Are there any aspies that are NOT politically correct?

Post Reply New Topic

In the sense of PC meaning someone, somewhere may get offended by what I say, I'm quite off the scale. If I am pretty certain no-one's likely to get hurt, I may kick off with the ironic humour.

Political correctness is just another form of emotional blackmail. I'm not susceptible to any form of blackmail, but especially not by this sort of manipulative nonsense.

From my own experience and observation of Aspies, I'd have thought the question would be "Are there any Aspies who ARE politically correct?"

John

Last edited by JohnCounsel on 25 Jul 2008, 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When people say politically correct almost always they're meaning it's a bad thing. I don't like to talk to people who complain about 'PC' because usually they've been people who like to say or would like to say 'dyke' and 'ret*d' without having to worry about if it hurts people to hear that, and when they're not part of the group the words mean either or haven't had the words used against them. I am not for hypocrites, either, because it makes me wonder how much they really see injustice or if maybe they're just following different language use rules and don't bother thinking harder about it.

I am definitely not agreeing with some of the previous posts, though, I think it's wrong to say we can treat everyone the same and expect the same of them regardless of what social context is relevant. It's like having one finish line in a race when some people start already half through the course and some other people have mud on their tracks and a hedge growing at the start, and pretending that because we like every runner the same amount, then there is no unfairness in the race results. If same treatment is fair, then it's reasonable to expect an autistic to participate in the world with no help, or if we give help to him then we have to give help also to anyone NT who just doesn't like to work or clean himself or make food.

Cas,

What you're talking about tends not to be what most people view as political correctness — it's more in the realm of equality of opportunity and social justice, which are admirable and highly desirable.

The typical PC advocate, in my own experience, is more prone to promoting equality of outcome and social engineering.

Very different things, in much the same ways as democracy vs socialism and free enterprise vs capitalism. One alternative tends to be win-win. The other win-lose or lose-win (it doesn't matter which — they're both just lose-lose posing as a win... until the loser wakes up to reality).

John

With respect - can you tell me what you see as wrong about a little bit of social engineering done in order to promote an equality of outcome?

You might be right about that, but the people I've met who say 'PC' very derisively have been people who like to use offensive words (sometimes they might be joking or trying to be outrageous but I can never tell if they don't mean it) or who believe that there is no ingrained injustice anymore, so why don't we stop whining already. So I don't have any reason to see anti-PC as any better than PC, and often it's been worse.

I don't really know about "equality of outcome" how it's used commonly, but from what it sounds like it would be a good diagnostic tool. If there are large observable differences between two groups of humans, both groups aren't happy about it, it isn't clearly and directly biological (like having babies), and it isn't becoming much smaller gap over time as we get farther away from unjust open rules, then probably there's not equal opportunity and we just don't really see the barrier yet. Like saying "free market," only in the world there is no perfect knowledge of products and there are barriers to market entry so it doesn't work as modeled. We can't just say there is equal opportunity just like we can't just say the race I said in my last post is fair, we need to be sure it's true or we can't say it is. That dishonesty worries me at least as much as the dishonesty of not calling someone names when you're thinking it; at least with the second one the lie has the benefit of no one being called names, even if in a joke (because they might not get it or think it's as funny as the joker thinks).

The problem with social engineering and equality of outcome is that, in the end, they don't work.

They can't, if you think it through to its logical conclusion.

It means that everyone has to have the same outcome, which inevitably means that no-one can be better off than anyone else in any aspect of life. So the lowest common denominator becomes the standard.

Or, as the cynical would say, everyone equally sick, equally ignorant, equally poor, etc etc etc.

That's bad enough, but in practice, there seems always to be a group that controls the decision-making and the social engineering, the assumption being that, for whatever reason, they know best.

What you end up with is Animal Farm, North Korea or Myanmar.

So much for equality of outcome. As Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others."

The concept of equality of opportunity, tempered by the notion of social justice (which acknowledges that there are inequalities of all kinds and seeks to compensate so that, in as fair and equitable a fashion as possible, those who have been disadvantaged in any way can still have a real chance to achieve in a race which is not so much a "first over the line/winner takes all" competition, but a long distance endurance race in which everyone who finishes is a winner.

Social justice and equal opportunity in this metaphor would be a form of handicapping according to ability.

Social engineering and equality of outcome would be place everyone at the starting line, then put the finishing line immediately next to it so that anyone who was incapable of mobility, couldn't see it, couldn't comprehend the idea of a race, etc could at least fall over it (or be pushed over so that they fell over it.

I'm generalising and using fairly extreme scenarios, I know. But it illustrates the underlying realities — and the fallacies inherent in some proposed "solutions".

