Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Global Politics => Topic started by: PPCLI Guy on June 19, 2018, 20:33:21

Title: On Political Correctness
Post by: PPCLI Guy on June 19, 2018, 20:33:21
An interesting take on a wholly over-used term.....and on faux-outrage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/06/19/a-cage-is-a-cage-is-a-cage/?utm_term=.236f1068ae6e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/06/19/a-cage-is-a-cage-is-a-cage/?utm_term=.236f1068ae6e)

Quote
Look who’s politically correct now
By Molly Roberts
June 19
 
When liberals refuse to call things what they are and sub in carefully calibrated euphemisms instead, far-right conservatives respond with one of their favorite phrases. This, they say, is political correctness run amok. But now it’s the far right that’s refusing to call the cages holding immigrant children separated from their families “cages” — they’re “chain-link partitions” instead. This hypocrisy reveals how much of a sham the crusade against political correctness among the far right has always been.

The far right loves to skewer the left for covering up inconvenient truths with consoling language: In the oft-quoted words of conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” But up against the decidedly inconvenient truth that children in detention centers are crying out for their mamas and papis, the right has responded with … consoling language.

Television and talk show host Laura Ingraham may have come up with the pleasantest description possible of the sterile rooms surrounded by metal fences where terrified kids squirm under astronaut blankets on floor mats: “essentially summer camps.”

The Border Patrol’s bureaucracy is playing the same game. The agency contacted a “CBS This Morning reporter on Monday to tell him they were “very uncomfortable” with his use of the word “cages” to describe those ostensible summer camps. It wasn’t that the word was inaccurate, they said. It was just that, though these might technically be cages, the children weren’t being treated like animals.

This is a paradigmatic case of convoluted logic and language designed to disguise a grim reality: The very fact that the Border Patrol is keeping these children in cages shows the administration is treating them like animals. The complaint that talking about cages makes the administration “uncomfortable,” too, is straight out of the campus culture wars, yet when liberals lodge this complaint, conservatives label them snowflakes faster than you can say “microaggression.”

No one seems entirely able to agree on what exactly political correctness is, but those on the far right often gripe about the policing of vocabulary as an example of the left’s penchant for shutting down disagreement. How dare you refuse to name radical Islamist terror, they ask? How dare you say “holidays” instead of “Christmas”? And what is up with these genderless pronouns?

This is a strong argument only when the stifled speech is actually an attempt at truth-telling in the face of censorship. Yet when the Trump camp cries out against political correctness, it usually has nothing to do with truth-telling or censorship at all.

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump said during the campaign. And what was the politically correct autocracy stopping him from doing? Calling women “slobs,” “dogs” and “pigs.” But women are quite literally not dogs, or pigs. They’re women. Describing Megyn Kelly as a “bimbo” isn’t laying bare some suppressed reality — it’s nastiness for nastiness’s sake.

The same phenomenon appeared during the “******* country” controversy. Commentators were in an uproar not because Trump was describing these locales for what they really were, as his far-right defenders insisted that liberals refused to do, but because he was implying that those who come from those countries are “*******” people. And in any event, it’s possible to critique conditions in Haiti or El Salvador without invoking the human anus.

The pro-Trump right has weaponized “political correctness” to mean they get to say whatever they want, and those who disagree with them don’t. We’ve seen the first side of that equation plenty of times, and now, with the “cages” controversy, we’re treated to a crystal-clear example of the second.

So, in this instance, Ben Shapiro’s fans ought to reflect on how his mantra applies to them, too. Facts don’t care about feelings. They don’t care any more than the Trump administration and its euphemism-toting defenders seem to care about the children in the cages.
.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: CloudCover on June 19, 2018, 21:25:38
David Grahams write up in The Atlantic takes on this ******* absurdity as well.  He characterizes it as "violence to the English language."  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/ceci-nest-pas-une-cage/563072/ 
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brihard on June 19, 2018, 21:37:01
I saw a good quote today, to the effect of "nobody on the right side of history has ever had to quibble over the definition of 'cage'".

If you're gonna come up with and enforce a policy, have the balls to own your decision, call it what it is, and defend the necessity- if you can. History is not kind to those who quibble and lose on such matters.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: QV on June 19, 2018, 21:54:01
I saw a good quote today, to the effect of "nobody on the right side of history has ever had to quibble over the definition of 'cage'".

If you're gonna come up with and enforce a policy, have the balls to own your decision, call it what it is, and defend the necessity- if you can. History is not kind to those who quibble and lose on such matters.

Indeed, looking at you 9th circuit court on a pre-Trump ruling (according to Ben Shapiro). Let us not let an opportunity pass to blame Trump for something that was ok while Obama reigned.  But I bet you Trump will fix this issue. 
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brihard on June 19, 2018, 22:40:53
Indeed, looking at you 9th circuit court on a pre-Trump ruling (according to Ben Shapiro). Let us not let an opportunity pass to blame Trump for something that was ok while Obama reigned.  But I bet you Trump will fix this issue.

Pretending the situation is the same as under the last administration is dishonest- deliberately so given how easy it is to ascertain fact on this.

The law has not changed, that much is true, but what is happening now was not happening under Obama's government. Had it been so, that would have been just as wrong. What has happened is that the current administration has chosen to remove discretion in enforcement of immigration laws.

It is an offense (a misdemeanour, so a relatively minor one) to cross illegally into the States. It can indeed be prosecuted criminally. Conventionally, though, immigration issues have been handled through civil deportation proceedings. Out of the country is out of the country. There was nothing that required the current administration to alter this conventional exercise of discretion and to mandate that all such issues shall be pursued criminally. Setting aside for a moment the ridiculous overburdening of the courts that will soon be happening because of this, there was no inherent necessity to impose this policy. It was a choice.

It is a new practice in the past few months - one demanded by the executive branch - to go about it this way. They have chosen the behaviour and so they have chosen the consequences. That consequence is that a law that has historically only been used in really serious cases where criminal prosecution is warranted is now being used across the board in all cases, a removal of the conventional discretion border officers have had. This has indeed resulted in children being forcibly separated from parents and interned in camps, locked in cages in some places. 'internment camp' and 'cage' are awkward things to see said, but they are utterly accurate. It is a deliberate governmental policy to pressure the democrats in the legislature on immigration reform - basically to pay for the wall that Trump swore up and down Mexico would pay for. Funny, that.

In any case- the law is not new but the way it is being used is. It is being used indiscriminately, when conventionally proceeding criminally has been an exception.

Over and above being on the wrong side of history in interning children forcibly separated from their parents, this is going to have a pretty brutal impact in terms of the burden on criminal courts and all the due process that entails. The psychological damage on many thousands of children is going to be very considerable. What's going to be hilarious - in the schadenfreude type of hilarity - will be when some of the asylum claims are successful (because illegal entry is irrelevant to asylum), and they then sue the everliving crap out of the government for what they were put through in the interim. On the very sad side, given the separation of thousands of children, inevitably there are already accounts beginning to surface of kids being subjected to some inexcusable abuses. I fear there will be more of that.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: CloudCover on June 19, 2018, 23:16:15
There has to be a credible fear of torture or similar harm to underpin a law suit in the US, the SCOTUS has been clear on that. Economic migrants do not qualify, and I believe ( stand to be corrected) that is also the case in Canada???
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brihard on June 19, 2018, 23:27:21
There has to be a credible fear of torture or similar harm to underpin a law suit in the US, the SCOTUS has been clear on that. Economic migrants do not qualify, and I believe ( stand to be corrected) that is also the case in Canada???

Generally speaking to claim asylum there has to be a credible and specific fear for your safety, and yes it's similar in Canada. We're dealing with this in the ongoing border issues in Quebec. I'm not suggesting that most people will be granted asylum, or even many- but some will be fleeing specific enough and grievous enough danger that they will get asylum.

As for lawsuits, you can sure for pretty much anything. It has to have merits to go anywhere. The US government is putting itself in great jeopardy of children coming to unnecessary and avoidable harm due to government policies, and civil action will likely be a result of same. It won't change what has happened and it will take years, but it will keep this ugly spectre in the public eye from time to time for years to come.

This policy is basically a big lose in just about every way. There's nothing worthwhile to be achieved by this that couldn't be accomplished otherwise, and the political harm both domestically and in terms of international credibility is going to be considerable. I mean, it *should* be, because this is bloody awful, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the political math on this will not play out in the administration's favour. It will appeal strongly to a fairly narrow hard-right base, but most moderates are going to find this really gross. Not the smartest step to take leading into the midterms.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 19, 2018, 23:31:27
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.



As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brihard on June 19, 2018, 23:36:19
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.

As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.

Certainly they do have that option, and that is part of the tactic of fear being used here. 'Cross illegally, we'll take your kids from you by force and you won't know if you'll get them back'. If America has become comfortable with doing things that way, that's frightening to me. The brutal approach can be effective, but at what cost?

Hopefully the brisk and loud outrage at this and the domestic political impact it may have will help the administration to recognize the advisability of pulling back form this approach- if moral reasons don't suffice for that, hopefully pragmatic political calculus will. I don't expect Trump to care about what anyone else in the rest of the world thinks, but an impact on the midterms will carry weight.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: CloudCover on June 19, 2018, 23:59:57
Ok, well getting back on track to verbiage of political correctness, they are not chain link partitions with a summer camp nostalgia, they are pens and kennels with kids in them. Brutal> Yes.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brihard on June 20, 2018, 00:03:08
Right. The photos are incredibly damning.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: QV on June 20, 2018, 00:37:09
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: GAP on June 20, 2018, 01:15:40
Parents also have the option of not illegally crossing the border.

As brutal of a practice this is, I wonder if it will reduce the number of illegal border crossings, which their government may laud as a victory.

I doubt it.....they have already travelled this far, paid fees and bribes, to stop and wait is not feasible nor safe....
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 20, 2018, 01:43:08
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?

We're sure. The Obama issue back in 2014 dealt with UNACCOMPANIED minors who were escaping principally from Guatemala. Since they came without parents or guardians the administration was forced into providing facilities and processes for their safeguarding.

For a better understanding of the situation see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_immigration_crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_immigration_crisis)

The current administration's actions are a form of weaponizing the legislation on the presumption that once families south of the border hear what is happening they will stop coming-- a form of pour decourages les autres. When you consider that the primary consideration in child welfare is always "what's in the best interest of the child", it's really not that hard to see that the current Trump administration policy is out of line for what right thinking people find acceptable. Even Republican lawmakers are aghast at it and quite frankly, IMHO, the true purpose behind way the administration is doing things is to make the Republicans in Congress uncomfortable in order that they will  give him money for the wall which they denied him earlier this year.

The situations are apples and oranges.

 [cheers]
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Infanteer on June 20, 2018, 01:43:40
Quote
And in any event, it’s possible to critique conditions in Haiti or El Salvador without invoking the human anus.

This was the key take-away.  Political correctness is generally a form of greasy misdirection. Being blunt, direct, or "calling it like it is" is something appreciated when greasy language and misdirection are the norm.  One can, however, be blunt, direct, or "call it like it is" without being crass, obscene, or just a plain a**hole.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 20, 2018, 02:15:04
Beware the 'triggered' moral voices....

“moral voices can also become sanctimonious bullies.”

― Nicholas Kristof

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brihard on June 20, 2018, 07:30:26
Do you mean the photos from 2014?  You sure this didn’t happen under Obama?

Let’s see something substantive and reasoned in reply to my first post to prove you’re not just cherry picking the points you’re least afraid of engaging with, and then we’ll chat. Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts as laid out by myself and others.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Journeyman on June 20, 2018, 09:08:22
Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts
You're new at these Politics threads, aren't you...   :pop:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Strike on June 20, 2018, 09:47:07
Let’s see something substantive and reasoned in reply to my first post to prove you’re not just cherry picking the points you’re least afraid of engaging with, and then we’ll chat. Thus far you’re not showing any inclination to honestly address the facts as laid out by myself and others.

Yes please. Whataboutism at its best I think.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: QV on June 20, 2018, 12:14:28

Brihard I'm not inclined nor wish to dedicate the time to go through your lengthy posts point by point.  Frankly I have other things to do.  Having said that, I do enjoy reading these forums for all of the different opinions and perspectives, including yours Brihard.  On occasion I drop my two cents in as well.  I try not to insult anyone or infer they are idiots simply because they haven't sufficiently responded to my post.  Truthfully, for me, your post was TLDR - so I skimmed it.  Maybe that means I don't have sufficient mental stamina to spar with you about this, or I just don't care that much.  My point is all of a sudden something that is in law and has been going on for years is all Trumps fault and this is a huge disaster.  Well, it's not really.  This is just dirty politics.  There is no honesty left anymore.   

