Why do you think it's important to be (or not to be) Politically Correct?

[All Mighty Janitor]

On some level, I believe it's important to discourage the use of words such as n****r and fa***t as they are only used on certain groups of people to demean and disrespect and it encourages bigotry. But it starts to fall apart for me when people will call you a sexist for saying bitch to a woman when it's not necessarily a gendered slur or call you a racist when you call somebody black instead of African American. Why should I change my speech when I am talking to certain people or overhaul my vocabulary to appease a person who assumes ill intention on my part?

I know the idea is to leave it up to individual groups to decide what offends them because only they can really know how it makes them feel; how much it hurts them. For pro-PC people, it comes down to being respectful, nice, and caring especially when its about what groups of people get offended at. But I really don't give a shit about those things: not being pointlessly disrespectful and mean I can see (and I actively try to do these things), but one shouldn't have to go out of their way to be nice and caring to not be seen as a bigot. For example: If I am walking through a scary looking neighborhood at night should I not say "it's a spooky neighborhood" just because it is a predominantly black area? Should I refrain from saying bitch to a woman because she could take it as a gendered slur even if that's not what I meant? Why is it not a problem if I say bitch to a man (or is it?) Should I just remove it from my vocabulary in case a woman might be in the area? How does one justify this double standard (if you think calling a woman a bitch is a problem but calling a man a bitch is not and don't think that's a double standard, please explain it to me.)? And why is it that non-minorities don't/can't claim that there are things that offend them without being seen as a closet racist or their concerns be excused as being said from a privileged position/reverse racism complaints (and then dismissed); example: why aren't Southern Americans calls to not be referred to as rednecks not treated as seriously as black peoples calls to not be called thugs even though redneck is used exclusively for white people and thug is not.

This is not a attempt to criticize or belittle anybody who is pro PC. I'm asking because I'm willing to be convinced of the merits of being PC and to spark discussion along the lines of Trump's so called bigotry.

[spurraider21]

Sure, but I think people are over the top with it these days. I think the recent south Park season hit the nail on the head.

But then you have morons like trump and his supporters who just use "political correctness" as a derogatory term to give them an excuse or free pass to just be fuckin assholes

[All Mighty Janitor]

Sure, but I think people are over the top with it these days. I think the recent south Park season hit the nail on the head.

But then you have morons like trump and his supporters who just use "political correctness" as a derogatory term to give them an excuse or free pass to just be fuckin assholes
Not that I disagree with what you said, but why do you think Trump supporters (for example) view political correctness and PC culture as bad?

[cd021]

Sure, but I think people are over the top with it these days. I think the recent south Park season hit the nail on the head.

But then you have morons like trump and his supporters who just use "political correctness" as a derogatory term to give them an excuse or free pass to just be fuckin assholes

Looks like we agree on something :tu

[Mitch]

Political correctness is tainted with bias, tbh.

You'll likely be criticized for talking about about men's rights, for instance, because it's somehow sexist despite men having many disadvantages in issues such as child custody or divorce settlements and told to feel guilty about an imaginary wage gap.

Women's rights, though? Say what you want, you will be protected. How can you be sexist to assume women should have an easier path for the same work if most women end up choosing less rewarding careers?

[ElNono]

I think there's a context for anything, tbh. For example, if you're at your job or your company, not being PC is generally bad for business. You might not gain anything from being PC, but you certainly can lose (your job/clientele) if you're non-PC.

If you're in the privacy of your home, or having a few beers with friends, I don't see the problem if people want to be whatever...

I mean, ultimately, you're free to express yourself in whatever way you want, but there's always consequences... if you can assume them and move on, then, there's no problem.

[Trill Clinton]

I think there's a context for anything, tbh. For example, if you're at your job or your company, not being PC is generally bad for business. You might not gain anything from being PC, but you certainly can lose (your job/clientele) if you're non-PC.

If you're in the privacy of your home, or having a few beers with friends, I don't see the problem if people want to be whatever...

I mean, ultimately, you're free to express yourself in whatever way you want, but there's always consequences... if you can assume them and move on, then, there's no problem.

pretty much.

[cd021]

I think that It can be overblown but I can see some good in it too, if it means treating people with respect even if its in words only. I find that people that have issues it are the same morons that cry "race card" and "race baiter" when someone brings up an issue of race even when there are merit to the accusations.

Rudy Giuliani blaming PC for the San Berandino shooters not being stopped before the attacks seem ridiculous to me. He's basically saying that because they are Muslims that the neighbors were afraid of being viewed as racist. It could be that they didn't have any suspicions or did but had other reasons for not calling it in.

Whats the opposite of being PC is the 1960's and before. If people are complaining about being overly PC, do they want the freedom to use slurs that were prevalent during that time?

[Trill Clinton]

I think that It can be overblown but I can see some good in it too, if it means treating people with respect even if its in words only. I find that people that have issues it are the same morons that cry "race card" and "race baiter" when someone brings up an issue of race even when there are merit to the accusations.

Rudy Giuliani blaming PC for the San Berandino shooters not being stopped before the attacks seem ridiculous to me. He's basically saying that because they are Muslims that the neighbors were afraid of being viewed as racist. It could be that they didn't have any suspicions or did but had other reasons for not calling it in.

Whats the opposite of being PC is the 1960's and before. If people are complaining about being overly PC, do they want the freedom to use slurs that were prevalent during that time?

great post

[spurraider21]

Not that I disagree with what you said, but why do you think Trump supporters (for example) view political correctness and PC culture as bad?
They resent being scolded for using language deemed racist or misogynistic.

However there is merit in their being upset for Democrats not using "radical Islamic terrorism"... and that's an example of the left using PC as a shield to win politic points

[boutons_deux]

there is merit in their being upset for Democrats not using "radical Islamic terrorism"

Obama's refusal to use that phrase is EXACTLY like your lover boy dubya, who CREATED Ms of terrorists for which the Repugs take NO responsibility, saying US is at war with terrorism, not at war with Islam.

Repugs and you rightwingnuts trashing Obama for the not saying "Islamic terrorism", is the Repug strategy, seen blatantly in all ugliness with the Repug asshole politicians, to criminalize ALL Muslims and the entire religion, to say Christian America is at war with Islam. iow, it's just the anke-biting, trivial shitbag Repugs reflexively trashing, blaming that Knitter for everything. and you rightwingnuts fall right in line.

[DarrinS]

Instant outrage culture

[DarrinS]

Lol, "microagressions"

[spurraider21]

How is specifying "RADICAL Islamic terrorism" criminalizing ALL Muslims when in fact it separates radicals from the vast majority

[boutons_deux]

How is specifying "RADICAL Islamic terrorism" criminalizing ALL Muslims when in fact it separates radicals from the vast majority

This is way too subtle for You People, but Obama, as President also of 6M Muslims, rather ranting in the hating horde of Repug shitbags with no responsibility, doesn't want to criminalize even RADICAL Islam, preferring to distinguish terrorism from Islam completely.

[DarrinS]

Instant outrage culture perfectly described by Bill Burr


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsOJnMvxZVg

[ElNono]

You can always have something perfectly understandable and rational and some people might take it way too far though... IMO, when you get to things like "microagressions" then it fits that category...

[spurraider21]

This is way too subtle for You People, but Obama, as President rather in the hating horde of Repug shitbags with no responsibility, doesn't want to criminalize even RADICAL Islam, preferring to distinguish terrorism from Islam completely.
It's really no different from you complaining about Christian taliban :lol

[spurraider21]

Obama's refusal to use that phrase is EXACTLY like your lover boy dubya, who CREATED Ms of terrorists for which the Repugs take NO responsibility, saying US is at war with terrorism, not at war with Islam.

Repugs and you rightwingnuts trashing Obama for the not saying "Islamic terrorism", is the Repug strategy, seen blatantly in all ugliness with the Repug asshole politicians, to criminalize ALL Muslims and the entire religion, to say Christian America is at war with Islam. iow, it's just the anke-biting, trivial shitbag Repugs reflexively trashing, blaming that Knitter for everything. and you rightwingnuts fall right in line.
:lol "you" rightwingnuts
:lol "your" lover boy dubya
:lol while you're the one who is using bush's language choice as a model of goodness
:lol acting like he never called them Islamic http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/10/washington.terror.plot/

[baseline bum]

:lol "you" rightwingnuts
:lol "your" lover boy dubya
:lol while you're the one who is using bush's language choice as a model of goodness
:lol acting like he never called them Islamic http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/10/washington.terror.plot/

boutons accuses me of being a right-winger too, it's ok man :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I just laugh at people inside who demand political correctness, and exclude them from my circle of friends.

[boutons_deux]

It's really no different from you complaining about Christian taliban :lol

not at all, but I appreciate your lack of perception.

Christian Taliban are the major faction of American Christians, not a tiny slice.

[mingus]

I think there's a context for anything, tbh. For example, if you're at your job or your company, not being PC is generally bad for business. You might not gain anything from being PC, but you certainly can lose (your job/clientele) if you're non-PC.

If you're in the privacy of your home, or having a few beers with friends, I don't see the problem if people want to be whatever...

I mean, ultimately, you're free to express yourself in whatever way you want, but there's always consequences... if you can assume them and move on, then, there's no problem.

The "context for anything" is correct. However, for me that's what makes defining "PC" apart from context impossible. PC isn't neccessarilly the same thing for everybody, based on the different environments we are a part of.

The he most recent example I can think of was Trump's unwillingness to separate himself from David Duke, or even address some of the racism that fuels his popularity with. In doing so he'd perhaps be opposing the sensibilities of his followers. In his political space, he was being "PC". In the greater political space, he wasn't being PC since most people don't hold his followers' views on that particular issue.

What I'm trying to get at, and what troubles me with the word, is that because it can mean different things for different people, it's a stupid word. Folk who claim to be PC are probably not PC in certain environments. At the same time, folk who claim not to be for PC, no doubt are PC in certain environments. That's fine. As you said, people need to know the consequences of what they're saying in certain situations (i.e. work). But there's a word for that already. It's called being respectful, or mindful, or courteous or whatever. But when people start using "PC" in absolute terms & like it's something you can either be for or against, it allows people to delude themselves into thinking they're more respectful, less judgemental on the one hand, and on the other hand more truthful and more liberated to express what they really think.

If a word's meaning is derived from who/when uses it, but then gets used politically as having one meaning, then there's a problem.

[Spurminator]

How is specifying "RADICAL Islamic terrorism" criminalizing ALL Muslims when in fact it separates radicals from the vast majority

I think avoiding the term at all times is unnecessary.

On the other hand, you have those who believe calling it "Radical Islamic Terrorism" at every opportunity is, somehow, going to have any positive effect towards the war on terror. They force it into conversation and cry PC anytime you don't describe terrorism with the label. That's worse.

[TeyshaBlue]

not at all, but I appreciate your lack of perception.

Christian Taliban are the major faction of American Christians, not a tiny slice.
Um no. Prove it. That would require data, not moonbat blog posts.

[spurraider21]

not at all, but I appreciate your lack of perception.

Christian Taliban are the major faction of American Christians, not a tiny slice.
Do we have a war against Christianity, booboo?

[spurraider21]

I think avoiding the term at all times is unnecessary.

On the other hand, you have those who believe calling it "Radical Islamic Terrorism" at every opportunity is, somehow, going to have any positive effect towards the war on terror. They force it into conversation and cry PC anytime you don't describe terrorism with the label. That's worse.
Agreed on both counts

[dbestpro]

I prefer that people should say whatever they think otherwise discussions that matter never happen. When you shut a person up, and do not let them speak, then their thoughts lead to anger, and anger leads to prejudice, and eventually violence. We are all better served by thicker skin, and even better by words of substance.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Trump 2016" in chalk on a sidewalk?

Give me a fucking break.

Over sensitive little bitches.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Political correctness is tainted with bias, tbh.

You'll likely be criticized for talking about about men's rights, for instance, because it's somehow sexist despite men having many disadvantages in issues such as child custody or divorce settlements and told to feel guilty about an imaginary wage gap.

Women's rights, though? Say what you want, you will be protected. How can you be sexist to assume women should have an easier path for the same work if most women end up choosing less rewarding careers?
I'm glad you mentioned men's rights. Men as a whole have problems that need to be addressed. I wish it had more traction than it does, and I'm gettin tired of excuses like "women's issues are worse or more numerous so they deserve all the attention."

[Mitch]

I'm glad you mentioned men's rights. Men as a whole have problems that need to be addressed. I wish it had more traction than it does, and I'm gettin tired of excuses like "women's issues are worse or more numerous so they deserve all the attention."

Yep, but good luck trying to bring up men's rights in a serious conversation with people who side with feminists. We should have political correctness in mainstream media, but it's tainted with bias so that's why many people are rejecting it.

[z0sa]

PC is a reaction to mass media becoming more and more heavily immersive and saturated across the population. PC is a relative non issue in the third world.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Yep, but good luck trying to bring up men's rights in a serious conversation with people who side with feminists. We should have political correctness in mainstream media, but it's tainted with bias so that's why many people are rejecting it.
Yeah, I agree. Those are some of the reasons why I made this post. Your either PC or your a bad person; shit is complete garbage. PC culture ignores and even belittles "non-minorities" problems. For example, men's problems get looked at like they either don't exist or are just not important in the grand scope of things. Feminist's claims to want to men to not be beholden to their gender roles is not pushed for in any way that will accomplish anything not related to women rights so many things get overlooked (if not overlooked then it's get demonized.) It's infuriating. They end up looking like they are trying to create enemies instead of fixing problems or making the world a better place. These groups definitely have there use (and need), but until they become completely inclusive, I won't be able to be fully on board.

