Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jack Skellington

Enough with Political Correctness

184 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Gromdor

It's also stupid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

How about we just pay a little extra attention to the kids of Palestinian parents who moved here, and raised their kids as Muslims?

Then shine a light when those kids grow goofy beards, express anti-American and/or pro-Islamic extremist sentiments?

That alone would have prevented the deaths of 17 fine American Military members.

Focus on the problem.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

You think limited time and resources are better spent watching out for another pasty white boy from Oklahoma?

Well, why not? After all, pasty white boys are shooting and murdering a lot more people in our country than any other demographic by my reckoning; your earlier list of number of dead from 'Islamic' incidents under Obama and Clinton is almost doubled by just mass shootings from non-Muslim, almost-always-white-men in 2012 alone. That is a lot of noise in the background to pluck out Muslim shooters for 'focused' scrutiny. I'll assume you also are willing to pony up the extra tax dollars so we can hire people to constantly monitor the entire family tree of every Muslim in our country to see if any beards have reached a dangerous level of 'goofiness'.

um.... According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

If that isn't clear, I can't help you,

Ha, you think the regulations that govern how military facilities and personnel operate, like whether they are to carry guns, is an idea that should come personally from the President? Do you think Roosevelt should have personally planned out each movement of our troops D-Day too? Come on man.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

Here are a few more examples.... Some people might call these "hints" of a growing problem

Obama-- Chatanooga TN, 4 Dead, 2 Wounded

Obama-- Norfolk VA--- Navy Shipyard 1 Dead

Obama-- Washington DC Navy Yard Complex-- 12 dead.

Obama-- Fort Hood--- 13 Dead, 32 Wounded

Clinton-- Fort Bragg-- 18 Wounded

Clinton-- Fairchild Air Force Base-- 4 Dead, 18 Wounded

Clinton-- LittleRock AK Military Recruiting Center-- 1 Dead

Clinton-- Arlington VA-- 2 Wounded

Bush-- ?

REALLY? "Bush-- ?" HOW ABOUT 9-11, GENIUS?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

But MP's are not everywhere. That's like thinking shopping malls are not soft targets because of Mall Cops.

Ever been to Camp Pendleton? Twentynine Palms? They're kind of BIG.

More MP's are not needed. Every Marine is a rifleman. They are trained. They already have the guns. Stop requiring them to relinquish their weapons on Base. It's very simple.

No one in the military wants to carry a weapon around the base. It is a pain in the ***. It will cause you to go to work earlier, and go home later. It will create a hassle if you have to do anything during your duty day. You will have to ensure that you are never walking alone, because we all know we can't clear our own weapon at the barrel when entering a building. Make sure you empty your 210 rounds out of your magazines and count that ammo every Friday...

And then, and then when something DOES happen on a military base, and dozens of people get killed or injured...you would be in here blaming THAT on Obama too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

How about we just pay a little extra attention to the kids of Palestinian parents who moved here, and raised their kids as Muslims?

Then shine a light when those kids grow goofy beards, express anti-American and/or pro-Islamic extremist sentiments?

That alone would have prevented the deaths of 17 fine American Military members.

Focus on the problem.

You don't seem to have answered my previous question, so I'll put it another way: it seems as though you're in favor of racial profiling, yes? If someone looks different, then they should be watched.

Funny how you seem to "focus" only on the "problem" of "them," as if Christians are completely blameless. Here's some food for thought about Christian extremists:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/01/americas-10-worst-terror-attacks-by-christian-fundamentalist-and-far-right-extremists/

From Fox News to the Weekly Standard, neoconservatives have tried to paint terrorism as a largely or exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Their message of Islamophobia has been repeated many times since the George W. Bush era: Islam is inherently violent, Christianity is inherently peaceful, and there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist or a white male terrorist. But the facts don’t bear that out. Far-right white male radicals and extreme Christianists are every bit as capable of acts of terrorism as radical Islamists, and to pretend that such terrorists don’t exist does the public a huge disservice.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_modern_day_christian_terrorist_groups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/

