Majority of Canadians say political correctness has “gone too far”

[Atrea]

People are saying that concept has gone way too damn far, become way too damn extreme, and they're sick of it.

And there's nothing wrong with people expecting and demanding that PCism be reasonable.


-US city councils and school boards forcing employees/teachers to strip the word "man" from any word in an effort to be "tolerant" of other genders (all 17 of them at last count).

-A UK council banned the term "brainstorming" and replaced it with "thought showers" because they didn't want to offend epileptics.

-Banning stores, schools, and city workers from saying "Merry Christmas" ...on Christmas.

-California school administrators suspending students for wearing American flag t-shrits on Cinco de Mayo.

-Missouri State Fair rodeo clown fired and banned from performing in State venues for wearing a Barack Obama mask. All other clowns forced to take "sensitivity training" or be fired as well.

-Government workers in Seattle have been told that they should no longer use the words “citizen” and “brown bag” because they are potentially offensive.

-An entire Columbus High School relay team suspended from the days events becuase one of the runners made a "gesture of thanks to God" as he crossed the finish line.

-A student at Sonoma State University was ordered under threat of suspension to take off a cross that she was wearing because someone “could be offended“.

-A US Army handbook for soldiers deployed to the ME contains instructions on how not to criticize pedophilia because it can be considered also as criticism of Islam.

-FBI, DOJ, and DOD spend tens of thousands of man hours and countless dollars purging decades old records of any language which links terrorism and Islam in any way shape or form.

This is intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

You've listed a few isolated cases (without sources, and without context, I might add) where on first glance, it looks like things may have been taken a little too far. Interestingly enough, this is the same logic that pro-gun advocates argue against; that a few isolated incidents are not enough to paint an entire group/movement/whatever in a negative light.

You can't have it both ways.

Either, isolated incidents are indicative of the larger group as a whole, or they are not, and you are simply contradicting your own established logic because it is convenient for you to do so (mostly because it confirms your pre-existing opinions, rather than challenging them.)

Which is it?

[Narwal]

There is no "PC crowd".

What you folks want to label as being "politically correct" is what everyone else calls "not deliberately being a dick". It's the same thing, you just wanted to attach a label to it for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct), commonly abbreviated to PC,[1] is a term that, in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society

That's it. Not saying things that are intended to offend people. That's "political correctness". Which means if you're against it, you're in favor of deliberately offending people for no real reason.

Blame yourselves for deciding that "being a dick" was a virtue you wanted to defend.

I see you threw in the word, intent. Which is interesting. Is a school that builds a boys room and a girls room intending to be offensive to a child who isn't sure what gender they are? The fact is that if being offended is the symptom PC is trying to fix, then anything any group of people deem to be offensive can be the target of political correctness. So really, what you're showing is how PC has morphed over time. It was intended to stop deliberately offensive material, agreeable by a majority. The measurement for what is offensive has been shifting very far from what "most" normal people deem necessary. Just ask Canadians.

[Atrea]

A cooperate policy of not meeting with you competitors - and calling your boss a dickhead in an "overheard conversation - are not in any way, shape, or form ever REMOTELY comparable. Like I said, stop using stupid examples to try to make your claim.

As to your "absoluteness" regarding right-to-work - do you REALLY think that an African-American that has been just randomly and wantonly fired from a job, and HE perceives it to be strictly due to racial bias, he has absolutely NO recourse against that employer?

He would have to demonstrate it somehow, or the courts wouldn't entertain the case.

If he just got fired and thought "it might be because I'm black", but couldn't demonstrate it in any way, shape or form, he wouldn't get past the application process.

[Sama-81]

I have to say that I'm amazed that some people seem to think that there is no basis for the term 'PC', or that it just entails "not being a dick". It would be hilarious, really, if it wasn't so sad. You guys should start with visiting Scandinavia - whoever holds the same opinion after that, as a general truth, has to be outright mentally impaired. And that isn't even an exaggeration, nor an insult, but an apt description...whether it's a serious issue or not in whichever place a random poster is from, is of course another issue, but denying that there is such a thing as PC and that it at times is outright damaging to society, would be utterly stupid as it is a question of simple facts, not opinions. Rather similar to concepts such as nationalism in that sense - might certainly be good, can definitely go way overboard and start being destructive.

[Deleted]

Considering you were JUST provided with a link from the Government of Virginia website that contradicts everything you just said, I'm just going to excuse myself from continuing this conversation with you.

