# Political correctness



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Enjoy. 

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2783-Correctitude


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Good stuff. I never thought Jeff Denham was funny either, nor did I think Letterman or Leno were funny when they thought they had a right in their "righteous anger" at terrorists to joke about Muslims and other people in foreign countries beign mistreated and getting bombed to kingdom come by the western "allies" (Read: Bush and Blair) I thought they were all being insensitive jerks! 

Two wrongs don't make a right!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Indeed. I also agree about the people who cry "PC police" when they're called out on bigoted statements.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Indeed. I also agree about the people who cry "PC police" when they're called out on bigoted statements.


Absolutely.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

I have difficulty taking someone seriously when he says "politically correct" is a word. No, it's a phrase. But I guess I'm being a jerk, because I displayed my eurocentric, homophobic, male-oriented perspective by using "he" when I should have been gender neutral, even if it was a male to whom I referred.

Jerks assert that others are politically incorrect when they themselves (jerks) are rude and insensitive. And the politically incorrect are jerks when they express their disgust at actions that offend their delicate sensibilities.

Oh, and Movie Bob is a politically correct jerk who made a few good points, but came off as bitter, unfunny and not terribly original. And certainly not terribly courageous in expressing his views. . . . 

ETA: This guy must be from Cleveland, because everything is 10 years later in Cleveland. . . .


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

If you say so!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I used to work with a guy (former cop), who said they should stop profiling when it stops working. It's far from a PC statement, but it's also accurate.

In _Stranger in a Strange Land_ (Heinlein), the protagonist has a realization that _all humor_ is based off the pain of others (in some fashion). Laughter is a release in that way.

Should people go out of their way to be rude or derogatory? No. Should people see the humor in things? Yes. Comedians are paid to highlight humor. A lot of comedians will use stereotypes to do just that.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> In _Stranger in a Strange Land_ (Heinlein), the protagonist has a realization that _all humor_ is based off the pain of others (in some fashion). Laughter is a release in that way.


The ol' slip on a banana peel gag!!

And when PC becomes dangerous??



> Denis McDonough, spoke Sunday evening to the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, one of the nation's largest Islamic congregations.
> "The bottom line is this: When it comes to preventing violent extremism and terrorism in the United States, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem, you're part of the solution," McDonough told about 200 people, most of them Muslims.


OK, so who exactly is it fomenting the violent extremism and terrorism in the United States in the first place again??

This type of double-speaking jackassery is too much!!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I remember hearing an interview with Gordon Liddy and he was talking about the time he was preparing to board a commercial flight and saw Al Gore also in line to board the same flight. He said that it bothered him to see a young Middle Eastern man allowed to board with no additional screening beyond the basics while Gore was pulled out of line and given an additional pat down, clearly to show that there was no discrimination involved. 

I couldn't help but agree with Liddy's assessment of this. He said that while he and Gore were polar opposites politically, he would not have been fearful of flying with Gore if there had been no search of any kind, and he is certain that Gore would have felt the same way about him. Clearly neither of them was going to blow up the airplane; however, he also felt that neither he nor Gore had the same degree of confidence with regard to the young Middle Eastern fellow.

I don't like discrimination any more than the next guy; however, at some point we must ask ourselves what is the ultimate goal in any endeavor. With airport screening are we trying to prove that we aren't discriminating against this or that group, or are we trying to prevent terrorism? If it's the latter I think that our attention should be most strongly focused on those statistically most likely to be terrorists; and in the case of Liddy, Gore, and the young Middle Eastern man, regardless of how it appears to the PC crowd I say look at the Middle Eastern man if only one of those three is going to be given special attention at the airport screening station.

Cruiser


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> With airport screening are we trying to prove that we aren't discriminating against this or that group, or are we trying to prevent terrorism?


We're not trying to* prevent *terrorism however. At most we are trying to limit it in the same fashion that police prevent crime. Airport security, beyond administrative searches (within the US), is reactionary in nature. It doesn't stop anything.

The Israeli's have shown how profiling (behavior based) is an effective method of stopping air based terrorist activities. They've done it without discrimination, by properly training their _security professionals_.

Unfortunately, the TSA are not Law Enforcement. They are Regulatory. Until they become LE, and have to live within those rules, what we have will be a farce. It won't be about public safety, it will be about the false sense of safety.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Libyans wonder why they're not getting more support from the UK and the US...one word, Lockerbie! But too many people and newspapers are afraid to say that.

