DescentBB

Spidey wrote:You’re right, conservatives are way behind the curve…the proof is they haven’t thought up words to insulate groups like whites, The rich, businessmen and such.

Attacking "these" groups has become the “patriotic” thing to do.

The tactic of attacking the rich has always been a great way to muster the ignorant masses to fight for a cause. Class warfare has been the impetus for the formation of the worlds most notorious and cruel regimes. It is so easy to appeal to that selfish instinct to manipulate the average person.

It isn't easy to get the masses to rally behind you when your cry is "Get your own you can't have mine."

Will, I most certainly do no advocate harm to any POTUS, even Bushie. So why do you think that lefties only call for physical harm, but not those nice conservative militant white supremacist nutjobs with their guns?

As for class warfare, the rich are starting it with the outright theft of funds from the whole of our society. They've changed the rules of the game and made new rules in their favor. In fact, they could care less about the U.S. They just move their pig rear ends to other more favorable tax shelter countries, taking their money with them. They're really traitors! All those overpaid wealthy businessmen that call themselves \"Patriots\" and wave the flag in their name while shipping our jobs overseas are really country-robbing-destroying traitors!

So how do the wealthy change the rules, because the wealthy run our government! And yes, some of those call themselves 'liberals' when they're really 'corporatists'. Even Obama is part of the problem. Those unfortunate slobs that aren't well connected, well heeled blue bloods, like the working poor and immigrants, THEY are getting fewer and fewer chances to make wealth for themselves in this day and age. I dare a poor person to run for some government office and win without any money. They'd be stomped by the special interests that DO have money. That's the insidious nature of what's happening in the U.S. Common people are losing the chance to make it rich because it's becoming rigged against them.

Now that we have a global economy, those in previously third-world countries that now want to raise their standard of living, and you can bet they do, will cause first-world countries like Europe and the U.S. to have to lower theirs, because there just aren't enough material resources or energy sources on Earth to go around for everyone.

tunnelcat wrote:Will, I most certainly do no advocate harm to any POTUS, even Bushie. So why do you think that lefties only call for physical harm, but not those nice conservative militant white supremacist nutjobs with their guns?

I don't understand this sentence. I see the question mark but don't understand the premise or point...the grammar has me confused but it doesn't look like it is related to the topic regardless.

tunnelcat wrote:As for class warfare, the rich are starting it with the outright theft of funds from the whole of our society. They've changed the rules of the game and made new rules in their favor. In fact, they could care less about the U.S. They just move their pig rear ends to other more favorable tax shelter countries, taking their money with them. They're really traitors! All those overpaid wealthy businessmen that call themselves "Patriots" and wave the flag in their name while shipping our jobs overseas are really country-robbing-destroying traitors!

So how do the wealthy change the rules, because the wealthy run our government! And yes, some of those call themselves 'liberals' when they're really 'corporatists'. Even Obama is part of the problem. Those unfortunate slobs that aren't well connected, well heeled blue bloods, like the working poor and immigrants, THEY are getting fewer and fewer chances to make wealth for themselves in this day and age. I dare a poor person to run for some government office and win without any money. They'd be stomped by the special interests that DO have money. That's the insidious nature of what's happening in the U.S. Common people are losing the chance to make it rich because it's becoming rigged against them.

Now that we have a global economy, those in previously third-world countries that now want to raise their standard of living, and you can bet they do, will cause first-world countries like Europe and the U.S. to have to lower theirs, because there just aren't enough material resources or energy sources on Earth to go around for everyone.

Again, this has nothing to do with the topic.
I've pointed out the tax law needs to be changed to something that doesn't empower the politicians with the ability to trade exemptions and write-offs for votes and campaign donations. You refused to consider it because you see a conservative conspiracy in everything so I don't feel like following you down this rabbit hole.

Will Robinson wrote:No, not kidding. They are all three examples that have taken place. Craig Kilborn did the sniper bit on his TV show. Alec Baldwin called for people to go to the home of Speaker of the House Henry Hyde and stone him and his family.
and TC among many others on the left with a much more prominent soapbox than the DBB have consistently disregarded protests of Obama's policy as racially motivated.

