Has society become too politically correct?

  • News
  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
  • #1
740
3

Main Question or Discussion Point

Nowadays everything has to be PC. You're not retarded, you're "mentally impaired". You're not black, you're "african american". You're not fat, you're "Metabollically challenged". I recall a lawsuit where a black(yes I'm not being PC) woman sued an airline because a stewardess was telling everyone to sit down, and innocently recited an old children's rhyme- Ennie Meenie, miny, mo. Suing based on it's roots, which originally involved the use of the "N" word. Then there's affirmative action. Now suddenly it doesn't matter if you have the grades, determination, and dedication to education. Now race becomes a factor, which to me is simply a way of masking reverse racism.

So have we become so overly concerned with equality that we've crossed the line? Have we become so intent on giving everyone equal opportunity that our overzealous approach as resulting in simply tippng the scales the other way instead of balancing them out? Comments please.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Zero
Originally posted by Zantra
Nowadays everything has to be PC. You're not retarded, you're "mentally impaired". You're not black, you're "african american". You're not fat, you're "Metabollically challenged". I recall a lawsuit where a black(yes I'm not being PC) woman sued an airline because a stewardess was telling everyone to sit down, and innocently recited an old children's rhyme- Ennie Meenie, miny, mo. Suing based on it's roots, which originally involved the use of the "N" word. Then there's affirmative action. Now suddenly it doesn't matter if you have the grades, determination, and dedication to education. Now race becomes a factor, which to me is simply a way of masking reverse racism.

So have we become so overly concerned with equality that we've crossed the line? Have we become so intent on giving everyone equal opportunity that our overzealous approach as resulting in simply tippng the scales the other way instead of balancing them out? Comments please.
I think that most people who complain about so-called political correctness are racist or sexist. There is a need in this country to be inclusive, and the absurd abuses of the idea do not invalidate the idea. Being anti-PC allows you to tell huge lies, as far as I can see. For instance, to my knowledge, no white student with a 4.0 GPA has been refused a college education so that a minority student with a 1.0 GPA can get in, but this is how the anti-PC crowd paints the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
363
0
Yes, PC has gone too far, but it's not as bad as you're always hearing. This is really a result of human nature though, when we try and cause a change in society, if it happens it will overshoot the equilibrium and go the other way, so lets hope it's a damped oscillation so that it doesn't start to suck to be a white christian male and also hope that it eventually settles down on the correct point (whatever that is).
 
  • #4
Zero
This brings up the point that while Christian males have such a hugfe sense of entitlement, that they feel threatened when anyone else starts to get a fair shot.
 
  • #5
740
3


Originally posted by Zero
I think that most people who complain about so-called political correctness are racist or sexist. There is a need in this country to be inclusive, and the absurd abuses of the idea do not invalidate the idea. Being anti-PC allows you to tell huge lies, as far as I can see. For instance, to my knowledge, no white student with a 4.0 GPA has been refused a college education so that a minority student with a 1.0 GPA can get in, but this is how the anti-PC crowd paints the situation.
I'm niether racist or sexist. I wasn't saying that the idea was a bad one. I was simply saying that perhaps we should be more selective in the application of it. I never said that affirmative action was causing white students to loose thier chances. But the overall IDEA of a affirmative action is self reinforcing. Race is not supposed to be a biased, yet affirmative action is doing just that- pointing out race and saying "oh so and so is disadvantaged because they are a certain race". Well that is racism! And befor you go off on me, I have more non-white friends than white friends, so I'm not insensitive to the issues that plague minorities. But by making something an issue, you're adding to the problem, not takin away from it.
 
  • #6
Zero


Originally posted by Zantra
I'm niether racist or sexist. I wasn't saying that the idea was a bad one. I was simply saying that perhaps we should be more selective in the application of it. I never said that affirmative action was causing white students to loose thier chances. But the overall IDEA of a affirmative action is self reinforcing. Race is not supposed to be a biased, yet affirmative action is doing just that- pointing out race and saying "oh so and so is disadvantaged because they are a certain race". Well that is racism! And befor you go off on me, I have more non-white friends than white friends, so I'm not insensitive to the issues that plague minorities. But by making something an issue, you're adding to the problem, not takin away from it.
The problem with your thinking is the assumption that race isn't ALREADY an issue, which it is. Affirmative action doesn't create racial differences, it simply puts them out in the open, and attempts to rectify the inequality. Inequality isn't reinforced by affirmative action, but it sure does point out the bias and blindness in certain people.
 
