Political Correctness?

I feel I have to define political correctness before we move along in this post.  This definition comes straight off a Google search.

po·lit·i·cal·ly cor·rect

pəˈlitik(ə)lē/

adjective

adjective: politically correct; adjective: politically incorrect; adjective: incorrect

1. 1.

   exhibiting (or failing to exhibit) political correctness.

   "it is not politically correct to laugh at speech impediments"

   synonyms:

   unoffensive, nondiscriminatory, unbiased, neutral, appropriate, nonpartisan; More informalPC "the true meaning may be clouded by his politically correct language"

   antonyms:

   offensive

With that out of the way we can see how this is effecting society in a broader sense.

Most likely you have heard of the Duck Dynasty controversy where some comments made during an interview with GQ magazine we declared to be homophobic and  not politically correct.
So you say what could it be so bad that multiple gay rights groups started hating on Phil Robertson the patriarch of the family.  We I'll have to quote directly.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2oK9T9Z9E

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2oKIC5PpW

The article has some odd course language in it that come from the writer.  I'm not sure it was necessary in reality.

So we see some over the top comments here.  Things that could potentially offend people.  But, here is the problem with political correctness.  Some times if you call the kettle black you get lambasted for doing so.  The other issue with political correctness is that depending on the source it is OK, and at other times it is not.  There is a definite double standard on comments in the political correctness arena.   "the good is called bad, and the bad called good".

The worst is how he quotes scriptures loosely (no specific scriptural reference is given in the article) and gets attacked for it.  The part that is hardest to understand is

Here is a good way to sum up what the political correctness thing is doing to society.





"In other words, A & E—like ESPN/ABC before them—believes that their "Duck Dynasty" audience is outraged, disgusted, or whatever by Phil the duck guy, and that enough of this audience would change the channel if Phill stayed on that A & E would lose money. Is A & E correct in this belief? Time will tell. - OldCoyote"

Read More http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2013/12/readers-react-to-gqs-duck-dynasty-story-and-phil-robertsons-indefinite-suspension.html#ixzz2oKRdzk00

See there is fear here.  People do not feel free to voice their opinion out of fear someone will call them insensitive, bigoted, homophobic or racist.  The whole freedom of speech (within limits) has been thrown out the window.  Feelings or perceived feelings are more important then reality.

At what point can we just get pasted the issue of your comments are going to offend someone and there is nothing that can be done about it.  Each little one percent minority group (sexual, racial, economic, etc) can't have everyone skewered and hung out to dry for every little comment.
NO I do think the line has to be drawn when one is inciting violence or the like.

Now some may argue that if this type of political correctness was in place in Nazi Germany then we would likely not have ended up with the holocaust the way we did.  Hard to say since that would be rewriting history.  Censoring ones comments in public also does not fix ones real at home or private opinions and actions.

It really does get hard to have a minority portion of the population push their views on the rest of society.    We have to stop this "whom ever yells/complains the loudest wins" type of situation.
Tolerance has to go both ways.  it is like a two way street.  Unfortunately a bicycle is plugging things up and making people turn around because they are being inconvenienced.  We have to stop that and get our heads out of the clouds.  We have to put things in to more black and white terms.  To clear up the murkiness that comes with political correctness, with redefining things to your benefit.

"But one thing is certain: the commandments have not changed. Let there be no mistake about that. Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong, no matter how cleverly cloaked in respectability or political correctness. We believe in chastity before marriage and fidelity ever after. That standard is an absolute standard of truth. It is neither subject to public opinion polls nor dependent upon situation or circumstance. There is no need to debate it or other gospel standards."
Like a Flame Unquenchable M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 

This sketch shows political correctness going over board.   Have we gotten to this point in society today?

 

"MSNBC & The Great Liberal Narrative: The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness"

George Carlin On Politically Correct Language

After you watch these videos you will find that they include the extreme.  You might say they are so extreme that it might never happen.  But take the respond of the GLAAD spokesperson that the Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was spouting lies. 
"GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz had an immediate response.
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” Cruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples"  ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Bashes Gays

How off base can you get.  I fail to see the lie in the opinion as quoted out of the magazine article.
This is the problem with political correctness.  Claim the other is lying and shout louder then them and you win much of the time.  Make it hard to see the fact.... read the whole comment or opinion in context.   This is what they love to do...... Throw things at the wall hoping things will stick and that society in general will not look to closely at the details.

I'm reminded of the Emperor's New Cloths by Hans Christian Andersen.   It took a simple innocent young boy to say the truth about the non existent cloths.  Everyone was to afraid to offend, make feel bad or just plain be "Politically incorrect".   They did not want to call the kettle black.  Instead it became green or purple or something else.....
And that is what we have to fight today.




We have to fight the twisting of the truth to make it fit the narrative we want or they want.   We have to present the truth as we find it and help people come to their own conclusions.

That is one reason I like my church so much.  We don't say for you to just take our word for it.  Or to join or stay a member just because your parent is.  We say..... "Go and provide it"; "Ask the higher source if it really is what he has placed on earth!".   How many other organization, religions etc are willing to put it all on the line?

Buaidh - NO - Bas

A few of the many articles out there on the duck dynasty subject and other politically correct situations.