I was referencing this quote of yours. I may be a leftie, but I've never advocated the killing of a politician, even Bush. If Kilborn or Baldwin have the tastelessness to pull that BS, I'm certainly not going to defend them.

As for the white supremacist mention, they DO have racist ideals and many of them were bringing their guns as a second amendment show to many of those rallies against Obama and his policies. When was the last time you saw a bunch of lefties bring their guns to some rally, displayed them prominently and NOT get arrested by police? They may have, but I've never seen it and I wouldn't defend it either.

Back on the PC topic, here's PC gone horribly wrong that I don't agree with at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/ ... me-changes

Heretic wrote:

roid wrote:

Avder wrote:Go take your anti-crazy pills.

how about you go **** yourself

Wow a vascular structure in an anal canal telling some one to go **** themselves.

*sigh*
ROIDs (my nick) are performance enhancing drugs that boost your speed for a short time in Duke3D.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Roid, you failed to see what I was getting at. We are being forced to change our way of life for these immigrants as to not upset there religious views but if the tides were turned, we'd be told to go fly a kite. My country is being change to a more "middle eastern" type.

Forced? How are we being forced to do anything?
What's stopping you personally from saying Merry Christmas to passersby?

If some people are exercising their free will and choosing to change their own habits to suit their environment, that's their business. Maybe they welcome the exotic, want to live more inclusive lives, and feel that saying "happy holidays" may vaguely help pull into their lives these new people and their cultures? Maybe they will even buy a fetching fez.
Point being there are many reasons for being culturally inclusive, in most people's behavioral lexicon i imagine it's just part and parcel of "not being a dick" but i digress.

You're one single Canadian, not Canada itself.
If some of your fellow Canadians want to say Happy Holidays, who are you to stop them? WHY would you want to interfere with their lives and tell them what to do?


On the flipside: I participated in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, i have interests in sending a message that certain cultural practices (censorship and death threats) are NOT welcome in modern western society. Thus the topic in this thread is thus not completely foreign to me.


Actually the whole base premise of this thread is still a little too vague to me. Can someone give me their definition of what Political Correctness IS?

It seems a lot of you think it's "censorship". But it's a form of self-censorship if anything. As such typically it's rather appropriate: The polar opposite would be Tourette's Syndrome where people just shout out random hilariously inappropriate thoughts from their subconscious. I'm not going to call you a 'lardass faggot ★■◆● frosted-butt', but i feel comforted by the fact that i legally could if i wanted to. I apply self-censorship because i don't want to be a dick to other people (and i have control over my actions, unlike Tourette's people).

Then you get people like Huck Finn thing tunnelcat linked to, who are doing stupid things. What i'm curious about is just WHO is labeling this as "political correctness"? The publishing company? The media? Doesn't seem very correct to me at all.

This plays into Gooberman's point that the media may be shoving this Publisher's Goofup in your face and trying to define a term ("political correctness") around it. But to what purpose? Political Correctness hasn't really been defined in this thread yet, you're all being too vague about what it is and why it's stupid. But maybe if you can define it, then we can figure out WHO (the media?) is trying to turn you against it, and WHY.

tunnelcat wrote:...

As for the white supremacist mention, they DO have racist ideals and many of them were bringing their guns as a second amendment show to many of those rallies against Obama and his policies.

Wow, you are bouncing all around.
On this particular point you raise...who is the "they"?
It appears you are talking about my reference to "those people who protest Obama's policy' and how you and many on the left have repeatedly tried to dismiss them as merely racially motivated. Well, you just did it agin in your explanation! Yes, some people who came out to some rallies were gun toting second ammendment types who took the opportunity to use the shock value of carrying a weapon visably and legally in their state...
And, yes, in some cases at some rallies there were racially motivated posters being waved..
But MOST of the people at ALL of the rallies were not of those wacko fringe element. So when you try to dismiss the VAST MAJORITY of those who protest Obama's policy as being racists you are full of ★■◆●.

