What don't you like about Christmas?

[RandyS]

In which way you are "against PC"? Do you like to insult people? Do you specifically go out of your way to treat people like shit? Do you get your kicks from using racial or sexual slurs?

"Politically correct", by itself, means nothing. The original expression was about toeing the party line about the specific political issue du jour. Right now, it's used as a political boogeyman by people who long for the day where they could use sexual and racial epithets with impunity. They decry oppression for not being able to use oppressive expressions. They scream of persecution because they are not free to persecute. So yeah, I would say that people who argue against "PC" don't care about other people. If people were respectful and polite, we wouldn't need it. Alas, the opposite is true.

Political correctness adresses the right problems yet leads to some problems of its own.
I would like to live in a society where somebody who utters a racial slur is not taken seriously. Everybody would just think "what an idiot" and ignore him.

The problem of making this an explicit rule is that this very rule creates pleasure for people who violate it.
It's like with 1950s sexual morals, it provided extra pleasure for young people to violate the sexual inhibitions (which, between the line, basically said "do it but quietly").

Another problem is that PC stays too much on the surface. It did e.g. not prevent that we rboke the torture taboo and publically talked about its potential merits after 9/11.
Take Mel Gibson, if he isn't an antisemite I don't know who is. Yet after his antisemitic outbursts he could apologize and blame his alcoholism. By political correct logic as long as he does not express antisemitic slurs he plays by the book.
I think this does not suffice, he is still an antisemite but is not viewed as one as long as he does not utter any antisemitic slurs.
If he had violated an implicit rule it would be much harder for him to redeem himself.

That's why I think that our goal should be to create societies in which anybody who says something sexist, racist or homophobic is simply out. Imagine you met somebody who defended rape or torturing animals or something like this, everybody would just stop talking to him and ignore him.


The other problem I have with PC is that it is easy to pay lipservice and say "I tolerate women/blacks/homosexuals". Ending discrimination beyond language is a problem that is not addressed by PC. To be a bit polemic, what's the point of a world where nobody uses the N word anymore but more and more black people are incarcerated? Isn't the latter at least as important as the former?

Excellent points.

 

[Amaris]

"PC" is a convenient boogeyman, the definition of which seems to change depending on whatever is necessary for the situation, but as FlyingLemons says it is most often criticized in a context meant to cover the critic's own obvious bigotry.

True, plus, people who rail against "PC" and openly defy it, tend to consider themselves the last true patriots/defenders of the faith. It's sad, really.

 

[horatio83]

Be careful buddy. I tried using the same argument you are with the fine folks around here and was dismissed as a racist and have been ignored ever since.

I hope you get treated better. Good luck.

Seems strange that people can be caught in such a dogmatic deadlock, believing that fellow progressives are fake progressives because they do not agree on your means of fighting discrimination.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Be careful buddy. I tried using the same argument you are with the fine folks around here and was dismissed as a racist and have been ignored ever since.

I hope you get treated better. Good luck.

Seems strange that people can be caught in such a dogmatic deadlock, believing that fellow progressives are fake progressives because they do not agree on your means of fighting discrimination.

Please, you claimed people who don't embrace the universality of Christian values are racists. Then you said tolerance doesn't matter. I've gotten your point to be, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As a strategy for pursuing religious tolerance, I think that's a terrible idea. "Yeah, we'll stop persecuting all those Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Jews... as soon as they convert to Christianity."

Your views are not just dogmatic, they're completely detached from reality.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Please, you claimed people who don't embrace the universality of Christian values are racists. Then you said tolerance doesn't matter. I've gotten your point to be, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As a strategy for pursuing religious tolerance, I think that's a terrible idea. "Yeah, we'll stop persecuting all those Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Jews... as soon as they convert to Christianity."

Your views are not just dogmatic, they're completely detached from reality.

I don't really think that's what horatio means but his poor wording and erroneous reasoning that goes off on random tangents isn't doing him any favours. Maybe it's a language issue, too.
Anyway, some of his points aren't properly thought through and so he ends up involuntarily being in the same camp as the right-wing people on this board.

What horatio is complaining about is something that in Germany is often dubbed as "excessive political correctness". The reason for that is that the discourse and social issues are different from the United States' issues. Some of the US arguments seem a bit silly from a non-American's point of view and horatio fails to acknowledge the fundamental differences in the intra-societal discourses within 2 different countries.

