Are there any aspies that are NOT politically correct?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not PC.

"From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need." Karl Marx.
Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Nicolae Ceausescu. Been tried, the results weren't particularly fun for the proletariat.

WELL SAID! AND, though I HATE "P.C."(I EVEN the co-opting of the term which ITSELF shows they are hypocrites!), I have NEVER used the term dyke or ret*d. I haven't used that "n word" either. Frankly, I think people should be judged on their MERITS! If the P.C. people want me to LOVE/RESPECT the term and them, it is EASY!

1. BE REASONABLE!
2. BE HONEST!

Gee, that is easier than 1.2.3! But they can't do either. And HEY, I have known some smart people I hated, dumb people I respected, white people I have hated, and blacks I have respected and liked. Having merit doesn't depend on race, intelligence, or income. Some poor people WOULDN'T steal even food, and some rich people continue on the thieving path that made them rich.

I read some of Karl Marx's book "Das Kapital" in the original German. It has a style of double entendre the U.S. Democrat party tends to use even to this very day. His style seems to be deliberately convoluted.

ONE meaning is of reason, though it requires a level of altruism that just doesn't exist for the most part. I used to be the most altruistic person you are ever likely to meet, but I was taken advantage to such a degree that ***I*** couldn't maintain it. There is certainly no way the average person would even have held out as long as I did, and I doubt anyone is likely to do much better.

The other speaks of a system similar to that in the US where a union can cripple supply, and a company can be bankrupted by the most minor slight, yet people seem to find NO fault with communists like the Chinese sending us products contaminated with lead, and I wonder how long they REALLY knew about the contaminated peppers from Mexico. JUST IMAGINE! Some kids will be disabled, and some people have gotten sick and/or died, from that senseless garbage.

And people have little right to be able to manage their own welfare. Of course, since everything is supposedly DIRECTLY controlled by the government it, in IT'S purpose, is more efficient, quick, and decisive.

Not going to step into these debates, really, but the inevitable Nazi comparison needs to be pointed out.

Yes, you've seen it here. The Democratic part is just like the Nazis.

Also, the KKK and Nazis hated others only because other people didn't help them out enough. (Even though many poor people have refrained from lynching people and carrying out genocide.) With the Nazis, you may actually have a point WRT the Treaty of Versailles, but these inflammatory rantings hardly contribute much to historical discussion. Oy. With the KKK, you're just plain wrong. Many prominent members of the KKK were well-to-do, respected men of society. Many were sheriffs and held other positions of power.

Sorry, you can go back to blaming all evils in world history on liberals and Democrats now.

Couldn't help myself:

I'm pretty sure it's illegal for companies to not provide workers with a work break--thanks to those unions you hate so much.

I don't think us supposed PC-types think that life is always a luxury for all white males--that's a ridiculous generalization. But when you invoke slavery when discussing missing your lunch break a couple of times a week, you do come off as someone who doesn't really understand how oppressive slavery was. Spend a few weeks being forced to pick cotton in the blistering heat and then try talking about slavery.

im not politically correct in the least bit and im proud of it, i speak my mind and tell it how it is and if it offends someone fcuk em.

2ukenkerl,

Who are you identifying as "they"?

You make no mention that I can see -- you apparently jumped to some conclusions of your own that triggered an adverse emotional reaction.

Meanwhile I sit here wondering what on earth you're ranting about.

I'm not questioning your motives or assertions, just wondering who on earth you've assumed that I was referring to.

Some clarification would be helpful. More light, less heat.

John

Thanks for the post about social engineering, JohnCounsel. I don't entirely agree but I do more than I thought I would, I think it's a reasonable position.

-JR, sorry, I meant that part to be said as personal experience. I don't know about every person in the world, but most of the people I have met have been that way. I also didn't mean calling someone names to their face, but using them in other ways or about other people not there. I do think it's stupid, but that's the sample I've seen of people anti-PC. Possibly it has to do with the kind of person who decries PC in public or without prompting, or maybe they're all joking or trying to be cool and don't really mean it, or something else. Whatever it is, they have been the ones much more likely to say offensive things, or ask "Why are only gay people allowed to say 'fag'" in a challenging way (not as a question). Definitely people who won't dream of saying one offensive thing publicly will say another or will say it in private, but when I say I'm uncomfortable or that's wrong then they (who try to be PC) much more often apologize instead of arguing me down. I don't argue well, so it makes me more uncomfortable, and so I don't like to talk with those people most likely to put me in that position.