1. The Army of God

A network of violent Christianists that has been active since the early 1980s, the Army of God openly promotes killing abortion providers—and the long list of terrorists who have been active in that organization has included Paul Jennings Hill (who was executed by lethal injection in 2003 for the 1994 killings of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett), John C. Salvi (who killed two receptionists when he attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts in 1994) and Eric Rudolph, who is serving life in prison for his role in the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996 and other terrorist acts.

http://aattp.org/here-are-8-christian-terrorist-organizations-that-equal-isis/

. The Christian Identity Movement

Active: 1920/1930s to Present, about 95 years

Who are they? When you’re dealing with White Nationalism and White Supremacy in the United States, it’s turtles all the way down, but you can almost certainly find God at the top of the heap. That’s what the Christian Identity Movement is; it’s not necessarily an organization so much as it is a loose affiliation of organizations like the Aryan Nations.

Focus indeed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

But MP's are not everywhere. That's like thinking shopping malls are not soft targets because of Mall Cops.

Ever been to Camp Pendleton? Twentynine Palms? They're kind of BIG.

More MP's are not needed. Every Marine is a rifleman. They are trained. They already have the guns. Stop requiring them to relinquish their weapons on Base. It's very simple.

Here's another perspective.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0717/Chattanooga-shooting-should-military-recruiters-carry-guns-video

The location of the office was a typical suburban strip mall, between an Italian restaurant and a cell phone business. It had no special security arrangements, according to a spokesman for the US Army Recruiting Command.

And why should it? It was a suburban strip mall. Why is that important? Because....

In this context, recruitment stations are something of an outlier. By definition, they need to be welcoming and open. The job of a recruiter is literally to be an entry point into the military – though for those interested in serving. Barbed wire, concrete barriers, and other physical manifestations of security would likely interfere with this mission.

“We can’t have barricaded centers. We can’t have places where we recruit young men and women that look like a fortress. We have to have a connection to the American people,” Brian Lepley, a spokesman for US Army Recruiting Command, told the Army Times.

Other officials pointed out that the centers had defensive plans in place, and they worked. The fatalities occurred at the fenced in Support and Reserve Center.

Maybe I'm wrong, but in reading your posts, it seems to me that you're in favor of armed guards everywhere. That's not what America's about. That's not freedom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Not armed guards. Armed citizens.

Armed military personnel on military bases.

Not surprising to hear the choir of defenders here. It's your collective refusal to face facts that has led to set of circumstances we now face. Don't you recall how Obama was going to restore America's standing in the world? Nice work.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

We already have armed citizens Jack. We don't have armed military personnel at recruiting stations and/or bases. More people can buy more guns but I'm not aware of any armed citizen putting a dent in the Muslim Menace for us yet.

If the military goes around armed wherever they congregate, we'll have PTSD servicemen shooting up the place and the liberals will once again say "Told you we need gun control." or "Even with training, guns are still a "'danger.'" And because we don't question guns when the police have them, we'll get a lot more police keeping us safe. Arming more people isn't much of a solution when it will cause more problems than it solves. Every time there's a sensational shooting in America, the govt takes it as another opportunity to erode the 2nd Amendment. We shouldn't ask for a losing battle. Let's fight one we can win.

If we're under attack by Islamic extremists, even I think we should racially profile. Is that fair to Muslims? It's another sad consequence of a collective addiction to an insane foreign policy.

We could also say we're under attack by white extremists and profile white suspects severely as well. Who's proud to be white, there's a potential mass murderer. Liberty for security.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

We already have armed citizens Jack. We don't have armed military personnel at recruiting stations and/or bases. More people can buy more guns but I'm not aware of any armed citizen putting a dent in the Muslim Menace for us yet.

If the military goes around armed wherever they congregate, we'll have PTSD servicemen shooting up the place and the liberals will once again say "Told you we need gun control." or "Even with training, guns are still a "'danger.'" And because we don't question guns when the police have them, we'll get a lot more police keeping us safe. Arming more people isn't much of a solution when it will cause more problems than it solves. Every time there's a sensational shooting in America, the govt takes it as another opportunity to erode the 2nd Amendment. We shouldn't ask for a losing battle. Let's fight one we can win.

If we're under attack by Islamic extremists, even I think we should racially profile. Is that fair to Muslims? It's another sad consequence of a collective addiction to an insane foreign policy.