What seems like excessive PC within the logic of a discourse of one country can make perfect sense in a different country.

That's why he ends up getting agreement and support from right-wing Americans for all the wrong reasons even though I actually do think horatio probably is what he says he is.

 

[horatio83]

Please, you claimed people who don't embrace the universality of Christian values are racists. Then you said tolerance doesn't matter. I've gotten your point to be, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As a strategy for pursuing religious tolerance, I think that's a terrible idea. "Yeah, we'll stop persecuting all those Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Jews... as soon as they convert to Christianity."

Your views are not just dogmatic, they're completely detached from reality.

I have never said such a thing. All I said was that in early Christianity there is the idea of universality, just like in Trek, just like in human rights, just like in many other human institutions.
I did say that I prefer universality to identity politics, I want all disenfranchised groups to fight alongside each other. I also said that want more than tolerance as it is easy to picture a slaveowner who tolerates his slaves. What matters is not so much tolerance but equal rights for everybody.
Or take the example from my post above, it is easy to tolerate Black people but much harder to end their systemic discrimination in the juristic system.

I have by the way never been politically incorrect in my life and used a racial or sexist slur of any kind, I merely believe that we need more than mere political correctness.

By the way, as an ex-Catholic, as somebody who quitted a church, I am hardly the candidate to advocate forced conversions.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Please, you claimed people who don't embrace the universality of Christian values are racists. Then you said tolerance doesn't matter. I've gotten your point to be, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As a strategy for pursuing religious tolerance, I think that's a terrible idea. "Yeah, we'll stop persecuting all those Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Jews... as soon as they convert to Christianity."

Your views are not just dogmatic, they're completely detached from reality.

I have never said such a thing. All I said was that in early Christianity there is the idea of universality, just like in Trek, just like in human rights, just like in many other human institutions.
I did say that I prefer universality to identity politics, I want all disenfranchised groups to fight alongside each other. I also said that want more than tolerance as it is easy to picture a slaveowner who tolerates his slaves. What matters is not so much tolerance but equal rights for everybody.
Or take the example from my post above, it is easy to tolerate Black people but much harder to end their systemic discrimination in the juristic system.

I have by the way never been politically incorrect in my life and used a racial or sexist slur of any kind, I merely believe that we need more than mere political correctness.

By the way, as an ex-Catholic, as somebody who quitted a church, I am hardly the candidate to advocate forced conversions.

This post tells me you do not know what "tolerance" means as it applies to American politics.

 

[horatio83]

If I am wrong please tell me what it means. Does the word the way you use it in the US include the fight against the non-personal, systemic discrimination I described?

 

[{ Emilia }]

Well, like I said. It's a constructivist problem. Horatio doesn't realize the differences between the societal discourses even though they are evident.

He's probably one of those "realists" (epistemologically speaking) who think every truth and reality is objective so the discourse he sees is just the same in everybody else's reality/country.

 

[horatio83]

Although I am not a friend pf postmodern stuff I do not really fit into this description. That's why I asked Maxwell whether being tolerant implies in the US to fight against systemic discrimination. I only know that over here it does not imply such a fight, it is basically a passive "live and let live" attitude and not something active.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If I am wrong please tell me what it means. Does the word the way you use it in the US include the fight against the non-personal, systemic discrimination I described?

"Tolerance" in the US means taking an essentially "live and let live" attitude toward people who are not like yourself. I am not gay, but I want gays to enjoy the same rights I have. I am not Christian, but I want Christians to enjoy the same rights I have. I don't think any group should have special rights over any other.

By definition, that means I am against slavery and any kind of institutional discrimination, because they fundamentally place certain groups of people over others on a fraudulent basis.

On the other hand, I do think some measures to combat that institutional discrimination are justified, such as affirmative action programs. Systemic bias still exists and will take time to stamp out.

To me, the basic premise of tolerance is that everyone is different, some people are more different than others, but those differences are not a reason to treat someone poorly or, more broadly, deny them rights that others have.

ETA: Talking further with Emilia about this, one thing I think you haven't realized is that religion is not compartmentalized in the US the way it is in Western Europe. There, religious life and public life are kept separate. It's cultural trivia, at best, not really influential to public policy. Here, that is very much not the case. One's religious credentials are considered an essential component of a political candidate, and it translates to just about all areas of public life. Americans, particularly American Christians, take religion very seriously and are much more inclined to make a show of it. Evangelical Christians are also driven to convert others, and sometimes they are not at all pleasant about it. It's not just Christians but Christian dogma that exerts an outsize influence on our politics, and it's a problem that doesn't seem to exist to any substantial degree in Western Europe.

