DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Time to end political correctness

Turns out I did have the time. I didn't catch any profanity. I feel this is a pretty unifying statement on "P.C.", whether one considers themselves "left" or "right":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1bsM2rZVU

And I didn't notice until now, gage, but they use the word "trigger warning" in the their dialogue.

So ... only when religious expressions make sense to you do they have any right to be part of public discourse. Got it. It must be nice to be set up as the authority as to what is to be allowed in public discussion, and what will not be allowed. You may refuse to see the importance of the faith arguments, but that should not lessen the right of those with a true faith to express their beliefs. There is no danger in a free and open debate regarding such topics in public. Frankly, there is no topic that is so fearsome that it cannot be discussed in public. Frankly, I like it when I hear some things the "other side" uses in a variety of topics, because it helps me see ways to defeat their positions.

Our country continually evolves, (which is really the only provable macro-evolution) and not always in what many would consider to be good ways. I have every right to publicly state my opinions as you do. If I were to lose my mind completely, and enter politics, then I would have every right to speak from my faith as to topics in which such discussion would apply. You would have the right to either pay attention to my statements, ignore them, or debate them .... but to try to defeat certain forms of speech before they can ever even come to public debate is what I would consider to be one of the largest forms of cowardice. Debate it all, and let people make up their minds, rather than trying to keep people from speaking out with a position that many would find disquieting, or even uncomfortable.

That explains so much.

I don't think you do get what I'm saying. I will try to explain again. I said very clearly that it has a place in public discourse. This was what I meant when I said "I think there's nothing wrong at all with someone saying "my faith informs my opinion, and my faith dicates "...". I went on to state that it shouldn't hold water or merit if it couldn't stand on its own merit of reason without a basis beyond faith. For example, can you make an argument as to why gay marriage should be banned, without reference to your faith? If you cannot, why should the public implement this notion as a law? I never said "don't make faith based arguments". I said that without a logical basis beyond faith, there is no reason to consider the argument. Being heard and considered is vastly different from being heard and legitimized. There is no reason to legitimize faith based arguments if there isn't a valid reason to legitimize them. If my holy book says that wearing plaid is a sin, and that people who wear plaid are tearing apart the moral fabric of the country, should my opinion be taken at face value, or should I have to present more evidence beyond the word of my holy book?

Actually, religion does have a lot to do with the moral fabric of this country. I know we have the argument that this country was either founded or not with a Christian slant on our laws and morals, but the fact remains that most people in our country at the founding were Christians. The main reason a homosexual relationship has been considered illegal, immoral, or decadent is because it's a relationship that produces no children.

Marriage since it's inception has been a social contract to combine families for the purpose of producing children. Marriage was administered by churches long before our government decided to step in and legislate marriage. As there is no mention of marriage in the Constitution, the federal government should have no stake in it at all. The only reason the fed should be involved in marriage in any way is to track spouses for the purposes of benefits (social sec), pensions, or survivor benefits (military pension). Marriage should only be administered by the states in the purest interpretation of our laws, and you might have noticed, I never used a religious angle to argue that point.

marriage only became a religious ceremony in the 1200's. marriages have been going on way before that, with no religious slant.

so by your own logic, neither the government nor religion should have say so in who get's to marry who.

don't stop a certain time in history to fit you agenda. if you're gonna mention "long before", how bout next time going all the way down the line instead of stopping where you choose.

edit: the year was 1215. catholic church. Also, if you want to try and justify religion being an influence, than you must also admit that polygamy should be legal as well, since king david and solomon had hundreds of wives.

meaning it wasn't ever monogamous until recent time.

don't pick and choose which parts of history you wanna bring up.

Am I too late to the party?

You should also not cherry pick history. Are you meaning to say that Jews never had a religious ceremony for marriage? Celtic Pagan marriages were not a religious ceremony? I think if you recheck your research, you will find a standardized ceremony put forth by the Catholic church in 1215, not that they invented it in 1215.