I will just drop this link here as well for another perspective on this topic:   

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/06/19/really-2/


Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: JesseWZ on June 20, 2018, 12:54:34
Brihard I'm not inclined nor wish to dedicate the time to go through your lengthy posts point by point.  Frankly I have other things to do.  Having said that, I do enjoy reading these forums for all of the different opinions and perspectives, including yours Brihard.  On occasion I drop my two cents in as well.  I try not to insult anyone or infer they are idiots simply because they haven't sufficiently responded to my post.  Truthfully, for me, your post was TLDR - so I skimmed it.  Maybe that means I don't have sufficient mental stamina to spar with you about this, or I just don't care that much.  My point is all of a sudden something that is in law and has been going on for years is all Trumps fault and this is a huge disaster.  Well, it's not really.  This is just dirty politics.  There is no honesty left anymore.   

I will just drop this link here as well for another perspective on this topic:   

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/06/19/really-2/

You can't have it both ways. Either input your two cents and defend it as Brihard has done, or be content to simply read the various opinions and perspectives. Dropping in tid-bits of opinion, getting called on them, and then refusing to debate the counterclaim is TROLLING. Brihards posts are hardly lengthy - this is a nuanced issue which he articulated very well... it's not rocket surgery. If you don't feel like doing the work of defending your argument, or even reading the follow on discussion, don't bother posting.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: BeyondTheNow on June 20, 2018, 13:15:28

Folks, a reminder: Every user on this forum is encouraged to post in the manner they’re most comfortable with as long as it doesn’t contravene Army.ca policies/guidelines in any fashion. At no point is it mandatory for users to respond to/debate/defend posts—their own, or other’s. They are free to disengage at any point.

“Trolling is making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.” Google

Choosing not to debate any and all arguments in singular or multiple posts is not trolling. That being said, as this is a thread prone to passionate responses, let’s be cognizant of that in order to allow the discussion to continue.

Staff
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 20, 2018, 13:39:16
You can't have it both ways. Either input your two cents and defend it as Brihard has done, or be content to simply read the various opinions and perspectives. Dropping in tid-bits of opinion, getting called on them, and then refusing to debate the counterclaim is TROLLING. Brihards posts are hardly lengthy - this is a nuanced issue which he articulated very well... it's not rocket surgery. If you don't feel like doing the work of defending your argument, or even reading the follow on discussion, don't bother posting.

Point to that in the rules. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether you like it or not. Nobody here, is required to spend time and research, arguing against others. Maybe it's an opinion formed from the CBC, they're honest and trustworthy right? Nobody is required, likewise, to satisfy any questions or queries you may have. Just because you post an opinion doesn't mean you have to spend hours defending it against all comers. Now, if a person feels no need to respond to certain questions, you have a choice. Accept it or ask for clarification. If you get an answer, the poster wishes to confer with you, if they don't respond, they don't want to or are required to. Or maybe you are on ignore and they didn't see your question. It's good form to defend your opinion, but it's not required.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 20, 2018, 17:39:26
Certainly they do have that option, and that is part of the tactic of fear being used here. 'Cross illegally, we'll take your kids from you by force and you won't know if you'll get them back'. If America has become comfortable with doing things that way, that's frightening to me. The brutal approach can be effective, but at what cost?


From a pragmatic (and fairly heartless) perspective it seems to me like an effective way to combat illegal immigration. If you don't want to be seperated from your kids don't try and sneak in the country. That kids are allegedly suffering abuse is perhaps an even stronger motivation to not risk it.

Not saying I agree with the practice mind you.

Aside from the usual Americans who are outraged over anything and everything Trump does, and even some of his supports who may oppose this practice, there's probably a lot of Americans who don't really care if children from Mexico illegally entering the US are detained for a month and change without their parents.
Considering my first point some might even approve.


As for PC language it's a great example of the political right being guilty of the same language/behavior they accuse the left of. Cage is a cage don't mince words.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Remius on June 20, 2018, 19:25:44

Looks like the President has decided to reverse his own policy on separating families.  A day after he said his hands were tied. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-separation-policy-criticism-1.4713950

Politics aside this is a good move.

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Altair on June 20, 2018, 19:34:42
Looks like the President has decided to reverse his own policy on separating families.  A day after he said his hands were tied. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-separation-policy-criticism-1.4713950

Politics aside this is a good move.
I wasn't going to bother get worked up about this one.

The president was only going to stand up to public pressure for so long.

Good job on the media for keeping the pressure on though.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Furniture on June 20, 2018, 21:15:34
Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride. Might encourage people to stop illegally crossing, at least more than the previous policy of putting the family together somewhere in the USA and hoping they show up for a court date... 
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 20, 2018, 22:28:44
Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride. Might encourage people to stop illegally crossing, at least more than the previous policy of putting the family together somewhere in the USA and hoping they show up for a court date...

I think they used their children very effectively to get what they wanted. Terrorists do the same, of course.

We in the 'first world' have no idea, unfortunately, how easily we can be played like a fiddle by people who have nothing to lose.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 21, 2018, 00:01:05
>Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride.

Turnaround for first entry (misdemeanour) was typically already one day for those who didn't claim asylum (pleaded guilty, sentenced to time already served, sent home).  What they have to speed up are the processes for resolving asylum claims.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 21, 2018, 10:34:03
>Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride.

Turnaround for first entry (misdemeanour) was typically already one day for those who didn't claim asylum (pleaded guilty, sentenced to time already served, sent home).  What they have to speed up are the processes for resolving asylum claims.

Which becomes exceedingly difficult with the increasing NWO migrant caravans piling up on their borders. Just keep overloading the system until it breaks.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Altair on June 21, 2018, 13:20:27
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/first-step-to-helping-children-sent-to-new-york-find-them/ar-AAyXB7M

Quote
By Thursday, consular officials and others were shifting into crisis mode, beginning to search themselves for children as young as 9 months old who did not appear to have been carefully tracked by the federal authorities.
comforting.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Altair on June 21, 2018, 15:08:02
I wasn't going to bother get worked up about this one.

The president was only going to stand up to public pressure for so long.

Good job on the media for keeping the pressure on though.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-administration-will-stop-prosecuting-migrant-parents-who-cross-the-border-illegally-with-children-official-says/ar-AAyYaHZ?li=BBnb7Kz

Quote
The U.S. Border Patrol will no longer refer migrant parents who cross into the United States illegally with children to federal courthouses to face criminal charges, a senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection official told The Washington Post on Thursday.
All of that for what in the end?
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 21, 2018, 15:39:06
It's clear that the US has significant immigration challenges. Smug Canadians can look on and judge, but our immigration challenges are a fraction of theirs, and declining. It's not hard to understand why they want a wall when our wall is the 'Lower 48':

"The United States has been the top destination for international migrants since at least 1960, with one-fifth of the world's migrants living there as of 2017. Almost 19 percent of the 43.7 million immigrants in the United States in 2016 entered since 2010, 27 percent between 2000 and 2009, and the majority (55 percent) before 2000."

and

"In 2016, 1.49 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 7 percent increase from the 1.38 million coming in 2015. In contrast, Canadian arrivals dropped 19 percent: 38,400 in 2016, versus 47,300 in 2015."

and

"An estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States as of January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011, according to the most recent estimates issued by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics."

and

"Mexico and Central America accounted for most unauthorized immigrants in the United States as of 2010-14, with MPI estimating about 7.9 million people in total (71 percent of the overall unauthorized population)."

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 21, 2018, 16:16:37
It's OK though. Trudeau is attempting to close the gap, with the US, on the illegal immigration front. :rofl:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Colin P on June 21, 2018, 16:22:43
I am loving the faux outrage about the shoe smuggling, seems suddenly, no one knows anyone that has smuggled everyday stuff across the border.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 21, 2018, 22:11:15
It's clear that the US has significant immigration challenges. Smug Canadians can look on and judge, but our immigration challenges are a fraction of theirs, and declining. It's not hard to understand why they want a wall when our wall is the 'Lower 48':

"The United States has been the top destination for international migrants since at least 1960, with one-fifth of the world's migrants living there as of 2017. Almost 19 percent of the 43.7 million immigrants in the United States in 2016 entered since 2010, 27 percent between 2000 and 2009, and the majority (55 percent) before 2000."

and

"In 2016, 1.49 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 7 percent increase from the 1.38 million coming in 2015. In contrast, Canadian arrivals dropped 19 percent: 38,400 in 2016, versus 47,300 in 2015."

and

"An estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States as of January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011, according to the most recent estimates issued by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics."

and

"Mexico and Central America accounted for most unauthorized immigrants in the United States as of 2010-14, with MPI estimating about 7.9 million people in total (71 percent of the overall unauthorized population)."

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

That's what happens when you have a honking big statue pointing out to the rest of the world with an inscription on it that says  "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

In the first decade of the 19th Century, some 9 million people immigrated into the US when at the time the population of the whole country was 76 million compared to the 328 million today.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpim1.htm (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpim1.htm)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States)

The first article has an interesting quote in it which I think sums up the immigrant experience, then and now, very well:

Quote
An old Italian saying summed up the disillusionment felt by many: "I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, found out three things: First, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved at all: and third, I was expected to pave them."

 :cheers:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 21, 2018, 23:27:22
Rachel Maddow - when you're trying to force yourself to cry but it's just not coming out
https://youtu.be/DKuIjT-k-C8


US Border patrol agent talking about the children-border issue. Some pretty shocking stuff there.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32103/must-watch-border-patrol-agent-sets-record-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Thucydides on June 22, 2018, 00:50:50
The US has been the top destination for immigrants because its social and economic system provides far more mobility than possible in much of the world. This was the driver of immigration up until it was shut down in the 1920's

The immigration act of 1965 reopened the door and a flood of people came in to take advantage of America's social mobility, but sadly a second and eventually much larger cohort of illegal immigrants have come in to essentially leech of American taxpayers (one article in Instapundit quoted a figure of $138 billion/year as the cost to the US taxpayer). It is this second cohort of illegals which is the root of the problem, and the fact that the Congress either refuses to carry out it's responsibilities to enforce existing laws (including the separation of parents and children) or write new laws is infuriating to the voters. That is one of the reasons you "get more Trump", and I suspect a lot of Representatives and Senators may discover they are actively targeted by voters seeking to unseat them (and possibly why a lot of people have been announcing their retirement) over this issue.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Remius on June 22, 2018, 07:00:16
The US has been the top destination for immigrants because its social and economic system provides far more mobility than possible in much of the world. This was the driver of immigration up until it was shut down in the 1920's

The immigration act of 1965 reopened the door and a flood of people came in to take advantage of America's social mobility, but sadly a second and eventually much larger cohort of illegal immigrants have come in to essentially leech of American taxpayers (one article in Instapundit quoted a figure of $138 billion/year as the cost to the US taxpayer). It is this second cohort of illegals which is the root of the problem, and the fact that the Congress either refuses to carry out it's responsibilities to enforce existing laws (including the separation of parents and children) or write new laws is infuriating to the voters. That is one of the reasons you "get more Trump", and I suspect a lot of Representatives and Senators may discover they are actively targeted by voters seeking to unseat them (and possibly why a lot of people have been announcing their retirement) over this issue.

What gets forgotten at times though is the fact that the US economy has become dependant on those illegals.  Congress and the president can’t seem to deal with the immigration issue because they refuse to go after companies and employers that are employing this cheap labour source who fill jobs no one else wants.  People are coming for those jobs yet nothing or little is done to deal with that. 
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brihard on June 22, 2018, 12:06:08
I am loving the faux outrage about the shoe smuggling, seems suddenly, no one knows anyone that has smuggled everyday stuff across the border.

I think it’s more a matter of concern that the president of the world’s largest economy apparently can not grasp the difference between a customs duty and a trade tariff.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Altair on June 22, 2018, 12:40:22
I think it’s more a matter of concern that the president of the world’s largest economy apparently can not grasp the difference between a customs duty and a trade tariff.
The same guy who sited the war of 1812 as a reason for Canada being a security risk.

