Do you agree support political correctness?
Yes
14.9% (21)
14.9% (21)
No
44% (62)
44% (62)
Sometimes
36.2% (51)
36.2% (51)
Other
5% (7)
5% (7)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Political Correctness

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Realitycrash:
I like that no-one has still provided any clear definition of what 'Political Correctness' is.
No, no, it's far more fun to engage in shouting-matches and misunderstand each-over over basics.
Keep up the good work?

True, but, what politically correct is, is different from place to place. So for many posters, what political correct is will vary. It'll also vary across a time period. I couldn't say in the 90's what is allowed to be said today for instance.
Around here for instance it's perfectly okay to say black people, or negroes, even the equivalent of nigger isn't necessarily considered a forbidden word. While in the US for instance, none of that is allowed.

Around here you're not supposed to talk of Moroccans, while I imagine that in Morocco, they don't have a problem with saying Moroccans at all. ;-)

So maybe using one definition isn't possible in this debate.

Blablahb:

Realitycrash:
I like that no-one has still provided any clear definition of what 'Political Correctness' is.
No, no, it's far more fun to engage in shouting-matches and misunderstand each-over over basics.
Keep up the good work?

True, but, what politically correct is, is different from place to place. So for many posters, what political correct is will vary. It'll also vary across a time period. I couldn't say in the 90's what is allowed to be said today for instance.
Around here for instance it's perfectly okay to say black people, or negroes, even the equivalent of nigger isn't necessarily considered a forbidden word. While in the US for instance, none of that is allowed.

Around here you're not supposed to talk of Moroccans, while I imagine that in Morocco, they don't have a problem with saying Moroccans at all. ;-)

So maybe using one definition isn't possible in this debate.

Which is why I suggested a localized, Escapist-definition, which we could use in order to contemplate the issue at hand.
I even posted it, you know.
Trying to argue for A against B without knowing exactly what either A or B stands for in a context is like trying to argue politics when you were eight years old in the school-yard, and all you had were the vague concepts and equally vague arguments you learned from your dad at the dinner-tabel, and the other kids had the same.
No one had any fucking clue what they were saying, or what they were trying to achieve.

harmonic:

Putting restrictions on the language is not a "bogeyman invented by the right wing." If calling such restrictions out is what you are considering political correctness, then yes, I would love to claim that. Bullshit should be called out.

I take issue with your language, by the way. You use dramatic terms like "railing against" and "put out a lot of jabber" when anyone can plainly see that between the two of us, you are not under control.

You said the word "rights" which strongly suggested coercion, regardless of the source. Indeed, the strongest coercion that exists today is societal pressure, which does have far-reaching consequences. Career, socialization, and reputation are vital to one's life. Without getting into a complex philosophical debate about how societies "decide" what is offensive or not, needless to say there are insidious forces and factors other than simply respecting an individual's right to be called what they wish to be called.

Again, this is not about pushing the boundaries of dickery. It is about removing needless restrictions on the language. More transparency, directness, and honesty.

See theres the two definitions of political correctness i can see here and one is total bullshit and one makes perfect sense.

The political correctness where law mandates the restriction of offensive speech is total bullshit. This seems to be what youre talking about and that makes sense to be totally against it.

The political correctness where society decides that if you say thing X they will shun and react negatively is called life. And its not so much "Political correctness" as it is "Societies views dont align with mine to the point where what i say is viewed as abhorrent and people look down on me because of it".

It doesnt matter what you call it. Or if its "ok". Political correctness in the form of social pressure cannot ever be removed. And honestly 99% of the time its a good thing. No one EVER calls out political correctness when the WBC are heckled and called "Morons" because we as a society are looking down on their hateful actions and words. If societies views and yours dont align thats tough shit. You cant ever fix it and it wont go away. People will always look down on things they find to be disgusting, and while i agree you ALWAYS need the freedom to SAY such things "Political correctness" as i see it is just everyone else exercising their freedom to tell you youre an asshole and that person getting offended and angry about it, ironically insinuating that because everyone else exercised their speech to enforce "political correctness" that should be in some way disallowed or banned.

