[Pat]

drblow wrote:

Why would anyone want to be deliberately offensive to an entire race of people? The only possible reason can be that they are fundamentally racist.

This is not the only reason. You are just throwing out red herrings again. You keep using the word 'offensive' whenever anyone suggests anything that may be deemed a 'negative' towards another race even if it's true. You are using the term racist as a political weapon of suppression.

[drblow]

Pat wrote:

This is not the only reason.

OK, so what other reason is there to make a comment that negatively generalises people?

[Roach]

Quote:

You keep using the word 'offensive' whenever anyone suggests anything that may be deemed a 'negative' towards another race even if it's true.

When is it true? I think this is the fundamental issue, the determination to take possibilities and turn them into truths is a clear demonstration of a hostile and racist intent.

[Pat]

drblow wrote:

OK, so what other reason is there to make a comment that negatively generalises people?

Ken has explained this to you already with his explanations as to why the police might generalize based on statistical evidence:

Quote:

A generalization of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria. It is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

[Pat]

Roach wrote:

When is it true? I think this is the fundamental issue, the determination to take possibilities and turn them into truths is a clear demonstration of a hostile and racist intent.

No, you just make my case with your unfounded, politically correct motivated comments. You have been indoctrinated into the current fashionable way of believing and this clouds your logic.

Do you believe that the man in this story is hostile and racist?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... glish.html

Here's what

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Some of you are turning into toy soldiers. One just has to point you in the right direction, wind you up and off you go.

[Pat]

Roach wrote:

When is it true? I think this is the fundamental issue, the determination to take possibilities and turn them into truths is a clear demonstration of a hostile and racist intent.

Is the above a generalization? Im afraid you just make my case with your unfounded, politically correct motivated comments. You have been indoctrinated into the current fashionable way of believing and this clouds your logic.

I posted this link elsewhere:

Quote:

But what if he and I are right - as I am 100 per cent convinced we are? If men are innately better at certain subjects than women, then why should society struggle so hard - and so expensively - to try to engineer a perfect balance between the sexes?
By all means, take steps to ensure that boys and girls get the same opportunities in education, but let's also accept that those same opportunities will not produce the same outcomes. Men will always outnumber women in certain fields and vice versa.
My argument isn't based on crude chauvinist doctrine (although I'm quite sure my opponents will disagree) but on decades of research, relatively simple statistics and an understanding of the law of averages.

Quote:

As an academic, it's my job to tell the truth, to explain the scientific evidence before us, irrespective of how unfashionable my conclusions are.
Big ideas such as Galileo's theory that Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than vice versa, or Darwin's theory of evolution, met with vociferous opposition when first advanced.
And, certainly, the ideas I've laid out here have already got some highly respected people into very serious trouble.

Quote:

I realise my views are unfashionable, just as I realise the juggernaut of sexual equality and political correctness will take an awful lot of stopping.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z0nM7EAEFL

I'm looking at the story within the story here. It's the politically correct aspect that is the crux, the suppression of information due to it not being 'fashionable'. Do you see this scientist in the same light as you describe me above or is he just stating facts that he has researched for years?

I believe, wittingly or othewise, that you are just spouting fashionable propaganda when you make statements like the one at the top of this post. There is a big drive to suppress the truth in certain areas to push forward this socialist idea of equality for one and all. This means any 'negative generalizations' are taboo and will be met with comments like yours above just because they are not fashionable regardless of how true they may be.

Do you believe that the man in this story is hostile and racist?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... glish.html

Here's what Bush had to say on political correctness (yeah, him).

Quote:

Within a few years, this previously obscure term featured regularly in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against curriculum expansion and progressive teaching methods in US high schools and universities.[11] In 1991, addressing a graduating class of the University of Michigan, U.S. President George H. W. Bush spoke against "a movement [that would] declare certain topics 'off-limits', certain expressions 'off-limits', even certain gestures 'off-limits'" in allusion to liberal Political Correctness.[12] The most common usage here is as a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations. The converse term "politically incorrect" came into use as an implicit term of self-praise, indicating that the user was not afraid to give offense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Some of you are turning into toy soldiers. One just has to point you in the right direction, wind you up and off you go . . . Or maybe you are just anti-British? Or don't you like that term?

[drblow]

Pat wrote:

Do you believe that the man in this story is hostile and racist?:

Well, he certainly appears to be a dick, and certainly what he is doing is hostile. As for being a racist ... well, kind of ... but basically he is just being a dick. His actions are based on disrimination against people who cannot speak English - rather than try to help them out in any way, he is deciding he will not serve them in his post office. How would you feel if you went into a post office in Sri Lanka and the guy wouldn't serve you becuse you couldn't speak Sinhalese?