[Mitch]

Yeah, I agree. Those are some of the reasons why I made this post. Your either PC or your a bad person; shit is complete garbage. PC culture ignores and even belittles "non-minorities" problems. For example, men's problems get looked at like they either don't exist or are just not important in the grand scope of things. Feminist's claims to want to men to not be beholden to their gender roles is not pushed for in any way that will accomplish anything not related to women rights so many things get overlooked (if not overlooked then it's get demonized.) It's infuriating. They end up looking like they are trying to create enemies instead of fixing problems or making the world a better place. These groups definitely have there use (and need), but until they become completely inclusive, I won't be able to be fully on board.

Yep, there's this gayboy named Milo who talks about the damage political correctness does, makes pretty good points. Hard to take him seriously, feels like he's a running gag, but he does make good points.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Yep, there's this gayboy named Milo who talks about the damage political correctness does, makes pretty good points. Hard to take him seriously, feels like he's a running gag, but he does make good points.
:lol I know who Milo is. He's a good guy even if he's an asshole (he would take that as a double complement).

[Warlord23]

I think PC is primarily a manifestation of the free market. Whether you're a corporation, a university or an elected official, your target market today is much more diverse than it was 30 years ago.

Back in the day you could make off-color remarks about women, Asians, Hispanics, gays, foreigners etc (maybe not as much about blacks given the civil rights era) without much impact. Now, foreign students are some of the smartest, most employable people in American schools. Women have a lot more earning and purchasing power. The biggest markets are all big cities where almost everyone has gay or minority friends. Many corporations are multi-national and need to project a consistent image globally.

If rural America had anywhere close to the purchasing power of the big population centres and the rest of the developed world, I'm sure you wouldn't find everyone falling over themselves to err on the side of PC. The almighty dollar has the last word.

[All Mighty Janitor]

I think PC is primarily a manifestation of the free market. Whether you're a corporation, a university or an elected official, your target market today is much more diverse than it was 30 years ago.

Back in the day you could make off-color remarks about women, Asians, Hispanics, gays, foreigners etc (maybe not as much about blacks given the civil rights era) without much impact. Now, foreign students are some of the smartest, most employable people in American schools. Women have a lot more earning and purchasing power. The biggest markets are all big cities where almost everyone has gay or minority friends. Many corporations are multi-national and need to project a consistent image globally.

If rural America had anywhere close to the purchasing power of the big population centres and the rest of the developed world, I'm sure you wouldn't find everyone falling over themselves to err on the side of PC. The almighty dollar has the last word.
Yep, all true. It doesn't make it any less annoying though. People and business end up pandering certain groups of people. That wouldn't be bad if you didn't have to mention those groups with every other breath less you incur the wrath of the PC police. At least back when the moral police were majority christian, there was only on thing you had to consistently mention; God. Now, even if you mention you believe in rights for black, Asian, Hispanic, gay, women, and transgender people, you still didn't mention lesbian rights (even though it was implied when you said gay) so you are now a bigot and can be persecuted. No amount of explaining we save your reputation. The company might keep you, but the company we take some of the blame and the storm will never go away. Both you and your employer will always be exceptable targets.

[pgardn]

What exactly is being politically correct?

Is it just avoiding broad generalization to characterize a group in order to gain some perceived advantage? Even though you think it perfectly characterizes that broad group you decline to make it public out of fear.

I believe this does exist and I also believe there are Democrats who avoid making valid points and Republicans who purposely go to extremes to incite fervor by overextending the term to a ridiculous degree.

For example, the "safe zones" on some college campuses were absolutely ridiculous. They were silly and over the top. In contrast, purposely claiming one despises the avoidance of supposed political correctness as an excuse to spread your own clearly skewed evaluations of cultures for purposes of inciting hatred is disingenuous and overused, mostly by conservatives. Islam is clearly being slandered as some sort of ubiquitous cohesive wave of evil, that's very clear to me.

[All Mighty Janitor]

What exactly is being politically correct?

Is it just avoiding broad generalization to characterize a group in order to gain some perceived advantage? Even though you think it perfectly characterizes that broad group you decline to make it public out of fear.

I believe this does exist and I also believe there are Democrats who avoid making valid points and Republicans who purposely go to extremes to incite fervor by overextending the term to a ridiculous degree.

For example, the "safe zones" on some college campuses were absolutely ridiculous. They were silly and over the top. In contrast, purposely claiming one despises the avoidance of supposed political correctness as an excuse to spread your own clearly skewed evaluations of cultures for purposes of inciting hatred is disingenuous and overused, mostly by conservatives. Islam is clearly being slandered as some sort of ubiquitous cohesive wave of evil, that's very clear to me.

Response to bold section:
Being PC is changing what you say and do to not offend groups of people. I think it comes from a desire to be good to others and to improve the world. None of those things are bad. The bad part of PC culture is when only certain groups of people have a right to be offended(and thus protection from people who wish you ill intent); bad when being PC clouds your perception of events just because of who said it. If being PC just meant the good that I listed I would have no problems with it. Some groups of people need protection from bigots. But when it gives some people a shield for their bad behavior and hangs a Sword of Democles over others just for existing, it makes it hard to accept.

What do you mean by the underlined section?

[Will Hunting]

Jerry Seinfeld said it best the other day when he was explaining why he doesn't do college performances anymore. People (particularly young people) at some point in time began to find joy in accusing others of being "racist!" or "sexist!" or "homophobic!" without even bothering to know what those words mean.

Maybe as Warlord23 said a more diverse target market has something to do with it but it's not like there wasn't diversity 50-100 years ago, people were just tougher and had thicker skin back then. Jews, Italians, Polish people and Irish people all regularly referred to each other as kike, wop, donkey or polack on a daily basis and there wasn't any outrage about it like there is now.

The most retarded part of political correctness is that it's oversimplified racism and has made it about whether or not a few stupid words while ignoring the context/underlying meaning of what's being said. The PC police was coming after Paula Dean with pitchforks because she, an outspoken Obama supporter, made a few off color jokes that may or may not have included the word n!gger. Meanwhile, the PC police is nowhere to be found when the new Ghostbusters movie casts three white women as book smart scientists who need the help of a black woman who might lack book smarts but has "street smarts" even though its underlying message was a lot more racist than a few jokes Paula Dean made off camera. But hey, since it's a PG-13 movie that doesn't use any racial slurs, there's no way it can be racist.

Here's an example of everything that's wrong with "enlightened" young people these days:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-berteaux/jerry-seinfeld-politcally-correct-college-student_b_7540878.html

[pgardn]

Response to bold section:
Being PC is changing what you say and do to not offend groups of people. I think it comes from a desire to be good to others and to improve the world. None of those things are bad. The bad part of PC culture is when only certain groups of people have a right to be offended(and thus protection from people who wish you ill intent); bad when being PC clouds your perception of events just because of who said it. If being PC just meant the good that I listed I would have no problems with it. Some groups of people need protection from bigots. But when it's gives some people a shield for their bad behavior and hangs a Sword of Democles over others just for existing, it makes it hard to accept.

What do you mean by the underlined section?

That one holds back out of a concern for being labeled racist, etc... even though the point being made is legitimate to most people of reason.

For example: I think it is painfully obvious that broken homes, especially in poverty stricken areas, have a real problem raising kids. I think this is a big problem in the African American community. Obama has said as much as well. The problem with the above could be that poverty in general is more likely to create broken homes. There are culture morays that have caught on in African American communities that worship money and societal trends in jewlrey, unnecessarily expensive shoes, degradation of women, that are also very bad for a family. I think it deserves to be talked about as realization might lead to a change in values. No matter what, it needs to be discussed.

Others would counter we need to get rid of the awful environment causing the behavior described above before any changes in all poverty stricken families can take place. Fine. But it still needs to be addressed.


Boots would simplify it as the f-ability of America by Big _________ (insert preference).

[All Mighty Janitor]

That one holds back out of a concern for being labeled racist, etc... even though the point being made is legitimate to most people of reason.

For example: I think it is painfully obvious that broken homes, especially in poverty stricken areas, have a real problem raising kids. I think this is a big problem in the African American community. Obama has said as much as well. The problem with the above could be that poverty in general is more likely to create broken homes. There are culture morays that have caught on in African American communities that worship money and societal trends in jewlrey, unnecessarily expensive shoes, degradation of women, that are also very bad for a family. I think it deserves to be talked about as realization might lead to a change in values. No matter what, it needs to be discussed.

Others would counter we need to get rid of the awful environment causing the behavior described above before any changes in all poverty stricken families can take place. Fine. But it still needs to be addressed.


Boots would simplify it as the f-ability of America by Big _________ (insert preference).
I'm still not sure if you were referring to me specifically, and i didn't want to jump-the-gun but I'm going to say this anyway. I'm not being intentionally vague to hide something or am holding back anything. I've said what I meant. If it seemed like I was referring to a specific minority group, I was not; I'm being general BECAUSE I'm not referring to any specific group, just PC people in general. I feel like I've gone out my way to make this clear, but I guess I didn't do a good enough job. If you need more explaining than that you're gonna have to ask me a specific question, because I'm not sure why you would come to the conclusion that I'm some closet bigot unless your doing exactly what I said was a problem in this tread: accusing people of being a bigot just because they don't think being PC is all important. Sure it has it's place (which I have previously listed), but it has it's faults that need to be address before I can accept it as some all-encompassing barometer of goodness in people.

[pgardn]

I'm still not sure if you were referring to me specifically, and i didn't want to jump-the-gun but I'm going to say this anyway. I'm not being intentionally vague to hide something or am holding back anything. I've said what I meant. If it seemed like I was referring to a specific minority group, I was not; I'm being general BECAUSE I'm not referring to any specific group, just PC people in general. I feel like I've gone out my way to make this clear, but I guess I didn't do a good enough job. If you need more explaining than that you're gonna have to ask me a specific question, because I'm not sure why you would come to the conclusion that I'm some closet bigot unless your doing exactly what I said was a problem in this tread: accusing people of being a bigot just because they don't think be PC is all important. Sure it has it's place (which I have previously listed), but it has it's faults that need to be address before I can accept it as some all-encompassing barometer of goodness in people.

Nope.

I think there must be legitimate discussion. But not use PC as a buzzword because one is generally hateful and this claim of PC gets them off the hook.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs have, in concerted strategy, trashed PC because they want to enable, condone, excuse, justify their racist, xenophobic, homophobic base to be blatantly unPC in their racism, xenophobia, homophobia.

[Wild Cobra]

Repugs have, in concerted strategy, trashed PC because they want to enable, condone, excuse, justify their racist, xenophobic, homophobic base to be blatantly unPC in their racism, xenophobia, homophobia.

Careful.

Your bigotry is showing...

[All Mighty Janitor]

Repugs have, in concerted strategy, trashed PC because they want to enable, condone, excuse, justify their racist, xenophobic, homophobic base to be blatantly unPC in their racism, xenophobia, homophobia.
Do you think that there is any downside to being PC? Is there any part of PC culture that you don't like?

[Blake]

I just laugh at people inside who demand political correctness, and exclude them from my circle of friends.

We know there's no black surgeons in your circle of friends

[boutons_deux]

Do you think that there is any downside to being PC? Is there any part of PC culture that you don't like?

There's a downside to everything. What downside to PC do you propose?

Repug/Fox's objective in trashing PC is to achieve the downsides, to enable, to justify calling blacks knitters, saying blacks are genetically inferior, calling Hispanics wetbacks, calling Muslims terrorists, calling LGBTQ all kinds of hateful shit, calling women hos and bitches, and unending litany of insults.

[All Mighty Janitor]

There's a downside to everything. What downside to PC do you propose?

Repug/Fox's objective in trashing PC is to achieve the downsides, to enable, to justify calling blacks knitters, saying blacks are genetically inferior, calling Hispanics wetbacks, calling Muslims terrorists, calling LGBTQ all kinds of hateful shit, calling women hos and bitches, and unending litany of insults.
I do agree that bashing PC creates a climate where calling people bad things is easier and more acceptable. I wouldn't agree that this is the objective of conservative outlets as a whole. Most of the criticism of PC does come from conservatives but not all; not by a long shot. I don't particularly care for the term but that's where the phrase "the regressive left" comes from. It's a way to say that liberals are being divided by this issue. I say all this because it's important to know where the disagreement and distaste of PC culture comes from.

Some of the extreme aspects of PC culture are gaining traction and people on both sides don't like where this is going. Calls to have Principals/ Presidents of Unis fired for not being PC enough (and other such actions) are the actions of moral police. When people have the ability to go after people for NOT agreeing with them (whether its the predominate belief of not) you don't get justice, you get witch hunts. If the witch hunts were just about what people said I wouldn't be so opposed to it. But when people are being criticized for "not doing enough for social change" there is no limit for the PC police to determine when somebody becomes "problematic." That's why I said initially that one must go out of their way to appease them. They are forced to be nice and caring (they can't be indifferent; there is no gray area) or else. I'd be one thing if being PC was just encouraged; I don't think you would see much push back if that was the case.

