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

preacherman76

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

Agreed.

From Snopes:

That's were you lost me. The government funded apology site named snopes is the last place you or anyone should be looking for facts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Good old Political Correctness. Just look how far we've come thanks to you.

1. Trying not to list what race a suspect is if they are non-white.

2. Not charging blacks who attack whites with a hate crime.

3. Not being able to have an all white group with out it being called racist, even though every other race is allowed to have one.

4. Allowing teachers to be able to say anything anti-white with out fear of being fired.

Wow, such progress. I sure can't wait till we end up as politically correct as Sweden is.

White people do have a group, it's called the majority. And I'm pretty sure the KKK and other white supremacist groups don't have any people of color as members, either, would it be wrong to call those groups racists? Do you have specific examples of #1 & #4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

White people are no longer the majority in California and its your snapshot of what immigration is doing across the country. California is not unique, it's just first.

Now, when an illegal immigrant rapes and kills someone, the newspaper describe him with headlines like: "Man from Fresno charged with raping 11 year old"

Man

Mustn't describe that man....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Michelle Malkin alerts us to a doozy of an example of racial political correctness in the Washington Post. The paper ran a story about local killers at large, and repeated the police description of the killers — but removed their race. It wasn’t “relevant,” you see.

Meanwhile, wait ’till you see when the paper does consider race relevant. (You’ll have to read to the end.)

Here are the details:

A July 24 article by the paper’s ombudsman, Michael Getler, sets the stage:

The story, by reporters Allison Klein and Philip Rucker, reported that one of the robbers shot and killed Herminio Moscoso, a 26-year-old father of two, as he came to the aid of his younger brother, who had a gun put to his head by one of the four men who had surrounded him. About 15 minutes later, the men fatally shot William Everette Miller, a 46-year-old mechanic, as he tried to get away from the robbers at a gas station where he had gone to get cigarettes. After the two murders, the four men committed two more robberies that same morning.

The story reported that: “Police are looking for the gunmen, described as being in their late teens or early twenties, driving a newer-model tan or light-colored sedan.”

The news release put out by the Prince George’s County Police Department was more specific.
It said: “The four suspects are described as black males, possibly late teens or early twenties. One of the suspects is about 5’7″, 22-25 years old, wearing a gray long sleeve T-shirt, and cornrow hairstyle. The suspect’s vehicle is described as a newer model tan or beige/light colored sedan.”
The Post did not report the race of the suspects or the details that were available on one of them.

cont...

http://patterico.com...ashington-post/

I have personally observed this becoming more and more prevalent. If the news does not give a description along with the race it is always a minority.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

Agreed.

That's were you lost me. The government funded apology site named snopes is the last place you or anyone should be looking for facts.

I suppose you can back up your assertion with facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

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."

Jack you need to get with the times. Political correctness is out and the term is offensive to politicians. The correct term is "Acute Social Rectitude". Or, some people in my circle of influence call it Acute Social Suitability, or ASS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike

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...)

I must be missing out. It is acceptible to call black people Black. Who is complaining about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Skellington

Jack you need to get with the times. Political correctness is out and the term is offensive to politicians. The correct term is "Acute Social Rectitude". Or, some people in my circle of influence call it Acute Social Suitability, or ASS.

That means nothing to me. Although at times in my circle of influence we do talk about Acute ASS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

A mad well trained soldier with gun is way more worse than a mad terrorist or depressed fellow with gun at a military base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Molten

White people do have a group, it's called the majority. And I'm pretty sure the KKK and other white supremacist groups don't have any people of color as members, either, would it be wrong to call those groups racists? Do you have specific examples of #1 & #4?

So, if you're the majority in your own Country it's alright for other races to be racist towards you? It's alright for people to come into your Country and replace your culture with their own? It's alright for mobs to beat you up for no reason other then you're white?

White is not the majority where I live, do I have the right now, since I am in the minority, to forum a group for white people with out it being labeled a hate group? I didn't think so.

1. Source, Source. Michelle has pointed you to another article as well. And as she said, if they don't mention the race it is always a minority.

4. Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

For a world that is striving for a global border less future it seems borders are more attached to humans than humans are to it ~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I suppose you can back up your assertion with facts?

He could always look it up on snopes ;)

A mad well trained soldier with gun is way more worse than a mad terrorist or depressed fellow with gun at a military base.