There comes a point where one simply no longer listens to the nonsense.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Colin P on June 22, 2018, 12:47:31
The majority of politicians and Ministers have very little clue as to what they are talking about, most is based on a 3 page briefing note. DT is staying on his message and the reality for Canadians is that our trade protections and supply management systems drive up product cost significantly. The rule of thumb I have seen my friends price imported goods is 4x wholesale to cover costs.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Altair on June 22, 2018, 12:51:16
The majority of politicians and Ministers have very little clue as to what they are talking about, most is based on a 3 page briefing note. DT is staying on his message and the reality for Canadians is that our trade protections and supply management systems drive up product cost significantly. The rule of thumb I have seen my friends price imported goods is 4x wholesale to cover costs.
What difference would it make really?

If we got rid of supply management, we would put in a dairy tax, and give dairy farmers the proceeds. This would be the only way to compete with american subsidies.

Price of milk wouldn't drop, even on imported stuff, and the dairy farmers would still benefit, and at the end of the day, nothing changes.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: CountDC on June 22, 2018, 13:24:19
I think it’s more a matter of concern that the president of the world’s largest economy apparently can not grasp the difference between a customs duty and a trade tariff.

Or grtasp that Canadians are actually looking to avoid both - paying the tariff that is on some items bought in Canada and the customs duty if it was declared at the border. 

still funny how Canadians got all in a huff over being called out for something that actually does happen regardless of the mis-used term for it.

Best part is that the comment is in support of Canada raising the duty free amounts we are able to bring in to the country so that people will be less inclined to do the scuffing and keep their sneakers pristine.  Of course his real goal is to encourage more shopping in the states by us spend thrifty canucks.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 22, 2018, 13:28:37

There comes a point where one simply no longer listens to the nonsense.

Seems to me like people are hanging off his ever word.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Strike on June 25, 2018, 10:58:02
Seems to me like people are hanging off his ever word.

Because, like driving by an accident on the highway, it's hard to look away.  ;D
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 01, 2018, 12:38:42
To me the problem was simple.Catch the illegals and send them back immediately.Make sure the wall is built which would make attempts harder.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Altair on July 01, 2018, 13:17:33
To me the problem was simple.Catch the illegals and send them back immediately.Make sure the wall is built which would make attempts harder.
with families intact hopefully.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 02, 2018, 00:11:21
The cartels are gaming the system to bring drugs into the country.The Obama era program was called catch and release.Or just bus them to Canada.  :D
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Thucydides on July 02, 2018, 19:08:04
William Shatner delivers an epic takedown to political correctness:

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Pusser on July 03, 2018, 15:00:44
I am loving the faux outrage about the shoe smuggling, seems suddenly, no one knows anyone that has smuggled everyday stuff across the border.

Next time I'm in the US, I will be enquiring about shoe-scuffing stations in the outlet malls.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 04, 2018, 17:13:43
The tire place I use in the States scuffs your new tires and removes the nubs for free without even asking.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Pusser on July 05, 2018, 15:50:53
The tire place I use in the States scuffs your new tires and removes the nubs for free without even asking.

I heard of a place in the US that used to call Canada Customs and inform them after customers had left.  I'm not sure how much repeat business they got from Canadian customers.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 06, 2018, 09:46:49
I heard of a place in the US that used to call Canada Customs and inform them after customers had left.  I'm not sure how much repeat business they got from Canadian customers scofflaws and tax cheats who are avoiding paying a legally required customs tax.

Fixed that for you.  I guess the rule of law only applies in other countries.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 06, 2018, 10:30:27
Come on PPCLI Guy. You are a man of the world. You must know by now that there are millions of Canadians who view it as their God given right to criticize America and Americans...and then go cross border shopping for cheap milk, gasoline or clothes.

It is as old as time....
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Pusser on July 06, 2018, 11:20:57
Fixed that for you.  I guess the rule of law only applies in other countries.

 :facepalm:

I think your venom is misguided because I actually agree with you.  I have never understood the folks who make special trips to the US strictly for shopping.  I can't see how there are any real savings to be had after you've figured in the exchange rate, cost of accommodations, cost of transportation, time, etc.  Furthermore, considering that one can claim $800 duty free to start (after 48 hrs absence) and then a special duty rate after that, I just can't see how it's worth it to lie to a Customs officer and risk huge fines and duties or forfeiture.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure it's up to a private business in the US to take it upon themselves to report someone, without any evidence they will commit a crime, to the Canadian Border Services Agency.  Just because a Canadian spent a lot of money in a US shop, does not mean they aren't going to declare it properly.  What if the person who had patronized that shop was preparing to declare everything and had all the receipts ready, but had his vehicle ripped apart in secondary inspection based on a helpful tip from a US business?  I certainly wouldn't go back to that business, nor would I recommend it to my friends based on the fact that:

1) they caused me undue hassle at the border for no good reason; and

2) they obviously have no respect for me (the customer) in automatically assuming I am a criminal.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 06, 2018, 12:23:03
Not sure that was venom - those that know me would suggest my venom is a bit stronger...

It was not aimed at businesses.  It was aimed at Canadians who think it is okay to cheat / avoid customs taxes.  Those people are committing an illegal act.  Period.  No amount of justification can alter that fact.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 06, 2018, 13:19:07
Not sure that was venom - those that know me would suggest my venom is a bit stronger...

It was not aimed at businesses.  It was aimed at Canadians who think it is okay to cheat / avoid customs taxes.  Those people are committing an illegal act.  Period.  No amount of justification can alter that fact.

I was just impressed at someone casually using the term 'scoff laws' in a conversation outside of the Simpson's
#Montgomeryburnsbustsscofflaws :) 
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 06, 2018, 14:03:52
I think your venom is misguided because I actually agree with you.  I have never understood the folks who make special trips to the US strictly for shopping.  I can't see how there are any real savings to be had after you've figured in the exchange rate, cost of accommodations, cost of transportation, time, etc.  Furthermore, considering that one can claim $800 duty free to start (after 48 hrs absence) and then a special duty rate after that, I just can't see how it's worth it to lie to a Customs officer and risk huge fines and duties or forfeiture.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure it's up to a private business in the US to take it upon themselves to report someone, without any evidence they will commit a crime, to the Canadian Border Services Agency.  Just because a Canadian spent a lot of money in a US shop, does not mean they aren't going to declare it properly.  What if the person who had patronized that shop was preparing to declare everything and had all the receipts ready, but had his vehicle ripped apart in secondary inspection based on a helpful tip from a US business?  I certainly wouldn't go back to that business, nor would I recommend it to my friends based on the fact that:

1) they caused me undue hassle at the border for no good reason; and

2) they obviously have no respect for me (the customer) in automatically assuming I am a criminal.

I live in a border city. I shop in the States all the time. Your trip is what you make it. There are tons of deals to be had, if you know how to do it. Even after exchange and duty. Things like electronics are mostly duty free, but not tax free.

I've been hearing rumours of retailers in the states reporting Canadians ever since I was a kid. There has never been a case of proof, as far as I know, that anyone actually did this. Just a boogeyman story. It's more likely the jealous neighbor, that he told the whole story to, that turned him in. I just don't buy the story after all these years. Besides, unless you tell them or they see your license plate, they have no idea that you're Canadian, or when and where you intend to cross the border. Or that anyone in the Canadian government works hard enough to get that phone call from the states and pass it through all the channels and get it to the border before the person re-enters Canada. Just think about the logistics of such a call.

There are plenty of deals to be had, without breaking the law. However, that's your business. Thousands do it daily. At the same time, there are thousands that just aren't asked the right questions. If I answer all questions truthfully and don't get sent to secondary, I might still be bringing in goods not accounted for but border services is letting me go.  The border service employs two types of guards. Some are sheepdogs that protect our border, as they are employed to do, others are merely tax collectors for the feds. It's luck of the draw as to which one you get.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Remius on July 06, 2018, 14:39:11
It does seem counter productive for American retailers to report Canadian shoppers.  If it actually happens one would think that it would affect sales.

I do have one real example where a CAF soldier in Fort Knox (one of our concentrations years ago) bought a taser.  The retailer had no issues selling it to him but he then reported the guy to the base who informed the CoC about it.  Delayed our flight out as they searched all our bags and weapons bags as well (the thought was he could get it out via our weapons bags).  They never found the taser.  The fact is that the dealer likely did the right thing knowing the troop was going to commit a  criminal act by bringing in a prohibited weapon but had no grounds to refuse the sale as it is legal there.

Failure to declare everything you buy or conveniently forgetting a few things to stay under your limit is fairly minor by comparison though.

I rarely go too much over when shopping in  the US and most of the time it isn't worth processing the small amount I go over by.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 06, 2018, 14:49:40

Failure to declare everything you buy or conveniently forgetting a few things to stay under your limit is fairly minor by comparison though.


Kind of like failure to scan all of the items at self checkout is not shop lifting, right?

Conveniently forgetting that you stuffed some pork chops in your pants when you get to the cashier is okay too I guess.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 06, 2018, 15:26:40
Just like when they ask what's down your pants and you say 'pork chops.' Then they say 'have a nice day.' I guess you should run to the nearest police officer and turn yourself and the customs officer in?

Just wondering where you limit the morality.

Because, I declare everything. Hundreds of dollars sometimes. Been told to proceed and have a great day. Should I present at secondary anyway and demand to pay taxes and duty?

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 06, 2018, 15:46:43
>they have no idea that you're Canadian

They have ways.  Often they will guide the conversation to trick you into pronouncing the word "about".

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: ModlrMike on July 06, 2018, 16:06:04
My wife and I shop in the US 2-3 times per year. Normally we take the time to itemize everything before we return to the border. I just hand the passports and the list to the border agent. Half the time I'm let go, the other half I'm directed to secondary. Even with paying at secondary I've yet to be on the losing end.

Honesty at the border is always the best policy.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Remius on July 06, 2018, 17:05:39
Kind of like failure to scan all of the items at self checkout is not shop lifting, right?

Conveniently forgetting that you stuffed some pork chops in your pants when you get to the cashier is okay too I guess.

My point is that actually trying to bringing a taser into the country and have the retailer report you isn't the same as me buying shoes and having the retailer pass that info on to CBSA just in case I might fail to declare that.

For the record I always disclose everything I buy.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 06, 2018, 17:21:53
>they have no idea that you're Canadian

They have ways.  Often they will guide the conversation to trick you into pronouncing the word "about".

You are joking right??
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Loachman on July 06, 2018, 20:10:39
I almost snorted.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on July 06, 2018, 21:31:52
Just like when they ask what's down your pants and you say 'pork chops.' Then they say 'have a nice day.' I guess you should run to the nearest police officer and turn yourself and the customs officer in?

Just wondering where you limit the morality.

Because, I declare everything. Hundreds of dollars sometimes. Been told to proceed and have a great day. Should I present at secondary anyway and demand to pay taxes and duty?

My experiences are just like yours. We go across several months every winter and usually come back well under our limit. On day trips (3 or 4 per year) we're constantly over but declare every nickle we bought and have the receipts ready to go. Every time they say "have a nice day" and send us off without a secondary. Most of the stuff we (and most people buy) buy is NAFTA duty free anyway and would only be subject to HST.

Morality aside (although I subscribe to it) it's just not worth it to try and cheat. Besides being able to seize the goods and vehicle you open yourself up to having a black mark on your record which means that you'll be quite likely shuttled to a secondary on each and every subsequent crossing.

Like you I live near the border and find that there are things that you can only get on the other side of the border - Trader Joe's Orange Chicken; Oscar Meyer Lite Hot Dogs; Sunkist Diet Orange Soda; Amsterdam Coconut Vodka  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 08, 2018, 12:42:41
Meanwhile, at Facebook ;)

Facebook's algorithms have ruled that parts of the US Declaration of Independence are hate speech and removed excerpts of them posted to the platform.

In the run-up to Independence Day, a US community paper based in Texas had been posting small daily chunks of the historic document on its Facebook page.

At issue was a part of it that referred to "merciless Indian savages".

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44722728

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Altair on July 09, 2018, 12:33:58
Meanwhile, at Facebook ;)

Facebook's algorithms have ruled that parts of the US Declaration of Independence are hate speech and removed excerpts of them posted to the platform.

In the run-up to Independence Day, a US community paper based in Texas had been posting small daily chunks of the historic document on its Facebook page.

At issue was a part of it that referred to "merciless Indian savages".