 

[{ Emilia }]

ETA: Talking further with Emilia about this, one thing I think you haven't realized is that religion is not compartmentalized in the US the way it is in Western Europe. There, religious life and public life are kept separate. It's cultural trivia, at best, not really influential to public policy. Here, that is very much not the case. One's religious credentials are considered an essential component of a political candidate, and it translates to just about all areas of public life. Americans, particularly American Christians, take religion very seriously and are much more inclined to make a show of it. Evangelical Christians are also driven to convert others, and sometimes they are not at all pleasant about it. It's not just Christians but Christian dogma that exerts an outsize influence on our politics, and it's a problem that doesn't seem to exist to any substantial degree in Western Europe.

Perfect post and that's what I meant when I talked about fundamentally different discourses and cultural environments.

The issues present in the US aren't present here (at least not to a comparable degree) so to horatio (and other Europeans) American PC-ness seems a bit overdone.

They simply can't imagine that shit like the stuff you mentioned is really such a big issue in America (because it isn't here)... but sadly it is the case.

And that's why people like horatio end up agreeing with American right-wing folks who actually are part of the problem.

 

[horatio83]

"Tolerance" in the US means taking an essentially "live and let live" attitude toward people who are not like yourself. I am not gay, but I want gays to enjoy the same rights I have. I am not Christian, but I want Christians to enjoy the same rights I have. I don't think any group should have special rights over any other.

By definition, that means I am against slavery and any kind of institutional discrimination, because they fundamentally place certain groups of people over others on a fraudulent basis.

On the other hand, I do think some measures to combat that institutional discrimination are justified, such as affirmative action programs. Systemic bias still exists and will take time to stamp out.

To me, the basic premise of tolerance is that everyone is different, some people are more different than others, but those differences are not a reason to treat someone poorly or, more broadly, deny them rights that others have.

ETA: Talking further with Emilia about this, one thing I think you haven't realized is that religion is not compartmentalized in the US the way it is in Western Europe. There, religious life and public life are kept separate. It's cultural trivia, at best, not really influential to public policy. Here, that is very much not the case. One's religious credentials are considered an essential component of a political candidate, and it translates to just about all areas of public life. Americans, particularly American Christians, take religion very seriously and are much more inclined to make a show of it. Evangelical Christians are also driven to convert others, and sometimes they are not at all pleasant about it. It's not just Christians but Christian dogma that exerts an outsize influence on our politics, and it's a problem that doesn't seem to exist to any substantial degree in Western Europe.

I am sorry that I used the word tolerance with a different background in mind. Thanks for Emilia for having highlighted this underlying problem. There is a bright side to all of this, it means that we basically agree, that we are against personal and systemic discrimination of any kind.

About religion in the US, even if you are not a Christian you have to pretend to be one to reach certain positions. I doubt you can e.g. become President if you don't claim to be Christian. But Europe is not really more enlightened than the US, it is e.g. (still) unimaginable that a Turk could become Chancellor of Germany.
By the way, what about family? Do you have to be married to become President? Merely asking because this Denebian slime devil who left one of his ex-wives while she was pretty sick and then dared to go after Clinton in the Lewinsky affair, because such an utter hypocrite is running for POTUS.

By the way, this neatly illustrates what I wrote about above, the power of implicit rules, in this instance totally dominated by right-wing ideology.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Well, now that this is mostly sorted I'd like to draw your attention to something that really is relevant to the whole Christmas thing.

The wisdom of Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[horatio83]

The way I like to think about God is like about Santa Claus.
Nobody seriously believes in Santa Claus, parents pretend to believe to make their children happy and children pretend to believe to make their parents happy and get the sweets. Nonetheless Santa Claus becomes a material force.

Same with God, I do not think that he/she/it exists and I am pretty sure that many religious people do not really believe in him but merely pretend to like in the case of Santa Claus. It is perfectly possible that Obama is an atheist but in order to gain political power he has to pretend to be a Christian. Nonetheless, even though God might not exist and even though many people who claim to believe in him do not actually believe in him he becomes a material force.

