Political Correctness

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by GabrielConroy, Mar 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GabrielConroy

    GabrielConroy Well-Known Member

    "A society where anyone can make jokes about anyone else and everyone laughs is a truly tolerant society. Political correctness charged censorship only serves to engender resentment and dsitance between social groups."

    The quote isnt from a very intellectual source but consider the idea on it's own merits.

    I've thought this for a long time though its put in a much more eloquent manner here than I have ever put it. I see political correctness as something of a problem on sf. Its reasonable that everything should be treated a little more carefully on here but in the end its the hyper-sensitivity and insecurity that is the problem that needs to be dealt with not the other way around typically.

    Question to the mods: would you censor any examples I could find of people who have been warned/given points for what I argue is political correctness to the nth degree? I feel that debating the issue seperate from the judgment (in other words not expecting a change in the result) could be constructive and help illustrate to those like me why x, y, and z were punished and help illustrate to those who complained the perspective of the person in question.

    I would like the majority of this post to be examples since thats where the substance of the debate will lie but I wasn't sure how it would be looked at by the staff so I put up this preliminary post.

    If this isn't an attempt at reaching understanding between individuals and getting differences out in the open in order to overcome the us/other barrier I do not know what is.
  2. Crue-K

    Crue-K Well-Known Member

    Political correctness can be a stranglehold on free speech and can dilute the constructive views of others. However their is a line between this and what could be considered offensive. I consider myself very liberal and accepting of other races, political views, sexual orientation etc etc even if I don't agree with their lifestyle. One should be able to share humour in regards to these lifestyle choices and differences between one another as long as it does not cross over the boundary of what could be considered hatred. As for being able to debate on the forums about certain subjects then that should be fully allowed. As for the 'hyper-sensitivity' and 'insecurity' you refer to, it should be noted that a majority of users of these forums are here for support and could possibly find some views which are nor related to support offensive and upsetting. As for the opening quote of your post, I feel it is entirely apt and would agree 100%.
  3. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    Unfortunatley if it werent for PC there would be many individuals who would take advantage of that and be free to cause much misery and suffering. To think that everyone can show respect for other voices is nice, but Im afraid that there must be order to give everyone a chance to speak their mind.
  4. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Well said!! The opening statement can be agreed with but still not be applicable to this site due to the content and principles of SF!
  5. GabrielConroy

    GabrielConroy Well-Known Member

    Dear daniel2, You have received a warning at Suicide Forum - A support forum for people in crisis. Reason: ------- Chat: Other 22:04 [daniel2] just walk out of the room 22:04 [daniel2] oh did you say quadraplegics? 22:05 [daniel2] i thought you said paraplegics 22:05 [daniel2] no way jimmy* * leave them quadraplegics alone 22:05 [daniel2] paraplegics are ok tho* * etc. ------- Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow. All the best, Suicide forum

    Daniel was giving a warning for essentially nothing here. I was on the other side of this conversation essentially making tasteless jokes about quadrapolegia (I know I'm terrible and I feel bad but that is not the point of contention here however). He commented that i should "leave them quadrapolegics alone" and that "parapolegics are ok." I can't see what he did that was so out of line here. Anything here strike anyone as worthy of being called inappropriate let alone worthy of being chastised? It's not a big deal to give someone a warning but with the people on this forum i believe that negative feedback and punishment should be treated more carefully.

    Maybe someone will argue that within context his comments were worthy of being scolded. I respond threefold.
    1. I was there and my impression of the conversation left no indication of Dan being hateful or harmful towards anyone. If you trust me at all (feel free to go either way) then I can be an eyewitness.
    2. Can you imagine any of those comments being seriously harmful in any context at all? Can anyone give me a serious example of ANY context where "parapolegics are ok" is something that should hurt your status with this forum?
    3. If any mod is so inclined feel free to post the entire conversation (it would make me look bad but that's relatively minor). I think the full script will bear me out on this: that Daniel did nothing wrong let alone approaching a level of hatred that qualifies as something that should be looked down on (and looking down on someone is the effect of negatively reinforcing their actions).

