Sensitivity towards others. Does it weaken us or does it make us stronger?
Is being P.C. or polite, really P.C. and polite or is it a shield of self defense? Or is it something else like a cop out. Are we afraid of being unsensitive if so why?
Sensitivity, or the ability to empathise, is not in my opinion similar to political correctness. I think the ability to empathise with others makes us stronger (and said ability can be used for good or ill) and political correctness is, by definition, not consistently rational.
Sensitivity leads to weakness, empathy is its definitional cousin.
Political correctness incorporates both, and is only suited to the socially impotent and weak, who lack identity and require formal/institutionalised instance with which to validate themselves, as “something” other than an anathema.
Oh! I knew there would be at least two sides to this little coin.
P.C. is touted as being empathetic and sensitve. And that those who are both would be considered highly civilized in the civilized community or self appointed civilized community. Does this mean passive and non assertive? How can one be assertive and be P.C. or sensitive. Can you be civilized with an aggressive personality or stance and still be sensitive or P.C. I don’t think so.
Unless you like OBW sugests and use it for ill, by that I take it he means manipulate or connive. Now if you take control by honest words and aggressive emotion you would be uncivilized which is really curious because we are suposed to be honest and truthful,but, only if it is nice? Confusing? Yep especially to kids that have little or no family support or teaching. When where and how to be socially adept, or is it lie through your teeth to be accepted?
It makes us weaker as individuals, but stronger as a group, with the strengthening far outweighing the weakening.
I don’t agree. PC is an attempt to change cultural attitudes by controlling speech and through speech controlling thought. It doesn’t arise from empathy or sensitivity, but from the equivalent of evangelical furvor.
Social conundrums are something the entire system does to children, and it is pathetic, because they are always generated by those who are physically fearful, weak minded socialites.
“Little Timmy I told you to always tell the truth” *Parent
“Okay, little Suzy is a fat slob” *Little Timmy
“You can’t say that, it’s not nice” *Parent
“But you told me to always tell the truth” *Little Timmy
“Well, we can’t say that’s true, it’s just your opinion and it’s not nice” *Parent
“What’s not nice, she is fat, and wears dirty clothes, and smells like butt” *Little Timmy
“I told you to stop saying that, it’s not nice” *Parent
“But you said I should always tell the truth” *Little Timmy
“Yes, what you are saying isn’t nice and might hurt Little Suzy’s feelings” *Parent
“So, you are saying I am supposed to lie when saying the truth might hurt someone’s feelings?” *Little Timmy
“No, you shouldn’t lie” *Parent
“But you also said, not telling the truth is lying, if I know what the truth is?” *Little Timmy
“But you just can’t say things that aren’t nice, and that’s the end of the discussion” *Parent
Little Timmy walks away, shaking his head, completely befuddled by an illogical conundrum forced on him by *Parent. Little Timmy decides, “you know what *Parent, you’re an idiot, and I’m going to tell that tawdry little trailer park skank she’s fat and reeks of ass”.
Heh.
Parent could have resolved the conundrum by acknowledging that yes, Suzy is a fat slob, but still you shouldn’t say so to her face.
Or, as I’ve heard it put, “Always tell the truth, but don’t always be tellin’ it.”
I disagree sir, with respect to natural selection directly. That which is born of weakness, breeds weakness, and is a continual drain upon the broadest perspective of the “group”.
I definitely disagree here, as the majority pushers for political correctness are the “Democrats” or “liberals” who feel anything that can be construed as “emotionally damaging” should be outlawed by means of socialistic governmental restrictions on language.
Race, gender, and ethnicity were the prime movers of Political Correctness. Religion has literally nothing to do with the scenario.
I sort of stand in the middle here. It seems the more sensitive we have to be to each other the more it breeds a sort of mistrust. We all know that everyone else is not being truthful or honest. If someone says that you smell bad, it is taken as an insult not a helpful hint.
Yet we do need to empathize with each other. Why can’t we empathize and be truthful, why are we always expecting the worst when the truth is spoken.
I can be sensitive to your emotions and feelings but, then I won’t be able to know you.