And a madman with a flamethrower is worse then a madman with a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

So, if you're the majority in your own Country it's alright for other races to be racist towards you? It's alright for people to come into your Country and replace your culture with their own? It's alright for mobs to beat you up for no reason other then you're white?

White is not the majority where I live, do I have the right now, since I am in the minority, to forum a group for white people with out it being labeled a hate group? I didn't think so.

1. Source, Source. Michelle has pointed you to another article as well. And as she said, if they don't mention the race it is always a minority.

4. Source

People have migrated for tens of thousands of years.

The irony of your statement "it's alright [sic] for for people to come into your Country and replace your culture with their own" is obviously lost on you. That's exactly what whites did when Europeans settled in what would become the U.S. I don't exactly see you defending Native Americans, do I? I guess it's okay though when whites do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Molten

Why dose the left always bring up the Indians and slavery to try and prove a point?

I'm talking about the present, if you have an argument about something that is being done now by all means say it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Now, when an illegal immigrant rapes and kills someone, the newspaper describe him with headlines like: "Man from Fresno charged with raping 11 year old"

Man

Mustn't describe that man....

Maybe if you had some compelling reason why the man should be described in a newspaper headline? What difference does it make, in a headline, whether a criminal was an illegal immigrant or their eyes were brown for that matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

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.

Can you name one of these supposed 'rights'? It's amazing how people exercising their right to free speech complain that they are losing 'rights' just because others exercise theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

So, if you're the majority in your own Country it's alright for other races to be racist towards you? It's alright for people to come into your Country and replace your culture with their own? It's alright for mobs to beat you up for no reason other then you're white?

White is not the majority where I live, do I have the right now, since I am in the minority, to forum a group for white people with out it being labeled a hate group? I didn't think so.

1. Source, Source. Michelle has pointed you to another article as well. And as she said, if they don't mention the race it is always a minority.

4. Source

Didn't say racism is ok. White people may not always be the majority but we hold most of the power economically, politically, in the law enforcement and judicial and educational systems. I see no reason why people can't value and celebrate their cultural or ethnic heritage. I live in california, it's been done here for well over a hundred years. Crossing cultures is a normal human activity. Some of us are comfortable with that. Of course, my family is multicultural, I've lived in another culture, so these experiences have informed me, and reflect in my attitudes and thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Can you name one of these supposed 'rights'? It's amazing how people exercising their right to free speech complain that they are losing 'rights' just because others exercise theirs.

And maybe some people were legitimately offended. Racism is not dead, you know. Used to be people could casually throw around pejorative terms and no one would blink and eye, but, thank God, that has changed, and those minorities are no longer tolerating that kind of language or the behaviors that go with it. As I said earlier, some of my family members are people of color, and I have seen how offensive both adults and children behaved towards them, and when they stand up for themselves how that offensive behavior escalates. And I do encourage them, especially my grandchildren, to speak out and use their voices when they encounter this kind of behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

And maybe some people were legitimately offended. Racism is not dead, you know.

I agree and never said otherwise, it sounds like you're disagreeing with something in my post but I'm not sure what, maybe I'm misreading it. Supposedly some people are looking for reasons to be offended (I'm sure 'some' people are; 'some' people are doing just about everything) and somehow 'stomping' on other people's rights in the process. I don't see anybody's rights being stomped on, just 'some' people who are upset because people are exercising the same rights they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Can you name one of these supposed 'rights'? It's amazing how people exercising their right to free speech complain that they are losing 'rights' just because others exercise theirs.

There is the war on Christmas. Schools have almost totally eliminated it. Teachers are under the threat of being fired if they so much as mention it. Some stores, like Target, instructed their employees not to say "Merry Christmas" or be fired. Customers boycotted them until they relented. Not to mention the billboards the Freedom From Religion Foundation put up ridiculing Christmas and Christians around the holidays. If I wish someone a Merry Christmas and they happen to be Jewish they respond with Happy Hannukah...no problem. I smile, usually wink, and we go on our way. This, coming from an atheist who happens to love Christmas.

Now the NAACP is demanding the removal of Civil War memorials.