  • #7
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
The problem with your thinking is the assumption that race IS an issue.

The big drawback to AA, and PC in general, is that it forces awareness upon those who would otherwise not give one's race, gender, handicap, or whatever a second thought... and I know on more than one occasion that I have treated those in various minorities differently than I would everybody else simply because I was afraid my actions would be interpreted as a prejudice.

For example, the elevator I usually took to my previous office tends to be slow, so I would usually move on to the set of main elevators if I saw someone was waiting to go up. One day I stepped into the alcove, saw the up arrow lit up, and stepped out to go on to the main elevators, and as I turned the corner, I realized the person waiting was in a wheelchair, and I was worried the rest of the morning that my actions might have been misinterpreted as a reluctance to be around a handicapped person.

I doubt that I am the only person affected in this way.

And, of course, AA seems to be encouraging the notion that "reverse discrimination" is occuring, which leads to a lot of bitter feelings among some.


AA, and PC in general, is not a wholly good thing... and given my state of knowledge, I'm inclined to agree that they have outlived their usefulness.
 
  • #8
Zero
Uh huh...spoken like an unconscious racist...which is my point. Minorities get treated differently anyways, and will continue to do so if we sweep all official awaerness under the rug. There is an institutional racism that exists in the country, and not talking about it won't make it go away. Again, I see plenty of teh white entitelment going on here, that you shouldn't be forced to deal with the reality of race.
 
  • #9
RageSk8
Then there's affirmative action. Now suddenly it doesn't matter if you have the grades, determination, and dedication to education. Now race becomes a factor, which to me is simply a way of masking reverse racism.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/fish.htm

Read the link.
 
  • #10
FZ+
1,561
3
So have we become so overly concerned with equality that we've crossed the line?
No. We aren't overly concerned, but that the whole civil rights movement has been turned from a movement towards reason to a general phobia - better to x and y or the black peril would come to get you. Meanwhile, many sectors have been little affected at all, and discrimination persists. (Consider that Fundamentalism movements have been growing unnoticed of late.) In short, we are seeing one big mess of radical views, and in some cases, the actions of society are only serving to push people towards the extremes. Maybe it will eventually settle down. But what would really help is not quick fix solutions but to openly address the divisions, with understanding than reflex actions.

Whether the public is up for that is another question.
 
  • #11
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Again, I see plenty of teh white entitelment going on here, that you shouldn't be forced to deal with the reality of race.
[?]

Are you saying people of different races should be treated differently?

The only entitlement I'm looking for is the right to form my opinion about people based on who they are, rather than society telling me what I should think based on what they are.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Hurkyl
[?]

Are you saying people of different races should be treated differently?

Of course they should be treated equally. That's what affirmitive action is all about. Do you think that white males are better qualified than black people? Then why do they have all the good jobs, if not for racism?

It's been shown that people with white sounding names get hired over people with black sounding names, given equal credentials. So how can affirmitive action be reverse discrimination if white people are still getting an unfair advantage.
 
  • #13
658
2
you're typical white person has more opportunities to be successful, and so they are. That's why cacausion males fill the workplace. AA is to try and spread the opportunities to minorities. I think it may have gone too far in some instances, but just like pleanty of other things the idea was 'good in theory.'

There are cases where a white man with a 4.0 gpa won't be accepted over a black or asian with a 3.0. Colleges want the diversity so they make it easier for minorities to get in. It's not really wrong, it's just politics and bussiness. They look better when they look diverse, so it's just a marketing decision. Same with the workplace, they do what's best to make money, get workers, or whatever. Diversity and appealing to minorities helps bring the in bacon.
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
19,599
5,872
Yes.
____________________________________________________________

Off topic:

For instance, to my knowledge, no white student with a 4.0 GPA has been refused a college education so that a minority student with a 1.0 GPA can get in, but this is how the anti-PC crowd paints the situation.
Not really relevant to the topic of the thread, but while your example is artificial, similar such things HAVE actually happened and the courts have ruled on them.
The problem with your thinking is the assumption that race isn't ALREADY an issue, which it is. Affirmative action doesn't create racial differences, it simply puts them out in the open, and attempts to rectify the inequality.
Fight fire with fire, fight racism with racism. Sorry, our Constitution does not allow that.
Of course they should be treated equally. That's what affirmitive action is all about. Do you think that white males are better qualified than black people? Then why do they have all the good jobs, if not for racism?
Economic status maybe? Culture? Demographic data shows conclusively that socioeconomic status is the determining factor there - not race. And you're swinging a double-edged sword there - others have used the same point you brought up to conclude blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

So tell me, Zero and Chemical - should we keep or remove racial preferences in situations where the selection system can truly be blind. A college application process for example doesn't tell the admissions office anything at all about a person's race (or sex) unless it is set up to. It IS possible to be color blind. Should we do it when it is possible?