Like WS points out here, _"OK, so who exactly is it fomenting the violent extremism and terrorism in the United States in the first place again?? This type of double-speaking jackassery is too much!!"_

The same is true for Libya and Lockerbie, it can't always be the case as claimed by the "moderate majority" that the terrorists are NOT a part of the people, that terrorists are always deemed by their own countrymen and co-religionists as "not representing the people, not representative of Muslims, not representing our country"

WAKE UP!!!If the terrorist comes from your country and is of your religion, and carries out terrorism in the name of your and his country and your and his religion then he is QED representing both your and his country and your and his religion.

Over a decade now of Muslim communities in the UK and US generally NOT speaking out against and condemning Islamist fundamentalist terrorism around the world, but as soon as something starts affecting them in Muslim communities in the Arab world, all of a sudden Muslim communities and action groups in the UK, US, Sweden etc, are out on the streets and up in arms wanting the UK and US to intervene.

The adage, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" is clearly not known in the Muslim world.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The adage, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" is clearly not known in the Muslim world.


In the context of graft and official corruption however, I'd say they are right up there along with the best of us!!

My example reminds me of an Office (US) TV episode when Michael heaps praise upon himself for saving Merideth's life after he ran her over with his car!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Terrorism is an violent act by an individual or organization (causing terror), intended to adjust the People's views so that political change can occur. By nature they are not associated with the country (civil region) they operate within, but the opposition to it. Terrorism sponsored by a government is an act of war. It is political action through violence. It is the definition of war. The only difference is that Fear is the primary weapon, and that your neighbors (soft) vice some nameless government drone (hard) is the target.

In general, the English (US, UK, etc) speaking world is conditioned against this. I'm not exactly sure where it comes from, but perhaps our own arrogance protects us, or the fact that we have lots of firepower at our disposal. Unfortunately, the Islamic world is not.

My next statement is the antithesis of the thread post. I do not say it to be mean, but to highlight a fact. The word Islam means Surrender. It was shouted by warriors as they took over villages. Those who did not surrender were killed. I'm not saying Muslims are weak, or cowardly, or any such thing, but surrendering is a survival instinct, and it is not one shared by the English speaking world (from my experience).

"Surrender" vs "Arrogance" is my point. They are two distinct world views which mix like water and oil. Much like when American businessmen attempted to move into Latin America.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> WAKE UP!!!If the terrorist comes from your country and is of your religion, and carries out terrorism in the name of your and his country and your and his religion then he is QED representing both your and his country and your and his religion.


The IRA never represented me, my family or the vast majority of my fellow countrymen.

Yet, there was a time not so long ago that being Irish was akin to being a terrorist - specifically when travelling to the UK.

With that said we all knows that a Catholic minority in Northern Ireland experienced an apartheid or sorts along with huge abuses of human rights leading all the way to the British Army murdering it's own population - in peaceful protest, I might add. Ultimately, the US & UN turned a blind eye and it culminated in many, many years of 'The Troubles' to get to where we are now. Could the peace agreement exist without what went on with 'The Troubles' ergo the PIRA? Doubt it.

While I broadly agree with the sentiment you express, it's sometimes an awful lot more complex than simply not talking out against it.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

VR I think the murders of the Bloody Sunday protesters were the greatest setback to a settlement in the modern troubles. I can think of no greater crime for a state to commit against its people than to execute them without trial for nothing more than protesting. It destroyed the civil rights movement and drove many into the ranks of the para militaries in one go. I think democracy could have been achieved with much less loss of life in a much shorter timescale if that had never happened.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

I whole heartedly agree with you Douglas. It's outrageous that it took the 'Troubles' to force the British Government into talks.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> The IRA never represented me, my family or the vast majority of my fellow countrymen.
> 
> Yet, there was a time not so long ago that being Irish was akin to being a terrorist - specifically when travelling to the UK.
> 
> ...


I agree with every word, and I know it isn't black & white. I'll explain further later.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> VR I think the murders of the Bloody Sunday protesters were the greatest setback to a settlement in the modern troubles. I can think of no greater crime for a state to commit against its people than to execute them without trial for nothing more than protesting. It destroyed the civil rights movement and drove many into the ranks of the para militaries in one go. I think democracy could have been achieved with much less loss of life in a much shorter timescale if that had never happened.


I entirely agree.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Now, so that I'm not misunderstood here. And to explian how the comparison between Libyan terrorists (aka diplomats) and the IRA is not correct or even comparable. The IRA are not supported openly or covertly by the Irish or British governments nor do they command the respect of the majority of the Irish population. Nor are they able to stand inside Irish embassies overseas and murder foreign police officers.

