Being politically correct

[ChrisinHove]

Very eloquently stated.

[awa54]

Point being, you don't need a re-education camp in the form of the mass-media and programs in elementary schools designed to work over the course of generations instead of a few weeks; in order to teach actual tolerance or even acceptance of minority groups.

how do we as a society shift away from being clannish (not talking kkk, but the "us" vs. "them" clannishness), without some sort of movement? I tend to agree that PC isn't an answer, but what is?

My idea for a solution would force us all to leave our small worldviews behind by requiring everyone to co-habitate or at least associate in depth with people from other countries and cultures, as well as those with different skin colors and sexual orientations... people with open minds would soon find that humans should be seen as the individuals they are, rather than viewed through the lens of their primary label.

I have had the good fortune to live a bit of that ideal, though not as much as I would like to have... I count as friends, or individuals I respect, people from all sorts of different labeled groups, I dislike individuals as well, but all because of who they are as individuals or the actions they have taken, not because of their primary label.

...just stupid idealism really, I know that humanity is unlikely to move past the current majority mindset any millenium soon

Actually no, that's not idealism.

No offense, but whenever someone comes up with a "solution" that involves forcing people to do something they plain don't want to..... Then you're throwing Democracy out the window. Along with having a couple of hired goons waiting for it to hit the pavement so it can be utterly stomped to death in case a tiny glimmer of it survives the landing.

In Orwell's "1984," there's a quote that is rather fitting. "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stomping down on a human face - forever."

That's the philosophy many liberals have. Though they never outwardly admit it. Here's the thing..... If someone wants to be a Hitler-lover. That's their right. If they're a Black man with a hatred of Whites, and secretly hopes that a race war does break out. That's their right. If they're a woman of any race with a hatred of men. Once again that's their right. They have a right to believe whatever they wish. As long as they don't cross that line into physical violence, you don't have a right to force them to change their beliefs (often called "creed") simply because you feel that YOUR way of thinking is the right one that everyone else should be forced to adopt. Honestly, that's what dictators and tyrants do. It's from that very mindset that re-education camps come into existence. That's the same mindset that causes late-night knocks on the door and people vanish. The next day, most neighbors know what took place. But they pretend that the individual never existed. They don't talk about "Good 'Ole Steve" anymore. Steve who? No clue who that is. Never heard of him.

Occasionally you get a dim-witted neighbor who goes around asking about Steve. But by the next day, even he knows it's time to play pretend..... or else. That's how it was in Communist Russia. Where my parents lived and I was born into. Dad got exiled because like many, he made the mistake of thinking the secret police wouldn't bother with him. He was just an average person. He told a neighbor, openly, that he felt the government could be doing a slightly better job taking care of the people than it had been doing. Neighbor turned him in, hoping to curry favor with the guys who knock. (Never works.) Dad got 15 years in prison. (An actual prison. Not the country clubs we have in America.) Torture a daily thing..... All to get him to change the way he thought. After 15 years of failing miserably to "change his mind," they exiled him and his family. (Only reason he didn't get a bullet to the skull is because someone found out he came from a large extended family that he loved.) So it was determined that it would be a better punishment to exile him instead of executing him.

If you truly want to change the way people think, if you want to alter their beliefs; anything having to do with forcing them is not going to work in the long run. Hitler tried it, failed miserably. Others have too. Plus, no matter how noble your intent might be; the method is just plain evil. No, the only way that works is education and an incredible amount of patience. (Most people lack that last part.) Take a look at the Women's movement. It took a horrendous number of decades to change the way men thought of women, and (more importantly) how women thought of themselves.

They are no longer limited to having jobs as school teachers, nurses, cooks, seamstress, or maids. Cooking, cleaning, laundry, or nurturing. For awhile, "progress" was thought of as allowing them to be secretaries. With education and peaceful protests, change did come. The early founders of the movement didn't live long enough to see it.

And that's the thing..... You have to be willing to sacrifice seeing the end result of your early labors so that your Great grand-children can grow up in a better world. You won't. Your children won't. Likely your grand-children won't either. But generations after them have a chance. Quite frankly, generations ago this level of patience was recognized as what was needed to effect long-term change that would actually last. But nowadays we live in a society where folks just want everything "NOW!"

