• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Americans Strongly Dislike Political Correctness Culture

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Commodus said:
This is why I said people who gripe particularly loudly. You're not! I'm talking about the sky-is-falling people who believe that political correctness has ruined the country, or who proudly boast about being "incorrect." (Despite his show title, I don't think Bill Maher is all that adamant about it.) I'm talking about GG supporters who think "SJWs" are a horrendous threat to society, or the "I'm totally not a sexist, but all feminists are bad" types.

There is a careful balance to walk. It's just that the people who are especially vocal in opposing the trend are often the reason that trend exists.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I'd agree with that. Anyone that really thinks being PC or SJWs are one of the biggest problems in the country probably are just assholes.
 
My opinion BTW is that "political correctioness," as the term is most commonly used, occurs when a person is confronted about something they said that they cannot then justify within the confines of then-acceptable societal norms.
It's basically used as a term for being called out for being outside of what is considered to acceptable social behavior at that time. And who likes that? No one, of course.
Now, REAL political correctness is when such 'acceptable behavior' is directed by political authority figures. For example, when Trump attacked the kneeling NFL players by falsely accusing of disrespecting the military, that was actual political correctness.
But if you say something stupid and disrespectful in public and someone else calls you a nasty name for it, or if you write a ridiculous memo discussing at great length about how half your co-workers were somehow born incompetent for their jobs and your private sector employer shitcans you for it, that isn't political correctness. It's consequences.
 
Exterous said:
It was defined for them in a series of questions. The link is in the article. There was a general question but then it digs down a bit more on certain topics and breaks it down a bit more between 'in America' and 'when I'm with people like me'
Click to expand...

I Ctrl+F'd the PDF and didn't find a single definition of political correctness. Respondents were asked whether they believed P.C. was a problem, and they responded (is how it reads to me, without reading every single page of a 160 page report).
 
Last edited:
IMO there are two definitions of political correctness.

The first definition is the older one, and is about how politicians should frame their wording to be as compatible as possible with everyone while being careful to avoid saying what their actual opinion is. In this scenario, a racist motherfucker of a politician can get away with sounding perfectly reasonable even though their opinions and intentions are not.

The second definition is the most commonly intended one these days: To civilised people who believe in treating human beings with respect, it's merely a code of conduct to be considered civilised, and to uncivilised people it's an ever-increasing list of things that they feel they can't say any more because then other people will say mean things about them (aka. "I want people to treat me with civility even when I'm not being civil myself").

So while I'm fine with an unwritten code of conduct (which unfortunately gets regularly added to as uncivilised people think of newer, shittier things to say about people), I'm absolutely not fine with a bluffer's guide for cowardly weasels who should be outed for their shitty opinions and judged for what they really believe.
 
Jhhnn said:
That's bullshit-

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21
Click to expand...

The FBI can only report on what is given to them. My comment was on the BJS and how it stopped reporting on interracial crime in 2008.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimag...ched-a-white-supremacist-meme/comment-page-1/

"The BJS seems to have stopped releasing this form of the report, with Table 42, maybe because of this kind of problem, which would be great. In that case they just need to put out a statement clarifying and correcting the old reports – which they should still do, because they are out there."

It was a known thing that the BJS stopped reporting on it and that type of thing lead to some of what we see today.
 
Vic said:
My opinion BTW is that "political correctioness," as the term is most commonly used, occurs when a person is confronted about something they said that they cannot then justify within the confines of then-acceptable societal norms.
It's basically used as a term for being called out for being outside of what is considered to acceptable social behavior at that time. And who likes that? No one, of course.
Now, REAL political correctness is when such 'acceptable behavior' is directed by political authority figures. For example, when Trump attacked the kneeling NFL players by falsely accusing of disrespecting the military, that was actual political correctness.
But if you say something stupid and disrespectful in public and someone else calls you a nasty name for it, or if you write a ridiculous memo discussing at great length about how half your co-workers were somehow born incompetent for their jobs and your private sector employer shitcans you for it, that isn't political correctness. It's consequences.
Click to expand...

Would it be disrespectful to say that group x commits higher rates of crime because of policies of the state are influencing culture and individuals as to limit their success which drives them to commit crime?
 
realibrad said:
The FBI can only report on what is given to them. My comment was on the BJS and how it stopped reporting on interracial crime in 2008.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimag...ched-a-white-supremacist-meme/comment-page-1/

"The BJS seems to have stopped releasing this form of the report, with Table 42, maybe because of this kind of problem, which would be great. In that case they just need to put out a statement clarifying and correcting the old reports – which they should still do, because they are out there."

It was a known thing that the BJS stopped reporting on it and that type of thing lead to some of what we see today.
Click to expand...

More obfuscational bullshit. From your original post, #33-

So, what you see is things like the FBI no longer collecting crime statistics by race.
Click to expand...