This isn't the only problem with PC culture that I have though. As I have mentioned in this thread before, the inherent bias in PCness where certain groups of people (non "minorities") are not offered help with getting rid of their preconceived notions is a problem for me (and others). Also, these groups are often demonized as well to have somebody to blame. This bias goes two ways where minorities are defended (and pedestalized), even in situations where they are clearly wrong, just because they are a part of a minority group. Legitimate criticism is not allowed.

[daslicer]

This bias goes two ways where minorities are defended (and pedestalized), even in situations where they are clearly wrong, just because they are a part of a minority group. Legitimate criticism is not allowed.

I have noticed that only really applies to Hispanics and Blacks. Asians pretty much are the invisible minority that the PC police doesn't care about.

[DarrinS]

I have noticed that only really applies to Hispanics and Blacks. Asians pretty much are the invisible minority that the PC police doesn't care about.

Ask Chris Rock

[DarrinS]

PC is about protecting the feelings of everyone who is not in the following demographic:

Straight, white males who aren't handicapped in any way

[All Mighty Janitor]

I have noticed that only really applies to Hispanics and Blacks. Asians pretty much are the invisible minority that the PC police doesn't care about.
It's pretty situational I think. If defending Asians comes at the expense of any other minority group, they will get the shaft. It's only when they are put in contrast to white people that Asian people for sure get a defense.

[daslicer]

It's pretty situational I think. If defending Asians comes at the expense of any other minority group, they will get the shaft. It's only when they are put in contrast to white people that Asian people for sure get a defense.

Yes your definitely right about that.

[rmt]

I have noticed that only really applies to Hispanics and Blacks. Asians pretty much are the invisible minority that the PC police doesn't care about.

It's because Asians are not vocal or particularly political.

[Chinook]

It's awful. People have confused words with actions. Words didn't enslave or oppress black people. Words weren't burning gay people at the stake. Words weren't forcing Hispanics to leave behind their culture. Words didn't keep women in domestic roles without rights. When people pretend that words are important to this issue, they give folks an easy way out. People hunt slurs and ignore the real issues. It leaves people with no understanding of the nuances to prejudice, where it comes from, how it affects people's ability to interact with society, what steps we need to take to fix it. Instead, you just have people going around hashtagging and post-liking. They think they're making a difference and they're not. They're just spreading ignorance and intolerance under a different guise.

[Blake]

It's awful. People have confused words with actions. Words didn't enslave or oppress black people. Words weren't burning gay people at the stake. Words weren't forcing Hispanics to leave behind their culture. Words didn't keep women in domestic roles without rights. When people pretend that words are important to this issue, they give folks an easy way out. People hunt slurs and ignore the real issues. It leaves people with no understanding of the nuances to prejudice, where it comes from, how it affects people's ability to interact with society, what steps we need to take to fix it. Instead, you just have people going around hashtagging and post-liking. They think they're making a difference and they're not. They're just spreading ignorance and intolerance under a different guise.

Tldr, but I've got a sidebar question.

You keep saying how I think I am so smart, when I've never once said as such....
my question is, on a scale of 1-10, (9 being a genius, 10 being your thought of what I think of myself)..
how smart do you believe yourself to be here?

[All Mighty Janitor]

It's because Asians are not vocal or particularly political.
I actually think it's because Asian people don't have as many problems as black and Hispanics. They even do better than white people in a lot of areas like wealth and education. Of course you could say Asians aren't as political because they have less problems so the ideas are connected.

[All Mighty Janitor]

It's awful. People have confused words with actions. Words didn't enslave or oppress black people. Words weren't burning gay people at the stake. Words weren't forcing Hispanics to leave behind their culture. Words didn't keep women in domestic roles without rights. When people pretend that words are important to this issue, they give folks an easy way out. People hunt slurs and ignore the real issues. It leaves people with no understanding of the nuances to prejudice, where it comes from, how it affects people's ability to interact with society, what steps we need to take to fix it. Instead, you just have people going around hashtagging and post-liking. They think they're making a difference and they're not. They're just spreading ignorance and intolerance under a different guise.
Yep. PC people treat bigoted words and actions like they have the same power. Words only have power if you let them effect you. Obviously you can't just ignore someone trying to put their hands on you. Should people have to deal with the words of bigots? I don't think so, but there is a cost to everything. You can't curtail bigot's speech without hindering everybody else's in some way, shape, or form. I don't think the current way of vigilante justice is the right way nor do I know of a way to make laws to shield people from hate speech that wouldn't be incredibly biased or enforceable (let alone a law strong enough to deter bigotry in face to face conversation.) I think the best solution is people forming thicker skin.

[Chinook]

Tldr,

It's 128 words. That should have taken less than 30 seconds to read. If you aren't going to show the basic respect to someone to read what they wrote (AND understand it), then why do you want people to do the same for you?

[Chinook]

Yep. PC people treat bigoted words and actions like they have the same power. Words only have power if you let them effect you. Obviously you can't just ignore someone trying to put their hands on you. Should people have to deal with the words of bigots? I don't think so, but there is a cost to everything. You can't curtail bigot's speech without hindering everybody else's in some way, shape, or form. I don't think the current way of vigilante justice is the right way nor do I know of a way to make laws to shield people from hate speech that wouldn't be incredibly biased or enforceable (let alone a law strong enough to deter bigotry in face to face conversation.) I think the best solution is people forming thicker skin.

This is the critical fact that people are missing. When you start limiting other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it affects us all. When you start letting the majority dictate which opinions are protected, you leave yourself open to your opinions being attacked.


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

People think that this only applies to demographics, but they're wrong.

[Blake]

It's 128 words. That should have taken less than 30 seconds to read. If you aren't going to show the basic respect to someone to read what they wrote (AND understand it), then why do you want people to do the same for you?

Neh, don't care

[Chinook]

Neh, don't care

Exactly. Completely psudeo-intellectual.

[boutons_deux]

" When you start limiting other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it affects us all."

aka, "weaponized" 1st Amendment.

iow, I MUST be able to say, and I ought to say, the most damaging, hateful, denigrating, racist, bigoted shit I can think of because it's MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, which I MUST exercise, no matter what.

[Blake]

Exactly. Completely psudeo-intellectual.

:lol coming from the dude that loves to post walls of worthless opinions based on anecdotes. Like the one you just posted.

Rich irony is rich

[Chinook]

:lol coming from the dude that loves to post walls of worthless opinions based on anecdotes. Like the one you just posted.

Rich irony is rich

I'm not surprised my posts seem like walls to you considering that you're struggling with 128-word paragraphs. Keep on psuedo-intellectualing, dude.

:cry I don't even have to read your posts to know that you're wrong :cry

[Blake]

I'm not surprised my posts seem like walls to you considering that you're struggling with 128-word paragraphs. Keep on psuedo-intellectualing, dude.

:cry I don't even have to read your posts to know that you're wrong :cry

:cry why won't Blake read my super intellectual post :cry

[Chinook]

:cry why won't Blake read my super intelligent post :cry

If you are going to reply to it, it's not too much to ask. It's just a basic rule of discourse.

[Blake]

If you are going to reply to it, it's not too much to ask. It's just a basic rule of discourse.

Rofl. You're asking me to follow rules of discourse after calling me a pseudo intellectual. It just gets richer.

Go fuck yourself, arrogant prick. :lol

[Chinook]

Rofl. You're asking me to follow rules of discourse after calling me a pseudo intellectual. It just gets richer.

Go fuck yourself, arrogant prick. :lol

Still giving up.

:cry I don't actually want to discussing things. I just want to think I'm right and :lol at everyone who disagrees with me. :cry

[vy65]

This is the critical fact that people are missing. When you start limiting other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it affects us all. When you start letting the majority dictate which opinions are protected, you leave yourself open to your opinions being attacked.

I don't think proponents of political correctness miss this. In fact, they're quite aware of it. They're just willing to lodge the fascism of their group think against what they perceive is the bigger evil of "white, hetero-normative, phallogocentric, CIS etc... oppression."

[vy65]

I don't think proponents of political correctness miss this. In fact, they're quite aware of it. They're just willing to lodge the fascism of their group think against what they perceive is the bigger evil of "white, hetero-normative, phallogocentric, CIS etc... oppression."


I personally am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mizzou-student-vp-1st-amendment-creates-hostile-and-unsafe-learning-environment/

[Blake]

Still giving up.

:cry I don't actually want to discussing things. I just want to think I'm right and :lol at everyone who disagrees with me. :cry

I never participated in the first place to give up. I don't want to discuss your opinion. It's really that simple, dumbass. Smhlol.

[Chinook]

I never participated in the first place to give up. I don't want to discuss your opinion. It's really that simple, dumbass. Smhlol.

Can you even find your way home through all those tears?

[Blake]

Can you even find your way home through all those tears?

Lol tears. Just gets richer.

[All Mighty Janitor]

" When you start limiting other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it affects us all."

aka, "weaponized" 1st Amendment.

iow, I MUST be able to say, and I ought to say, the most damaging, hateful, denigrating, racist, bigoted shit I can think of because it's MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, which I MUST exercise, no matter what.

Again, it's not about the right to say harmful things. It's the reality of the situation. One person's belief is another person's hate speech. It doesn't matter what speech it is, there is gonna be disagreement on the merits of whatever said speech is. So how do you make laws to account for all the variable opinions. For instance, who decides what constitutes hate speech? PC people say criticism is hate speech. Do we treat that as true? Do we leave it up to the religions to be the arbiters of good and bad? How do you categorize what is hateful? Is it based on the words one says or intention of the person who said the words? Do you leave it up to the person the words were said to? Is it based on their political party? Can certain people not be hateful? Is indifference to issues hate or are we enforcing politeness? You're not going to have agreement on any of these things and anybody who doesn't agree with you can be called a bigot if criticism is hate. These aren't just hard questions; there is no answer to these questions that will satisfy everybody. If you think being PC is the solution to getting rid of hate speech then you must understand that the ideology of PC culture comes along with it and that is what most people disagree with. If you know of a way to make a laws against hate speech fairly I'd like to hear it. I can't think of anything, but maybe I'm missing something.

[rmt]

WH officials censor French President's "Islamic terrorism"

http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/white-house-doctors-video-to-remove-islamic-terrorism-quote/

[boutons_deux]

Again, it's not about the right to say harmful things. It's the reality of the situation. One person's belief is another person's hate speech. It doesn't matter what speech it is, there is gonna be disagreement on the merits of whatever said speech is. So how do you make laws to account for all the variable opinions. For instance, who decides what constitutes hate speech? PC people say criticism is hate speech. Do we treat that as true? Do we leave it up to the religions to be the arbiters of good and bad? How do you categorize what is hateful? Is it based on the words one says or intention of the person who said the words? Do you leave it up to the person the words were said to? Is it based on their political party? Can certain people not be hateful? Is indifference to issues hate or are we enforcing politeness? You're not going to have agreement on any of these things and anybody who doesn't agree with you can be called a bigot if criticism is hate. These aren't just hard questions; there is no answer to these questions that will satisfy everybody. If you think being PC is the solution to getting rid of hate speech then you must understand that the ideology of PC culture comes along with it and that is what most people disagree with. If you know of a way to make a laws against hate speech fairly I'd like to hear it. I can't think of anything, but maybe I'm missing something.

laws, and police behind them, simply can't solve all problems. Culture, civilization, common decency, common interests, solidarity, humanity must play a role.

The Repugs/VRWC/1% have been fostering just the opposite for decades, dividing, polarizing, hating, denigrating. They absolutely don't want social cohesion, stuff like their much-hated "community organizers", unions, any social groupings, people working together for their common good. In the absence of "social power", and esp their relentless trashing and disabling of govt power, they are left with the only ones with real power to exploit, milk, extract wealth.

Hillary is one of them, Bernie is the polar opposite.

[Will Hunting]

I have noticed that only really applies to Hispanics and Blacks. Asians pretty much are the invisible minority that the PC police doesn't care about.

:lol are you serious?

VsNoO8xMs04

[russellgoat]

" When you start limiting other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it affects us all."

aka, "weaponized" 1st Amendment.

iow, I MUST be able to say, and I ought to say, the most damaging, hateful, denigrating, racist, bigoted shit I can think of because it's MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, which I MUST exercise, no matter what.


You don't think much about it when referring to Christians...

[boutons_deux]

You don't think much about it when referring to Christians...

I have no problem with Christians who give preference to the NT and keep their faith to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized Christian Taliban supremacists who give preference to the OT, to money-grubbing, who try aggressively to impose their Biblical fairy tales as unchallengeable cosmology, history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

[rmt]

I have no problem with Christians who give preference to the NT and keep their faith to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized Christian Taliban supremacists who give preference to the OT, to money-grubbing, who try aggressively to impose their Biblical fairy tales as unchallengeable cosmology, history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

boutons, I don't think there is ANY Christian who gives preference to the OT - that's the whole point - that a Christian sees Jesus (NT) as his Lord and Savior. If not, what's the difference between an OT Christian and a Jew?

