To "Wally West" please think before your respone. Would you, using your
infinite liberal wisdome, appear on a show that you hated?If you
wouldn't, why would Rush?FYI, you have yet to prove that Rush
hated the show, and not just some episodes. As far as I can tell Rush is not a
hypocrite because he did not appear in the episodes that he hated.
to redshirt...Rushie also "appeared" on Family Guy and has
droned on to his viewers about the "lack of ethics" on that show as
well.Would that make RL hypocritical? Nah, everything from the
political right is as pure as new fallen snow & only for entertainment
value. Sarcasm off again??
two cents- Again, wasn't it Reid who said that Obama was light skinned
enough and lacked the negro dialect. And wasn't it Biden who said he was
the first mainstream "clean" and "articulate" and "nice
looking" black man? It sounds like liberals having issues with black people,
not conservatives. Liberals apparently thought Colin Powell didn't fit that
bill, nor did Condaleeza Rice, or any of the other blacks that have ever come
before. It is Liberals who have a problem with minorities who don't think
the way they believe they should think, as if all minorities should believe the
same. Yet do they get called out for that, and it is much more racist or
demeaning than anything Republicans ever say?Wally- Dan Quayle
criticized the glorification of choosing to be a single mom, which studies show
is not as beneficial as a 2-parent household. Ironically, I think Murphy Brown
often made fun of political correctness.
To "Wally West" prove it. If he was so "bent out of shape about
it" why would he appear as a guest star on the show? I found articles where
Rush expressed his dissapointment with various episodes of Murphy Brown, but he
didn't hate the show.Would you appear on a sit-com that you
hated?The only irrational people I see come from the left where they
attibute characteristics to others that simply do not exist.
to Redshirt...Why did Murphy Brown annoy conservatives? At the time,
the Godfather of the irrational right (R Limbaugh) getting all bent out of shape
It's been my experience that those complaining the most about political
correctness being foisted on them are white, male, conservative Christians
bemoaning the fact that minorities are not acting white enough for them; that
women are not subservient enough for them; and, that the general population is
not Christian the way they think Christian should be.
Haha, Kora, you, and RedShirt. obviously missed my point. Oh well, I find
conservatives to be usually far to literal.
Liberals use PC to label people they disagree with as something they are not.
This has been their MO for years, but it only applies to conservatives.Harry Reid talks about how Obama is light skinned and has no Negro Dialect,
unless he wants one, and this guy ends up as Leader of the Dems in the
Senate.From Joe Biden: "I mean, you got the first mainstream
African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking
guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."And
he is Vice President. If a Republican had said that, they would be asked to
resign.RedShirt- I would love to hear Mark describing someone to
another person, especially the police. Telling them that he could not say if
they were white or black, but only that they were a person. In
medical charting, I cannot simply put, "they are a person."I
had a black room mate in college and he preferred being called black and not
African American because he was from Angola, and not American. In a crowd of
white people why would I not use his race to point him out?
To "mark" Calling a person of African heritage a Black is no different
than calling the person of European heritage White, the Latino Brown, or any
physical characteristic. If was to hand you an envelope and tell you to take it
to Bill, you would want to know what Bill looked like. If I just said Bill is a
tall person, you would ask me to be more specific. If I said that Bill was a
tall Black man, that would make it easier to figure out who he was, and the more
physical descriptors I give you the easier it is to identify him. I don't
use the word Black as a derogatory word, but as a descriptor of the color of his
skin to be used when describing a person of African Heritage.
"I call a person of African heritage a Black,"No, the
question is, why don't you just call this person a person?
To "Wally West" Murphy Brown didn't annoy me, or anybody else that
I knew. We tolerated it, and occasionally watched it. The ironic thing is that
even the actress that played Murphy Brown did not agree with the message about
single mothers that the show promoted.What I find most amusing about
your ilk is the fact that when it comes to tolerance, you assume that
conservatives are not tolerant. Historically conservatives are the most
tolerant group and have looked to promote equality. You probably didn't
know that Republicans wanted to push legislation through Congress right after
the civil war that would have given all people equal rights in the US,
regardless of race. My experience is that conservatives are highly tolerant and
don't get sucked into the political correctness nonsense that the liberals
love.I call the janitor the janitor. I call a person of African
heritage a Black, I call the guy who pick up the garbage cans a garbage man.