When was the last time you saw a bunch of lefties bring their guns to some rally, displayed them prominently and NOT get arrested by police? They may have, but I've never seen it and I wouldn't defend it either.

When was the last time you thoughtfully considered the substance of the 99% of the protesters message who didn't bring a gun or make a racist comment and stayed on topic instead of bringing up the fringe element when the context of the debate we are having is about the policy and the validity of the protest against it and none of us raised any kind of racial component?

You are guilty of launching into a tirade against your own strawmen almost everytime you say anything!

And again these rallies and the exaggerated racial component have diddly squat to do with the topic or even the example I raised! The fact that the media and the lefties selectively excuse the same behavior they admonish as politically incorrect from the right was the point. Not the behavior itself.

roid wrote:Actually the whole base premise of this thread is still a little too vague to me. Can someone give me their definition of what Political Correctness IS?

... Political Correctness hasn't really been defined in this thread yet...

You're echoing my thoughts exactly.

Lots of points made in here, and honestly most of them are legitimate, at least from their own perspective on what PC is.

roid wrote:It seems a lot of you think it's "censorship".

I think a better description for the popular conservative definition of PC would be "conspiracy to censor via social/media pressure". Using that definition, they actually have a point. There is definitely a tendency by many groups to use PC as a "cry foul"/"Hey, you can't say that!" defense (or at times, attack) mechanism.

What PC should be (and what I think most liberal folk use as a definition) is a common social contract to encourage people to dialogue with respect, avoid fallacious or tangential arguments, avoid provocational language, etc.

If this thread hasn't already failed, I think there needs to be a good definition of PC going forward.

PC as defined by the people that are against it…(me)

Censorship
Forced social change.
Excuses for bad behavior.
Deflection of criticism.
False politeness.

And more…

So if you doubt PC is running amuck, the following is a prime example of it doing so:

(EW.com) -- What is a word worth? According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's seminal novel \"Adventures of Huckleberry Finn\" will remove all instances of the N-word -- I'll give you a hint, it's not nonesuch -- present in the text and replace it with slave.\"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/n ... index.html

So now ★■◆● Jim will be called Slave Jim? I didn't realize it was kosher to rewrite classic novels.

Why not just change it to…nigga?

woodchip wrote:So if you doubt PC is running amuck, the following is a prime example of it doing so:

(EW.com) -- What is a word worth? According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's seminal novel "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the N-word -- I'll give you a hint, it's not nonesuch -- present in the text and replace it with slave."

So don't buy the book if you don't like it. Leave nonsense like that to the ignorant and culturally void.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:So if you doubt PC is running amuck, the following is a prime example of it doing so:

(EW.com) -- What is a word worth? According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's seminal novel "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the N-word -- I'll give you a hint, it's not nonesuch -- present in the text and replace it with slave."

So don't buy the book if you don't like it. Leave nonsense like that to the ignorant and culturally void.

I think the attitude you have, to let the "culturally void" censor our icons, isn't a good way to deal with it. I'd like my grandchildren to be able to read Mark Twain's work as Twain intended it to be read, just the way he wrote it, without some weenie editing the content in his attempt at forced social engineering!
surely you can come up with a better solution and if it was some lefty complaining about...oh...maybe the Texas School Board altering text you probably wouldn't be so cavalier about it would you

woodchip wrote:So now ★■◆● Jim will be called Slave Jim? I didn't realize it was kosher to rewrite classic novels.

SO!!! how do we know Jim was a slave??? maybe he was a free black man and they are denegrating him by calling him a slave.




p.s. it's been 40 years since I've rear Huck Finn, maybe he was a slave in the book

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:So if you doubt PC is running amuck, the following is a prime example of it doing so:

(EW.com) -- What is a word worth? According to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's seminal novel "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the N-word -- I'll give you a hint, it's not nonesuch -- present in the text and replace it with slave."

So don't buy the book if you don't like it. Leave nonsense like that to the ignorant and culturally void.

So we should just ignore what is going on and let the voided and ignorants run the show?