It gets to the ludicrous point where political correctness can just be one or more people taking the "Kinder" side of an issue with words and offence and then vocalizing that. Which is totally inane to try and label or prevent or discuss since thats just fucking opinions of regular people being spoken.

MammothBlade:
I utterly despise the political manipulation of language.

Then it's kind of funny that you're quoting a political essay about how we should all be using language, don't you think?

Wanting to make language less "political" is still political manipulation of language. Sure, you want to impose a language which you feel reflects reality and expresses truth.. but maybe I want to do that too, and maybe what I think is true is different to what you think is true.

Sorry, that just struck me as strange.

lowhat:

" Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families."

So only a black activist would get insulted if you called him a coon or a nigger? Only a woman activist would get offended if you called her a cunt? Only a few Asian activists would be insulted if you called them slopes or chinks or slant eyes? That doesn't make sense....

Helmholtz Watson:
I think it has good intentions but is often misused.

For example, calling "Christmas break" "Winter break" and saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" is dumb. We all know that Christmas is the reason that we are going on break, not because its winter and if its after December 18th and you are saying "happy holidays" then the only holiday you are referring to is Christmas.

Ready to have your mind blown? "Happy Holidays" was coined by a CATHOLIC NUN who used the term to encompass the myriad of Saints and holy feast days that fell close to Christmas and New Years day.

So I ask, why do you have something against Christian Saints?

Fisher321:
When people get mad over someone saying "Merry Christmas".

Are you kidding me?

It is silly, but who's really getting mad over it?

Realitycrash:

Maybe I should start with a suggested definition: Political Correctness is altering ones language, behavior, ways of expression, etc, on both individual or communal level, to avoid causing perceived harm on others, but individuals and communities.
Does that definition fit you?

Then in that case, I'm proud to be politically correct, as I do not consider using racial slurs to be appropriate forms of conversation.

GunsmithKitten:

lowhat:

" Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families."

So only a black activist would get insulted if you called him a coon or a nigger? Only a woman activist would get offended if you called her a cunt? Only a few Asian activists would be insulted if you called them slopes or chinks or slant eyes? That doesn't make sense....

Congratulations on reading the exact opposite of what the words say, it take a rare skill to do that.

evilthecat:

MammothBlade:
I utterly despise the political manipulation of language.

Then it's kind of funny that you're quoting a political essay about how we should all be using language, don't you think?

Wanting to make language less "political" is still political manipulation of language. Sure, you want to impose a language which you feel reflects reality and expresses truth.. but maybe I want to do that too, and maybe what I think is true is different to what you think is true.

Sorry, that just struck me as strange.

I suppose that is what I find disturbing. The right choice of words can enslave people to an ideology or worldview, and blind them to other possibilities. Language can be used as a tool of control and deception.

Even now, people are constrained by the language that they have been exposed to throughout their life, by their parents, by their peers, and by the media. Language is circulated and revised, and as Orwell mentioned, one can adopt words and phrases without even realising. Politics has become too close to language. Soon, we will be unable to trust any words at all, for each and every one will be a political statement in its own right.

lowhat:

GunsmithKitten:

lowhat:

" Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families."

So only a black activist would get insulted if you called him a coon or a nigger? Only a woman activist would get offended if you called her a cunt? Only a few Asian activists would be insulted if you called them slopes or chinks or slant eyes? That doesn't make sense....

Congratulations on reading the exact opposite of what the words say, it take a rare skill to do that.

Oh? what did I miss, do tell?

GunsmithKitten:

Helmholtz Watson:
I think it has good intentions but is often misused.

For example, calling "Christmas break" "Winter break" and saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" is dumb. We all know that Christmas is the reason that we are going on break, not because its winter and if its after December 18th and you are saying "happy holidays" then the only holiday you are referring to is Christmas.

Ready to have your mind blown? "Happy Holidays" was coined by a CATHOLIC NUN who used the term to encompass the myriad of Saints and holy feast days that fell close to Christmas and New Years day.

So I ask, why do you have something against Christian Saints?