Those terms are not demeaning, they are just what they are.The
question is why do you think that conservatives get annoyed by shows like Murphy
To Stormwalker...Regardless of my thoughts on the M Sam incident
during the draft, as a Dolphins fan, I thought that Don Jones (the
'suspended' player) showed incredible lack of tact and discretion. As far as bullygate goes, Incognito was a meathead & J Martin was an
overly sensitive mama's boy. I'm glad both are no longer play for the
Dolphins. My big issue with Dolphins is the Center M Pouncey, his support of
(fellow Gator) A Hernandez, & his twitter post after Miami acquired the OT
at #19. But, I digress...To "redshirt"...If you
recall the TV show Murphy Brown which probably annoyed you and many of your ilk
(the political right) summed up PC as White Liberal guilt.When it
comes to how phrases have morphed; look no further than the late George Carlin
who had bit about how shell shock (WW1) over the yrs has transformed into the
To "Maudine" you are wrong. Political Correctness is a tool of the
liberal/progressive/collectivists. It has been used wherever people have opted
for strong central governments as a method for suppressing people from opposing
them. Just look at the number of times liberals have to change names because of
the trugh catching up with them.First we had "Global
Warming", then it changed to "Global Climate Change", and now it is
"Global Climate Disruption". Why change the name if they are not trying
to escape the truth that is coming out showing that they are wrong?
Grover brings up a point that hurts his own Argument: Chick-Fil-A.After
the Chick-Fil-A incident, multiple governments throughout the US attempted to
ban the restaurant from opening in their municipalities. So yes, governments
within our own Nation have attempted to infringe upon the rights of others due
to this political correctness.What is the Real problem is the double
standard of what is okay to say. The Left is much more free to denigrate others
and get away with it than the Right. I remember that Trent Lott was forced
to resign as Senate Majority leader because he said the US would have been
better off if Strom Thurmond had been President, a statement that cannot be
proved wrong. On the other hand, how many offensive statements has Harry Reid
made?Democrats are allowed to attack blacks and women with disparaging
words as long as they are Conservative and never get called out. Republican
Blacks get called "Uncle Tom" and no one is chastised. Why is that
acceptable speech by those of you liberals asking for "civility"? Why is
it always a 1-way street against Conservatives when Liberals denigrate people as
PopsYour reverse analogy suffers one serious flaw. Your reversal
results in untruth.Climate change is real. You may not like the
reasons why the vast majority of climate scientists give for it occurrence, but
it is real. Even the most ardent opposition to rules governing human complicity
in climate change allow that it is happening. Most so-called "climate
change deniers" say that the climate changes all the time. So, to deny
that climate is changing is engaging in untruth in the extreme, which ought to
be challenged. It is not engaging in 'political correctness' to call
out someone who engages in untruth. It is an act of bravery.
@ Missouri loves BYUYes, it's exactly the same, isn't
it? Tim Tebow, a member of the long-dominant, majority religion in
the country, surrounded by players who are also Christian and who feel free to
openly display their religiosity on the field, in their locker rooms, in their
press conferences...Michael Sam, member of a long-oppressed minority
that even today is the subject of laws that treat him as a second-class citizen;
a member of a group that continues to be targeted for bullying, harassment,
assault and worse - even if they're Christian; the first of this group to
come out - ALONE - in an environment where homophobia is known to exist.Right. No difference whatsoever.
In modern Germany, Nazism, Fascism, and reactionary Conservatism has been
effectively outlawed. And Germany is now an economic powerhouse, with a strong
social net, and pretty good governance overall.In much of the rest
of Europe though, where political correctness has been suppressed, including
Great Britain who fought the Nazis in WWII, Fascism, nationalism, and Nazism are
alive and well . . . and especially evident at soccer games . . . Where fans can
freely wave the Swastika and throw bananas at opposing players of African
descent.In fact, Nazi recruiting stations can be found yards away
from major soccer stadiums in Europe (except for Germany).As bad as
our Right Wing Extremists can be, they're not that bad yet . . . aside from
the occasional act of violence, like murdering police officers having lunch.