I WORK in Virginia - I KNOW what my State's laws are. I also know what the fucking INTENT of the law is - not a back and white obtuse interpretation by a Canadian.

[TrumpIsPresident]

This is intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

You've listed a few isolated cases (without sources, and without context, I might add) where on first glance, it looks like things may have been taken a little too far. Interestingly enough, this is the same logic that pro-gun advocates argue against; that a few isolated incidents are not enough to paint an entire group/movement/whatever in a negative light.

You can't have it both ways.

Either, isolated incidents are indicative of the larger group as a whole, or they are not, and you are simply contradicting your own established logic because it is convenient for you to do so (mostly because it confirms your pre-existing opinions, rather than challenging them.)

Which is it?

I didn't list a few I listed 10 and you can Google PCism and witness a million more.

You want to ignore the reality of the matter go right ahead.

You want to assume anybody recognizing it is "intellectually dishonest" go right ahead.

But the thread/poll was not "should we stop being PC" it was "has PCism gone too far" and the vast majority of people are saying that YES ...YES it has.

PCism, SJWism, human shielding, identity blankets, safe spaces ...its all the same infection and its all got to go.

[Deleted]

He would have to demonstrate it somehow, or the courts wouldn't entertain the case.

If he just got fired and thought "it might be because I'm black", but couldn't demonstrate it in any way, shape or form, he wouldn't get past the application process.

So you admit that if he COULD prove it, then he would have a case? So, what you are saying is that YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING wrong?

Stick to Canada. Go get a doughnut at Tim Horton's with Endus and pat yourself on the back for not knowing what the fuck you are talking about.

[Narwal]

This is intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

You've listed a few isolated cases (without sources, and without context, I might add) where on first glance, it looks like things may have been taken a little too far. Interestingly enough, this is the same logic that pro-gun advocates argue against; that a few isolated incidents are not enough to paint an entire group/movement/whatever in a negative light.

You can't have it both ways.

Either, isolated incidents are indicative of the larger group as a whole, or they are not, and you are simply contradicting your own established logic because it is convenient for you to do so (mostly because it confirms your pre-existing opinions, rather than challenging them.)

Which is it?

Isolated cases are what set precedent for the future. When it comes to the things that govern us, you have two choices, you error on the side of being over-regulated or on the side of more freedom.

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

[Endus]

A cooperate policy of not meeting with you competitors - and calling your boss a dickhead in an "overheard conversation - are not in any way, shape, or form ever REMOTELY comparable. Like I said, stop using stupid examples to try to make your claim.

There's entirely comparable.

The issue is that you're operating under a whole host of false impressions regarding how companies are restricted in firing employees (or rather, are not). Your behaviour while off the clock is absolutely always relevant. Even in states that require cause (as long as that behaviour counts as such, of course, but breaking company policy absolutely counts).

With professional associations, you're beholden to those policies 24/7/365 to begin with. A lawyer has to abide by his profession's code of ethics at all times, not just when he's on the job. Engaging in a friendly poker game for nickel bets with friends can get you disbarred for life, if you're working in a State that has laws against gambling.

As to your "absoluteness" regarding right-to-work - do you REALLY think that an African-American that has been just randomly and wantonly fired from a job, and HE perceives it to be strictly due to racial bias, he has absolutely NO recourse against that employer?

Yes, absolutely none. The ONLY recourse he COULD have is if he had actual, solid proof that the cause of his firing was racially motivated.

Which basically requires his employer to admit that, or (as usually happens) being able to disprove all the actual justifications they present, such as if they claim you took too much time off, when you had no sick days or vacation time taken, or the like.

But yes; if you fire an employee who happens to be African-American because "he's wearing a red shirt on a Tuesday", then in an at-will employment state, that employee has no recourse, not unless he can show he wasn't wearing a red shirt on the Tuesday in question.

[AlmostLancelot]

All "political correctness" is, is "deciding not to be a dick to people". That's it.

I really don't see how being pro-dickery is a defensible stance. Sure, you're "saying what you want", but that just means you're being a dick to people. I don't see why anyone should be proud of that.

15 years ago that might have been true.

It certainly has evolved past the point of it being that simplistic now. If you honestly think that all PC is, is "not being a dick" to other individuals you might want to take some time off and actually educate yourself. Your view on this subject is out of date and incorrect.

