Political Correctness; Hurting or Helping?

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Sadly, you're right. We're raising a whole generation of people who can't stand to have their delicate feelings hurt by someone saying something they don't like, and who are OK with silencing people who say things they don't agree with.

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it"?

The only hurt feelings I'm seeing are from the "PC police are out to get us real Americans" crowd.

 

[MongGrel]

The only hurt feelings I'm seeing are the "PC police are out to get us real Americans" crowd.

Not really.

They thrive on that crap.

 

[Cozarkian]

I have noticed that usually it is white men and sometimes white women who have to the most trouble with "PC". Usually they complain the loudest about PC when they feel social pressure to not say/write racist, bigoted, and xenophobic statements.

So, is it helpful or harmful that bigots, xenophobe, and racists are discouraged?

In the context of PC, it is harmful. Discouraging people from revealing they are racists does nothing to discourage them from being racists or raising racist children.

It's like putting a bandage on a dirty wound. It covers the bleeding but it isn't going to prevent an infection.

 

[CZroe]

I have noticed that usually it is white men and sometimes white women who have to the most trouble with "PC". Usually they complain the loudest about PC when they feel social pressure to not say/write racist, bigoted, and xenophobic statements.



So, is it helpful or harmful that bigots, xenophobe, and racists are discouraged?

Shame people into falling in line with your BS by insinuating racism? Good job, douche!

 

[Newell Steamer]

Hurting.

And, it's a real life test of how you just can't control speech. Or, how it just makes things worse.

 

[werepossum]

I ignored you over there now you 'thread-bleed' to attack me over here, mature. I never know how to respond to comments like that. Whenever I talk about my desire to see more background checks for prospective gun owners I have garnered similar comments. Do you think that changed my opinion? As they say, "For every opinion..." Just think of me as that. Don't you know not to engage people like that?

You know me as a liberal and this is from a scholar at a liberal think tank. When we put up sanctions against countries we always seem to end up in some kind of war, hot or cold. I just believe there was no excuse to fry tens of thousands of innocent Japanese. If another country or group doesn't like what we're doing, do they have a right to kill our civilians? What do we call that? I believe we set a horrible precedent and now fear reigns for countries who have or may get such monstrous technology.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

Yeah, "the U.S. is always right" has led and will only lead to more hot water. We most often make the bed we end up lying in.

This to me is the most bizarre argument about World War II - that we had some moral imperative to support Japan invading other nations because Japan needed what those nations had.

 

[cubby1223]

This to me is the most bizarre argument about World War II - that we had some moral imperative to support Japan invading other nations because Japan needed what those nations had.

Hahaha! I didn't even read the link. That's actually unbelievably sad someone thinks like that and wanted to publish it out to the world.

The Rape of Nanking occurred in 1937 where Japan killed estimated up to 300,000 Chinese citizens, civilians, women, children, and they perpetrated this attack using the raw materials we were selling to them. And that was just one of the many horrendous autocracies Japan committed prior to the U.S. cutting off our exports to them.


This is the key of the whole article right here:

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese

The article's entire basis is the U.S. entered World War II solely because Roosevelt was racist against the Germans and the Japanese. How do people come across this stuff? And why do people believe others will support these beliefs?

For fucks sake, he makes sure to suggest Roosevelt unfairly disliked Adolf Hitler. ADOLF HITLER!!!! UNFAIRLY DISLIKED!!!! Quite arguably the most evil man in recorded history... unfairly dislike... we elected a president who didn't like Adolf Hitler and that's what drove him to force our way into war. (If we had elected a President who was not anti-Adolf, we wouldn't have gone to war derp)

I would classify it as borderline white-supremacist propaganda. But that's just me. I know of no other group who would ever take the subject of Adolf Hitler so causally.


I guess that's "The Power of Independent Thinking"

 

[Venix]

This to me is the most bizarre argument about World War II - that we had some moral imperative to support Japan invading other nations because Japan needed what those nations had.