I don't think it's wrong to joke or say words you have a stake in if you mean it in a friendly group way or subversive from inside (and probably there are other ways that don't just reinforce bad feelings), but I think it's much better to be cautious when you don't know how other people will receive what you say. They might not take your meaning at all or might think you aren't part of the group if it's not obvious, and then without intending it you've become someone hostile to them.

There are some views I have that would be considered politically correct, others that wouldn't, and still others that fall somewhere in the middle. I think both the PC and anti-PC crowds can be a bit fanatical at times, but that's just me.

OK cas, I see what you're getting at. Perhaps you've "seen" the examples that speak up and place the "anti-PC" sign around their neck, and those just happen to be the unsavory types, who "claim" but do not actually "adhere" to the idea (as weird as it is to associate antiPC with adherancy). Perhaps it's like Obama, and his missing lapel pin-the little flag does not mean he's "American," and NOT wearing it does not signify anything un-American. The display is meaningless. I believe the same applies to PCness, people who are not PC might not show it, and people who claim PC might not actually believe in it.

Hey Mr. John Counsel, I enjoy your ideas here (tho not necessarily in complete agreeance). Really am not fit to comment at the moment, but I do enjoy reading the views here.

Hi Cas and JR

Thanks. I neither expect nor demand that anyone agrees with me. Nor do I even expect my ideas to be read or considered.

Freedom of speech is just that: the right to voice an opinion. It's not the right to be heard, read, listened to or agreed with.

It's the old story... "your freedom of speech ends where my ears and eyes begin". (Or my mailbox, email inbox, television or radio receiver, etc.)

I appreciate being considered.

John

Me too, lots of words and lots of ideas. My mind is slow to process but a few thoughts jump out at me.

Seeking to redress imbalances - doesn't automatically mean enforcing equality of outcome. People still have the opportunity to excel, or refuse to take up opportunity.

I don't see that a little social engineering means enforcing equality of outcome.
Social engineering can include positive discrimination. Positive discrimination seeks to redress imbalances created for whatever reason, in societies.

Taxing the income earner to give the unemployed an income - surely this is social engineering.
Organisations and structures within society are there to engineer and manage societies in a way to help them to function. Schools - aren't they involved in social engineering. They teach according to a prescribed curriculum.

My son was on an unemployment benefit. Society has structures and processes in place that served to help him to rejoin the workforce. He is kept in the work force with the help of a mentor who is paid by taxes form wage earners. This is about positive discrimination/ social engineering.

I agree with you, education is vital, when attempting to create change in society.

Last edited by marieclaire on 26 Jul 2008, 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe I should have said - equality of opportunity.

Hi marieclaire

I think the real issue causing confusion here is different interpretations of terms like equality of outcome and social engineering.

Some of that different perception is due to nothing more than different perspectives. We look at the same situation from two different angles and end up with two very different views and conclusions, like the Six Blind Men of Hindustan and the elephant (Kipling?).

Some of what you appear to be referring to as equality of outcome is really equality of opportunity.

Once the focus becomes equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, trouble always ensues. It's an issue fraught with risk, as I explained earlier.

Because it's such an unnatural* concept, it inevitably seems to lead to artificial "solutions" that seem to lead to more and more social engineering aimed at redressing imbalances by compulsion... which never works long term.

Often it's the result of frustration and impatience with the slow rate of change brought about by education, but that's no justification.

John

(*Nature presents us with manifest unfairness, nowhere better demonstrated than by the food chain and by parasites. Life as we know it would cease to exist if we imposed equality of outcome by eliminating these two perfectly natural phenomena. For a start, humans — the top of the food chain, both animal and vegetable — would become extinct in a matter of weeks if strictly applied.)

John you rock.

I too get sick and tired of these hypocrites telling people what they should and shouldn't say as it is offensive but yet they also turn the other cheek and pick on those that aren't in their social shield of protection.

How about just the rule of treat others how you want to be treated? Why give more leniency to groups of choice dependant on current social trends?

I don't view that as really equally treating others with respect.