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Thanks Fans for ‘Support’: ‘We’ve Had Kind of a Crazy Week’
‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Bashes Gays
‘Duck Dynasty’: Phil Robertson Anti-Gay Sermon Surfaces (Video)
No Other Gods By Elder Dallin H. Oaks Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Moral Force of Women By Elder D. Todd Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Readers React to GQ's 'Duck Dynasty' Story and Phil Robertson's Indefinite Suspension
Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness (2002)

Fairness and the World Cup

I've had some rather spirited discussions lately on the "fairness" of the teams going to the World Cup with a colleague recently.

You see if you go strictly by the numbers it does not seem fair how they decide the number of teams that will advance to the World Cup by continent.  The best example is to compare Europe and Africa.  Both have almost the same number of teams overall - 53 and 52 respectively.  But, the big difference comes in the number of teams each continent will provide to the big event.  Europe will send on 13 teams and Africa only 5.  So by the numbers this seems so unfair.  But, is it really?

It all depends on what you are trying to achieve.  In this case how many people will try and watch let alone attend in person a game if you have a bunch of so-so teams no one has ever heard of?
European teams have a long history within the footballing sport.  For that matter Football was invented in England.  Some African teams have just a few years history and little or no governmental support or infrastructure.  Add that up and it is clear why FIFA chooses to send the number of teams that it does from each continent.  The one with the highest percentage of teams attending is South America.  It's in the 45 percent range.  Oceania has the lowest with a mere 4.5%.  Europe has a 25% ratio, Asia 10-11 percent and North America 10% and Africa about 10%.
Statically, and numerically this is not fair but, it provides for a quality tournament worth watching.



Let's examine why this works better then going by pure numbers in a bit more detail.  The easiest way to do this is to see a list of those that made the final since the World Cup began and the champions.

National team	Finalists	Winners	Runners-up
Brazil	7	5	2
Italy	6	4	2
Germany	7	3	4
Argentina	4	2	2
Uruguay	2	2	0
France	2	1	1
England	1	1	0
Spain	1	1	0
Netherlands	3	0	3
Czechoslovakia	2	0	2
Hungary	2	0	2
Sweden	1	0	1

It is very easy to see where the teams that win come from.  Europe and South America.
I'm not even sure how many times teams from Asia or Africa have even made it into the semi-finals.  The USA for example has begun to consistently make it out of group play to the round of 16.  They have been improving and down the road there may be a chance at making it to the final.  For the time being they become one of the many wild card teams that may play that perfect game and really give a contender for the cup a run for their money.

So there is that trade off.  Do you want to be fair numerically or do you want to have a quality game?

The quality of the game is more important to the world Cup then to say some other sporting events or activities.  For the World Cup you are looking for the very best teams the world over.  You don't want the best proportion of teams the world over, but, the best teams of the world.

In younger youth sports that do not have a financial incentive attached things change.  You might require fairness in the games played at school or by those still in primary grades.  This keeps things positive and helps get away from the "win at any cost" issue.

Now some start to say there should be fairness in hiring practices, school admissions, and other societal things.  But, what are you really achieving?  What is your aim in forcing things to be fair by some predefined criteria?

Brazil has begun to implement affirmative action when it comes to university admissions.  Federal university is free in Brazil (tuition at least) if you can make it in.  Thus there is a big process each year to see who can gain one of the few slots available for a specific area of study.  Many people take training courses there much like the ACT or GMAT trainings/testing here in the USA just so they have a change at passing Vestibular.   Now, what ends up happening is that the more well off families can afford to pay for such courses.  Poor families are highly under represented.  That does not mean poor people are not taking the test to see if they can get into university.  Thus they are starting to implement affirmative action.
A very large portion of the population in Brazil are of mix-race.  And the majority have some African blood.  Negros are highly under represented at university and then it goes down from there.... the more Caucasian you are the more you are likely to go to university. Not a guarantee but, statically the reality.
So with affirmative action you basically declare we have to have 10% of college applications, or students say be Amer-Indian or negro. Now this creates a different problem of fairness.  Are you being fair by saying if your race is X percent of the population therefore you automatically get X percent of the college admissions slots?


This leads to some people that might wonder - 'Did I get into this school simply because I'm ______ race?'
Now your not getting into school based on merits but, race.  And do you use merits after race since you will always have a limited number of slots?
One small problem you begin to find in Brazil is the number of people claiming they are negro to take advantage of the affirmative action but, at the same time looking white as heck.  They may have some African blood in them but, when do you cut it off and say you have to be at least 30% African blood or 45% Amer-Indian blood?  Is that provable blood or not?  Some people may look dark as heck and could qualify as Amer-Indian possibly but, can not prove one way or another their background.

These and many other issues arise when you begin to get involved in correcting social injustices by way of quotes and the like.  Abuse of the system will exist.  It could also do some good and right some wrong however, is their a better way to handle this.

It appears no one has found it yet since, places like Brazil are now trying affirmative action just like the United States did over 35 years ago.



Have you ever thought how it would be to have a color blind job interview?  One were the interviewer and interviewee don't even really see one another.  Where the voice and/or face are distorted or blurred.   Imagine how this changes the make up of a company.  because now a days you can't judge someone just by their name.
There are Garcias that don't seem Latino at all and McDaniels that are so Black their appear blue.  You can't judge a person just by their name.......



So we have to be careful with how fair we want to be!
For we can go to far to the other side in trying to right past wrongs or making up for racial injustice perpetrated hundreds if not thousands of years ago.  You might just say the Holocaust is an example of over stepping ones bounds to right a perceived wrong carried out years earlier.

We must guard against be fair for all the wrong reasons



Buaidh - NO - Bas