• The closing ceremony for TBT's Farewell to New Leaf event has been posted! View the winning entries and other closing announcements here. Thanks for joining in on the fun and nostalgia. We'll see you this Friday night for the start of our annual Easter Egg Hunt!

opinion on political correctness?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We as a society need to move on and become less racist/sexist over the years, not find more excuses for it.
 
Did you know: the term "racist" has been overused to the point it became meaningless (or almost meaningless). Now when people hear the term "racist", people no longer believe it, as they think they were saying it to be desperate. If you called a storeowner "racist" for denying service to an African-American because of his/her skin (when that was the real reason), then I think your use of the term is justified. However, most of the times it was used, it was only to strip personal power from someone or to object to a norm we were living with, including:

  • A conservative that is winning a debate.
  • Voter ID laws, stand-your-ground laws, guns, and police.
  • Supporting a non-white conservative.
  • Opposing Obama and/or his policies and actions.
  • Punishing a non-white person (such as giving an F for getting more than 40% incorrect answers), even when deserved.

The list can go on and on, and you can see how ridiculous the term is. They also use that term as an excuse for bullying. Under no circumstance is it acceptable to bully anyone. If they are bigots, bullying them doesn't make you any better. If they're not, but you're accusing them of it, then you're the bad guy for accusations and bullying. What's pretty funny is that in the 1800's to the mid 1900's, the liberals were the tolerant ones while the conservatives were intolerant. Today's liberals are much more intolerant than historical conservatives while today's conservatives were at least on the par with historical liberals. Political correctness, safe spaces, trigger warnings, no-platforms, and social justice warriors all prove this point, and there's still more from the left.

Conservatives and liberals are as bad as each other when it comes down to it, they are both intolerant in many different ways to each other and saying things like "Today's liberals are much more intolerant than historical conservatives" is ignorant unless you have valid evidence which you haven't provided, you only have opinions not facts. Each side has bad features to them and it's understandable that you, a conservative, would leave out all the conservative bad sides in modern society because you are biased, which again is completely understandable.
 
Last edited:
Conservatives and liberals are as bad as each other when it comes down to it, they are both intolerant in many different ways to each other and saying things like "Today's liberals are much more intolerant than historical conservatives" is ignorant unless you have valid evidence which you haven't provided, you only have opinions not facts. Each side has bad features to them and it's understandable that you, a conservative, would leave out all the conservative bad sides in modern society because you are biased, which again is completely understandable.

I have to admit, I did make a blanket statement. But I do have to admit that not all liberals do that. But on both sides, the radicals give the whole group a bad name, which makes opponents generalize the whole group and not just the radicals. That's kinda why I have been harsh, but I'm not lost, so I have no disability getting along with liberals.
 
I have to admit, I did make a blanket statement. But I do have to admit that not all liberals do that. But on both sides, the radicals give the whole group a bad name, which makes opponents generalize the whole group and not just the radicals. That's kinda why I have been harsh, but I'm not lost, so I have no disability getting along with liberals.

At least you own up to it unlike some people. c:
I appreciate that, thank you.
 
For your entertainment, I came up with a tier system for coercive political correctness, which measures how ridiculous it is and how severe it gets. There's low, medium, and high. And no, stuff like ban on slurs and stereotypes don't count, because they are literally offensive. Political correctness (like what we were talking about) attacks non-offensive stuff some people find offensive when most don't. Likewise, non-coercive PC (like adding more gay characters to your own story by choice) isn't included in the tier system.

