Who was it that Said Politically Correct was dead? (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

Joe Okc

Better Days
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
689
Reaction score
417
Location
Okc, Ok
Offline
Looks like it's alive and kicking to me... Sheezzzzzz.. Really...



The farmer-owned dairy cooperative, which produces butter, cheese and other milk products, has dropped the Native American maiden image from its packaging, opting instead for just a landscape.
The logo, which has been the company’s label for nearly 100 years since it was founded in Minnesota in 1921, has been called “racist” and criticized for its use of the “butter maiden.”


 
Last edited:

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
691
Reaction score
1,288
Location
Virginia
Offline
Unkletraveljim.. yes.. PC is causing us problems. And this is just a simple point.
I think the problem is that this isn't a simple topic, and the example you're providing doesn't shed much light on the subject. There was some criticism of the logo, but there wasn't much discussion or protesting, the company decided to change their logo, which I think everyone agrees is their right.

So, for you to think this particular situation to be a problem, you'd have to explain why it's important for you to have a depiction of a kneeling woman dressed as a Native American on your butter. I'm assuming it doesn't really matter to you, and it's not a violation of your rights, correct? So this example seems too trivial to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Can political correctness be a problem? Sure, it's possible. Particularly when people get offended on behalf of someone else who isn't offended, or when people jump in mid-stream of some conversation without context and preemptively assume intent and then try ruin someone's life over it. But those examples are very, very rare.

The fact of the matter is minorities have had to deal with a lot of mocking and belittling of their culture for a long time, and now they finally have enough power to do something about it. Why is it wrong for them to voice their opinion? And why is it wrong for us to listen to them? Because at it's heart, that's what political correctness is about -- "Hey, that sort of language is offensive to me." "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that, is this acceptable instead?" "Yes, thanks". "No problem". That's basically what it's supposed to be about -- listening to a marginalized communtiy and being polite enough to not dismiss their feelings and modifying our behavior to be more respectful.

Does that mean we have to do everything someone says whenever they say they are offended? Of course not. Can some people use it as a weapon or become unreasonable? Sure. But save your energy for those cases. If you're worried about becoming a victim of the PC wars, you're doing the exact opposite of what you should do. You should be actively working to make sure that minorites and those marginalized feel comfortable in our society and fully appreciated and not mocked or minimized. You should be actively talking with them to understand their concerns and seeing how you can help. The sooner they feel like this is a society that respects them, the less chance there is of witch hunts and false accusations.
 
Last edited:

dtc

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
546
Reaction score
829
Age
52
Location
Florida
Offline
I think the problem is that this isn't a simple topic, and the example you're providing doesn't shed much light on the subject. There was some criticism of the logo, but there wasn't much discussion or protesting, the company decided to change their logo, which I think everyone agrees is their right.

So, for you to think this particular situation to be a problem, you'd have to explain why it's important for you to have a depiction of a kneeling woman dressed as a Native American on your butter. I'm assuming it doesn't really matter to you, and it's not a violation of your rights, correct? So this example seems too trivial to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Can political correctness be a problem? Sure, it's possible. Particularly when people get offended on behalf of someone else who isn't offended, or when people jump in mid-stream of some conversation without context and preemptively assume intent and then try ruin someone's life over it. But those examples are very, very rare.

The fact of the matter is minorities have had to deal with a lot of mocking and belittling of their culture for a long time, and now they finally have enough power to do something about it. Why is it wrong for them to voice their opinion? And why is it wrong for us to listen to them? Because at it's heart, that's what political correctness is about -- "Hey, that sort of language is offensive to me." "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that, is this acceptable instead?" "Yes, thanks". "No problem". That's basically what it's supposed to be about -- listening to a marginalized communtiy and being polite enough to not dismiss their feelings and modifying our behavior to be more respectful.

Does that mean we have to do everything someone says whenever they say they are offended? Of course not. Can some people use it as a weapon or become unreasonable? Sure. But save your energy for those cases. If you're worried about becoming a victim of the PC wars, you're doing the exact opposite of what you should do. You should be actively working to make sure that minorites and those marginalized feel comfortable in our society and fully appreciated and not mocked or minimized. You should be actively talking with them to understand their concerns and seeing how you can help. The sooner they feel like this is a society that respects them, the less chance there is of witch hunts and false accusations.
Wow. This is the most impressive attempt I've ever seen.

Detailed. Considerate. Inclusive and non-accusatory....

Good work.
 

Sledge Hammer

Trust me, I know what I'm doing
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
335
Reaction score
149
Location
Fighting Crime
Offline
Politics - is the set of activities that are associated with the governance of a country, state or area. It involves making decisions that apply to groups of members and achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community.

