Name some Andorian ones!
They are all very, very blue.
question
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
They are all very, very blue.
Political correctness doesn't really mean anything any more, after all the changes in meaning it's had over the decades. Nowadays, it's just what a loudmouthed bigot complains about when he or she wishes for the good old days when you could get away with being a loudmouthed bigot in respectable society.
"Political correctness" is a hideous term that originated in the Soviet Union under Stalin. It meant paying lip service to the party line so that you wouldn't get shot. A while back, people who had a problem with diversity and inclusion adopted it as a propagandistic shibboleth, a way of discrediting the fight for inclusion and equality by claiming that people speaking in favor of tolerance were merely hypocrites pretending to go along with a politically popular ideology -- or, worse, that they were closet Stalinists bent on turning America into a communist dictatorship.
In the past decade, the term has lost all meaning. Political correctness is supposed to mean going along with the favored political viewpoint, the one that won't get you attacked. But given that any message in favor of tolerance and fairness gets instantly attacked by the right-wing reactionaries, that makes it the exact opposite of a "politically correct" position. Which just exposes what an empty lie it is to use that label. It's nothing but a way of smearing and discrediting an opposing position rather than engaging with it intelligently. It's an ugly piece of propagandistic jargon that should never have been introduced into American political discourse.
In the past decade, the term has lost all meaning. Political correctness is supposed to mean going along with the favored political viewpoint, the one that won't get you attacked. But given that any message in favor of tolerance and fairness gets instantly attacked by the right-wing reactionaries, that makes it the exact opposite of a "politically correct" position. Which just exposes what an empty lie it is to use that label. It's nothing but a way of smearing and discrediting an opposing position rather than engaging with it intelligently. It's an ugly piece of propagandistic jargon that should never have been introduced into American political discourse.
Yep. People use it as a "get out of jail free" card. Say something obnoxious that attacks women, gays, or a cultural or ethnic group, someone correctly points out you're being an obnoxious jerk, and if you yell loudly enough that you're being oppressed by the politically correct thought police, you win.
^Right. When society rejected discrimination as unacceptable, the prejudiced co-opted the language of their opposition and started claiming that they were victims of persecution because they weren't being allowed to exercise their prejudice.
Not meaning to quibble, but why are you leaving out my people? I have encounted prejudice and an appalling lack of respect my entire life, but when I complain about it, I am dismissed by those whose "tolerant" "unprejudiced" viewpoint refuses to recognise our historic plight. Those who are called the "politically correct" in my country are disliked by many because they claim tolerance and respect for all, yet in practice have a list of who they will acknowledge as being victimized or marginalized (just as you apparently have such a list). If you're not on that list, complaining will NOT be tolerated, and you are attacked and condemned by those who, as government officials, have a duty to listen to your concerns, but instead will berate you, accuse you of immorality, for daring to draw attention to people like you instead of the "right" groups.
If you will excuse my boldness, you mention women- quite rightly-, but what about the equal discrimination suffered by men and boys, which I know is even more endemic in the USA as it is here? Your list isn't interested, because the "politically correct" viewpoint refuses to acknowledge it. If a young man dares to point out how his brothers and sons require help or are treated poorly (today or historically), politicians attack and condemn you openly for being a reactionary misogynist. Women are the victims. ONLY women. Got it? No? Go back to your wife-beating and beer-slugging, you backward, immoral bastard! Believe me, in the UK politicians will indeed openly berate you and accuse you of being immoral simply for your refusal to tow the line and agree with the viewpoints that say "this or such and such group are acceptable victims and objects of concern. This or such-and-such group is not". The "tolerant" and "anti-discriminatory" political movements do indeed demand you share their exact worldview, or else, and it is a worldview itself intolerant in the extreme. I have known teachers, who have condemned and fought against ignorance and racial/cultural bias their entire careers, complain to colleagues that they have been accused by local councillors of immorality simply for raising concerns in opposition to the government's policies.
In some areas of England, children in schools can recite the lyrics to the national anthems of dozens of countries...but not their own. In some regions, flying the British flag has been banned for "pandering to racism" (it is said to be a symbol for the British National Party, an intolerant and racially-biased reactionary party rightly held in low regard by most). Many white British children, who live in tolerant, multicultural communities, know less of their own cultural identity than those of their immigrant friends. I was one such child. However, raise even the slightest- polite- objection and you are labeled by some of the politicians whose job it is to listen to you, as a racist, anti-immigration, etc, as your immigrant friends look on in shock and embarassment. Raising concerns about the transmission of British culture is often treated as though you have declared an intention to scrawl BNP slogans on the nearest Mosque. Even if it is those from immigrant backgrounds themselves raising the issue!