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44722728
And then humans took a look and allowed it?
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Thucydides on August 12, 2018, 11:39:53
A very interesting piece on "compelled speech", including an interview with Barbara Kay. Well worth watching the interview. Kay points out the plight of journalists and commentators who oppose this but don't speak out publicly, most of them are not financially secure and if kicked off from a platform, would have a hard time finding a new position (especially since Canadian media is hight concentrated in terms of ownership)

http://www.andrewlawton.ca/compelled-speech-is-the-new-censorship/
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 12, 2018, 13:23:50
A very interesting piece on "compelled speech", including an interview with Barbara Kay. Well worth watching the interview. Kay points out the plight of journalists and commentators who oppose this but don't speak out publicly, most of them are not financially secure and if kicked off from a platform, would have a hard time finding a new position (especially since Canadian media is hight concentrated in terms of ownership)

http://www.andrewlawton.ca/compelled-speech-is-the-new-censorship/

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell, 1984
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on August 14, 2018, 01:42:10
A thought on Political Correctness, drawn from a personal anecdote.

After I graduated from Bible College with my bachelor's degree in Religious Education, my family held something of a celebration of the fact. Beyond several members of my extended family, we had invited a number of my friends to high school. One such friend (whom I am happily no longer in contact with as a result) brought his girlfriend along. I'd met her before, so I didn't particularly mind. I wasn't entirely fond with her because something about her raised several warning flags, and it didn't take very long for me to gain an understanding of why.

My mother's father passed away in 1999 from cancer, and as he had spent his retirement as a carpenter, made many different objects - including the candy bowl sitting next to me at this moment. One such object was a piece of Christian iconography, which were three crosses joined together in a single piece. As he wasn't the most emotional person, it was difficult for him to speak with affection to anyone. But he was a man of a deep and real faith, so he had made five of these crosses, one for each of his children (the one he made for my grandmother is slightly different), as a symbol both of his love for his children, and his hope that they would have as deep a faith as his own - even if they did not hold the same beliefs.

The barbecue and event was going quite well to my eyes, so I didn't learn of this incident until some time had passed, but apparently the girlfriend took objection to the open display of this piece of art, and effectively demanded my mother remove it from her sight. My mother quite wisely refused, and they left rather rapidly shortly there after. I'm significantly understating things when I merely say that she took objection to this piece being visible. I have many friends with a variety of beliefs, including someone best described as a pagan priestess. All of them recognize a little thing called the sacredness of hospitality, of which this event was a remarkable violation.

A mutual friend later asked why I was no longer in contact with this particular couple, so I informed him of this particular matter. While he was at the same celebration, he was not aware that this had occurred. His simple response was a horrified expletive, to put mildly, because you just don't do that. Her hatred for even the slightest indication of Christian belief is still something I can't wrap my head around, because her personal past meant that she could look upon this symbol of a father's love for his children and be sufficiently offended that she demanded it be removed.

A lot of the troubles around certain hot-button disputes strike me as being ultimately the same thing in function - the projection of one's negative experiences into the assumed motivations of those one disagrees with. In all honesty, this is why I'm proud to have had someone tell me that they figured I would be offended if they suggested that I was trustworthy. Not because I'm a duplicitous individual, but because he was acknowledging that he could not accurately determine my motivations and reasons. In other words, he acknowledged that I was an inherently honest individual because I was very much like the fabled scorpion - he could not be certain that I would act in a fashion that would be beneficial to him, but he knew with certainty that I would always act in a fashion that was consistent with my own nature and character.

I extend the concept of hospitality being sacred to go beyond one's domicile, and include things like one's sense of self and intrinsic being. After all, if one does not feel at home inside one's own mind, one is in very dire circumstances indeed. I hold nothing to be more important on the personal level than the sanctity of one's own mind. How threatened must one feel when basic social interaction with someone who has a different background is determined to be inherently dangerous?

I put it this way - the problem with political correctness is neatly illustrated in the film The Hunt for Red October - isn't the Political Officer the first person murdered?

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Chris Pook on October 13, 2018, 20:46:49
For general information - The poll was conducted by YouGov


"80 Percent Of Americans Think Political Correctness Is A National Problem


....Eighty percent of Americans say “political correctness is a problem in our country,” according to newly released data from a nationally representative poll drawing upon 8,000 survey respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus group. Some of this data, compiled with help from YouGov, has been newly released in a report called “Hidden Tribes.”....


Opposition to political correctness was higher among Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) than among white Americans (79 percent). In fact, just about every single demographic studied showed overwhelming objection to political correctness except the Americans the study reporting the poll results identified as “progressive activists.” Progressive activists, the study says, “have an outsized role in political discourse, even though they comprise a small portion of the total population (about 1 in 12 Americans).”

About the 8 Percent of People Who Love PC

“Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem,”

...progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country. ..."

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/12/80-percent-of-americans-think-political-correctness-is-a-national-problem/
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Chris Pook on October 14, 2018, 15:12:36
Further to my last

The detailed study on political tribes and political correctness  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

The only tribe with a majority supporting political correctness is that of the progressive activists.  All other tribes, including the traditional liberals, have majorities ranging from 61% to 97% perceiving political correctness as a problem. 

The perception is congruent for

74% of youngsters of 24-29
75% of African Americans
79% of youngsters under 24
79% of Whites
82% of Asians
87% of Hispanics
88% of American Indians

Quote
progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

Progressive activists - 8% of the population
Traditional liberals
Passive liberals
Disengaged
Moderates
Traditional conservatives
Devoted conservatives - 25% of the population

The study identifies the 63% in the middle as the Exhausted Majority - people open to compromise and not finding any evidence of it.

Quote
The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.


The Atlantic is not a notably conservative journal.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 15, 2018, 00:31:56
A thought on Political Correctness, drawn from a personal anecdote.

After I graduated from Bible College with my bachelor's degree in Religious Education, my family held something of a celebration of the fact. Beyond several members of my extended family, we had invited a number of my friends to high school. One such friend (whom I am happily no longer in contact with as a result) brought his girlfriend along. I'd met her before, so I didn't particularly mind. I wasn't entirely fond with her because something about her raised several warning flags, and it didn't take very long for me to gain an understanding of why.

My mother's father passed away in 1999 from cancer, and as he had spent his retirement as a carpenter, made many different objects - including the candy bowl sitting next to me at this moment. One such object was a piece of Christian iconography, which were three crosses joined together in a single piece. As he wasn't the most emotional person, it was difficult for him to speak with affection to anyone. But he was a man of a deep and real faith, so he had made five of these crosses, one for each of his children (the one he made for my grandmother is slightly different), as a symbol both of his love for his children, and his hope that they would have as deep a faith as his own - even if they did not hold the same beliefs.

The barbecue and event was going quite well to my eyes, so I didn't learn of this incident until some time had passed, but apparently the girlfriend took objection to the open display of this piece of art, and effectively demanded my mother remove it from her sight. My mother quite wisely refused, and they left rather rapidly shortly there after. I'm significantly understating things when I merely say that she took objection to this piece being visible. I have many friends with a variety of beliefs, including someone best described as a pagan priestess. All of them recognize a little thing called the sacredness of hospitality, of which this event was a remarkable violation.

A mutual friend later asked why I was no longer in contact with this particular couple, so I informed him of this particular matter. While he was at the same celebration, he was not aware that this had occurred. His simple response was a horrified expletive, to put mildly, because you just don't do that. Her hatred for even the slightest indication of Christian belief is still something I can't wrap my head around, because her personal past meant that she could look upon this symbol of a father's love for his children and be sufficiently offended that she demanded it be removed.

A lot of the troubles around certain hot-button disputes strike me as being ultimately the same thing in function - the projection of one's negative experiences into the assumed motivations of those one disagrees with. In all honesty, this is why I'm proud to have had someone tell me that they figured I would be offended if they suggested that I was trustworthy. Not because I'm a duplicitous individual, but because he was acknowledging that he could not accurately determine my motivations and reasons. In other words, he acknowledged that I was an inherently honest individual because I was very much like the fabled scorpion - he could not be certain that I would act in a fashion that would be beneficial to him, but he knew with certainty that I would always act in a fashion that was consistent with my own nature and character.

I extend the concept of hospitality being sacred to go beyond one's domicile, and include things like one's sense of self and intrinsic being. After all, if one does not feel at home inside one's own mind, one is in very dire circumstances indeed. I hold nothing to be more important on the personal level than the sanctity of one's own mind. How threatened must one feel when basic social interaction with someone who has a different background is determined to be inherently dangerous?

I put it this way - the problem with political correctness is neatly illustrated in the film The Hunt for Red October - isn't the Political Officer the first person murdered?

I'm not a religious guy, except when I swear, but I once dealt with an issue like this by signing up the offending party for a subscription to this magazine:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/

Feel free to poach my idea... :)
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Navy_Wannabe on October 15, 2018, 13:00:56
^ pure savagery
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Journeyman on October 15, 2018, 13:11:19
^ pure savagery
Yes, it's one of his positive attributes.   :nod:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: PPCLI Guy on October 16, 2018, 10:27:43
An interesting article - I am definitely in the Exhausted Majority camp...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-need-the-exhausted-majority-to-speak-up/2018/10/15/160440fa-d090-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html?utm_term=.f944d4a97f0d (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-need-the-exhausted-majority-to-speak-up/2018/10/15/160440fa-d090-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html?utm_term=.f944d4a97f0d)

Quote
We’re staying silent out of fear
 
An activist wears tape on her mouth while protesting in San Francisco on Oct. 4. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

By Charles Lane
Opinion writer
October 15 at 6:51 PM

Most ordinary people found it unbearable to live under communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The reasons varied: shortages of consumer goods, incessant propaganda, restrictions on travel.

Nothing was more psychologically exhausting than the constant pressure to watch every word one said, and to pretend to believe things one did not, for fear of negative repercussions. Dissidents called this “double morality” or “double consciousness.” It drove people crazy. Actually, it drove some to suicide.

Only among trusted family and friends was it possible to speak one’s mind, yet even that was not guaranteed. Of all aspects of totalitarian life, citizens of the former Eastern Bloc say, this is the hardest to explain to those who grew up in the democratic West.

Until now, perhaps. A new study of political attitudes in the United States offers stunning evidence that most Americans censor themselves, except among people they regard as like-minded, on a bundle of sensitive topics: immigration and immigrants; race and racism; gay, lesbian and gender issues; and Islam and Muslims.

The report by More in Common, a new nonprofit dedicated to understanding and healing political polarization in the United States and Europe, is based on a nationwide survey of nearly 8,000 people conducted this past December and January.

It found that between 51 and 66 percent of Americans agree there is “pressure to think a certain way about” each of the aforementioned topics, with immigration seen as the least sensitive and Islam the most.

Meanwhile, 68 percent report that “it is acceptable for me to express what I think” about race, or Islam, only among “people who are like me.” On immigration, 73 percent feel that way; on gay, lesbian and gender issues, the figure is 70 percent.

Political freedom has never been absolute in the United States, to be sure. For much if not most of our history, ostracism or worse awaited advocates of racial equality, especially in the South. If anyone understands the oppressiveness of being forced to present a false front every day, it would be the American gay men and lesbians who grew up in the era of the closet.

Conversely, a certain measure of self-censorship is necessary to democracy; to the extent that people refrain from gratuitously broadcasting bigotry, it promotes trust and rational discourse.

For all that, the More in Common report confronts us with a disturbing reality. We are a long way from the “double morality” of Eastern Europe, but we are, apparently, living among many millions of citizens who routinely lie or dissemble about their political opinions out of fear.

And what do they fear? Not necessarily government repression, the report suggests, but ridicule and harassment from their fellow citizens, which is often magnified by social media and can sometimes lead to trouble at school or work.

Large majorities of the public — 80 percent or more — see both hate speech and political correctness as problems plaguing American politics.

Defiance of the latter fueled Donald Trump’s electoral rise. Outrage at the former fuels the anti-Trump resistance.

Under communism, members of the party had to watch their words and deeds as much or more than other citizens did.

In the United States today, right- and left-wing tribes — Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives, as the More in Common report designates them — enforce “core beliefs” within their own ranks. A quarter to a third of Americans feel pressure to “think a certain way” about controversial issues even among people like themselves, according to the report.

Among progressives, more men than women felt pressure to conform; among conservatives, more women than men did.

With these less-than-tolerant ideological factions dominating everything from town hall meetings to Twitter, the far larger percentage of Americans who do see nuances, and who do favor policy compromise, keep their heads down.

They now constitute what the report describes as an Exhausted Majority, consisting of about two-thirds of the electorate. And 65 percent of the Exhausted Majority agree with the statement “people I agree with politically need to be willing to listen to others and compromise.” Yet their views are not reflected in political discourse, they believe.

They’re right: According to the report, the progressive and conservative ideologues who dominate Democratic and Republican party politics are 14 points more likely than the Exhausted Majority to believe that “people I agree with politically need to stick to their beliefs and fight.”