    Perhaps I'm wrong but someone will have to point out why.

    Edit: Daniel2 gave me permission to use this warning. I had no other way of obtaining it but through him. Please don't take it down for this reason. Thank you.

    There are other examples as well Dan was just kind enough to become vulnerable by letting me post his "misdeeds."
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2009
  6. daniel2

    daniel2 Banned Member

    As requested I give permission for GabrielConroy to use the above private message in this thread.

  7. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Censorship is wrong at any level, especially when imposed by government.
  8. Abacus21

    Abacus21 Staff Alumni

    Note the 'etc'. This was part of a bigger conversation, and the warning (which I gave him, as it happens), was for his involvement in the conversation, not necessarily what was said.
    When a conversation about not loving quadrapolegics, and 'God taking away their limbs, because they're not loveable' is ok to be involved with, and not going to cause offense, then we'll stop giving out warnings etc, for them.

    So, you're complaining about the warning that was given, I'm assuming? If Daniel doesn't feel it was warranted, then he's free to post in LtM and we can discuss it. While, as I say, he didn't say anything overtly offensive, his involvement in the conversation from the logs we received, we felt was enough to give him the warning. Likewise, any member who's participating in a conversation - be it offensive, racist, overtly sexual etc, we'd generally give them all warnings, depending on the context.
    Essentially, be civil - not purposely offensive, treat others with respect and you'll be fine.
  9. GabrielConroy

    GabrielConroy Well-Known Member

    my contention
    The argument is that because Daniel was talking to someone who wasn't being respectful (me in this case and again i feel terrible and deserved what i got) that he deserves punishment. Abacus quoted something I said not something Daniel said. Dan neither encouraged nor provoked my remarks and I feel even worse about what I did because he was also punished for it.

    But can someone point to what Daniel did wrong? There isn't anything and the fallback argument is that he was talking to someone doing something wrong. Doesnt this strike one as ridiculous? By the logic of Abacus's argument everyone who participated in that conversation deserved to be punished because of something I did.

    The argument is based on "guilt by association." This is considered an ad hominem logical fallacy.

    I can't think of any way it does not fit.

    If you're going to draw a line between some participants and others I have a couple questions:
    1. Define this brightline. Authority cannot be based on the arbitrary will of the person who holds the authority. There is a rule on how their power can be used. What is the rule on how to distinguish the "guilty" conversation participants from the "innocent" (and doesn't this highlight the absurdity of even trying to rationalize the argument)?
    2. Can a line be drawn at all? I would argue that participation in a conversation cannot be enough for punishment there must be some actual wrong done by the person that is being punished. If no one can point to the actual crime someone did then how can anyone punish them and claim to be fair?

    If anything Dan took opposite to me when saying "leave them quadrapolegics alone" and "parapolegics are ok." Hardly the comments of someone deserving of punishment. The challenge also remains of anyone to name one thing said or done by Daniel that was wrong.

    Like I said in the first post this isn't for the purpose of getting warnings revoked so much as for the public discussion of the whole system of political correctness here on SF and in general.

    I clearly crossed a moral line not one of political correctness.

    unrelated to the argument but seperately relevant
    To clarify my comments:
    I don't believe disabled people are less than human It was more a sarcastic remark reflecting some ridiculous moral and religious viewpoints that somehow view the world as just. The sheer absurdity of what my remarks was intended. I meant for my remarks to reflect how some people who have suffered clearly don't deserve it. That said it was a terrible and hurtful way to phrase what i was saying and i apologize to anyone who was harmed (if you want to take issue start another thread I'd like to try to keep this one focused).