"Sacrifice?" Sacrifice who? No clue who that is. Never heard of him. "Patience?" Patience who?.......

Education, peaceful protests, and patience. Along with the sacrifice of knowing that you yourself will never get to see the end result of your life-long legacy to change the way people think of the world around them and the way they think of themselves.

the idealism comes in where I foolishly believe that humans could realize that other humans are "us" not "the other" if they actually got to know them, rather than blindly accepting the dogma that the talking head of their choice spews.

the reason I used the term "force" is because too many of us are willing to stay inside of our shells and look no further than what is known and comfortable for what informs our way of being... left to their own devices how many people would go out and meet the person they fear/hate and find that some or even many who could have that same label are actually good people in their own way? Yes there are truly bad, amoral, greedy and even evil people out there, I have no illusion that violent criminals, terrorist leaders and political dictators are "just misunderstood" but some of them might have started out that way and could possibly have come to a different end with the right circumstances.


PS I'm not the guy who knocks and he's no friend of mine, nor is Hitler. and while I'm definitely liberal, I'm certainly not "liberals", so put your broad brush away for this discussion.

[The Mastiff]

oh, I have no illusion that idea could ever work (for so many reasons), but I still think that getting people to realize that there are great humans from the inner city and total wastes of skin from upstanding backgrounds etc. promotes a world view that can accept "the other" more readily as an equal or at least as an opponent with a potentially valid viewpoint.

IME, most of the true racists I've encountered were not the ones who were never able to meet or get to know other races. They were people who reacted badly to being picked on or even criminally assaulted or victimized by the people they then begin to hate. Some of them have had hellish lives and felt somehow impotent and not in control of their lives. It's similar to kids of parents that abuse badly them. Some overcome that and become better people while some become abusers themselves. In no way do I extend any excuses, merely point out the cause and effect in their minds. Their hate empowers them in their mind and allows them some illusion of control.

The only truly homogenous one race towns or villages I've encountered were in the north and parts of the midwest. There really aren't many places like that any more. People grow up surrounded by all types now and generations such as my sons know know nothing other than a PC enforced and approved school, sports, church, whatever. There are some churches that are mostly one race but that is a persons choice, not a forced construct.

I do agree that "Liberal" is used here in the US as it should not be. It's used interchangeably for "democrats", The DNC, and even the harder left aligned socialists/communists, and even neo-anarchists. This is incorrect and often confuses people especially from Europe.

Liberal = bad is one thing I try to steer away from. It's true that I feel, and "they" feel that socialism is incompatible with our traditional American values. Socialism is bad and always will be attempting to gain power in this country for the foreseeable future just as it has been for the past 70 or more years. It fails everywhere it goes at great human cost. More lives were lost due to socialism and it's offshoots in the 20th century than to both world wars. It destroys everything it touches eventually and always will.

Classic liberalism is not the same thing however. Some values American conservatism holds dear are classic liberal ideals. On the other hand much of the stuff the "liberals" here in the Democrat party demand are socialist values, not classic liberal. This causes a lot of confusion as well as lends to the tarnishing of the Liberal name here.

* NOTE: I haven't proofread this yet so if there are mistakes they may not be intentional. ...

[Notary Sojak]

Being politically incorrect (good) is not the same thing as being a rude jerk (bad). I won't criticize your religion, or lack of it, if you don't continuously make an issue of it. We can be friends even if you vote for the wrong people/party, but if you insist on making a lot of declarative statements about things I believe in, hold onto your socks. I have opinions and have an unusually large amount of facts at my disposal to back them up. I guarantee you will hear things that will hurt your feelings, and frustrate your ability to dominate the debate.

If you don't want your beliefs challenged, stick to talking about controversial topics with your book club friends.

[James Y]

Regarding All in the Family, I remember in an interview, Carroll O'Connor basically saying that Archie Bunker was a moron. That was actually the point of his character. It was actually showing how ignorant he was. But most people don't get it. The racist people thought he was great in upholding their values, and the other side were often PO'd without seeing the real picture.

