Political Correctness; Hurting or Helping?

[Venix]

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

Nobody said or implied anything even remotely close to that. IndyColtsFan didn't even mention the atomic bombings. I will attempt to explain--probably in vain--yet again:

You claimed that Japan only attacked military targets. That is objectively false. Japan did not only attack military targets. Japan routinely and intentionally targeted civilians, and rivaled the Nazis in both brutality and death toll. Japan did not follow a "code of warfare." Proving that the United States also committed immoral acts would not magically make your false statement true. What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?

aggression in the region

I thought that you were just ignorant and dull, but you've been corrected so many times by so many people that your continual whitewashing of Japan's atrocities must be intentional. Disgusting.

 

[Sulaco]

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

THIS is why people don't like you, bradly. This is why you're the laughingstock and village idiot of this forum.

You're measurably dumber than most folks here, easily as dishonest and disingenuous as the worst of the lot, and stand fast in your disgusting ignorance, despite being clearly and concisely educated on the topics you're so ignorant of.

You're a dumbass, bradly. It's sad. But there's no "politically correct" way of saying it.

You will never outlive your disgustingly, shockingly stupid statement of, "The Japanese kept a code of conduct--and didn't attack civilians". That is on the level of saying, "At least the Nazis respected people of other religions and ethnicities"
It's so MONUMENTALLY incorrect, so easily disproved and disgustingly, borderline OFFENSIVELY ignorant it deserves nothing but all the acrimony and castigation you can have heaped on your ignorant, stupid ass.

Nobody has said the Bombs were justified for those reasons you've stated. Nobody has said Japanese civilians "deserved" the bombs. Those are dishonest, disingenuous Strawmen you've created, bradly.

What they have said, and what is simply inarguable and can be as effectively proven as almost anything in military history, is that (and this is where you need to pay attention, bradly) had the bombs NOT been dropped. And had a conventional end to the war been sought through invasion and conventional bombings, the COST TO JAPANESE CIVILIAN LIVES would have been many times HIGHER than by dropping the bombs
(Oh yes, and the minor little detail of saving in the neighborhood of 40,00-250,000 Allied soldiers lives. We know, you could care less about such trivialities, but people actually concerned with knowing what the hell they're talking about like to learn this stuff)

Full. Stop.

You're so painfully, uncomfortably ignorant of history, and this topic, that it feels like we're discussing this with a petulant child; doing their best to rebel and lash out at their parents or authority, but not having the slightest hint of an iota of an idea of what you're talking about.
You really have no excuse for that level of idiocy either. There are countless reputable, easily accessible articles, documentaries, and periodicals detailing this at your fingertips just clicks away. And yet you choose to sit here, day after day, doubling-down on your own stupidity but posting this garbage rather than learning anything.

 

[CZroe]

THIS is why people don't like you, bradly. This is why you're the laughingstock and village idiot of this forum.

You're measurably dumber than most folks here, easily as dishonest and disingenuous as the worst of the lot, and stand fast in your disgusting ignorance, despite being clearly and concisely educated on the topics you're so ignorant of.

You're a dumbass, bradly. It's sad. But there's no "politically correct" way of saying it.

You will never outlive your disgustingly, shockingly stupid statement of, "The Japanese kept a code of conduct--and didn't attack civilians". That is on the level of saying, "At least the Nazis respected people of other religions and ethnicities"
It's so MONUMENTALLY incorrect, so easily disproved and disgustingly, borderline OFFENSIVELY ignorant it deserves nothing but all the acrimony and castigation you can have heaped on your ignorant, stupid ass.

Nobody has said the Bombs were justified for those reasons you've stated. Nobody has said Japanese civilians "deserved" the bombs. Those are dishonest, disingenuous Strawmen you've created, bradly.

What they have said, and what is simply inarguable and can be as effectively proven as almost anything in military history, is that (and this is where you need to pay attention, bradly) had the bombs NOT been dropped. And had a conventional end to the war been sought through invasion and conventional bombings, the COST TO JAPANESE CIVILIAN LIVES would have been many times HIGHER than by dropping the bombs
(Oh yes, and the minor little detail of saving in the neighborhood of 40,00-250,000 Allied soldiers lives. We know, you could care less about such trivialities, but people actually concerned with knowing what the hell they're talking about like to learn this stuff)

Full. Stop.