One could also say it is building a coalition of people to achieve an outcome or action.

So, what coalition are we looking to build here? What is the political action we need to take to make sure that logo is unchanged? What law do we pass to ensure that this can't happen and that companies can't make changes to their own logos, if we think they might be succumbing to the 'racism mob'? If a corporation is a person, and has people who make decisions for it, how do we stop their freedom of speech when we don't agree with it?

I say all this, because I'm struggling to see why a topic like this should be on a politics forum. Rather than the EE or something.

Is a company changing a logo political in nature? Probably not.

Is determining if something is or isn't racist, by its self, political in nature? Probably not. A question for Social Science? Sure. Would we welcome a discussion on fashion choices? Baggy pants? Scarves? Facial hair? Probably not.
 

surada

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Messages
377
Reaction score
97
Age
73
Location
Atlanta
Offline
I think the problem is that this isn't a simple topic, and the example you're providing doesn't shed much light on the subject. There was some criticism of the logo, but there wasn't much discussion or protesting, the company decided to change their logo, which I think everyone agrees is their right.

So, for you to think this particular situation to be a problem, you'd have to explain why it's important for you to have a depiction of a kneeling woman dressed as a Native American on your butter. I'm assuming it doesn't really matter to you, and it's not a violation of your rights, correct? So this example seems too trivial to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Can political correctness be a problem? Sure, it's possible. Particularly when people get offended on behalf of someone else who isn't offended, or when people jump in mid-stream of some conversation without context and preemptively assume intent and then try ruin someone's life over it. But those examples are very, very rare.

The fact of the matter is minorities have had to deal with a lot of mocking and belittling of their culture for a long time, and now they finally have enough power to do something about it. Why is it wrong for them to voice their opinion? And why is it wrong for us to listen to them? Because at it's heart, that's what political correctness is about -- "Hey, that sort of language is offensive to me." "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that, is this acceptable instead?" "Yes, thanks". "No problem". That's basically what it's supposed to be about -- listening to a marginalized communtiy and being polite enough to not dismiss their feelings and modifying our behavior to be more respectful.

Does that mean we have to do everything someone says whenever they say they are offended? Of course not. Can some people use it as a weapon or become unreasonable? Sure. But save your energy for those cases. If you're worried about becoming a victim of the PC wars, you're doing the exact opposite of what you should do. You should be actively working to make sure that minorites and those marginalized feel comfortable in our society and fully appreciated and not mocked or minimized. You should be actively talking with them to understand their concerns and seeing how you can help. The sooner they feel like this is a society that respects them, the less chance there is of witch hunts and false accusations.

Love this... " listening to a marginalized community and being polite enough to not dismiss their feelings and modifying our behavior to be more respectful."
 

Dadsdream

1% Tanzanian DNA
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
901
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
I say all this, because I'm struggling to see why a topic like this should be on a politics forum. Rather than the EE or something.
It involves the organized quasi-political agenda of self-appointed Internet social justice crusaders who wish to remold society, through shaming, criticizing, shouting down and belittling anybody who disagrees with them.

In 2014, they launched an Internet crusade against Lousiana's own Slap Ya Mamma hot sauce, by claiming the name was supportive of domestic violence.

As any Cajun will tell you, the term is a common Acadian euphemism and it has absolutely nothing to do with domestic violence.

But, Internet social justice crusader types know absolutely nothing about Cajun culture, so they called for a boycott.

How serious was it? The NFL pulled ads for Slap Ya Mamma.


In a related twist, Internet Social Justice Crusaders have objected to the use of the term "Crusader" because it is word that describes cis-gendered, white Anglo Saxon, genocidal, anti-Muslim, warmongers.

They prefer the term Justice Warrior instead.

Yeah, this belongs in a politics forum Sledge Hammer. Definitely.
 
Last edited:

Dadsdream

1% Tanzanian DNA
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
901
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
Dad's gets it... unkletraveljim gets it... dtc does not get it.

Dad's, yes.. what was important back in the day gets throw away by crybabies who want to live for today... and act woke for sake of attention without effort.
The man's artwork that he took pride in the show the beauty of native Americans is cast aside due to crybabies wanting change for their personal views and not the benefits of a larger group... It's like selling grandpa's WWII purple heart at a garage sale because you don't need the junk.
We have one or two Social Justice Warriors/Crusaders here. They don't want to discuss politics. They just want to blame and shame.

They view their participation here as a means to teach our generation a lesson, Joe.
They are not here to listen to the lessons we've learned in our lifetimes.