For the time being, the president of the United States is openly sowing fear and anger for political gain in the 2018 midterm elections, and his Democratic Party opponents seem increasingly tempted to respond in kind. Hope for more decent and, indeed, freer politics lies in the possibility that members of the Exhausted Majority will wake up and raise their voices.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Journeyman on October 16, 2018, 10:54:41
An interesting article -
Anyone disbelieving the premise of the article, just read the comments that follow.  Déjà vu.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: ModlrMike on October 16, 2018, 11:17:50
A balanced article, right up to the second last sentence. It would have been stronger without it.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Furniture on October 16, 2018, 11:25:26
Anyone disbelieving the premise of the article, just read the comments that follow.  Déjà vu.

It's almost as though many read the article looking for something they could use to discredit it as being written by "Russian trolls", or "NPCs" rather than hoisting in the message.

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: PPCLI Guy on October 16, 2018, 16:22:08
It's almost as though many read the article looking for something they could use to discredit it as being written by "Russian trolls", or "NPCs" rather than hoisting in the message.

And so it follows that reading the comments is often counter-productive, as the posters tend to follow their confirmation bias, and if one is not careful, reading the comments may taint one's own perception of the actual article itself.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 20, 2018, 22:27:16
Tyler Cowen, writing for Bloomberg, has some thoughts (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-18/elizabeth-warren-dna-response-shows-failure-of-liberalism) about PC - that it is not helping "the left" the way some think it might.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 21, 2018, 12:12:54
COLONEL TIM COLLINS: How can our chubby, drug-addled and right-on Army protect us from our enemies?

Instead of imposing stricter discipline, it has put 96 soldiers on diet pills, while eight have been given liposuction. This lame official response tells you all you need to know: the British Army has been infected with the crippling disease of political correctness.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6299067/COLONEL-TIM-COLLINS-chubby-drug-addled-right-Army-protect-enemies.html
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: AbdullahD on October 21, 2018, 15:54:44
COLONEL TIM COLLINS: How can our chubby, drug-addled and right-on Army protect us from our enemies?

Instead of imposing stricter discipline, it has put 96 soldiers on diet pills, while eight have been given liposuction. This lame official response tells you all you need to know: the British Army has been infected with the crippling disease of political correctness.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6299067/COLONEL-TIM-COLLINS-chubby-drug-addled-right-Army-protect-enemies.html

That was eye opening and I am a big lad too.. but to be big and in the armed forces defending the country it just seems like a constructive way to commit suicide.

Abdullah
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Colin P on October 21, 2018, 15:57:31
Put all the fat soldiers on point, so they can provide cover for the fit ones in the back....
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 21, 2018, 23:21:17
That was eye opening and I am a big lad too.. but to be big and in the armed forces defending the country it just seems like a constructive way to commit suicide.

Abdullah

I dunno... back in my day there were always a few chubbies kicking around too. If for no other reason than a formal excuse to kick them out, these new, easier but universal 'FORCE' type tests are a good idea.

And there's no moral outrage like the moral outrage that is emitted from retired Colonels/ Generals, whose pensions are now being safely paid into their bank accounts monthly ;)
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on October 21, 2018, 23:26:51
You, ah, could employ such individuals as mobile cover, but I'm sure there's regulations against that. :)
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: CloudCover on March 08, 2019, 10:57:27
In Canada this PM would be lynched, brought back to life, sued, and banished forever:

Australian PM says women shouldn't rise 'on the basis of others doing worse'

Scott Morrison speaks at an International Women's Day event Friday
Thomson Reuters · Posted: Mar 08, 2019 7:13 AM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told an International Women's Day breakfast in Perth on Friday that he wants to see women rise, but not at the expense of others.

"We're not about setting Australians against each other, trying to push some down to lift others up. That's not in our values," he said.

"And that is true about gender equality, too. We want to see women rise. But we don't want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse. We want everybody to do better, and we want to see the rise of women in this country be accelerated to ensure that their overall pace is maintained."

More at link:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australia-pm-international-women-s-day-1.5048210

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Chris Pook on May 14, 2020, 18:04:57
Bumping this because I stumbled across a quote that demonstrates that nothing is new under the sun.


"These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church's teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty."[2]

Pope Leo XIII November 1899 - perturbed about a press leak on draft opinions about schooling in America that landed in the middle of the discussion about the Manitoba Schools Question - a hot topic in Canada, Britain and the US.

Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on May 14, 2020, 18:46:09
Bumping this because I stumbled across a quote that demonstrates that nothing is new under the sun.


"These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church's teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty."[2]

Pope Leo XIII November 1899 - perturbed about a press leak on draft opinions about schooling in America that landed in the middle of the discussion about the Manitoba Schools Question - a hot topic in Canada, Britain and the US.


"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

F. Scott Fitzgerald
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on May 19, 2020, 18:59:32

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

F. Scott Fitzgerald

Easiest to do when one is a twin. But in all seriousness.... that's kind of part of the way our brains actually work. So many things are immediately percieved as being binary that we tend to overlook the fact that most of those.... are actually Boolean.

Whether we like it or not, a human being's brain is a networked collection of cellular switches which are constantly sending and recieving signals with information. Or in other words... we're organic computers drivng around machines of meat and awkwardness. A brain which is unable to do as Fitzgerald's quote infers is quite simply dead.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 08, 2020, 14:54:44
Thanks for the share Chris Pook:

Toppling Colston’s statue was an act of intolerance

As they tore down the statue of the 17th-century merchant and slaver Edward Colston in Bristol yesterday, protesters were behaving like a woke Taliban. Just as Taliban extremists smashed huge carvings of Buddha that offended them, and just as Isis nutters took hammers to 'idolatrous' monuments in the cities of Palmyra and Nimrud, so British protesters are now waging war on historical statues that they claim are 'hurtful' to ordinary people.

It was the glee with which they tore down Colston's statue that was most unnerving. They yanked him down and started cheering and screaming as they stomped on his head. He was then taken to the nearby harbour and thrown in the Avon river. Another rousing cheer.

It was as if evil had been defeated. As if this mere monument, this bronze entity, was a malevolent, corrupting force, and as if its disposal into the river was a liberatory moment. It really did bring to mind the wide-eyed fervour with which Isis members destroyed the first-century Lion of Al-lāt in Palmyra, again on the basis that the monument was hurtful, offensive, counter to their belief system.

Today's woke Taliban might describe things as 'problematic', while the actual Taliban and other Islamist movements prefer to call things 'haram', but it amounts to the same thing: ugly history and offensive representations must be destroyed.

The Islamist mob and the PC mob both come across as Year Zero movements, devoted to cleansing public space of hateful, reviling, scurrilous material lest anyone's soul be corrupted, or mind offended, by encountering these wicked depictions. Both are given to the policing of speech, the banning of books, and the erasure of representations of the past.

The idea that the tearing down of Colston's statue was a reckoning with the historic crime of slavery is especially ridiculous. Britain has had its reckoning with the horrors of slavery. The entire West has. I bet you could not find a single person in this country who thinks slavery was anything other than an abomination.

We learn about the evils of slavery in school. There are museums devoted to the crimes of slavery. Popular culture has frequently depicted slavery in all its horror in recent years. Everyone knows how immoral slavery was. There is something deeply patronising in the idea that we all needed to witness the performative iconoclasm of the woke Taliban in Bristol yesterday in order to understand how terrible slavery is. Believe it or not, British people are not racists biting at the bit for the return of slavery.

The question is: where will it end? Colston lavished money on Bristol. He funded alms houses, schools, hospitals. Some of these institutions are still standing. Tear them down? After all, they were built with the blood money of a slave trader.

Of course, there is already a campaign to have a statue of Cecil Rhodes removed from Oriel College, Oxford. People are eyeing up the Westminster statue of Cromwell, persecutor of the Irish and of Catholics more broadly. Some students in Manchester are agitating against plans to erect a statue to Gandhi outside Manchester Cathedral on the basis that Gandhi expressed anti-black views. And of course there's the great prize: Churchill. His statue in Westminster was defaced with the word 'racist' yesterday.

This intolerant urge to morally cleanse the public sphere is potentially endless. It is ludicrous too. Cromwell may have done bad things to the Irish but he also faced down a tyrannical king and made England a republic. Gandhi may once have expressed racist views towards African people but he also helped to liberate India, giving rise to the largest democracy on earth. Churchill held some very questionable views and oversaw a decaying empire that was frequently cruel. But he also helped to defeat the greatest criminals in human history: the Nazis.

Guess what? History is complex; people are complex. The effort to purify the past, to separate historical figures into categories of Good and Evil, is an infantile disorder. Our cities are living history. Public space is a patchwork of the historical events and ruptures that made our nations. When we walk through the streets we see monuments to the soldiers, political leaders, rebels and artists who made our society what it is, some of whom will have done bad, some of whom will have done good, and some of whom will have done a bit of both.

The PC desire to sweep these representations away is immature, intolerant, undemocratic and philistine. The woke Taliban are a menace to history and reason.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/toppling-colston-s-statue-was-an-act-of-intolerance?fbclid=IwAR2zMmrYllP-XpXLK4Hl840xknifO6fD-HL2-OzmgGXGSGOkP89Fa5mXInM



Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 08, 2020, 15:08:13
Just wait until they demand public money to put up statues of themselves.

 ;D
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 08, 2020, 22:37:08
Altering the historical record to better match modern sensibilities is probably even more dangerous than altering one's own memories to better match one's current beliefs. While I greatly enjoy the wit in the statement that there are no problems that cannot be solved by the proper use of high explosives, the fatal flaw is that removing a problem is completely different from solving a problem, and in fact only leaves a large hole - either literal or metaphorical.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Eaglelord17 on June 09, 2020, 11:48:41
Altering the historical record to better match modern sensibilities is probably even more dangerous than altering one's own memories to better match one's current beliefs. While I greatly enjoy the wit in the statement that there are no problems that cannot be solved by the proper use of high explosives, the fatal flaw is that removing a problem is completely different from solving a problem, and in fact only leaves a large hole - either literal or metaphorical.

One small thought for you, who do you think wrote the historical record? The answer is the victor.

The historical record was never a 'true' representation of what happened because the victor has no incentive to paint themselves in a bad light. What a 'true' representation is will never be achieved thanks to human flaws but that doesn't mean we can't get closer.

For example we now look at WWI differently than we did just after that war, when it was still shaping the world. The original account of it was big bad Germany allied with Austria-Hungary and they caused the war and all its evils. Now we look at it differently, being a combination of historical grievances, technological advancements, nationalistic sentiments, attempts to build empires, and attempts to prevent empires from being built.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 10, 2020, 02:09:26
One small thought for you, who do you think wrote the historical record? The answer is the victor.

The historical record was never a 'true' representation of what happened because the victor has no incentive to paint themselves in a bad light. What a 'true' representation is will never be achieved thanks to human flaws but that doesn't mean we can't get closer.

For example we now look at WWI differently than we did just after that war, when it was still shaping the world. The original account of it was big bad Germany allied with Austria-Hungary and they caused the war and all its evils. Now we look at it differently, being a combination of historical grievances, technological advancements, nationalistic sentiments, attempts to build empires, and attempts to prevent empires from being built.

I despise the whole "History is written by the Victors" idea, because it is so easy to misunderstand. I'm one of the rare sorts of historians who study not only the historical record, but the history *of* the historical record. One of the most valuable artifacts ever recovered from the earliest parts of history was certainly something which would never have been written by the "Victor." In fact, it's something that we see brought into being on a daily basis in the modern era - a complaint letter.

So to answer your question, I think that the authors of the historical record are simply those who were lucky enough to have their writings survive long enough to be discovered by future generations. There were a number of Egyptian mummies who are now world-famous simply because their enemies tried to completely destroy all memory of them. Since their tombs ended up completely forgotten, they were thus left unraided, and contained everything we would ever need to know about who those particular mummies were.

In all honesty, the biggest problem I have with the idea of history being written by the victors is the simple reality that the writing of history is a continuum. It is a never ceasing endeavour. It is a deeply evidence-based science, which basically means that if the Victor's history distorts the details sufficiently, then all credibility the Victor may attempt to claim will be lost as time progresses. Hence, my original point still stands. Altering the historical record is simply not possible without mass murder.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 10, 2020, 02:50:37
Altering the historical record to better match modern sensibilities is probably even more dangerous than altering one's own memories to better match one's current beliefs. While I greatly enjoy the wit in the statement that there are no problems that cannot be solved by the proper use of high explosives, the fatal flaw is that removing a problem is completely different from solving a problem, and in fact only leaves a large hole - either literal or metaphorical.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell,  1984
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 10, 2020, 09:13:06
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell,  1984

And we are near that now.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Eaglelord17 on June 10, 2020, 11:22:31
I despise the whole "History is written by the Victors" idea, because it is so easy to misunderstand. I'm one of the rare sorts of historians who study not only the historical record, but the history *of* the historical record. One of the most valuable artifacts ever recovered from the earliest parts of history was certainly something which would never have been written by the "Victor." In fact, it's something that we see brought into being on a daily basis in the modern era - a complaint letter.

