Don’t erase Woodrow Wilson. Expose him.

[Admiral Yi]

Luckily political correctness is amorphous enough of a concept that you can apply it pretty much however you want.

Disagree.  It has an irreducible essence.

[Jacob]

Luckily political correctness is amorphous enough of a concept that you can apply it pretty much however you want.

Disagree.  It has an irreducible essence.

Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".

Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.

[Admiral Yi]

Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".

Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.

I think you have it backwards.  PC is all about not giving offense.  Free expression is the first principle that is sacrificed at the altar.

[grumbler]

Luckily political correctness is amorphous enough of a concept that you can apply it pretty much however you want.

Disagree.  It has an irreducible essence.

Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".

Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.

Um.  No.  That's not political correctness at all.  The essence of PC is more like the opposite of your definition; PC is about suppressing speech that is deemed hurtful.

EDIT: Damn your nimble fingers, Yi!

[LaCroix]

I think you have it backwards.  PC is all about not giving offense.  Free expression is the first principle that is sacrificed at the altar.

"not giving offense" is a rule of society. "political correctness" is kind of a meaningless term that really just describes a societal shift. you had "not giving offense" rules that "sacrificed free expression" back in the 1950s. like you couldn't promote feminism without getting censured.

(edit) what i'm saying is everyone has always subscribed to political correctness. i don't see how you could form a society without political correctness. "political correctness," the term, is a modern political term created by people who want to express ideas modern society now considers vulgar/offensive.

[Admiral Yi]

"not giving offense" is a rule of society. "political correctness" is kind of a meaningless term that really just describes a societal shift. you had "not giving offense" rules that "sacrificed free expression" back in the 1950s. like you couldn't promote feminism without getting censured.

(edit) what i'm saying is everyone has always subscribed to political correctness. i don't see how you could form a society without political correctness. "political correctness," the term, is a modern political term created by people who want to express ideas modern society now considers vulgar/offensive.

Unless you have a very strange definition of modern society, modern society does not consider non-Indians doing or teaching yoga vulgar.

[LaCroix]

Unless you have a very strange definition of modern society, modern society does not consider non-Indians doing or teaching yoga vulgar.

so, you think this one organization's response to an incident falls under "political correctness"? this same political correctness to which "a good chunk, if not the majority, of self described liberals subscribe"? we seem to have different definitions of "political correctness," and i'm not sure how you're defining yours.

does PC occur

(1) when an organization censures when one (or a few) people get offended? this isn't the same "political correctness" that i've seen get thrown around. of course "political correctness" is ridiculous if you define it this way, but i've seen people use the term re: an employee getting fired for saying women jokes during a public presentation. this offends more than "one (or a few)."

(2) any time an organization censures after any group, no matter how large or small, gets offended? this happened in the past just as much as it happens today. organizations respond in all sorts of ways. some organizations submit under a minor complaints while others roll their eyes. this isn't a new concept.

or some other?

[The Brain]

Western. Imperialism.

[Razgovory]

Yup, and that essence is "legitimate opinions that are being suppressed, voluntarily or involuntarily, that I happen to think should not be suppressed".

Of course, people will add a particular political slant that they find anathema to that definition, which is what makes the concept so wonderfully amorphous.

I think you have it backwards.  PC is all about not giving offense.  Free expression is the first principle that is sacrificed at the altar.

No, he's got it right.  PC is mostly a strawman,  If it had real currency then it wouldn't be used almost entirely as a pejorative and "politically incorrect" wouldn't be worn as a badge of honor.  But let's look closer as to what "politically incorrect" thought is.  Regency publishing has produced a lot of books under the "politically incorrect label", seen'em at the book store.  Let's see what they have to offer.

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133/

Why Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is headed for extinction
In the 1925 Scopes trial, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to allow the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools. Seventy-five years later, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the ACLU sued to prevent the teaching of an alternative to Darwin's theory known as "Intelligent Design"—and won. Why did the ACLU turn from defending the free-speech rights of Darwinists to silencing their opponents? Jonathan Wells reveals that, for today's Darwinists, there may be no other choice: unable to fend off growing challenges from scientists, or to compete with rival theories better adapted to the latest evidence, Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is simply unfit to survive.