 

N.O.Bronco

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
618
Reaction score
1,067
Location
Houston
Offline
Do we really need you posting the same broad personal attacks in two threads and linking them DD?

It’s a pejorative term used by people that wish to out-group a specific type of people that advocate in public society for setting the normative boundaries in a certain way, By people that are fighting against setting those normative boundaries in that way. When you simply attack one in the manner you are you are relinquishing the conversation of any real chance of substance. Instead, simply attacking the caricature you have of that group in avoidance of speaking directly and in good faith toward the individual issues in contention. I hope that is not the new direction this forum is going to accept and take.

Now, what is the actual friction here? By all accounts the friction seems to be exclusively around people that think we should be more cognizant and respectful of issues surrounding past injustice, appropriation, and respect for minority concerns, be it black and brown, or gay or trans. These fights are no different than the gay marriage fight you stood on the opposite side of a decade ago. But instead of having that argument on the merits you are trying to short circuit the substance of that conversation by caricaturing and attacking those caricatures. Even going so far as to attribute those traits to people here as you beat down the caricature with vitriolic language. Which seems to have the intent(intentional or not) of making a pariah of any one that openly and publicly advocates for that sect of tolerance and equality.
 
Last edited:

Dadsdream

1% Tanzanian DNA
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
901
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
Sledge Hammer is a Moderator.
Joe isn't.
Two responses are appropriate.
 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
504
Offline
In a related twist, Internet Social Justice Crusaders have objected to the use of the term "Crusader" because it is word that describes cis-gendered, white Anglo Saxon, genocidal, anti-Muslim, warmongers.

They prefer the term Justice Warrior instead.
What do you have against calling people what they wish to be called?

I assume you’re probably on board with not calling black people the n-word. There’s not really a big difference here.

Edit: Editing myself because I don’t want to get moderated for not being politically correct.
 
Last edited:

Sledge Hammer

Trust me, I know what I'm doing
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
335
Reaction score
149
Location
Fighting Crime
Offline
It involves the organized quasi-political agenda of self-appointed Internet social justice crusaders who wish to remold society, through shaming, criticizing, shouting down and belittling anybody who disagrees with them.

In 2014, they launched an Internet crusade against Lousiana's own Slap Ya Mamma hot sauce, by claiming the name was supportive of domestic violence.

As any Cajun will tell you, the term is a common Acadian euphemism and it has absolutely nothing to do with domestic violence.

But, Internet social justice crusader types know absolutely nothing about Cajun culture, so they called for a boycott.

How serious was it? The NFL pulled ads for Slap Ya Mamma.


In a related twist, Internet Social Justice Crusaders have objected to the use of the term "Crusader" because it is word that describes cis-gendered, white Anglo Saxon, genocidal, anti-Muslim, warmongers.

They prefer the term Justice Warrior instead.

Yeah, this belongs in a politics forum Sledge Hammer. Definitely.
Fair enough, but again, social vs political. The NFL is not a political body.

So, you are responding to unnamed (or a few posters in here) SJW's, by participating in this thread (since you didn't create it)? Should we then expect a series of posts that are singularly towards things people deem "troll posts"? Don't you see where this can go and create something closer to a mud pit in the main boards where the focus is, "the purpose of the new board is to encourage civil and intelligent discussion and debate concerning political topics", per Andrus' rules.

I think this is a fair enough topic and fair enough discussion. Even if, potentially, a little contrived. I'm just thinking out loud. "Is THIS the place for it?" Just because people want something or think something, it doesn't make it political.
 

Dragon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
358
Reaction score
533
Age
57
Location
Elsinore
Offline
We have one or two Social Justice Warriors/Crusaders here. They don't want to discuss politics. They just want to blame and shame.

They view their participation here as a means to teach our generation a lesson, Joe.
They are not here to listen to the lessons we've learned in our lifetimes.


I am one of those who argue for social justice and mutual respect for all people - regardles of color, gender, age or ethnic origin

I am also the same age as you and have a lifetime of experience, having travelled to almost all continents, and having lived in 3 countries.

I have personally experienced both Europes transformation from the cold war all the way to the fall of the Berlin wall. I have lost close friends and fellow members of the democratic youth association who happened to live on the wrong side of that WALL

I have a close friend who saw what happened when hatred,bigotry and genocide destroyed balkan,

So don't lecture me about lessons learned!!

If there is anything I have learned during the almost 60 years I have lived, it is that the daily small insults, bigotry, prejudices, and lack of empathy towards those who are different from us, are all things that nurtures hatred, racism, and sometimes lead humanity down the dark paths towards genocide.