So to answer your question, I think that the authors of the historical record are simply those who were lucky enough to have their writings survive long enough to be discovered by future generations. There were a number of Egyptian mummies who are now world-famous simply because their enemies tried to completely destroy all memory of them. Since their tombs ended up completely forgotten, they were thus left unraided, and contained everything we would ever need to know about who those particular mummies were.

In all honesty, the biggest problem I have with the idea of history being written by the victors is the simple reality that the writing of history is a continuum. It is a never ceasing endeavour. It is a deeply evidence-based science, which basically means that if the Victor's history distorts the details sufficiently, then all credibility the Victor may attempt to claim will be lost as time progresses. Hence, my original point still stands. Altering the historical record is simply not possible without mass murder.

So which historical record are you targeting, the recreated record of thousands of years ago? Or the more recent still having a effect on the modern era record? Right now it is the more recent still written by the victor records which are generally being challenged. That is not to say the challenger is necessary correct either (and most the time pushing their completely biased view doesn't help much either), just that there is some merit into looking at things from multiple perspectives.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Good2Golf on June 10, 2020, 11:28:14
And we are near that now.

...and typically several decades late, to boot! ;D
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 10, 2020, 11:31:07
So which historical record are you targeting, the recreated record of thousands of years ago? Or the more recent still having a effect on the modern era record? Right now it is the more recent still written by the victor records which are generally being challenged. That is not to say the challenger is necessary correct either (and most the time pushing their completely biased view doesn't help much either), just that there is some merit into looking at things from multiple perspectives.

You do not understand. The point is, because the records written by "victors" get challenged as time progresses, one really cannot say that it is an unshakable truth. By all means let biased history be published, the historical record is not the written histories, it is the entire body of physical evidence.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 10, 2020, 14:09:41
Better to have history written by the victors than none at all.  The interpretation is not immutable, but we can't interpret a blank page.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 10, 2020, 14:28:10
Better to have history written by the victors than none at all.  The interpretation is not immutable, but we can't interpret a blank page.

Even without the Victors putting down their version of events, there are ways to interpret blank pages - because the page exists, and surrounding details can give clues as to why a particular page exists. My problem is with the fact that altering written history, or even just changing how history is taught, can have cumulative effects, and can collapse entire societies.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 10, 2020, 16:45:47
You do not understand. The point is, because the records written by "victors" get challenged as time progresses, one really cannot say that it is an unshakable truth. By all means let biased history be published, the historical record is not the written histories, it is the entire body of physical evidence.

I agree with you on that but have some hesitation about the "let biased history be published". For a starter I don't know how one could even stop it but my problem with it is that all too often that "biased" history becomes "indisputable fact".

Two examples, one current one not so much.

Much of what we believe about the Battle of Waterloo comes not from the actual victor, Wellington, because he refused to write it. It comes from the research done by one Captain Siborne who was commissioned to build a model of the battle and who also wrote two books on the subject. The problem was that Siborne was short of money and frequently took donations and ended up embellishing his benefactors' roles here and there. Siborne greatly downplayed the role of the Dutch, Hanovarians, Brunswickers and Nasau (who with the King's German Legion made up 2/3rds of Wellington's contingent) while playing up the British. I would expect that as a result your average Brit has little or no knowledge of their participation other than the story of a bumbling cowardly Prince of Orange as a staff officer. Those yarns persist as recently as Cornwell's Sharpe's novel and history of the battle that he wrote.

More relevant is the Confederate monument issue and the army base names issue which is not so much the winners writing history but the losers rewriting theirs.

The rush to build Confederate war monuments did not follow the Civil War, but came during the period 1890 to 1920 when there was a strong resurgence of overt anti-Negro racism in the South in hand with the formation of the Jim Crow laws, followed shortly thereafter by a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan as a major force within the country. In effect it was the zenith of the South restructuring itself as a white supremacist society.

Similarly the US Army started naming bases for former Confederate commanders, putatively as an act of reconciliation but all of these were formed and named either towards the end of WW1 or the beginning of WW2 when racial inequality and the cult of the noble "Lost Cause" and Southern Chivalry were in full swing. The naming of these bases (all of which are in Southern states) probably had more to do with placating the local communities and their leaders at the time than real reconciliation.

You're definitely right about history being all of the physical evidence, but one needs to constantly guard against false narratives regardless of the evidence because back then (and even more so, now) much of the evidence was often a fabrication. One rarely finds such meticulous self-incriminating evidence as the Nazis left behind; more often it is self-serving CYA paperwork.

 :cheers:

Edited to correct spell check's change from putatively to punitively  :facepalm:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 10, 2020, 16:50:37
I agree with you on that but have some hesitation about the "let biased history be published". For a starter I don't know how one could even stop it but my problem with it is that all too often that "biased" history becomes "indisputable fact".

Two examples, one current one not so much.

Much of what we believe about the Battle of Waterloo comes not from the actual victor, Wellington, because he refused to write it. It comes from the research done by one Captain Siborne who was commissioned to build a model of the battle and who also wrote two books on the subject. The problem was that Siborne was short of money and frequently took donations and ended up embellishing his benefactors' roles here and there. Siborne greatly downplayed the role of the Dutch, Hanovarians, Brunswickers and Nasau (who with the King's German Legion made up 2/3rds of Wellington's contingent) while playing up the British. I would expect that as a result your average Brit has little or no knowledge of their participation other than the story of a bumbling cowardly Prince of Orange as a staff officer. Those yarns persist as recently as Cornwell's Sharpe's novel and history of the battle that he wrote.

More relevant is the Confederate monument issue and the army base names issue which is not so much the winners writing history but the losers rewriting theirs.

The rush to build Confederate war monuments did not follow the Civil War, but came during the period 1890 to 1920 when there was a strong resurgence of overt anti-Negro racism in the South in hand with the formation of the Jim Crow laws, followed shortly thereafter by a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan as a major force within the country. In effect it was the zenith of the South restructuring itself as a white supremacist society.

Similarly the US Army started naming bases for former Confederate commanders, punitively as an act of reconciliation but all of these were formed and named either towards the end of WW1 or the beginning of WW2 when racial inequality and the cult of the noble "Lost Cause" and Southern Chivalry were in full swing. The naming of these bases (all of which are in Southern states) probably had more to do with placating the local communities and their leaders at the time than real reconciliation.

You're definitely right about history being all of the physical evidence, but one needs to constantly guard against false narratives regardless of the evidence because back then (and even more so, now) much of the evidence was often a fabrication. One rarely finds such meticulous self-incriminating evidence as the Nazis left behind; more often it is self-serving CYA paperwork.

 :cheers:

And Gawd forbid anyone start on what actually happened during the War of 1812 :)
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 10, 2020, 17:43:19
And Gawd forbid anyone start on what actually happened during the War of 1812 :)

That's the one entirely fought at New Orleans, right?

 :cdnsalute:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 10, 2020, 18:16:55
I agree with you on that but have some hesitation about the "let biased history be published". For a starter I don't know how one could even stop it but my problem with it is that all too often that "biased" history becomes "indisputable fact".

Two examples, one current one not so much.

Much of what we believe about the Battle of Waterloo comes not from the actual victor, Wellington, because he refused to write it. It comes from the research done by one Captain Siborne who was commissioned to build a model of the battle and who also wrote two books on the subject. The problem was that Siborne was short of money and frequently took donations and ended up embellishing his benefactors' roles here and there. Siborne greatly downplayed the role of the Dutch, Hanovarians, Brunswickers and Nasau (who with the King's German Legion made up 2/3rds of Wellington's contingent) while playing up the British. I would expect that as a result your average Brit has little or no knowledge of their participation other than the story of a bumbling cowardly Prince of Orange as a staff officer. Those yarns persist as recently as Cornwell's Sharpe's novel and history of the battle that he wrote.

More relevant is the Confederate monument issue and the army base names issue which is not so much the winners writing history but the losers rewriting theirs.

The rush to build Confederate war monuments did not follow the Civil War, but came during the period 1890 to 1920 when there was a strong resurgence of overt anti-Negro racism in the South in hand with the formation of the Jim Crow laws, followed shortly thereafter by a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan as a major force within the country. In effect it was the zenith of the South restructuring itself as a white supremacist society.

Similarly the US Army started naming bases for former Confederate commanders, punitively as an act of reconciliation but all of these were formed and named either towards the end of WW1 or the beginning of WW2 when racial inequality and the cult of the noble "Lost Cause" and Southern Chivalry were in full swing. The naming of these bases (all of which are in Southern states) probably had more to do with placating the local communities and their leaders at the time than real reconciliation.

You're definitely right about history being all of the physical evidence, but one needs to constantly guard against false narratives regardless of the evidence because back then (and even more so, now) much of the evidence was often a fabrication. One rarely finds such meticulous self-incriminating evidence as the Nazis left behind; more often it is self-serving CYA paperwork.

 :cheers:

Indeed, I do hesitate when it comes to biased history getting published, but I mean that such biased history writings would still need to be published under the same standards by which all other publications are produced. I view allowing bad history (and other bad scholarship) to get published as a better system than the alternative, because the alternative is largely unfathomable in a free and democratic society. It is going to exist regardless, so trying to prevent its publication is just going to give its supporters fuel for their positions. Forcing bad and biased history to be bound by the same standards would neatly eliminate a significant percentage of the works from any serious audience, and go a long way to making it a self-solving problem.

Or in other words, while it is quite obvious that some books should never have been written, the only way that "biased" history becomes "indisputable fact" is if it is never challenged, and if it is never published, it can never *be* challenged. If you can't question something, you can't challenge those who believe it to be true. When you allow for biased history to get published, if the education system is up to snuff, you essentially force the evidence itself to be the judge, which is how it should be for all sciences. The problem is that evidence itself can and should be challenged. If it does not fit the current model, then it is the duty of the person presenting it to demonstrate how and why the model should be changed to account for it. And obviously, it goes without saying that some "evidence" is so outlandish that it can be dismissed outright - a certain defamation trial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd) which directly presented the meticulous Nazi documentation to the world gives a perfect example. Irving's credibility, to be specific. The moment Irving filed that libel suit, he destroyed himself.

One of my absolute favourite works of Alternate History is the novel Fatherland, specifically because the meticulous self-incriminating evidence is the major plot point of the novel (and the author used the *actual* documents for that purpose). I learned more about Nazi genocidal intentions from a work of fiction than I did in all of high school! I agree with the foundations of your hesistance, and simply think it is better for me to elaborate why I think bad and biased history is something of a necessary evil to the field.

The only way to constantly guard against false narratives (especially those where there is minimal evidence) is to ask as many questions as possible. By never allowing yourself to hear things you disagree with, you never allow yourself to actually think.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 10, 2020, 18:39:27
The rush to build Confederate war monuments did not follow the Civil War, but came during the period 1890 to 1920 when there was a strong resurgence of overt anti-Negro racism in the South in hand with the formation of the Jim Crow laws, followed shortly thereafter by a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan as a major force within the country. In effect it was the zenith of the South restructuring itself as a white supremacist society.

As of today, can't even wave Confederate flags at NASCAR anymore.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/nascar-bans-confederate-flag-at-all-events-and-properties.html
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 10, 2020, 18:42:09
...
The only way to constantly guard against false narratives (especially those where there is minimal evidence) is to ask as many questions as possible. By never allowing yourself to hear things you disagree with, you never allow yourself to actually think.

I'm not questioning your premise in any way. We're perfectly of the same mind.

What I'm bemoaning is the fact that there is such a large part of the population out there that is so uneducated and so unquestioning that they grab onto and vigorously defend "truths" that are clearly and demonstrably false.

On top of that there is now so much more demonstrably false information being fed to a gullible public.

Mix that with an intolerance or outrage for anything that doesn't jive with your "truth" and we're becoming less and less a civil society.