Wells begins by explaining the basic tenets of Darwinism, and the evidence both for and against it. He reveals, for instance, that the fossil record, which according to Darwin should be teeming with "transitional" fossils showing the development of one species to the next, so far hasn't produced a single incontestable example. On the other hand, certain well-documented aspects of the fossil record—such as the Cambrian explosion, in which innumerable new species suddenly appeared fully formed—directly contradict Darwin's theory. Wells also shows how most of the other "evidence" for evolution— including textbook "icons" such as peppered moths, Darwin's finches, Haeckel's embryos, and the Tree of Life—has been exaggerated, distorted . . . and even faked.

Wells then turns to the theory of intelligent design (ID), the idea that some features of the natural world, such as the internal machinery of cells, are too "irreducibly complex" to have resulted from unguided natural processes alone. In clear-cut layman's language, he reveals the growing evidence for ID coming out of scientific specialties from microbiology to astrophysics. As Wells explains, religion does play a role in the debate over Darwin—though not in the way evolutionists claim. Wells shows how Darwin reasoned that evolution is true because divine creation "must" be false—a theological assumption oddly out of place in a scientific debate. In other words, Darwinists' materialistic, atheistic assumptions rule out any theories but their own, and account for their willingness to explain away the evidence—or lack of it.

Darwin is an emperor who has no clothes— but it takes a brave man to say so. Jonathan Wells, a microbiologist with two Ph.D.s (from Berkeley and Yale), is that brave man. Most textbooks on evolution are written by Darwinists with an ideological ax to grind. Brave dissidents—qualified scientists—who try to teach or write about intelligent design are silenced and sent to the academic gulag. But fear not: Jonathan Wells is a liberator. He unmasks the truth about Darwinism— why it is wrong and what the real evidence is. He also supplies a revealing list of "Books You're Not Supposed to Read" (as far as the Darwinists are concerned) and puts at your fingertips all the evidence you need to challenge the most closed-minded Darwinist.

http://www.regnery.com/books/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-science/

Of course it's reliable, based on fact, unprejudiced, and trustworthy, isn't it? Well, guess again. A lot of what passes for science these days is pseudo-science, and a lot of scientific fact is hidden from public view because it's not politically correct.

Science has been politicized–not by the Right, but by the Left, which sees global warming, Darwinism, stem cell research, and innumerable other issues as tools to advance its agenda (and in many cases expand the reach of government).

When liberals trot out scientists with white coats, debate is supposed to be silenced. But many of the high priests of science have something to hide–from blind intolerance of religion to jealous guarding of their federally financed research budgets.

Luckily, science journalist Tom Bethell is here with the necessary and bracing antidote: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.

Here's a handy one-volume guide to some of the most contentious issues of our day, including:

    Why fears of nuclear power aren't science, but unscientific scaremongering
    Why species are increasing, not disappearing
    Why global warming (and other temperature changes) are not caused by humans (remember the Ice Age?)
    Why embryonic stem cell research is snake oil medicine (which is why it needs government subsidies)
    Why Darwinism is crumbling
    Why the story line of the brave scientist Galileo versus an ignorant Church is wrong
    And much, much more

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Civil-Guides/dp/1596985496/

Think you know the Civil War?
You don't know the full story until you read The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War

Bestselling author and former Conservative Book Club editor H. W. Crocker III offers a quick and lively study of America's own Iliad--the Civil War--in this provocative and entertaining addition to The Politically Incorrect GuideTM series.