I don't know what the majority of posters here are, but I'm certain most are white. I'm American of Asian descent. I actually think some racial/cultural jokes are funny, but there is a fine line. Some are meant to laugh with, but others are clearly meant to insult "the other". Keep in mind, even though there are white jokes, there are no equivalent slurs for white Europeans compared to those for non-white groups. I've actually heard white people who get all butthurt when they feel made fun of for being white, in jokes that are far less demeaning to them than, say, most of the Asian jokes that are told on a regular basis. Yet many of those very same butthurt people like to say they hate political correctness and should be able to say anything to/about anyone at any time. So free speech must be across the board, and not merely to suit one group's agenda or comfort zone. If you believe in dishing it out, then you should be able to take it as well.

And many of the more demeaning race jokes I've heard are told by non-white comedians. Or celebrity race rants on Twitter. For some reason they usually get a free pass if they're black.

Yes, I believe PC thought police has gone WAY too far. Don't say 'Christmas' because it might offend non-Christians. I no longer follow the Christian religion, yet I say Christmas. Because that's what it is!!

Kids shouldn't "win" for just taking part in sporting contests, but for winning. The truth is, all people are not equal at every THING. A lot of college kids today are having difficulties because all their lives they've been coddled; told they're superstars, they're great at everything. Then in the real world they find out it isn't true; they don't win an award just for showing up.

BTW, I don't personally care for 'liberalism' or 'conservatism'. I'm just myself, with my own experiences and world views.

Jim

[Mad Mac]

The "fine line" is in most cases the line that defines which side you are on. Here is an example.

One night on Johnny Carson, the late Joan Rivers quipped, "A woman could never be president. She would declare war every 28 days." And then followed it with her famous leveler, "Oh, grow up."

That got a great laugh, but Rivers can say that because she is a woman and the joke is self-deprecating about her own gender. However, if a man dared to say that, oh my goodness, the outrage, the wailing and gnashing of teeth. You get the picture.

Similarly, if any disadvantaged minority comedian leads off with some self-deprecating jokes and gains the audience's affection, he can then safely venture into jokes about the majority and those jokes will probably be accepted as well.

For that matter, a disadvantaged minority can start out with jokes about the majority and will usually get a free pass if there is a kernel of truth in the barb and it is indeed funny. But a majority member risks breaking through the thin ice of political correctness if he cracks wise about the "other," even if there is truth to it.

[Ankerson]

The "fine line" is in most cases the line that defines which side you are on. Here is an example.

One night on Johnny Carson, the late Joan Rivers quipped, "A woman could never be president. She would declare war every 28 days." And then followed it with her famous leveler, "Oh, grow up."

That got a great laugh, but Rivers can say that because she is a woman and the joke is self-deprecating about her own gender. However, if a man dared to say that, oh my goodness, the outrage, the wailing and gnashing of teeth. You get the picture.

Similarly, if any disadvantaged minority comedian leads off with some self-deprecating jokes and gains the audience's affection, he can then safely venture into jokes about the majority and those jokes will probably be accepted as well.

For that matter, a disadvantaged minority can start out with jokes about the majority and will usually get a free pass if there is a kernel of truth in the barb and it is indeed funny. But a majority member risks breaking through the thin ice of political correctness if he cracks wise about the "other," even if there is truth to it.

Or in short some look for things to be offended about so they can be offended especially in today's society.

Some seem to have the illusion or delusion of self importance and that it really matters what they think etc.

Being polite is however important, but there is a HUGE difference in being polite and being PC.

[awa54]

I think a possible reason for the anti-PC backlash on display here may have something to do with the slipping dominance of the white middle-American male (and/or the traditional US Christian nuclear family) in the everyday world of 2016 USA... When not everyone is taking your views as the accepted norm, then it becomes that much more important to be able to air those views without suppression.

Not that this hypothesis has any bearing on the fact that if done civilly and without incitement to misbehavior, *anyone* should be able to express their opinions freely.