I would also like to point out that there isn't a box on the sign-up page for this forum listing race. Should there be?

Guys, we CAN attain a color-blind society, but it won't happen without removing racial discrimination. The Constitution is color blind and when challeneged before the Constitution, all forms of racial discrimination including AA are struck-down.

As a side note, being a reasonably successful person, most of the blacks I come into contact with are also reasonably successful people. Almost without exception they are INSULTED by the concept of affirmative action. As well they should be.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Zero
Originally posted by Hurkyl
[?]

Are you saying people of different races should be treated differently?

The only entitlement I'm looking for is the right to form my opinion about people based on who they are, rather than society telling me what I should think based on what they are.
Unfortunately, in many cases society has already told people that minorities are inferior, and any attempt at equality is reverse racism.
 
  • #16
Zero
Russ, you are persuasive, and wrong, as usual! Your error is treating people outside the context of their relative history. The parents of almost everyone on PF lived in the era of segregation...do you think the historical and social ramifications disappeared in the 60s, and American culture suddenly became colorblind?

*edit*

Actually, you come close to being right on the issue of economics...but economic hardship seems to fall on minorities in greater percentages, a holdover from the historical inequality that exists. Then again, what do you care about poor people, you are conservative!
 
  • #17
Affirmative Action on the basis of race, I think, is not helping. Affirmative Action on the basis of socioeconomic status, however, would be a good thing.

I think that at times, people can be too PC, but it's not as bad as some reactionaries like to think. I remember be slightly reprimanded by someone for saying "retarded" instead of "mentally challenged" or whatever a few days ago. I think that such PC-ness is rather silly, but it's not to the point of absurdity that some people calim.
 
  • #18
Zero
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Affirmative Action on the basis of race, I think, is not helping. Affirmative Action on the basis of socioeconomic status, however, would be a good thing.

I think that at times, people can be too PC, but it's not as bad as some reactionaries like to think. I remember be slightly reprimanded by someone for saying "retarded" instead of "mentally challenged" or whatever a few days ago. I think that such PC-ness is rather silly, but it's not to the point of absurdity that some people calim.
Yeah, there are individual silly examples of this, but the emphasis is on silly. No one is getting hurt by some of the silly new language, and we all have a good laugh about it.
 
  • #19
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Unfortunately, in many cases society has already told people that minorities are inferior, and any attempt at equality is reverse racism.
Equality = reverse racism[?]


Yeah, there are individual silly examples of this, but the emphasis is on silly. No one is getting hurt by some of the silly new language, and we all have a good laugh about it.
It's not the language but the mind-set we're supposed to have with it; that the feelings of those in the minority matter more than everyone else's feelings.
 
  • #20
Zero
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Equality = reverse racism[?]




It's not the language but the mind-set we're supposed to have with it; that the feelings of those in the minority matter more than everyone else's feelings.
That attitude is full of poo...and a good example of what I mean by white entitlement. There is the unspoken assumption that the standard American is a WASP male, and everyone who doesn't fit that bill is 'other'. And any time the 'other' seeks equality, they are asking to be treated 'special'. Its BS, and you are smart enough to know better.
 
  • #21
____________________________________________________________
."Economic status maybe? Culture? Demographic data shows conclusively that socioeconomic status is the determining factor there - not race. And you're swinging a double-edged sword there - others have used the same point you brought up to conclude blacks are genetically inferior to whites."

Well there you go. If it is economic status and the culture (assuming you mean a racist society, and not implying that black culture is inferior) than what better way to correct that than making sure economically disenfranchisted and minorities get the same advantages that white people do.

"So tell me, Zero and Chemical - should we keep or remove racial preferences in situations where the selection system can truly be blind. A college application process for example doesn't tell the admissions office anything at all about a person's race (or sex) unless it is set up to. It IS possible to be color blind. Should we do it when it is possible?"