Like cubby1223, I didn't initially bother to read the link because it was unrelated to bradly1101's absurd claim that the Japanese military was honorable and only attacked military targets, but this comment piqued my interest.

I'm actually already familiar with this particular bit of idiocy. The article is based on the work of Harry Elmer Barnes--a Hitler apologist, virulent anti-Semite, and Holocaust denier--and Robert Stinnett--an amateur historian wannabe whose laughably terrible book about Pearl Harbor is riddled with errors and fabrications. Unsurprisingly, the resulting article is nothing more than a bizarre conspiracy theory roundly rejected by mainstream historians.

Now I'm wondering whether bradly is an insane conspiracy theorist, or just ignorant and gullible.

[Also LOL at calling the Independent Institute a "liberal think tank." Hint: The article's author is a self-professed libertarian anarchist.]

 

[cubby1223]

I want to see the good in others, and the only thing I can think is maybe it was an exercise in critical thinking to argue an alternate point of view, you don't have to believe that alternate point of view, but you have to construct a well-sounding argument for it. I could see that being the case with that example.

I don't know. But if a single student leaves a school system actually believing the U.S. were the terrorists in WWII, not the Japanese or the Germans, then that school system failed. And yes, we need to call a time out here and correct this.

 

[Sulaco]

Like cubby1223, I didn't initially bother to read the link because it was unrelated to bradly1101's absurd claim that the Japanese military was honorable and only attacked military targets, but this comment piqued my interest.

I'm actually already familiar with this particular bit of idiocy. The article is based on the work of Harry Elmer Barnes--a Hitler apologist, virulent anti-Semite, and Holocaust denier--and Robert Stinnett--an amateur historian wannabe whose laughably terrible book about Pearl Harbor is riddled with errors and fabrications. Unsurprisingly, the resulting article is nothing more than a bizarre conspiracy theory roundly rejected by mainstream historians.

Now I'm wondering whether bradly is an insane conspiracy theorist, or just ignorant and gullible.

[Also LOL at calling the Independent Institute a "liberal think tank." Hint: The article's author is a self-professed libertarian anarchist.]

There's no mystery here. bradly's posting history leaves little room for doubt. He's a disingenuous, ignorant fool of the highest (lowest?) order.

There's no understanding or appreciation for history; he's arrived at an emotional conclusion that fits his narrow-minded contrarian view of "US bad...causes bad problems! US stop being bad!", and works backwards from there to ferret out the slivers of "evidence" from at best controversial, and worst thoroughly discredited and disputed sources.

I've found in my time of debating and studying and researching this topic at length, almost universally those who debate this topic against US actions in WWII or excusing axis atrocities do so out of either a contrarian mindset (trolling), a fascination or admiration for axis militarism (usually Stormfront types), or most commonly, the bradly types: ignorant of history and context, but they'll be damned if that let's them get in the way of their emotional outrage.

I had this debate a few days ago with Welshy in OT. His 'argument' was essentially, "There's no way to justify them bombs! You killed civilians!"
When it was pointed out to him that the other alternatives, bombing & blockade, or conventional invasion, would have cost many more Japanese civilian lives, not to mention the highest allied casualties in the war, he had no response. None. All three times he avoided the facts, and clung to his head-in-the-sand faux outrage. He'd happily debate those who made contrary emotional arguments or unrelated generalizations. But would avoid the hard facts and numbers like the plague. He simply had no response.
bradly has essentially done the same, but with even more outrageously ignorant and borderline offensive falsehoods dribbling from his mouth.

I do think it's always important to debate the bradly and Welshbloke types. Not to try and change their minds or expect them to suddenly educate themselves, but for the quiet lurkers and genuinely curious who are ignorant, but not stupid, and haven't really formed an opinion yet. Who (sadly) glean much of their opinions from internet comments and message boards. It's for situations like that I think it's important to call out truly dishonest lies and prevarications from bradly and fools like him.