Again, there is no mention of marriage anywhere in the Constitution. It should be administered by the states, not the federal government.

it's a matter of civil liberty, as well as tax paying citizens, thus making it a civil rights issue, which makes it a federal issue.

Also, since we once again want to cherry pick, marriages have been around longer than the concept of religion.

so are you going to answer? should polygamy also be legal, since you seem to want to reference religion so much? i have no problems with it. as two consenting, tax paying adults can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate somebody else's rights.

which it doesn't.

And just because it's not outlined in the constitution doesn't mean it falls under some religious law after that. that mean it isn't ANYTHING, which means no states or government should have any say so in who can marry who. the states are allowed to make any law that isn't outlined in the constitution, but only if it doesn't involved civil liberties, which as we seen, will go to the supreme court.

by your own logic. you don't even realize that what you're saying is in defense of gay marriage. give it up. you have no ground to stand on.

but you're probably the same guy who will say that segregation should've remained a states issue too, so there's that.

anyway, back to the original topic of being PC.

i see the same people who cry about PC this and that on this board is the same people who will complain like women when somebody criticizes Israel.

then they turn into the PC police real quick.

Let me make this clear once again, I am not a religious person. The federal government should not be involved in marriage. If we went by our Constitution, yes, we'd let the states handle all civil rights issues. In most cases, they should.

Slavery was doomed to fail from its inception. It was already failing in the South before the Civil War. The growing technology of the time was already making slavery untenable and would have eventually made slavery obsolete. The same would have happened with civil rights, as people like me see the value in others, no matter their race.

Now, to answer a few of your questions that I believe I answered before. I don't care about who marries who. I really don't care what two (or more) consenting adults do with their own time. If we did marriage as I believe it was intended, there would be witnesses that could testify to the occurrence of a wedding for legal issues. In fact, that is why I believe weddings traditionally have witnesses.

You have no idea if religion or marriage came first, and neither do I. There is no proof for either in that chicken/egg debate. That's why I said marriage was a social contract earlier.

Yes, I realize that my argument can be seen as a defense of gay marriage. My argument has always been that the government should stay out of it.

As for PC, I really think it will eventually kill our society. When people become afraid to speak because their words will be used to destroy them, no matter what the offense is, then that is the beginning of the end of society.

In further news, a Sopwith Camel just flew over my house. There must be an air show at the base this weekend.

I tend to agree. I get that there can be consequences for unacceptable speech, but in my opinion, we have taken this so far beyond where it needs to be that it's ridiculous. We do not really have free speech if anything and everything you say is subject to tyranny by the masses which can cost you your job and everything else.


Tell Snoopy I said hi.

More and more I see America becoming a Mob Rule nation.

Lucky Luciano would be proud.

I can cite both the Bible, and a long tradition, both in the US, and throughout history throughout the world. You can cite feelings. However, your feelings are more important than another's feelings, and the history and tradition of marriage, both in this country, and throughout the world.

In the case of gay marriage, the very definition of a millennium long institution was changed to accommodate a group of people's feelings. The "equal protection" argument is really bunk. Marriage is a man and a woman, and anyone who wants to take part in that institution is able to. However, many did not, because they had no desire to marry a person of the opposite gender.

That really is not a Constitutional issue, but somehow it became one. It is not an equal protection issue, because the right is there. The fact that someone does not wish to avail himself of that right does not change the fact that the right exists, and is available to him.

I truly think that the Supreme Court made an incredibly huge mistake here, and I fear that it will have dire repercussions for the rest of the time this country has left.

There should be consequences for unacceptable speech, if there were no laws, how can there be order? You can't just say what ever you feel and think its ok especially when what your saying is hurtful and demeaning towards other people.

(In this story I will use some words that I don't use to prove a point)
At work this guy was talking about some stupid management process and said that the process is "retarded". I told simply don't ever use that language around me again, why? I have some very close friends with special needs children and seeing first hand how difficult it must be for both the parents and children.

I guess that will depend on what your coworker means by the use of the word 'retarded'. The 2nd definition of retarded is: Slang. stupid or foolish. It's entirely possible that he was using that definition of retarded than referring to a person. From a completely outside point of view, it would appear you took his use of the word personally. Did you ask your coworker how he intended to use the word before you condemned him for your interpretation of the word?

