Political Correctness

You mean like changing Humpy Dumpty's lyrics to
"All the king's horses and all the king's men,
made Humpty happy again~"?
That really irks me. I would like to hear the reasoning behind it...

Sounds like you were pretty sheltered, so...
The guy in question, though, sounds anything but sheltered.

 

When I worked with the Salvation Army during the annual Red Kettle drive, there were a few people that said "I'm Jewish, but thank you" so I also wished them a Happy Hanukkah, even though it's not my belief, it's just courteous to do so when someone does. Of course, there were a few "bah humbug" type scumbags who complained like the jerks they were because I was doing my job, wishing a Merry Christmas because that's the belief of the Salvation Army and that was the key part of the job. It doesn't mean we can't say Happy Hanukkah if someone identifies themselves as Jewish when you greet them. Political correctness has no place in this world. There is just being courteous ("Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Holidays!" etc, whichever feels more natural to you and being just genuinely nice in the greeting), and then there's just being a complete ass ("I'm offended by that greeting. You have to say _____."). People who have a problem with "Christmas" seem to be excessively ignorant and have no idea that it's not exclusively a Christian holiday. It was a pagan holiday, adopted and revised (over time) by Catholicism, then further adopted by corporations as a marketing holiday for "Father Christmas," "Santa Claus" or "Saint Nick/Nicholas." The word "Christmas" is not exclusive to Christianity and people who still get offended by the word "Christmas" just needs a good slap upside the back of their head (the "Gibbs" slap from NCIS). It just pisses me off of how butthurt people get over the word "Christmas" and people like that just need to grow the hell up and stop being crybabies over a word.

What I am glad for though, is that Christmas is not celebrated in the traditional way that the Romans did when it was called Saturnalia or something, a holiday for the Roman god Saturn. A festival of lawlessness, where crimes were ignored for a period of time and all of it would then be pinned on one person, the "Lord of Misrule" chosen by the Romans as "the enemy of the Roman people" to start off the festival, then beaten to death on Christmas (December 25th, naturally). Can you imagine the chaos that would result if that continued on into this day and age? The amount of cleanup that would require when the celebrations are over? The idea of enduring a Christian-based celebration on December 25th just got a whole lot better now, didn't it? To those who want "political correctness" and push their agenda to be rid of "Christmas," just be glad a Christian-based celebration became more popular and that's the only "offensive" religious-based celebration you have to endure. It could have been a whole lot worse.

 

Heh, heh.
Gibbs slap. I must say, Christmas sounds better than the Purge.

I will have to work on my debate skills. That right there was the sort of error I try not to do, and I did it.


I wonder if "political politeness" would be the same thing as "political correctness", provided the former term were real.

 

I knew you were going to say that. Yes, that is true, but this is the same culture of PC people that speak on behalf of everyone else. Good example is when Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn went to the UN to speak on behalf of all women. No one elected them to be the spokes people of all women everywhere. No one did, and yet they went to the UN when there were PLENTY of other, more qualified women in congress (which they are not a part of congress) who have yet to get to go to the UN to speak. Is that fair?

Like it or not, this is no longer about being polite. It's about being "right" (as people like Quinn and Sarkeesian have made perfectly clear). This isn't politness, it's agenda pushing. Like I said, part of growing up is learning how to get over hurt and heartache. We live in a culture that tells us that we don't have to get over things, and you do. You have to learn to get over things. Yes, it's different for people, but you CAN get over something painful. You didn't mention about the guy getting death threats in the post I made. Does that mean you condone that the guy was fearing for his life? I don't think you do.

But it was like I said. This guy was getting threats from people in the name of being polite. The youtuber, and I'll just say his name so I can stop saying the word youtuber since I hate that word, Jim Sterling when he made that video, was he being polite? Is that political correctness? To make a video, take the piss out of the guy, and then just go "he's getting death threats? Oh, okay". Does that make is right? Is that 'treating people with respect'?

The dev of Hatred and the dev of Tranny Gladitor are two very different people and two different cases. The guy who made Hatred just wanted to make a game that would case a problem with people and that would get his game more well known. The dev of Tranny Gladiator has gone on the record of saying he didn't know that the word was offensive. Which of the two devs got death threats? Which is the two devs did PC's attack? They are both very, very politically uncorrect games.

So my question this time? When does it stop being about political correctness and about agenda pushing?

 

So, before I reply, two things:

There's no need to be snide. I think we're both adults and there's no need for that.

Hyperbole aside, I did address that. I know my last post was huge. But go back and read it again. And try to come correct before making statements like that.

Now, on with the show..