We could also say we're under attack by white extremists and profile white suspects severely as well. Who's proud to be white, there's a potential mass murderer. Liberty for security.

Holy cow Yamato, I agree with you! Mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carol Joy

I don't care for the Democrats anymore than I care for Republicans, but a fact is a fact.

Thank you for pointing out that it is not possible to assign all bad acts under the Clinton-Obama column. The Republicans are jerks too.

It's always a good idea to check your facts before posting.

From Snopes:

"It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office."

Read more at http://www.snopes.co...oqotjz7kdb2t.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carol Joy

Speaking of political correctness: I also do not understand why it is necessary to call people of color African Americans. I get called a white person - I consider myself an American and certainly would not demand that people refer to people of my race as European Americans.

Designations regarding people from south of the border are the worst - on the East Coast, they must be referred to as Hispanics, while on the West Coast they must be referred to as Latino or Latina based on the gender you are addressing.

Anyway, African American is seven syllables. If they can call me white, then I feel entitled to call them black. I would use "AA" but some of my friends have been members of "Alcoholics Anonymous, and so then that is a designation that would lead to interesting assumptions. (I use the designation "black" when around friends of the African American community and they never object...)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Here are a few more examples.... Some people might call these "hints" of a growing problem

Obama-- Chatanooga TN, 4 Dead, 2 Wounded

Obama-- Norfolk VA--- Navy Shipyard 1 Dead

Obama-- Washington DC Navy Yard Complex-- 12 dead.

Obama-- Fort Hood--- 13 Dead, 32 Wounded

Clinton-- Fort Bragg-- 18 Wounded

Clinton-- Fairchild Air Force Base-- 4 Dead, 18 Wounded

Clinton-- LittleRock AK Military Recruiting Center-- 1 Dead

Clinton-- Arlington VA-- 2 Wounded

Bush-- ?

With bush you have to add up all the dead iraqi civilians and us armed forces killed while deployed in iraq and Afghanistan, then we can add all the wounded vets. It's quite a list. And then there's all the ill will we ceated by invasion, some of which contribted to the rise in terrorism we ard experiencing now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Political correctness is usually something the other guy does that we disagree with but can't think of a better argument against it. According to wiki and other websites i looked at it is generally used by the political right to dispage liberals and academic policies more specifically. The first sentence is my own definition before looking up ghe origin of the phrase. But we all pretty much know it's a term liberals seldom use in reference to conservatives. It's meant as a derogatory term and as such announces the political ideology at the beginning of a conversation.

Edited by Beany
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Try this... Political Correctness is what liberals insist upon, when they don't want to face difficult issues. It's a conversation stopper. Instead of facing the problem they say things like-- 'it's too graphic a topic to discuss' or "you mustn't stereotype a particular group" often while stereotyping a particular group they disagree with (like conservatives) while trying to stifle discussion of a difficult issue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

With bush you have to add up all the dead iraqi civilians and us armed forces killed while deployed in iraq and Afghanistan, then we can add all the wounded vets. It's quite a list. And then there's all the ill will we ceated by invasion, some of which contribted to the rise in terrorism we ard experiencing now.

Don't forget slavery. Bush

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Did the Senate just open the U.S. up to ICC prosecution?

By Mark Kersten December 10, 2014

... Despite the United States voting against the creation of the ICC in 1998, in one of his last acts while in office, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute. However, not long after the court became a functioning entity, then-U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton was dispatched to “unsign” the statute, an unprecedented political move. What followed was a series of hostile measures by the United States, including the passage of the American Service-Members Protection Act (or “The Hague Invasion Act”) which prohibited the United States from providing funds to the court and bestowed upon the president the right to use “all necessary measures” to repatriate any U.S. citizen detained by the court. At the same time, the administration successfully employed coercive diplomacy against over a hundred states to ensure that they signed “Bilateral Immunity Agreements,” guaranteeing that they would never surrender a U.S. official or soldier to the ICC.

...

  • washington post link

...

A Complaint has been filed with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” perpetrated upon about 100 human beings.

...