You're so painfully, uncomfortably ignorant of history, and this topic, that it feels like we're discussing this with a petulant child; doing their best to rebel and lash out at their parents or authority, but not having the slightest hint of an iota of an idea of what you're talking about.
You really have no excuse for that level of idiocy either. There are countless reputable, easily accessible articles, documentaries, and periodicals detailing this at your fingertips just clicks away. And yet you choose to sit here, day after day, doubling-down on your own stupidity but posting this garbage rather than learning anything.

People want to be ashamed. It's why Howard Zin was so successful.

 

[werepossum]

I'm going to go counter current here and say I like Bradley. Nobody (especially myself) is rational about every single issue. We all have our buttons, our blind spots, our little pockets of insanity we only let out in safe company. Despite violently disagreeing with him here and indeed, on most things, he seems like a pretty nice fellow. In the end, that means a lot.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, I think perhaps the left is TRYING to jump the shark.

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

 

[shortylickens]

LOL, I think perhaps the left is TRYING to jump the shark.

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

You dumbass. THATS CLICKBAIT!

And you and about 800 other poor sods fell for it. Newsweek just made oodles of money off anyone without Adblock.

 

[PokerGuy]

LOL, I think perhaps the left is TRYING to jump the shark.

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

I'm old enough to remember when Newsweek was actually considered a valid source of news and had occasional interesting commentary. Now it's complete trash on the level of salon, dailycrap, huffpo etc, a couple of steps down from the national enquirer and TMZ. Wow, just wow.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

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.

I want you to reread what you wrote, remember the fact that we were in a complete and total WORLD WAR at the time, and then take the time to think about how incredibly stupid what you wrote is. We did NOT bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of these women or other civilian abuses. We bombed the cities in an attempt to bring about a quicker end to the war and to save lives in the process. It's so easy for armchair politicians/generals to sit and judge something that happened 70 years ago in a world incredibly different from today's world in almost every single way, while ignoring the massive amounts of lives that would've been lost had an invasion of Japan happened.

The women and civilian abuses were brought into this thread because *YOU* made the absolutely stupid comment that Japan followed a "code" when fighting, as if somehow they were honorable. Whatever "code" they may have followed was NOT honorable in the slightest. They killed more civilians in Nanking alone than both atomic bombings COMBINED.

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.

And experimenting on living, breathing human beings wasn't horrific? Forcing starving, dehydrated people to march through dense, humid jungle for dozens of miles wasn't horrific? Capturing downed airman in the sea, handcuffing them, and tying anchors to their legs and throwing them overboard wasn't horrific? There were millions of horrific deaths in WWII (and WWI) and regardless of how they died, the end result was the same - lives were lost. If an invasion of Japan happened, several hundred thousand (maybe even low millions) would've died or been permanently maimed. I'm terribly sorry those folks died and feel very bad about it as a human being, but I'll take 200,000-300,000 enemy deaths over several times that amount on BOTH SIDES any day. It is cold, cruel math for sure, but that is what our leaders had to do using the information they had at the time.

Has there been complete and total war since WWII that would necessitate such actions as the use of atomic weapons? Do we now have other weapons that can do the job better with less collateral damage? Do you even try to think and analyze or throw out any random crap and see what sticks to the wall?

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.

Really, that's where we differ? We differ on almost everything judging from your ridiculous attempts to glorify the Japanese and their behavior in WWII. You really are clueless.

It doesn't have to happen now or in the future. They did not have surgical strike capabilities in the 40s as we do now. We can hit individual buildings, cars, etc. whereas in the 40s, they couldn't dream of such precision.

 

[Attic]

I'm not the decider on this, but in my opinion yes if it offends. I've been to other countries and no one there told me to speak their language when I was talking to my mom and brother in english in public. That strictly seems like an American reaction, I didn't encounter foreigners who were so unkind. And I believe at the heart of political correctness is kindness.

So yes, very un-PC.

The heart of political correctness is Control. Not kindness.

PC tries to control what folks can or can't do and say without being ostracized by the establishment. PC destroys the truth, it enables fascism.

The hook in mouth placed by Politicians to lure the dumb people, is that PC is done out of some kind of "kindness" or other BS. The reason is that this technique allows the powerful rulers to control debate and and determine definitions on Their terms.


It is common sense that to offend or be offended is critical for a functioning free society. Truth can be offensive. PC tries to remove this lever in order to retain a corrupt status quo. Truth is very often an unpleasant thing, particularly in oppressed nations and where inequality and deceptions run rampant.

 

[BoberFett]

You dumbass. THATS CLICKBAIT!