As the various groups in this mix of different ethnic and religious traditions draw closer to parity in American society, it will be more and more important to find a way to actually discuss our differences, rather than just hurling insults back and forth across the battle lines.

[awa54]

Some seem to have the illusion or delusion of self importance and that it really matters what they think etc.

Obviously you believe that what you think is important, as do all of us with any sort of interest in the world around us, without that confidence in our own judgement how would we make important decisions in life? Not to mention, the implied disregard of everyone's opinion is rather belittling...

[Ankerson]

Some seem to have the illusion or delusion of self importance and that it really matters what they think etc.

Obviously you believe that what you think is important, as do all of us with any sort of interest in the world around us, without that confidence in our own judgement how would we make important decisions in life? Not to mention, the implied disregard of everyone's opinion is rather belittling...

Not really.

Outside of most peoples little boxes they live in it really doesn't matter to those 1% who actually make the choices of goes on in the World.

And none of what anyone thinks is going to matter in 100 years.

Just putting some reality into the topic.

There are quite a few people who do actually believe that the universe surrounds them, however they are delusional.

Humans have a very short life span speaking in general terms and looking at the big picture.

However all life on the Planet is short and not forever as it all does and will end.

That is why family and close friends are important.

I can remember how many time in my lifetime that some people would say something like....

Don't you know who I am? Like everyone should know who they are for some reason in their delusional mind they believe they are important.

My response would be Nope and is there a reason why I should or even care?

And that is in person.

[awa54]

I agree with the self importance thing and people going overboard on it, if someone says "do you know who I am?" I'm already certain I don't want to know that person. ...but there's a balance there, if you're not at all important to yourself, then why are you here?

We're less than microscopic particles in the universe, but what we believe influences what we do and even the tiny actions we take influence the world around us. So in the aggregate we *do* make a difference. That's not delusional, it's just frustratingly hard to measure.

[Ankerson]

I agree with the self importance thing and people going overboard on it, if someone says "do you know who I am?" I'm already certain I don't want to know that person. ...but there's a balance there, if you're not at all important to yourself, then why are you here?

We're less than microscopic particles in the universe, but what we believe influences what we do and even the tiny actions we take influence the world around us. So in the aggregate we *do* make a difference. That's not delusional, it's just frustratingly hard to measure.

Beyond loved ones and close friends nobody really cares in general. :D

Sure in terms of the Universe our planet and everything on it is not all that important looking at the big picture.

Since the Earth will be consumed by the Sun once it turns into a Red Giant the Earth itself and everything on it won't really matter in the end at all. So in the end everything that ever lived on Earth and everything anything has ever done will be gone.

Now yes I do believe people could have and do have something to contribute to Society, well as long as humans survive as a species.

I never really cared about celebrities either and still don't and likely never will.

Never was one to follow the crowd nor think like I should think based on the way Society needs people to think.

[Monocrom]

the idealism comes in where I foolishly believe that humans could realize that other humans are "us" not "the other" if they actually got to know them, rather than blindly accepting the dogma that the talking head of their choice spews.

the reason I used the term "force" is because too many of us are willing to stay inside of our shells and look no further than what is known and comfortable for what informs our way of being... left to their own devices how many people would go out and meet the person they fear/hate and find that some or even many who could have that same label are actually good people in their own way? Yes there are truly bad, amoral, greedy and even evil people out there, I have no illusion that violent criminals, terrorist leaders and political dictators are "just misunderstood" but some of them might have started out that way and could possibly have come to a different end with the right circumstances.


PS I'm not the guy who knocks and he's no friend of mine, nor is Hitler. and while I'm definitely liberal, I'm certainly not "liberals", so put your broad brush away for this discussion.

Unfortunately you either missed or chose to ignore the main points I brought up.

No, you're not the guy who knocks. He's amoral, highly intelligent. Usually to the point of knowing he clearly serves a moronic master. But he gets paid well. He lives in the lap of luxury in a part of the world suffering from major economic issues, crushing inflation, selective justice, and wide-ranging poverty of the masses. But he's like Satan.... Being in **** is a putrid existence. (Unless you're the one in charge.)