  • Bush to the hague org link

Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia

by Yvonne Ridley May 12, 2012

  • foreign policy journal com link

Ex-Bush intel man: President, Cheney, Rumsfeld guilty of war crimes

By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Friday, May 30, 2014

One of President George W. Bush’s former top counterterrorism chiefs said in an interview this week that Mr. Bush — as well as his vice president, Dick Cheney, and defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld — committed war crimes during the conflict with Iraq.

“I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes,” Richard Clarke, the former national coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism, told Democracy Now. “Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/30/former-gw-bush-intel-man-calls-icc-trial-bush-chen/#ixzz3gJG4PTZR

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Try this... Political Correctness is what liberals insist upon, when they don't want to face difficult issues. It's a conversation stopper. Instead of facing the problem they say things like-- 'it's too graphic a topic to discuss' or "you mustn't stereotype a particular group" often while stereotyping a particular group they disagree with (like conservatives) while trying to stifle discussion of a difficult issue.

Could you show some examples of a liberal/liberals dodging discussion of difficult issues? Because we've certainly been participating in the issues of national healthcare/aca, legalizing same sex marriage, gun control, equal pay for equal work, and immigration.

Even a personal anecdotal story would be helpful, if anyone you've heard use the phrases you've quoted.

Edited by Beany
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

So extending someone the courtesy of referring to them by the term they prefer is pc. Sometimes, most of the time, what the right calls pc the left calls courtesy or cultural sensitivity, and i see nothing wrong with either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I'm sick of the ridiculousness of politically correct stupidity. There is no other way to describe it and those who are pulled along by the nonsense are simply willfully ignorant.

That means "stupid on purpose."

This Islamist terrorist attack in Tennessee is just another example, but it reignites (momentarily) America's brain activity and makes us question how we got so far off track.

For example-- who's idea was it to restrict our military from carrying guns on military installations? The answer is--- Clinton. In 1993, with the stroke of a pen and without Congressional approval, Clinton made the decision. Not even after 13 dead bodies accumulated on the cafeteria floor, did President Obama act. Another radicalized immigrant to this country carried a weapon into a gun free zone (aka Military Base full of soldiers trained to use weapons) and wantonly killed our personnel to cries of Allahu Akbar!

Change course? Nope-- Obama insists it was just an isolated case of workplace violence, not Islamic terrorism. So no, not even 13 dead bodies made a lick of difference.

4 more now in Tennessee. That's on you Barack Obama. You are asleep at the wheel of the car called America you are deliberately driving to a cliff.

Change our course for us Jack. Paint me the picture of what that looks like. Because until someone explains what this record player rhetoric means, it'll remain meaningless. It'll remain just popular political rhetoric. It'll remain politically correct.

And one more thing...partisanship isn't politically correct? Are you kidding me?

I told you we were going to suffer another terrorist attack as I've predicted numerous times. And I'll predict another one right now. Because it's very simple to predict. We've made a colossal mess Jack. It's time to wake up and admit it.

How many more have to die before we get to the end of the neocon rainbow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Try this... Political Correctness is what liberals insist upon, when they don't want to face difficult issues. It's a conversation stopper. Instead of facing the problem they say things like-- 'it's too graphic a topic to discuss' or "you mustn't stereotype a particular group" often while stereotyping a particular group they disagree with (like conservatives) while trying to stifle discussion of a difficult issue.

You can't be a partisan and complain about political correctness at the same time. That's like eating your fingers off just for starving to death for a valid political argument.

But look how popular this pot to kettle thread is. My apathy is well earned once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Insensitive Words & Phrases Possible Alternatives Black sheep Outcast "Guys" (when referring to a mixed group) Friends; folks; group Oriental (when referring to people) Asian (using the specific nationality, i.e. Korean is even better, when possible) Acting like wild Indians Out of control Girls (when referring to coworkers) Women Policemen/postman Police officer/mail carrier Manhole Utility hole Chairman Chair Handicapped People with special needs; people who are physically/mentally challenged; people with disabilities Retarded Developmentally challenged Gifted children Advanced learners Race Ethnicity or nationality (There is only one race--human) Uneducated (when referring to adults) Lacking a formal education No culture (when referring to parts of the U.S. where the opera and the theater are scarce or nonexistent) Lacking European culture The little woman; the wife Your wife; his wife "Don't go postal on me!" No alternative; someone in your audience may have relatives who are postal workers Acting blonde No alternative Old people Seniors; "Chronologically Advantaged" b****y or "PMSing" Assertive "White" lie Lie (Calling it white does not make it okay) Flip chart Easel (Flip is a derogatory word referring to Filipinos) wheel-chair bound A person who uses a wheel-chair Jew down Negotiate Half-breed Multi-ethnic Blacklisted Banned "Manning" the project