First off, those terrorists who blew up the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie were not part of a terrorist organisation, they were not Islamists or fundamentalists they were Libyan agents working with the full support of Gaddafi, who knew all about it.

Secondly, and this is where I have a very personal connection. During the Libyan National Salvation Front demo outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 84, four years before the Lockerbie bombing, you will remember that people with diplomatic immunity inside the embassy started firing with submachine guns on the Libyan and British demonstrators and Met Police below in the street and murdered WPC Yvonne Fletcher and injured 11 other people. The same disregard for human life then as they are showing now in Libya at this very moment. Her killers have still not been identified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher

My Class Captain from Hendon Police College was standing next to 25 year old WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was killed by these terrorists inside the Embassy as she stood defending those same people and that same building from the anti-Gaddafi LNSF demonstrators outside. When I met him on a football serial a year or so later he told me how he held her as she died.

You'll also remember the scenes in Tripoli when the convicted Lockerbie bomber was returned to Libya, having being freed from a British prison and the hero's welcome he received from the people! https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/8197370.stm

So you'll forgive me if in the case of Libya if I do not separate Libyan terrorists from the Libyan government, which ostensibly represents the Libyan people.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> I whole heartedly agree with you Douglas. It's outrageous that it took the 'Troubles' to force the British Government into talks.


It is such a bigger issue than this. It's been raised in this forum before, but essentially it was the autonomous government of Northern Ireland that was the issue, not the British government, which was content for N.I. to govern itself. The Civil Rights movement was to reform and change the N.I. government, not to destroy it, which was what the extremist loyalists thought. The involvement of the British government was because of the polarisation of feelings because of the failures of the N.I. government, often referred to as Stormont. Stormont lost control, violence took over, and direct rule was established from Whitehall, which involved the sending in of British troops to restore order. "The Troubles" were a result of the failure of Civil Rights, not an attempt to force the British Government into talks.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> The IRA never represented me, my family or the vast majority of my fellow countrymen.
> 
> Yet, there was a time not so long ago that being Irish was akin to being a terrorist - specifically when travelling to the UK.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, few Catholics publicly denounced the Republican Terrorism, whether they agreed with it or not, in Britain or elsewhere. Indeed, many Irish Clubs in Britain openly collected monet for the IRA.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Indeed, many Irish Clubs in Britain openly collected monet for the IRA.


Did they? Did you ever see that? My father witnessed it firsthand in Glasgow. But I was a regular at several Irish clubs and pubs for many years and never once saw that.Not once!

My cousin Liam on the other hand, was in Boston one year with an Irish play about navvies and the accompanying folk group from Dublin. Performing at an Oirish pub one night and the inevitable tin came round at the end of the evening collecting for "the boys across the water!" To a man,the band and the players told them to shove their tin as they wouldn't donate money for weapons to kill people in their own country. The yanks didn't like that, but then again the yanks have always had a fairytale, Brigadoon notion of Ireland anyway and know next to nothing about the true nature of The Troubles.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

They raised money - in part - by hawking An Phoblacht in the pubs and clubs throughout Ireland - that much I know.

Earl, I get what you are saying, and yes the Libyan government are/were the terrorists but the broader population lived in a state of fear and repression carried out by a ruthless secret police - a situation that exists in most Muslim states today. Speak out and you're dead. So, it took huge courage to rebel as they are and as such they have my admiration and support.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Chouan said:


> "The Troubles" were a result of the failure of Civil Rights, not an attempt to force the British Government into talks.


I didn't say that - but the end result was that both sides recognized the violence was going nowhere so diplomatic discussion was the only way forward. It took so much death and destruction for both sides to realize that.... And one of those sides was the British Government who from the outset shoulder most of the blame for the situation persisting in the first place.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> I didn't say that - but the end result was that both sides recognized the violence was going nowhere so diplomatic discussion was the only way forward. It took so much death and destruction for both sides to realize that.... And one of those sides was the British Government who from the outset shoulder most of the blame for the situation persisting in the first place.