Quote:

I'm looking at the story within the story here. It's the politically correct aspect that is the crux, the suppression of information due to it not being 'fashionable'. Do you see this scientist in the same light as you describe me above or is he just stating facts that he has researched for years?

First of all any "scientist" who writes for the Mail needs to be treated with a degree of suspicion.

Lynn's work on global racial differences in cognitive ability, mostly surveys, has been cited for misrepresenting the research of other scientists, and his work has been criticized for its associated measurement difficulties, distortion, and conclusions drawn from extremely poor and very limited samples.

For example, many of the data points in Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations were not based on residents of the named countries. The datum for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had emigrated to the Netherlands, and the datum for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel, and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The datum for Mexico was based on a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in Southern Mexico” with results of a study of residents of Argentina.[34]

The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain.[35] Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the “Flynn” effect) on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries (p.?)[34]

In a critical review of The Bell Curve, psychologist Leon Kamin faulted Lynn for disregarding scientific objectivity, misrepresenting data, and for racism.[36] Kamin argues that the studies of cognitive ability of Africans in Lynn's meta-analysis cited by Herrnstein and Murray show strong cultural bias. Kamin also reproached Lynn for "concocting" IQ values from test scores that have no correlation to IQ.[37] Furthermore, Kamin argues Lynn selectively excluded a study that found no difference in White and Black performance, and ignored the results of a study which showed Black scores were higher than White scores.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn#Criticism

Maybe that explains why he is reduced to writing for the Mail. I believe most scientists publish in respected journals. Maybe he just can't get laid?

Secondly, the article states that in some statistical studeis men score higher than women - as we all know statistics are based on an "average".

So, let's assume that the stats are OK and the Professor is correct in stating that statistically men are on average more intelligent than women ... so what? What benefit is there to be gained from this statement? There is mention of spending on education programs being "tailored" ... are you suggesting that women be prevented from entering science studies because it is not cost effective due to their reduced intelligence according to Professor Richard Lyne? Even if statistically men are more intelligent than women ... what is to be gained from this statement? Are we to then withdraw the education of females in the sciences on this basis? How do we know that the 1 or 2 women in 10 that DO hold high level science jobs are not the ones who will discover the cure for cancer?

Quote:

There is a big drive to suppress the truth in certain areas to push forward this socialist idea of equality for one and all.

The truth? Well now, that's a complex commodity isn't it? Your truth appears to be reading some articles from the Mail (funny how most of your references for this come from there) and based on one article from one dodgy "scientist". Do you fancy telling the next woman you see that she is statistically less intelligent than you, and it is "true" because you read it from a scientist in the Daily Mail? Go on, I dare you.

And what is so wrong with pushing for equality? Again, what is the benefit of making negative generalisations? The only thing you have mentioend so far was actually stated by Kenneth about Operation Trident - now Police forces operating in a focused manner in relation to gun crime which happens to focus on a particular ethnicity due to crime statistics is one thing, as long as it based on focusing limited resources ... as long as they are not operating a policy in which every black person becomes a suspect for a gun crime (although this is of course one of the primary criticisms of policies like this because unfortunately the officers on the ground often seem to struggle with the idea of NOT generalising everyone) then there can be some merit in generalisations used in this way. I am not sure I trust the MET to conduct this type of operation in a reasonable manner, but that's another story. Even with this kind of policy, if all resources are focused on black people and gun crime then where do the resources come from when caucasian people commit gun crime?

But again, this does not in any way make it then acceptable for people in society to say stuff like "all blacks are thick". If you cannot see the huge difference there is here then I can't help you.

Quote:

Here's what Bush had to say on political correctness (yeah, him).

Er ... are you serious? Bush made a couple of comments about freedom of speech did he?

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on labour Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder released several Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel memos, which show the astonishing extent to which the administration expanded its wartime powers. An October 2001 memo from John Yoo, for example, states that the “Fourth Amendment would not apply” for domestic military operations. The memo also restricted basic First Amendment rights:

In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” Yoo wrote in the memo entitled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States.”

http://joshingpolitics.blogspot.com/200 ... h-and.html

Do you want some time to think it over, and then maybe you could start again?

Quote:

Some of you are turning into toy soldiers. One just has to point you in the right direction, wind you up and off you go . . . Or maybe you are just anti-British? Or don't you like that term?

