Subject:
|
Re: Does Political Correctness Kill?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:57:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
326 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Speaking of flakey, since we were, indeed, speaking of flakey writers...
Thanks! I do get a warm fuzzy when you display your innate friendliness that
way. :-)
> Too much evil? In the UK? In Germany today? Okay then...
Is this your way of claiming those nations score a perfect '10' on the human
rights-o-meter?
> I know that Israel has a little skirmish going on right now and they are not
> looking too good about it, and the Arabs are 'notorious' for being 'evil',
All societies bear some of what I was calling evil. I think that most of them
do what they can to discourage what they understand to be evil. But no one is
perfect. Not historically and not today...at least as far as I am aware. Some
cultures (or nations) do not recognize all evil and some do not know how to
combat it. Some tolerate some evil because of other gains and the balance
seems to make sense to them.
But, we as consumers (individually or en masse) are responsible for the actions
of those we fund. I am uncomfortable with the degree to which China hurts her
people given how close we are comercially. I wonder if my TV (or whatever) was
put together by slaves...What have I done? If we are to be concerned with
these issues, then one must develop some form of criteria for assessing good
and evil (rephrased however you'd like).
> but hey you with the plank in your eye, wanna remove it before you go
> calling other countries 'evil'?
If you were familiar with my history of posts you would know that I am fully
aware the the US engages in evil activities way more often than I like. And
when I see it, I call it. Does the fact that I fund a sometimes evil entity
mean that I have no right to see evil elsewhere?
To more directly answer your question, yes and no. _Yes,_ I would like to
clean up our act, but _no_ I won't wait for that to be done completely before I
call a spade a spade. I'm not sure why that would make you uncomfortable.
> The article from Larry's post was an editorial, where the writer gets to go
> on, making points as he sees fit.
So? So was my note, right?
> It wasn't a 'News' article, it was him
> blowing off some creative steam, bringing together a variety of points that,
> again, imho, deserve looking at with his specific slant.
I agree. In my note I called his action "connecting the dots." There was
definately something to be complained about, but the complaints don't lead me
to racism as it did him.
> Sure you can
> rearrange the points again to make a completely different point i.e. it was
> racist against people who are Jews and/or have been to Israel, but he chose
> to go in his direction.
I don't follow. I didn't rearrage his points, I merely corrected his mistake.
> Was his thesis correct? It doesn't matter--it's an Editorial.
I'd say you're wrong. The rectitude of any published stance is a valid topic
of discussion. If it doesn't matter that he made mistakes (and possibly
fabricated) that could lead readers into divisive racist conclusions, then what
does? And if his wrongness doesn't matter, what's your beef with me? Don't I
get the same slack he does?
> > But I think that making it harder to export our values to members of those
> > cultures is a bad(!) idea.
>
> Oh this is something I've mentioned before, 'If only the rest of the world
> believed what we do, there would be no problem...' i.e. our values are
> somehow better than theirs, that what we believe is closer to what's right.
But that's not really what I said. I think that channels of information
flowing from culture to culture are a good thing so that in the marketplace of
ideas, the cream can rise to the top. When an idea originates somewhere, and
it works for the locals, why shouldn't the idea find a home outside the
original venue?
> Well, I will reiterate *my* personal stance on this--I don't want to pursue
> 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of the American dream' thank you very much.
> I am quite content being Canadian, and spelling colour properly.
So? Did you somehow take from my note that I have a problem with Canada? And
anyway, you and I share an almost identical culture on the whole.
> > Security mustn't come at the cost of righteousness.
>
> Yeah, self righteous ideas that we are somehow better than the rest of the
> world.
What's your problem?
> I'd say that security must not come at the cost of Justice, which is what I
> read between the lines of the article.
How exactly do you take that from the article? I mean...he basically comes out
and suggests that we be racist...not just.
And out of curiosity, what does justice mean to you? I find that people have
pretty varried notions of what justice means, but all assume they agree.
> Forget that they were 'Arabs' on the
> plane with James Woods. Forget that they were 'Arabs' taking the flying
> lessons, forget all that stuff. In your mind put the *race* aside.
In _my_ mind race is set aside. But in the author's he thinks that race (or at
least national origin) should be a criterion of entrance. I would rather
people be let in willy nilly, or locked out willy nilly, or individually
scrutinized before admission.
> Now, connect the dots--4 people were noted on a plane behaving
> 'suspiciously'. Some of these people were also taking flying lessons. The
> FBI obviously had all this information. However, due to Political
> Correctness', no one was willing to do something about it.
Prove it! You are asserting something that is not a known fact. Show me that
Political Correctness was the reason. If you can't do so, then why are you
saying that?
> Go after the *person*, bring the person to justice. Don't go after 'racer,
> don't fall into the white elephant 'racial profiling'. Look at the
> facts--people were acting suspiciously. Check their bank accounts, check
> their visas, check whatever you have to.
But I agree. In fact, it seems we agree on almost everything having to do with
this topic.
> If the RCMP or the police came to my
> door and started questioning me, I would answer ot the best of my ability--I
> wouldn't jump to the conclusion that me and my race are being singled out.
I am a very white male who has lived in the US for most of my life. I rarely
think that I'm being racially discriminated against either. But that's
probably because there is no precident. If I belonged to a group that had
suffered considerable hardship...and continued to do so, I'm sure I would want
to identify when it was happening. I have had very close friends that were
black, homosexual, transgendered, and Latino and I can assure you that they
were all discriminated against in my presense by authority figures.
I'm trying to point out that for some of us (and I don't know anything about
you) it is easy to dismiss the specter of discrimination, but for those who
have suffered from it, it is harder.
> It's part of living in a Just society. It's part of Community Responsibility.
Is it inconceivable to you that your police might be questioning you
inappropriately? I've been hassled by cops more than I've been visibly helped
by them. It is easy to assume that they're up to no good, but I remind myself
that they might be OK. I would consider the big picture before answering the
questions of law enforcers.
> It's part of taking care of my neighbour, as well as myself. I'm noticing
> more and more that people who whine about racial discrimination seem to
> approach it as 'How does this affect me?
I don't know if you think I'm whining about it, but it doesn't affect me at
all. I just think it's evil.
> We have to look out for one another. We have to take care of one another.
> We have to make sure that our neighbours can sleep safe at night, that they
> can work in a safe environment, and that, for the love of all things right,
> they don't have to worry about getting blown up.
And still, we agree. Again and again, we agree. But the tone of your note
suggests that you take pretty serious exception to what I wrote. I don't get
it.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does Political Correctness Kill?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <big snip> (...) Speaking of flakey, since we were, indeed, speaking of flakey writers... Too much evil? In the UK? In Germany today? Okay then... I know that Israel has a little skirmish (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