If this is misuse of "political correctness", I will of course accept correction, but believe me there is great reason, at least in my country, to dislike the "politically correct", and the so-called "tolerant".
I'm sorry to get off-topic like this, but misuse of terminology is not cause to justify the hypocrisy and prejudice of those who proclaim they stand for tolerance, equality and acceptance. We mentioned discrimination upthread- but if discrimination is unacceptable, why does your list discriminate by refusing to acknowledge "my people's" (young men's) mistreatment and current needs?
There are many forms of intolerance and discrimination. The world can not be cleanly divided into "the prejudiced" and those who proclaim tolerance. Often they are one and the same, anyway.
Last edited:
No, it is, at least where I'm from, a hypocritical political worldview that proclaims a basis in equality and acceptance and opposition to discrimination, only to itself blindly discriminate against anyone who doesn't slot into one of the designated "marginalized" groups. Deviation from the standard view of who is discriminated against and who is not is NOT tolerated by such politicians- try it, and you'll be accused of immorality. I would suggest that maybe this is only true in my nation, but I know- okay, that's not quite fair, I have been led to believe - it is the case in much of the USA, also.
I complain about "political correctness". I am not a "loud-mouthed bigot", and frankly I resent the accusation. I have been opposed to any form of bigotry all my life.
Which is what it still means here, largely. The anti-discrimination political worldview is firmly entrenched. The problem is it itself is blindly discriminatory. Oppose them, and you are labelled a backward reactionary because they simply refuse to believe they are anything other than Morality Incarnate. Ironically, and disturbingly, this encourages people to actually go off and become reactionaries. Membership in racist or anti-immigrant reactionary groups is rising in the UK, largely a result of the fact that the mainstream government won't listen, and angry and frustrated people are guided towards the open arms and smiling faces of the dangerous and racist extremists. It is a very troubling situation, and for those like myself who refuse to associate with either the politically correct or the reactionaries, our voice in government affairs is practically non-existant.
Last edited:
dude, calm down before you have a stroke or something!
Thank you, but I'm fine. I apologise if I came across as unseemly or overly-emotional. I was aiming for a calm response and I certainly intended to communicate nothing that would offend or upset anyone. I simply have...a few issues...with the British government. I offer my apologies if I have derailed this thread or crossed a line.I grew up in an inner-city area very poor by British standards. It was heavily multicultural, there was no real division of race, faith, gender, etc. The government is largely the one causing the problems, in my experience.
However, as I appear to have annoyed people, I'll drop the politics now. Again, please accept my apologies if I've taken this thread off topic. I have great respect for everyone who posts here, and if any of you think I've crossed a line, please inform me. I try to stay clear of political discussions in this forum most of the time, but tonight I seem to be letting it out...
Last edited:
This thread has a topic? 
^The topic appears to be "question." Woooo - heavy!
But seriously, the OP wanted to know abut Barnacle Bill, and I think he or she does by now. I know far more about Barnacle Bill than I ever thought possible...
We wish we could forget about him!
First, I'm talking about North America. Second, white men are oppressed in the USA? Um, no. Poor people are oppressed, sure, and that includes some white men. Being poor sucks. But white privilege and male privilege are still very real.
Oppressed? What? I never said "white men are oppressed in the USA". I said, the USA is a nation where discrimination and maltreatment of males is as common as it is for females. Or so my experience of American citizens of both genders on on-line blogs and such has taught me. What I know of the American legal system does nothing to change this view.
Yes indeed, white privilege is real. I never said it wasn't.
Yes, male privilege is real. So is female privelege. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I wasn't saying those groups on the list of "accepted victims of discrimination or maltreatment" weren't rightly there- quite the opposite- but ANYONE can be marginalized or mistreated and males as a group- particularly young ones- are DEFINITELY on the list.
If I became slightly heated, it was because I object to being labelled a "loud-mouthed bigot".
The bit I wanted to seek clarification on was your statement:
"If a young man dares to point out how his brothers and sons require help or are treated poorly (today or historically), politicians attack and condemn you openly for being a reactionary misogynist. Women are the victims. ONLY women. Got it? No? Go back to your wife-beating and beer-slugging, you backward, immoral bastard!"
It seems to be the same bit Steve Roby was seeking clarification on. It wasn't clear which group of oppressed "brothers and sons" you were talking about here. He seems to know you didn't mean "in the USA", but we still have no idea which oppressed group you meant.
My apologies, Therin, and to all who share his concern.
