Are You Tired of Political Correctness Yet? Here, Maybe This Will Help...

I've read this at the wrong time. I admit I'm angry in general.

I'm sorry to hear that you once felt the need to gay bash.

Yes, I can forgive and respect and admire your honesty here.

My next words are not directed to be mad at you, even though it may sound that way .My thoughts are simply in turmoil and I need to leave.

But, seemingly contrary to your experience, it's my experience that it is much more those people whom argue relentlessly ad nauseum AGAINST anything approaching "political correctness standards" -- it is those people who do not forgive. And those people are the ones in the majority who still bash me and damn me to hell simply for being gay. It is, in my experience, those people who love to brag that they are "telling it like it is"/ saying "I am anti-PC" who refuse to forgive. And they seemingly refuse to even attempt to be understanding and respectful of others who may differ from them.

I regret my long delay in responding to your comment, Nimitz. I'm leaving this place -- I fail to enjoy answermug anymore. The atmosphere is just too negative in general, just like all the HillaryTrump/Donald Clinton crap that permeates everywhere outside in real life, seemingly. I've known all along I don't have the balls to reside in InternetLand. At least, for now. You've been nice to me, Nimitz. Thanks.

Be Well,

WelbyQ

Hi Welby,

I clicked on this thread after your reply bumped it to the top of the feed. I haven't been here that long and never got to know you, and reading through this discussion, it seems I won't get that opportunity. That is a shame, I think you bring something needed to internet discussions...a willingness to consider what people say and their intent behind those words. That is often missing on internet forums. I hope you change your mind, but in any event I wish you well.

No problem at all, Quentin.  I feel privileged/honored to have known you.  And I can CERTAINLY relate to the need to take an Internet break.  I have to do it all the time. :-)  I'm just coming back from one, in fact.

Anyway, should you change your mind and come back eventually, hopefully I'll be here.  Hopefully, AM will be a kinder, gentler place by then.  It isn't bad now--not compared to the last site of which I was a member--but it could stand improvement.

Hey, maybe things will settle down once Trump has been elected and all the liberals move out of the country in protest as promised.  LOL!

I wonder whether there are conflations or confusions of concepts occurring when we use the word "liberal."

A person might be politically liberal, which would mean within a spectrum of several degrees left of centre: supporting that wages cannot go below a level at which a person can afford to live healthily; the right to form a union and to strike; universal free education and medicine; and a social safety net for people who fall through the cracks due to age, disability, maiming, madness or temporary disaster.

Personally I support this ideal and believe it can work best through three things; elimination of costs spent on maintaining more armed forces and equipment than necessary (eg America owns enough nuclear bombs to blow up the world 18 times over), charging a flat tax rate to all individuals above the level of poverty of somewhere between 15 and 25%, with a buffer on the transition zone, and creating a world-wide agreement between all countries to ensure that no corporation can escape paying its fair share. Most corporations owe billions in illegal tax avoidance. Some owe trillions.

I also think medicine should have limits on it, because some of it is so ridiculously expensive that it is not fair to the tax payer, especially, I regret to say, self induced health problems caused by unhealthy lifestyles. I imagine that sounds too controlling and unfair to the people who live that way, but I don't see why others should pay for self-induced ill-health.

Also, at the far end of aging, we are artificially prolonging lives to the extent of severely reduced quality of life, and sometimes the removal of all quality of life. People should be permitted to die naturally if that is what they have testified as their will while compis mentis.

A system like this can harm no one, and causes very little, if any, discomfort to the wealthy. And corporations might make somewhat less profit, but they make so much already, that paying their fair share would be hardly a flea bite to their existence.

The second issue is morally liberal, and has nothing to do with politics, even though some people might be both politically and morally liberal.

The moral liberal asserts that each person may live as he or she wishes, so long as her actions (which includes speech) causes no harm and does not impede the equal rights of others to the same. I agree with this view.

An anarchist would or could be one kind of moral liberal.

This kind of liberty can begin to seem confused when groups with disadvantages demand equal rights and opportunities.

In a truly free society they would automatically have such freedoms.

Since they don't, and since there are in fact many pressures in our current society which make it harder for them to attain equality, the only way they have a chance of gaining it is by pointing out the reasons why they deserve equal treatment and hopefully winning the support of the majority.

In a (hypothetical) society which embraced the principle of unconditional love of one's fellow humans we would behave as the Good Samaritan did, and help one another when in need, including strangers we do not know.

We are a social species - all of us are interdependent in that it is nearly impossible to live totally independently of others - what each of us does has impacts and ripple effects on others. So how we organize our society needs to take this into account.

As a woman, I fall at least partially into the less privileged category. (Although I think women are gradually gaining greater equality.)

I probably fall into the not quite "wasp" category (a term I hate btw, even if it accurately describes some) because I'm a well-educated white from a once affluent background but am atheist not Protestant. But I grew up in a severely dysfunctional household of two alcoholic parents, and I was a social pariah at school - so I identify with people who suffer. If people bring suffering on themselves by their behaviour I have no sympathy for them. But if people are victims of a system over which they have no control, then I consider that unjust and deserving of change of the system.

So sorry that you are going, WelbyQ. I liked your contributions very much.

And even though the intolerant people here are hard to tolerate, people like you make a positive difference in changing and improving the atmosphere.

I found it hard on here in the beginning, and still experience the odd challenging interaction which tests my limits and capacity to respond appropriately.