I don't, but I have something against gentiles being offended on my behalf and assuming that I would be offended by a person wishing me a Merry Christmas and telling me to enjoy my Christmas break. I don't care, I like Christmas and I can do without others acting offended on my behalf.

BiscuitTrouser:

It doesnt matter what you call it. Or if its "ok". Political correctness in the form of social pressure cannot ever be removed. And honestly 99% of the time its a good thing. No one EVER calls out political correctness when the WBC are heckled and called "Morons" because we as a society are looking down on their hateful actions and words. If societies views and yours dont align thats tough shit. You cant ever fix it and it wont go away. People will always look down on things they find to be disgusting, and while i agree you ALWAYS need the freedom to SAY such things "Political correctness" as i see it is just everyone else exercising their freedom to tell you youre an asshole and that person getting offended and angry about it, ironically insinuating that because everyone else exercised their speech to enforce "political correctness" that should be in some way disallowed or banned.

The problem here would be soft-censorship, as ImperatorDK put it, where some things are refused to be put into magazines, news, tv-shows, etc.
Then again, aren't we always soft-censuring something? Porn, for example, or several acts we consider inhumane or degrading.

GunsmithKitten:

Realitycrash:

Maybe I should start with a suggested definition: Political Correctness is altering ones language, behavior, ways of expression, etc, on both individual or communal level, to avoid causing perceived harm on others, both individuals and communities.
Does that definition fit you?

Then in that case, I'm proud to be politically correct, as I do not consider using racial slurs to be appropriate forms of conversation.

To which the problem becomes a Freedom of Speech-issue. Most people would agree with the above definition as a 'good thing', but claim that they have the right to behave/talk/express themselves like assholes. So, where does one draw the line?

Realitycrash:

To which the problem becomes a Freedom of Speech-issue. Most people would agree with the above definition as a 'good thing', but claim that they have the right to behave/talk/express themselves like assholes. So, where does one draw the line?

The lane is drawn when you say "You know, you're really behaving like an asshole, and I really don't want you doing that around me." And then you evict them from your private property, for example, or start refusing to socialize with them still.

Freedom of speech comes at a cost, and by that I do not mean action against you. But consider this, if you consistently act like a dick, you will definitely lose a lot of the following to list just a few:

1)Friends
2)Contacts
3)Employment opportunities
4)Quality social life
5)Business partners

And you won't lose those because people will go out of their way to take them from you to "punish" you or anything, no, you'll lose them simply because people have better things to do with their own time than dealing with an obnoxious asshole at every turn.

Vegosiux:

Realitycrash:

To which the problem becomes a Freedom of Speech-issue. Most people would agree with the above definition as a 'good thing', but claim that they have the right to behave/talk/express themselves like assholes. So, where does one draw the line?

The lane is drawn when you say "You know, you're really behaving like an asshole, and I really don't want you doing that around me." And then you evict them from your private property, for example, or start refusing to socialize with them still.

Freedom of speech comes at a cost, and by that I do not mean action against you. But consider this, if you consistently act like a dick, you will definitely lose a lot of the following to list just a few:

1)Friends
2)Contacts
3)Employment opportunities
4)Quality social life
5)Business partners

And you won't lose those because people will go out of their way to take them from you to "punish" you or anything, no, you'll lose them simply because people have better things to do with their own time than dealing with an obnoxious asshole at every turn.

And I agree. I find it better to have the issue 'handle itself' by letting the dicks be ostracized. However, there are many who do not. Take for instance the use of the word 'Nigger'. May I use it? Some would say 'No', even though this is a reasonable, Academic discussion. It's even fully possible I will now get a warning because I didn't write it as 'The N-Word'. But is that alright? Can we not even discuss sensitive topics now? I know people who would be enraged that said word is even uttered, no matter the circumstances.
And how about jokes in media. Where do we draw the line on say Holocaust-jokes, which have been done in Family Guy for instance. Can we ostracize a cartoon? And what if more people find said joke Funny instead of Offensive, does this mean that the offended group will have to 'suck it up'?

Due to exaggeration, shit reporting and seemingly deliberate misunderstanding, political correctness has become something you can say to get people rolling their eyes. It is still a good thing, though.