You'd be the idealist who either backs up that man, or (more likely) calls him up with the names of "misguided" individuals who would be much better citizens if their eyes and minds were open to the right way of thinking. That man who knocks would smile when meeting you. Would use his charm in convincing you that you're doing the right thing. Would make you feel good for that list of friends & neighbors you turned over to him.

You call it a wide brush. The sad truth is, it's a very narrow one. And I'll prove it right now.... Your type of idealism assumes that all people are basically good. That we're all basically the same deep down inside. That ideology and politics prevents us from seeing that on an individual basis. Problem is, that's your opinion. It's not an actual truth.

Since you ignored or didn't get the main points I brought up in my last post, here's something to think about..... What if you're wrong? History is actually full of examples of folks who got to know their neighbors of a completely different culture, yet; still slaughtered them anyway when they had the chance. Best example: The Armenian Genocide 100 years ago. Most folks don't know the details. I do. It was started by a man who was taken in by an Armenian family and was given very much needed help. When he came to power, he paid them back alright..... Sometimes, people get to truly know other cultures, and they STILL want to murder those who belong to those cultures.

That's a tough thing for any sort of liberal to wrap his head around. Once again, my brush is very narrow.

[JD Spydo]

I didn't even vote on this one because to me "political correctness" is truly an oxy moron that only the media fed, brainwashed could even begin to appreciate IMHO However I do appreciate Brother Tvenuto bringing up the subject for conversation because it is without a doubt a part of twisted social engineering project that trendsetters, marketing gurus and those who have professed themselves wise in their own eyes have perpetrated on society for nothing more than guilt motivation and divisive thinking IMO :rolleyes:

On Evil D's first post on page #1 he summed it up beautifly and very succinctly when he quoted the simple but wise "golden rule" that has worked perfectly when properly applied for centuries i.e. "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You" >> it just boils down to a simple concept we all know as "mutual respect">> which is a win-win situation almost 99% percent of the time when people just show each other simple respect.

I am a spiritual person and believe in GOD and the Bible but when it comes to the concept of "respect" a total athiest just using a little bit of common sense and wisdom can make that concept work in their lives just as well in most cases. That's why I believe this particular forum we all participate in has been such a great success over the years because we all have respect for each other most of the time even though we all have a diversity of opinions and to some extent blatant ( but not hostile) disagreements. We've never used "political correctness" here at Spyderville and we all have just simply treated each other with mutual respect and guess what??? It works!!

[awa54]

the idealism comes in where I foolishly believe that humans could realize that other humans are "us" not "the other" if they actually got to know them, rather than blindly accepting the dogma that the talking head of their choice spews.

the reason I used the term "force" is because too many of us are willing to stay inside of our shells and look no further than what is known and comfortable for what informs our way of being... left to their own devices how many people would go out and meet the person they fear/hate and find that some or even many who could have that same label are actually good people in their own way? Yes there are truly bad, amoral, greedy and even evil people out there, I have no illusion that violent criminals, terrorist leaders and political dictators are "just misunderstood" but some of them might have started out that way and could possibly have come to a different end with the right circumstances.


PS I'm not the guy who knocks and he's no friend of mine, nor is Hitler. and while I'm definitely liberal, I'm certainly not "liberals", so put your broad brush away for this discussion.

Unfortunately you either missed or chose to ignore the main points I brought up.

No, you're not the guy who knocks. He's amoral, highly intelligent. Usually to the point of knowing he clearly serves a moronic master. But he gets paid well. He lives in the lap of luxury in a part of the world suffering from major economic issues, crushing inflation, selective justice, and wide-ranging poverty of the masses. But he's like Satan.... Being in **** is a putrid existence. (Unless you're the one in charge.)

You'd be the idealist who either backs up that man, or (more likely) calls him up with the names of "misguided" individuals who would be much better citizens if their eyes and minds were open to the right way of thinking. That man who knocks would smile when meeting you. Would use his charm in convincing you that you're doing the right thing. Would make you feel good for that list of friends & neighbors you turned over to him.

