Discussion Political Correctness

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
MUFKilda said:
You really need to calm down. Just live and let live and allow all others who are not harming you to do the same. You warn against the restrictions of political correctness, yet I get the impression you want to supress anything you don't like. A liberal attitude requires you to be as liberal as others are towards you. I'm happy for you to hold any opinions you wish, provided you don't repress others. If we all try to move forward in that way - balancing the rights of others against our own - we have a chance.
Click to expand...
No, you don't get it.

You just said it's ok to be white.

That is certifiable hate speech.
 
Noidenous said:
Is it ok to declare it is ok to be white?
Click to expand...


Depends on the context of it doesn't it. If you aren't a %$#@ you can usually say what you want. All societies have sets of rules. We have some basics like don't shag your sister or molest children that are pretty much universally agreed in most western nations, others are built over time. For a long time it was anything goes with free speech towards minorities. Being overtly racist is offensive to them and just not necessary. Being over the top and making it so any debate is banned is unhelpful too but it is a very small fringe of thinkers that are in the extreme. Same as hardcore creationist Christians and Nazis.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

gringo2011 said:
Depends on the context of it doesn't it. If you aren't a %$#@ you can usually say what you want. All societies have sets of rules. We have some basics like don't shag your sister or molest children that are pretty much universally agreed in most western nations, others are built over time. For a long time it was anything goes with free speech towards minorities. Being overtly racist is offensive to them and just not necessary. Being over the top and making it so any debate is banned is unhelpful too but it is a very small fringe of thinkers that are in the extreme. Same as hardcore creationist Christians and Nazis.
Click to expand...


Yep well said, some want the right to offend but will be offended if called out quite ironic. Don't you dare call them Nazis!!
 
Noidenous said:
I can see this exercise was lost on some people.

Did you textually stick your fingers in your ears?
Click to expand...


My family are from the country. My grandfather would probably have put it more like "don't be a %$#@ and you will get on fine with people". Overthinking it just takes you don't rabbit warrens. There is very little evidence that an army of transgender lesbian vegans will come for you for being a bit loose with your lexicon. If you are overtly racist or incite others to be or treat people badly, the court of public opinion is more likely to label you, fair or not.
 
gringo2011 said:
My family are from the country. My grandfather would probably have put it more like "don't be a %$#@ and you will get on fine with people". Overthinking it just takes you don't rabbit warrens. There is very little evidence that an army of transgender lesbian vegans will come for you for being a bit loose with your lexicon. If you are overtly racist or incite others to be or treat people badly, the court of public opinion is more likely to label you, fair or not.
Click to expand...
So do not think about it until you are punished by a vigilante mob. Got it.
 
Noidenous said:
So do not think about it until you are punished by a vigilante mob. Got it.
Click to expand...


No, don't be a campaigner and no-one will bother you. Things like the "It's okay to be white" posters are an example of something that was designed to be deliberately divisive and controversial. It's like throwing a molotov cocktail and then asking why people have an issue with matches.
 
gringo2011 said:
No, don't be a campaigner and no-one will bother you. Things like the "It's okay to be white" posters are an example of something that was designed to be deliberately divisive and controversial. It's like throwing a molotov cocktail and then asking why people have an issue with matches.
Click to expand...
Or someone magically decides they do not like your opinion and declare it hate speech.
 
MUFKilda said:
I have no idea. But again, how many people are you referring to? Don't get hung up on the extreme fringes. The vast, vast majority don't want to censor your thoughts; just the opposite, say whatever you think and let the discussion flow. Anyone who wants top censor ideas is potentially dangerous, yet, paradoxically, it seems you want to shut down those you think crazy., such as the tiny number of non-binary folk. Instead let their ideas be held up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
If we are to inter-mingle cross-culturally, do you think this 'hate-fact' is of valid concern, or should we live and let live?

www.intellectualtakeout.org

Muslim Inbreeding is a Huge Problem--And People Don't Want to Talk About It

Marriage between cousins remains rampant in much of the Muslim world And the results are truly tragic
www.intellectualtakeout.org www.intellectualtakeout.org
 
Noidenous said:
Then you simply must be a white supremacist, even if it is empirically unprovable.

en.wikipedia.org

It's okay to be white - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Racist.

Bigot.

Monster.

Xenophobe.

Etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Wait. What?

White supremacists are white, therefore white people are white supremacists? What did you call it earlier? Was it a logical fallacy?

The fact remains though that white supremacists do exist, see Clayton Bigsby below.

 
CursingFijian said:
Wait. What?

White supremacists are white, therefore white people are white supremacists? What did you call it earlier? Was it a logical fallacy?

The fact remains though that white supremacists do exist, see Clayton Bigsby below.

Click to expand...

The phrase was a bees dick from being legislated as hate speech in Australia.
 
Verdun said:
Yep well said, some want the right to offend but will be offended if called out quite ironic. Don't you dare call them Nazis!!
Click to expand...

The problem with labelling those you disagree with a nazi is that it only serves to dull the impact of what a nazi was. The nazis were generally very evil humans with evil goals in mind, and we should never ever forget that.
Calling someone a nazi because they were a red MAGA hat or vote for Peter Dutton is just wrong for so many different reasons, but most importantly the term shouldn't be abused.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I liked the movie Gran Torino.

If anyone has seen it....
Was Clint Eastwood's character racist? Or was he just not politically correct. Do actions speak louder than words?



MUFKilda said:
Didn't Australia have a whites only immigration policy?
Click to expand...