[Damajin]

What hoops and requirements?

Awareness of the identifying particulars of their segment of humanity, acceptance and acknowledgement of the veracity of it and oftentimes willingness to both support and advance it through your own efforts, though this last bit here is more typical of ideologues than most general PC people, thankfully. It still makes you subject to either being an oppressive neanderthal for not accepting and acknowledging their veracity or just a blanket ignorant for not being up to speed with the random identifiers and criteria by which these people choose to be known by and demand that others act in accordance with around them.

Altogether pretty stupid, as most people aren't interested in getting that indepth with most random people they only barely or casually know. If they're someone you regularly spend time with in any formal or informal setting it's one thing, but anymore these type of antics are popping up at the grocery store, mall or any other place where your time of interaction is a few minutes at best or you frankly just don't accept in theory or practice whatever it is they're about and then que the perjoratives.

In general you can treat people quite nicely with just treating them as a human being alone and we see too many examples far too regularly of 'gotcha' moments where these PC people get upset because they're not singled out and praised and accepted for that particular thing they are and really it's bullshit.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

There is not much that can be done about those who are looking to be offended. Other than address their concerns and moving on.

Its more this. This is just my opinion, but it seems like there are more people looking to be offended trying to weasel in under the PC blanket or simply throwing the term PC out there in their defense even though its not really applicable. What its doing is tainting the term PC, which is not ok, and sparking anti-PC backlash of people "speaking their mind", which is really not ok.

[Damajin]

see this is just like the SJW thing - you're taking a term that has an established definition and then trying to pretend like it only applies to "the left" because it makes it easier to be ragingly hypocritical about the extent to which the behavior you're supposedly railing against (namely the suppression of speech and free expression by people who are pussies and too easily offended) is happening vastly more on your side of the moral/cultural spectrum.


people of a culturally conservative ideology want to pretend that only applies to bitches, niggers, and faggots because it allows them to have yet another excuse to whine about bitches, niggers, and faggots.
the truth is that the crusade to squash speech is predominantly being waged by conservative forces, and none of you anti-PC whiners seem willing to recognize that.

First off, those 'right wing' people looking to quash speech aren't conservative, though they'd certainly apply that label to themselves inappropriately. Authoritarians are the type to both self censor and censor others, not true to form conservatives.

Secondly what I said was accurate as almost the entire platform of the left is based around social issues and identity at the moment, which is ultimately where the problem for those people on the right too stupid to avoid getting entangled in the eternal tug or war that social issues provide we end up with these culture wars and back and form stigmatization.

Moreover as to your definition it's pretty easy for those 'groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against' to in essence do the same thing to those people who are against them, through the social pressures to comply with the PC language/culture or be labeled a bigot/sexist/whatever. It's frankly amusing to me that people who scream about being oppressed are more than willing to turn around and do it to others as long as it's getting back at them for their perceived slights against their group.

People have long forgotten the axioms 'the bigger man walks away' and 'the wolf doesn't care what the sheep think about it' and thus we have today this conflict of tension that is well suited to power players to use and take advantage of for their own end, and as we sometimes see you can find examples of those people inside those very groups of 'socially disadvantaged or discriminated against' persons.

[Anastacy]

Using the words "dick", "dickhead", et al. as derogatory and insulting slang is offensive (much like the word "bitch").

Please, be PC and stop using such sexist terminology.

[Tradewind]

Political correctness as an ideal is not necessarily a bad thing. It's one of those things that helps people not get punched in the face for saying silly shit to people. It helps us get along in groups with all sorts of people and getting the job done without it turning into a mess. At its best it keeps people minding their P's and Q's.

However, political correctness becomes a problem when it starts to divide people based on identities. PC'ness goes too far when equality is increasingly confused and attributed with equity. PC'ness goes too far when it demands special treatment and legal treatment for people who feel historically wronged. PC'ness goes too far when it deems that issues cannot be part of public discourse, a major and important facet of democracy, because people are too quick to judge and dismiss those who are critical simply because their viewpoints are divergent, instead we get "safe spaces" or people get branded as a bigot or whatever the "word a la mode" is for the situation. PC'ness has fostered a reality where people talk at each other, instead of talking to them. When an emphasis on merely "minding your p's and q's" becomes thought policing instead, pushing censorship and an agenda. PC'ness is a problem when it fosters this fuckin' retarded notion that you can somehow beat racism with more racism. PC'ness goes too far when someone believes that "I'm offended" is some catch-all trump card for every circumstance.