I'd always thought that they were in favour of democracy and self-determination, which was why they stepped in to protect the Catholic minority in N.Ireland. N.Ireland exists through the self-determination of the Loyalist majority in that area. Rather like the UK's recognition of self-determination in Scotland and Wales, on a democratic basis. The Prods in the North, who were an overwhelming majority, wanted to stay British. Why should Britain have denied them their democratic right of self-determination because a Nationalist minority in N.Ireland, and a Nationalist majority in the rest of Ireland wanted N.Ireland as part of the Free State, later the Republic?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Yes, I did, in Harlow in Essex. Also in Liverpool.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Did they? Did you ever see that? My father witnessed it firsthand in Glasgow. But I was a regular at several Irish clubs and pubs for many years and never once saw that.Not once!
> 
> My cousin Liam on the other hand, was in Boston one year with an Irish play about navvies and the accompanying folk group from Dublin. Performing at an Oirish pub one night and the inevitable tin came round at the end of the evening collecting for "the boys across the water!" To a man,the band and the players told them to shove their tin as they wouldn't donate money for weapons to kill people in their own country. The yanks didn't like that, but then again the yanks have always had a fairytale, Brigadoon notion of Ireland anyway and know next to nothing about the true nature of The Troubles.


A prominent Glasgow "businessman" who organised work for Irish builders on sites in Glasgow, also organised fundraisers for Sinn Fein and pub collections; he was found dead (by 9mm) on a roadside in a rural area just south of Glasgow after he alledgedly skimmed the cut. Hell mend him.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Yes, I did, in Harlow in Essex. Also in Liverpool.


Yes, that makes sense. The western end of Essex had and still has a very heavy Irish population, including an uncle and aunt of mine, and there three daughters. A lot of them moved out there from the East End and from South London in the 70s, as a result of tenement clearances and redevelopment. Liverpool,well yes, that speaks for itself, as my cousins there and in Dublin call it, "Liverpool the capital of Ireland"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> and yes the Libyan government are/were the terrorists but the broader population lived in a state of fear and repression carried out by a ruthless secret police - a situation that exists in most Muslim states today. Speak out and you're dead. So, it took huge courage to rebel as they are and as such they have my admiration and support.


Absolutely, couldn't agree more. I just wanted to point out generally that it isn't always as black & white as it appears to some.

I'm responding here paritally to what Apatheticviews wrote: "Terrorism is a violent act by an individual or organization (causing terror), intended to adjust the People's views so that political change can occur. *By nature they are not associated with the country (civil region) they operate within,* *but the opposition to it*. *Terrorism sponsored by a government is an act of war.* *It is political action through violence. It is the definition of war."*

That which I've marked in bold I disagree with, as the opposite has been proved on numerous occasions.

In that, quite often, the foreign "terrorist" or "terrorist cell" overseas (e.g. Libyan diplomats), either in active service or in supporting local terrorist groups or opposition militias (e.g. CIA in many countries) is/are foreign secret service agents/teams or diplomats: CIA, Mossad, BOSS, KGB, Libya (as already mentioned) etc.

And as such tend to get away with much more without ever having to account for it.

Example, the SAS murdering 3 unarmed IRA members in Gibraltar was nothing more than govt terrorism in broad daylight sanctioned by the British govt. _"All three were subsequently found to be *unarmed, and without any kind of remote trigger*. Materials for a bomb, including 64 kg of Semtex were later found by the Spanish police in a car in Marbella, 46 miles away in Spain, identified by keys found in Farrell's handbag."_

Fair enough, the SAS prevented another IRA bomb outrage that would probably have wounded and killed a dozen or so(I base that figure on previous IRA car bombs) British soldiers and spectators. BUT murdering people as a preventive measure goes against all British law and is in itself terrorism.

But take it to its logical conclusion, Scenario: SB or MI5 get wind of a small group of militants in London, who've been heard talking about how much better and easier it would be with a new (fill in whatever poltical position you wish here). And that they will demonstrate to that end outside the house of said person. SB or 5 then get a tipoff that a member of said group bought a pistol from some shady character. 
Said group then turn up outside house of that person. And so far the group is just being loud and angry. Included in the group is the member who is said to have bought the pistol. But the pistol has not been seen. Police sniper takes him out as he walks towards the house! That to me would be murder by state terrorism and nothing else! Because the signal it sends to everyone else in the country is "if you play up and do anything we don't like, we'll kill you"

And that is EXACTLY how the IRA and other terrorist groups operated! Govt contractors building army bases in NI, businesses supplying ditto and so on; killed by the IRA for doing things they didn't like, in this case grandly defined by the IRA as "assiting the enemy in time of war".

Terrorism in all forms is disgusting be it the IRA, UDA, the British or US govt, Libyan diplomats, Italian Lodges or the silent consent of a nation or religion or group who turn a blind eye to the terrorism of their countrymen or co-religionists!


----------