You seem to think that people who are opposed to racism are simply blinded by political correctness, but as I have said many times before PC has nothing to do with this. The term has been hijacked by asshats in the Daily Shitehead as a blame-hound for the fact that nobody wants to hear their racist bullshit any more. That's all that is going on. Claims that PC oppresses racists are pretty hilarious. If anything oppresses racists then ... GOOD, I hope they suffer!

[Pat]

Well I did say, along with the scientist I quoted above, that anyone who speaks out about the political correctness nonsense will be slayed . . . The proof is in the pudding.

[drblow]

Pat wrote:

Well I did say, along with the scientist I quoted above, that anyone who speaks out about the political correctness nonsense will be slayed . . . The proof is in the pudding.

No Pat, you are getting slayed because you are confusing what constitutes "political correctness gawn mad" and the basic prejudices that led to the need to legislate in order to prevent people from suffering at the hands of prejudiced people.

Some aspects of the current society restictions on what is acceptable to say about race or ethnicity may appear a little harsh or overbearing to you. But, given that you have previously indicated an understanding of why that sensitivity is there, you should then understand why it has come about. Honestly, if the human race could be seen to evolve just a little, then perhaps the need to legislation ensuring people do not suffer from discrimination could be toned down r even eventually removed. Until that day, people need protection. From the way this thread has gone, we can easily understand why.

[Pat]

drblow wrote:

No Pat, you are getting slayed because you are confusing what constitutes "political correctness gawn mad" and the basic prejudices that led to the need to legislate in order to prevent people from suffering at the hands of prejudiced people.

You mean the prejudices that came from the propoganda of yesteryear, where our government's and institutions told us that other races were inferior, that other nations were not to be trusted? Those prejudices? And now we are to believe the current PC propaganda that is fashionable today instead?
Our current prejudices come from the indoctrination we were submitted to in past centuries. Right now you are being sold a pig in a poke.

Quote:

Some aspects of the current society restictions on what is acceptable to say about race or ethnicity may appear a little harsh or overbearing to you. But, given that you have previously indicated an understanding of why that sensitivity is there, you should then understand why it has come about.

I don't believe either of us really know why it has come about. You don't appear to look far enough ahead, in my opinion.

Quote:

Honestly, if the human race could be seen to evolve just a little, then perhaps the need to legislation ensuring people do not suffer from discrimination could be toned down r even eventually removed. Until that day, people need protection. From the way this thread has gone, we can easily understand why.

Yes, we need protection from indoctrination by peoples who wish to serve only their own agenda.

[drblow]

Quote:

You mean the prejudices that came from the propoganda of yesteryear, where our government's and institutions told us that other races were inferior, that other nations were not to be trusted? Those prejudices? And now we are to believe the current PC propaganda that is fashionable today instead?

Well, yes. I don't think that the ultimate source for what you describe as "political correctness", in terms of not being racially abusive, comes from government. It comes from a succession of bodies who have lobbied over time for equality - I think if it was left to government things would not have changed much, but they had to react to pressure from society to legislate.

You still seem to be under the impression that any and all comments about race are taboo because of PC. This is not correct, only stupid comments about race are taboo - and thank goodness they are. The thing is, it really only appears to be people who have previously made some kind of daft statement about race/ethnicity who then start wailing about PC when they get told to shut up. Nobody is stifling debate, nobody is oppressing anyones right to free speech ... society just has higher standards now of what is acceptable and what is not. Blaming PC is just another way of avoiding the horrible realisation that one has made a stupid comment.

Quote:

Yes, we need protection from indoctrination by peoples who wish to serve only their own agenda.

Well, in a broad sense I agree with that. But if the agenda is equality and respect between races/ethnicities and an end to the kind of stupid generalisations of race that cause nothing but tension and ill-feeling, then surely that is an agenda worth pushing forward?

[Kenneth]

drblow wrote:

Why would anyone want to use a racial generalisation that is inaccurate and causes offence? With much racial generalisation the reason people get so offended so quickly is because of the sensitive nature of racial abuse ... given the history (even in the 20th century with aparthied/segregation in America etc) it is still a very touchy subject, and people of colour have every right to take exception to being labelled according to their colour, given that less than 50 years ago people used it as a means to oppress them. Some of the early blues musicians from the early 20th century (e.g WC Handy), that are now revered in musical history, were born to freed slaves. It is NOT ancient history.Why do some people still feel the need to categorise people according to their race/colour/religion etc? In todays diverse, modern world it just seems so very out-dated to think of people as anything but people. I would suggest that every single person posting on this forum has experience with a range of people who act in all sorts of manners and have all sorts of characteristics - trying to attach a label applying a certain charcateristic to an entire race of people just seems a fruitless and pointless gesture, when we all know that people are complex collections of experience, values, opinions, education etc etc. and that regardless of any stereotype/generalisations that can be made, ultimately those generalisations are inaccurate and serve only to cause offence.