  • Low Tier - Basically language police. Some words (other than racial slurs and stereotypes) are forbidden usage as alternatives are suggested. Some people can even get punished or at least directed to an alternative. Milder cases include changing "Christmas" to "holiday" and changing "BC/AD" to "BCE/CE". The worst cases of this is an attack other words because of one or two definitions or relations to something else, as well as an attack on words that only apply to like 95% to 99% percent of the population and not the other population. An example of that includes NYC's ban on the words "dinosaur", "birthday", "Halloween", "divorce", and "television" on standardized testing.
  • Medium Tier - This is when political correctness starts to go out of control. It's not just language police at an extreme, but also the ban on some stuff because of how easily offended people can get or how not everyone follows the same customs or whatever. For example, a beach officer got fired for calling Trayvon Martin a "thug" (and this was on Facebook while off duty). Also in the same year, some teachers (or school faculty) in Oregon have declared peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to be "racist" because of how in other cultures some don't eat sandwich bread (which meant they were banned from discussion). The most infamous case of this was the suspension of five students for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo in 2010. And this tier of political correctness is more than just that. Censorship of art and literature made prior to 2000 and censorship of history also goes here.
  • High Tier - By this point, it's not even about ridiculous ways to minimize offensiveness for all. This is where double standards and PC discrimination go. The bullying and discrimination of white people, men, Christians, the rich, straight people, and American-born US citizens goes here (which includes portraying them as intolerant without proof). It also includes the bullying and discrimination of non-whites, LGBT, and women that associate with the Republican Party or are at least conservative. People who support PC at this level would be perfectly fine or would encourage it if all the groups I mentioned above were being bullied or discriminated out of hate, but if the same happens to anybody else for any reason, then they would take offense and do crazy things. This is also where no-platforms, safe spaces, and trigger warnings go under. I might even include the whole "cultural appropriation" nonsense under this group.

The Low Tier is only scorned by conservatives, sometimes scorned by moderates. But as I go higher up, it starts to include liberal opponents, not just conservatives and moderates. The High Tier is only supported by far-left Millennials and far-left Gen Z-ers.
You don't have to take the tier system seriously, but this is something I came up with to describe political correctness and how bad it can be.
 
Sorry if the formatting is a little wonky. I'm on my phone and reading the firm between games ok Mario Kart 8.

Firstly, why should anyone respect your opinion if you think respecting others opinions is "bologna"? You need to be willing to extend the olive branch first if you expect the same respect in return. And, again, if you show respect and others don't, take it in stride and be above that.

Secondly what's "trashy" or offensive to you might be hilarious to 10other people. So try not to police what people joke about. If you don't like it, voice your opinion, and if it doesn't stop, remove yourself from the situation.

(Tbh, the formatting looks fine to me!)

I'm not asking for people to respect my opinions, I'm saying that if they don't respect me as a human being that I won't be obligated to extend the same courtesy their way. I don't accept that people have the right to treat me like garbage while I'm expected to shut off my emotions and not hold any negative feelings towards them or else I'm suddenly "the reason why LGBT people are treated badly".

And I agree that people have the right to voice their concerns over needlessly offensive "jokes".
 
ITT: SJW double standards (also commonly known as bull****) being metaphorically executed by logic. Good stuff TBT, you make me proud.

(Tbh, the formatting looks fine to me!)

I'm not asking for people to respect my opinions, I'm saying that if they don't respect me as a human being that I won't be obligated to extend the same courtesy their way.

I may think your arguments and beliefs are completely absurd. And that it takes an impressive amount of mental gymnastics to prevent oneself from accepting said beliefs are inherently hypocritical (also known as cognitive dissonance). But I'll still respect your right to believe it. ;)
 
For your entertainment, I came up with a tier system for coercive political correctness, which measures how ridiculous it is and how severe it gets. There's low, medium, and high. And no, stuff like ban on slurs and stereotypes don't count, because they are literally offensive. Political correctness (like what we were talking about) attacks non-offensive stuff some people find offensive when most don't. Likewise, non-coercive PC (like adding more gay characters to your own story by choice) isn't included in the tier system.

