Political Correctness

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by social no-no. If he was lying or making a harsh comment, I understand, but he presented facts (as far as I know, I have not fact checked the exact percentage). What is the dumb move? It was his personal twitter account, is he only allowed to say those facts in a private setting?

His company, ESPN, has every right to fire him as they are a private company. I don’t agree with their reaction as I don’t think his statement was offensive.

[/quote]

I meant that when comparing things to Nazi Germany, rape, racism, etc., one should use caution as whether to “go there”. I touched on why it may have been a dumb move in my response to ZEB.

And ESPN did act on it by suspending him, I believe. And just because you didn’t find it offensive (or myself for that matter), doesn’t mean it may not have offended others. As an employee of ESPN, and as a public figure, he probably should have been a bit more cognizant of his interactions with the public. My guess is he doesn’t give two shits, which he certainly has a right to. So, yeah, there.

182

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by social no-no. If he was lying or making a harsh comment, I understand, but he presented facts (as far as I know, I have not fact checked the exact percentage). What is the dumb move? It was his personal twitter account, is he only allowed to say those facts in a private setting?

His company, ESPN, has every right to fire him as they are a private company. I don’t agree with their reaction as I don’t think his statement was offensive.

[/quote]

I meant that when comparing things to Nazi Germany, rape, racism, etc., one should use caution as whether to “go there”. I touched on why it may have been a dumb move in my response to ZEB.

And ESPN did act on it by suspending him, I believe. And just because you didn’t find it offensive (or myself for that matter), doesn’t mean it may not have offended others. As an employee of ESPN, and as a public figure, he probably should have been a bit more cognizant of his interactions with the public. My guess is he doesn’t give two shits, which he certainly has a right to. So, yeah, there.[/quote]

yes, you are correct they suspended him, they did not fire him.

Clearly ESPN was offended, or worried they offended someone so they reacted accordingly. To me, this shows why it when you are being politically correct tough topics cannot be discussed even if its in a factual way. You are not allowed to say what you believe because someone might get offended so you have to think twice before speaking your mind, even if you are speaking truth/facts.

Is seems to me ESPN is not only drawing more attention to his comments because of their actions, but also putting some people off with their reaction.

183

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In other words, “they can’t help it, they were born that way.”[/quote]

Maybe born, maybe made at an early age.

As to Gkhan’s question, the punishments are ostensibly in place to control the market. Consumption of contraband encourages the production of contraband. Consumption also, in the case of child porn, furthers the victimization of the child whose trauma is now distributed to a wider and wider audience.

I think the laws are as they are, however, more as expressions of moral outrage. Australia, for instance, criminalizes obviously cartoon “child porn.” Clearly no children are harmed in the drawing of pictures, but the thought crime is punished anyway. Some of that may be driven by the intuition that those who view child porn are likely to have acted against real children, so that proving one act seems to prove the other by proxy.

There are probably more rational ways of dealing with those who merely view child porn, however, than what we currently do.

184

[quote]nephorm wrote:
As to Gkhan’s question, the punishments are ostensibly in place to control the market. Consumption of contraband encourages the production of contraband. Consumption also, in the case of child porn, furthers the victimization of the child whose trauma is now distributed to a wider and wider audience.

I think the laws are as they are, however, more as expressions of moral outrage. Australia, for instance, criminalizes obviously cartoon “child porn.” Clearly no children are harmed in the drawing of pictures, but the thought crime is punished anyway. Some of that may be driven by the intuition that those who view child porn are likely to have acted against real children, so that proving one act seems to prove the other by proxy.

There are probably more rational ways of dealing with those who merely view child porn, however, than what we currently do. [/quote]

Sounds like Minority Report. And I agree, you can probably tick the viewing of child porn under mental health, cause there’s something very disturbing about that, and at that stage it may still be correctable. However, as soon as there is evidence of an adult acting on those tendencies/fantasies with real children, then it’s time to lock 'em up. Once you push that boundary, ya gotta go.

185

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

We used to have something called “Freedom of speech” before the left wing PC crowd took over. Your right to make your point was far more important than someone else’s right not to be offended. The left has turned that around.