In The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Civil War Crocker profiles eminent--and colorful--military generals including the noble Lee, the controversial Sherman, the indefatigable Grant, the legendary Stonewall Jackson, and the notorious Nathan Bedford Forrest. He also includes thought-provoking chapters such as "The Civil War in Sixteen Battles You Should Know" and the most devastatingly politically incorrect chapter of all, "What If the South Had Won?" Along the way, he reveals a huge number of little-known truths, including why Robert E. Lee had a higher regard for African Americans than Lincoln did; how, if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably (as every other country in the Western Hemisphere did in the nineteenth century); and how the Confederate States of America might have helped the Allies win World War I sooner. Bet your history professor never told you:
* Leading Northern generals--like McClellan and Sherman--hated abolitionists
* Bombing people "back to the Stone Age" got its start with the Federal siege of Vicksburg
* General Sherman professed not to know which was "the greater evil": slavery or democracy
* Stonewall Jackson founded a Sunday school for slaves where he taught them how to read
* General James Longstreet fought the Battle of Sharpsburg in his carpet slippers

This is the Politically Incorrect GuideTM that every Civil War buff and Southern partisan--and everyone who is tired of liberal self-hatred that vilifies America's greatest heroes--must have on his bookshelf.

Hmmm.

[LaCroix]

Western. Imperialism.

i don't think people use "political correctness" to refer to western imperialism

[Admiral Yi]

so, you think this one organization's response to an incident falls under "political correctness"? this same political correctness to which "a good chunk, if not the majority, of self described liberals subscribe"? we seem to have different definitions of "political correctness," and i'm not sure how you're defining yours.

does PC occur

(1) when an organization censures when one (or a few) people get offended? this isn't the same "political correctness" that i've seen get thrown around. of course "political correctness" is ridiculous if you define it this way, but i've seen people use the term re: an employee getting fired for saying women jokes during a public presentation. this offends more than "one (or a few)."

(2) any time an organization censures after any group, no matter how large or small, gets offended? this happened in the past just as much as it happens today. organizations respond in all sorts of ways. some organizations submit under a minor complaints while others roll their eyes. this isn't a new concept.

or some other?

Yes, I think Yogagate is a perfect example of the excesses of political correctness.  Self-appointed spokespeople for a quote unquote oppressed minority (generally self-selected on the basis of a mutual love of taking offense) say that something offends them.  Well-intentioned people try to accomodate this expression of offense and attempt to limit or eliminate the quote unquote offending behavior.

[LaCroix]

Yes, I think Yogagate is a perfect example of the excesses of political correctness.  Self-appointed spokespeople for a quote unquote oppressed minority (generally self-selected on the basis of a mutual love of taking offense) say that something offends them.  Well-intentioned people try to accomodate this expression of offense and attempt to limit or eliminate the quote unquote offending behavior.

okay, but "spokespeople" doesn't narrow things down any further than your original statement. the point is very few people would agree that one person (or very few people) should be able to limit/eliminate offending behavior. at the end of the day, you can't please everyone. there's always going to be a translizard who gets offended over something.

i don't think yogagate was "political correctness" as the term is commonly used. i think it was a stupid decision by the university, just like any other stupid decision that organizations sometimes make. whether you want to call this an outlier (your stance) or simply not meeting the definition (my stance), either way it's pretty silly to lump it with other PC situations and say liberals subscribe to all of it.

[Admiral Yi]

okay, but "spokespeople" doesn't narrow things down any further than your original statement. the point is very few people would agree that one person (or very few people) should be able to limit/eliminate offending behavior. at the end of the day, you can't please everyone. there's always going to be a translizard who gets offended over something.

i don't think yogagate was "political correctness" as the term is commonly used. i think it was a stupid decision by the university, just like any other stupid decision that organizations sometimes make. whether you want to call this an outlier (your stance) or simply not meeting the definition (my stance), either way it's pretty silly to lump it with other PC situations and say liberals subscribe to all of it.

An outlier of what?

[jimmy olsen]

Wilson was scum, and not a good president. I'd be more in favor of taking his name off of things for the second reason, rather than the first. If we started denouncing all the great men who were scum, we'd have no more great men.

[LaCroix]

An outlier of what?

misinterpreted your post, thought you were saying the decision was an egregious example of PC. i.e., an outlier but still PC. if you're not saying this, then how would you reconcile yogagate with a lecturer who makes women jokes and gets fired? both are "PC" under your definition. are they equal instances of PC?