DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 11, 2007, 10:35:02 PM
-
Political Correctness has gotten to some of the most egregiously absurd levels I've yet to see. Everything from how certain names of High Schools and elementary schools that need to be changed because of apparent "hurts the feelings" of some Native Americans to how Racial Profiling is supposedly a racist act.
So, my question is what do you (anyone that wishes to respond) believe is the most asanine manifestation of Political Correctness currently?
I'll tell you mine, right now, since I don't have to think about it. Not too long ago, some Imams were pulled from a commercial U.S Airways flight, because the passengers dared to *gasp* become concerned when these Imams began acting extremely strangely, and presented their concerns to the airline staff. It began even before they boarded, when they began praying very loudly. Then after they boarded the plane, they moved from their assigned seatings to a staggered position, front, middle (exit aisle), and back of plane, effectively placing themselves at each exit. One I believe even asked for an extra large seatbelt, (he wasn't obese in any way), and after being handed it, put it away, as opposed to using it
THEY WERE APPROPRIATELY ESCORTED OFF THE PLANE
Now, they're suing, claiming some form of overt racial profiling, comparing it to "racism against Blacks". and this lawsuit isn't limited to the airlines. Passengers are being targeted, who brought up these original concerns to the Airline Staff
So, here we have normal citizens, seeing something exceedingly suspicious, and they report it. And now they're the target of a lawsuit, supported by the likes of CAIR?? Do you realize the repercussions if this actually had a monetary judgement placed on these passengers?? No one would want to risk the civil litigation for seeing anything even remotely suspicious. People would begin to start thinking "Well, I really don't know what they're doing, so I best be quiet" arrrgggghhhh. ORDINARY PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO KNOW. THEY HAVE NO CRYSTAL BALL. THE ONLY LEGITIMATE ABILITY THEY HAVE IS TO REPORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR. IT'S THEN UP TO THE AGENCIES INVOLED TO DETERMINE WHAT WENT DOWN.
That lawsuit should be thrown out, without a breath of testimony being taken. But it hasn't, and it has the support of CAIR (that should say enough). IMHO this is political correctness at it's U.S. destroying worst
-
Your fascination with these "PC" questions, following a national vogue, ranks up there as among the most obnoxious, and ironically so.
-
Well, apparently domer has nothing substantive to add. What a stunner, there
-
I have yet to see one instance where these happenstances of "odd behaviour reporting" has resulted in a Caucasian being pulled off a plane. I'm sure, in your mind, it makes perfect sense since caucasians aren't the ones flying planes into buildings.
The next time I am on a plane and here someone say, "Praise god" about ANYTHING or praying over their food tray, I'm gonna make the pilot turn the plane around.
You sound like this guy.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/10/civil-liberties-they-dont-need-no-stinkin-civil-liberties/
-
Well, apparently brass has nothing substantive to add either.
FYI for the PC crowd.....this is a question for those that see political correctness running amuck. For those that "see no problem", by all means, move along
And BTW Brass, ever see anyone pray loudly over their airline food? Oh, wait, bad example
-
I have yet to see one instance where these happenstances of "odd behaviour reporting" has resulted in a Caucasian being pulled off a plane. I'm sure, in your mind, it makes perfect sense since caucasians aren't the ones flying planes into buildings.
Rachel Collier was booted from a plane for coughing.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2989761
Continental said in a statement that Collier was coughing "uncontrollably" on the plane Tuesday and that "the captain felt he was acting in the best interest of the passenger and other passengers on the flight."
-
Jewish man removed from airplane for praying
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 5, 2006 | 11:12 PM ET
CBC News
Some fellow passengers are questioning why an Orthodox Jewish man was removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight in Montreal last week for praying.
The man was a passenger on a Sept. 1 flight from Montreal to New York City when the incident happened.
The airplane was heading toward the runway at the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport when eyewitnesses said the Orthodox man began to pray.
"He was clearly a Hasidic Jew," said Yves Faguy, a passenger seated nearby. "He had some sort of cover over his head. He was reading from a book.
"He wasn't exactly praying out loud but he was lurching back and forth," Faguy added.