But also find that it helps me learn, and there are some extremely bright and interesting minds here, once one discovers who they are.

I hope very much that one day you will feel like coming back here.

No, we need political correctness. Only those who want a free pass to say whatever hurtful thing crosses their mind are against it.

In New Zealand, before white people came, the Maories had bred to overpopulation.
All but the shyest animals had become extinct from over hunting. Arable land for farming tubers and vegetables was in short supply. Warfare had become the predominant way of life and eating one's enemies brains (as well as the rest of their meat) was considered the best way to absorb their intelligence.
So warlike had the culture become, that to insult someone was considered justifiable and acceptable reason for killing them.

Why?
The denser and more stressed a population becomes, the more rules multiply in order to try to keep the peace, and the more language becomes constrained - because people cannot escape from each other to get relief from the feelings of emotional hurt and pain.

There are alternatives, such as learning to take responsibility for one's own feelings, interpretations and reactions to the words of others, and not being identified with one's ego - but these usually take psychological training, or years of practice in meditation, and not many have the means or will to choose these options.

"Political correctness" has become a pejorative term among some people, usually the ones who object to using non-discriminatory language and behaviour.

Language affects the way we think. In some languages, like Japanese, the grammar determines position in social hierarchy. So the attitudes determining who is superior and inferior in power are continually reinforced, making social change very difficult to achieve.

Those of us who want a more egalitarian society - with equal opportunities and more peace, respect and safety between different kinds of people - hope that by changing language, the generations who grow up with the new norms will think differently and find regarding fellow humans as equals an automatic and normal way to live.

In one sense, there is only one true way to develop egalitarianism, and that is through choosing to develop unconditional love - an ideal state that few humans ever achieve. It would be nothing short of a miracle if a whole society could achieve it.
So failing the ideal, we need every means possible to try to come closer to a better state of affairs.

There is the risk that non-discriminatory language could become just another form of polite humbug. People are hypocritical and do indulge in all kinds of pretences. I doubt if there is much one can so to change that. One can only be on the watch for it and recognise it for what it is.

The changes in language only work if they a backed up by actual changes in behaviour and attitudes.

I believe it is not ok to deliberately harm another's freedom by ostracism, exclusion, severing opportunities, bullying or creating and inflaming hatred through disrespectful speech.

I am tired of it, hence why I don't care whether someone stands for the national anthem, even if's politically correct to do so.

hmm - I'm not much for anthems or flags. I think nationalism might be more harmful than beneficial.

We are part of one planet in which everything we do has a butterfly effect somewhere else.

PC meaning polite language is like saying Hitler was a humanitarian. It's about both the authoritarian left and authoritarian right wanting control and is a big part of their politics. Hate speech has always been defined. The only injustice is that sometimes the law isn't fair. We can all agree to that.

What people find offensive is entirely subjective. If we did what people told us to all the time (specifically who have a heightened sense of moral rights and wrongs).... we'd be in deep trouble. PC people only support collectivism. You only exist to feed the hive. You have no right to exist of the self.

How many micros does it take to get to an aggression???

Hi, Bozette,

I'm still probably going to taek a leave of absence but I wanted to acknowledge your kind response.

:)

Thanks!

I'd change some of what I wrote up there, too - - the atmosphere here in answermug is fine, it's not really negative. Instead, I'm just not dealing with with all of it. And there are tons of fun people here I enjoy.

:)

I wanted to acknowledge your kind reply, Nimitz. Thanks.

And I would change if I could some of what I wrote up there. You're right -- the atmosphere in answermug is fine --  it's not negative. For some reason it's just me needing to be away. But I know there are lots of great people here.

I won't be surprised if I'm back, though. Maybe it's just a rough spell -- I've had those before.

Be Well!

Hi, there, hartfire!

Thanks for your kind reply -- I wanted to let you know I saw it.

And I would change if I could what I said about the atmosphere in answermug being negative- - it's not really. I just am having challenges enjoying lately.

I agree with your above reply totally!

:)

And I enjoy your contributions, too --  as I do a lot of others. There are some great people here.

Maybe it's just a spell, momentarily -- I've had them before. I won't be surprised if I'm back at some point, probably sooner than later.

 

It says in the report: "Consistent with style guidelines issued by Princeton’s Office of Human Resources and Office of Communications..." which means these are document formatting and preparation guidelines.  I can't imagine anyone getting really upset over this unless they're of well below average intelligence, or suffer from extreme genital inadequacy and need to hear the word "man" to help them psychologically compensate for their lack of genital endowment. 

Your last is a literally vitally important one.

Right.  Let's take it to the extreme, though.  How about a vow of silence as a prerequisite for admission?

I'm with you on this.  Anyone who doesn't think like us is not only mentally and physically defective, but is also sub-human.  Now, what do we do about it?  Final Solution, anyone?

Uh, you do realize that's the next step up from what you're saying, right?

I've done several10 day retreats in silence.

Each time I came out I was reluctant to start talking again.

I don't doubt it.  I've heard you'll have to relearn the ability to speak after a year or so.  (I was being facetious, BTW.)

LOL ! :D

Not so far wrong actually! :)

The brain doesn't forget. But the voice box sure feels sore from just 5 minutes chat after so much lack of exercise. The larynx atrophies! And the silence seems too beautiful and peaceful to want to give up.

Yep!  You sound like you're just about ready to attend one of America's fine institutions of higher indoctrination. :-)

You mean training in silence and acceptance? A PhD? How profound! ;)