My grandfather fought the Nazis and paid a heavy price for that and just in my own lifetime I have seen Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Syria and Burma. You would think that we would learn but despite being hailed as a ligth of freedom, the US has elected a president whose main platform is build on the fear of others and a new WALL. Who has tried to restrict people from entering the US purely because of their religion (even though the courts forced him to modify that) and who put children in cages some of which have died (and some posters here defended it by saying their parents should just have stayed at home!).

No I don't hate the US. I have always been a big supporter but I DO NOT like the way the current administration undermines and try to destroy the very foundation on which it was build.
 

Dadsdream

1% Tanzanian DNA
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
901
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
Fair enough, but again, social vs political. The NFL is not a political body.

So, you are responding to unnamed (or a few posters in here) SJW's, by participating in this thread (since you didn't create it)? Should we then expect a series of posts that are singularly towards things people deem "troll posts"? Don't you see where this can go and create something closer to a mud pit in the main boards where the focus is, "the purpose of the new board is to encourage civil and intelligent discussion and debate concerning political topics", per Andrus' rules.

I think this is a fair enough topic and fair enough discussion. Even if, potentially, a little contrived. I'm just thinking out loud. "Is THIS the place for it?" Just because people want something or think something, it doesn't make it political.
Where does this thread belong? Not my call. Never occurred to me.

There are a variety of people here with a variety of reasons to post.

Some people participate in threads based on their on-going political activist efforts, and their purpose is to spread a message and suppress any thoughts or ideas that do not contribute to their political narrative. For wont of a better term, they are shills for PACS, parties and politicians.

Others are current event junkies who've followed politics for decades either as a hobby or as part of a profession. If I were to categorize myself, I'd say I fall into this category. I participate in threads for entertainment purposes and as an outlet for self-expression.

Unfortunately, the political activist folks tend to go for belittling, smack talk, and personal attacks which are better suited to places like the Mud Pit.

Why do they do that? They WANT the posts they dislike to be removed, or better yet have the thread moved/deleted or best of all, have the poster who disagrees with them removed from the board completely.

In their perfect world, they only have people who agree with them on the board where they post.

I've been around these boards for over two decades in a variety of roles. Everything I'm sharing with you here is based on actual experiences and it's all original thought and original writing. The same can't be said of the political shills who post canned content that they're paid to post.

Oh, you mentioned the Mud Pit. It seems to have disappeared from my list of forums and it's not offered as an optional board on my control panel anymore.
 

Heathen

add me on COD @cautiousmink
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
556
Reaction score
544
Age
30
Location
Utah
Offline
Others are current event junkies who've followed politics for decades either as a hobby or as part of a profession. If I were to categorize myself, I'd say I fall into this category. I participate in threads for entertainment purposes and as an outlet for self-expression..
I don't think political discussion boards would be the best place to entertain one's self if the goal were not to truthfully learn and engage in civil discourse. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your message, so correct me if i'm off base.

Yeah, we all have our sarcastic diatribes now and then but when confronted with real questions that should require real answers, I think the idea is that we honestly answer and refrain from flaming/personal attacks, leaving the thread, incessant whining and playing the victim card, etc.
 

not2rich

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
277
Reaction score
491
Age
51
Location
Denver, CO
Offline
What I really love about these threads is that it shows how Trump supporters are so easily manipulated and distracted by extraneous BS by FNC, the Federalist, Breitbart, etc.

We're in the midst of a pandemic that is causing the biggest public health and economic crisis any of us have seen in our lifetime, and for decades if not more before our lifetime.

It's bad enough that they're eating up the narrative of blame (take your pick) China, the WHO, Democratic governors, Dr. Fauci, or Bill Gates - while at the same time defending a leadership "leader" of the U.S. from blame.

But we're now also expected to humor their faux outrage/angst over a butter logo or the fact Pornhub Premium is free for a month. Because even in a national emergency, the most important thing to keep alive is the culture wars.

Trump knows what works what his supporters. None of them recognize it, especially the ones who fancy themselves to be pretty smart. They're actually the biggest dupes.
 

Richard

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
147
Reaction score
253
Location
Soso, MS
Offline
I deleted the last page of entries from this thread. Posts were either confrontational, overtly aggressive, insulting or accusatory or they quoted posts doing that. If you want to discuss someone's posting style or confront someone on their motives/ethics/etc., take it to PMs. None of those posts had anything to do with the thread topic.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #90
OP
Joe Okc

Joe Okc

Better Days
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
689
Reaction score
417
Location
Okc, Ok
Offline
For the record.. I am out in the sticks on a tablet... having trouble of copy, paste reply... can't even post a pic... will reply when I get home.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

Top Bottom