Perfectly fair, in fact. If anything it's great that they got to speak at the UN and even more people from various minorities should be given the opportunity.

Their professional background is irrelevant. Why? Because society doesn't have an issue with women in Congress. It doesn't have a problem with female YT personalities. It simply has a problem with women.

And when a woman, such as she, speaks on the experiences of women they are speaking from their own experience. And it's very important that she be allowed to speak from her own experience. Why? Because you can't elect one woman to represent all women. Because while there are many similar factors, there are as many experiences and varieties of issues as there females.

An election is not only wholly impractical (yes I know, this was hyperbolic), but it ignores the fact that this isn't a technical problem not a political problem, this is a human problem, a social problem.

So good on them for speaking and good on the UN for allowing them to. The response shouldn't be "why THOSE women?" but "why not MORE women?".

We don't live in a society that tries to teach all of the special little snowflakes that they can just just cling to grudges over whatever wrongs them.

No. But we do, and should, live in a society that teaches that everyone has the right to feel safe, to be free from bigotry and discrimination. By virtue of simply existing. No one has the right to treat anyone that way. And that needs to be made clear.

That's what this is about. And anyone who rails against that isn't combatting some sinister "SJW" PC agenda. No, rather, they are the ones pushing their own agenda of "I should be allowed to be a dick and go unchallenged." And actively combat basic human decency.

So, let's go back to what you write at the begging of your post. You started by taking issue with my statement, but then went off on a tangent, a tangent that I've already addressed.

So, then. What issue do you actually have with my statement? So, if a bi person asks to be referred to as bi, rather than gay, you would advocate for telling them to shove it? They don't get a say in how they're addressed or identified?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the message I'm getting.

So, there's a few things here. First of all, I hate that term as well.

Secondly, no one who issues death threats is doing so in the name of human decency and civility. That's like how the Westboro Baptist Church claims to represent the "love" of God. Or how ISIS claims to represent Islam. Christians and Muslims, respectively, do not feel that those groups represent them. Why? Because extremists are not representative of the groups they claim to be a part of.

I've said this before I this thread, but the vocal minority tends to be the most visible. Extremists claim many things, but how often do their actions match their words? And then when you really speak to them, how often do they truly believe what they claim to? Almost never.

Some objectivity is needed, here.

Next up, Jim Sterling and his "politeness." You know, The Daily Show had a go at a senator who tried to deny global warming with a snow ball. I recall an in-law of mine getting fairly upset over that. How dare Jon Stewart satirize something so ludicrous? Me response then was "man denies global warming with a snowball, probably shouldn't make fun of him." And my response, now, is similar. I've seen the trailer. And it's pretty hard not to feel like this slur was not merely an accident. And their behavior since has only furthered that notion.

So, is there something wrong with taking the piss out of something that seems truly disingenuous and cynical? Well, if you spend enough time on the Internet, the answer should be obvious. You can't politely correct or educate those who go out of their way to slurs and be offensive. Because they don't give a damn.

So, no. I say take the piss all night long. Because things aren't so cut and dry. There's a lot more nuance to world. And one must bear this in mind when determining when such behavior is and isn't appropriate.

And finally, I've said this, but read my last post again. Because I did, in fact, address death threats.

So, briefly, yes the dev of "Tranny Gladiator" has gone on record as saying as much. But they have engaged in other activity that had called the sincerity of that into question. (I would like to supplement this with examples, but I have a lot going on at the moment. So, forgive me for not having time to dig those up.)

That's why it would make more sense to have a problem with them rather than Hatred. Because Hatred only existed to be cynical. Making it less offensive and more pedestrian.

I could devote another post, entirely, to this. But, for now, I'll just say that my previous posts have addressed much of this.

Agendas are very specific things. And most often said "agendas" have little basis in reality or are propagated by extremists on every side of any issue.

A good question to consider: is this promoting people being decent to each other in a non-hostile manner? Yeah? Then the only "agenda" therein is one to make people stop being arseholes.

 

So with this Tranny Gladiator game, was the only problem with it that got everyone upset was the use of the word "tranny"? If that were changed, then this game would be politically correct, right?

@BaconMan8910
You mentioned the term "world German" earlier. What exactly is that? I did a search and did not find anything useful to find out what that was. Initially, I thought you were using that as another word for "Nazi", hence my misunderstanding.

 

It was a joke. Your teacher mentioned using "ze." So I joked that he was trying to turn everyone in the world German.

 

Oh. I get it now. Boy, do I feel like a dunce for missing something that obvious.

EDIT
I think that would have sounded more like a French thing, actually.