No Mr. Bender it's not "political" correctness that is destroying
constitutional principles, it's the lack of correctness that is polluting
political conversation. It's the incessant repeating of long
ago disproved accusations. The steel resolve to oppose anything the President
does, even if it was once owned and created by those opposing it. The continual use of hyperbole as fact rather than affect (literally a crime,
socialist, communist, fascist etc.)If Republicans would simply
accept the Benghazi report done by their own participants we could move on to a
worthwhile discussion of how to better secure embassies.If the
faithful would just go to their place of worship and give thanks for living in a
country that allows them believe as they choose, then go to work the next day
and obey the law of the land rather than perpetuating some nonsense of
persecution where millions were killed, we would have the civility we long for.
@Missouri loves BYUOne player, from the Miami Dolphins, was fined by
the team for making two negative comments on Twitter. You might remember that
the Dolphins had an embarrasing scandal and investigation about racial bullying.
The team response seemed to be related to that incident and the knowledge gained
in the investigation and fallout. Heartfelt or scripted, the player
involved did offer a classy apology after he pulled his rude comments. Other than that was anybody fined or punished for bigoted, mean, or rude
comments? Don't think so.
"I don't recall any players being fined for making adverse comments
about Tim Tebow regarding either his football skills or his personal life. The
same does not hold true for players expressing views about Michael Sam. Why
would fines be levied in one situation and not the other?"The
NFL is a private entity and can fine whoever they want for whatever they want.
If the dolphins player fined for his offensive remarks on Twitter doesn't
believe his comments warrant a fine, he can always quit the NFL. What's
stopping him?Furthermore, I don't recall any NFL employee being
fined over Tebow because no one said anything that violated the NFL's rules
on social media. Please list a tweet, Facebook post, or otherwise social media
violation towards Tebow made by an NFL employee that did not go punished. If you
can, then you would have a point.Most private entities (employers)
have strict guidelines on what you can and cannot say on social media.
Don't like it? Then find another job. Simple, right?Had the
federal government fined or imprisoned someone, then you'd have a point.
They haven't, so you don't.
@ Furry...I don't recall any players being fined for making
adverse comments about Tim Tebow regarding either his football skills or his
personal life. The same does not hold true for players expressing views about
Michael Sam. Why would fines be levied in one situation and not the other?
What would create the difference?
LDS Liberal, great post, as usual.And always, thank you for your
actual service! Many Utahns talk about serving the country and support our
troops but never do! You actually did serve our country and protected my
freedom. Thank you
@Missouri loves BYU 10:56 a.m. June 14, 2014 A good example of how
PC is affecting society could be illustrated by comparing the freedoms of speech
people felt that they had to comment on Tim Tebow vs. the same freedoms they
feel to comment on Michael Sam. Technically there should be no difference.
However, obviously there is.--------------------------In
fact there was no difference. People were perfectly able to speak about Tim
Tebow and they did. People were perfectly able to speak about Michael Sam and
they did. Nobody either personally or by governmental action tried to restrain
their right or ability to comment. In both cases people were free to respond
(both favorably and adversely) to the comments that were made and they did.
People were free to either support oppose those who commented and they did.People have every right to comment. They do not have the right to
control the response that is made to the comments. That is true in every case.
Freedom of speech and the right to speak is intact and has not been impaired.
Missouri, Constitutional Freedom of Speech means there will be no
governmental reprisals for expressing opinions. Was someone arrested for
supporting Tim Tebow or Michael Sam? Was someone fined by the State for
expressing a personal opinion? I didn't think so.
Everyone seems to get the part about the Constitutional protection to guarantee
your right to say what you will. What most miss is that I have the right to
disagree with you and bring social pressure to bear to force you to change your
mind. The best recent example is business related - Chick-fil-A. The owners have
certain beliefs about gay people and they expressed them publicly. Both people
who agreed and disagreed spoke up and affected the sales of their food.
Recently the owners of the business admitted that it was a mistake to involve
their business in what was really a matter of personal belief. They can say what
they want, but need to be prepared for some consumers to voice their opinion by
eating more burgers.