So you get my point, the belief system and in the case of Christian fascism its horrible implications upon the world (I doubt the Iraqis have been too happy about Bush's crusade) can function just like Santa Claus: even if nobody seriously believes in it it wields and gains power.

In other words, Christian fascism might have the qualities of a virus and be very persistent.
This worries me and only because of this worry I talked here about destroying this belief system from the insight, i.e. turning Christian fascism into a more liberal form of Christianity. It just appears to me to be a second option besides the fight from the outside against it. Being an atheist I am, like you guys, fighting from the outside against it. I merely also appreciate the people who do it from the insight.

Happy Holidays to everybody

 

[BlazePin]

Green or brown Christmas, same

 

[Random_Spock]

Heavy commercialism and the fact that it's advertised in October.

Music I can't get away from. It's everywhere. It was worse when I used to work in retail and that's one of the things I don't miss about working in a store.

Presents. I barely have enough money for myself, I can't afford to get anyone presents. I only get cards for immediate family, and scrounge up something for an annual Yankee Swap among friends from college. That's it.

Too many days off. I'm not on salary. If I don't work, I don't get paid.

Basically, all the problems cropped up once I hit adulthood.

Agreed. That's why Christmas doesn't mean as much to me as it once did. And heck, kids don't need to be exposed to so much of that either -- it kind of ruins the holidays themselves.

I came across this and it made me laugh. I don't agree with all of it, but some of it was quite funny.

I love Christmas, but even I don't like certain things about it.

It did get me thinking: what don't you like about the holidays or Christmas in particular?

For me (in no particular order):
Bad Christmas music - By this I mean music that is poorly performed. It seems practically no one can do Christmas music anymore and haven't for at least twenty-five years or more. I know that's not strictly true because once in awhile a new tune or new version of an oldie comes out that is nice.

Incessant Christmas music - Hey, I love christmas music (decently performed), but it can be too much when it's played nonstop.

Green or brown Christmas - Okay this isn't anyone's fault because we can't control the weather. And it does depend on where you live. But living in a northern country and climate I find green Christmases depressing as hell. Rainy Christmases are even worse. And if you happen to live in a big city and it's raining on Christmas then it's wet, cold and dirty grey and brown---Yuch! Call the crises hotline

Overt commercialism - This has been part-and-parcel of modern Christmas for two hundred years so there is no real escaping it. But you can downplay it by not allowing yourself to get sucked neck deep into it by trying to scale back expectations and unwarranted feelings of guilt. I admire those who seem to have a good handle on this aspect of the holidays. That said seeing Christmas stuff in stores and advertising before Halloween bugs the shit out of me---theres no sense of perspective. Seeing stores and businesses (including on television) wishing you a "Happy Holidays" while trying to entice you to buy "Christmas" gifts strikes me as utter hypocrisy. There's also the pressure to buy expensive and extravagant gifts that are often way beyond the average person's means. This is where your willpower has to kick in to resist unrealistic expectations and unwarranted guilt.

Being alone - I've spent some holidays alone and I know it's no fun. It's easy to see how one can go from just being lonely to becoming outright bitter and tainting your view of everything connected with Christmas. And I understand how it can be hard to be happy for others when you feel you have little to be cheerful for.

Cheesy Christmas movies - This one is similar to bad Christmas music. A film like The Polar Express represents my point well enough---it's just so overdone in practically every way. And I could name quite a few others, but most folks will have their own list. Yeah, I suppose there has to be a measure of schmaltz and corn in a Christmas movie, but there's a fine line and to the point of crossing way over it. Of course you don't have to actually watch those movies. Bad Christmas music, though, is hard to escape because it's everywhere.

Unwarranted guilt - Christmas has come to mean different things to different people. At heart I think it's a time of appreciation for what you have and those close to you. Yes, the day is meant to remember the birth of Christ and what he represents, but I do resent those who might try to make you feel guilty for not being more pious and religiously observant. I respect their right to observe the day in their manner and they should respect my right to observe it in mine. There's also unwarranted guilt in feeling you haven't met someone else's expectations (or your own) in exchanging gifts. It makes a lie of the notion "it's the thought that counts."

That list is a start. Anyone else?

Hey , I've heard my share of bad Christmas music -- that one Christmas song by Paul McCartney -- Wonderful Christmastime -- would certainly fit that bill O_o. Can't stand it. But there is one thing I'm grateful for this year, the fact that I haven't heard it played once in a store . As for bad Christmas song singing, haven't experienced that one yet.