[pgardn]

1. PC Can be used to automatically render an argument or observation morally corrupt.


2. Because the tactic can be and is overused, fire back at political correctness by labeling your unsound moral argument only failing in a PC world. This tactic has also become tiresome and worn.

[All Mighty Janitor]

laws, and police behind them, simply can't solve all problems. Culture, civilization, common decency, common interests, solidarity, humanity must play a role.

The Repugs/VRWC/1% have been fostering just the opposite for decades, dividing, polarizing, hating, denigrating. They absolutely don't want social cohesion, stuff like their much-hated "community organizers", unions, any social groupings, people working together for their common good. In the absence of "social power", and esp their relentless trashing and disabling of govt power, they are left with the only ones with real power to exploit, milk, extract wealth.

Hillary is one of them, Bernie is the polar opposite.
Even if all that is true, what makes Political Correctness the answer to those problems? Are those problems things that can be solved through talking or are we gonna need to use force? I ask because we've had moral police before and it just divides people by trying to force them to be the same. What makes this PC movement any better? We, as a society, have been agreeing to disagree on these issues and that's what allows us to be individuals. And when people become unable to hold unpopular opinions, whether through being stigmatized or silenced by force, sure, those people become fewer in number, but they also become more radical and prone to physical violence(and thus much more difficult to deal with.) That's why I think we should just leave things as they are and ignore the bigots ; you can't completely get rid of them, and when you try, their escalate behavior from hurtful words to hurtful wounds.

[All Mighty Janitor]

I have no problem with Christians who give preference to the NT and keep their faith to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized Christian Taliban supremacists who give preference to the OT, to money-grubbing, who try aggressively to impose their Biblical fairy tales as unchallengeable cosmology, history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.
This could apply to PC as well:

I have no problem with PC people who give preference to minorities and keep their beliefs to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized PC police who give preference to minorities, who try aggressively to impose their ideology as unchallengeable history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

^that is part of what I am saying here in this thread.

[Blake]

This could apply to PC as well:

I have no problem with PC people who give preference to minorities and keep their beliefs to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized PC police who give preference to minorities, who try aggressively to impose their ideology as unchallengeable history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

^that is part of what I am saying here in this thread.

Give an example

[All Mighty Janitor]

Give an example
Progressive Stack for minority preference, Feminist Lens for ideological bias, the practices of No Platforming for imposing their beliefs on others, denying all Biological Determinism when considering male and female behavior, seemingly believing ALL white people and ONLY white people conquested, owned slaves, and in general, did bad shit all throughout history (which either falls under biased preference for minorities or changing history.)

[CosmicCowboy]

Give an example

Washington redskins

[Blake]

Washington redskins

Still the Redskins last I checked

[boutons_deux]

Washington redskins

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.

[Wild Cobra]

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.

Boo hoo...

[spankadelphia]

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.

I assume you are not white/of European origin.

Literally everything that makes your modern life what it is was created and given to you by people of ethnic European origin or Jews. Your computer, your speakers, the clothes you're wearing, the house you're living in, the power grid that feeds electricity into your computer and allows you to promote your ignorance in front of a wide audience, the plumbing you use to flush your excrement, literally fucking everything. Your entire existence is culturally appropriated from Western Civilization.

Why don't you show a little appreciation for once?

[spankadelphia]

I'm glad you mentioned men's rights. Men as a whole have problems that need to be addressed. I wish it had more traction than it does, and I'm gettin tired of excuses like "women's issues are worse or more numerous so they deserve all the attention."

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned. Like so many other things, it's a biological construct that manifests itself into society. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare. Reproductive Scarcity. Biology 101.

This is why wanton death and destruction on the TV screen elicits a "meh" response, but see something violent happen to a woman on screen and it evokes a visceral response. Example: everyone in the theater gasped when the chick got eaten by the dinosaur in Jurassic World. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare.

If you have a village with 10,000 people, half men/half women, and a neighboring village tries to invade, you are going to allocate 2,500 men for defense. Say you save the village and lose all the fighters in the process - no big deal. 2,500 men can easily keep society going with 5,000 women. But sending 2,500 women into battle and losing them? Now you have halved your village's reproductive potential. Nevermind the fact that they are not built for combat.

TL;DR it's biology, be a man and know your role in nature. MRA's are basically male feminists.

[Wild Cobra]

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned. Like so many other things, it's a biological construct that manifests itself into society. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare. Reproductive Scarcity. Biology 101.

This is why wanton death and destruction on the TV screen elicits a "meh" response, but see something violent happen to a woman on screen and it evokes a visceral response. Example: everyone in the theater gasped when the chick got eaten by the dinosaur in Jurassic World. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare.

If you have a village with 10,000 people, half men/half women, and a neighboring village tries to invade, you are going to allocate 2,500 men for defense. Say you save the village and lose all the fighters in the process - no big deal. 2,500 men can easily keep society going with 5,000 women. But sending 2,500 women into battle and losing them? Now you have halved your village's reproductive potential. Nevermind the fact that they are not built for combat.

TL;DR it's biology, be a man and know your role in nature. MRA's are basically male feminists.
Maybe that's why man created war.

So men can have more than one woman!

[Winehole23]

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned.read an interesting article about that today. may turn out it depends on the *cost of the male:


Men: if all they do is eat, without an ability to produce babies, what long term benefit are they to society?

Human males may beg to differ with such a bleak assessment, but for organisms with an option to procreate asexually (essentially females breeding females without mating), supporting 'non-reproductive' members of the population (males) becomes a matter of survival for the entire society.

Now a Kyoto University research team has shown that males can 'cost' less when there is a higher proportion of females, a result that may have broad implications for studies of the evolution and sustainability of sexual reproduction (http://phys.org/tags/sexual+reproduction/).

"It is typically known as the twofold cost of sex," explains team leader Kazuya Kobayashi, referring to the fact that populations of sexual organisms grow at only half the rate of asexual ones. "Purely in numerical terms, sexual reproduction presents a distinct disadvantage."


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-veil-sex-males-expensive.html#jCp

[All Mighty Janitor]

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned. Like so many other things, it's a biological construct that manifests itself into society. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare. Reproductive Scarcity. Biology 101.

This is why wanton death and destruction on the TV screen elicits a "meh" response, but see something violent happen to a woman on screen and it evokes a visceral response. Example: everyone in the theater gasped when the chick got eaten by the dinosaur in Jurassic World. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare.

If you have a village with 10,000 people, half men/half women, and a neighboring village tries to invade, you are going to allocate 2,500 men for defense. Say you save the village and lose all the fighters in the process - no big deal. 2,500 men can easily keep society going with 5,000 women. But sending 2,500 women into battle and losing them? Now you have halved your village's reproductive potential. Nevermind the fact that they are not built for combat.

TL;DR it's biology, be a man and know your role in nature. MRA's are basically male feminists.
Just because that's the way things were doesn't mean they have to stay that way. We, as society, don't have to treat men as disposable. In a crisis I would see things differently, but as of now, our population is more than big enough to not have to worry Reproductive Scarcity.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.
What do you think can be done? Doing something relatively small like getting rid of team name, no matter how symbolic, should be done if it truly offends them (if saying the word prevents any kind of civil discourse). But how far are you willing to go in making good past wrongs?

[Wild Cobra]

Just because that's the way things were doesn't mean they have to stay that way. We, as society, don't have to treat men as disposable. In a crisis I would see things differently, but as of now, our population is more than big enough to not have to worry Reproductive Scarcity.

But at some point in our history, women will get the upper hand. the gene pool can still be very good if there is only 1 man for every 10 women. What do you think abortions will start to sway towards?

In a future world when women rule, men might become nothing but sex toys.

[Blake]

This could apply to PC as well:

I have no problem with PC people who give preference to minorities and keep their beliefs to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized PC police who give preference to minorities, who try aggressively to impose their ideology as unchallengeable history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

^that is part of what I am saying here in this thread.

Give an example you're referring to

[All Mighty Janitor]

But at some point in our history, women will get the upper hand. the gene pool can still be very good if there is only 1 man for every 10 women. What do you think abortions will start to sway towards?

In a future world when women rule, men might become nothing but sex toys.
The only thing I will say about that is that is I highly doubt that will happen.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Give an example you're referring to
Look a post #87. Or are you talking about links?

[Wild Cobra]

The only thing I will say about that is that is I highly doubt that will happen.

Yet how many things have happened contrary to past beliefs of the future?

I'm not saying it will happen. I just wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Women do not need men.

[Blake]

Progressive Stack for minority preference, Feminist Lens for ideological bias, the practices of No Platforming for imposing their beliefs on others, denying all Biological Determinism when considering male and female behavior, seemingly believing ALL white people and ONLY white people conquested, owned slaves, and in general, did bad shit all throughout history (which either falls under biased preference for minorities or changing history.)

I don't have a clue what you're specifically referring to here. You're using straw. Who out there believes that only white people owned slaves etc?

Give a specific scenario where what you're talking about is happening.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yet how many things have happened contrary to past beliefs of the future?

I'm not saying it will happen. I just wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Women do not need men.

Except for child support. The single mother statistics pretty much prove that.

[Winehole23]

what stats? what do they prove?

[Wild Cobra]

Except for child support. The single mother statistics pretty much prove that.

LOL...

Why need men when they have taxpayers to support them?

[Blake]

LOL...

Why need men when they have taxpayers to support them?

Or their lesbian wife

[boutons_deux]

VA Repugs calling Toni Morrison a pornographer. Repugs gotta politically correctly protect the hypersensitive students from lit porn.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/virginias-governor-is-trying-to-decide-whether-nobel-prize-winner-toni-morrison-is-a-pornographer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Winehole23]

opprobrium attaches to disparaging others for their disability, gender, race, sexual preference or national origin.

it wasn't always so. some people miss the privilege of abusing others without adverse social consequences or pine for it.

[All Mighty Janitor]

I don't have a clue what you're specifically referring to here. You're using straw. Who out there believes that only white people owned slaves etc?

Give a specific scenario where what you're talking about is happening.
No straw here; all these things are said by real people. You don't have to believe a word I say, but just because I don't give any links or direct examples doesn't make what I'm saying a Hayman.

1:Look up the Progressive Stack. It's terminology SJW's use to refer to the order that all groups of people rank in privilege. It's not necessarily a wide spread belief, but I'm mostly talking about high profile people who have pushed for policy that accounts for the Progressive stack. 2:The feminist Lens covers everything from Patriarchy theory (or Feminist Theory), rape culture, and the Duluth Model of domestic violence and more; all feminist policy and terminology that you can look up. 3:No Platforming is also terminology, but it's not specific to PC police. It is one of the methods used to do said policing though. An example of this is what the NECSS did to Richard Dawkins. He said something some feminist didn't like and this organiztion cut out his talk from their program. 4:Feminists hate biological determinism; it's as simple as that. They don't like when people make arguments saying women are mentally different(sometimes physically) from men at birth even when you provide scientific evidence. I guess they think people(men) will try to say that they are superior if they allow that to be true.
To be fair, it's not that SJW's say only whites have had slaves, its that whites have never been slaves. Sorry, I misspoke there. But I've heard people accuse white people, as a whole, for being responsible for many (if not all) the ill's that befall minority groups. Have you honestly never heard the claim that "If women were the the group of people that ruled throughout history that there never would have been any wars"? The same is said about white people by SJWs. This is less about terminology and more about attitude of individuals and is thus just my opinion (there is a reason that I said "seemingly" before).

Like I said before, I don't expect you to just believe me. You can do your own homework if you want and doing that would give you more context than a few links; I could try to provide links to some of this stuff (if you ask), but it would take me a lot of time and I'm not sure I could provide unbiased sources or enough sources to give you true context.

[Chinook]

Here in Austin, the worst part is the effort to wipe away the traces of the Confederacy. The latest is them trying to change the name of Robert E Lee Elementary. The education disparity is the much more critical issue, but people are completely ignoring that to focus on a damned name.

I have no idea how credible this site (http://www.greatschools.org/texas/austin/555-Lee-Elementary-School/) is, but they rate Lee as a 9/10. Comparatively, AISD rates as a 6/10. The reviews are very favorable. All things considered, this isn't really the school that needs scrutiny. But PC folks will just keep hash-tagging away or posting stupid articles.

[Spurminator]

Political correctness can certainly get out of hand, particularly when people assume the worst possible interpretation from an innocent remark or attach hostility where no hostility was intended.

With that said, PC fights related to Confederate flags, names, sports teams, etc., escalate because of the opposition to change. It shouldn't be that difficult for everyone to agree that a state flag, school, or whatever probably doesn't need to celebrate a time when this country was split in two and killed thousands of each other in a conflict where one of the main issues at hand was the right to own slaves. I don't see the big deal in changing a school name. We wouldn't name a school after Robert E. Lee today, so why put up such a fight to keep it? Kids will still learn about him in History class.

Honestly, it shouldn't even be that difficult to agree that "Redskins" is probably a bit archaic and doesn't reflect where we are as a society now. And people should be free to say that, and to protest the name and demand it be changed, just as other people should be free to cling to it for tradition's sake or whatever other reason they have. I don't care enough to make a thing about it.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Political correctness can certainly get out of hand, particularly when people assume the worst possible interpretation from an innocent remark or attach hostility where no hostility was intended.