Ultimately, coercion, force and removal of choice and freedom simply don't work for human beings. In the end, the principle of common consent will always triumph.

The principle of common consent lies at the heart of politics, public relations and society. in a nutshell, it says that any organisation, concept or system continues to exist only with the common consent of the society within which, and upon which, it operates.

Whether you're an individual, a political party, government, philosophy, religion, company, charity — you name it — if that common consent is lost, you're history. It may take time (and usually does — which gives rise to the fallacy that there are no consequences), but in the end those chickens always come home to roost. The longer they take, the bigger and meaner they usually are.

Education and persuasion, advocacy and appropriate action (that protect that common consent) are the only realistic options. Compulsion, no matter how it's spun, inevitably undermines common consent and leads to rejection. Frustrating, I know, and slow. But I have enormous faith in the human race. We have the capacity to change perspectives, perceptions, attitudes and behaviour, as we're currently seeing on issues like climate change and third world debt.

Resolutions are still a long way in the future, but compare life now to just a couple of centuries ago.

That wasn't achieved by enforcing equality of outcome. But if we follow the long terms trends, I can conceive of a time when most, if not all, of the differences in abilities and circumstances will be overcome, and people everywhere will enjoy equality of outcome as a natural consequence of that progressive enlightenment.

Trying to shorten the time it takes by legislation is both dangerous and futile.

Okay... the soapbox is now vacated for the next person.


John

That is BULL! They merely CLAIM to promote equality, etc.... They will accuse even a MINORITY company of racism if even one minority is not hired. That is true EVEN if to do so would make them even MORE minority than the overall population, or if they are already. It is true EVEN if the person wasn't hired simply because they weren't capable.

They heavily tax wage earners in ALL ways, and pay a portion to certain OTHER groups.

They CLAIM to protect the public, and make "semiautomatic" weapons sound like MACHINE GUNS, and weapons made solely for war. They use that false belief to outlaw such guns and nearly obliterate the ability to protect yourself.

They give prisoners free food, cable, exercise, etc.... and, while claiming to provide education for all, reduce lower level education, and increase costs of higher education.

HECK! They are primarily the party that ENCOURAGED slavery and yet they speak against the one that destroyed it, at least as the blacks knew it. When faced with ALL the proof, and this question, the other party says it was a rouse to disable the south's strangle hold, and allow them to benefit from technology. Still, that doesn't make THEM look any better, and the blacks were STILL freed.

HECK, they fund groups like "habitat for humanity" to buy HOUSES, while poor wage owners that could better pay for the homes, and deserve them MORE, subsist in places they RENT! If they REALLY cared, they would guarantee loans, and help to POOR people to get better jobs. It would be more fair, easier, help MORE, and be CHEAPER! Perhaps they just want to hurt society.

BTW The KKK and NAZIs were in the lowest group not helped by such supposed charity! If they WERE helped, they would not have had such hatred for others, and so much would have been better. Hitler would probably have rotted in a jail. BTW The NAZI party, and similar ones, really WAS similar to the democrat party. BOTH believed in such socialism, unions, etc... BOTH attacked competitors through half truths and lies.

But NO! They redefined the American Dream, which USED to be merely to have a nice life and retire carefree, to be owning a home, and figure that owning meant having basically some document giving you control of the property. They then extrapolate that the poor must "own" homes. It is truly sad that it really IS an attack on the middle class.

Yet the flip side is that they DO want a commission of sorts, and need complicitors, which they may pay for. That increases inflation and thus devalues any money anyone got and starts the whole cycle all over again.

They NEVER achieve any kind of equality, and judge equality by position and wages anyway. NO thought is given to work, education, or income.

And HECK, I can only trace my family in the US to about 4 generations. No less than HALF of it is irish. Signs were all over saying "irish need not apply". Did those democrats with their "P.C." ever give any of THEM such consideration?

NOW, as for slavery? I work for companies that may, at the drop of a hat, demand I skip lunch or dinner, and may work me long and hard. They may push me in every way that inflames any sensitivities I have. I am lucky if I am offered 2 weeks, but am lucky if I ever really get one. Granted, I may not get beaten physically, but I don't live a wealthy life of luxury some "P.C."s would claim true of ALL white males.

AND, while I am lucky that I don't OFTEN have to skip lunch(though I did 3 times this week), or dinner(though I did twice this week), and I haven't had to work so long lately(though I HAVE worked weeks with only a few hours "rest" inbetween days), the rest is always true. I figure that, in 28 years, I have had perhaps 6-7 real weeks of vacation, TOTAL(all years put together! The longest stretch was in 1989 when I took off 3 weeks to go to Europe. My first, and so far last, such trip.).