I meant young males in general, young men and adolescent boys, who (and I'm sorry to once again get all political, but I was asked) are usually- in every nation on this planet- the first group to be placed in danger, the most frequent targets of unjustified violence and imprisonment (and I'll clarify I am only moaning about unjustified imprisonment) and mass slaughter. The reasons for this are rooted in how young males are perceived, how their role in society is constructed. Always there has been the view, from both their own nation and others, that young men's role in life is to protect and provide for others. All nations historically raised- many still raise- their sons with the understanding that their duty was to enlist, to fight, suffer and die to keep others safe. The life and health and safety of young males is still considered by many less important than anyone else's- "women and children", etc. (Again, to clarify, I am NOT saying women are not a greatly mistreated and marginalized group. They are. But so are young men, in other ways).
My "brothers and sons" are the other young men on this planet. I'm certainly not saying they're all suffering, but most do not enjoy the privelege I have, of living his life safe, protected, respected. In many parts of the world, boys are raised with the understanding that their life will be one of pain and violence, their life given little value. All nations on this planet, and organizations such as the UN too, have proven time and time again that if they can get something through sacrificing their young men's freedom or lives, they will do it.
PS: I would refer to women as my "sisters and daughters".
That is absolute unmitigated bullshit to the nth degree. I'm a young(ish) male at the age of 25, I have two younger brothers, one 18 and the other 21 and they haven't been brought up with the understanding that their life will be one of pain and violence, their life given little value nor have any of my friends who are around the same age as me.
As a male, you will unfortanitily due to male privilege (scroll to the bottom to find it) have more respect than women, you will get paid more than women etc etc.
Now if you and you're piers have been brought up like that, and you've had run in's with the police, to be honest, that's more your fault than the police.
Now get your arse out of the Right wing press and live a little more to get a far more balanced world view.
Last edited:
I'm the one with an unbalanced worldview? I automatically get more respect than women in every way due to being male? Run ins with the police? Right wing?
What. The. Bloody. Fuck? Unbelievable. Have you understood a single word I've been saying?
YOU are the one who needs more life experience, my friend. YOU need to get a more balanced worldview, seeing as your current view is apparently male = privilege, female = none. You call MY view unbalanced. On what grounds? How is it less balanced than yours, which seems balanced not at all?
How DARE you tell me, so rudely, that my life experience and my understanding of my people is bullshit?
Read what I say again: I did NOT say all young men have such negative experiences, I said many do. You and your brothers don't live in "many parts of the world", do you?
Oh, you know what, if this is the nonsense I get, I'm just going to stop posting my opinions on real world matters. I go out of my way, every time I come on here, to be constantly friendly, polite, good-natured and respectful to all, and now I'm accused of being a loud-mouthed bigot, a right-wing extremist, a criminal who has had "run-ins with the police"- all because I dare to take the step of actually speaking out about my non-conventional views. I am extremely upset about this. This is exactly what I was complaining about in my above posts. If you don't agree with me, you don't agree, but DO NOT suggest I'm speaking "bullshit".
You've just proven my point of how illogical, vicious attacks on the morality of people who dare to show concern for "unconventional" victims are made by those who support the current dominant worldview.
Furthermore, don't give me links to feminist theories. I've been reading and deconstructing feminist theories in scholarship for years. I've interacted with many such scholars myself. I likely know a lot more about it than you.
Furthermore, I have read both "male privilege checklists" and "female privilege checklists". You, it seems, need further experience of the latter to develop a more rounded, balanced view of things. Maybe you should do a bit more reading, listen to a few more viewpoints, study a bit, and then get back to me? It is the height of ignorance to throw out a list of "male privilege" without having read or examined any material offering a complementary viewpoint.
Last edited:
I admit I spelt it wrong so you may have missed what I wrote first time around, but there's a reason I wrote that word, and thats because I don't agree with it, never have done, never will, I think that everyone should be treated the same, but due to one thing or another, I know that it's not the case, it's not right, and hopefully it will change, but at the rate it's going, it won't be anytime soon which is a massive massive shame.
Er...yes. We agree entirely. I believe everyone should be treated the same. No group should be given undue privilege over another and it is indeed not right when they do. However, this equal treatment certainly won't be any time soon if people continue to insist only certain groups have issues and problems and others don't. To insist that, as a man, I have privilege and women don't is a gross misinterpretation of our society- a simplistic and one-dimensional view, one that causes division and anger and is at the root of more problems than it solves. Why don't you start with yourself? If you learn to stop giving women privilige over men when it comes to their negative experiences and discriminatory attitudes, you might be better placed to bring about this change. Once again, the individual who condemns discrimination is themselves backward and discriminatory. Please reread my earlier posts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