You were obviously mistaken, as my link shows. Conservatives often have trouble owing up to such things. It apparently threatens your belief system.
 
Jhhnn said:
More obfuscational bullshit. From your original post, #33-



You were obviously mistaken, as my link shows. Conservatives often have trouble owing up to such things. It apparently threatens your belief system.
Click to expand...

Then I mispoke, I meant to say the BJS. Its something that has been brought up on this forum before.
 
Political correctness, in the context we are talking about it, only has any power because a large number of people agree with it. If someone gets fired from their job for being racist, it is because a large number of people don't like racists and don't want to do business with them. This is not censorship. This is not repression. This is how free speech is supposed to work. You have the right to say something unpopular, and I have the right to not like you for it.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Political correctness, in the context we are talking about it, only has any power because a large number of people agree with it. If someone gets fired from their job for being racist, it is because a large number of people don't like racists and don't want to do business with them. This is not censorship. This is not repression. This is how free speech is supposed to work. You have the right to say something unpopular, and I have the right to not like you for it.
Click to expand...

If its a person being fired for being racist because people do not want to work with a racist, then I'm okay with that. If its a person being called racist because people have shifted to an extreme, then I have a problem with the extreme. I think I'm still okay with the firing because to give the government more power in that realm seems like a bad idea.
 
realibrad said:
Would it be disrespectful to say that group x commits higher rates of crime because of policies of the state are influencing culture and individuals as to limit their success which drives them to commit crime?
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion. But then only because you added that because. Most times when I see some SJW/PC outage over some "group x commits higher rates of crime" connent, there isn't any because. Or the because is "because <insert hated political party here>, "because the group x community," or "because group x culture," and not the because you provided.
Of course, those same people will read my post and say, "because personal responsibility," because they don't accept the fact that government treats different groups of people differently.
 
Vic said:
Not in my opinion. But then only because you added that because. Most times when I see some SJW/PC outage over some "group x commits higher rates of crime" connent, there isn't any because. Or the because is "because <insert hated political party here>, "because the group x community," or "because group x culture," and not the because you provided.
Of course, those same people will read my post and say, "because personal responsibility," because they don't accept the fact that government treats different groups of people differently.
Click to expand...

Well then be careful, as you just agreed with the very thing that got someone an infraction on this forum.

Should you now be shamed for a stealth racist comment?
 
SMOGZINN said:
Political correctness, in the context we are talking about it, only has any power because a large number of people agree with it. If someone gets fired from their job for being racist, it is because a large number of people don't like racists and don't want to do business with them. This is not censorship. This is not repression. This is how free speech is supposed to work. You have the right to say something unpopular, and I have the right to not like you for it.
Click to expand...
Correct. This is voluntary association, which is protected by the 1st amendment. When you see someone say that you can't fire/disagree with/boycott/refuse to do business with/etc someone because of what they said (and the alt-right says that a lot), that person is the one who is against free speech.
People have every right, as part of their free speech, to express a dissenting opinion about another person's speech, or to disassociate themselves from another person because of their speech.
Free speech is a 2 way street.
 
realibrad said:
Well then be careful, as you just agreed with the very thing that got someone an infraction on this forum.

Should you now be shamed for a stealth racist comment?
Click to expand...

So persecuted. There are tears in my eyes as big as horseturds, I'm tellin' ya.
 
realibrad said:
If its a person being fired for being racist because people do not want to work with a racist, then I'm okay with that. If its a person being called racist because people have shifted to an extreme, then I have a problem with the extreme. I think I'm still okay with the firing because to give the government more power in that realm seems like a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Society's views change over time. If people in general have shifted to an extreme then that extreme is the new normal. Being anti-slavery was extreme at one time.
 
Vic said:
Correct. This is voluntary association, which is protected by the 1st amendment. When you see someone say that you can't fire/disagree with/boycott/refuse to do business with/etc someone because of what they said (and the alt-right says that a lot), that person is the one who is against free speech.
People have every right, as part of their free speech, to express a dissenting opinion about another person's speech, or to disassociate themselves from another person because of their speech.
Free speech is a 2 way street.
Click to expand...

Yeh, well, fuck you. Cuz you're the real fascist. /s
 
realibrad said:
Well then be careful, as you just agreed with the very thing that got someone an infraction on this forum.

Should you now be shamed for a stealth racist comment?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're misconstruing this somehow, or taking it out of context, because the discussion of how some groups of people are more likely to be victimized by institutionalized racism is an SJW favorite.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Society's views change over time. If people in general have shifted to an extreme then that extreme is the new normal. Being anti-slavery was extreme at one time.
Click to expand...

There was a point in society were Blacks were not seen as inherent slaves, and helped fight in the Revolutionary War. Then, society shifted. That shift was to an extreme, and became the new normal.

So what is your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top