People should be allowed to say what they want. That way, as a wise man once said, "You know who the arseholes are straight out of the gate." Getting offended by petty slurs just means you're allowing your buttons to be pushed when the only person who should actually be looking stupid is the person who insulted you.

MammothBlade:
Politics has become too close to language.

Too close for what?

Too close to convey some kind of objective "truth" which you imagine exists out there somewhere waiting to be put into the right kinds of "neutral" words to satisfy your perception of reality?

To nail my colours to the wall on this, you seem to be arguing that language can be used to distort truth for political gain. I would argue that what is far more powerful and insidious is using language to create truth for political gain, in fact I'm creating (or re-creating) truth right now by telling you this. I'm shutting down countless alternatives, I'm rejecting countless hypotheses with every choice of words in this sentence, with the whole purpose being to enact my will upon the social world, to persuade or influence other people. If that isn't political, then what is?

But yeah.. sorry to go off topic.

It's easy to get hung up on individual words. There seems to be an inordinate amount of debate on this thread about whether you're "allowed" to use particular words. Incidentally, sorry about this, it's just the best example.

Realitycrash:
Take for instance the use of the word 'Nigger'. May I use it?

You just did. ;)

It's not the words which are the problem. That implies that words themselves have some kind of inherent moral status. The problem is that when you use words in a sentence, they have meaning, meaning which isn't just formed by the words by everything around the words. It seems kind of stupid to have to say it, because it's so obvious, but it's also remarkably easy to forget or to try and reduce to this simple question of what words you "can" and "can't" say.

Even in countries where we have hatespeech laws, there is never a list of proscribed words. It is always about intent and meaning. Personally, I think if you mean to attack or harass someone with your words in order to cause them emotional distress or harm, that's no more entitled to be a protected mode of expression than pulling your cock out in public.

evilthecat:

Realitycrash:
Take for instance the use of the word 'Nigger'. May I use it?

You just did. ;)

It's not the words which are the problem. That implies that words themselves have some kind of inherent moral status. The problem is that when you use words in a sentence, they have meaning, meaning which isn't just formed by the words by everything around the words. It seems kind of stupid to have to say it, because it's so obvious, but it's also remarkably easy to forget or to try and reduce to this simple question of what words you "can" and "can't" say.

Even in countries where we have hatespeech laws, there is never a list of proscribed words. It is always about intent and meaning. Personally, I think if you mean to attack or harass someone with your words in order to cause them emotional distress or harm, that's no more entitled to be a protected mode of expression than pulling your cock out in public.

It is always the intent. However, some would say that since we always run the risk of offending someone with a joke or a word, even if the intent is not malicious, we aren't allowed to say such a thing, because there are 'things that one does not joke about', because it MIGHT offend someone, somehow, due to misunderstandings or people simply not agreeing on what is funny, intent or not.

Vegosiux:

The lane is drawn when you say "You know, you're really behaving like an asshole, and I really don't want you doing that around me." And then you evict them from your private property, for example, or start refusing to socialize with them still.

Freedom of speech comes at a cost, and by that I do not mean action against you. But consider this, if you consistently act like a dick, you will definitely lose a lot of the following to list just a few:

1)Friends
2)Contacts
3)Employment opportunities
4)Quality social life
5)Business partners

And you won't lose those because people will go out of their way to take them from you to "punish" you or anything, no, you'll lose them simply because people have better things to do with their own time than dealing with an obnoxious asshole at every turn.

Problem: "Acting like a dick" is subjective. The old conundrum: is offence given or taken?

If I described somebody's rotating bow-tie with flashing LEDs as "completely gay" would that constitute me being a dick? What if we were friends and I knew the turn of phrase wouldn't offend? What if I hadn't bothered to check if it would be taken the wrong way? What if I knew the guy wearing it was gay and I was trying to be obtuse? What if I was gay myself and trying to reclaim the word by occasionally challenging people's reaction to it, in a kind of counter-troll measure?