Definitely . Had that one happen when I was still in high school. This one radio station played the stuff all day and all night... but now a days they don't. Guess enough people complained . Now they only play one of those songs every once in a while.

As for commercialism -- heck yes. I can't stand when I hear so much of it around this time a year. It takes away from the true meaning of the holidays.

Definitely. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a big family to go to during the holidays.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I'd say advertising and consumerism, but hell....I'm a left-winger and a simple-living advocate. My disdain for those two is a year-round affair.

The worst thing about Christmas, for me, is all these whining people who insist that their cultural traditions are the only ones and that they should be observed by the government. No one is trying to take Christ out of Christmas, you boobs, and you're certainly not going to keep Christ in Christmas by acting like self-absorbed boors. Learn a little humility, tolerance, patience, and charity, and you might do better service to the season.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I'd say advertising and consumerism, but hell....I'm a left-winger and a simple-living advocate. My disdain for those two is a year-round affair.

The worst thing about Christmas, for me, is all these whining people who insist that their cultural traditions are the only ones and that they should be observed by the government. No one is trying to take Christ out of Christmas, you boobs, and you're certainly not going to keep Christ in Christmas by acting like self-absorbed boors. Learn a little humility, tolerance, patience, and charity, and you might do better service to the season.

A couple of weeks ag, the teenage daughter of a friend of mine, posted on Facebook, that Australian PM Julia Gilliard had said that "we can't say Merry Christmas because its not the Muslims religion".

I posted that I had spent 15 minutes searching the internet and could find no evidence of Ms Gilliard saying such a thing I explain that I didn't like Ms Glliard and that if anyone could provide me with a link to her saying such a thing i would have even a lower opinion of her.

By the end of the day the story had changed to some Sudanese kid in a playground had said it to a friend of a friend, or something like that, and that some Muslim group was trying to change it to Happy Holidays.

I said I doubt that a Sudanese refugee would have said it as most of them are Christians.

Later on in a similar thread in which the Sudanese were also considered the 'culprits' for trying to stop the saying of Merry Christmas, I once again pointed out that most of the Sudanese were Christian, the person suggested that it might be some other group of black Africans who were Muslims who were behind it all.

 

[MacLeod]

If I am wrong please tell me what it means. Does the word the way you use it in the US include the fight against the non-personal, systemic discrimination I described?

"Tolerance" in the US means taking an essentially "live and let live" attitude toward people who are not like yourself. I am not gay, but I want gays to enjoy the same rights I have. I am not Christian, but I want Christians to enjoy the same rights I have. I don't think any group should have special rights over any other.

By definition, that means I am against slavery and any kind of institutional discrimination, because they fundamentally place certain groups of people over others on a fraudulent basis.

On the other hand, I do think some measures to combat that institutional discrimination are justified, such as affirmative action programs. Systemic bias still exists and will take time to stamp out.

To me, the basic premise of tolerance is that everyone is different, some people are more different than others, but those differences are not a reason to treat someone poorly or, more broadly, deny them rights that others have.

ETA: Talking further with Emilia about this, one thing I think you haven't realized is that religion is not compartmentalized in the US the way it is in Western Europe. There, religious life and public life are kept separate. It's cultural trivia, at best, not really influential to public policy. Here, that is very much not the case. One's religious credentials are considered an essential component of a political candidate, and it translates to just about all areas of public life. Americans, particularly American Christians, take religion very seriously and are much more inclined to make a show of it. Evangelical Christians are also driven to convert others, and sometimes they are not at all pleasant about it. It's not just Christians but Christian dogma that exerts an outsize influence on our politics, and it's a problem that doesn't seem to exist to any substantial degree in Western Europe.

Being raised as a Christian I was taught to respect other peoples beliefs or lack thereof. And not to try and impose mine onto others.

But like you say in Western Europe, most people don't care what religious background you have if any.

Though I am against positive discrimination, you don't change peoples viewpoint by forcing through, Women only shortlist for MP's, x% has to be from this background. Only that does is foster ill will amongest the group(s) that aren't being included within that percentage or shortlist.

Only one crtieria should really apply are they the BEST person for the job, regardless of colour, gender etc...

I seriously doubt many people care in the UK care if their local MP is female/male, black/white etc... so long as they represent the party they voted for. I know I don't.