 :brickwall:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: ModlrMike on June 10, 2020, 18:47:50

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

F. Scott Fitzgerald

I used that today in conversation with someone over politics. I thought his head was going to explode. He couldn't understand how one could vow to uphold a law that one disagreed with on a philosophical level.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 10, 2020, 18:51:04
I used that today in conversation with someone over politics. I thought his head was going to explode. He couldn't understand how one could vow to uphold a law that one disagreed with on a philosophical level.

Obviously not one with a first-rate intelligence as per FSF's standard.

 ;D
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 10, 2020, 19:11:30
I'm not questioning your premise in any way. We're perfectly of the same mind.

What I'm bemoaning is the fact that there is such a large part of the population out there that is so uneducated and so unquestioning that they grab onto and vigorously defend "truths" that are clearly and demonstrably false.

On top of that there is now so much more demonstrably false information being fed to a gullible public.

Mix that with an intolerance or outrage for anything that doesn't jive with your "truth" and we're becoming less and less a civil society.

 :brickwall:

Yes. I wrote the following short story last year, and as I look on the events that are going on in the world right now, I have to smile at the brutally effective point that I didn't realize I was making with it:

Do No Harm (https://www.reddit.com/r/HFY/comments/c4plj0/do_no_harm_oc/)

There are some things that are, for lack of a better way of putting it, so far outside of one's realm of comprehension that it can completely break a person's understanding of reality when forced to face them. The point that this story makes is one that I learned very early on from my grandfather - kindness is unfathomly ruthless.

How it relates to this conversation is a little harder to describe, but ties in to my academic background. While my degree is a Bachelor of Religious Education, with a focus on the History and Anthropology of Religion, I also studied at Sheridan College for a 3 year diploma in Business Administration with a focus on Marketing. I originally joked that since my degree deals with the formation and propogation of beliefs, adding the Marketing meant that I have the equivalent of a degree in Propaganda (I really, really wish I never made that joke now). The fact that people believe lies so easily does not remotely absolve people of the responsibility to uphold higher priorities.

I know it's a trope, but I am firmly convinced of a devestatingly cynical truth: Civilization itself is a polite fiction.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 11, 2020, 00:32:37
Aaaand ... Trump leans in on the base name issue:

Quote
Trump opposes efforts to remove Confederate commanders' names from military bases

By Nikki Carvajal

Updated 7:07 PM ET, Wed June 10, 2020

(CNN)President Donald Trump said Wednesday he opposes any effort by the US military to rename the nearly one dozen major bases and installations that bear the names of Confederate military commanders.

US Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Defense Secretary Mark Esper are said to be open to holding a "bipartisan conversation" about renaming nearly a dozen major bases and installations that bear the names of Confederate military commanders, according to an Army official.

But Trump tweeted: "These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a... ....history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations."
...

See whole article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/donald-trump-army-bases-renaming/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/donald-trump-army-bases-renaming/index.html)

:pop:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 11, 2020, 00:38:43
Trump leans in on the base name issue:

The Army Was Open to Replacing Confederate Base Names. Then Trump Said No.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/magazine/army-confederate-base-names.html

Regarding Confederate statues in the US capitol.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03qb3orzmwH7kgcrR4z0vCa8yaBGQ%3A1591846613732&source=hp&ei=1abhXtqsKsizggeRhZKQCQ&q=pelosi+statues+capitol&oq=pelosi+statues+capitol&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECCMQJzoFCAAQkQI6BQgAELEDOgQIABBDOgIIADoFCAAQgwE6BwgAELEDEEM6BAgAEAM6CAghEBYQHRAeOgUIIRCgAToECCEQFVCfDFiUSmDXTmgAcAB4AIABvgGIAbEXkgEEMC4yMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwia68jf6vjpAhXImeAKHZGCBJIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5#spf=1591846625273
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 11, 2020, 00:42:55
Good one....

Rethinking Political Correctness

A white manager fears she will be perceived as racist if she gives critical feedback to her Latino subordinate. A black engineer passed over for promotion wonders whether his race has anything to do with it, but he’s reluctant to raise this concern lest he be seen as “playing the race card.” A woman associate who wants to make partner in an accounting firm resists seeking coaching on her leadership style; she worries that doing so would confirm the notion that women don’t have what it takes to make partner.

These types of events occur daily in politically correct (PC) cultures, where unspoken canons of propriety govern behavior in cross-cultural interactions—that is, interactions among people of different races, genders, religions, and other potentially charged social identity groups. We embrace the commitment to equity that underlies political correctness, and we applaud the shifts in norms wrought by that commitment. We are troubled, however, by the barriers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relationships fray, and performance suffers.

Legal and cultural changes over the past 40 years ushered unprecedented numbers of women and people of color into companies’ professional and managerial ranks. Overt prejudice and discrimination in the workplace, historically sanctioned by society, are far less acceptable today. Laws now protect traditionally underrepresented groups from blatant discrimination in hiring and promotion, and political correctness has reset the standards for civility and respect in people’s day-to-day interactions.

Despite this obvious progress, we believe that political correctness is a double-edged sword. While it has helped many traditionally underrepresented employees to experience their workplace as more inclusive, the PC rule book can hinder employees’ ability to develop effective relationships across potentially divisive group differences. Companies need to equip workers with skills—not rules—for building these relationships.

Our work suggests that high-quality relationships cannot be mandated. Sensitivity training and zero-tolerance policies at best impart some useful cultural knowledge or indicate that a company is serious about eliminating bias. At worst, such practices undermine relationships by reinforcing a restrictive and fearful atmosphere. Those to whom corrective actions are directed—men and whites, for example—walk on eggshells for fear of unwittingly transgressing the rules of political correctness.

We have found that political correctness does not only pose problems for those in the “majority.” When majority members cannot speak candidly, members of under-represented groups also suffer: “Minorities” can’t discuss their concerns about fairness and fears about feeding into negative stereotypes, and that adds to an atmosphere in which people tiptoe around the issues and one another. These dynamics breed misunderstanding, conflict, and mistrust, corroding both managerial and team effectiveness.

Constructive engagement of differences—and, therefore, effective leadership in culturally diverse contexts—requires majority and minority individuals to develop a mind-set and skills that all parties currently lack. This article proposes how managers and employees can engage with one another to reap the benefits cultural diversity has to offer. It represents our collective insights from research, teaching, and consulting over the past 15 years in the areas of race and gender relations, diversity, and organizational change. It also incorporates findings from our research with Learning as Leadership, a San Rafael, California–based leadership development organization, in whose seminars we have observed dozens of managers and executives grappling with unproductive behavior patterns and experimenting with new ones. Applying our insights about these processes to classic diversity-related dilemmas, we have developed the following principles to guide people seeking a healthy approach to the tensions that commonly arise over difference:
•Pause to short-circuit the emotion and reflect.
•Connect with others in ways that affirm the importance of relationships.
•Question yourself to help identify your blind spots and discover what makes you defensive.
•Get genuine support that doesn’t necessarily validate your point of view but, rather, helps you gain a broader perspective.
•Shift your mind-set from “You need to change” to “What can I change?”

These five principles require that all parties adopt a learning orientation in cross-cultural interactions. In this article, we spell out the challenges—and opportunities—of adopting such an orientation and offer some guidelines for leaders. First, though, let’s explore the negative dynamics that result when open discussion is repressed and people fail to learn.


https://hbr.org/2006/09/rethinking-political-correctness
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 11, 2020, 02:24:55
Police no longer welcome in Vancouver Pride Parade
https://www.google.com/search?q=vancouver+pride+law+enforcement&sxsrf=ALeKk02E0TwRMAKFld4noOckHlQNkIF5-Q:1591852920172&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMs92egvnpAhVTonIEHbF0AEAQpwV6BAgLEBw&biw=1280&bih=641#spf=1591853080675
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 11, 2020, 03:17:33
Police no longer welcome in Vancouver Pride Parade
https://www.google.com/search?q=vancouver+pride+law+enforcement&sxsrf=ALeKk02E0TwRMAKFld4noOckHlQNkIF5-Q:1591852920172&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMs92egvnpAhVTonIEHbF0AEAQpwV6BAgLEBw&biw=1280&bih=641#spf=1591853080675

Pretty sure that by the end of the month, there will be dozens more Pride celebrations where they are no longer welcome. Gotta feel for the police that are members of that particular community.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Colin P on June 11, 2020, 04:25:07
Police no longer welcome in Vancouver Pride Parade
https://www.google.com/search?q=vancouver+pride+law+enforcement&sxsrf=ALeKk02E0TwRMAKFld4noOckHlQNkIF5-Q:1591852920172&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMs92egvnpAhVTonIEHbF0AEAQpwV6BAgLEBw&biw=1280&bih=641#spf=1591853080675

No good deed goes unpunished, the VPD went to great lengths to build bridges with the gay community here and what do they get for it? Pretty soon people are going to figure out that they can do no right and then they won't bother to try anymore and then those groups will wonder why the services and public have disdain for them.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Infanteer on June 11, 2020, 07:03:03
Good way to promote inclusion and spread your message.... :waiting:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 11, 2020, 09:07:41
No good deed goes unpunished, the VPD went to great lengths to build bridges with the gay community here and what do they get for it? Pretty soon people are going to figure out that they can do no right and then they won't bother to try anymore and then those groups will wonder why the services and public have disdain for them.


Its unfortunate that the police cannot choose who they can protect. No doubt the gay community will want police to vigorously pursue those who get in the way, obstruct or counter demonstrate their parade.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 11, 2020, 10:51:47

Its unfortunate that the police cannot choose who they can protect. No doubt the gay community will want police to vigorously pursue those who get in the way, obstruct or counter demonstrate their parade.

Believe me, in Vancouver, there aren't too many demonstrators against gay pride parades. If anything, people trip over themselves to join up mainly because that demographic are such big spenders, and a pretty influential political voice.

Gay cops will likely still attend, but probably out of uniform (see what I did there?: ) )
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Good2Golf on June 11, 2020, 11:18:36
It’s a stupid decision.  Unless the VPD has a history of mistreating the gay community, which I don’t believe they have, this is presumptively judging the VPD as hostile to, or counter to the Vancouver gay community’s cause.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 11, 2020, 11:40:51
It’s a stupid decision.  Unless the VPD has a history of mistreating the gay community, which I don’t believe they have, this is presumptively judging the VPD as hostile to, or counter to the Vancouver gay community’s cause.

Gay cops are reporting that this decision will limit their ability to change culture within the police to become more tolerant of gay staff and citizens.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 11, 2020, 12:23:25
Unless the VPD has a history of mistreating the gay community, which I don’t believe they have, this is presumptively judging the VPD as hostile to, or counter to the Vancouver gay community’s cause.

Our police are the barrier between law and order and social and civil anarchy. They are our heroes, and deserve a parade of their own once a year.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 11, 2020, 14:18:31
We're in one of those "moments" during which activists feel they have enough momentum to settle scores: censor, ban, dis-employ, outcast, etc.  It'll pass.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 11, 2020, 21:26:13
We're in one of those "moments" during which activists feel they have enough momentum to settle scores: censor, ban, dis-employ, outcast, etc.  It'll pass.

Oh so kinda like the Taliban?
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 11, 2020, 21:53:27
The Taliban had religious conviction.  These people can barely feed themselves.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 11, 2020, 23:21:38
The Taliban had religious conviction.  These people can barely feed themselves.

You have me there good sir.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 12, 2020, 00:31:53
The Taliban had religious conviction.  These people can barely feed themselves.

I described such dynamics in terms which involved trying to put a toddler to bed. Unfortunately, it seems you are saying I am very, very accurate with that observation?
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 12, 2020, 09:40:52
Hows this for political correctness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Is it time to dig up Chris Rock's hollywood star and delete his movies from Netflix?
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Infanteer on June 12, 2020, 10:48:50
The Taliban had religious conviction.  These people can barely feed themselves.

 :rofl:

That made my day....
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Blackadder1916 on June 12, 2020, 13:38:03
Hows this for political correctness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Is it time to dig up Chris Rock's hollywood star and delete his movies from Netflix?

I'm somewhat (but not much) curious about the reason for bringing attention to a nearly 20 year old skit by a comedian well known for using parody and satire.  However, it might be explained in this 2016 commentary in the LA Times.

Commentary: Every time a black person is killed by police, Americans search for Chris Rock
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-chris-rock-video-sterling-20160707-snap-htmlstory.html
Quote
JULY 8, 20167:55 PM

Chris Rock is a popular comedian, with a lot of popular skits viewed frequently online. But after this week’s police shooting deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, one of Rock’s oldest skits has become more popular than it’s been all year.