With that said, PC fights related to Confederate flags, names, sports teams, etc., escalate because of the opposition to change. It shouldn't be that difficult for everyone to agree that a state flag, school, or whatever probably doesn't need to celebrate a time when this country was split in two and killed thousands of each other in a conflict where one of the main issues at hand was the right to own slaves. I don't see the big deal in changing a school name. We wouldn't name a school after Robert E. Lee today, so why put up such a fight to keep it? Kids will still learn about him in History class.

Honestly, it shouldn't even be that difficult to agree that "Redskins" is probably a bit archaic and doesn't reflect where we are as a society now. And people should be free to say that, and to protest the name and demand it be changed, just as other people should be free to cling to it for tradition's sake or whatever other reason they have. I don't care enough to make a thing about it.
I agree with most of what you said, and that bold part really makes me think. The only reason I might be opposed to such changes is the PC police never seem to be satisfied with the changes made. They naturally move on to other problems that Political Correctness could help, but they sometimes latch on to one thing and keep pushing the issue making new demands. This is a hypothetical but it's an example of what I'm talking about: First, the name of the school must be changed. Then, there needs to be a counsel made to advise the school on PC matters because the administrators must be racist if the change wasn't made earlier. If things don't change fast enough then the Principal must go. Also, the new Principal must be from a minority group. If this happens at a University, the students must be infused into the decision making process somewhere along the line. The PC police keep going until they get control of the system they think is "problematic." You give these people any ground (like changing the name of a school) and they pounce on the opportunity to turn their beliefs into policy in that institution. I think this has to stop mainly, because I don't think the PC police are capable of being unbiased with their policies, but also because I don't think we should be making any government institutions ideological.

[Blake]

No straw here; all these things are said by real people. You don't have to believe a word I say, but just because I don't give any links or direct examples doesn't make what I'm saying a Hayman.


Yeah, what people? I don't doubt there are over the top PC people out there, but maybe they have a legit reason to be over the top.

If you want to take punches at imaginary people, go for it, but there's not much to discuss then.

[Blake]

Political correctness can certainly get out of hand, particularly when people assume the worst possible interpretation from an innocent remark or attach hostility where no hostility was intended.

With that said, PC fights related to Confederate flags, names, sports teams, etc., escalate because of the opposition to change. It shouldn't be that difficult for everyone to agree that a state flag, school, or whatever probably doesn't need to celebrate a time when this country was split in two and killed thousands of each other in a conflict where one of the main issues at hand was the right to own slaves. I don't see the big deal in changing a school name. We wouldn't name a school after Robert E. Lee today, so why put up such a fight to keep it? Kids will still learn about him in History class.

Honestly, it shouldn't even be that difficult to agree that "Redskins" is probably a bit archaic and doesn't reflect where we are as a society now. And people should be free to say that, and to protest the name and demand it be changed, just as other people should be free to cling to it for tradition's sake or whatever other reason they have. I don't care enough to make a thing about it.

Pretty much that.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Yeah, what people? I don't doubt there are over the top PC people out there, but maybe they have a legit reason to be over the top.

If you want to take punches at imaginary people, go for it, but there's not much to discuss then.
I'm talking about the PC Police. I could sit here and list people who are pro-PC and/or for Social Justice, but I'm not going to do that because I'm not referring to individuals here. It's why I have stuck to attitude and terminology and actions done for PC causes. I'm talking about the ideas that they have and the policy they fight for. If I bring up some individuals then we're going to focus on them as people and that's not what I'm trying to talk about here.

[Chinook]

With that said, PC fights related to Confederate flags, names, sports teams, etc., escalate because of the opposition to change. It shouldn't be that difficult for everyone to agree that a state flag, school, or whatever probably doesn't need to celebrate a time when this country was split in two and killed thousands of each other in a conflict where one of the main issues at hand was the right to own slaves. I don't see the big deal in changing a school name. We wouldn't name a school after Robert E. Lee today, so why put up such a fight to keep it? Kids will still learn about him in History class.

It doesn't make sense to lump all of those things together. "Robert E. Lee" isn't a slur. It's the name of a man who was accomplished for doing things before the Civil War and is at least widely considered to have been worthy of respect for his actions during the war. What is really the issue with him? He owned slaves? So did like every president before that time. He was a rebel? So were guys like Crockett and Bowie (who was also a slave-owner), and no one seems to care. He thought black people were inferior? Yeah, so did Lincoln and a load of other political figures before and after Lee. The whole US has a dark history when it comes to race, not just the South. There's really nothing to celebrate if you only focus on the bad parts.

That's not the same thing as using slurs, which only have negative connotations. I can see why people would be offended by that. And I can support their outrage a bit. I don't really support forcing anyone to change their company's name, but that is at least debateable. Trying to pretend that contemporary views are the only ones we need to remember is silly and self-centered. Who knows what Douglass and MLK thought about homosexuality? If they hated gays, are we going to change all of the statues and roads?


I don't see the big deal in changing a school name. We wouldn't name a school after Robert E. Lee today, so why put up such a fight to keep it? Kids will still learn about him in History class.

Honestly, it shouldn't even be that difficult to agree that "Redskins" is probably a bit archaic and doesn't reflect where we are as a society now. And people should be free to say that, and to protest the name and demand it be changed, just as other people should be free to cling to it for tradition's sake or whatever other reason they have. I don't care enough to make a thing about it.

This is a cultural issue more than a legal one. We live in a society where people do care enough to change names or deemphasize aspects of history. We live in a society where the younger generation is censoring the older one. Where people are using their economic power to its fullest extent. Where ideas spread faster and with less vetting than they ever used be able to. It makes sense to be concerned or at least interested to see where this new wave is going to take us.

[Blake]

Lee was the figure head leader of the side that fought for the right to keep slaves.

If a black person is offended by it being the name of a public school, you'll probably have to do better than "well he did accomplish a few things before the Civil War"

[Blake]

I'm talking about PC people in general.

Yeah, that's pretty strawy.

Whatever. It's your thread to get out of it whatever you want.

[Wild Cobra]

Here in Austin, the worst part is the effort to wipe away the traces of the Confederacy. The latest is them trying to change the name of Robert E Lee Elementary. The education disparity is the much more critical issue, but people are completely ignoring that to focus on a damned name.

I have no idea how credible this site (http://www.greatschools.org/texas/austin/555-Lee-Elementary-School/) is, but they rate Lee as a 9/10. Comparatively, AISD rates as a 6/10. The reviews are very favorable. All things considered, this isn't really the school that needs scrutiny. But PC folks will just keep hash-tagging away or posting stupid articles.

That's like advocating book burning!

To like or dislike the past is one thing, but we most certainly don't want to forget both the good and the bad, else we may repeat it.

[PublicOption]

it is important to respect everyone, but you should be able to have fun and not take yourself too seriously. that is the key....to better living through racism.....J/K.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree with most of what you said, and that bold part really makes me think. The only reason I might be opposed to such changes is the PC police never seem to be satisfied with the changes made. They naturally move on to other problems that Political Correctness could help, but they sometimes latch on to one thing and keep pushing the issue making new demands.
It's a proper assessment.

They are just bullies. They act like bullies in every action they take.

[Chinook]

Lee was the figure head leader of the side that fought for the right to keep slaves.

And Lincoln was the figurehead on the other side. They had the same beliefs on slavery and black inferiority. That's why PC is stupid. It lets people gloss over what they want to so long as they can get offended at something else.


If a black person is offended by it being the name of a public school, you'll probably have to do better than "well he did accomplish a few things before the Civil War"

I'd tell them to STFU and pick up a history book. They'd see a lot worse people there than Lee, including people after whom other Austin schools were named.

[Spurminator]

It doesn't make sense to lump all of those things together. "Robert E. Lee" isn't a slur. It's the name of a man who was accomplished for doing things before the Civil War and is at least widely considered to have been worthy of respect for his actions during the war. What is really the issue with him? He owned slaves? So did like every president before that time. He was a rebel? So were guys like Crockett and Bowie (who was also a slave-owner), and no one seems to care. He thought black people were inferior? Yeah, so did Lincoln and a load of other political figures before and after Lee. The whole US has a dark history when it comes to race, not just the South. There's really nothing to celebrate if you only focus on the bad parts.

That's not the same thing as using slurs, which only have negative connotations. I can see why people would be offended by that. And I can support their outrage a bit. I don't really support forcing anyone to change their company's name, but that is at least debateable. Trying to pretend that contemporary views are the only ones we need to remember is silly and self-centered. Who knows what Douglass and MLK thought about homosexuality? If they hated gays, are we going to change all of the statues and roads?

I don't think it's the same as a slur either, but I'm not against re-evaluating where we place historical figures and whether we pay tribute to them on roads, schools, and other taxpayer-funded things.

Since Douglass and MLK were never involved in any active role fighting against gay rights, I don't think we're anywhere close to that level of political correctness and if we get there, then that's something worth pushing back against. Big difference between opposing historical figures for what they were known for doing vs. their personal beliefs that were unrelated.

Lee on the other hand may have done some tangential good things in his life but he's primarily known as a commanding general for the army that fought against the United States and for causes like slavery, while continuing to oppose the rights of black people even after the Civil War. It's not unreasonable to see him as a negative icon in this country's history nor to expect that the state institutions stop paying tribute to him on publicly-funded institutions.

[Wild Cobra]

With all these things being argues as "rights" over time that so many find morally repugnant, I wonder how long it will be before liberals start advocating for pedophile rights?

[Spurminator]

With all these things being argues as "rights" over time that so many find morally repugnant, I wonder how long it will be before liberals start advocating for pedophile rights?

Advocating for the abuse of the less empowered, yep, that sounds like a liberal point of view to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Advocating for the abuse of the less empowered, yep, that sounds like a liberal point of view to me.

Do you think such a cause would never happen. They could easily argue there is no actual harm.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Yeah, that's pretty strawy.

Whatever. It's your thread to get out of it whatever you want.
I can see what you mean by me straw manning now. I'm talking about just some PC people (the PC police). If it seemed like I was referring to all PC people I apologize because that is not what I meant. I thought I was doing a good job of showing this, but i guess I just wasn't clear enough. I will try to be more clear about differentiating the subsects of PC culture in my future posts, because I'm not really am not attempting to mislead or mischaracterize. I'm going to make some clarification edits to my older posts.

[Chinook]

I don't think it's the same as a slur either, but I'm not against re-evaluating where we place historical figures and whether we pay tribute to them on roads, schools, and other taxpayer-funded things.

Then reevaluate everyone. Franklin and Jefferson did more to promote slavery in the US than Lee ever did. Lee fought because that was his job -- not because he wanted slavery to continue. He was racists as hell, but he didn't stick out. You know who did stick out? Confederate VP Alexander Stephens. Do you even know who he is? If not, it's probably because history already wiped that dude's stain off the books.


Since Douglass and MLK were never involved in any active role fighting against gay rights, I don't think we're anywhere close to that level of political correctness and if we get there, then that's something worth pushing back against. Big difference between opposing historical figures for what they were known for doing vs. their personal beliefs that were unrelated.

Lee on the other hand may have done some tangential good things in his life but he's primarily known as a commanding general for the army that fought against the United States and for causes like slavery, while continuing to oppose the rights of black people even after the Civil War. It's not unreasonable to see him as a negative icon in this country's history nor to expect that the state institutions stop paying tribute to him on publicly-funded institutions.

When the Confederacy seceded, it wasn't clear that they couldn't. It was even less clear where loyalty should lie for individuals in the South. People handled the split differently. Sam Houston resigned as governor and died in relative obscurity -- and he was a former figurehead for a war fought to keep slaves himself. West Virginia seceded from the rest of the State. Lee remained loyal to his state rather than the government, which seems silly now but hadn't been up until that point. Why was fighting with the Union the right thing to do? While protecting the institution of slavery was why the South seceded, it really wasn't the reason why most people fought. And ending slavery wasn't even an official element of Lincoln's platform until 1863. He was fine with it when he won the presidency in 1860.

Our founding fathers created a situation where slavery could continue to existed and could only be expunged with war. They all decided that poor white, minorities and women couldn't vote. They decided wives didn't have rights and that the voters couldn't be trusted in directly voting for their senators and presidents. They gave us a country on a shit platter, and we've been trying to pick up the pieces ever since. Where is the retroactive condemnation of their actions and beliefs? It's not part of the public narrative, because it's much easier to pick at the South instead.

[Spurminator]

Do you think such a cause would never happen. They could easily argue there is no actual harm.

How could they do that? Do explain.

[Spurminator]

Then reevaluate everyone. Franklin and Jefferson did more to promote slavery in the US than Lee ever did. Lee fought because that was his job -- not because he wanted slavery to continue. He was racists as hell, but he didn't stick out. You know who did stick out? Confederate VP Alexander Stephens. Do you even know who he is? If not, it's probably because history already wiped that dude's stain off the books.

Maybe someday we will. But it's still a stretch to suggest that Franklin or Jefferson's legacies are defined by their support of slavery. It's still tangential in terms of what they are primarily known for. What are we ignoring about Robert E. Lee that would be his primary legacy if not for his efforts against the Union and freedom for slaves?