No, just let the free market do its job. If you want the edition with the n-word, then buy that one. If you want the edition without it, then buy that one. If you want to be greeted with \"happy holidays,\" then shop at those places. If you want to be greeted with \"merry christmas,\" then shop at those places. Put your money where your mouth is.

Jeff250 wrote:No, just let the free market do its job. If you want the edition with the n-word, then buy that one. If you want the edition without it, then buy that one. If you want to be greeted with "happy holidays," then shop at those places. If you want to be greeted with "merry christmas," then shop at those places. Put your money where your mouth is.

How many different publishers print the book? Usually a book is owned by a single publishing house...
How many libraries and schools will get their book from which publisher?
Which begs the question: How many new readers will not have a choice and be force fed the censored version?

Will Robinson wrote:Which begs the question: How many new readers will not have a choice and be force fed the censored version?

Well...

Political Correctness is nothing but normal human social and group dynamics.
It can go wrong when normal human social and group dynamics problems come up, like Groupthink and it's inherent problems.
But generally it's a pretty good intutive way of ensuring high quality and robustness in human groups. For example, \"You're an idiot, get out\" is a good way of excluding idiots and crazy people from certain social discourses, these people who would otherwise disrupt goings on when you're trying to discuss things. \"Not now jimmy, the adults are talking.\"

You can't just put all of the problems of human group interaction into a bag, write \"Political Correctness\" on it, and then try to use it as a sacrificial scapegoat to hide from the problems inherent in human interaction.

To me, Political Correctness is just being a Gentleman.

I mean lets take Kayne West's whole \"George Bush doesn't like black people\" thing as an example, remember that? Kayne was ostrisized for what he did, everybody laughed at him, and he made the rest of the anti-Bush people cringe coz he made them look horrible. He revealed himself to be an idiot, a loose cannon, and people didn't want him on their TV shows anymore. GOOD! Get that riff-raff outta here, so we can talk about serious things.
I don't see what's wrong with this.

If someone wants to get onto the TV and shout niggerniggerniggerniggernigger constantly, i can see how there would be legitamite reasons to stop him. One reason to stop him would be because you - as the TV station owner - have other shows competing for the same TV slot. The niggerniggerniggerniggernigger show will have to make room for the higher quality show. Is this censorship, or is it just a refined taste for quality?
Keep in mind, it would probably be the ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL STAFF at the TV station who want to get rid of the N.N.N.N.N. show. These people do have standards you know, and they want something good on their TV station.

I'm going to be rather frank here.
It's not censorship, it's basic quality control. I honestly think a lot of the conservative people are excluded from the media halls simply because they are low quality, and i think this low quality is a direct consequence of the fact that social conservatism is a highly ethically flawed system and thus is attracts vast swaths of people who are neither interesting, funny, intelligent, nor ethically sound. Don't see too many funny right-wing comedians. Lots of smart liberals on the stage though, hmmm.
I honestly think this is the top reason that so many social conservatives percieve a liberal media bias. But it's not a political bias, it's just a quality person bias.

Will Robinson wrote:Which begs the question: How many new readers will not have a choice and be force fed the censored version?

None... books that old are in the public domain. It's how someone was able to make and publish the modifications in the first place.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Which begs the question: How many new readers will not have a choice and be force fed the censored version?

None... books that old are in the public domain. It's how someone was able to make and publish the modifications in the first place.

The problem Jeff, is all the libraries and all the book stores that sell new books will only have the redacted version. Schools of course will burn their old racist version and get the more proper version. So at the end of 5 years, the only place you will find the original version is a used book store and how many people even go to a used book store? In 50 years no one will remember how the original version was written.

roid wrote:



I'm going to be rather frank here.
It's not censorship, it's basic quality control. I honestly think a lot of the conservative people are excluded from the media halls simply because they are low quality, and i think this low quality is a direct consequence of the fact that social conservatism is a highly ethically flawed system and thus is attracts vast swaths of people who are neither interesting, funny, intelligent, nor ethically sound. Don't see too many funny right-wing comedians. Lots of smart liberals on the stage though, hmmm.
I honestly think this is the top reason that so many social conservatives percieve a liberal media bias. But it's not a political bias, it's just a quality person bias.