I personally don’t follow P.C.ness I can’t call a Black US citizen an African American, unless they hold actual dual citizenship to both countrys. I can’t call A US Indian a native American, Well I am a native American too does that make me part of the Indian Nations? No. A Peruvian is an American, a Mexican is an American. We are all native americans if you were born on one of the American continents. So P.C. to me seems designed to drive wedges not bring together. It feels like the fasination people have with titles. Sanitation Engineer, V.P in charge of…
The assistant to the assistant of the… it gets silly. All Ego and that is what P.C. seems to be, ego driven.
Being PC is a useful tool for getting along in an intolerant multi-cultural society, and is therefore beneficial to man.
Where people from different countries/backgrounds work together: one cannot afford to put one’s foot in it, or one risks alienating oneself.
I socialise in high-society: where the rich and famous come in all shapes/sizes/colours, and to not be PC would be social suicide, and certain banishment back to lower-society/bores-ville/mediocre-land!
Being PC therefore seems to spare egos? but not being PC is just using language to put others down and boost one’s own ego in the process? I have seen this happen, and is a false sense of being: that could potentially be slapped out of the perpetrator.
Hey Kriswest! I’m Carib Indian (a type of Red Indian: that settled in the Caribbean centuries ago, and left the main land) I’m also mixed with Indian, French, and possibly Chinese, and I love all of my parts that make my (and my family’s) whole.
God help the person who tries to put me (or my family) down: especially my nine nephews/one niece. If that means using the social tool called PC: they better have made it into a fine art by the time they meet us… 
But all that aside: I can get on with any-one: as long as they aren’t too obnoxious/ a bore…
Magsj, You have valid points. but, a tag is not an insult it is the intent that is an insult. I grew up out west, huge mixture of cultures colliding and melting and fighting. Black, white, red, yellow and brown, plus any combo therein. High society has its drawbacks, folks there can be as plastic as your creditcard, frankly, most bore me to death. I am a part of it but, not. I chucked the whole society game away long ago. The only thing high society can get you are good seats to shows, fancy toys, fancy homes and fancy clothes. All boring and plastic. It does not give you any reality or fun. I like the rat race much much more than society. Give me a cold beer and rowdy non P.C. mediocre people anyday.
P.C. is a plastic way to keep people at arms length with politeness. Look at it this way, why change the tags? You still are going to know who you are talking about, And you are still going to talk about them the same way but, with a fancy plastic tag and fancy safe words, disguising you as a proper person. You are not changing the conversation you are just disguising it.
That is one thing killed me about society. For all the fanciness we still talked about the same things just in a fancy disguised way. This is done soley for ego sake, to look good. To look civilized. Looks are deceiving. To be civilized one must change thought patterns not words, not tags. To do that acceptance must be done and true honesty. Not protective fake plastic. Here in middle country folks are less P.C. and more open, more real more accepting for real.
‘Peer/socially-Enforced’ PC-ness drives linguistic wedges between ethnic/whatever groups en massé, simply to play lip-service to the few. A greater isolation ensues from people worrying too much about what they say, and to whom they are saying it, rather than just going ahead and saying it. It ties tongues and leaves people mute, however harmless their real intent.
“Knock-Knock”
[size=75][Oh shit - It’s that black-guy who just moved in next door. He looked a bit shifty to me][/size]
“Knock-knock”
[size=75][Don’t be so friggin un-PC Reginald - well - go on - open it…!]
[Yeah - but wtf do I say…?]
[Don’t say anything you ass.]
[Yeah - But then he might think I was er patronizing him by not mentioning it or somefin…]
[Well - How about ‘ey wassup my nigger…?’ I heard that on the telly yesterday.]
[God no !!! Er - How about ‘hello my non-white neighbor who is in no way my inferior…’]
[Hmm - A bit verbose - We don’t want him to think we’re stuck-up or anything… How about ‘Hey Black-guy good ta seeya…!’]
[We can’t say the b-word - Hokay - ‘Thoroughly Euro-Americanized person of African Ancestry…?’]