Immigration was a prominent topic in the lead up to Australian Federation. At the third Session of the Australasian Federation Convention of 1898, Western Australian premier and future federal cabinet member John Forrest summarised the prevailing feeling:[9]

It is of no use to shut our eyes to the fact that there is a great feeling all over Australia against the introduction of coloured persons. It goes without saying that we do not like to talk about it, but it is so.[11]
Click to expand...
The Barton Government which came to power following the first elections to the Commonwealth parliament in 1901 was formed by the Protectionist Party with the support of the Australian Labor Party. The support of the Labor Party was contingent upon restricting non-white immigration, reflecting the attitudes of the Australian Workers Union and other labour organisations at the time, upon whose support the Labor Party was founded.

The first Parliament of Australia quickly moved to restrict immigration to maintain Australia's British character, and the Pacific Island Labourers Bill and the Immigration Restriction Bill were passed shortly before parliament rose for its first Christmas recess. The Colonial Secretary in Britain had however made it clear that a race-based immigration policy would run "contrary to the general conceptions of equality which have ever been the guiding principle of British rule throughout the Empire". The Barton Government therefore conceived of the "language dictation test", which would allow the government, at the discretion of the minister, to block unwanted migrants by forcing them to sit a test in "any European language". Race had already been established as a premise for exclusion among the colonial parliaments, so the main question for debate was who exactly the new Commonwealth ought to exclude, with the Labor Party rejecting Britain's calls to placate the populations of its non-white colonies and allow "aboriginal natives of Asia, Africa, or the islands thereof". There was opposition from Queensland and its sugar industry to the proposals of the Pacific Islanders Bill to exclude "Kanaka" laborers, however Barton argued that the practice was "veiled slavery" that could lead to a "negro problem" similar to that in the United States, and the Bill was passed

-------------------------
Its seems strange to me, their referring to much of the Asians as "coloured". Indians are noticeably darker, but i never understood the "yellow" skin thing, with many Asians seeming to be a similar or paler complexion to the darker Europeans to my eye.
In the context of the above, they seem to use it as a simple way of differentiating the cultural aspects they wanted brought into the country in those days.

The underlying theme at the time seems to be that they wanted to keep Australia culturally similar to Britain.

( Notwithstanding that , of course they were a lot more racist back then ).
 
jwikked said:
The problem with labelling those you disagree with a nazi is that it only serves to dull the impact of what a nazi was. The nazis were generally very evil humans with evil goals in mind, and we should never ever forget that.
Calling someone a nazi because they were a red MAGA hat or vote for Peter Dutton is just wrong for so many different reasons, but most importantly the term shouldn't be abused.
Click to expand...

A German guy i work with considers that as a culture Germans love to follow orders without really thinking about it.
There were evil people afoot, but not everyone in the Nazi party was inherently evil, but they did do evil things for sure.
Certainly those giving the orders were culpable.
 
jwikked said:
The problem with labelling those you disagree with a nazi is that it only serves to dull the impact of what a nazi was. The nazis were generally very evil humans with evil goals in mind, and we should never ever forget that.
Calling someone a nazi because they were a red MAGA hat or vote for Peter Dutton is just wrong for so many different reasons, but most importantly the term shouldn't be abused.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention anyone with a red MAGA hat or Dutton??

Yes nazis 'were generally very evil humans with evil goals in mind, and we we should never ever forget that' - totally agree!!
 
SaintsSeptember said:
A German guy i work with considers that as a culture Germans love to follow orders without really thinking about it.
There were evil people afoot, but not everyone in the Nazi party was inherently evil, but they did do evil things for sure.
Certainly those giving the orders were culpable.
Click to expand...
Milgram Experiment
 
gringo2011 said:
My ancestors were European monarchy, I'm not judging. I'm lucky I don't have 2 heads and Haemophilia.
Click to expand...
And when science has not declared that approximately 50% of European descendants contain traces of inbreeding?

Is that just a pro-white conspiracy theory? Do they avoid testing white people genetics?
 
Noidenous said:
And when science has not declared that approximately 50% of European descendants contain traces of inbreeding?

Is that just a pro-white conspiracy theory? Do they avoid testing white people genetics?
Click to expand...


I'm no geneticist, all I know is that when we did Ancestry, first cousins looks pretty distant. We would have made Tasmanians blush. In oldie times we took the term "keeping it in the family" a little too literally.
 
gringo2011 said:
I'm no geneticist, all I know is that when we did Ancestry, first cousins looks pretty distant. We would have made Tasmanians blush. In oldie times we took the term "keeping it in the family" a little too literally.
Click to expand...


Takes a bit to make a Tasmanian blush!
 
I just googled European inbreeding and they don't seem much better. Maybe rooting your cousin isn't as uncommon as you think.
www.nature.com

Extreme inbreeding in a European ancestry sample from the contemporary UK population - Nature Communications

Mating between first or second-degree relatives is prohibited in most countries, yet it occurs and is under-studied. Here, Yengo et al. use large runs of homozygosity from the UK Biobank resource to provide DNA-based quantification of extreme inbreeding and its consequence for health and other...
www.nature.com www.nature.com
 
gringo2011 said:
I'm no geneticist, all I know is that when we did Ancestry, first cousins looks pretty distant. We would have made Tasmanians blush. In oldie times we took the term "keeping it in the family" a little too literally.
Click to expand...
Ancestry, 23+me (or whatever its called) and those commercial genetic tests have been proven as largely guesswork.

Multiple identical twins have had massively varying results in the locale of their supposed origin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top