Political Correctness

BentFX

New Member
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In reading the tag lines and rules of this forum it appears that Crossfire was intended to be a little deeper than "Which is better XXX or YYY". So I'm going to dive right into the deep end...

Is it me, or is the environment of political correctness regarding race a one way street. Barack Obama, in a speech recently, referred to his grandmother as "a typical white woman" because she was afraid of black men she didn't know. What is up with that? Can I say Barack is a typical black man? No, that would cross the line.

My skin is white, but it's thick. The biggest racial problem isn't due to colored skin, it's due to thin skin and the need to scream foul at every turn.

Years ago, when Ross Perot was running for president he made a rather famous gaffe by referring to an NAACP audience as "you people". You can't say "you people" to a black audience. Less famous is the NAACP response to Ross Perot's comment which went like this... "Ross Perot doesn't know us. Ross Perot doesn't know what makes us tick. Ross Perot doesn't know what turns us on and turns us off." Four times in their response they called themselves 'us' but we can't refer to them as a group.

Within two weeks of Joe Biden being raked over the coals for referring to Barrack as "articulate", as if it is strange for a black man to be articulate, the Rutgers womans basketball team had a press conference in response to Don Imus' statements. One of the major points that was made is how he had slurred these "articulate young women". It's a one way street. I didn't like Imus' comment, but it certainly wasn't worth Reverend Al Sharpton standing in the street screaming "crucify him".

Now before you start calling me a bigot look back and read that again. All I look for is an even play field. Does it bother me that Barack plays on old white stereotypes? No, not in the slightest. What bothers me is that turn-around isn't fair play.

The world is full of injustices and it ain't gonna get better until people learn to grow thicker skin and look past their own prejudices.

Do you think I'm wrong? Tell me so! I'm open to any debate or discussion.

(Note: This post is in no way intended to offend anyone. It is simply my view of the current situation. I do respect all people who respect others)
 
Last edited:

calvinvandermeer

New Member
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What is this? A well developed, logical, AND grammatically correct argument? Thank God!
As for my opinion, I do believe that a lot less scandals and misunderstandings would take place if people weren't always so hypersensitive and had thicker skins. When offhand comments like "you people" are taken out of context and seen as a reason for offense then people are being too sensitive. However, recently in the news a person (I forgot who) refered to a female black basketball team as "nappy headed ho's". At that point, I think that an indignant reaction is not only understandable but necessary, and I don't think that mere apology will suffice.

I suppose that what I am trying to say is that if someone makes an offhand comment that is inadvertantly offensive (a comment like "you people are the future/ must decide blank etc) then they should just be forgiven instead of raising a scandal. But if someone is being deliberately offensive (a comment like "you people will never succeed in life" delivered with a sneer) then they should be condemned for their actions, and be forced to make amends.

Interesting thought.
 

BentFX

New Member
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The "nappy headed" comment was Don Imus, and he was trying to say that the Rutgers team was "street tough". When viewed in context the comment was meant to be a compliment, but it was truly an unfortunate, over the line, choice of words.
 

Hazirak

New Member
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In reading the tag lines and rules of this forum it appears that Crossfire was intended to be a little deeper than "Which is better XXX or YYY".
What? What is this speak of actual thought-out discussions? *checks the temperature outside* Nope, still above freezing...

I've always been wondering what this whole double-standards thing is about. Back a while ago before Oprah came down to Georgia, they were going to have a bunch of prison inmates build or renovate or whatever some auditorium that she was going to be in. A black lady got pissed off... not because of the fact that they were inmates... not because of the fact that they were temporarily being let out of prison to do this job...

Wait for iiiit...

She started crying racism because of what they were planning to feed the inmates while they were working - chicken, biscuits, and Coke. 'Cause, yanno... that's all black people eat. Even though this kind of meal would have been damn-near GOURMET for the inmates, who aren't even used to this kind of food in prison, they were apparently only feeding them this choice of food to subtly establish the supremacy of the white man.

On a less sarcastic note, it was the first amusing local news story I've heard in a long time... at least, up until I realized it wasn't made up and actually happened. Then it just felt pretty sad. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

HomerJ

New Member
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I favour total free speech. Anyone can say anything, so long as they are not threatening to use force or violence.

About people getting angry, they have every right to get as angry as they want. However, to get angry over most of the crap that people are angry over is just moronic.
 
Top