"Acting like a dick" isn't some measurable thing that we can look up on a chart and say "Bob, you're a dick; Tom, you're ok; Sarah, you're close to being a dick, I suggest you swear 20% less around the elderly, that's a major contributing factor to your current rating". It's all context-specific and culture-specific.

TL;DR: Cultural relativism.

Batou667:

Problem: "Acting like a dick" is subjective. The old conundrum: is offence given or taken?

If I described somebody's rotating bow-tie with flashing LEDs as "completely gay" would that constitute me being a dick? What if we were friends and I knew the turn of phrase wouldn't offend? What if I hadn't bothered to check if it would be taken the wrong way? What if I knew the guy wearing it was gay and I was trying to be obtuse? What if I was gay myself and trying to reclaim the word by occasionally challenging people's reaction to it, in a kind of counter-troll measure?

"Acting like a dick" isn't some measurable thing that we can look up on a chart and say "Bob, you're a dick; Tom, you're ok; Sarah, you're close to being a dick, I suggest you swear 20% less around the elderly, that's a major contributing factor to your current rating". It's all context-specific and culture-specific.

TL;DR: Cultural relativism.

Key word. "Consistently".

You can only blame a culture clash the first few times, as you can only claim offense was taken and not given. Because every next time it makes sense to adjust one's behavior a bit (for both parties involved - one should gravitate toward taking less offense, the other towards being slightly more careful not to give any).

So fine, for example, you say/do something I take as an offense because you had no way of knowing it would offend me. But when I point it out, you do know. So if the second, third, seventh, eighty-fourth time you still say/do exactly the same thing because you simply give no consideration to my aversion to it while I do try my damnest to accept there are differences between us, then no, this is not a case of cultural relativism, it's a case of straight, callous douchebaggery.

There's nothing "subjective" about knowing you're going to offend someone and then doing it anyway when you didn't really have to (yes, there are situations where there's no other way).

Assassin Xaero:
Pretty simple question - do you agree with political correctness or do you think it is stupid (or something else)?

You mean the "Political Correctness" which is largely a completely fictional tabloid caricature of a practice known to the sane and rational as "not being a complete cunt"? Also known as "being polite"? Yeah, I quite like it.

I always thought being correct was a common sense sort of thing. You need to have terrible social skills to not be able to tell that your words or their intent may cross a line.

Yes, there are times when it can be ridiculous, but for the most part it's good. It depends on the discussion. You can't act in front of your interviewer like you would do in front of your bar buddies.

Assassin Xaero:
Pretty simple question - do you agree with political correctness or do you think it is stupid (or something else)?

I haven't read the thread but I bet it's nothing but people arguing the definition of political correctness.

Look sometimes being PC can be advisable, such as stop calling black people niggers etc. and sometimes people try to be PC while ignoring context or just being stupid about it.

For example if you want to put a racist in your movie or book, you might run across a few people who demand that the character not use racial slurs (see Mark Twain's work). This is stupid and needs to go away.

Magichead:

Assassin Xaero:
Pretty simple question - do you agree with political correctness or do you think it is stupid (or something else)?

You mean the "Political Correctness" which is largely a completely fictional tabloid caricature of a practice known to the sane and rational as "not being a complete cunt"? Also known as "being polite"? Yeah, I quite like it.

Yep, the same one that says that we shouldn't put crazy people in mental help facilities because we don't want them to feel like they don't fit in with society, so they are out here running around, kill their mother, then shoot up a school. Same one that tries to tell people how to run their private businesses because some little babies have a grudge against a certain religions. Which, actually, that one does fall under the "being a complete cunt" category. Weird.

Assassin Xaero:

Yep, the same one that says that we shouldn't put crazy people in mental help facilities because we don't want them to feel like they don't fit in with society, so they are out here running around, kill their mother, then shoot up a school. Same one that tries to tell people how to run their private businesses because some little babies have a grudge against a certain religions. Which, actually, that one does fall under the "being a complete cunt" category. Weird.

Wait what where? Source, examples, please? No, seriously, this is the first time ever I hear this in the context of "political correctness" and I need something solid to go on.

Assassin Xaero:

Magichead:

Assassin Xaero:
Pretty simple question - do you agree with political correctness or do you think it is stupid (or something else)?