You call it a wide brush. The sad truth is, it's a very narrow one. And I'll prove it right now.... Your type of idealism assumes that all people are basically good. That we're all basically the same deep down inside. That ideology and politics prevents us from seeing that on an individual basis. Problem is, that's your opinion. It's not an actual truth.

Since you ignored or didn't get the main points I brought up in my last post, here's something to think about..... What if you're wrong? History is actually full of examples of folks who got to know their neighbors of a completely different culture, yet; still slaughtered them anyway when they had the chance. Best example: The Armenian Genocide 100 years ago. Most folks don't know the details. I do. It was started by a man who was taken in by an Armenian family and was given very much needed help. When he came to power, he paid them back alright..... Sometimes, people get to truly know other cultures, and they STILL want to murder those who belong to those cultures.

That's a tough thing for any sort of liberal to wrap his head around. Once again, my brush is very narrow.

of course you are free to twist your (uninformed) opinion of my beliefs into a shape that supports your view, but the truth is that you have no idea who I am and that you are no more entitled to speak for me than I am to speak for you.

I think we can come to no accord in this venue, so I am done, and agree to disagree on many points.

[Monocrom]

Which ones? The ones you ignored? The ones that your beliefs wouldn't let you deal with? The ones that your beliefs said, "Make a post attacking his character since you can't find any good counter arguments to dispute his main points?" (Common debating tactic. Sadly, doesn't work if the other person is aware of it. Sorry.)

Okay, fair enough. You can pretend I have a hatred of liberals. (BTW, having been here for quite awhile, the other veteran members know that's not the case. I just tell it like it is, and don't apologize for doing so. I don't tow any party line. There's a topic here somewhere about minimum wages. If you saw my posts there, you'd think I was insanely liberal.) I think for myself. Based on life experience and a clear cut understanding of human nature.

Honestly, you were an open book. You made that clear when you posted early on how you want people to think the way you do, and how people should be forced to think the way you do. Your post. I didn't high-jack your account, I didn't type those words. You did. And the fact that you ignored the main points I brought up challenging your beliefs, along with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge a basic human right that all individuals have (namely, to be left alone to think and believe what they choose to believe without someone trying to "force" them into thinking the way he does; without forcing them into a right-think mentality), honestly it speaks volumes about your character.

I'm sure you'll continue to ignore this one point as well..... But all individuals have a basic human right to not be forced to change what they believe in. If a woman hates all men to the point she fantasizes about brutally murdering all of them, well; until her thoughts cross over into actions, she has every right in the world to feel that way. Tossing her into some sort of re-education program to love men is just as evil as the type of forced re-education program you came up with for expanding how people see others..... or for making them think the way you do.

Agree to disagree? Oh yeah, absolutely. I tried having an intelligent debate with you. But you chose to ignore every main point I brought up. Including the last one. Even though I provided a genuine real world example involving a genocide. Your powers of ignoring are indeed impressive. You decided to ignore an entire genocide simply because it didn't fit in with your ingrained liberal beliefs that all people are basically good and that we can all get along if we just tried..... Tried, and got tossed into a forced re-education program like the one you described.

What was that again about having no idea who you are? Honestly, you did a great job of telling us exactly what sort of individual you are.

P.S.-I know you said you were done. But here comes that knowledge of ingrained liberal ideology and that of human nature. Folks usually post that they're done, expecting the other person not to post. So that they get in the last word. (As if that somehow makes everything they said to be right.) Yeah, doesn't work that way. You were done. I wasn't. So now we have a situation where human nature and your particular set of beliefs start to clash. The former will insist that you absolutely have the last word. So it'll demand that you post another reply. But the latter wants you not to because it recognizes you have no intelligent rebuttal to any of the main points I brought up earlier. It told you to ignore them. Now it's telling you not to post again. Very difficult decision. Will be interesting to see which will win out.

