Political Correctness Going Too Far?

[Fleetwood Mac]

4) Is it really "mad" not to want to upset folks? You might think the reaction is over zealous, or going too far, but what about the motive?

The problem there Tom is that 'upset' is relative and down to individual perspective and 'motive'....well....the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What you really have with political correctnes is tyranny of the majority or of those in positions of authority.

There have been countless well meaning people who have set out to do what they believed was the right thing (which is ill-conceived anyway as there are only differing perspectives) and turned into out-and-out lunatics...Robespierre/Lenin etc.....and they appealed to abstract notions such as equality and liberty just as the those promoting political correctness appeal to emotion and 'common deceny' (whatever that means).

And that is where it will inevitably end if we don't get a grip on this.....power corrupts etc.

You can't build laws around 'upsetting folks' as then you're in the realms of pandering to anyone purporting to be upset and then you'll have an ineffective legal system. All you can possibly do (assuming the aim is an objective resolution to individual disputes) is guard against physical actions to people and property as they are concrete and within the means of society to control on a basis that suits every individual (except the criminal). How on earth can you possibly have some concrete rules around 'upsetting folks' which ensure everyone knows where they stand and everyong knows when and where they have a right of appeal? How on earth could you possibly build a legal system intended to prevent 'upset'? Not practical and utterly petty and open to abuse by vested interests.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I remember hearing a Conservative radio host talking about Native Americans. He said that yes it is true that there land was taken from them as well as their language, customs and religion. And yes they were murdered and their women raped. But he concluded that in the end it worked out well for them because they are now American citizens. Hard to argue with that sort of logic.

c.d.

Ahh but CD...that's exactly the same kind of liberal interventionism......"they may not agree with us but they/'ll thanks us for it later".

Regulating what people can say is an invasion of individual sovereignty....waltzing into someone's country and displacing individuals/subverting their values is an invasion of individual sovereignty.

You can't have it both ways...or turn the argument on its head when it suits.

Either you argue against political correctness and against the logic that all was for the best with regard to native Americans....or you give the impression that you don't have political principles that you'll stand by....in other words...you simply follow the majority view when it suits.

[mariab]

I think that political correctness in official speech (as in the news, governmental policies, documents pertaining to college and school policies) should be de rigueur today. In private circumstances, common sense and decency is what saves situations from ridicule. I'm willing to bet that in about 30-50 years there will be a very different, more comfortable approach to race in America. Although I seriously wonder if there'll be any Native Americans left by then on American soil...

C.D. wrote:
I was watching a documentary on The Battle of the Little Big Horn, a.k.a. Custer's Last Stand on the History channel last night. They quoted General Phil Sheridan as saying that it was absurd to expect the U.S. to live up to any of the treaties that it had made with the Indians (oops, I mean Native Americans). Sheridan is also famous for saying that the only good Indian is a dead Indian.
Sheridan led Union cavalry during the Civil War and was considered a hero. His horse is in the Smithsonian's American History Museum.
Can you imagine if he had made those statements today?
C.D., I very much doubt that you're a fan of the TV series Buffy, the vampire slayer, but there's an episode called Pangs on its season 4 which addresses the exact same issues you discussed in your post (political correctness, racial extermination, Custer, recompense, casinos etc.) in the most humorous, clever, and cynical dialogue ever imagined. We were watching this episode late on Xmas Eve and my older American friends were not only impressed by the show's wordiness and in-your-face-ness, but laughing so hard, they almost spit their food out.

[Steven Russell]

I do agree that PC has its place. There is no point offending people when it can easily be avoided. For example, if black people object to the "n word", we should avoid it and use other terms which are not considered offensive. This seems the only decent thing to do.

What does get my goat though, is how society has programmed us all to RESPECT faith beliefs. Just because people have an invisible friend in the sky, we are meant to acknowledge that they deserve to have their opinions given weight and, worse, that their views on morality and acceptable behaviour are valid.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Robert]

I don't worry about other people's moralities, religions or politics. I decide my own.

[Hunter]

That's right Robert and the PC crowd don't think your intellegent enough to do so. Its funny to criticize religious people when the PC bunch dictates their own morality as gospel.

Political correctness has its own hypocracy.