[hrugner]

Yikes, some of you folk should really read something other than wikipedia to find out about "at-will" employment in the US.

http://bcgattorneys.com/protected-sp...-the-employer/

“federal law gives a union license to use intemperate, abusive or insulting language without fear of restraint or penalty if it believes such rhetoric to be an effective means to make its point.” In Springfield Library, the NLRB also held that it is the employer’s burden to show “that the words were published with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false.”

I don't know man, we need quite a bit more info than "called boss dickhead outside of work" to determine whether or not he has recourse in an "at-will" employment situation. That aside, "at-will" employment is also easily removed through contractual agreements, even verbal and unofficial ones. Also our black man in a red shirt on Tuesday only needs to show that wearing a red shirt on tuesday isn't being universally enforced, not that he was singled out specifically for being black. The employer would be better off giving no reason than some shitty reason.

This link is pretty thorough.
http://www.americanbar.org/publicati...er-cooler.html

essentially, we have insufficient information.

[Deleted]

Trump is mentioned heavily in the OP....I thought this was about Canada?

[oplawlz]

This is an old and silly argument. While it is true that one can be, theoretically, offended by anything, there are some actions that are considered offensive by the vast majority of people, and then there are actions that don't have offensive function in the culture. Typing something on an online forum is not considered offensive in this culture; saying, "Black people are morons", however, is.

When you can express something in a polite manner, as opposed to a jerky manner, it is usually a good idea to choose this option. That's basically what PC is about: you can talk about anything, but you should do it with decency.

So I have several issues with your overall argument, but for the sake of avoiding circularity I'll just say this: whether society steps in should always depend on the intent of the speaker or action, rather than the feelings of whatever random person decided something was offensive that day. No, intent is not always clear, but grey areas should always favor freedom of expression over oppressive moral policing.

[Deleted]

All "political correctness" is, is "deciding not to be a dick to people". That's it.

I really don't see how being pro-dickery is a defensible stance. Sure, you're "saying what you want", but that just means you're being a dick to people. I don't see why anyone should be proud of that.

Your point of view is flawed for one simple reason:
PC has become nothing more than a tool for minority to bludgeon anyone and anything that doesn't revolve around their point of view, kind of like organised religion.
Whatever good intentions it may have started from, the PC movement has been hijacked by lunatics to the point that nobody can take it seriously anymore.

[jimboa24]

There is no "PC crowd".

What you folks want to label as being "politically correct" is what everyone else calls "not deliberately being a dick". It's the same thing, you just wanted to attach a label to it for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct), commonly abbreviated to PC,[1] is a term that, in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society

That's it. Not saying things that are intended to offend people. That's "political correctness". Which means if you're against it, you're in favor of deliberately offending people for no real reason.

Blame yourselves for deciding that "being a dick" was a virtue you wanted to defend.

It's a dumb question, and a pointless one, then.

Whether or not someone takes offense is obviously subjective, but that doesn't really make any kind of argument.

No matter what you say, there is somebody somewhere who will find it offensive. You can't censor every damn thing that comes out of your mouth out of fear that someone will take offense somewhere. That discourages free discourse and is pretty much the antithesis of free speech.

Most revolutionary things that changed the way we think and feel were by definition controversial or offensive to some people. If you're going to make a change or an impact in society, somebody is going to become very offended by what you do and take issue with it. Does that mean we call off change and freedom? That's it everybody, everyone keep your mouths shut, we don't want to offend anyone or change anyone's minds about anything. Just play nice, keep quiet, keep your head down, live a quiet and non-offensive life for your entire life and then die in quiet dignity?

Yeah, fuck that. Being offended is not an inherently bad thing. If you're doing something wrong, and someone calls you on it, you're probably going to be offended. That doesn't mean that someone shouldn't call you on it. And just because someone finds your political or religious beliefs offensive, that doesn't mean that you should keep your mouth shut. Offending someone does not make you a dick. It means you believe or said something or did something someone takes issue with.

It's what we do with a knee-jerk reaction like being offended by something that determines if the whole thing was or wasn't positive, negative or neutral.

By the way, there IS a PC Crowd. They're the guys who are so obsessed with being so inoffensive that they insist on making discourse so neutral, bland, inoffensive and worthless that it becomes pointless.