I'm voting the former since the human ego is going to chime in on the side of human nature. And chime in quite loudly. Been my experience that human ego is a powerful thing. Also that it's easily manipulated. Have a good one. :)

[awa54]

Which ones? The ones you ignored? The ones that your beliefs wouldn't let you deal with? The ones that your beliefs said, "Make a post attacking his character since you can't find any good counter arguments to dispute his main points?" (Common debating tactic. Sadly, doesn't work if the other person is aware of it. Sorry.)

Okay, fair enough. You can pretend I have a hatred of liberals. (BTW, having been here for quite awhile, the other veteran members know that's not the case. I just tell it like it is, and don't apologize for doing so. I don't tow any party line. There's a topic here somewhere about minimum wages. If you saw my posts there, you'd think I was insanely liberal.) I think for myself. Based on life experience and a clear cut understanding of human nature.

Honestly, you were an open book. You made that clear when you posted early on how you want people to think the way you do, and how people should be forced to think the way you do. Your post. I didn't high-jack your account, I didn't type those words. You did. And the fact that you ignored the main points I brought up challenging your beliefs, along with the fact that you refuse to acknowledge a basic human right that all individuals have (namely, to be left alone to think and believe what they choose to believe without someone trying to "force" them into thinking the way he does; without forcing them into a right-think mentality), honestly it speaks volumes about your character.

I'm sure you'll continue to ignore this one point as well..... But all individuals have a basic human right to not be forced to change what they believe in. If a woman hates all men to the point she fantasizes about brutally murdering all of them, well; until her thoughts cross over into actions, she has every right in the world to feel that way. Tossing her into some sort of re-education program to love men is just as evil as the type of forced re-education program you came up with for expanding how people see others..... or for making them think the way you do.

Agree to disagree? Oh yeah, absolutely. I tried having an intelligent debate with you. But you chose to ignore every main point I brought up. Including the last one. Even though I provided a genuine real world example involving a genocide. Your powers of ignoring are indeed impressive. You decided to ignore an entire genocide simply because it didn't fit in with your ingrained liberal beliefs that all people are basically good and that we can all get along if we just tried..... Tried, and got tossed into a forced re-education program like the one you described.

What was that again about having no idea who you are? Honestly, you did a great job of telling us exactly what sort of individual you are.

P.S.-I know you said you were done. But here comes that knowledge of ingrained liberal ideology and that of human nature. Folks usually post that they're done, expecting the other person not to post. So that they get in the last word. (As if that somehow makes everything they said to be right.) Yeah, doesn't work that way. You were done. I wasn't. So now we have a situation where human nature and your particular set of beliefs start to clash. The former will insist that you absolutely have the last word. So it'll demand that you post another reply. But the latter wants you not to because it recognizes you have no intelligent rebuttal to any of the main points I brought up earlier. It told you to ignore them. Now it's telling you not to post again. Very difficult decision. Will be interesting to see which will win out.

I'm voting the former since the human ego is going to chime in on the side of human nature. And chime in quite loudly. Been my experience that human ego is a powerful thing. Also that it's easily manipulated. Have a good one. :)

you got me! guilty as charged on all counts :D

sadly you have told your story about who I am, but I still don't believe you...

what you have done here is take my intent, filter it through your own expectations and assert that your version is true. you are a skilled debater and I am not (at least not by the measure of the philosophical discipline), but your outrage seems to have found purchase in a place where nothing existed... my "forced reeducation camps" can never succeed, since actual thought control attempts don't work, giving individual humans reason to interact with "the other" however can *allow* those who are open to the concept to have an informed realization that good and bad humans come in all races and creeds, not as bulk packaged stereotypes. this sort of realization doesn't come with occasional or incidental interaction, but from weeks or months of sustained intimate association, this I know from personal experience. my (very hypothetical) proposal is a whistful "what if" thought experiment which I would never expect to be made real, not an evil liberal plan to round you up for reprogramming. my hope would be to give people the tools to see outside their own clan and understand that beyond that boundary there are other valid human beings, deserving of respect, after which they would be free to use that exposure to form whatever opinions they chose to, I have faith that more humans are inherently empathic and prone to get along than the opposite, so the potential would be to spread good will beyond the small confines of one's initial circumstance.

you can only "win" this debate in your own mind, I know what my internal meaning is, but you are either missing it, or are coming from a viewpoint so alien to mine that understanding is impossible, either way we have both said our piece and ought to move on, each secure in the knowledge that we persue our own convictions as autonomous individuals, as befits citizens in what is one of the freest governed countries in the world

sorry for the terrible punctuation and muddled composition, now I will sleep.