And you and about 800 other poor sods fell for it. Newsweek just made oodles of money off anyone without Adblock.

What are you trying to say? That a national publication which purports to be a news source did not allow that to be published on their website?

 

[desy]

There is politically correct and boorish, crass, and glaringly ignorant.
The Donald has stepped over the line and its not even shades of grey

 

[shortylickens]

There is politically correct and boorish, crass, and glaringly ignorant.
The Donald has stepped over the line and its not even shades of grey

Oh yeah Donald is a piece of shit. He doesnt give a damn about fixing Political Correctness, he just wants to mouth off for attention. And sadly its working. Loads of people are giving him the attention he wants, whether they love him, hate him, or just wanna watch a show.

As an 80's kid, I actually miss the days of simple mud-slinging between running candidates. Now what we have is Jerry Springer for rich people, and the media calling it "Politics". Its so fucking sad I almost wanna cry.

 

[MongGrel]

LOL, I think perhaps the left is TRYING to jump the shark.

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

BoberFett does silly things.

Should be expected by now of course.

 

[Ichinisan]

A guy on the news the other day was arguing that "illegal alien" was offensive.

Tell me: What exactly is *different* between "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal alien?" What?! Why would one be less offensive Han the other? Are we trying to obfuscate the meaning?

10 years from now, we'll say "undocumented immigrant" is offensive. Then we'll come up with a new term. The cycle will go on forever...

 

[werepossum]

I want you to reread what you wrote, remember the fact that we were in a complete and total WORLD WAR at the time, and then take the time to think about how incredibly stupid what you wrote is. We did NOT bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of these women or other civilian abuses. We bombed the cities in an attempt to bring about a quicker end to the war and to save lives in the process. It's so easy for armchair politicians/generals to sit and judge something that happened 70 years ago in a world incredibly different from today's world in almost every single way, while ignoring the massive amounts of lives that would've been lost had an invasion of Japan happened.

The women and civilian abuses were brought into this thread because *YOU* made the absolutely stupid comment that Japan followed a "code" when fighting, as if somehow they were honorable. Whatever "code" they may have followed was NOT honorable in the slightest. They killed more civilians in Nanking alone than both atomic bombings COMBINED.

And experimenting on living, breathing human beings wasn't horrific? Forcing starving, dehydrated people to march through dense, humid jungle for dozens of miles wasn't horrific? Capturing downed airman in the sea, handcuffing them, and tying anchors to their legs and throwing them overboard wasn't horrific? There were millions of horrific deaths in WWII (and WWI) and regardless of how they died, the end result was the same - lives were lost. If an invasion of Japan happened, several hundred thousand (maybe even low millions) would've died or been permanently maimed. I'm terribly sorry those folks died and feel very bad about it as a human being, but I'll take 200,000-300,000 enemy deaths over several times that amount on BOTH SIDES any day. It is cold, cruel math for sure, but that is what our leaders had to do using the information they had at the time.

Has there been complete and total war since WWII that would necessitate such actions as the use of atomic weapons? Do we now have other weapons that can do the job better with less collateral damage? Do you even try to think and analyze or throw out any random crap and see what sticks to the wall?

Really, that's where we differ? We differ on almost everything judging from your ridiculous attempts to glorify the Japanese and their behavior in WWII. You really are clueless.

It doesn't have to happen now or in the future. They did not have surgical strike capabilities in the 40s as we do now. We can hit individual buildings, cars, etc. whereas in the 40s, they couldn't dream of such precision.

Well said.

The heart of political correctness is Control. Not kindness.

PC tries to control what folks can or can't do and say without being ostracized by the establishment. PC destroys the truth, it enables fascism.

The hook in mouth placed by Politicians to lure the dumb people, is that PC is done out of some kind of "kindness" or other BS. The reason is that this technique allows the powerful rulers to control debate and and determine definitions on Their terms.


It is common sense that to offend or be offended is critical for a functioning free society. Truth can be offensive. PC tries to remove this lever in order to retain a corrupt status quo. Truth is very often an unpleasant thing, particularly in oppressed nations and where inequality and deceptions run rampant.

This, exactly, and well said.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think the fact that we as a society tend to quickly condemn racism and bigotry these days where we didn't before is a good thing. That good thing is counter balanced by the fact that it is sometimes taken too far into hyper-sensitivity to certain words and phrases. For example, Jerry Seinfeld's comments about not wanting to perform stand up comedy on college campuses I think had some merit. However, on balance, I prefer what we have now to what we had 60 years ago.