[Nah - Too many 'A’s - Doesn’t scan.]
[Spear-Chucker…?]
[Now you’re just being silly - And it’s spear-projector anyway]
[Homeboy…?][/size]
“Knock-knock”
[size=75][Oh balls - Look, I just won’t say anything okay…? He might sue us, you know how frightfully sensitive these chaps of colour are.][/size]
(Opens the door.)
“Er hello there - you’re the, um, new guy from next door right…?”
“Yeah Whitey, now [size=150]shutthefuckupandgimmeallyourmoney[/size] - Hah…! Your face - Just kiddin’ widja…”
Is P.C. a creation by the megacorps for the sake of P.R.? I find it has a sterilizing effect. For example, it erases wishing someone a merry christmas because maybe some people don’t celebrate christmas. If someone is really offended by being wished a merry christmas (and i’d guess few people are), it’s their problem. But if they write to the company about it or make a public fuss about it or boycott the store because of it, then it’s the executive’s problem. But why is it that seemingly the executive doesn’t recognize that a PC attitude is annoying to more peope than wishing them merry christmas?
as for politeness, I think being polite has two sides to it. On one side, it’s nice to be nice to people. to preserve harmony. to recognize another’s wishes. courtesy. on the other side, being polite can have an element of facade to it. a way to cover up deeper contentions, or even a systemic apathy, or rather, a fundamental disconnection between humans.
If people didn’t have negative/unfriendly thoughts about other people, swimming about in their heads in the 1st place: then PCness wouldn’t be neccessary. Why the need for such thoughts?
To be honest: I put people in an attractive/unattractive, or sexuality bracket (in my head) but nothing to do with colour/country of origin/their size…
Make PCness obsolete: by stopping the evil thoughts! then you wouldn’t have to think about saying the wrong/hurtful/spiteful things…
I have sensitive skin but I dont get a rash over what people say or do by way of standard politeness. Some of the most polite people fantasize about killing you. Fact.
As a female: I never had to do the confrontational/fight thing, but my bro has, and he’s definitely not PC - which makes me think that hatred is like a rabid dog (I like that analogy.) I am teaching my nephews that this is not the way for a happy life, and why have confrontation: when you could spend that time having fun instead - idealism? I think not. Reality? certainly.
Tried middle-England: the middle-England bitches saw me as competition for their men (surely I can’t get through that many…? and I’m celebate. But all they saw was a predatory female, and that got their backs up) and so I absconded to the higher echelons of London: where I’m free to play/roam/flirt/party… and not an evil/un-PC thought in sight 
Mast, I personally believe that sensitivity is not A weakness, but sensitivity is really irritable and exploitable.
Even “thin-skin” is not A “weakness” until someone uses it AS a weakness.
Ex: If you had a shell, like a turtle, you would weigh more, and could not run as fast. Even though your soft-skin “weakness” is gone, your slow-movement “weakness” exists now.
The “weakness” does not actually exist, though. It’s a moral quantification of potential. It’s a Terran factor of oppertunism. “Weakness” is about: “How can this guy get fucked?”
Kindness, openness, honesty, etc. All of these things can be USED AS a “weakness”, even though they are not literally A “weakness”.
If you got allot of sand in your eyes, and your eyes developed a thick callus, the eye-surface would not be as “weak”, but you’d be blind, also.
The same kind of callus has been forming around love and unity due to the constant harrassment that self-destructive fools have been constantly causing.
Monkeys are distructive. I dunno how these **** humans got as far as they did, but their wars are their own doing.
Nice pic btw, Dan…
A little story to shatter views as they now stand - me and my sis were walking her dog in Angel market (it’s on the English Monopoly board) and some NF skinheads were shagging their bitches in the back of their vans, and as me and my sis walked past: one of them strained his neck to look at us and said ‘Cor, look at that’ and made the others ogle us too (we are originally from the Caribbean, maaan.) Being only 16 at the time: I was naturally bemused by the event, but also glad to be able to shatter such barriers without any effort what-so-ever - No unPC thoughts were present that night: except, perhaps, sexual ones 