The action didn't seem to bother anyone, Faguy said, but a flight attendant approached the man and told him his praying was making other passengers nervous.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/05/qc-hasidicprayeronplane.html
-
I have yet to see one instance where these happenstances of "odd behaviour reporting" has resulted in a Caucasian being pulled off a plane. I'm sure, in your mind, it makes perfect sense since caucasians aren't the ones flying planes into buildings.
Ummm, Arabs are Caucasian.
-
The next time I am on a plane and here someone say, "Praise god" about ANYTHING or praying over their food tray, I'm gonna make the pilot turn the plane around.
Let me also add a tad more truthful context.......the passengers did NOT demand that the plane be turned around, and the loud praying took place inside the terminal, NOT on the plane. That's not what facilitated their removal from the plane, nor were the passengers involved in that decision. Yet the lawsuit has them as targets. I say again, civilians like Brass & myself have no obligation to report suspicious behavior, but neither should we be punatively damaged if doing so. And yet, that's what this egregiously pathetic PC case with the Imams is all about
That's not to be confused with some serial offender, someone reporting "suspicious behavior" of the same person, or even the same race, over and over and over again, that demonstrates no substance or merit in its pattern
-
The pilot made the right decision. As soon as the passengers got up from their assigned seats and took stations, they should have been escorted from the plane.
-
ABSOLUTELY
-
uhm
after 9-11 didn`t a 15yr old fly a plane into a building(not a accident)
I thought he was caucasian
quite a few muslims are caucasians
ex. john lind walker
that the only name I know
pretty sure their are more though
-
Aren't the latest plotters Yugoslavian Muslims?
I'd love to have the DNA test to see where my ancestors came from, what parts of the world.
I think it costs about $50/100.
Imagine it would be a huge mix.
-
The most asinine manifestation of political correctness hands-down is "support the troops," closely followed by the reverence all politicians must demonstrate for "Judaeo-Christian" culture and/or traditions. The flag is probably a distant third.
-
The most asinine manifestation of political correctness hands-down is "support the troops,"
How so? Supporting the troops means supporting what they do. Supporting the troops mean providing them with what they need to do what they do, like.......funding
Supporting the troops doesn't mean one hopes they get slaughtered in battle. Supporting the troops doesn't mean calling them all a bunch of thug rapists. So, perhaps you can explain how "support the troops" is the worst manifestation of political correctness run amuck
-
<<How so? Supporting the troops means supporting what they do. Supporting the troops mean providing them with what they need to do what they do, like.......funding
<<Supporting the troops doesn't mean one hopes they get slaughtered in battle. Supporting the troops doesn't mean calling them all a bunch of thug rapists. So, perhaps you can explain how "support the troops" is the worst manifestation of political correctness run amuck>>
"Supporting the troops" becomes the right wing's catch-all phrase in their attempt to keep the war going. Anyone who wants to pull the troops out is not "supporting the troops." Anyone who even wants to set a deadline for pulling them out is "not supporting the troops." And when the Commander-in-Chief has made it abundantly clear that he will not abort the mission and pull the troops out, anyone who wants to take the only remaining way towards getting them out, i.e., pulling the plug on funding, is also accused of not "supporting the troops."
Looks to me like "support the troops" has become emotional blackmail aimed at supporting the mission, falsely miscasting anyone who doesn't support the mission as someone who doesn't support the troops. Similarly, anyone who calls the troops on their thuggish and criminal misconduct is branded as "not supporting the troops." In that case, "support the troops" has become emotional blackmail aimed at covering up for war crimes and atrocities, rather than actually supporting the troops. After all, why should anyone have to support thugs and war criminals in uniform?
-
Well, if we remove the rank hyperbole (emotional blackmail), and Lanya-like pathetic broad brushing (calling the troops thugs for those few who have been caught perpetrating "thug" activity), Tee does have point about the "support the troop" mantra, and the corner the Dems have placed themselves in, both by their allegience to following the polls, and in allowing of the hard core left to manipulate a great deal of their Bush bashing rhetoric.