Staffing the project

http://www.sideroad....t-language.html

Lots of schools have policies where Christmas cannot be mentioned. Christmas sweaters or jewelry cannot be worn. One, it's related to Christianity and two, not all kids celebrate Christmas. They are allowed to sing Happy Birthday because not all birthdays are happy. Before black boards, considering they were black, were replaced they were renamed as chalk boards. American flag shirts were banned so as not to offend students who aren't American. One state discontinued "Choose Life" specialty license plates not to offend the pro-choice crowd. The term "thug" is considered offensive because apparently it is considered the new "ni**er".

Not all politically incorrect words were ever meant in a derogatory way, but the meanings have been being twisted to make them offensive. Some people are simply looking for an excuse to be offended, stomping on other people's rights in the process.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

We should put the Christ back in Christmas. It'd be good for the church too if people did that. Oh and Happy Holidays everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

... and a happy Eid al-Fitr to ye too Yamato ~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Insensitive Words & Phrases Possible Alternatives Black sheep Outcast "Guys" (when referring to a mixed group) Friends; folks; group Oriental (when referring to people) Asian (using the specific nationality, i.e. Korean is even better, when possible) Acting like wild Indians Out of control Girls (when referring to coworkers) Women Policemen/postman Police officer/mail carrier Manhole Utility hole Chairman Chair Handicapped People with special needs; people who are physically/mentally challenged; people with disabilities Retarded Developmentally challenged Gifted children Advanced learners Race Ethnicity or nationality (There is only one race--human) Uneducated (when referring to adults) Lacking a formal education No culture (when referring to parts of the U.S. where the opera and the theater are scarce or nonexistent) Lacking European culture The little woman; the wife Your wife; his wife "Don't go postal on me!" No alternative; someone in your audience may have relatives who are postal workers Acting blonde No alternative Old people Seniors; "Chronologically Advantaged" b****y or "PMSing" Assertive "White" lie Lie (Calling it white does not make it okay) Flip chart Easel (Flip is a derogatory word referring to Filipinos) wheel-chair bound A person who uses a wheel-chair Jew down Negotiate Half-breed Multi-ethnic Blacklisted Banned "Manning" the project

Staffing the project

http://www.sideroad....t-language.html

Lots of schools have policies where Christmas cannot be mentioned. Christmas sweaters or jewelry cannot be worn. One, it's related to Christianity and two, not all kids celebrate Christmas. They are allowed to sing Happy Birthday because not all birthdays are happy. Before black boards, considering they were black, were replaced they were renamed as chalk boards. American flag shirts were banned so as not to offend students who aren't American. One state discontinued "Choose Life" specialty license plates not to offend the pro-choice crowd. The term "thug" is considered offensive because apparently it is considered the new "ni**er".

Not all politically incorrect words were ever meant in a derogatory way, but the meanings have been being twisted to make them offensive. Some people are simply looking for an excuse to be offended, stomping on other people's rights in the process.

Some of my family members are Asian or part Asian, they prefer that term to Oriental, so I accommodate them. And if a group of people prefer to be called African American or person of color, I'm OK with that, too. I don't find either of those requests outrageous or extreme. I also had a sister who was developmentally disabled, and not even as a child did I refer to her or her friends as "retarded". The clerk at the elementary school my granddaughter attended tried to coerce my daughter into changing her daughter's ethnicity from Caucasian to something else because of her brown skin, even though my daughter, being a blue-eyed blonde, is clearly of European descent. Another family member, a Pacific Islander, while here in the States was called "Mexican" in a way that was clearly meant to be derogatory.

Some of the examples are extreme, but I've seen the pain that cultural insensitivity inflicts, and don't ever want to be the cause of that kind of pain, so I do try to be sensitive. So is that kind of behavior PC, meaning a bad thing, or just courtesy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.