When the Confederacy seceded, it wasn't clear that they couldn't. It was even less clear where loyalty should lie for individuals in the South. People handled the split differently. Sam Houston resigned as governor and died in relative obscurity -- and he was a former figurehead for a war fought to keep slaves himself. West Virginia seceded from the rest of the State. Lee remained loyal to his state rather than the government, which seems silly now but hadn't been up until that point. Why was fighting with the Union the right thing to do? While protecting the institution of slavery was why the South seceded, it really wasn't the reason why most people fought. And ending slavery wasn't even an official element of Lincoln's platform until 1863. He was fine with it when he won the presidency in 1860.

This is all fine and good and can be taught in history class and read about in books. It doesn't tell me why schools should pay tribute to him. What did he do that is worth protecting and continuing that kind of honor? Would we name a school after Lee today?


Our founding fathers created a situation where slavery could continue to existed and could only be expunged with war. They all decided that poor white, minorities and women couldn't vote. They decided wives didn't have rights and that the voters couldn't be trusted in directly voting for their senators and presidents. They gave us a country on a shit platter, and we've been trying to pick up the pieces ever since. Where is the retroactive condemnation of their actions and beliefs? It's not part of the public narrative, because it's much easier to pick at the South instead.

For better or worse, their legacy is giving birth to the United States. The perception is we have our Founding Fathers to thank for living in a great country.

For what it's worth, and to my earlier point, I'm not even sure we would name a school after Thomas Jefferson today. There would probably be some controversy over that. And ultimately there's no real harm in the controversy or the dialogue it creates..

[Chinook]

Maybe someday we will. But it's still a stretch to suggest that Franklin or Jefferson's legacies are defined by their support of slavery. It's still tangential in terms of what they are primarily known for. What are we ignoring about Robert E. Lee that would be his primary legacy if not for his efforts against the Union and freedom for slaves?

Because 1) The Union wasn't trying to end slavery at the beginning of the war 2) Lee's legacy is just now being seen as particularly racist. Legacies are relative to who's viewing them, and it's extremely self-centered to change things based on how we feel about them now. At least things that aren't harming anyone (and no, being offended is not the same thing). In the past, when everyone was relatively fine with people being racist, Lee was just seen as a brilliant tactician. Hell, his legacy for YEARS was his opposition to slavery (sort of like with Jefferson now).


This is all fine and good and can be taught in history class and read about in books. It doesn't tell me why schools should pay tribute to him. What did he do that is worth that kind of honor? Would we name a school after Lee today?

I don't think we would. I feel like schools are named after living or just recently dead people nowadays. And yes, I think some of those people hold/held views that would "taint their legacies" if they came out.


For better or worse, their legacy is giving birth to the United States. The perception is we have our Founding Fathers to thank for living in a great country.

For what it's worth, and to my earlier point, I'm not sure we would name a school after Thomas Jefferson today.

I feel like this is a cop-out. If legacy is simply the most important thing people remember about a person, then it's relative. Jefferson may have left a legacy of a nation to you, but for many others, he was a guy who was too chickenshit to go against his economic and political interests. To some, it's the Declaration. To others, it's the Louisiana Purchase. The truth is that it's all of those.

What the founders was a nation that enslaved, displaced and disfranchised the large a majority of the people within its borders. People after them improved and strengthen it, but the "flaws" in their philosophical thinking were very clear through their work. Lee was a man who did his job as a general and is remembered because he was good at it. He didn't maintain slavery, and indeed, had he been defeated quickly, the South probably would have been allowed back in without abolition being a condition. That's a hell of a lot more than guys like Bowie and Crockett did. It's a better legacy than Stephen F. Austin or Sam Houston have.

[Spurminator]

Because 1) The Union wasn't trying to end slavery at the beginning of the war 2) Lee's legacy is just now being seen as particularly racist. Legacies are relative to who's viewing them, and it's extremely self-centered to change things based on how we feel about them now. At least things that aren't harming anyone (and no, being offended is not the same thing). In the past, when everyone was relatively fine with people being racist, Lee was just seen as a brilliant tactician. Hell, his legacy for YEARS was his opposition to slavery (sort of like with Jefferson now).

Why is it self centered and not just a sign of changing times? It's not like future generations are going to be robbed of a piece of our history if we change the names on a few schools. And that doesn't harm anyone either, so essentially we're stuck with the choice of unharmfully keeping a name that doesn't reflect our values anymore or unharmfully changing it. Why is it worth fighting for the former?


I feel like this is a cop-out. If legacy is simply the most important thing people remember about a person, then it's relative. Jefferson may have left a legacy of a nation to you, but for many others, he was a guy who was too chickenshit to go against his economic and political interests. To some, it's the Declaration. To others, it's the Louisiana Purchase. The truth is that it's all of those.

It's not a cop-out, I'm just defining the legacies as they're seen today. I don't attach sainthood or infallibility to any of our Founding Fathers and I think it's good to continually re-evaluate their motivations, since we're still governing today on a lot of what they wrote. If Jefferson High School students and others want to change the name of that school, I wouldn't put up a huge fight. But I don't think the discussion of whether Lee is worth honoring requires us to also make an immediate decision on anyone else.


What the founders was a nation that enslaved, displaced and disfranchised the large a majority of the people within its borders. People after them improved and strengthen it, but the "flaws" in their philosophical thinking were very clear through their work. Lee was a man who did his job as a general and is remembered because he was good at it. He didn't maintain slavery, and indeed, had he been defeated quickly, the South probably would have been allowed back in without abolition being a condition. That's a hell of a lot more than guys like Bowie and Crockett did. It's a better legacy than Stephen F. Austin or Sam Houston have.

Agree to disagree but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that someone deserves permanent institutional honor for being good at what they do regardless of what that is. He was a great strategic general who used his skills to fight for the side that opposed what our country valued then (regardless of private feelings), and especially now.

[Blake]

And Lincoln was the figurehead on the other side. They had the [b]same beliefs on slavery[/ and black inferiority. That's why PC is stupid.

Wait wut

[Chinook]

Why is it self centered and not just a sign of changing times?

It's self-centered because it pretends that this era is objectively better than the previous one. It's like we're looking at the past going "look how backward those people were to name a school after Robert E. Lee" while pretending that the people we support nowadays might not be remembered just as unfavorably. Sure, we can assume that's because we just don't know what the future people do, but I think it's much easier to look at it as moral standards sliding depending on the current conditions and not as being on a single track toward perfection.

For all we know, men will end up having to have a rights movement and that after it happens, people will turn their nose at guys like Obama that suggested that women being hit was worse than men being hit. Or that a man had no choice in whether his offspring lived or whether to pay for a kid he didn't want. You just don't know, so it's best to try to not judge people against your time period and calling it being objective.


It's not a cop-out, I'm just defining the legacies as they're seen today. I don't attach sainthood or infallibility to any of our Founding Fathers and I think it's good to continually re-evaluate their motivations, since we're still governing today on a lot of what they wrote. If Jefferson High School students and others want to change the name of that school, I wouldn't put up a huge fight. But I don't think the discussion of whether Lee is worth honoring requires us to also make an immediate decision on anyone else.

Of course it does. Again, this is a cultural question, not a legal one. Americans have to decide what kind of people they want to be going forward, and becoming a group of snooty psuedo-intellectuals label everything and everyone they disagree with as ignorant or evil is a real possibility if that hasn't always been the case. Once we start trying to change our view of history to match our ideals, we end up in a situation not unlike 1984. And yes, I know that sounds extreme as hell and I hope it always does. But those types of worlds don't just show up out of nowhere. They come from a series of extremely popular sanctions that eventually snowball to the point that they don't stop even when they stop being popular.


Agree to disagree but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that someone deserves permanent institutional honor for being good at what they do regardless of what that is.

My point is that it doesn't matter if the person is still on their pedestal. Most people don't care about the person after whom their school was named. What does matter is people thinking that being part of the confederacy is a scornful offense. It's lazy.


He was a great strategic general who used his skills to fight for the side that opposed what our country valued then (regardless of private feelings), and especially now.

You keep saying this. You really do. But it's not true. The South freaked out about the North's growing population, believing they were eventually going to be outvoted and forced to industrialize. They wanted to keep being who they are, which meant having slaves for sure, and they saw the North as a threat to that. But Lincoln didn't run on a stance to get rid of slavery. He didn't run arguing for blacks as equal humans to whites. He died holding the view of "Slavery is wrong, but..." just like nearly every political figure from that time.

Acting like Lincoln fought the South to free slaves is bogus. Andrew Jackson wanted to invade South Carolina after hearing that Calhoun was arguing for secession, and he was a slave-owner (who had a much more complicated relationship with slavery than most political figures of the time, btb). Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, plain and simple. Slavery wasn't abolished until eight months after Lincoln's death. Union States like Maryland still had slaves at the end of the Civil War (since the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to non-Confederate states).

Simply put, to equate Lee to slavery is ignorant, and a just society shouldn't allow that shit to become the prevailing view. The Civil War was a very complex period, and it shouldn't be boiled down to the bad, racist South versus the Northern, enlightened liberators. If there's a legacy to be taken from that time is that the country had to really deal with its diverse makeup for the first time. It wasn't nearly the last time it faced that issue, but because of the Civil War, you knew the country was always going to survive it. The only reason why people even have strong feelings against the war is because of what a clusterfuck Reconstruction was and how that pretty much guaranteed that Jim Crow was going to happen. But again, we completely ignore how the Northern Republicans sold Southern blacks down the tube. But where are the folks trying to get the name Hayes High School (the Delaware one) changed?

[Chinook]

Wait wut

Did you not know that?


I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/

Neither one of them liked slavery. Neither one was keen to end it in 1860. Both believed strongly that black people were inferior. The difference is that Lee thought black people were capable of being equals to whites, while Lincoln did not.

http://civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm


There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.

[Blake]

Did you not know that?



http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/

Neither one of them liked slavery. Neither one was keen to end it in 1860. Both believed strongly that black people were inferior. The difference is that Lee thought black people were capable of being equals to whites, while Lincoln did not.

http://civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm



"What were his views on slavery?

These papers are filled with information about slavery. This is not something you have to read between the lines; Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

It is shocking how he treated his father-in-law's slaves.

Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.
.........

More. ...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2007/06/24/the-private-thoughts-of-robert-e-lee


Seems pretty pro-slavery

[Chinook]

I guess my response didn't save? It was pretty much that Lee and Lincoln both had similar curves in their beliefs. Before the war, they both believed in black inferiority (with Lincoln taking a stronger view), believed that slavery was wrong while also doing little to stop it. They both believed that it was something that would die out eventually, and that was a view a lot of people held back then. It was just a way for them to feel better about themselves and to kick the can down the road.

Lincoln only pushed the Emancipation Proclamation once his troops were losing the will to fight for the sole cause of preserving the union. Lee advocated hard for emancipation in the last couple of years as a way to get more soldiers. For the most part, his requests were rejected. Lincoln NEVER tried to emancipate all slaves, even after giving the Union a moral mandate with the EP. It's not even clear that he would have made that a condition to readmit states, as it was thought that he was going to be lenient than House Republicans ended up being had he lived.

[boutons_deux]

I read one "historian" saying Lincoln didn't care about slavery, and he wished he could keep the country together and let the South keep slavery but he knew couldn't.

His primary concern against the South was equality of opportunity, which he knew the slaves didn't have.

[Blake]

I guess my response didn't save? It was pretty much that Lee and Lincoln both had similar curves in their beliefs. Before the war, they both believed in black inferiority (with Lincoln taking a stronger view), believed that slavery was wrong while also doing little to stop it. They both believed that it was something that would die out eventually, and that was a view a lot of people held back then. It was just a way for them to feel better about themselves and to kick the can down the road.

Lincoln only pushed the Emancipation Proclamation once his troops were losing the will to fight for the sole cause of preserving the union. Lee advocated hard for emancipation in the last couple of years as a way to get more soldiers. For the most part, his requests were rejected. Lincoln NEVER tried to emancipate all slaves, even after giving the Union a moral mandate with the EP. It's not even clear that he would have made that a condition to readmit states, as it was thought that he was going to be lenient than House Republicans ended up being had he lived.

Meh, I think your post is mostly bull shit.


Fact #10: Lincoln considered the Emancipation Proclamation the crowning achievement of his presidency.

Heralded as the savior of the Union, President Lincoln actually considered the Emancipation Proclamation to be the most important aspect of his legacy. “I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper,” he declared. “If my name ever goes into history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it."

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/emancipation-150/10-facts.html

In the end, Lincoln freed the slaves.

Lee fought for the South that wanted to hold on to slavery.

It's as simple as that.

[Chinook]

Meh, I think your post is mostly bull shit.

Which parts? The idea that Lincoln didn't actually end slavery in Union states? This is from the first paragraph of the wikipedia article covering the EP:


The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. In a single stroke, it changed the federal legal status of more than 3 million enslaved persons in the designated areas of the South from "slave" to "free".

This was the area the EP covered:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/images/00035671.jpg

He sure didn't seem to care about black people in Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri being free. They were only allowed out of bondage after the 13th Amendment was ratified at the end of 1865. In fairness to Lincoln, it was passed by Congress in January of that year. But even then that was more than two years after the EP.

