Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (90168)	12/11/2004 8:50:04 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793835

I realize that your point is that people should not be so touchy about feeling offense when none was intended. This is true. But it's also true that people should be careful about giving offense without realizing it. The other day, as a consequence of the ongoing discussion, I googled definitions of PC. I use the term as a negative as do most people, best I can tell. So I was startled when I found this: "Political correctness is the alteration of language said by proponents to redress real or alleged unjust discrimination or to avoid offense. The term most often appears in the predicate adjective form politically correct, often abbreviated PC, and is usually used mockingly or disparagingly. " That quote is from en.wikipedia.org. There's a long discussion of the term at that site and lots of commentary on the web on how the usage has evolved. You might find this bit interesting. <<The term politically correct and the accompanying movement rose to broad usage in the early 1980s, but the term itself is actually much older, suggesting that such linguistic sensitivity is nothing new. The earliest cited usage of the term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention [...]. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? 'The United States,' instead of the 'People of the United States,' is the toast given. This is not politically correct. >> There is also some discussion there and elsewhere about how the usage has evolved. I digress. What startled me was the "real or alleged." When I use the term, PC, I'm talking about the alleged, not the real. I mean for the term to convey scorn at the extraordinary contortions we go through to avoid offending the most easily offended among us or those who have an axe to grind. I did not think that the term in current usage any longer referred to the real but only to the alleged and absurd. In my mind, avoiding real offense is not PC but a matter of politeness and sensitivity, which I don't think of as negatives. Anyway, what started me on this research was the discussion about "Merry Christmas" and the assumption expressed by some posters that saying "Happy Holidays" to someone not obviously Christian was PC (negative) rather than manners (positive). My thinking is that we live in this world with other people and we need to get outside our self-absorption enough to be aware of them recognize their individuality and potentially different needs. When we walk through a door, we look back to see if there is someone coming through the door behind us rather than just letting it swing shut on someone. We don't wear obscene slogans on our t-shirts if we're going to be anywhere that children might be. And we don't say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays" to a store patron wearing a Muslim headscarf. And, as you point out, we don't call women "broads." I don't think that any of that is PC, simply courtesy.

To: Ilaine who wrote (90168)	12/11/2004 9:51:47 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793835

I agree with you about giving offense (as you know I am very inoffensive). You know from reading my thread, how I objected to the cast of our high school show saying the Lord's Prayer before opening. However, in this case I think kholt's theoretical pendulum has swung too far. By the time kids have reached high school age, they aren't going to be "converted" by singing. Mine certainly weren't. No student should be forced to participate, and I believe teachers ought to be very clear WHY this music was chosen, emphasizing the musicality and composition and vocal requirements over any religious message. I just don't get the harm. Why exactly does this hurt feelings? If a student were being forced to bow down and say he actually believed, I would be the first writing letters and screaming. (I understand that some think singing words is a form of this. I just disagree.) I see more harm done by dumbing down curriculum than in exposing students to religious music. And that is where I think we have gone overboard. The key word for me is education. I do think caution should be taken with elementary ages, who are much more vulnerable and could be confused. And in fact, last year I played for two elementary programs and they were purely secular-- even here in Redland. So there is an awareness of balance, it seems. The only objection in the three years I have been with the district has been from a Jewish father who had his daughter leave the stage except for the Hanukkah and secular pieces. Your example of Nate Henloff-- you used the word "forced". ANd that IS wrong. In a place like Berkeley, I can certainly see that doing religious music is going to be anathema. But I am sorry for their children's loss. By the way, the examples you listed of pc offenses were-- offensive! Would this one count? There was a discrimination case a few years ago brought against an airline by a blind person because the flight attendents wouldn't let him sit by the safety exit. I think that's ridiculous.

To: Ilaine who wrote (90168)	12/11/2004 11:13:20 AM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793835

CB, I appears that the current conversation is about political correctness where religion is concerned. We don't really need a policy called "politically correct" if all people would just be like if the simplest of mottos were adhered to. "Live and let live" would cover the entire spectrum of decency of one person to another. Who is any human being that is qualified to berate, or dislike, another human because of the beliefs he may have? We are all guilty of not "living and let live" to some extent, but why should we waste our time, and emotions, toward such a petty end? As long as what one believes does not harm any individual, or society as a whole, why should anyone else care what they believe? Wild animals fight and kill in order to eat, and survive, which makes them more civilized than human beings. Is there no way that all of humanity can just get along in an amicable manner? If not why? What is wrong with us? Sometimes I think that our brains have developed too far, which gives us space to involve ourselves in other peoples' business, for no good reason. I don't have the answers to any of my questions, but am getting sick and tired of people attacking others, either physically, or verbally, for such petty reasons. I don't care what religion any other person want to believe in, as long as he doesn't try to cram it down my throat. If they want to sing their religious songs, let them do it in a place where is does not bothers those of other beliefs. This conflict about music during the "so called" holiday season, is really very stupid. December 25, being declared the birth date of Jesus, was just a trick by the early Roman church to preach to the revelers during the celebration of saturnalia. Since then, it has become and economic issue, used to boost the sales of merchants. One of the reasons for that, is to reduce the amount of inventory to lessen the tax burden. IMO, Christians are being singled out for special restrictions, but if they truly want to celebrate the birth of Jesus, they should know that they should celebrate his birth every day of the year, since he is the center piece of the entire religion. Other religions should also worship as the please, but not make a public spectacle out of it. Aren't religious beliefs something that should be within a person, and be worthy of individual prayer, or whatever, in a personal place, with others who voluntarily believe the same tenet? All of this verbal conflict is just stupid, as far as I am concerned.