If political correctness means you are not allowed to speak untruths, then I am
all for it. If it means social sanctions against a bigot, so be it. If it means
jail, not so much for it.Climate change alarmists spread untruth. Is
it wrong to call them out? It is a verifiable fact. Gay marriage will harm
society systemically. It is a fact. Is it wrong to call out promoters of gay
marriage? Anti-religious sentiment has scared this country for generations, yet
is it wrong to call out those who still denigrate Christians, and make claims of
intellectual inferiority.----See how easy that was? It
cuts both ways. It would be better if everyone stopped to trying to
"cut" others and worked toward finding common ground. That's a bit
harder, but worth the effort.
Geez. Does it make you feel better to demonstrate bigotry with your speech or
are you a better man by treating others how you would like to be treated? As has
been so accurately stated in previous comments, no government agency has ever
knocked on your door because you used a racial epitaph but I'll bet even
the DNews would censor you if you used it here and I would expect others would
call you out if you feel the need to do so. It has been said "Privilege is
when you think something is not a problem because it's not a problem to you
A good example of how PC is affecting society could be illustrated by comparing
the freedoms of speech people felt that they had to comment on Tim Tebow vs. the
same freedoms they feel to comment on Michael Sam. Technically there should be
no difference. However, obviously there is.
The range of human thought and speech is expansive. Some topics become socially
forbidden. We don't refer to women as property anymore, for example.In this process of sifting topics, objections arise about the process,
for good reason.This isn't limited to any political
orientation. Pro-gun activists have bullied two gun shop owners into not
offering Smart Guns, via death threats. Are death threats an
acceptable form of free speech? Do those railing against "political
correctness" also condemn this purification of thought on the Right?
Frequently, those who complain the loudest about "political correctness"
are the ones who want to be free to denigrate, humiliate, and verbally abuse
members of one or more minority groups. Learning and using language that is
respectful to others is polite and part of civilized society. Those who claim it
infringes on their "First Amendment rights" frequently think the First
Amendment gives them carte blanche permission to act like jerks.Not
that long ago "Political Correct" was enforced with police dogs and fire
hoses. Black leaders started naming and shaming racism whenever it reared its
ugly head and started changing public opinion. Other groups have followed.
The Lord gave us free agency...But that doesn't mean that
you're free from the consequences of what you say or do.
Political correctness is actually just courtesy. You stop calling people names
and start respecting their feelings. I don't understand why so many people
are upset about it.
Debate seems alive and well. Respect for the truth and the ability to find
common ground and sensible solutions? Not so much.
"It has infected us to the extent that real freedom of speech, religion and
press does not exist anymore. It has literally become a crime to say or print,
and almost to think, anything that might offend someone."========= Hyperbole of the Century! is all I can say.FYI -- As an American, and a Veteran --- This letter 100%, truly
"offended" me.Yet, here it is -- not only said, put
printed in MASS media. and published on the "WORLD Wide Web"!
There are many, the author probably included, who benefit from there being a
political correctness filter in place.
Name one single example of someone who was arrested and charged for what they
I long for a nation of people with skin so thick that words and thoughts of
others cannot hurt.
If political correctness means you are not allowed to speak untruths, then I am
all for it. If it means social sanctions against a bigot, so be it. If it
means jail, not so much for it.Climate change deniers spread
untruth. Is it wrong to call them out? It is a verifiable fact. Gay marriage
will not cause heterosexual ones to fail. It is a fact. Is it wrong to call
out homophobes? Racism has scared this country for generations, yet is it wrong
to call out those who still use the "N" word, and make claims of racial
inferiority.Yet, has anyone been put in jail for being ignorant and
intolerant? Don't think so. What probably upsets those
against perceived political correctness is their inability to be socially
sanctioned for their prejudice and refusal to accept demonstrable fact.
Literally? Can you point to some examples?
Political correctness started with the Right putting limits on language of which
they disapprove - words commonly referred to as swear words or curse words -
words usually related to body parts, body functions, or activities. It then expanded to the Left with objections to words that classify and
denigrate groups of people - usually based on an attribute or characteristic.
Those who object to political correctness usually don't object
to the limiting of curse words, but only to the limiting of words that denigrate
others. I wonder why that is?