To question your use of the phrase 'special needs', how much longer before that is seen as an insult, and the terminology needs to change yet again?

Ah the "God will turn his back on America" defense. Why didn't God turn his back on us when we forced indigenous peoples to walk the Trail of Tears? Why didn't God turn his back on us for interning Japanese citizens during WW2? Why didn't God turn his back on us for McCarthyism?

Clearly, *YOUR* God was fine with all of that, until 3.8% of the US population decided they wanted to enjoy the same tax breaks that other married people enjoy. And even then, *YOUR* God was fine with that until 5 people on a court bench decided to let the 3.8% get married. But God was A-OK with many more Americans owning slaves? At least A-OK enough that it wasn't until 5 people on a bench decided in favor of a small group that God said "Ok, this is enough, I could deal with people raping and whipping slaves, but letting GAYS MARRY is a bridge TOO FAR"

And that's fine that you feel that way. But yet, the term retarded was a long held acceptable term in our society for decades.

When and why does someone have or can use the authority to suddenly change the verbiage of a long held word or term and then, all of a sudden, we are no longer supposed to use that word?

In my lifetime, I've seen the term go from retarded, to developmentally handicapped to special needs. People keep changing the verbiage on a whim. At what point can society as a whole simply say "Enough is enough. I'm tired of changing my speech every ten years to accommodate your sensibilities."

Please don't say sensibilities. I would prefer you use the term sensitivities in the future. Thank you for your cooperation.

People also forget the term 'moron' was the proper medical term used for retarded, mentally handicapped, special needs people for many years.

I am a software developer and my co-workers are all educated tech people, so they fully understand and have the comprehension to know that the word means, so please don't act like it has multiple meanings when we know what it was meant.

Yes I took it personally because I found it offensive, and I know my friends would find it offensive.

It's easy for me and you to have a debate about why this word should or should not be offensive, it must be very hard if you were special needs, or had a child who was special needs. It might not mean nothing for you but for them it might mean everything.

Unless you are his boss, I am offended by the way you spoke
to your coworker when you demanded...


"I told simply don't ever use that language around me again,"

He/you should've been offended, I meant every word of it(and will do it again).

There's a difference between fighting over terminology because "free speech" and being insensitive. If I made a comment and you asked me to not use a word, I'd try to respect your wishes. I made a comment to someone months ago about the government raping the middle class and they asked I not use the word rape due to connotation. Sure, I could have fought them on it, but I decided to just respect them. Using a word like retarded, it's kinda obvious people are going to get upset about it in 2015. Just like using the term "colored people" or saying "that's gay"

Where I think the internet mob goes overboard is if I said "the movie ant man is gay" on twitter and then they dox me and try to get me fired for saying it.

So, you went to your coworker before the incident and explained why you dislike that word, and why you wanted him to never use it. That could be the only reason you instantly judged him as using the word in a hateful way.

I would suggest you look the word up in the dictionary too. Retarded refers to more than just mental retardation. Anything that does not develop in the manner it is expected to can be called retarded.

Time to end political correctness?

It ended years ago.

Or in music it a "retard" is to slow down or delay.

Funny thing is, originally the word meant just that, to slow down or delay. Then somewhere people used it in a derogatory way to describe people with disabilities.

Now we have gotten away from using it in that manner mostly, and any use of it to mean something stupid is automatically associated with disabilities again, and is deemed offensive.

Just like gay meant someone was happy, then it meant something was stupid, then it meant someone was homosexual, now I'm not even sure if I am are allowed to use the word at all.

I am offended by your abuse of your coworkers and if you are the boss, I am offended by your abuse of power.

Don't ever use that offensive tone around me again!

Are you really trying to say he didn't use the word be malicious in the context of the conversation? IMO its silly to try and debate an insensitive word when in our age we know the word is extremely offensive.