Sure it's possible to be color blind. But people on college admission boards and HR departments are more likely to hire Dan Smith than Tamika Freeman, given the same qualifications. If they were color blind, than you would see more minorities on campus and good jobs. But things are dispurportionately white. And the rather obvious reason is because of racism. Given that the idea that blacks are inheritally economically, genetically, and culturally inferior to whites is racist and untrue.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Affirmative Action on the basis of race, I think, is not helping. Affirmative Action on the basis of socioeconomic status, however, would be a good thing.

I think that at times, people can be too PC, but it's not as bad as some reactionaries like to think. I remember be slightly reprimanded by someone for saying "retarded" instead of "mentally challenged" or whatever a few days ago. I think that such PC-ness is rather silly, but it's not to the point of absurdity that some people calim.
Imagine you have a little brother with Downs Syndrome. He's a good kid, tries his damndest at school, and never hurt anybody. Now consider if somebody came up to him and told him he's mentally retarded. Not very tactful is it? I used to use "mentally retarded" too. But now that I'm married to a special education teacher I do realize that it's pretty insensitive.

And I agree that there should be greater emphasis on creating opportunities for the poor. But straight racial discrimination still happens. Doctors still give worse treatment to black patients, even if they have the same income as white patients, for example.
 
  • #23
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Sure it's possible to be color blind. But people on college admission boards and HR departments are more likely to hire Dan Smith than Tamika Freeman, given the same qualifications.
Rather than consider race in this situation, couldn't a college admission board be set up such that even the name of a candidate for enrollment is unknown? For instance, rather than try to offset any possible discrimination against Tamika as opposed to Dan by taking Tamika's listed race into account, why not present the the two applications to the admissions board as application #QXZY6739 vs application #JLWV0287, without any explicit mention of name or race in the first place?

I agree with Dissident Dan (Dissident Tamika? :smile:) that socioeconomic status should be taken into account, but not race explicitly. There needn't be any reason for something like an admission board to even name-related clues as to race. Of course this approach can't work for face-to-face situations such as interviews and the like (unless we do some sort of Turing inspired teletype conversation... but then, of course the interviewer can't be sure that s/he isn't hiring a computer! ). But there can be measures taken in at least certain situations to make race a non-issue altogether, as opposed to applying ah hoc patch-ups to try to make up for whatever 'actual' discrimination that might be taking place.
 
  • #24
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
That attitude is full of poo...and a good example of what I mean by white entitlement. There is the unspoken assumption that the standard American is a WASP male, and everyone who doesn't fit that bill is 'other'. And any time the 'other' seeks equality, they are asking to be treated 'special'. Its BS, and you are smart enough to know better.
That statement was indeed unspoken, but not because it was an assumption...

This is an exemplary example of my point that political correctness makes people see discrimination where it doesn't exist. Equality isn't good enough for people like you; either I'm treating minorities like kings or I'm discriminatory. You're smart enough to know better.


This is also a nice example of reverse discrimination; you're falsely accusing me of all sorts of things, but it's okay for you to do so because I'm a WASP.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Rather than consider race in this situation, couldn't a college admission board be set up such that even the name of a candidate for enrollment is unknown? For instance, rather than try to offset any possible discrimination against Tamika as opposed to Dan by taking Tamika's listed race into account, why not present the the two applications to the admissions board as application #QXZY6739 vs application #JLWV0287, without any explicit mention of name or race in the first place?
Now that would solveone problem. And could work in large universities were names aren't needed. But there's still other problems.

Consider this.

I've heard on several different occasions educators say things like, "black people just don't do well in my class." Now this is a clear example of stupidity, racism, and self-fulfilling prophecizing. And I use this to illustrate that even educators can be just as bigotted as the guy who won't hire Tamika because of her name.

Now consider Tamika's education. She's black, and likely more poor than average. So she's probably gone to a school that 's not as good. But let's say she's from an average household. So Tamika goes to school, and sometime within her highschool career she is going to have a teacher who thinks that black people just don't do well in her class. Or at least some Tamikas somewhere are going to have those teachers. And as a result, Tamika is going to get a C+ instead of the A- she would have gotten if she were Dan Smith. It's just one grade, sure. But it counts as GPA. And that's the most important qualification for college admission.

Now when you think about it, is the person with the 3.86 GPA REALLY more qualified to go to college then the student with a 3.68 GPA? Is 0.18 GPAs a significant difference that should be considered? Be honest.
 

Related Threads on Has society become too politically correct?

Replies
47
Views
7K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
107
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
47
Views
10K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
67
Views
3K
Top