The following link is self explanatory.
Whatever idiot started the whole ‘Politically Correct’ thing needs a good butt kicking…
People who take offense at the smallest things need to grow a friggin spine & learn to shake it off. The world isn’t a ‘nice’ place, and when this ‘paradise’ we live in now comes crashing down (and it will happen, sooner or later folks) those weaklings out there who get their feelings hurt are going to be in a whole world of hurt… :mad:
[quote=walstan]The following link is self explanatory.
étiez-vous absent Catholic Anwers forum?
I see you have returned … :hmmm: I shall think about my answer before posting
[quote=walstan]The following link is self explanatory.
How ridiculous to call this an offence. Sir Iqbal gave a reasoned response to a direct question. He didn’t say homosexuals should be rounded up, punished, branded, etc.
In the interview Sir Iqbal said he was guided by the teachings of the Muslim faith, adding that other religions such as Christianity and Judaism held the same stance.
Asked if he believed homosexuality was harmful to society, he said: “Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is. It is not acceptable.” “Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.”
While I am no fan of political correctness and since I can’t keep up with all the new terms, it has succeeded in making my just keep my big mouth shut so I remain out of trouble.
WHY do they insist on wheeling out Peter Tatchell to give the ‘gay point of view’? Peter Tatchell no more speaks for the average gay person than Pat Robertson speaks for the average Christian.
I don’t see anything wrong with what was said. I think the police have to say they are investigating, but nothing will come of it I’ll bet.
I’d welcome you back walstan, but the last person I did that too was banned again within a day, so I won’t curse you
We’ve had our own little controvesy over Political Correctness.
To “Work like blacks” is a compliment, a well known Irish phrase. It has been around for… God knows how long. It came from the hard, labourious work of coal miners. It had never anything to do with racism, or the slave trade. It still doesn’t.
I support her in the fact she’s not apologising - But I’ve heard people from both sides of the argument. From those who knew what it meant, and, those, who never heard it before. I feel the latter to just be the cause of ignorance, they never heard it before, so a phrase with “Blacks” in it, must be racist.
On listening to the radio, a foreigner came on and attacked her for what she said. After the host explaining what it meant, he completely changed to: “Ok, I see now. It’s a compliment, so… I can see why she won’t apologise.”
The media, oh what joy! They knew they’d get more sales from headlines saying: “RACIST SLUR!” “SENATOR MADE RACIST COMMENT” and so on. In one article above, it didn’t say: “Over a mis-understanding of old Irish phrase”, no, it said: “Racist comment.” to me that is obvious bias.
Political correctness is doing more harm than good. How can the foreigners integrate into Irish society, by not knowing a thing about our traditions, culture - i.e. phrases etc…? Then getting up in arms, attacking us over our culture etc…? This is creating tension and problems. We should help them to integrate, not change our culture, write it off as if it’s nothing, creating pockets of different cultures, causing rivalry and racism. Well done Political Correctness…
[quote=MikeWM]I’d welcome you back walstan, but the last person I did that too was banned again within a day, so I won’t curse you
Since I have no such curse (as far as I know), I heartily welcome you back walstan!
If I had gone with the majority on this one I would have to accept that we Catholics should not be immune to derogatory comments. I much prefer the opposite of not making derogatory comments about anyone but not because of political correctness. Simply kindness.
I had difficulty responding. It’s not clear what you mean by “immune;” the possible answers don’t really correspond to the poll question, which is different from the thread title question, which is different from the article title, and it’s not explained how the linked article relates to the above.:hmmm:
[quote=Digitonomy]I had difficulty responding. It’s not clear what you mean by “immune;” the possible answers don’t really correspond to the poll question, which is different from the thread title question, which is different from the article title, and it’s not explained how the linked article relates to the above.:hmmm:
I think it means that, so long as someone isn’t calling for harm to be done to another group of people, that Free Speech means that, as a society, we should allow the remarks to proceed uncensored unless we’re in places where they would be censored (such as this forum).
Applied to the Muslim Sheikh in the article, Free Speech should mean that, since he didn’t call for people to harm gays, there shouldn’t even be a police investigation of him and his remarks. It should also allow people to discuss WHAT he said on the merits instead of calling the in “Hate Police” to see if he should be arrested for expressing hateful ideas about Gays.
It should also make nullify the various speech codes in effect at most Universities which serve to deprive most students of the right to Free Speech on a variety of issues.