So what else do you disagree with? That Lincoln did not run on an abolitionist platform? (https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/lincoln/essays/lincoln-and-abolitionism) That Lee didn't request for slaves to be emancipated to join the CSA army? (http://www.historynet.com/robert-e-lee-on-black-troops-and-the-confederacy-february-1998-civil-war-times-feature.htm)


In the end, Lincoln freed the slaves.

Lee fought for the South that wanted to hold on to slavery.

It's as simple as that.

Obviously, it's not simple. Your repeated attempts to remove all nuance from situations do no favors to anyone. It just leads to misunderstand and inequality. Very few people truly represent the characters you create for them Alexander Stephens was one of them. Lee wasn't. That doesn't mean that I care about him. I wouldn't be advocating for a school to be named after him. But that doesn't mean that people can rewrite history.

[Winehole23]

Renaming a school isn't rewriting history.

[Chinook]

Renaming a school isn't rewriting history.

It's not. But retroactively and arbitrarily labeling some people as less worth remembering or honoring is. History is now VERY unkind to Jackson, when he's actually getting blamed for things Van Buren did. People want to single him out for being racist?

[Winehole23]

But retroactively and arbitrarily labeling some people as less worth remembering or honoring is.Popular opinions about historical figures change over time. That isn't rewriting history either.

[Winehole23]

Expecting professional historians to be fair is one thing; demanding it of popular opinion is laughable.

[Chinook]

Popular opinions about historical figures change over time. That isn't rewriting history either.

Yes it is. People are literally selecting which qualities to attribute to which figures. Lincoln and Lee where two pretty similar men on opposite sides of a conflict. That the general consideration is that one was a champion for racial equality while the other was a champion for oppression is wrong. That people are knocking down statues and changing names due to this misunderstanding is VERY wrong.

I am fine with the idea that Lee wasn't a moral paragon. I am not fine with people thinking his name should be cursed, especially since they seem more interested in changing the name of a good school rather than fixing the poor schools in the same city.

[Chinook]

Expecting professional historians to be fair is one thing; demanding it of popular opinion is laughable.

With the world becoming more interconnected than it ever has been, it won't be laughable forever.

[Winehole23]

Changing the name is easier.

Also, treating Lincoln and Lee as historically equivalent is dishonest. Emancipation no doubt happened for opportunistic reasons, but the results were no less momentous for those liberated, for their brothers and sisters in bondage and for this country.

Results matter. Lee fought for slavery; Lincoln freed slaves. People aren't wrong to judge the two figures by the outcome of the war.

[Winehole23]

as for lost cause sentimentality masquerading as historical fairness and white-knighting for Robert E. Lee, good riddance to smelly garbage.

[Winehole23]

Decisions and sides taken matter more than moral intent, sometimes.

[Blake]

Obviously, it's not simple.

Yeah, it's pretty simple.

[Spurminator]

It's self-centered because it pretends that this era is objectively better than the previous one.

Well that's the crux of our disagreement. I do believe things are objectively better now than they were then, particularly when it comes to racial equality and diversity, and I don't believe people who are known for fighting against racial equality are entitled to permanent honor on government buildings.

A name on a school is not the complete historical record for someone's life. Like I said before, people will be free to read about Robert E. Lee and make their own judgments throughout the future.


My point is that it doesn't matter if the person is still on their pedestal. Most people don't care about the person after whom their school was named. What does matter is people thinking that being part of the confederacy is a scornful offense. It's lazy.


You keep saying this. You really do. But it's not true. The South freaked out about the North's growing population, believing they were eventually going to be outvoted and forced to industrialize. They wanted to keep being who they are, which meant having slaves for sure, and they saw the North as a threat to that. But Lincoln didn't run on a stance to get rid of slavery. He didn't run arguing for blacks as equal humans to whites. He died holding the view of "Slavery is wrong, but..." just like nearly every political figure from that time.

Acting like Lincoln fought the South to free slaves is bogus. Andrew Jackson wanted to invade South Carolina after hearing that Calhoun was arguing for secession, and he was a slave-owner (who had a much more complicated relationship with slavery than most political figures of the time, btb). Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, plain and simple. Slavery wasn't abolished until eight months after Lincoln's death. Union States like Maryland still had slaves at the end of the Civil War (since the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to non-Confederate states).

Simply put, to equate Lee to slavery is ignorant, and a just society shouldn't allow that shit to become the prevailing view. The Civil War was a very complex period, and it shouldn't be boiled down to the bad, racist South versus the Northern, enlightened liberators. If there's a legacy to be taken from that time is that the country had to really deal with its diverse makeup for the first time. It wasn't nearly the last time it faced that issue, but because of the Civil War, you knew the country was always going to survive it. The only reason why people even have strong feelings against the war is because of what a clusterfuck Reconstruction was and how that pretty much guaranteed that Jim Crow was going to happen. But again, we completely ignore how the Northern Republicans sold Southern blacks down the tube. But where are the folks trying to get the name Hayes High School (the Delaware one) changed?

This is all very good information that belongs in textbooks and other historical literature. None of it explains why Lee is entitled to having his name permanently attached to public schools.

You're equating scorn with not having a school named after someone. It's not like he should be placed in some kind of Hall of Shame. It's not like his ancestors should have to pay reparations. We're just saying we don't need to have schools named after Confederate generals.

Having a school named after you is an honor. Why are we obligated to continue honoring people who died hundreds of years ago unless there's a good reason for it? Hell, even if he was an objectively moral and great man, even if we completely take slavery out of the picture, he actively fought against the Union. Why does that deserve tribute? What virtues are we celebrating by honoring him?

Leave him in the history books.

[Chinook]

Yeah, it's pretty simple.

It's not. That kind of attitude is why blacks voted Republican for years even though it was against their interests and why they vote for Clinton so much that she is insulated from most of the criticism of the other parts of the party.

[Blake]

It's not.

It really is.

Fair or not, Lee is associated with the Confederacy which is associated with slavery. There's no way around that.

And like WH mentioned, you're being disingenuous trying to say Lincoln and Lee had exactly the same views on slavery.

[Chinook]

Well that's the crux of our disagreement. I do believe things are objectively better now than they were then, particularly when it comes to racial equality and diversity, and I don't believe people who are known for fighting against racial equality are entitled to permanent honor on government buildings.

Lee: I think black people will be end up being equal some day.

Lincoln: I don't believe in and do not support the idea that blacks and whites can ever be equal.

Neither one of them was a champion for equality. Lincoln wasn't the one who made black people (nominally) equal citizens. The Congress Republicans did that three-and-a-half years after Lincoln died by passing the 14th Amendment and unofficially a year afterward with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. No one knows what would have happened had he lived to serve his term, but based on his desire to be easy on the South and his stated beliefs in white superiority, it's very possible that those bills don't get the same support (enough to override Johnson's Veto).


A name on a school is not the complete historical record for someone's life. Like I said before, people will be free to read about Robert E. Lee and make their own judgments throughout the future.

That's not good enough. History isn't about picking and choosing what to believe based on popular opinion. You have folks like Blake who are clearly trying to pass of simplistic and subjective judgments as fact. It doesn't have to be changed in history books for it to matter.


This is all very good information that belongs in textbooks and other historical literature. None of it explains why Lee is entitled to having his name permanently attached to public schools.

It does explain why the outrage is misplaced and why we as society shouldn't cave to it.


You're equating scorn with not having a school named after someone. It's not like he should be placed in some kind of Hall of Shame. It's not like his ancestors should have to pay reparations. We're just saying we don't need to have schools named after Confederate generals.

Why not? It's part of who we are. I think it's critical to understand and internalize that there are people on both sides of any conflict. Lee isn't Hitler; he's more like Yamamoto, who people are just fine with quoting nowadays. I honestly think that people would be more okay with naming a school after him than after Lee.


Having a school named after you is an honor. Why are we obligated to continue honoring people who died hundreds of years ago? Hell, even if he was an objectively moral and great man, even if we completely take slavery out of the picture, he actively fought against the Union. Why does that deserve tribute? What virtues are we celebrating by honoring him?

"The Union" was not as concrete of an idea as it seems now. As I said, it wasn't obvious at all that states weren't allowed to leave the US back them. Remember, this is was 16 years after Texas, an independent nation, decided to join. If Texas alone decided to succeed, would a war still be justified? And with local governments being more involved in people's daily lives back then, did having loyalty to the national government above all else even make sense? Then you have to note that for three months after the South seceded, there wasn't any military conflict. So it wasn't like Lee and his friends dressed up like Indians and started killed Northerners.


Leave him in the history books.

Why not leave them ALL in the history books and just name things after numbers? Why get carried up on a wave of misguided fervor?

[Chinook]

It really is.

Fair or not, Lee is associated with the Confederacy which is associated with slavery. There's no way around that.

That's why it's not simple. If it's possibly not fair, it requires deeper analysis. You don't hot-button things if there's uncertainty about the justification for it.


And like WH mentioned, you're being disingenuous trying to say Lincoln and Lee had exactly the same views on slavery.

WH didn't even show why the two views were different. Lincoln free some slaves; Lee asked his president (Davis) to free some slaves. That Abe, as president, had the power to do what he did doesn't change anything. In fact, it makes it worse, since he had the power to free ALL slaves but refused because it would have been inconvenient for him. Again, he died with states still being allowed to enslave blacks, even though his proclamation was more than two years old.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's why it's not simple. If it's possibly not fair, it requires deeper analysis. You don't hot-button things if there's uncertainty about the justification for it.



WH didn't even show why the two views were different. Lincoln free some slaves; Lee asked his president (Davis) to free some slaves. That Abe, as president, had the power to do what he did doesn't change anything. In fact, it makes it worse, since he had the power to free ALL slaves but refused because it would have been inconvenient for him. Again, he died with states still being allowed to enslave blacks, even though his proclamation was more than two years old.

Coming from someone that likes to throw out first cause you sure fail to apply it in other instances.

Lee's family owned slaves. He fought to keep the system of slavery and only offered freedom to those who fought to support said system. Not quite the emancipation proclamation.

[Spurminator]

Who are you to decide it's misguided? You can dance around nuance all you want, but keeping a name on a public building is an active tribute, and there is no absolute right to that kind of tribute in perpetuity.

I can completely understand why a black kid would be confused as to why his school is named after a Confederate general. I can understand and support the idea that the least we can do is put aside our kneejerk opposition to change, and loyalty to arbitrary symbolic tradition, and call a school something else. We lose absolutely nothing of value in that exchange.

[Blake]

That's why it's not simple. If it's possibly not fair...

See, it's only your opinion it's not fair. I think it's perfectly fair.

And then like Spurminator asked, what has he done to deserve honor and recognition in the first place?

[Chinook]

Who are you to decide it's misguided? You can dance around nuance all you want, but keeping a name on a public building is an active tribute, and there is no absolute right to that kind of tribute in perpetuity.

It's going to cost a good deal of money to reverse that "active tribute". This isn't a case where it's just filling in a name every year.


I can completely understand why a black kid would be confused as to why his school is named after a Confederate general.

That's when you take him aside and explain that history is complicated and that if you focus on the unfairness, you won't be able to appreciate any of it. What you don't do is pretend that his skin color gives him a better moral platform to speak against the confederacy than anyone else. He was never a slave, and Lee never did anything to him.


I can understand and support the idea that the least we can do is put aside our kneejerk opposition to change, and loyalty to arbitrary symbolic tradition, and call a school something else. We lose absolutely nothing of value in that exchange.

It's okay to change for the right reasons. Like going from the Calvin to the Calvin-Benson or Benson cycle makes sense, as Calvin didn't discover shit. Or insisting that Rosalind Franklin be put in all the textbooks along with Watson and Crick makes sense, as she was the one who sacrificed everything to discover DNA's structure. When you find out new information or are allowed to acknowledge new information, it makes sense to modify how you remember people, because what goes into that memory is different. But nothing is different about the information in Lee's dossier. People just hate it more.


At that point, if you think Lincoln's place in history is overrated, you're free to make that case.

No. I don't think Lincoln needs to be knocked down. I don't think anyone does. That's the point. If the man people consider to be the greatest of that era was a raging supremecist, why don't we cool it with the racial witchhunt? Historical figures having character flaws is never going away.

[Chinook]

See, it's only your opinion it's not fair. I think it's perfectly fair.

And then like Spurminator asked, what has he done to deserve honor and recognition in the first place?

I think there is a ton of historical evidence out there that suggests it's not fair, either.

[Spurminator]

It's going to cost a good deal of money to reverse that "active tribute". This isn't a case where it's just filling in a name every year.

I doubt budget is a real concern of the advocates for keeping the school's name.


That's when you take him aside and explain that history is complicated and that if you focus on the unfairness, you won't be able to appreciate any of it. What you don't do is pretend that his skin color gives him a better moral platform to speak against the confederacy than anyone else. He was never a slave, and Lee never did anything to him.

Who has to focus on it? It's a fair question to ask why Robert E. Lee's name is on his school, and what motivation people have to fight so hard to keep it.

This goes back to my original post. This issue only escalates because people oppose the change for no good reason except that, in their opinion, the reason for someone else wanting to change it isn't good enough. My side would argue your reason for keeping it isn't good enough. So back and forth we go.

