Political correctness

[nclib]

Sorry I couldn't adapt the FF/HP ratings for this poll.

Of course I vote Option 1.

[TeePee4Prez]

Negative

[dazzleman]

Very negative.

[Frodo]

Negative -and I expect the responses will be roughly on a 9:1 ratio. 

[phk]

As an advocate for plain correctness, negative.

[dazzleman]

Negative -and I expect the responses will be roughly on a 9:1 ratio. 

Then why are we still stuck with it?  Why do people tolerate something they hate so much in a democracy?

[A18]

Negative, but to be honest, I don't see much of it

[dazzleman]

Negative, but to be honest, I don't see much of it

...that's because you don't work.  If you worked, you'd see plenty of it.  Work environments are where political correctness is most oppressive.

[A18]

Negative, but to be honest, I don't see much of it

...that's because you don't work.  If you worked, you'd see plenty of it.  Work environments are where political correctness is most oppressive.

Okay, but it has nothing to do with democracy then, so I don't know why you brought it up.

Any interesting examples?

[dazzleman]

Negative, but to be honest, I don't see much of it

...that's because you don't work.  If you worked, you'd see plenty of it.  Work environments are where political correctness is most oppressive.

Okay, but it has nothing to do with democracy then, so I don't know why you brought it up.

Any interesting examples?

It's related to democracy in the sense that interest groups have used a dysfunctional legal system to impose, through the threat of ruinous lawsuits, that which would be rejected by the public.

As far as interesting examples, here are some:

1. Men can't have any posters of women up in their cubicles or offices, but nobody says anything to women who have 'beefcake' posters in their offices or cubicles.

2. Men must follow a strict dress code, but women can seemingly wear whatever they want.

3. If a woman makes up sexual harassment claims, there is no penalty allowed against the woman.  However, if the company believes them to be true, the man is fired.  So there's really no official downside to making false accusations.

I could go on, but I'm getting ready for bed.  The whole sexual harassment thing has become a major scam that allows men and companies to be blackmailed by disgruntled female employees who have not actually been harassed.

[A18]

1. Men can't have any posters of women up in their cubicles or offices, but nobody says anything to women who have 'beefcake' posters in their offices or cubicles.

2. Men must follow a strict dress code, but women can seemingly wear whatever they want.

3. If a woman makes up sexual harassment claims, there is no penalty allowed against the woman.  However, if the company believes them to be true, the man is fired.  So there's really no official downside to making false accusations.

That really does not sound like a big deal to me. It's the kind of thing I would probably joke about.

[dazzleman]

1. Men can't have any posters of women up in their cubicles or offices, but nobody says anything to women who have 'beefcake' posters in their offices or cubicles.

2. Men must follow a strict dress code, but women can seemingly wear whatever they want.

3. If a woman makes up sexual harassment claims, there is no penalty allowed against the woman.  However, if the company believes them to be true, the man is fired.  So there's really no official downside to making false accusations.

That really does not sound like a big deal to me. It's the kind of thing I would probably joke about.

....unless you were falsely charged with sexual harassment, and faced the loss of your career over lies.

Where I work is not among the worst places in terms of political correctness.  They are only as politically correct as they have to be in order to avoid or minimize lawsuits, so their heart isn't in it.  Other places, such as universities, are much worse.  If you don't see this as a problem, you really don't get what I'm trying to tell you.

[A18]

Have you ever been fired over lies?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Sorry I couldn't adapt the FF/HP ratings for this poll.

Of course I vote Option 1.

You would..  Option 2

[Gabu]

Negative -and I expect the responses will be roughly on a 9:1 ratio. 

Then why are we still stuck with it?  Why do people tolerate something they hate so much in a democracy?

People like to think that they dislike political correctness, but what they don't like to admit is that they would be much less likely to vote for a politician who had some viewpoint they found offensive.  As such, the politicians who get elected are most often those who go the most out of their way to ensure that the smallest number possible of constituents are offended or put off by anything that they might have to say, and the tradition of political correctness continues.  I really don't think it'd be possible to eliminate political correctness because of the simple fact that nobody likes being told something unpleasant.