It's hard to see how the Dems can pull this one off (supposedly supporting the troops while not supporting their current job). Problem is they go together. Pretty childish, if you ask me to claim "emotional blackmail" as the reason the Dems won't function in the manner that they were designed to do. It's closer to what Tee referenced in another post, they want to keep their power, and they've likely concluded they'd lose electoral support if they don't keep supporting the troops by way of continuing to fund a war that....ironically.....they've claimed that same electorate has given them a mandate to end. Boy, what's a congress critter to do? Be principled and adhere to what your consituents supposedly gave you a mandate to do, or maintain the status quo of Bush bashing, extending the war, extending the amount of lives that are lost, then blame Bush for something you could have stopped, but chose not to
:-\
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
<<It's hard to see how the Dems can pull this one off (supposedly supporting the troops while not supporting their current job). Problem is they go together. >>
That is exactly the kind of slopppy thinking that enables the warmongers to exercise emotional blackmail and accuse those who don't support the mission of not supporting the troops.
The one has nothing to do with the other. The mission is originated by the civil authority and can be terminated by that same authority at will. The troops are the instruments of that authority. They go where they're told to go, kill who they're told to kill, and whenever the day comes when the civil authority tells them "Hey. Stop killing those guys over there and start killing these guys over here," the troops can't tell the civil authority, "Hey fuck you we wanna finish this job first" or anything like that.
Their mission is to do what they're told to do. Period. So since they had nothing to do with originating the mission, there is no issue of supporting them or not supporting them merely by opposing the mission. It's not "their" mission - -they don't own it, they're just the guys appointed to carry it out.
-
There is no doubt about it, the Dems are in a very uncomfortable position regarding the war funding issue. Yet, it was Bush's massive misfeasance accompanied by mindless Republican cheerleading that created the very situation that we are all now gnashing our teeth over. To say that the Dems are disserving the troops under the facts the administration has let develop and which now obtain as the hallmark of the conflict is both blind and obsequious. It is beyond rational, at this stage, to the point of being compelling to apply relentless pressure on the administration to, colloquially speaking, shape up or ship out. Only zealots would trust Bush on the record he's actually accumulated and simply utter a prayer that things will change. The Dems are doing the best they can with a set of lousy options, the only tools they have for a course of disengagement dictated not only by virtually every honest expert intellect that addresses the matter but also by the clear will of the American people.
-
there is no doubt that the dems do not have the cajones to enact a plan if in fact they have one, within the parameters of their powers delegated by the constitution.
Do not blame cheerleading republicans who happen to agree with Bush's policies for the lack of fortitude displayed up to this point by your side.
-
It seems to me that that the Democrats are doing precisely the right thing. They were elected to end this stupid war, and so they voted to cut off funds, and Juniorbush vetoes the bill.
Result? No funds.
So they pass another bill.
If he vetoes this one too, he will look sillier and sillier, with every veto.
Juniorbush and the Big Dick were far too cowardly to actually fight a similarly useless and stupid war in Vietnam, although supposedly they believed in it.
They are now demonstrating their immense courage by insisting that the Armed forces and the National Guard fight until the last enlistee is gone.
-
They were elected to end this stupid war, and so they voted to cut off funds, and Juniorbush vetoes the bill.
What funds did they cut?
-
<<It's hard to see how the Dems can pull this one off (supposedly supporting the troops while not supporting their current job). Problem is they go together. >>
That is exactly the kind of slopppy thinking that enables the warmongers to exercise emotional blackmail and accuse those who don't support the mission of not supporting the troops.
As I said, perfect example of rank hyperbole, combined with some of the most pathetic rationlization efforts to date. "Civil authority"? More blatant implications that soldiers can't think for themselves, will just go off and murder at will, because someone tells them to do so?? Pathetic, truely pathetic. You'd have been much more credible had you not been so anti-U.S. military
-
The worst manifestation of political correctness is that stories of extreme political correctness, that likely represent a tiny percentage of the appropriate use of the term, are used by actual racists and bigots to wildly exaggerate the negative effects of tolerance in a multi-cultural society.
Political correctness, used appropriately has very positive effects that have made the office and other workplaces far more professional and has significantly limited tolerance of racist, mysoginist, and other comments that would otherwise create nearly impossible workplace environments for some people.