Meanwhile, that black kid who may have never been a slave but absolutely still lives with residual impact that slavery left would seem to have a better reason than any of us for not wanting to learn about slavery in a building named after a general who fought on the side that wanted to keep it.


But nothing is different about the information in Lee's dossier. People just hate it more.

If the man people consider to be the greatest of that era was a raging supremecist, why don't we cool it with the racial witchhunt? Historical figures having character flaws is never going away.

We're not talking about character flaws, we are talking about actual tangible efforts, and whether those efforts should be celebrated. Personal feelings about race and actual actions against racial equality are completely different. You can argue Lincoln was a supremecist, or that he didn't do "enough" to free slaves, but that's not the same thing as fighting against it.

There's nothing wrong with evaluating and re-evaluating historical figures on a case by case basis.

[Blake]

I think there is a ton of historical evidence out there that suggests it's not fair, either.

Meh, I think you're talking out of your ass.

I think it's pretty clear he wanted and kept slaves.

[spurraider21]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politics/princeton-university-woodrow-wilson-name-debate/index.html?sr=fbCNN040416princeton-university-woodrow-wilson-name-debate0345PMVODtopLink&linkId=23035655

[vy65]

Quoting the special committee's report, the board wrote, "Princeton must openly and candidly recognize that Wilson, like other historical figures, leaves behind a complex legacy of both positive and negative repercussions, and that the use of his name implies no endorsement of views and actions that conflict with the values and aspirations of our times. We have said that in this report, and the University must say it in the settings that bear his name."

[Chinook]

Meh, I think you're talking out of your ass.

I've actually shown that evidence. Again, I don't care that he had slaves, and I don't think his rationale made him a better person. But he clearly wasn't worse than the guys with him or before him in that regard. How is it fair to single out one person for something so many other people did while championing someone else who was almost as bad?

[Chinook]

I doubt budget is a real concern of the advocates for keeping the school's name.

It actually is something I've heard mentioned. Again, this isn't a question of it being all the same to everyone if the name is gone. It's whether Lee's name is hurting people to the extent that the city should go through the effort to fix it. I don't believe a single person has a legit claim to that the name is harming them, so the change isn't neutral or advantageous.


This goes back to my original post. This issue only escalates because people oppose the change for no good reason except that, in their opinion, the reason for someone else wanting to change it isn't good enough. My side would argue your reason for keeping it isn't good enough. So back and forth we go.

It doesn't work that way. The side asking for the change has the burden of proof. If you don't have a good enough reason to change it, it stays the way it is. That's just common sense.


Meanwhile, that black kid who may have never been a slave but absolutely still lives with residual impact that slavery left would seem to have a better reason than any of us for not wanting to learn about slavery in a building named after a general who fought on the side that wanted to keep it.

Let's just be clear: The kid was NEVER a slave (at least a legal one). There's not "may have never been" in there. He wasn't a slave, his parents weren't slaves, his great-grandparents weren't slaves. Slavery is the nation's cross to bear, not black people and certainly not black individuals. No one gets to use slavery as a platform for credibility.

The problems black people face now are not the residual effects of the Civil War. They are the very immediate effects of a nation that doesn't not guarantee basic living and education standards for its citizens and a culture that on its public face is apathetic to internalizing and overcoming its shortcomings. That kid is going one of the best schools in the city (according to that site at least). He's already on the right track to doing his part in bridging the racial gap. All he needs to do is focus on getting the most out of that rather than being upset that the guy his school was named after wasn't perfect.


We're not talking about character flaws, we are talking about actual tangible efforts, and whether those efforts should be celebrated. Personal feelings about race and actual actions against racial equality are completely different. You can argue Lincoln was a supremecist, or that he didn't do "enough" to free slaves, but that's not the same thing as fighting against it.

There's nothing wrong with evaluating and re-evaluating historical figures on a case by case basis.

I'm perfectly fine with saying that the Civil War was about slavery primarily. I am not okay with people saying that if you fought for the Confederacy, you wanted to keep slavery. That completely ignores that people's homes and families were part of the seceding territory and that once again, the government that made the most impact in their lives wasn't the national government. It's like thinking that Americans would all start flocking to other countries if the US left the UN.

Lee may well have wanted slavery to continue despite his written words to the controversy, but it's doing a disservice to anyone trying to "question" things to let them make these types of generations. They teach history in schools precisely so you don't go around ignoring it.

[Chinook]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politics/princeton-university-woodrow-wilson-name-debate/index.html?sr=fbCNN040416princeton-university-woodrow-wilson-name-debate0345PMVODtopLink&linkId=23035655

Princeton with the grown-man moves. Puck 'em, but props.

[vy65]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5703893a910584cc008baad8-1500-1125/gap%20kids.png

Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?

[Blake]

I've actually shown that evidence. Again, I don't care that he had slaves, and I don't think his rationale made him a better person. But he clearly wasn't worse than the guys with him or before him in that regard. How is it fair to single out one person for something so many other people did while championing someone else who was almost as bad?

Your twisting this around. This isn't about "Lee really wasn't that bad a guy".

This is "why does his name deserve to stay up there?" What exactly did he do that was so great?

Financial reason aside, you haven't provided shit for justifying his name to stay.

[Blake]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5703893a910584cc008baad8-1500-1125/gap%20kids.png

Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?

No but if they want to give one, why do you give a fuck

[SpursforSix]

Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?

why would it?

[vy65]

No but if they want to give one, why do you give a fuck

Only in your tranny-loving, white-knighting mind would you equate that post with giving a fuck.

[vy65]

why would it?

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/gap-pulls-controversial-ad-image/

[SpursforSix]

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/gap-pulls-controversial-ad-image/

that's ridiculous

[Chinook]

Financial reason aside, you haven't provided shit for justifying his name to stay.

Again, that's not the way arguments work. When you argue that something should change, you have to justify it. "You can't show why I'm wrong" is a very obvious fallacy and isn't a defensible position for the party with the burden of proof. I'm not arguing that we need to name a new school after Lee. I am arguing that we don't have a reason to scrub Lee's name off a school, especially not due to any moral standards.

[Blake]

Only in your tranny-loving, white-knighting mind would you equate that post with giving a fuck.

So you posted a picture you don't give a fuck about.

And asked a question to the class about it.

K.

[Blake]

Again, that's not the way arguments work. When you argue that something should change, you have to justify it. "You can't show why I'm wrong" is a very obvious fallacy and isn't a defensible position for the party with the burden of proof. I'm not arguing that we need to name a new school after Lee. I am arguing that we don't have a reason to scrub Lee's name off a school, especially not due to any moral standards.

Yeah, the reason to scrub his name off is that slavery is reprehensible and he actually fought and killed fellow Americans for the right to uphold it.

It's really that simple.

[vy65]

So you posted a picture you don't give a fuck about.

And asked a question to the class about it.

K.

It's a thread about political correctness on a discussion board. Posting an image and "asking class" about it is for discussion purposes, doesn't mean I give a fuck. It means it's a topical news item related to the subject of the thread. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

[Chinook]

Yeah, the reason to scrub his name off is that slavery is reprehensible and he actually fought and killed fellow Americans for the right to uphold it.

And I'm saying that's not a valid reason and gave like a million different evidence points for it. It's cool if you just disagree with that, but you can't fall back on mere dismissal of the other side if you are going to advocate for the change. And I don't mean you in particular. I mean whoever is actually trying to argue for this change. If Lee isn't worse than a ton of other people with schools named after him, and it actually costs money and time to erase his name, then it's not defensible to do so.

And to keep it on the original topic, the push to do so is because people want to be politically correct, and PC doesn't allow for people to understand that shifting moral standards don't allow for us to dismiss the past or the people in there as being unfit for public consumption.

[Blake]

Posting an image and "asking class" about it is for discussion purposes, doesn't mean I give a fuck.

That might be the stupidest thing I read today. But it's early and I haven't read Wild Cobra yet.

[Blake]

And I'm saying that's not a valid reason and gave like a million different evidence points for it.

I think taking his name down because he fought for slavery is a perfectly valid reason. You're the first person I've ever seen disagree with that.

[Chinook]

I think taking his name down because he fought for slavery is a perfectly valid reason. You're the first person I've ever seen disagree with that.

Yeah, because no one but me has every argued against people removing public images and honor for Lee and Davis. I don't think you're looking very hard if you can't find people who disagree with you.

[Th'Pusher]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5703893a910584cc008baad8-1500-1125/gap%20kids.png

Does this photo warrant an apology for being racist?
Gap inc. thought so, and that's really all the maters tbh.

[SpursforSix]

Gap inc. thought so, and that's really all the maters tbh.

Isn't is misogynistic for them to make girls represent the Gap?

[DarrinS]

Gap inc. thought so, and that's really all the maters tbh.

They didn't think so. They just caved to a bunch of dumbass tweets.

[Th'Pusher]

They didn't think so. They just caved to a bunch of dumbass tweets.

Prove it.

[DarrinS]

Prove it.

They made the ad.


https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/273593

[Blake]

Yeah, because no one but me has every argued against people removing public images and honor for Lee and Davis. I don't think you're looking very hard if you can't find people who disagree with you.

No, I haven't looked hard, but if it's that easy, please give me one person that thinks taking his name down because of that whole slavery thing isn't a valid reason. I'd like to read their reverse reasoning. Thanks.

[Blake]

They made the ad.


https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/273593

apparently they think so now

[Chinook]

No, I haven't looked hard, but if it's that easy, please give me one person that thinks taking his name down because of that whole slavery thing isn't a valid reason. I'd like to read their reverse reasoning. Thanks.

First article I saw: http://kxan.com/2016/01/21/name-change-at-robert-e-lee-elementary-sparks-dispute-between-parents/


But longtime resident Carlton Wilkes countered, “Robert E. Lee was one of our greatest Americans this country has ever produced, bar none, with the possible exception of George Washington. My goodness, if we don’t want our kids to emulate him who do we want them to emulate?”

And yes, I think that's an awful opinion. But saying, "Lee was really awesome." Is very clearly saying that him owning slaves isn't a good reason.

Second one: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-school-board-approves-robert-e-lee-elementa/nqtYw/


Trustee Ann Teich said she couldn’t support the decision because she didn’t believe changing the name would improve race relations. She previously suggested the district lead community discussions about racial issues and how to address them.

“I said earlier in the process in the fall that just changing the names without any kind of plan to really address the hearts and minds and to change the racial prejudices doesn’t really succeed,” Teich said

So this one said that it's not a good reason because it won't actually make anything better.


Speaker Joseph Capone, who spoke later in the evening, addressed Reed’s comments.

“Everything you read about the man (Lee) tells you that’s the kind of person our children should be taught to emulate instead of being taught falsehoods,” Capone said. “The man says he’s upset because his granddaddy was a slave. My grandma was on the 1912 rolls of Indians and freedmen. I’ll take your slavery and raise you a genocide any day of the week.”

This one wanted to have a racial dick-measuring contest. Still a challenge to that view.

Then you have this: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/austin-school-board-to-weigh-school-named-for-conf/nqnC5/


Trustee Amber Elenz said she’s for the change because too much time has been taken from the campus administration when its focus should be on educating students. “I want the school to be out of the front lines,” Elenz said. “It’s interrupting the work at Lee.”

That's the end of PC movements. Lee is a school with good ratings, and the protests over something that really doesn't matter have been so vehement that they started interfering with the ability of the people at the school (who have no control over the name) to do their jobs educating kids. How the hell is that the right thing to do in this country?

[Blake]

So the biggest argument they have is that Lee is someone that should be emulated.

And we all concur it's a horrible opinion.

There you go.

[Blake]

And yes, I think that's an awful opinion. But saying, "Lee was really awesome." Is very clearly saying that him owning slaves isn't a good reason.

No, that's a terribly false conclusion to make. His main stance is that kids should emulate Lee

Even then, it sounds like he'd be happy to own slaves himself, if I were to generalize and stereotype which I am.

[Th'Pusher]

They made the ad.


https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/273593

and then issued an apology for it...

[DarrinS]

and then issued an apology for it...

Because twitter.

[Chinook]

No, that's a terribly false conclusion to make. His main stance is that kids should emulate Lee

Even then, it sounds like he'd be happy to own slaves himself, if I were to generalize and stereotype which I am.

I agree with your stance that his opinion is crap and that he could very well be racist. In the very least, he's ignoring Lee's obvious flaws. However, you asked me to provide you with people saying why they didn't think using racial sensitivity towards Lee's role in the Civil War to scrub his name was a good reason. I gave you three examples of it, with varying reasoning to support their opposition. You're welcome to disagree with them, and I am with you on the first and last one. But that doesn't negate that I met your criterion pretty easily.

[Blake]

However, you asked me to provide you with people saying why they didn't think using racial sensitivity towards Lee's role in the Civil War to scrub his name was a good reason. I gave you three examples of it...

Two of them didn't mention slavery at all. The other downplayed slavery by using a Native American genocide strawman.

Awesome examples.

[All Mighty Janitor]

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/gap-pulls-controversial-ad-image/
:lmao That's such bullshit

[Winehole23]

With the world becoming more interconnected than it ever has been, it won't be laughable forever.r u scared?