I was talking about using racial generalisations - i.e. being racist - to improve policing. What I have got back from you is PC-speak lifted from the Guardian or the BBC/Labour Party. What is more diverse about the ‘modern world’ nowadays than years ago? This is stuff you hear on Radio 4 and it means nothing.

Quote:

Why would anyone want to be deliberately offensive to an entire race of people? The only possible reason can be that they are fundamentally racist

I am suggesting that the reason the police may want to act in a (non fundemental) racist way and be deliberately offensive to an entire race of people would be to save lives and reduce crime.

[Pat]

To throw the double speak back at them, Ken, you mean positive racism, a bit like their positive discrimination when they want to short list minorities/women for certain positions.

[Pat]

Quote:

V. Identity and diversity in a globalised world

Europe’s post-industrial societies are becoming increasingly complex. Standards of living have risen steadily, but there are still significant gaps between rich and poor. Enlargement has widened the gap since countries have joined with living standards below the EU average. It is important for EU countries to work together to narrow the gap.

But these efforts have not been made at the expense of compromising the separate cultural or linguistic characteristics of EU countries. On the contrary — many EU activities help to create new economic growth based on regional specialities and the rich diversity of traditions and cultures.
Half a century of European integration has shown that the EU as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts: it has much more economic, social, technological, commercial and political clout than if its member states had to act individually. There is added value in acting together and speaking with a single voice as the European Union.

Political correctness is a tool used by the EU for ecnomic purposes. It has no moral value. Some of you need to wake up.

'Tell them it's to be used for good and they shall embrace it!' . . . Me.

http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/lesson_1/index_en.htm

[Am_Fìobhach]

It's you who needs to "wake up", Pat. Most people - and I am one - couldn't give a toss about "political correctness". The whole thing is a charade stoked by a few people or organisations that are at base somewhat against people getting on with each other.

[Pat]

Am_Fìobhach wrote:

It's you who needs to "wake up", Pat.

There's always that possibility.

[Pat]

Political correctness, you got to love it?:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... t-way.html

[Pat]

Ahh, those pesky crime gangs, but hey, at least by letting them in we are being politically correct!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... reets.html

[drblow]

Pat ... posting links to the Daily Mail is not furthering your case in any way. In fact it is revealing that, in order to drum up support for your theories, you can find nothing but the Daily Mail as reference.

This speaks volumes. It is not widely regarded as a publication of substance. More of a comicbook for adults with learning impediments, with some extremely sinister overtones.

As AF said, nobody really gives a toss about PC. As I hace said, the only people I hear going on about PC are those who have made some kind of stupid racist statement and are then trying desperately to wriggle out of it by claiming that the world has gone PC mad. Again ... pulling people up on making racist statements is not being policitically correct, it is merely correct. Honestly, why anyone has a problem with this is beyond me. It seems like there is a strand within society that wants to retain the "right" to be a racist, and feel that efforts to stop them are "politically correct". This is simply a perception issue.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the motivations of the sources you seem to be using as proof that PC is causing problems.

Kenneth wrote:

I am suggesting that the reason the police may want to act in a (non fundemental) racist way and be deliberately offensive to an entire race of people would be to save lives and reduce crime.

I very much doubt that senior Met officers would describe any of their operations as "racist". Nor would they describe them as being deliberately offensive.

You seem to be confusing some issues. There is a big difference between racially profiled police operations, and racist people. Police services being enabled to focus resources on ethnic groups does not then also mean that anyone can say anything about any ethnicity they want, in as offensive a manner as they want.

[FarqBllX]

Quote:

Pat ... posting links to the Daily Mail is not furthering your case in any way. In fact it is revealing that, in order to drum up support for your theories, you can find nothing but the Daily Mail as reference.

Odd that in the same way Blowjob, you only post references to the Guardian, the BBC and Wacky CT sites.

Quote:

This speaks volumes. It is not widely regarded as a publication of substance. More of a comicbook for adults with learning impediments, with some extremely sinister overtones.

The same can be said for any other Newspaper. It depends on the individuals personal viewpoint. As for your reference to people who read the Mail having learning impedments, choose what you say carefully, because you don't come across as being the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

Stop being so arrogant.

PC as far as i am concerned does cause problems in society, MASSIVE problems.