He had every right to post a picture of Hitler and make the comparison that he did.

How can we win a war against any given entity when we cannot even say the entity’s name?

This is complete madness.[/quote]

Perhaps I’m a bit marred by my wife over time, who is easily offended, so I take a side of caution when saying things. However, I think images have a far stronger impact on people’s gut reactions than words. Curt’s posting hits on that. The war with Nazi Germany is long since over, but the images from that war still have a very profound effect on people, and can be very jarring. Like I said, I don’t think Curt’s content (if accurate) was anything to be upset about. But the image he chose to use can have a serious effect on some.

This isn’t me saying he has no right to post what he wants to post, nor should that right be taken away or silenced. I just think he could have made the post without the image. Personal opinion on that here.
[/quote]

I think the real hypocrisy of it all is had he said this about Christians instead of Muslims, he would not have been suspended and you would hear nary a peep from the mainstream media save for maybe ‘Bravo!’.

187

[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/29/orwells-newspeak-is-coming-to-a-campus-near-you/[/quote]

Yep, that definitely crosses way beyond my liberal lines. Absolutely ZERO justification for that garbage.

189

I read these 2 articles and they leave me speechless. What, exactly, do the PC or race baters want? What are they saying? What is their point? because I am truly at a loss. These people are perpetual victims, always looking for someone to blame for perceived slights, always looking for a way to further their insane agenda regardless of whether it is logical or not. They are pathetic, self depreciating, self loathing and their seething hatred is reprehensible.

First off the killings of the black men in question …never mind…I am totally at a loss to try and explain what ever the hell these people are trying to say. If anyone can figure it out please do so, because it is unfathomable to my mind. What is their point other than to keep racism and hatred alive and in the nation’s consciousness?

190

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

Political correctness at its best right here. The tweet isn’t offensive to me, and I think its a fair comparison to the reality of what is happening in the Middle East. Yes, extremists are only a minority, but so were the Nazis. I don’t think the Middle East has the infrastructure to become a world power like Germany, but ISIS is doing similiar horrible acts against anyone who doesn’t step inline with them.[/quote]

It’s all about presentation, man. Posting something with an image of Hitler, a swastika, or anything related to Naziism is a social “no-no.” Curt should have known better than that. As far as his content, if factual, he was fine to a degree. I’m sure many people wouldn’t have batted much of an eye if it was a picture of a terrorist. But maybe that’s just part of the time we live in. In either case, the guy is a public figure, albeit limited to the sports world. But still, just a dumb move on his part. Keep that shit to yourself, certainly if you’re on the active books for ESPN.[/quote]

We used to have something called “Freedom of speech” before the left wing PC crowd took over. Your right to make your point was far more important than someone else’s right not to be offended. The left has turned that around.

He had every right to post a picture of Hitler and make the comparison that he did.

How can we win a war against any given entity when we cannot even say the entity’s name?

This is complete madness.[/quote]

Sure, Schilling had every right to post the picture, but ESPN has every right to respond punitively to public posts by its employees that it deems to be in violation of its professional ethics. The veracity of the post isn’t at issue here. It’s a company being able to regulate the behavior of its employees in the public sphere. Employers have such a right, within reason. This is certainly one of those cases.

191

Washington State University professors ban the words “Illegal alien”, “male”, and “female…” Such words are considered derogatory and will result in a lowering of their grades if used by students. White students are also to defer to minority students.

Not making this shit up.

193

[quote]pushharder wrote:
University of California Seeks to Create ‘Right’ to Be ‘Free From Acts and Expressions of Intolerance’

[/quote]

That pesky old first amendment. Seems to me like those Professors are intolerant of free speech.

Liberal logic is actually funny isn’t it?

194

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
University of California Seeks to Create ‘Right’ to Be ‘Free From Acts and Expressions of Intolerance’

[/quote]

That pesky old first amendment. Seems to me like those Professors are intolerant of free speech.