[Everett]

It depends on what one means by political correctness.

I obviously do not advocate going around spewing out bloody hatred and intentionally trying to be as offensive as possible. That said, there are many things that some people find grossly offensive that they probably should not, which is why said people are oftentimes into filing lawsuits and demanding resignations. A little political correctness is tolerable, but going through hell just to ensure that no-one is ever offended (which is unfortunately impossible) is quite excessive.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It's related to democracy in the sense that interest groups have used a dysfunctional legal system to impose, through the threat of ruinous lawsuits, that which would be rejected by the public.

As far as interesting examples, here are some:

1. Men can't have any posters of women up in their cubicles or offices, but nobody says anything to women who have 'beefcake' posters in their offices or cubicles.

2. Men must follow a strict dress code, but women can seemingly wear whatever they want.

3. If a woman makes up sexual harassment claims, there is no penalty allowed against the woman.  However, if the company believes them to be true, the man is fired.  So there's really no official downside to making false accusations.

Number 1 and 2 are definately not true where I work. And we've never had a sexual harrassment claim I know of so I can't comment there.

As for the question, depends. If it means like certain people used the term to me in the past things such as not thinking racist jokes are funny or not using homophobic slurs to describe things you don't like, positive. If it means something like say calling the Christmas break Christmas-Hanukkah-Kwanzaa break like my university did, negative, atlhough even in that case it's a very small negative and really not something to complain about at all. In the end it's either a good thing, or a largely irrelevant thing.

[dazzleman]

Have you ever been fired over lies?

Have I?  No, but I narrowly prevented it from happening to other people.  It could have gone either way, and the person making the false accusations was not fired even after it was clear she was lying.  There needs to be a certain symmetry in these matters -- it's totally wrong to be able to make accusations, and face no consequences if they are false.

[MasterJedi]

It depends on what one means by political correctness.

I obviously do not advocate going around spewing out bloody hatred and intentionally trying to be as offensive as possible. That said, there are many things that some people find grossly offensive that they probably should not, which is why said people are oftentimes into filing lawsuits and demanding resignations. A little political correctness is tolerable, but going through hell just to ensure that no-one is ever offended (which is unfortunately impossible) is quite excessive.

^^^^^
I voted Negative.

[John Dibble]

As an advocate for plain correctness, negative.

Good answer.

[Speed of Sound]

PC has its ups and its downs, so I suppose Im neutral. Some parts are good, and some are extreme.

[MODU]

While there is nothing wrong with being sensitive towards others, modern PC has swung so far to the insane that I have a negative view.  I think it tipped too far when we started referring to everyone as "(Fill in your country/race here)-Americans" instead of just "Americans."  I'm sorry, but most "African-Americans" are not from Africa, but rather many generations removed.  After all, I'm not an "Anglo-Prussian-Italian-blah-blah-blah-American" (at least I haven't seen that on any application I've filled out lately). 

Enough hand-holding already.  PC just makes up emotionally weak.

[angus]

This is one of the questions I can answer clearly without waffling:  very negative.

[opebo]

Very positive.

[Beet]

Either non-existent or very positive. What MODU is talking about, I believe, is non-existent.

Without a sense of a political mainstream, however, there would be no basis of political agreement as a memebr of a single nation. Complete anarchy would break out, with the country splitting up into different factions fighting it out. What prevents this from happening-- such as a common belief in the rule of law and the constitution, derives from certain things being politically much stronger and more accepted than others.

A person who criticizes the validity of the rule of law, or the constitution, and advocates the right of rebellion against the government, such as the Unabomber for example, can expect to come under intense critcism by many people who dislike the view. Opponents have decided to label this phenomenon "political correctness". It might be enlightening for them, however, to try to live in a society where no political views can be broadly accepted over others and see if they can maintain an orderly society wherein political disagreements are resolved with relative efficiency.