PS this reply is about not being misunderstood, and not having my post defined by another person's interpretation of my thoughts. I'm OK with Monocrom having the the last word (or winning his bet that I wouldn't rise to his final goading) and I'm totally OK with him not agreeing with anything I say, but his attempt to tell me what I really mean is where my big ego draws the line and has to assert its self.

[Monocrom]

Ah.... There we are. Now I'm done. And a certain forum member owes me a certain Spyderco in his collection. Honestly, he genuinely believed in you. Truth be told, I was secretly hoping I'd lose. I'm a Realist with Optimistic hopes and tendencies. The bet was made just a few hours ago. When it became very clear that you didn't want an honest exchange of ideas, and that my points bothered you to the point of ignoring them completely. Why be open-minded, when you can simply give lip-service to that supposed aspect of liberal ideals? I think that's the saddest part.

BTW, it would be disingenuous of me if I didn't mention that I didn't even read your last post above. I only noticed that you posted a reply to something I said. The child-like Optimist in me is hoping you decided to finally be open-minded. But I'd be willing to bet that the Realist came out on top again. Death, taxes, human nature, and the human ego..... Along with war, never changes. It's too bad, really. And I genuinely mean that. I can have an honest discussion with anyone. Except with someone who has to ignore dissenting opinions which are based on facts and reality, because they don't fit with his world view. Credit where it's due..... Never met someone who ignored an entire genocide. That's a first. Sorry, it's clear any further interaction would be a waste of time. I'll just put you on my Ignore list. Feel free to do the same with me if it makes you feel better.

[ChrisinHove]

Tutsis v Hutus, Rwanda, Sunni v Shia, Iraq, Christian v Muslim, Bosnia, Catholic v Protestant, Northern Ireland, Jew v Muslim, Israel/Palestine ... all have slaughtered each other as neighbours within the last quarter century: there can be no doubt that human nature is the biggest risk to peaceful existence to us all.

To me, political correctness is largely about not being overtly offensive to others: not a lot to ask, really, and nothing to do with thought control or the type of brainwashing the Communist states have traditionally excelled in. However, in a free society there is also the difficult area around both allowing complete freedom of speech, and dissuasion from espousing political poison that whips up such deadly neighbourly conflicts ...

As for Europe being "already lost" - naah!! There have been far bigger threats over the last century (mostly from ourselves, admittedly) which have come and gone. The biggest threat to our liberal* and libertarian societies is from over-reaction whipped up by media tycoons and scurrilous politicians. (*in the European context, of the political middle ground, not the US context of the political left).

[The Mastiff]

Tutsis v Hutus, Rwanda, Sunni v Shia, Iraq, Christian v Muslim, Bosnia, Catholic v Protestant, Northern Ireland, Jew v Muslim, Israel/Palestine ... all have slaughtered each other as neighbours within the last quarter century: there can be no doubt that human nature is the biggest risk to peaceful existence to us all.

To me, political correctness is largely about not being overtly offensive to others: not a lot to ask, really, and nothing to do with thought control or the type of brainwashing the Communist states have traditionally excelled in. However, in a free society there is also the difficult area around both allowing complete freedom of speech, and dissuasion from espousing political poison that whips up such deadly neighbourly conflicts ..

If this was all PC was about over here most of us would not complain. It's not even close though and is mostly just a tool for our political left to control the game from bottom to top. It would help if it was not selectively applied and not hypocritical but it is that as well. In the long term it's had the effect of unleashing a torrent of strong words and emotions in a push back to it's bully tactics. The imperfect humans wielding it's power and control have responded to that by doubling down on name calling and even stronger condemnation . The natural human response to demonization is greater tribalization, not lesser.

*Note*. I'm never above making up words when I need to if it serves a purpose. :)