that people have no right to be rude.

But I do agree with Ya-Ta: Freedom of Speech entitles nobody to be rude. I hope I have managed to make my position more clear.


I'll cede your examples but maintain that other things are at play there. I could, however, walk down the sidewalk in front of your lawn and snort derisively at your ugly baby or your beat up old car, then be on my rudely merry way. Or honk my horn and yell at you if I think you're holding up traffic. Or belch the alphabet on the subway. (Full disclosure: I never do any of those things, though I did fart once on a bus.) And if it's not FoS that confers my right to do those things, what is it that does? And if nothing does, what should happen to me for doing them?

I'm not sure Ya-ta believes rudeness, per se, to be outside the pale of protected speech. He only implied it, but he also seemed to imply that people don't have a right not to have their feelings hurt. Perhaps he could clarify and put paid to what we both inferred from his statement.

Anyway, I've probably led this thread off on a tangent. Sorry. I'm against any form of political correctness that tries to strip me of my sometimes-exercised option to be impolite. I don't want anyone hauled away anywhere for calling me a fa@@ot, even during a speech I'm giving at the Great Big Homo Convention; I want them shouted down in the public forum, which is where these things should be handled. Let public shaming do its noble work when it needs to.

Kuros, I'm guessing the line you and I are angling for is the one that separates mere impoliteness from verbal abuse, a line not always very easy to draw.

(Full disclosure: I don't give speeches at Great Big Homo Conventions.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did Bush Watch the Torture Tapes?
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90002025
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blackwater Protesters Given Secret Trial
and Criminal Conviction

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted January 29, 2008.

Protesters who re-enacted one of Blackwater's worst civilian massacres in Iraq got jail time, while the real killers remain free.

Also in Top Stories
Dark Truths About the Israeli Occupation
Daniel Levy, Washington Monthly

$100 Billion and Counting: How Wall Street Blew Itself up
Pam Martens, CounterPunch

Last week in Currituck County, N.C., Superior Court Judge Russell Duke presided over the final step in securing the first criminal conviction stemming from the deadly actions of Blackwater Worldwide, the Bush administration's favorite mercenary company.

Lest you think you missed some earth-shifting, breaking news, hold on a moment. The "criminals" in question were not the armed thugs who gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded more than 20 others in Baghdad's Nisour Square last September. They were seven nonviolent activists who had the audacity to stage a demonstration at the gates of Blackwater's 7,000-acre private military base in North Carolina to protest the actions of mercenaries acting with impunity -- and apparent immunity -- in their names and those of every American.

The arrest of the activists and the subsequent five days they spent locked up in jail is more punishment than any Blackwater mercenaries have received for their deadly actions against Iraqi civilians.

"The courts pretend that adherence to the law is what makes for an orderly and peaceable world," said Steve Baggarly, one of the protest organizers. "In fact, U.S. law and courts stand idly by while the U.S. military and private armies like Blackwater have killed, maimed, brutalized and destroyed the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis."

A month after the Nisour Square massacre, on Oct. 20, a group of about 50 activists gathered outside Blackwater's gates in Moyock, N.C. There, they reenacted the Nisour Square shooting and staged a "die-in," involving a vehicle painted with bullet marks and blood. The activists stained their clothing with fake blood and dramatized the deadly shooting spree. Some of the demonstrators marked Blackwater's large welcome sign -- with the company's bear claw in a sniper scope logo -- with red hand prints. The demonstrators believed these "would be a much more appropriate logo for Blackwater," according to Baggarly. "We're all responsible for what is happening in Iraq. We all have bloody hands."

It took only moments for the local police to respond to the protest, the first ever at Blackwater's headquarters. In the end, seven were arrested.

The symbolism was stark: Re-enact a Blackwater massacre, go to jail. Commit a massacre, walk around freely and perhaps never go to jail.

All seven were charged with criminal trespassing, six of them with an additional charge of resisting arrest and one with another charge of injury to real property. "We feel like Blackwater is trespassing in Iraq," Baggarly later said. "And as for injuring property, they injure men, women and children every day." The activists were jailed for five days and eventually released ... pending trial.

When their day in court arrived, on Dec. 5, the activists intended to put Blackwater on trial, something the Justice Department, the military and the courts have systematically failed to do. Their action at Blackwater, the activists said, was in response to war crimes, the killing of civilians and the fact that no legal system -- civilian or military -- was holding Blackwater responsible. The Nisour Square massacre, they said, "is the Iraq war in microcosm."

But District Court Judge Edgar Barnes would have none of it.

So outraged was he at Baggarly, the first of the defendants to appear before him that day, that the judge cleared the court following his conviction. No spectators, no family members, no journalists, no defense witnesses remained. The other six activists were tried in total secrecy -- well, secret to everyone except the prosecutors, sheriffs, government witnesses and one Blackwater official. Judge Barnes swiftly tried the remaining six activists behind closed doors and convicted them all.

It was as though Currituck, N.C., became Gitmo for a day.

It's not unusual for a judge to clear a courtroom when there is a disruption by the public. Nor is it rare for judges to try to prevent activists from turning the tables and attempting to put the government -- or in this case a mercenary company -- on trial. But witnesses that day report that there was no disruption -- and the defendants say they were immediately cut off when they strayed from the narrow scope of the trespass charge to discuss Blackwater's actions or the war. So why clear the courtroom?

That may be a question for Judge Barnes in the end, but it's hard not to view his conduct through the same veil of secrecy that shrouds all of Blackwater's actions -- and the seemingly endless lengths to which the Bush administration will go to protect Blackwater.

MORE ...

http://www.alternet.org/story/75244/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
Truth is political correctness has far more ULTIMATELY to do with social conformity & submission to projected state authority


Actually, it has more to do with trying to protect people from having their feelings hurt. I think it arose because some people think freedom of speech entitles them to be rude and insulting.


That is because it does. Freedom of speech doesn't mean people only have the freedom to say things you agree with.

Here, learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUphTYPMB4o
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Justin Hale



Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hurt feelings, luvvie? 400 grand okay?

400,000 GBP to be given to lesbian soldier, complaining that she was subjected to sexual harassment from a male sergeant (loss of earnings and hurt feelings).

Richard Littlejohn wrote:
The obscenity of this settlement can be measured against the maximum �57,500 she would have received had she lost an arm or had both feet blown off.

She'd only have got �285,000 from the MoD if an accident had left her in a persistent vegetative state.


From the Daily Mail
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International