PC Police: A New Low

[unofan]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

St. Clown and Kepler were talking about whether there is such a thing as a PC mindset. I agreed with St. Clown that there is, but that they are vastly outnumbered by the racist asshats on the other side of the aisle. He felt that would change, I responded, and then you jumped on with your response which, in hindsight, was apparently a non sequitur to that part of the conversation even though you quoted my post from it.

As for everything else, I respond to most of your posts because they are easily proved as either factually incorrect, blatant right wing talking points of the day, or both (like your Miami crack in another thread that was clearly stolen from the WSJ article I linked). I used to do the same to flaggy, but he's so far off the deepend at this point that there's no need.

So congrats, your rantings are at least sane enough to deserve refutation. While, like the crazy uncle, there's no hope in changing your mind, I can at least attempt to prevent your blantantly spun rants from swaying others who might not have drank the kool-aid yet.

[5mn_Major]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

I don't know guys (and I don't expect joe to respond cause he never does). This is what I don't understand about your views on things like this Tennessee webpage. Why does it bother you that a website somewhere offers ideas on how to be respectful of others? You don't have to do it. You don't even have to read it.

There are groups out there trying to put limitations on content, media, etc. This content is not family friendly, its not this, its not that. Do we need big government to help put a stop to this 'freedom'? Maybe I can see the point of wanting to limit this resource webpage...afterall, its about being respectful rather than porn.

[St. Clown]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

I don't know guys (and I don't expect joe to respond cause he never does). This is what I don't understand about your views on things like this Tennessee webpage. Why does it bother you that a website somewhere offers ideas on how to be respectful of others? You don't have to do it. You don't even have to read it.

There are groups out there trying to put limitations on content, media, etc. This content is not family friendly, its not this, its not that. Do we need big government to help put a stop to this 'freedom'? Maybe I can see the point of wanting to limit this resource webpage...afterall, its about being respectful rather than porn.

It annoys me that someone seems to think the world has a need to outline what is and is not an acceptable practice for a potluck. It's a potluck! You either end up with something tasty, or your end up with what I cooked. That's it, that's the luck portion of the name. If we're setting guides to these things they cease being potlucks. They're now potorganizes.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

The Tennessee potluck thing seemed to me to be as much about telling people "hey, people are bringing dishes from their cultures, don't be offended by having goat kebab at Christmas time you idiots, instead, enjoy trying something new, and you, Mohammad, don't get ****ed if someone brings Christmas cookies either", than it is about telling people to be PC. If anything, I took it as a "just get along, and forget a little about PC, and enjoy some ****ing food" message.

[FreshFish]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

Check out the "Company Holiday Party" joke at the link, the series of memos from HR that try to accommodate a series of demands.

http://mistupid.com/jokes/page011.htm

I laughed especially at the one about having an AA table and how would that remain "anonymous"... or the line about how "Santa" is also an anagram for "Satan."

[Slap Shot]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

How about just posting a pot luck and letting people bring in whatever the **** they want to bring in to serve? Why call out the religions, cultures and celebrations? I'm not gong to push someone one way or another except having a list for desserts, side dishes, entrees, etc.. After that, bring whatever you want.

Who cares? My Parise the things people get upset about (not really directly this at you St.C) is easily as exasperating as the PC crowd. I think they're basically saying, "Don't be afraid to bring something cultural" and, "If someone does don't be a jagoff and complain".

[dxmnkd316]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...poration-vote/

I'm not sure what this actually accomplishes. I hesitate to use this term ( ), but whitewashing history to remove things like this is not the right answer IMHO.

[unofan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...poration-vote/

I'm not sure what this actually accomplishes. I hesitate to use this term ( ), but whitewashing history to remove things like this is not the right answer IMHO.

I guess I don't see it as a big deal since its only an 80-year-old thing, which for Harvard makes it new and novel. It'd be different if it was something going back to the pre-revolution days of Harvard.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

I suppose.

[Kepler]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

I don't think of it as white-washing history; in fact it's kinda the opposite. White-washing would be refusing to acknowledge the crimes of the past (c.f. Snyder, Dan) or expurgating the actual historical record. Harvard is saying, "hey, this symbol we had has yucky associations, so we are retiring it so it isn't a part of who we are from here on." They aren't saying, "symbol, what symbol? Pay no attention to that leaf fire on the quad..."

They are trying to do the right thing. I suspect there will be excesses of rhetoric on both sides, but really is there a better choice than both acknowledging a past wrong and then at least not perpetuating it further?

In this case it's unfortunate because that shield was wicked cool.

[The Rube]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

I don't think of it as white-washing history; in fact it's kinda the opposite. White-washing would be refusing to acknowledge the crimes of the past (c.f. Snyder, Dan) or expurgating the actual historical record. Harvard is saying, "hey, this symbol we had has yucky associations, so we are retiring it so it isn't a part of who we are from here on." They aren't saying, "symbol, what symbol? Pay no attention to that leaf fire on the quad..."

They are trying to do the right thing. I suspect there will be excesses of rhetoric on both sides, but really is there a better choice than both acknowledging a past wrong and then at least not perpetuating it further?

In this case it's unfortunate because that shield was wicked cool.

How about keeping the shield, and saying "This was the past. Look how far we've come?" Bet they won't give back any money that's left from slave-traders.

[Kepler]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

How about keeping the shield, and saying "This was the past. Look how far we've come?" Bet they won't give back any money that's left from slave-traders.

I agree with you that is also a perfectly reasonable action. I'm simply addressing that what they are doing isn't "being PC" and isn't "whitewashing history." IMO.

[The Rube]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

It isn't the former, but it certainly is the latter.

[CLS]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

This is also an issue that really only affects the Harvard Law School and its students and alumni. It's not saying our kid can't play dodge ball at recess or that you can't say "Merry Christmas". It's not even saying that you can't root for the Fighting Sioux or the Lord Jeffs, unless you have a rooting interest in multi-million dollar lawsuits or SCOTUS arguments.

Of course I'd feel really bad if a one percenter just dropped a few thousand on a Harvard Law School crest for his private jet or his yacht.

[FreshFish]

Re: PC Police: A New Low

Apparently there is no good data on what proportion of the population is transgender. There is a widely-publicized estimate of 0.3% - 0.5%.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...er-population/

There is a section in that 538 article that indicates that even people one might consider to be transgender don't think of themselves that way (birth certificate says one thing, they say another, but think of themselves as that other, not as trans).

It sounds to me like it has the potential to be an unhappy and confusing situation, one not to be used as a cudgel to bludgeon people with whom you disagree about other matters: where sympathy is called for, instead we get caricature, and that from the supposed supporters!

For example,

Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.

The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns.

As the regulations, updated late last year, point out, some transgender individuals prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers

How can something this heavy-handed possibly be seen as a way to promote tolerance and understanding?

"Do what we demand or pay us $1/4 million!"


Using another person's unhappy situation as a way to promote yourself? Yuck. These folks give no indication of actually caring about a transgender person at all. They are so caught up in the symbolism that they totally ignore the actual human experience behind it.