It seems that every time a high-profile police shooting of a black person occurs, Americans become very interested in the skit titled "How Not to Get Your *** Kicked by the Police.”

In the skit, Rock delivers a mock public service announcement that essentially says as long as young black men obey the law and use common sense, they will not have any trouble with the police.

Taken within the context of Rock’s body of work, most audiences see the skit, recorded more than 15 years ago, as parody – a commentary on police racism with a few in-jokes aimed at other black people. Among Rock’s tips to avoid getting beaten: “Get a white friend” to ride with.

But for some viewers, this context has been lost and the old video has taken on a strange second life  as a rallying point that allows some people to avoid the difficult discussion of racism.

As protests surged following the 2014 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., a major St. Louis paper published a letter to the editor that cited Rock’s video as “the only message that will lead to healing in Ferguson.” The writer said that black people are being “misled into believing this is all about the color of their skin,” and begged Rock to come to Ferguson and “tell them they don’t need to be afraid of police.”

But it wasn’t just newspapers that showed this trend. In general, Americans suddenly seemed to become very interested in this video.

Nationwide, Google searches for “Chris Rock police” spiked in August 2014 during the Ferguson protests. Searches spiked even higher in November 2014, as Americans learned of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old black boy who was shot while playing with a toy gun in a Cleveland park.

. . .

At the time of publication, interest in the video continues to climb.

It seems that people are literally searching for something – even a comedy skit – to help them make sense of the shootings.

Some relate to the bitter irony of the skit’s simplistic “public service” message that cooperation with the police will keep them safe. If only. 

Rock himself has recently been posting selfies when he’s pulled over by police as a criticism of racially based profiling.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 12, 2020, 14:20:48
>put a toddler to bed.

Similar.  The analogy I've been using is camping in the backyard (as kids).  Anything you forgot, you run inside the house to get.  Mom and Dad are keeping an eye out for you.  After the sun goes down and the wind makes funny noises and the moon casts scary shadows over the tent, you go back inside for the night.

The authorities will (and should) let this collapse as a comedy, while protecting people from the worst abuses (assaults, public health hazards).  Sending in the police or army would allow the protestors to claim they never got their chance to shine.  Let them fumble their way to their inevitable abject collapse.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 12, 2020, 15:38:41
I'm somewhat (but not much) curious about the reason for bringing attention to a nearly 20 year old skit by a comedian well known for using parody and satire.

I'd be happy to answer. I'm making fun of our Cancel culture. We're tearing down hundred year old statues, renaming streets, renaming bars. Digging up 20 year old tweets. Pointing out US bases named after confederate generals.

Just because someone is black or a person of colour doesn't mean they're immune to the mania either. Look at Terry Crews. Solid guy, came forward about being sexually assaulted (being groped) which i think takes a lot of courage

He's in hot water now for tweeting “defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy. Equality is the truth. Like it or not, we are all in this together."”

To me it sounds like he's saying white people are needed to help defeat white supremacy. But now he has to defend himself from "backlash" and we know what that means. If he doesn't grovel on twitter begging an apology (for having an opinion) then they'll be calls to cancel his shows and harass sponsors. Twitter is a sentient monster.

So when I point out Chris Rock's skit it's in the vein of how far is this going to go? George Washington owned slaves and Abraham Lincon wasn't a stanch defender of blacks being treated equally. Are their statues next? It seems like we're looking backwards instead of forwards and this misguided attempt to be politically correct isn't helping IMO.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 12, 2020, 15:52:40
George Washington owned slaves and Abraham Lincon wasn't a stanch defender of blacks being treated equally. Are their statues next?

Memories of our 24-page "All things Charlottesville (merged)" discussion.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 12, 2020, 17:28:57
Now I bet they will pull the re-runs of Dukes of Hazard: can't have the General Lee running around can we?

Flag or no flag, it was a heck of a car.

I tried, but could never master their bootlegger turns. Only found out later they disconnected the locking mechanism from the foot operated parking brake. That was the trick.

Read they used over 300 General Lee's. The stunts destroyed all but 17.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Weinie on June 12, 2020, 18:30:59
A little old, but the 17 occasionally come up for sale.

https://www.thedukesofhazzard.nl/2018/07/original-general-lee-for-sale/
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 12, 2020, 19:42:34
Flag or no flag, it was a heck of a car.

I tried, but could never master their bootlegger turns. Only found out later they disconnected the locking mechanism from the foot operated parking brake. That was the trick.

Read they used over 300 General Lee's. The stunts destroyed all but 17.

Does that mean that 283 stunts went right, or that 17 went wrong?  ???
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 12, 2020, 20:34:32
Does that mean that 283 stunts went right, or that 17 went wrong?  ???

Apparently, they always went right. But, a jump would basically be so severe, they had to write off the car. And, they didn't replay film of old stunts. Ie Every stunt we saw was filmed 'fresh" for that episode. I saw the math somewhere. It added up to a lot of wrecked cars and good, clean entertainment for the family!
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 12, 2020, 21:21:26
Nice car but you couldn't leave it unattended without someone damaging it.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 12, 2020, 21:33:07
Nice car but you couldn't leave it unattended without someone damaging it.

Don't xxxx with another man's vehicle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO48Vr4KIc8
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 13, 2020, 00:25:19
Apparently, they always went right. But, a jump would basically be so severe, they had to write off the car. And, they didn't replay film of old stunts. Ie Every stunt we saw was filmed 'fresh" for that episode. I saw the math somewhere. It added up to a lot of wrecked cars and good, clean entertainment for the family!

So basically, it was all "**** it, we've got money" type shenanigans.

Certainly paid off!
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 13, 2020, 01:13:09
If you watch movies in which cars do improbable jumps and landings, you can often see the undercarriage disintegrating.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 13, 2020, 19:55:25
Correctness has evolved to intolerance.

The American Press Is Destroying Itself (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself) (Matt Taibbi, about recent changes in the institutional press).

"Even people who try to keep up with protest goals find themselves denounced the moment they fail to submit to some new tenet of ever-evolving doctrine, via a surprisingly consistent stream of retorts: frig you, shut up, send money, do better, check yourself, I’m tired and racist." (italics in original)
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 13, 2020, 20:00:15
Correctness has evolved to intolerance.

The American Press Is Destroying Itself (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself) (Matt Taibbi, about recent changes in the institutional press).

"Even people who try to keep up with protest goals find themselves denounced the moment they fail to submit to some new tenet of ever-evolving doctrine, via a surprisingly consistent stream of retorts: frig you, shut up, send money, do better, check yourself, I’m tired and racist." (italics in original)

It's always impressive to see so many Kafka Traps deployed at once :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuQAn6tpxKo
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Target Up on June 13, 2020, 20:16:08
When I was a kid, we used to fish the west coast in pursuit of the Mighty Coho salmon. Every once in a while, we would catch a dogfish instead of said Mighty Coho. It was common practice in those much less enlightened times, to slit it's belly and dump it back in the chuck, never to be caught again.  It was fascinating to watch, as that poor little fish sank out of sight, it swim around in circles greedily chowing down on it's own entrails.  What's that got to do with political correct culture, I hear you ask?  The similarities between that dogfish and the uberwokenvolken just occurred to me this morning, the movement swims in ever decreasing circles, eating up little bits of itself that aren't woke enough for the main body any more, until it consumes itself and sinks out of sight... At least I hope so.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 13, 2020, 20:58:55
When I was a kid, we used to fish the west coast in pursuit of the Mighty Coho salmon. Every once in a while, we would catch a dogfish instead of said Mighty Coho. It was common practice in those much less enlightened times, to slit it's belly and dump it back in the chuck, never to be caught again.  It was fascinating to watch, as that poor little fish sank out of sight, it swim around in circles greedily chowing down on it's own entrails.  What's that got to do with political correct culture, I hear you ask?  The similarities between that dogfish and the uberwokenvolken just occurred to me this morning, the movement swims in ever decreasing circles, eating up little bits of itself that aren't woke enough for the main body any more, until it consumes itself and sinks out of sight... At least I hope so.

Congartulations!

I have just searched the net for "uberwokenvolken" and could find no hits.

It seems you have coined a new phrase and are entitled to royalties from all and sundry from here on in.

 :salute:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 13, 2020, 22:43:56
When I was a kid, we used to fish the west coast in pursuit of the Mighty Coho salmon. Every once in a while, we would catch a dogfish instead of said Mighty Coho. It was common practice in those much less enlightened times, to slit it's belly and dump it back in the chuck, never to be caught again.  It was fascinating to watch, as that poor little fish sank out of sight, it swim around in circles greedily chowing down on it's own entrails.  What's that got to do with political correct culture, I hear you ask?  The similarities between that dogfish and the uberwokenvolken just occurred to me this morning, the movement swims in ever decreasing circles, eating up little bits of itself that aren't woke enough for the main body any more, until it consumes itself and sinks out of sight... At least I hope so.

To continue this useful analogy ...

The last time I fished halibut off of Constance Bank, near Victoria, the first 5 or 6 fish we pulled up were dog fish. We gutted them as you described and waited, while the remains floated down to halibut depth of about 300ft.

While their colleagues were busy feeding on dog fish remains we pulled up 6 nice fish, completely unmolested.

:)
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FJAG on June 13, 2020, 23:08:09
To continue this useful analogy ...

The last time I fished halibut off of Constance Bank, near Victoria, the first 5 or 6 fish we pulled up were dog fish. We gutted them as you described and waited, while the remains floated down to halibut depth of about 300ft.

While their colleagues were busy fearing in dog fish remains we pulled up 6 nice fish, completely unmolested.

:)

Okay. One more.

During my Phase 1 at CFOCS Venture in Victoria about 15 of us cadets went off on a deep fishing expedition for an afternoon on a charter. Much alcohol was consumed and many dogfish hauled up.

One of the drunken games some played was doing fish/sword fighting trying to slap one another with squirming dogfish a la the Monty Python Fish Slapping dance albeit more robustly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E)

Word of this got back to staff as the senior cadet-in-charge of the outing was persuaded to find another career field.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: FSTO on June 13, 2020, 23:20:05
What did Wendy Mesley say that was so egregious that the CBC is trying to wipe her from the face of the earth?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-weekly-suspend-episodes-wendy-mesley-1.5610799
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Target Up on June 13, 2020, 23:21:19
What did Wendy Mesley say that was so egregious that the CBC is trying to wipe her from the face of the earth?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-weekly-suspend-episodes-wendy-mesley-1.5610799

See? Eating their own guts. Loving it.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: PuckChaser on June 13, 2020, 23:29:53
What did Wendy Mesley say that was so egregious that the CBC is trying to wipe her from the face of the earth?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-weekly-suspend-episodes-wendy-mesley-1.5610799

I saw an article (I'll try to find it) that she said the "N word" while quoting an article while discussing ideas for a primetime event on Racism in Canada in a closed conference room.

Edit: Found it, Canadaland originally broke the story. https://www.canadalandshow.com/wendy-mesley-suspended-from-the-weekly/ (https://www.canadalandshow.com/wendy-mesley-suspended-from-the-weekly/)
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Xylric on June 13, 2020, 23:33:06
I saw an article (I'll try to find it) that she said the "N word" while quoting an article while discussing ideas for a primetime event on Racism in Canada in a closed conference room.

Won't be long before authors aren't even allowed to use the word in period pieces...
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: lenaitch on June 13, 2020, 23:46:21
Won't be long before authors aren't even allowed to use the word in period pieces...

HBO has pulled Gone With the Wind.  We have a DVD copy - one of the wife's favourite movies.  I'm expecting the CRTC to do a dynamic entry through our living room window at any moment.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Target Up on June 13, 2020, 23:49:13
You should see the list of shows that netflix, hulu et al have dropped from their lineups due to viewing 70s-90s content through 2020 goggles.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: mariomike on June 13, 2020, 23:56:56
What did Wendy Mesley say that was so egregious that the CBC is trying to wipe her from the face of the earth?

“a word that should never be used”

I could take a guess. But, not on here.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: Target Up on June 14, 2020, 01:28:01
“a word that should never be used”

I could take a guess. But, not on here.

She’ll be fine after some penalty box time. After all she’s just a national news personality who used one of the worst words in the human lexicon. Not like she’s a hockey colour guy calling a non specified group “you people” or anyone important like that.
Title: Re: On Political Correctness
Post by: CloudCover on June 20, 2020, 23:42:20
This was a pretty good article written by a very decent chap about how radical progressives are disrupting even the grace of the core left: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jk-rowling-backlash-shows-how-progressives-are-turning-on-their-own/