Let me be equally frank. Roid, this is about the poorest logic set I've read in many a long year.

@roid: Woodchip is right, there was no call for taking a shot like that. You could have made your point without getting person-al. [Hey, wait a minute... am I applying PC pressure here? ]

woodchip wrote:

roid wrote:



I'm going to be rather frank here.
It's not censorship, it's basic quality control. I honestly think a lot of the conservative people are excluded from the media halls simply because they are low quality, and i think this low quality is a direct consequence of the fact that social conservatism is a highly ethically flawed system and thus is attracts vast swaths of people who are neither interesting, funny, intelligent, nor ethically sound. Don't see too many funny right-wing comedians. Lots of smart liberals on the stage though, hmmm.
I honestly think this is the top reason that so many social conservatives percieve a liberal media bias. But it's not a political bias, it's just a quality person bias.

Let me be equally frank. Roid, this is about the poorest logic set I've read in many a long year.

Roid????? Poor Logic????? say it aint so.

I wouldn't classify that as poor logic. I would say its just down right stupid.

woodchip wrote:...all the libraries and all the book stores that sell new books will only have the redacted version. Schools of course will burn their old racist version and get the more proper version.

How did you come by such a low opinion of librarians, bookstore owners, and literature educators?

If anything, those people will be the ones who make sure that the original survives as it should.

Hell, the fact that so many people are up in arms about it... I would be surprised if the redacted version sells enough to keep it on the shelves for any significant length of time.

Foil wrote:

woodchip wrote:...all the libraries and all the book stores that sell new books will only have the redacted version. Schools of course will burn their old racist version and get the more proper version.

How did you come by such a low opinion of librarians, bookstore owners, and literature educators?

If anything, those people will be the ones who make sure that the original survives as it should.

Sounds like the ol' slippery slope fallacy to me.

minmay wrote:

Neo wrote:Not being politically correct oneself is a great idea, but not a solution.

A solution to what problem?

The problem is a lot of foolish people saying stupid things because they're pretending to be considerate, and people trying to force their ideals on others (and using their position of authority within a company or government agency whenever possible).

null wrote:So don't buy the book if you don't like it. Leave nonsense like that to the ignorant and culturally void.

Let's face it, mate, Huckleberry Finn and other useless literature is for the ignorant and void. This is why people are forced to waste time reading it in school. Then when they get out, the common folk get to lie to themselves about how they're so high and mighty and "cultured." Books like these are nothing but vulgar filth. I'm sure the author loved dropping the N-Bomb™ on black people, and I'm sure a good amount of the faculty & administration get a kick out of doing it too.

Burlyman wrote:Let's face it, mate, Huckleberry Finn and other useless literature is for the ignorant and void. This is why people are forced to waste time reading it in school. Then when they get out, the common folk get to lie to themselves about how they're so high and mighty and "cultured." Books like these are nothing but vulgar filth. I'm sure the author loved dropping the N-Bomb™ on black people, and I'm sure a good amount of the faculty & administration get a kick out of doing it too.

not sure if serious

woodchip wrote:The problem Jeff, is all the libraries and all the book stores that sell new books will only have the redacted version. Schools of course will burn their old racist version and get the more proper version. So at the end of 5 years, the only place you will find the original version is a used book store and how many people even go to a used book store? In 50 years no one will remember how the original version was written.

Do you have any evidence of popular bookstores starting to only sell the redacted version? All I can see is strong evidence to the contrary. Bookstores sell books that sell.

Foil wrote:How did you come by such a low opinion of librarians, bookstore owners, and literature educators?

But yet still such a high opinion of used bookstore owners?