-
<<As I said, perfect example of rank hyperbole, combined with some of the most pathetic rationlization efforts to date. "Civil authority"? More blatant implications that soldiers can't think for themselves, will just go off and murder at will, because someone tells them to do so?? Pathetic, truely pathetic. You'd have been much more credible had you not been so anti-U.S. military>>
The point I was making had nothing to do with the troops "just going off and murdering at will" although that is in itself a valid concern and subject for legitimate commentary in another part of this thread. (The part that deals with "supporting the troops" being used to silence whislteblowers andcritics of their atrocities.)
The point I was making - - which you seemed to have missed completely due to your knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of these murderous thugs - - was basically that the troops have no mission apart from what is assigned to them by the civil authorities (the executive and/or legislative branches.) So it is the civil authority which "owns" the mission; the troops are only called upon to execute it. It's not "their" mission in the sense that it has an independent existence separate and apart from the executive branch orders that created it.
Thus, you cannot support or undermine the troops depending on your support or lack of support for the mission. These guys are professionals, albeit professional killers. Calling them back means terminating a mission which they had no role in creating and no role in determining how long it should go on. "Support the troops" is a means of levelling a false accusation against those who don't support the mission - - that by not supporting the mission, they are not supporting the troops. Which is the "sloppy thinking" I referred to in my earlier post.
-
The worst manifestation of political correctness is that stories of extreme political correctness, that likely represent a tiny percentage of the appropriate use of the term, are used by actual racists and bigots to wildly exaggerate the negative effects of tolerance in a multi-cultural society.
Political correctness, used appropriately has very positive effects that have made the office and other workplaces far more professional and has significantly limited tolerance of racist, mysoginist, and other comments that would otherwise create nearly impossible workplace environments for some people.
What are you tolerant of?
Would you hire a redneck? Like to see your sister dateing one?
-
What are you tolerant of?
I don't understand the question, can you be more specific?
Would you hire a redneck? Like to see your sister dateing one?
I would hire anyone who is best qualified for a position and can act in a professional manner.
I don't have a sister.
-
And my sister did marry into a family some of whom are rednecks!
-
What funds did they cut?
==========================
Perhaps you don't understand. For the troops to continue fighting, they must continue to get funds.
Supplying funds is Congress's job.
Congress voted for a bill to fund the war, but also suggested a withdrawal date. Juniorbush vetoed the bill, so the war won't be funded because the bill did not become law.
The answer is ALL the funds will be cut if a bill is not passed and signed, or passed, vetoed, and passed over the president's veto.
-
Congress voted for a bill to fund the war, but also suggested a withdrawal date.
So congress didn't cut funding, Bush did via his veto. And the withdrawal date was non binding, so what exactly did the dem congress accomplish?
-
Insert Quote
Quote from: _JS on May 14, 2007, 11:10:47 AM
The worst manifestation of political correctness is that stories of extreme political correctness, that likely represent a tiny percentage of the appropriate use of the term, are used by actual racists and bigots to wildly exaggerate the negative effects of tolerance in a multi-cultural society.
Political correctness, used appropriately has very positive effects that have made the office and other workplaces far more professional and has significantly limited tolerance of racist, misogynist, and other comments that would otherwise create nearly impossible workplace environments for some people.
What are you tolerant of?
I don't understand the question, can you be more specific?
Would you hire a redneck? Like to see your sister dating one?
I would hire anyone who is best qualified for a position and can act in a professional manner.
I don't have a sister.
I don't understand the question, can you be more specific?
Tolerance can't be defined as acceptance of things one likes to accept , it is only tolerance if it is allowing something that is disliked
What do you dislike , but allow people to be and do around you ?
-
Tolerance can't be defined as acceptance of things one likes to accept , it is only tolerance if it is allowing something that is disliked
What do you dislike , but allow people to be and do around you ?
I suppose this depends upon one's definition. We cannot define "tolerance" so that it becomes circuitous logic. If we define it too broadly then we have to "tolerate intolerance" and it becomes meaningless.
So there are certainly limits to tolerance, if that is what you are asking. Would I sit idly by and allow a co-worker to demean someone's race or religion? No, probably not.
I've defended Muslims, women, African-Americans, and other such groups before from people making ridiculous comments. And no, I don't necessarily mean jokes - but serious comments. Especially when I know (or have good reason to believe) they are made out of ignorance or blind hatred.