It's also worth mentioning that the left hasn't cornered the market on political correctness. Anyone remember the repubs voting to rename the French fries in the Congressional cafeteria to "freedom fries" because it wasn't acceptable to call them French fries since the French were against our disastrous Iraq war? Or more generally, their tendency to label as treasonous any criticism of an ongoing war (only if under a repub administration, of course; under a dem, even a minor engagement in Libya is fair game).

PC "policing" isn't really censorship either, even though it's labeled as that by the right. But then, many on the right notoriously misunderstand the distinction between censorship and counter-speech.

I do definitely think people on both sides could lighten up. Often times, the discussion of semantics is less important than issues of greater substance.

 

[woolfe9998]

So far as the issue of the atomic bomb and its use on Japan, the issue upsets me to the point where I will rarely even comment on it. Those bombs should never have been built, anywhere, any time, by anyone. A scientist has an ethical obligation to consider the moral consequences of his creation.

The trouble is that had the US not developed the bomb, the Soviets would certainly have developed them eventually, meaning the US would have had to do so later in order to provide mutual deterrence. Because scientists (of all nationalities) as a whole did not have the ethics and foresight to refuse en masse such an evil notion as building these things, it was inevitable.

I also can't counter the arguments for using them against Japan. It's pretty clear that fewer people died at that time because we used the bombs.

The trouble is the existence of these weapons in the first place. Consider that the number of lives saved at the end of WWII by the use of those 2 bombs may well pale by orders of magnitude in comparison to the number of people who may ultimately die to these weapons in our future. They are the single largest existential threat to humanity and this will continue into the indefinite future, meaning that given unlimited time, it seems all but certain they will be used again and to much greater effect than they were in WWII. The creation of these weapons, and the 100x worse hydrogen (fission/fusion) bombs we later created is the worst evil ever perpetrated on humanity. But it was all inevitable since someone else would have done it, just as it is now inevitable that many other nations will acquire them. In other words, we are all just colossally f**cked in the long run.

 

[BoberFett]

BoberFett does silly things.

Should be expected by now of course.

Did you choose your forum name because you enjoy eating shit?

 

[Cozarkian]

A guy on the news the other day was arguing that "illegal alien" was offensive.

Tell me: What exactly is *different* between "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal alien?" What?! Why would one be less offensive Han the other? Are we trying to obfuscate the meaning?

10 years from now, we'll say "undocumented immigrant" is offensive. Then we'll come up with a new term. The cycle will go on forever...

The term illegal alien emphasizes the fact that the persons presence in the U.S. is unlawful. The PC term undocumented immigrant is an attempt to suggest the person has a right to be here and that the true evil is the failure of society to grant them immediate citizenship.

If undocumented immigrant becomes universally accepted, the next PC term will be something like "unacknowledged new citizen."

 

[Blue_Max]

If being PC means you can't address genuine problems for fear of offending a few loud people, it's gone overboard.
I don't think it needs to be completely eliminated, but it's gotta' be turned down several notches.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I dislike trump a lot, he is even more of a loud mouth blowhard than I am. But, sometimes tidbits of truth escape from his blowhole. I think his comments on political correctness were simply his way to deflect the question. Somebody asks me a potentially damaging question, so I will reply with a deflection telling the people what they want to hear.

 

[werepossum]

So far as the issue of the atomic bomb and its use on Japan, the issue upsets me to the point where I will rarely even comment on it. Those bombs should never have been built, anywhere, any time, by anyone. A scientist has an ethical obligation to consider the moral consequences of his creation.

The trouble is that had the US not developed the bomb, the Soviets would certainly have developed them eventually, meaning the US would have had to do so later in order to provide mutual deterrence. Because scientists (of all nationalities) as a whole did not have the ethics and foresight to refuse en masse such an evil notion as building these things, it was inevitable.

I also can't counter the arguments for using them against Japan. It's pretty clear that fewer people died at that time because we used the bombs.

The trouble is the existence of these weapons in the first place. Consider that the number of lives saved at the end of WWII by the use of those 2 bombs may well pale by orders of magnitude in comparison to the number of people who may ultimately die to these weapons in our future. They are the single largest existential threat to humanity and this will continue into the indefinite future, meaning that given unlimited time, it seems all but certain they will be used again and to much greater effect than they were in WWII. The creation of these weapons, and the 100x worse hydrogen (fission/fusion) bombs we later created is the worst evil ever perpetrated on humanity. But it was all inevitable since someone else would have done it, just as it is now inevitable that many other nations will acquire them. In other words, we are all just colossally f**cked in the long run.