  • Low Tier - Basically language police. Some words (other than racial slurs and stereotypes) are forbidden usage as alternatives are suggested. Some people can even get punished or at least directed to an alternative. Milder cases include changing "Christmas" to "holiday" and changing "BC/AD" to "BCE/CE". The worst cases of this is an attack other words because of one or two definitions or relations to something else, as well as an attack on words that only apply to like 95% to 99% percent of the population and not the other population. An example of that includes NYC's ban on the words "dinosaur", "birthday", "Halloween", "divorce", and "television" on standardized testing.
  • Medium Tier - This is when political correctness starts to go out of control. It's not just language police at an extreme, but also the ban on some stuff because of how easily offended people can get or how not everyone follows the same customs or whatever. For example, a beach officer got fired for calling Trayvon Martin a "thug" (and this was on Facebook while off duty). Also in the same year, some teachers (or school faculty) in Oregon have declared peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to be "racist" because of how in other cultures some don't eat sandwich bread (which meant they were banned from discussion). The most infamous case of this was the suspension of five students for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo in 2010. And this tier of political correctness is more than just that. Censorship of art and literature made prior to 2000 and censorship of history also goes here.
  • High Tier - By this point, it's not even about ridiculous ways to minimize offensiveness for all. This is where double standards and PC discrimination go. The bullying and discrimination of white people, men, Christians, the rich, straight people, and American-born US citizens goes here (which includes portraying them as intolerant without proof). It also includes the bullying and discrimination of non-whites, LGBT, and women that associate with the Republican Party or are at least conservative. People who support PC at this level would be perfectly fine or would encourage it if all the groups I mentioned above were being bullied or discriminated out of hate, but if the same happens to anybody else for any reason, then they would take offense and do crazy things. This is also where no-platforms, safe spaces, and trigger warnings go under. I might even include the whole "cultural appropriation" nonsense under this group.

The Low Tier is only scorned by conservatives, sometimes scorned by moderates. But as I go higher up, it starts to include liberal opponents, not just conservatives and moderates. The High Tier is only supported by far-left Millennials and far-left Gen Z-ers.
You don't have to take the tier system seriously, but this is something I came up with to describe political correctness and how bad it can be.

It has come to my attention that the SJW definition of "triggered" is completely different to the normal definition of 'triggered'.

Being triggered does not mean "being upset" or "being offended" or "being angry," but instead it means "having a significant anxiety attack or strong emotional response via a flashback to survived trauma". Being 'triggered' isn't being upset because you saw the word 'dog' in someone's post, it's hearing or seeing something that causes a flashback (and flashbacks suck). Basically, the only content that should have trigger warnings is explicit/violent content picturing violence, sexual content/sexual abuse or blood and gore. Not the word "Christmas", "food", "dog", "cat", "math(s)", "hexagons", "man", "woman", i.e words that are used in everyday in the English language.
 
It has come to my attention that the SJW definition of "triggered" is completely different to the normal definition of 'triggered'.

Being triggered does not mean "being upset" or "being offended" or "being angry," but instead it means "having a significant anxiety attack or strong emotional response via a flashback to survived trauma". Being 'triggered' isn't being upset because you saw the word 'dog' in someone's post, it's hearing or seeing something that causes a flashback (and flashbacks suck). Basically, the only content that should have trigger warnings is explicit/violent content picturing violence, sexual content/sexual abuse or blood and gore. Not the word "Christmas", "food", "dog", "cat", "math(s)", "hexagons", "man", "woman", i.e words that are used in everyday in the English language.

Literally anything can be a trigger. For instance, Christmas could be a trigger for someone whose loved one died on Christmas, or someone who was assaulted on or near Christmas, or a non-Christian who faced extreme hostility during the season. I'm not saying that all Christmas-related content should come with trigger warnings, but I am saying that triggers aren't always conventional. I remember a post by someone who is triggered by popsicles, clear broth, and jell-o, because those were the only things they were allowed to eat during a very long, unpleasant stay in the hospital. Food can also be a trigger for people with eating disorders, or alcohol can be a trigger for recovering alcoholics, etc.

Also, trigger responses look different in different people. Not everyone has flashbacks. Some people become withdrawn, some get aggressive, some have panic attacks, some fall into depressive episodes, some relapse into harmful habits, and so on.
 
Literally anything can be a trigger. For instance, Christmas could be a trigger for someone whose loved one died on Christmas, or someone who was assaulted on or near Christmas, or a non-Christian who faced extreme hostility during the season. I'm not saying that all Christmas-related content should come with trigger warnings, but I am saying that triggers aren't always conventional. I remember a post by someone who is triggered by popsicles, clear broth, and jell-o, because those were the only things they were allowed to eat during a very long, unpleasant stay in the hospital. Food can also be a trigger for people with eating disorders, or alcohol can be a trigger for recovering alcoholics, etc.