He used his freedom of speech to say it, and I checked him. I explained to him why it was offensive and hopefully he will have the sense not use it in the workplace ever again.

Just because it's in the dictionary does't hide its malicious and mean spirited connotation.

You couldn't be any more wrong. If you read near the bottom in the thread about positive things from today, you will see I have a special needs grandson that I took to a concert just a couple of days ago. This issue is very up front and personal to me.

It's actually quite odd that this issue was brought up on the board because we were having this very same discussion at the dinner table only a few short days ago. He is turning 17 in December. He agrees with me that people are just to sensitive and he has no problem with it. His twin, my granddaughter hates the term retarded.

After our discussion, she still doesn't like the word but agrees that we should not let society dictate we just change our verbiage on a whim.

Or Lurker for that matter.

Actually, I believe it was used as a medical term to describe people that were behind in mental development, after the term 'moron' fell out of favor. The derogatory use came later.

You checked him for it? Were you playing hockey?

No, he didn't use it in a derogatory way, as he didn't refer to a person as retarded. He said the process you were using was retarded. You got offended because you look for ways to be offended.

Are you one of those people who regularly 'check their privilege'?

Nice, so now I am the type of person who looks for things to be offended by.

What do you mean by check their privilege?

Perfectly acceptable response... had you then gone and posted it on youtube and instagram and twitter to cause an uproar of hundreds of thousands of other people who weren't there and who don't know this guy to eventually get the guy fired for it... then you would be going into what I'm talking about where the punishment greatly exceeds the offense..

From the story you told, it seems that way to me. You instantly got offended by someone's innocent use of a word. You've even stated that there is only one interpretation of the word 'retarded', and I posted the 2nd listed definition in the Oxford dictionary.

You've never heard the term 'check your privilege'? That was a huge liberal term used over the imaginary 'white privilege', that all white people need to 'check their privilege'. When you said you 'checked him' on his usage of a word, I figured you were following liberal patterns.

What ever happened to 'sticks and stones'?

Washington college soccer players suspended one match for using blackface
Published September 03, 2015Associated Press
Facebook66 Twitter248 Email Print

Five members of the women's soccer team at a private Christian university in Washington state were suspended for one match Wednesday after a social media post surfaced showing them dressed in blackface and afro wigs.

Whitworth University, a liberal arts school in Spokane, said in a statement the players were suspended from the game following their actions at an unofficial team event Monday night. The players were attempting to appear as members of music group The Jackson 5 at an informal event at a local bowling alley, The Spokesman Review reported.

"In light of the impact that these actions have had on Whitworth and the greater Spokane community, we feel it is in the best interest of all involved to take this action at this time," head coach Jael Hagerott said in a statement Wednesday. "While their intentions were not malicious, the outcome of their actions was painful for many in our community. We feel that this punitive response is proportional to their actions."

His decision was supported by the university's administration.

No further punishment will be taken by the university athletics department, but Whitworth's normal student-conduct process is moving forward, KXLY-TV reported.

According to the Spokesman Review, athletic director Tim Demant and other university officials said Tuesday they met with all five players, whom they declined to name, and said the players said they were not aware of the racist implications of the use of blackface.

The university said in statement Tuesday that a photo of the players was posted on social media, and "constituents from both the campus and external communities have expressed concern with the photo's content."

"As a Christ-centered university that believes in the value of all individuals, we are seeking to use this situation as an opportunity to educate, redeem and restore," Demant said in a statement Wednesday.

Fox News

Going to a costume party as a person of a different race is now a problem if you, you know, actually try to make yourself look like that person.... Go as a serial killer or a terrorist, just don't go as the Jackson Five...

If he had used brown instead of black would he have been given May 5th off?

In my slang terminology "Check" - means to confront another person or like telling them off, it could be aggressive or not aggressive. "I had to check Mike because he ate my lunch"

O yes, white privilege is real, very real I can post so much factual information regarding "white privilege" but at the end of the day there is no point because people like yourself are not open to new ideas and it's a waste of my time because I can supply the information but you will automatically discredit it is "liberal agenda" (which you allready did)