I tend toward the opposite. In having such destructive weapons, we automatically run some risk of them being used in any war between nuclear armed combatants. This is why there hasn't been a major world or regional war since atomic weapons became widespread. I also think it's as much to do with the rulers of nations as with their nominal destructiveness. A ruler can construct a fairly foolproof system of protecting himself - Saddam Hussein did so against the most powerful nation in the world. However, any leader knows that if he takes on a nuclear ICBM nation, there is a very real though small chance that the conflict goes nuclear and a very real chance that an ICBM penetrates and kills the ruler. The risk isn't just that the ruler's nation might suffer, it's also that the ruler himself may turn into charcoal.

Beyond that, I personally don't see being killed by a nuclear weapon as particularly worse than being killed by firebombs, or explosion, or shrapnel, or arrows, or sharp pointy sticks. And I certainly don't see 100,000 people being killed by a nuclear weapon as particularly worse than 100,000 people being killed by gang rape, bayonet, sword, rifle butt, and being buried alive. Seems to me that as war goes, death by nuclear explosion is one of the relatively more merciful deaths. War is simply inherently ugly.

 

[bradly1101]

"The end did not justify the means." ~ John McLaughlin (on the U.S. nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) ~ 8-14-2015

 

[Sulaco]

"The end did not justify the means." ~ John McLaughlin (on the U.S. nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) ~ 8-14-2015

And again, this is why you are a joke.

We have facts.
We have dates, times, evidence, records, numbers, and actual scholarship and history behind our arguments.

You have third-hand quotes, questionable links from dubious websites, and your own self-righteous ignorance. Googling for the handful of contrarians who share your views is s losing proposition for you bradly, since you can find countless more who disagree with you.

I can get into the specifics of why his (McLaughlin's) argument is a poor one, and how it is essentially totally disproved by the intercepted diplomatic cables between Foreign Minister Togo in Tokyo and Japan's Ambassador Sato in Moscow in late July, where Sato informs the Ministry that the terms will include a retention of the Imperial house, but will still be a surrender.
The Japanese Foreign Ministry officially wires back that that is unacceptable, that nothing like unconditional surrender is acceptable, even with the preservation of the Emperor.
That's in black and white in the MAGIC diplomatic cables of July 22nd, 1945. That essentially destroys his (and by proxy, your) weak argument.

Again, bradly, do the research and actually learn something for yourself. Don't make your mind up on something, and then work backwards with blurbs and scraps from Google to try and justify your untenable positions. That's what lazy ignoramuses do. And it just makes you look like a bigger moron than you already do.

 

[woolfe9998]

I tend toward the opposite. In having such destructive weapons, we automatically run some risk of them being used in any war between nuclear armed combatants. This is why there hasn't been a major world or regional war since atomic weapons became widespread. I also think it's as much to do with the rulers of nations as with their nominal destructiveness. A ruler can construct a fairly foolproof system of protecting himself - Saddam Hussein did so against the most powerful nation in the world. However, any leader knows that if he takes on a nuclear ICBM nation, there is a very real though small chance that the conflict goes nuclear and a very real chance that an ICBM penetrates and kills the ruler. The risk isn't just that the ruler's nation might suffer, it's also that the ruler himself may turn into charcoal.

Beyond that, I personally don't see being killed by a nuclear weapon as particularly worse than being killed by firebombs, or explosion, or shrapnel, or arrows, or sharp pointy sticks. And I certainly don't see 100,000 people being killed by a nuclear weapon as particularly worse than 100,000 people being killed by gang rape, bayonet, sword, rifle butt, and being buried alive. Seems to me that as war goes, death by nuclear explosion is one of the relatively more merciful deaths. War is simply inherently ugly.

Nuclear weapons have the potential to kill more than 100,000 a pop. The hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb and it has 100x the blast of fat man and little boy. In a major city a single bomb could kill millions. These weapons if used in significant numbers could set back humanity 100 years. Even a single blast in a major city would tank the entire world economy and catalyze a cycle of reprisals of epic proportions.

Whatever deterrent value they have isn't worth the fact that given enough time, the likelihood is that this will ultimately happen. Particularly since regimes like N. Korea, Iran, and who knows what other nut jobs in the future will have use of them. I just hope I'm dead before it happens because I don't want to see it.