Also, trigger responses look different in different people. Not everyone has flashbacks. Some people become withdrawn, some get aggressive, some have panic attacks, some fall into depressive episodes, some relapse into harmful habits, and so on.

Yes, fair enough. I guess I didn't really think about that writing my response. But the behaviours you've described aren't being triggered.

My main point was that 'triggered' does not mean offended or upset by what someone's said.
uVx4dXt.jpg
I would simply be quoting and trying to lengthen it out, like trying to reach the word count in an essay (by increasing the words for the word count and by adding those words to increase the word count the words make up the word count) so I will just leave it there.

- - - Post Merge - - -

don't know what happened to the size during editing but at least it's readable i suppose (?)
 
Last edited:
When I use the word "trigger", I try to stick to only the strict definition to it, and that would mean "activate" (in terms of switches). If I triggered something, it means I pressed a button or pulled a switch on a machine, causing it to do something (like opening doors or moving parts). Somehow, people distorted that word, making it mean "remind people of a bad time" or "offend". Now it has become one of the worst words in the English language.
 
Last edited:
When I use the word "trigger", I try to stick to only the strict definition to it, and that would mean "activate" (in terms of switches). If I triggered something, it means I pressed a button or pulled a switch on a machine, causing it to do something (like opening doors or moving parts). Somehow, people distorted that word, making it mean "remind people of a bad time" or "offend". Now it has become one of the worst words in the English language.

Yes, I agree. If I use the modern-day definition of the word 'trigger', it's either in a joke (because trigger warnings in front of meaningless words and things are a bit of a joke) or I refer to the ''true'' meaning (having a flashback to a traumatic event). The only time I've ever been 'triggered' is when seeing something gory or depicting rape in a movie. I used to get triggered by self-harm and eating disorder mentions back when I was 12, but I've matured since then.
 
Literally anything can be a trigger. For instance, Christmas could be a trigger for someone whose loved one died on Christmas, or someone who was assaulted on or near Christmas, or a non-Christian who faced extreme hostility during the season. I'm not saying that all Christmas-related content should come with trigger warnings, but I am saying that triggers aren't always conventional. I remember a post by someone who is triggered by popsicles, clear broth, and jell-o, because those were the only things they were allowed to eat during a very long, unpleasant stay in the hospital. Food can also be a trigger for people with eating disorders, or alcohol can be a trigger for recovering alcoholics, etc.

Also, trigger responses look different in different people. Not everyone has flashbacks. Some people become withdrawn, some get aggressive, some have panic attacks, some fall into depressive episodes, some relapse into harmful habits, and so on.

Precisely! Thank you for explaining this often misunderstood reality so well.

I mentioned in my last post in this thread two incidents I've had where something I said inadvertently triggered trauma in someone I was talking to in a social situation. One was due to the anniversary of the birth of their still-born child, and the other was a fairly common word that was used in a particular context which caused a "flashback" episode to a time they were abused. Neither of these were incidents I could have been aware of ahead of time. Thankfully, both times I noticed their distress and was able to help them deal with the situation as effectively as possible. I did nothing wrong, and neither did they - life just happens like that sometimes.

In written form, words and context can be just as triggering. I often use "Trigger warning : ____" when sharing content on Facebook. I share a wide range of things, and as an educator with a strong interest in human rights issues, many of the topics that I link to and talk about can be very distressing for particular people I know. Anything to do with child abuse gets clearly sign-posted, as does animal abuse. Graphic descriptions of violence/injuries et al, photos and videos of a graphic or explicit nature, and the like are also labelled. If the comments of an article have content I know will upset some people, I also mention it.

I use "trigger" warnings to allow people to make their own informed decision about engaging in content I share. With so many friends and acquaintances who come with so much "baggage" (a terrible term IMO) covering everything from murdered loved ones/deceased children/miscarriage/rape/sexual assualt/incest/sustained child abuse/self harm including suicide attempts/PTSD from war, any of the above traumas, other causes such as car accidents, armed robberies, and on and on and on.. I personally feel it would be incredibly rude of me to disregard that knowledge I have and just kinda hope that noone "takes" offence*.