Scripture says, “From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil.” Matt 12:34-35 NAB
Free Speech means that bad ideas will come to light and be refuted. NO Free Speech means the bad ideas stay hidden and fester until they explode on the scene, often causing destruction in their wake.
But Free Speech means we all have be willing to listen to things that are either intended as insults or, more frequently, make us feel uncomfortable.
That’s the cost…
Part of being in a CIVIL SOCIETY is that DECENT people try not to say things that are manifestly insulting or untrue about other groups of people. Problem is basic common decency can’t legislated.
In Christ, Michael
The question is: Is Political Correctness an acceptable modern method of control?
None of the poll answers are: “Yes because …” or “No because …”
I was torn between the first and the last option, both of which I support. The first, noone should make derogatory comments out of simple kindness. The last because nobody should be immune from such comments if made.
But I choose the first because I do believe some immunity is necessary, when such comments insite violence or disrupt a work environment.
As a political matter, “political correctness” is dangerous because it inhibits free speech–sometimes directly, as when derogatory speech is made into a “hate crimes,” and often indirectly, by social pressure to be tolerant of anything and everybody, and any behavior.
As someone with a background in literature & teaching the English language, I’ve always detested PC just because it forced people to mangle the language with its ridiculous terminology. To illustrate: according to PC, I am “vertically challenged” instead of short and “horizontally challenged” because I’m a bit overweight. It sounds silly because it is.
Eventually I came to hate it even more because of the hypocrisy behind the entire concept and the type of people who promulgate it. It is a false tolerance because it seeks to protect select groups while permitting or even encouraging attacks and falsehoods against others. It is a false kindness because it levels all behavior until nothing is wrong and nobody is guilty. Concealing or manipulating truth is not kindness. If it were, our Lord, who is love personified, would be considered unkind and who among us would dare to say that?
[quote=goofyjim]If I had gone with the majority on this one I would have to accept that we Catholics should not be immune to derogatory comments. I much prefer the opposite of not making derogatory comments about anyone but not because of political correctness. Simply kindness.
There are two ways this needs to be looked at: secular and religious.
From a secular perspective, there is no “right” for anyone to be not offended. This means Catholics like myself do not have a right to not be offended. I support this, because I don’t trust anyone to come up with the definition of whats offensive. What if someone finds the Catholic mass offensive? Our society is becoming a bunch of pansies. Now having said that, if I find myself offended, I have lawful options: Rebuttal, protest, boycott, etc.
From a religioius perspective. If someone insults me because I am a Catholic, then remember: "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt 5:11-12).
Political correctness is another one of those good intentions with which the road to hell is paved.
Well meaning people sought to smooth off some rough edges of society by making it unacceptable to use certain derogatory racial, sexual, and ethnic names. This seemed to evolve into the use of euphemisms in all corners of communication. For example, nobody is crippled now, he or she has “mobility problems.” Nobody is a moron, he is “intellectually challenged.” Nobody is sick; he has health issues. The use of “he” is often replaced by “they” to avoid feminist offense. Some of this became humorous as in avoiding saying someone is fat and saying instead he is “gravitationally challenged.” “Short” becomes "altitudinally challenged."
But, the possiblities of euphemism have not been lost on people who are not well-meaning at all. Quite to the contrary. Political correctness with its euphemisms can be, has been, and is being effectively used by very unpleasant types to hide and distort facts. A lot of Americans are figuring this out, and every now and then one hears suggestions that certain matters be seriously discussed even if it is necessary to step on some hyper-sensitive toes to do so.
All this is old as the hills. In the 19th century certain words were not used in polite society. An example: the word “leg” was considered offensive. If a person fell and broke his leg it was said he broke a “lower limb.” People asked for “dark meat” instead of a chicken leg, etc. Women weren’t pregnant, they were “in a family way” or “in a delicate condition.” So to a degree we have just changed euphemism.
He said it was ‘harmful’. As far as I can tell, that was not said in a hateful way- so it was just fine for him to say that- and true. Yes, political correctness has gone WAY too far. If he said homosexuals should be killed, that would be inappropriate. If he said homosexuals were going to hell and he rejoiced in that fact (which I have seen the televangelists do on TBN more times then I can count), that would be inappropriate. A charitable warning, as he apparently gave, is very appropriate, and I’m glad he gave it.
Yes, PC has gone way too far and is starting to invade on the free speech rights of others (you can tell it’s gone too far when it’s gone from protecting a minority to being used as a bully tactic). I have to agree with the Muslim here.