Tell me why everyone shouldn't be able to celebrate their own holidays and traditions, including the majority, without harassment? I'm totally on board when people from other cultures move to the US and want to continue to celebrate their heritage, as I think everyone should be able to do, without fear of being reprimanded or fired.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Now the NAACP is demanding the removal of Civil War memorials.

imo, naacp needs to be included in the list of domestic terrorist organisations, they do everything to keep race war going.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leo Krupe

There is the war on Christmas. Schools have almost totally eliminated it. Teachers are under the threat of being fired if they so much as mention it. Some stores, like Target, instructed their employees not to say "Merry Christmas" or be fired. Customers boycotted them until they relented. Not to mention the billboards the Freedom From Religion Foundation put up ridiculing Christmas and Christians around the holidays. If I wish someone a Merry Christmas and they happen to be Jewish they respond with Happy Hannukah...no problem. I smile, usually wink, and we go on our way. This, coming from an atheist who happens to love Christmas.

Now the NAACP is demanding the removal of Civil War memorials.

Tell me why everyone shouldn't be able to celebrate their own holidays and traditions, including the majority, without harassment? I'm totally on board when people from other cultures move to the US and want to continue to celebrate their heritage, as I think everyone should be able to do, without fear of being reprimanded or fired.

Prove it. No one is banning Christmas. Not saying "Merry Christmas" is a BillO manufactured hysteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

~

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Prove it. No one is banning Christmas. Not saying "Merry Christmas" is a BillO manufactured hysteria.

I know many school teachers from various states and every public school teachers has confirmed this fact. I also know quite a few people who worked at Target at the time. I don't have to prove anything. Take it or leave it for all I care.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

There is the war on Christmas. Schools have almost totally eliminated it. Teachers are under the threat of being fired if they so much as mention it. Some stores, like Target, instructed their employees not to say "Merry Christmas" or be fired. Customers boycotted them until they relented. Not to mention the billboards the Freedom From Religion Foundation put up ridiculing Christmas and Christians around the holidays. If I wish someone a Merry Christmas and they happen to be Jewish they respond with Happy Hannukah...no problem. I smile, usually wink, and we go on our way. This, coming from an atheist who happens to love Christmas.

I'm an atheist who likes Christmas too, the secular part of it. I'm sorry, but the supposed 'war on Christmas' gets a big eyeroll from me; it's mainly a non-troversy that has been manufactured by Fox News. It's odd since you seem to think that objections to Confederate symbols are much ado about essentially nothing, yet use the non-existent 'war on Christmas' is an example of something that is instead worth objecting to?

You should run some of your claims by 'snopes.com' by the way; no, Target didn't threaten to fire employees who said 'Merry Christmas'. They did start using 'holidays' in their advertisements also instead of just 'Christmas', but there's a reasonable and logical business reason for that, like the desire to be welcoming to everyone who celebrate their own winter holidays; they have the right to follow good business practices.

Now the NAACP is demanding the removal of Civil War memorials.

Tell me why everyone shouldn't be able to celebrate their own holidays and traditions, including the majority, without harassment? I'm totally on board when people from other cultures move to the US and want to continue to celebrate their heritage, as I think everyone should be able to do, without fear of being reprimanded or fired.

Define 'harassment', because I don't include people just saying that they object to Confederate symbols or Christmas as being 'harassment'. Regardless, I don't see anyone's 'rights' being stomped on in any of this, which was the claim of yours I responded to, as a matter of fact it seems like you are mainly just annoyed that other people are using their rights to exercise their opinion, which is exactly what you are doing, and the only real problem is that their opinion is different than yours. We have no right to have other people like what we like nor does their refusal to stay silent infringe on our rights in any way.

I don't think that many people are being threatened with a reprimand or termination merely for 'celebrating their heritage'; I think they are likely being threatened because they aren't doing the job they are paid to do. Employees at Target are more likely to be fired if they don't greet their customers and say 'Thank You' at the completion of a purchase, are their rights being stomped on? Public school teachers cannot proselytize for their religion to their students during classroom time, is that another unreasonable restriction on their rights because, 'no one has the right to be offended'. Or do maybe private businesses and the government as an employer also have their own rights, like the right to require its employees to meet certain criteria and do the job they are paid to do in the way that their employer would like it done?

Again, please name 'the right' of anyone's that is being stomped on in any of this. How are other people and entities exercising their rights, the exact same rights you are by the way, speech and protest, taking or diminishing any right of yours with these examples. If you are an employee of Target, no, you don't have any right to say just any old thing you desire to customers and be guaranteed continued employment; seems like you would want that same right if you are/were an employer.

  • Like 1

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.