I appreciate people warning me about similar content so that I can choose when I engage with it. A link that looks nice and easy yet actually talks graphically about child abuse is absolutely NOT something I want to read before going to bed, or when I've had a bad day at work.

This is the same way the schools and universaties I know "warn" about things that might seriously distress people, whether it's labelled a "trigger warning" or not - not to censor content, or provide an "opt out" clause, but to allow individuals to prepare themselves and/or engage with the content at a time of their choosing. For example : detailed historical accounts, including graphic photos and videos, of experiments conducted on children were covered in one of my required classes in my children's services : education and care diploma course. The course paperwork noted this content and it's scope, as well as the purpose for it's inclusion in the course. An advisory note was included on the class timetable as well as the summary of assessments. Additional time with our teacher was allocated after the classes spent on this in order to "debrief". Knowing in advance about the content as well as seeing the thought and care that went into providing it allowed us to get the most out of the experience as students. No "shock tactics" necessary, no feeling of being blindsided, no distraction from engaging with the actual content.

I fail to see how this approach is a *bad* thing. Done poorly - as with anything - it can cause problems. I'm not personally aware of any use of trigger or advisory warnings (you know, like the ones at the start of movies on tv? Or messages before certain scenes in all kinds of tv shows/videos warning that "if ___ you may like to look away..) IRL that actively hindered rather than helped. I'm sure examples exist, but they are not at all the norm at least where I live. Given my personal experience with trigger warnings, I'm at a loss to understand the amount of ridicule they receive.

* A misnomer - feeling offended is a reaction, something that happens to you, not something you *cause*. Inapproprate or distressing reactions can certainly be worked upon, and even controlled to an extent with a great deal of time and assistance. But a visceral reaction is literally as unstoppable a bodily response as blinking, swallowing, or breathing are in a healthy body.
 
When I use the word "trigger", I try to stick to only the strict definition to it, and that would mean "activate" (in terms of switches). If I triggered something, it means I pressed a button or pulled a switch on a machine, causing it to do something (like opening doors or moving parts). Somehow, people distorted that word, making it mean "remind people of a bad time" or "offend". Now it has become one of the worst words in the English language.

Your "strict" definition is not wholly accurate according to at least two highly regarded dictionaries :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trigger

2 trigger verb trig?ger
triggered; triggering \ˈtri-g(ə-)riŋ\
transitive verb
1
a : to release or activate by means of a trigger; especially : to fire by pulling a mechanical trigger trigger a rifle
b : to cause the explosion of trigger a missile with a proximity fuse
2
: to initiate, actuate, or set off by a trigger an indiscreet remark that triggered a fight a stimulus that triggered a reflex

intransitive verb
: to release a mechanical trigger

---

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trigger

trigger noun UK ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ər/ US ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ɚ/
Note : [C] = Countable noun: a noun that has a plural.

- [ C ] a part of a gun that causes the gun to fire when pressed:
"It's not clear who actually pulled the trigger"
-[ C usually singular ] an event or situation, etc. that causes something to start:
"There are fears that the incident may be a trigger for more violence in the capital."
- specialized psychology [ C usually singular ] something that causes someone to feel upset and frightened because they are made to remember something bad that has happened in the past:
A trigger is something that sets off a flashback, transporting the person back to the traumatic event.


trigger verb [ T ] UK ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ər/ US ​ /ˈtrɪɡ.ɚ/
Note : [T] Transitive verb: a verb that has an object.

- to cause something to start:
"Some people find that certain foods trigger their headaches."
"Ultraviolet-B radiation triggers the skin to produce vitamin D."
"The racial killings at the weekend have triggered off a wave of protests."
 
I think it can be good in certain situations but people have taking it way over the top these days. Yes, obviously people have had different experiences therefore will and will not be offended at certain things. If you know that someone doesn't like particular topic or whatever, just don't talk about it around them and have respect for that. If you can't help yourself, avoid them. That's the thing, not everyone has the same views and not everyone will get along. But that doesn't mean someone with the opposite views to you doesn't deserve respect.