 

[boomerang]

Lord Trump criticized political correctness to explain his disparaging comments toward women, as if name calling is the opposite of being PC. Name calling is the opposite of being an adult. But his comment got a lot of applause, and I've seen some anti-PC stuff here. But if his recent "Megan Kelly blood remark" was really about women's issues, then he found true political incorrectness.

But I think the most hated form of political correctness is the phrase, "happy holidays," as if it's an intended insult toward Christians. But what do you say to someone who say isn't wearing a cross on their neck and could be celebrating Hanukkah, Mawlid an-Nabī, Uposatha, or...? Isn't "happy holidays" just easier and more inclusive? Why do people think it's anti-Christian?

And what is the alternative to political correctness? Do I start calling my partner "four eyes?" Does the n-word come back?

PC reflects adult respect in my eyes. Political incorrectness began in the schoolyard and that's where it should stay IMO.

If your therapy group isn't gettin' it for you, find another one. You're whacked out and bouncing around from one thing to another, each of which is tinged with an unhealthy dose of emo.

Trump, then Christmas then eyeglass wearers then racism. Soon afterwards you're back on the atomic bomb shit.

Anonymous posting on an Internet forum isn't going to help you.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The correct answer is to simply not be offended when someone says "Merry Christmas!" and you're not a Christian. Understand that some people are Christian and this holiday gained popularity as a Christian holiday.

"Happy Chinese New Year!"
"WHAT?! I'm not Chinese! I'm offended!"

:thumbsup:

I agree 100%. I'm not a Christian but if someone says "Merry Christmas" to me, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I tell people "Merry Christmas" because it is a traditional greeting during the holidays.

Maybe I should be "offended" when candidates get up on stage and drone on about their religious convictions -- nah, I'm not a thin-skinned baby.

Not sure if it's true, but I just saw a headline from a TV station saying Target was getting rid of gender-labeled boys/girls/men/women sections due to customer complaints.

Yes, I saw that headline too. I personally think it is silly, but Target is a private business and can do whatever they want. It won't make me more or less prone to shop there if they have something I need.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes they kept to a code.

Why don't you ask folks in China, Korea, and southeast Asia about Japan's code? Why don't you talk to people in the Philipines about Japan's code? Why don't you talk to the tens of thousands (possibly as high as hundreds of thousands) of women from China, Korea, and the Philipines who were forced into sexual slavery as "comfort women" for the Japanese armed forces about just how honorable Japan's code was?

Were these people "military targets"?

They could have bombed Honolulu or possibly one of our west coast cities, but they didn't.

They tried to attack the west coast on numerous occasions, as others pointed out. IIRC, there was at least one case when one of their balloon bombs actually killed someone in Oregon.

 

[bradly1101]

Wow almost 90%! Before seeing this poll I had little faith in people like Trump succeeding in the political sphere, but now I know why he does. I was trying to understand this. Thank you for your input and enlightenment.

 

[cubby1223]

Wow almost 90%! Before seeing this poll I had little faith in people like Trump succeeding in the political sphere, but now I know why he does. I was trying to understand this. Thank you for your input and enlightenment.

There are two main ways to interpret the results:
(A) Trump succeeds because of his political incorrectness.
(B) Trump is not disqualified from succeeding because of his political incorrectness.

Those are very distinctively different items. I just ask one thing - please get to know other people in greater depth before forming an ultimate judgment.

 

[Venix]

I do think it's always important to debate the bradly and Welshbloke types. Not to try and change their minds or expect them to suddenly educate themselves, but for the quiet lurkers and genuinely curious who are ignorant, but not stupid, and haven't really formed an opinion yet. Who (sadly) glean much of their opinions from internet comments and message boards. It's for situations like that I think it's important to call out truly dishonest lies and prevarications from bradly and fools like him.