You mean the "Political Correctness" which is largely a completely fictional tabloid caricature of a practice known to the sane and rational as "not being a complete cunt"? Also known as "being polite"? Yeah, I quite like it.

Yep, the same one that says that we shouldn't put crazy people in mental help facilities because we don't want them to feel like they don't fit in with society, so they are out here running around, kill their mother, then shoot up a school. Same one that tries to tell people how to run their private businesses because some little babies have a grudge against a certain religions. Which, actually, that one does fall under the "being a complete cunt" category. Weird.

Yep, exactly that sort of complete nonsense, good job imitating the idiots who write that sort of dross in the papers.

Seriously though, these are the examples you come back with? Your first example is....I don't even. I mean it's just...a complete red herring, and more than that it's wrong. First, "crazy people" do get placed in mental health facilities, but your nation's craptactular healthcare system combines the stigma, the ignorance, AND the chronic underfunding which seem to be universal parts of mental health care across the developed world with a for-profit system that results in all the resources which could be finding and treating "crazy people" being used up by middle-class suburban houswewives and urban office workers who need to whinge about their first world problems. Second, most people with metal health problems don't "fit in with society" because society treats anyone with a mental health problem like a fucking leper; maybe if all the normals weren't such colossal, offensive, ignorant shitbags whenever the subject comes up, a few less "crazy people" would end up so isolated and fucked-up that indiscriminate murder begins to sound good to them, eh?

As for telling "private business" owners what to do because people have "a grudge against certain religions", I'm going to take a wild stab and say that this nonsense is the result of some bigoted homophobic cunt crying "RERLIGUS PURSECOOTSHUN!!!1!!2!" when they were called out on their blatant discrimination? Because that's what it is, what these people do; discrimination, and the religion stuff is just something to hide behind, just like it was when the exact same bigoted shit was being directed at black people; those bigoted cunts claimed their religious freedoms were being taken away as well, when they were told they had to stop treating a whole segment of society like shit for no reason.

Seriously, if "inbred backwoods hill-people aren't allowed to treat gay people like shit! TEH HORRURS!" is the worst thing you can think of to come out of Political Correctness, I think I'm still cool with it.

A little bit of political correctness is fine, to take the rougher edges off. But with the rampant political correctness that is going on now people are not allowed to be honest out of fear.

People are a hell of a lot more respectful and honest down South with practically no political correctness than here in NYS with a crapton of political correctness. Funny enough, they are a hell of a lot less racist too.

Like most things in life, moderation is the key. Something that we Americans suck at.

for example: a school that had a father/daughter dance tradition every year for a long time had to cancel it because ONE parent complained because her daughter didnt have a father. Inexcusable action on the school's part. Or a school that prevents its students from celebrating X event/holiday because there is one student who is not in the same religion/ethnicity.

It also makes it easy for people to pull the racist/sexist/persecution card to get their way even if the subject/event was not related to that field in anyway. I knew a guy that was FIRED for catching someone stealing from the store, only for the perp to turn around and call him a racist even though he didnt say anything. The thief was allowed to walk out of the store with the stolen goods (even though they had him on CAMERA) because they were afraid of a media backlash.

So yea, when you have a system that RUINS people's lives for doing the RIGHT thing, there is a problem with it. Political correctness has done some wonderful things IN THE PAST. Now it is a highly corrupted system that drags our society into a cesspool of hatred and fear.

Assassin Xaero:

Yep, the same one that says that we shouldn't put crazy people in mental help facilities because we don't want them to feel like they don't fit in with society, so they are out here running around, kill their mother, then shoot up a school. Same one that tries to tell people how to run their private businesses because some little babies have a grudge against a certain religions. Which, actually, that one does fall under the "being a complete cunt" category. Weird.

It is well worth noting that there wasn't a massive hike in violent crime statistics when the old mental asylums were closed down and replaced by outpatient treatment of mental disorders. Also, the few recent studies that have been made on the correlation between mental disorders and crime found that people with schizophrenia and other disorders with hallucinations and psychosis as vital components are not any more likely to commit violent crimes than the average citizen is. There exists a correlation between substance abuse and violent crimes however and schizophrenics have a slightly higher tendency to abuse narcotic substances.