That being said, you can't expect special treatment over extremely minor things.
 
Last edited:
If you can't take a joke then you're a bit of a boring **** lmao
However, I do understand that some jokes do go a bit far but I've never seen or heard one that's actually offended me so
 
Last edited:
You're not allowed to call them dinosaurs any more. It's speciesist. You have to call them pre-petroleum persons.
 
You're not allowed to call them dinosaurs any more. It's speciesist. You have to call them pre-petroleum persons.

If you want to know why the word "dinosaur" was banned on the NYC standardized testing, they did it because it was a subtle reference to evolution. Basically, the NYC standardized testing was banning some words because of a controversy it relates to or because of one definition they object to, or whatever. It can take one bad context or one controversy to completely taint a word.

Here are the reasons some everyday words mentioned were banned by NYC standardized testing:

  • Dinosaur - reference to evolution, a heavily controversial subject.
  • Halloween - reference to Paganism.
  • Birthday - Jehovah's witnesses are not allowed to celebrate birthdays according to their religion.
  • Religion - you probably know why this one got banned.
  • Alien - reference to immigration (yes, I'm referring to space creatures).
  • Divorce - may offend somebody who had a traumatic experience.
  • Television - people watch it excessively.

They banned more, but what I find more ridiculous on their banning of these words is why they do it (at least to some). The birthday part is a perfect example of how it takes a very small minority to completely ruin a word under political correctness. Just like what I said in my very post in this thread, just because someone can't do something or doesn't do something doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to talk about it. The Bible doesn't allow Christians to work on Sundays. But we do allow them to work on Sundays. Jews aren't allowed to eat beef with cheese, but schools still served hamburgers with cheese. Atheists don't follow any religious beliefs, but we still talk about religion in schools. If all these cases are true, then why aren't we allowed to talk about birthdays if Jehovah's witnesses can't celebrate them? The case for dinosaurs, they banned it because of a subtle reference to evolution. If you're gonna test students over something, don't be afraid to bring out controversies or controversial subjects. But they just not only try to steer clear of controversies, they take it to the extreme. One context should not ruin a whole word, and one small group should not affect the whole. The television one is very ridiculous too.

And all of this happened before political correctness got worse.
 
I suppose people just think it's easier to be offended by something than to put on their big boy boots and live with it.



Oh wait, I said "boy". Does that make me a sexist jerk?
 
-- snip --
Basically, the NYC standardized testing was banning some words because of a controversy it relates to or because of one definition they object to, or whatever. It can take one bad context or one controversy to completely taint a word.

Here are the reasons some everyday words mentioned were banned by NYC standardized testing:

-- snip --

And all of this happened before political correctness got worse.

How bizarre. I found a source here https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...0/gIQANuqJkS_blog.html?utm_term=.bf2204f11bc0 and that is just a ludicrous set of words and even more confusing reasons given.

I'm not sure how much has really changed regarding "political correctness" between 2012 and now. In five years a lot has changed but **** like this has been happening for as long as people have had the capacity to dictate what other's may do. As one of the comments below the article explains, they were subjected to a ridiculous level of "censorship for their own good" in the US in the 1950s.

I am completely against standardised testing as an educator. The bureaucratic processes involved almost universally limit the input and knowledge of actual teachers and best practices (which are drawn from sound scientific knowledge and research) in favour of ... whatever the relevant committee (frequently an appointed board with sub-par levels of knowledge in the education field) *thinks* is important, whilst simultaneously awarding huge contracts to "education" businesses that make billions of the fatally flawed "testing culture" that thrives despite the appalling lack of ROI (return on investment).

No teacher I know would support a censorship list like this. A list of words to be used with caution in the classroom, yes. But barring profanity and actual "hate speech", all words should be allowed in the classroom depending on age and developmental stage. As they generally are in my part of the world.

Perhaps the issue is less to do with so-called political correctness than it is to do with sub-par planning and oversight going into education in this instance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top