Yep. bradly's inane ramblings are usually nonsensical enough that no one could mistake them for a cogent thought, but they're dangerous on the rare occasion that he successfully masquerades as a functioning adult. Someone unfamiliar with World War 2 history could easily be misled by his defamation of Japanese war crime victims.

Of course, I don't expect bradly to educate himself or to be honest and honorable enough to admit his mistakes. He still hasn't rescinded his claim that Japan never attacked civilians, and he slinked away like a gutless coward when the Hitler apologist roots of his hilariously stupid Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory were exposed. Pathetic.

 

[Exophase]

Wow almost 90%! Before seeing this poll I had little faith in people like Trump succeeding in the political sphere, but now I know why he does. I was trying to understand this. Thank you for your input and enlightenment.

You can't seriously think that this is an issue that divides where support for someone like Trump begins.

A lot of people that normally vote democrat and a lot of people who support Bernie Sanders are also tired of this.

PC isn't about being respectful, it's about going on witch hunts for anyone whom you deem racist, sexist, etc. Many people are perfectly respectful but that doesn't mean they support the social castigation of annyone who slips up.

 

[shady28]

Yes they kept to a code. They could have bombed Honolulu or possibly one of our west coast cities, but they didn't.

The "trainwreck of a thread" got tedious. I guess I really hit a nerve because the insults came flying (it's the Internet, eh?). When people have intelligent, adult things to say I can respond, otherwise isn't it just so much noise? I'm surprised I'm not on 'ignore' more often if I can affect someone's mood so. Or do people like "trainwrecks?" Or is it that some people are as thin-skinned as Trump?

I think you're missing the point most people are making.

You don't know the history of what the Japanese did. If you do, then the name calling is justified.

This particular event is well documented. Mostly by the Japanese, who appear to have seen nothing wrong with what they were doing.

So stopping them, quickly, seems like a priority.

So here, let me show you .... (btw, if you think the pictures are gross, I left the really bad ones out b/c I might get whacked by a mod.. might anyway..

The Nanking Massacre or Nanjing Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking or Rape of Nanjing, was an episode during the Second Sino-Japanese War of mass murder and mass rape by Japanese troops against the residents of Nanjing (then spelled Nanking), then capital of the Republic of China. The massacre occurred over six weeks starting December 13, 1937, the day that the Japanese captured Nanjing.

"While the extent of Prince Asaka's responsibility for the massacre remains a matter of debate, the ultimate sanction for the massacre and the crimes committed during the invasion of China were issued in Emperor Hirohito's ratification of the Japanese army's proposition to remove the constraints of international law on the treatment of Chinese prisoners on August 5, 1937.[41]"

"Since most Japanese military records on the killings were kept secret or destroyed shortly after the surrender of Japan in 1945, historians have not been able to accurately estimate the death toll of the massacre. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated in 1948 that over 200,000 Chinese were killed in the incident.[11] China's official estimate is more than 300,000 dead based on the evaluation of the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal in 1947. "

"In 1937, the Osaka Mainichi Shimbun and its sister newspaper, the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, covered a "contest" between two Japanese officers, Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda of the Japanese 16th Division. The two men were described as vying to be the first to kill 100 people with a sword before the capture of Nanking. From Jurong to Tangshan (two cities in Jiangshu Province, China), Mukai had killed 89 people while Noda had killed 78 people. The contest continued because neither had killed 100 people. "


"The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated that, in a addition to infants and the elderly, 20,000 women were raped.[47] A large portion of these rapes were systematized in a process in which soldiers would go from door to door, searching for girls, with many women being captured and gang raped.[48] The women were often killed immediately after being raped, often through explicit mutilation[49] or by pentetrating vaginas with bayonets, long sticks of bamboo, or other objects. Young children were not exempt from these atrocities and were cut open to allow Japanese soldiers to rape them.[50]"


This is what it looks like :

Prisoners being buried alive.