Woodchip wrote:

roid wrote:I'm going to be rather frank here.
It's not censorship, it's basic quality control. I honestly think a lot of the conservative people are excluded from the media halls simply because they are low quality, and i think this low quality is a direct consequence of the fact that social conservatism is a highly ethically flawed system and thus is attracts vast swaths of people who are neither interesting, funny, intelligent, nor ethically sound. Don't see too many funny right-wing comedians. Lots of smart liberals on the stage though, hmmm.
I honestly think this is the top reason that so many social conservatives percieve a liberal media bias. But it's not a political bias, it's just a quality person bias.

Foil wrote:@roid: Woodchip is right, there was no call for taking a shot like that. You could have made your point without getting person-al. [Hey, wait a minute... am I applying PC pressure here? ]

I await anyone to show me some quality Social Conservative comedians.
I've got enough generalised ideological abuse from these people. From 'Athiests are criminals', to 'homosexuals should be executed' and everything inbetween. So now i'm going to tell these ppl the hard truth for once and see how they like the taste.
Indeed for me to do anything else would be disgustingly PC, and they hate that.

What's wrong guys? Having PC withdrawals?

i stand by my original statements about Social Conservatives, and await...

Change the term “poor quality conservative” to “poor quality minority” and then use any other industry where said group is under-represented…

Your logic is flawed as usual…wait that’s not even logic…it’s bigotry.

Careful there, You're almost admitting that PC and Open Biggotry are antonyms of eachother.


(ps: conservatives are NOT a minority.)

roid wrote:
I await anyone to show me some quality Social Conservative comedians.
i stand by my original statements about Social Conservatives, and await...

So your perception of what is quality is based on....comedians? Seriously Roid, you need to take a deep breath and ask yourself, "Are these famous comedians actually writing the material or are they like Obama...great at reading a teleprompter?" Do you know the political affiliations of the writers themselves? No? You fail then.
Lets put your quality, edgy liberal type under a real microscope and look at how they will take a tragedy and turn it into political gamesmanship. Now there is REAL comedy. Of a sorts.

This is a silly notion to begin with…first off, I know of some funny conservative comedians…second, maybe conservatives prefer different occupations. (assuming no liberal bias)

Next, he will be saying there are no quality conservative artists.

Then abortion doctors. Damn why are there no conservative Christian abortion doctors…lack of quality…right.

BS is BS

woodchip wrote:

roid wrote:
I await anyone to show me some quality Social Conservative comedians.
i stand by my original statements about Social Conservatives, and await...

So your perception of what is quality is based on....comedians?

Yes Woodchip, i am saying that my perception on what is a quality comedian is based on the quality of said comedians.
*Takes a deep breath*
*gives a big sigh*

Woodchip wrote:Seriously Roid, you need to take a deep breath and ask yourself, "Are these famous comedians actually writing the material or are they like Obama...great at reading a teleprompter?" Do you know the political affiliations of the writers themselves? No? You fail then.
Lets put your quality, edgy liberal type under a real microscope and look at how they will take a tragedy and turn it into political gamesmanship. Now there is REAL comedy. Of a sorts.

I was actually talking about comedians who write their own material, specifically i'm talking about standup comedy. But if you want to expand the search for good social-conservative comedians into those who pool their resources, go right ahead, i'd like to hear some of them too! Although it may be hard to asertain who is actually funny in that circumstance, i would consider the writer to be the owner of the funny and unfortunately they may not be properly publicly credited.

And yes, i'm still waiting for names.

Spidey i'm still waiting for names.

I find that comedians are funny base on my perception of what makes good comedy. So your lack of perception that a conservative can be funny is just that your perception.

Your Name is HERE

What would be the point of giving names, you would simply say those people aren’t funny.

But just for Ho Hos…

Dennis Miller
Ben Stern
Bill Cosby
Evan Sayet
Jeff Foxworthy…and crew

There are plenty more, but most of the more conservative leaning comedians lay low so they can keep their jobs.

Don't ask...don't tell.

I'd like to think, after hearing his Pledge of Allegiance video and how he'd end his show with \"God Bles\", that Red Skelton was also on the conservative side. Arguably one could say he was one of the best stand up comedians.
Also from what I've ben able to gather, Drew Carey was also conservative.