Liberal logic is actually funny isn’t it?[/quote]

It would be hilarious if people didn’t actually take it seriously. But it goes from funny to alarming when way to many people do take it seriously. Those who preach tolerance are the least tolerant of all.

195

Funny nobody has brought this up: 14 year old Muslim student arrested for bringing suitcase-like suspected bomb to school.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/16/texas-14-year-old-arrested-for-bringing-homemade-clock-to-school-after-teacher/

Of course, he’s now being invited to the White House!!

When the kids miniature briefcase â??clockâ?? did precipitate such concerns, he refused to answer questions from school personnel and police about â??his intentions and why he had brought the device to school.â?? Presumably, they were particularly interested in knowing whether he had brought anything else to school â?? perhaps to include the other part of such a bomb: the explosive component.

Experts say it looks quite similar to IED devices. And when it started beeping in class, and he refused to talk about it, certainly not suspicion. Certainly not.

And the family’s link to CAIR is beside the point…

196

I wonder if CJ could be Obama’s son…

Nah!

197

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Experts say it looks quite similar to IED devices. And when it started beeping in class, and he refused to talk about it, certainly not suspicion. Certainly not.
[/quote]

Experts? Do you mean the police justifying their actions, or was independent experts brought in?

Refused to talk about it? Where did you get that?

From the article you posted-

“It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car,” Irving police spokesman James McLellan told the News. “The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?” McClellan admitted that Mohamed had always maintained the device was a clock and officers had no reason to believe the contraption is dangerous.

From the Dallas Morning News sourced by the Fox article-

Ahmed never claimed his device was anything but a clock, said police spokesman James McLellan. And police have no reason to think it was dangerous. But officers still didnâ??t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story.

â??We have no information that he claimed it was a bomb,â?? McLellan said. â??He kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation.â??

Asked what broader explanation the boy could have given, the spokesman explained:

â??It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car. The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?â??

By “refusing to talk about it”, are you referring to the “no broader explanation” part? What could he have said to give a broader explanation?

And where did you get this- “Presumably, they were particularly interested in knowing whether he had brought anything else to school?? perhaps to include the other part of such a bomb: the explosive component.”?

I see no mention of that in either articles, and indeed they outright contradict the police statements I posted above. Do you perhaps have another article that mentions those details?

198

[quote]ZEB wrote:

That pesky old first amendment. Seems to me like those Professors are intolerant of free speech.

Liberal logic is actually funny isn’t it?[/quote]

HUAC.

199

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Experts say it looks quite similar to IED devices. And when it started beeping in class, and he refused to talk about it, certainly not suspicion. Certainly not.
[/quote]

Experts? Do you mean the police justifying their actions, or was independent experts brought in?

Refused to talk about it? Where did you get that?

From the article you posted-

“It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car,” Irving police spokesman James McLellan told the News. “The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?” McClellan admitted that Mohamed had always maintained the device was a clock and officers had no reason to believe the contraption is dangerous.

From the Dallas Morning News sourced by the Fox article-

Ahmed never claimed his device was anything but a clock, said police spokesman James McLellan. And police have no reason to think it was dangerous. But officers still didn�¢??t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story.

�¢??We have no information that he claimed it was a bomb,�¢?? McLellan said. �¢??He kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation.�¢??

Asked what broader explanation the boy could have given, the spokesman explained:

�¢??It could reasonably be mistaken as a device if left in a bathroom or under a car. The concern was, what was this thing built for? Do we take him into custody?�¢??

By “refusing to talk about it”, are you referring to the “no broader explanation” part? What could he have said to give a broader explanation?

And where did you get this- “Presumably, they were particularly interested in knowing whether he had brought anything else to school?? perhaps to include the other part of such a bomb: the explosive component.”?

I see no mention of that in either articles, and indeed they outright contradict the police statements I posted above. Do you perhaps have another article that mentions those details?[/quote]

Have to find the second one.

200

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Have to find the second one. [/quote]

Ok.

Now I’m really curious where Gaffney got the information for much of his article. I haven’t read anything remotely similar in the AP articles I’ve read before and the articles you provided.