Beheading a Chinese POW :

Chinese prisoners used for bayonet practice :

http://world.time.com/2012/12/13/th...to/using-live-prisoners-for-bayonet-practice/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

 

[Aikouka]

I agree 100%. I'm not a Christian but if someone says "Merry Christmas" to me, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I tell people "Merry Christmas" because it is a traditional greeting during the holidays.

I think that's because Christmas, regardless of its name, has become far more of a secular holiday. In other words, you don't have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas; however, you don't exactly see many non-Jewish folk celebrating Chanukah.

Yes, I saw that headline too. I personally think it is silly, but Target is a private business and can do whatever they want. It won't make me more or less prone to shop there if they have something I need.

I wonder if it comes down to parents being unhappy that their children end up shopping in "the wrong section", and they don't want them to be labeled that way. I'm sorry, madam, but when little Johnny is wearing the same purple cat sweater as little Susie, he's gonna get teased.

 

[bradly1101]

Why don't you ask folks in China, Korea, and southeast Asia about Japan's code? Why don't you talk to people in the Philipines about Japan's code? Why don't you talk to the tens of thousands (possibly as high as hundreds of thousands) of women from China, Korea, and the Philipines who were forced into sexual slavery as "comfort women" for the Japanese armed forces about just how honorable Japan's code was?

Were these people "military targets"?



They tried to attack the west coast on numerous occasions, as others pointed out. IIRC, there was at least one case when one of their balloon bombs actually killed someone in Oregon.

Well if one dead civilian, a 'surprise' attack on a military base, and aggression in the region including abuse of women deserves a gruesome death for well over a hundred thousand civilians, why haven't we done it again? Those circumstances and even a big attack on our civilians have presented themselves more than once since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Why haven't we repeated that behavior? Because it was horrific. Those innocent people watched flesh burning from their bodies, then their eyes melted, plunging them in darkness as the end searingly came in what must have been one of the worst ways to die. Our goal was to inflict fear as much as pain. We say, "We had no choice but to use the bomb." If they can take away our choice then they won something we may always regret.

It can never happen again, we know that now (and I believe we knew that then) and work hard to keep these weapons away from some perceived enemies; those we fear. But how much fear has the 'nuclear club' caused others? In that we got what we wanted.

It can never happen again and I believe it never should have happened. That's where we differ, and that's OK.

 

[MongGrel]

There are many things that occurred in China by the Japanese prior to WWII, why the Flying Tigers and the AVG were basically hired by the Chinese as merc pilots even before WWII started.

Some of the things they did were just so stupid China still hates Japan in many ways with a vengance.

Was the same with the Germans in the Spanish Civil War. The even had Russians help them at the time while developing and testing weapons there prior to WWII. Go read some Hemingway.

The Soviet Purges were probably even worse than either.

 

[MongGrel]

On a side note, someone said we'd never have something close to the Great Depression ever again.

It came pretty close.

 

[Indus]

On a side note, someone said we'd never have something close to the Great Depression ever again.

It came pretty close.

We do seem to get pretty close to that every election because of "de-regulation".

 

[MtnMan]

We only get to choose between good and bad?

How about PC is bull shit?

 

[Ichinisan]

I think that's because Christmas, regardless of its name, has become far more of a secular holiday. In other words, you don't have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas; however, you don't exactly see many non-Jewish folk celebrating Chanukah.

Imagine if Chanukah became a widespread holiday before Christmas existed as a holiday. Then, Chanukah was eventually celebrated by secular people and they came up with their own traditions based around it (the "Cahnuka chipmunk"). Then, other religions came up with their own holidays like Christmas and Kwanza, deliberately choosing to celebrate them during the time of year when Jewish and some secular people are celebrating Chanukah.

Then, some guy thinks he's morally superior because he refuses to reference the holiday's religious roots and condemns people who do. Then, people start getting offended when you say "Happy Chanukah!" to them.

There's simply point in being offended. Just say "Happy Chanukah!" right back to them.