Cas, I completely agree with the second half of your post, you're thinking in the realistic world we live in, and I appreciate that. I myself was totally against AA in the past, based on principle, but that leaves out the other half of the equation-reality. Things have swung around, and I do believe AA is in less need these days, but still a valid idea.

Anyway, onto PC. I'm LOL at your assertation that most PC haters call people dykes and ret*ds, this is the sort of thought that PC people supposedly hate, but often partake in. To take the worst possible example of the group and apply it to "most" of the others takes any argument that might have been reasonable and throws it out the window. To be politically correct is to basically cover up an honest thought in sugar, or to completely do away with that honest thought. Calling someone a dyke, ret*d, or n***ger is not skirting PCness, it's just plain stupid. A politically incorrect person has the ability to leave emotion at the door and call a spade a spade, a politically correct person will call the spade a spade at times, when it's "suitable" to some need, but usually avoid it and try to morph that spade into a red diamond it is not. A dumbass will call the spade a dyke, and is completely irrelevant to the discussion...

JohnCounsel, welcome aboard. It was an interesting read in your last response; to be honest, I'm still processing some of it. You use a term that frequently pops up when I am ranting about the public education system (and by proxy, later society) becoming solely the home of the lowest common denominator. My personal views are rather convoluted and at times contradictory - but that just means more thought must be applied, no? - being somewhat more progressive or liberal in my thoughts (I'm not using the terms in their pure political sense, if you want to know about something specific please ask) yet feeling that the effort to create a system where everyone reaches the same destination is a fool's errand. Everyone is equal in basic, essential ways - but we are strikingly different, and when the one-size-fits-all approach is taken then everyone suffers. We are creating a generation that will be without a great artist, a great mind such as Leonardo, Einstein, or Newton. Great minds never stuck to the path of conformity. (Ok, I'm going to attempt to dismount my soapbox) Though I try not to be cynical, I agree that such a system will make everyone equally poor, equally wretched, equally ignorant. I attempt to be polite, not politically correct... as I believe some of the conversations elsewhere here have shown, my views do not necessary mesh with the superimposition of societal models. As for my thoughts on equality, as I said earlier... everyone shares a basic common equality - but not everyone is going to learn to do algebra in their head, or be a virtuoso musician, or deduce the laws of form and function... those exceptions need to be cultured, for like an oyster's irritant, thus the pearls are born. Common consent... a peculiar pendulum it is.

I'm not sure where the rant on the blue party came from, 2U... didn't see anything relating to that previously.


M.

I hate political correctness. I want people to be able to say anything they want to say, even if it is ugly. How else will we ever know who the ugly people are if we are politically correct?

I don't purposefully like to offend people but I do enjoy blunt humor. Does liking George Carlin make me un-PC?

The only reason that people see equality of results as being necessary is that equality of opportunity would be more difficult to implement, and, people being people, that is, lazy, they'd much prefer to make the easier solution. Take affirmative action in college admissions. On the one hand, we COULD focus on overhauling and reforming the school system so all the disadvantaged, black, Hispanic AND white (among others, of course), would have if not equal than at least better chances of getting into good secondary schools. Make school more relevant and appealing to those who would otherwise turn to less savory and productive occupations or lifestyles, hire teachers who were better suited and qualified to work with difficult students, that sort of thing. But you know what? That'd be difficult. That'd cost money. So why not establish a quota system and admit a certain amount of people of disadvantaged groups into high-ranking schools, and pat ourselves on the back for being such good, progressive people, despite the fact that most of the minority kids who went to Harvard, Princeton and Yale AREN'T probably the most disadvantaged of them in reality, and probably went to private schools and had tutoring like their white peers? It allows us to feel morally righteous AND bury our head in the sands about larger issues thought to be unsolvable! Hooray for band-aid solutions.

In truth, equal results won't work, because people simply aren't all equal. This is not to say that all of one group is inherently inferior or superior to all of another group. But, to use the analogy of a race that's been employed in this thread earlier, first place and last place exist for a reason. Sure, maybe one or two people will tie. But EVERYONE can't be in first. What would be the point, where would be the fun and pride, in that? Should we give people the tools they need to succeed in the future to compensate for a disadvantage they have, or try to eradicate the disadvantage itself where appropriate? Yes, it's only fair. But should we just hand them the results they want because they're unlikely to get them on their own? No. It's not only unfair to the people who DIDN'T get instant rewards just because of who and what they are, but it's very condescending to the recipients themselves, and cheapens the achievement of it.

Politically Correct is such a silly sounding term. Whoever coined that was definitely overly pretentious. I don't even know what it means or if I should know what it means. To me, it's nonsense made up for it's attention seeking merits.

QFT - well said.


M.

I say what's on my mind and I'm not responsible for how you react to it, so political correctness is dumb as hell to me.