    I would also like to clarify that this is not about people e.g. moderators vs members punished. It is about the system and the reasoning behind and within the system. I consider myself friends with a couple of the mods and I am very grateful for the service of a couple paticular moderators

    Hopefully I can find some examples that do not directly involve anyone arguing to prevent bias and more irrelevant information diluting the argument.

    edit:rewording and grammar (I should sleep before i post next time...maybe buy a thesaurus too)
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2009
  10. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    political correctness is bollocks, i cant call the fat controller from thomas the tank engine the fat controller, he's only allowed to be called the controller, baa baa black sheep is now baa baa coloured sheep, gollywogs are no longer allowed to be shown on tv.
    why is black now a derogatory word? why is fat a derogatory word? both are descriptions and are only derogatory when used in an abusive context.
  11. wheresmysheep

    wheresmysheep Staff Alumni

    joe, i believe the point of jimmys arguement is that dan got a warning, where he was not the party that was causeing the most "damage" ie jimmy was saying harmful jokes, and dan was just commenting upon it.
    this shows favouritism to a degree i do believe is the point.
    that or the conversation is being viewed in a baised manner.

    either way. yes the conversation or snippet, does sound "wrong" for the context of this site given taht there are people here with physical iflictions, but common sense does have to be put in place by the memebers, and from everything i have seen, many, MANY members do not have common sense, or "pretend" not to.
    its not a question of political correctness imho, its a question of not triggering people into harming themselves, though its my strong belief that there are only a handful of people that actually posses the strength to harm themselves greatly.
    and in regards to this, if dan got a warning for responding to comments being ade, then ALL partys involved in taht conversation should have got warning/infractions. (no offence jimbob) you cant just pick and choose certain aspects of a conversation to moderate.
  12. Acy

    Acy Mama Bear - TLC, Common Sense Staff Member Safety & Support

    "Mere descriptions" are one thing, but statements that use descriptions to classify, segregate, judge, exclude, make generalizations about or generally harm another or groups of others based on any of their basic human rights (as defined and set out by the United Nations) are are something else entirely.

    PC is an endeavor to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity in order to ensure that everyone is allowed the human rights that belong to all of us.

    There are extremes in everything - being so politically correct that one can't talk at all, or being so insensitive and self-seeking that one says anything regardless of anyone else.

    How or even if one chooses to implement political correctness depends on the social responsibility one feels for one's companions on this planet and on which side of "caring" one prefers to err.
  13. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    "[daniel2] paraplegics are ok tho"

    Pretty inoffensive on its own. Except the conversation is about quadriplegics being unloveable. So that statement is a pretty harsh damnation of quadriplegics, even though it doesn't say anything about them. I would say daniel2 is being intolerant in his speech and the warning is apt.
  14. wheresmysheep

    wheresmysheep Staff Alumni

    what i was trying to get at in a round about way with the common sense thingus :unsure:
  15. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    hold on, someone who is black is black, whether its pc or not, it does not mean i am racist or that i believe in slavery....to be honest racism according to color is somewhat overplayed especially considering many whites are persecuted for being white (oops do i mean non-colored) jews having been persecuted for thousands of years, i can tell jokes of a scotsman, englishman and and irishman which all nations laugh at yet if i make a joke of someone with more pigmentation than me i can be arrested (most people who do say a racist joke always seem to feel the need to say they have black friends), much of it i think comes from a guilt for the fact we had slaves, yet blacks caught blacks to sell to whites, blacks had white slaves, what about the irish slaves? which was happening all along, there was jewish slaves, aztec slaves, etc....
    of course there is racism but much of it is overlooked as a white man being attacked for being white doesnt look good, the government is trying to force a tolerance which in turn hides some injustices. tolerance should not be forced on us, us acting on our personal intolerances should be illegal if it does effect others peoples lives. the way it is though makes some people scared to say anything against a black person because they expect the racist word to crop up whether they are racist or not. i have seen cops who ignore black people verbally abusing a white lad with racist slang, he retaliated and was immediately pounced on by the cops and was arrested, its ridiculous.
    how come black people can use the word "******" towards each other although its not pc and illegal?
    pc is nothing to do with caring for people, my friends will not be offended if i say something about their being black, they dont even care if there are racists in the same village, the only time they care is when it affects them, they dont care for peoples personal beliefs and ignorance, and also i must say they are the most prolific is spreading racist jokes:rolleyes:
    im sorry to bring this on to the topic of racism but racism is a very good example of pc. anyhoo my rants over now
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.