But yeah, I am sure imprisoning people without sentencing and on unclear grounds because they don't fit societies idea of "normal" (keep in mind that homosexuals, promiscuous women and communists have all been known to end up in mental asylums historically) is a much better idea then giving these people a chance to live a relatively normal life.

Gethsemani:

But yeah, I am sure imprisoning people without sentencing and on unclear grounds because they don't fit societies idea of "normal" (keep in mind that homosexuals, promiscuous women and communists have all been known to end up in mental asylums historically) is a much better idea then giving these people a chance to live a relatively normal life.

You really think that is why people are put there, because they don't conform to what society deems as normal? I'm pretty sure it has more to do with people thinking that their neighbors dog talks to them and tells them to commit criminal acts, then because they are just "odd".

Magichead:

Assassin Xaero:
Pretty simple question - do you agree with political correctness or do you think it is stupid (or something else)?

You mean the "Political Correctness" which is largely a completely fictional tabloid caricature of a practice known to the sane and rational as "not being a complete cunt"? Also known as "being polite"? Yeah, I quite like it.

Deliberately misinterpreting what people meant to paint them as assholes kind of makes you a bit of a jerk.

AKA: Nice straw man, let us know when you want to actually participate in this debate.

GunsmithKitten:

Fisher321:
When people get mad over someone saying "Merry Christmas".

Are you kidding me?

It is silly, but who's really getting mad over it?

NO ONE!

Even the most anti-Christian militant atheist doesn't get upset if someone says Merry Christmas.

Realitycrash:
I like that no-one has still provided any clear definition of what 'Political Correctness' is.
No, no, it's far more fun to engage in shouting-matches and misunderstand each-over over basics.
Keep up the good work?

Maybe I should start with a suggested definition: Political Correctness is altering ones language, behavior, ways of expression, etc, on both individual or communal level, to avoid causing perceived harm on others, but individuals and communities.
Does that definition fit you?

Too vague. Telling a kid to stop hitting their sibling would be political correctness under that definition.

Helmholtz Watson:

You really think that is why people are put there, because they don't conform to what society deems as normal? I'm pretty sure it has more to do with people thinking that their neighbors dog talks to them and tells them to commit criminal acts, then because they are just "odd".

Considering that I work in a psychiatric ward, I can safely tell you that I've seen cases of people ending up in our care because they aren't conforming to social expectations. The most notable case of this would be personality disorders (which aren't mental illness per se) but when DSM-V hits the public we can look forward to a diagnosis for not grieving the right way after significant trauma or loss, just to give one example.

But since you seemed to miss my major point I'll re-iterate it: Contemporary research suggests that suffering from psychosis does not increase your statistical likelihood of committing violent crimes. And suggesting that Mental Asylums was a good idea because they prevented violent crimes is thus a flawed theory.

Helmholtz Watson:

You really think that is why people are put there, because they don't conform to what society deems as normal? I'm pretty sure it has more to do with people thinking that their neighbors dog talks to them and tells them to commit criminal acts, then because they are just "odd".

Actually, historically, an awful lot of people were locked up in asylums precisely for the sorts of trivial reasons Gethsemani said.

That trend has mostly long since passed, although more recently, there were a lot of people shut away who were, whilst psychologically troubled to some degree, not intrinsically dangerous. Putting them in mental health hospitals was both costly and also perhaps worse negatively affected their quality of life. Reforms whereby they were reintegrated into the community vary by country, but in the UK is was the 1980s, as I recall.

Unfortunately, some disturbed people do commit crimes. However, this is actually not a compelling reason to arbitrarily sweep thousands of mentally ill who don't commit crimes out of their homes and into glorified jails just in case they might. Gethsemani is quite right to object to the sorts of stigmatising sentiments that would return us to doing so.

To me, a lot of it comes down to just being polite and not being a dick and making people feel bad by being a callous asshole.

So sometimes, yeah, it pays to be politically correct.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked