Author Topic: Political Correctness going too far?  (Read 17266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aybraus

  • Mr. Do! Disciple
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • aka VFX Watch aka Toothy aka Chris.
    • View Profile
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #75 on: December 22, 2005, 07:04:53 pm »
OK i just had to comment on one thing. someone said something about joining all the religious symbols together. This, i think would offend anyone from any of the religions. Each religion believes it is the true religion, and to have their symbol joined with one of the other false religions would be an insult. just my thought on that.
Oh really?
What kind of internetese is that?  FOR SHAME.
I'm toothy22 on Steam. Someone needs to invite me into the GS clan!

Offline Leng

  • Crystal Castle Gem Eater
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
  • !?!?
    • View Profile
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #76 on: December 23, 2005, 08:30:58 am »
so maybe next time a plane flies into a building it won't collapse....
Then we're talking a tiny plane, a hell of a building, or a glancing hit.

In my opinion it would be worth have 1 or 2 9/11's every year to be free.
Dear God.  Okay.  Screening based on ethnicity may be seen as not politically-correct, but it's not like we are imprisoning them for what they look like.  Our freedom is intact.  And the airline's freedom to refuse to allow you on a plane is intact.  They are a business and they have the right to refuse to take you anywhere.  There are all kinds of good reasons for them to NOT exercise that right too often, of course.  Anyway, I would never trade that many lives just to get rid of airport screening.  And I doubt the sanity of anyone who seriously would.

ok, to elaborate on my view, let's look at two versions of 911, the official and the conspiratorial.  we will ignore the question of which is correct in order to compare them logically.  in each case, i will ask you to take the person of the american public in general and evaluate how you would answer "the security dillema"

the official: islamic terrorists hijacked four planes - some of them having earlier infiltrated themselves as pilots - and flew two into the world trade center, another into the pentagon, and the fourth crashed when passengers tried to regain control.  the world trade center towers and some buildings nearby were destroyed in the attacks.  osama bin laden first denied, then admitted responsibility.  he and his network have been diminished but are still a real threat.

the security dillema: "we, the US government (group A) wish to prevent they, the islamic terrorists (group B) from launching additional attacks against you, the US populace (group C).  if security remains as it is, group B will be able to launch a major terrorist attack approximately every 6 to 18 months, killing several thousand in each attack.  however, if you allow us to intensify our security, we will be able to prevent such attacks.  you will be searched at airports and monitored in public places.  we will randomly note your financial transactions and other paper-trails you leave (there are quite a lot of these) although this should be noninvasive as it occurs without your knowledge.  we will investigate and detain suspected terrorists, also away from the public eye."  note that it is impossible for islamic terrorism to destroy or badly hurt the united states as they have no military or economic infrastructure.  they are limited to harrassing attacks.  also it is unlikely that the security threat will pass, even if al qaida and all other major islamic terrorist organizations are crushed.  the united states is under attack because it is a hegemonic power, and if the united states ceases to be a hegemonic power, it will face security threats from rival powers.  thus we are faced with the dillema as it stands and the answer will be relevent for the foreseeable future.

the conspiratorial: "the united states government flew cargo planes into the world trade center towers.  this alone would have been insufficient to destroy them, but the buildings were rigged for demolition ahead of time, as were nearby buildings not hit by planes.  the pentagon was struck by a cruise missile launched from a military jet.  at least one of the missing passenger jets was destroyed by a missile.  osama bin laden denied responsibility for the attacks.  at some point he was killed and all his later appearances (in which he admits planning the 911 attacks) are outright forgeries.  he thus becomes a figure alarmingly similar to that of emmanuel goldstein of 1984."

the security dillema: "we, the US government (group A) are establishing a police state.  you, the US populace (group B) will allow us to limit your freedoms and monitor you in public.  we will also randomly observe your paper trails.  there will be surveilance and detention of who we choose, but the numbers will be small for the time being.  you will allow us to do this.  otherwise we will create disasters/mass panics, killing several thousand people, every 6 to 18 months."  again the likelyhood of a violent overthrow of the government is nil, as the power structures (imaginary though they may be) are too entrenched.  at the same time, should the populace be largely opposed to security measures, the government position would be risked by proceeding with them perforce, and moreso by attempting any open suppression (the army will not support the government against the populace unless ambiguity can be maintained).  thus we are faced with the dillema as it stands and the answer will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.

we predict the average reader would comply with the first dillema and not with the second.  however:

consequences of compliance: identical in either case

consequences of noncompliance: identical in either case

again we do not judge as to the correctness of one version vs the other.
I have been told
not by one but two of my lovers
that I've got a heart of gold
but I'm unable to share it with others
They call me a poet who'll never have a poem
a tiger with no taste for bone
I'm the wonderful wonderful wizard who's waltzing alone

Offline Aybraus

  • Mr. Do! Disciple
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • aka VFX Watch aka Toothy aka Chris.
    • View Profile
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #77 on: December 23, 2005, 08:35:28 am »
Sounds like Life of Pi.
It's pretty relevant to this topic.
I'm toothy22 on Steam. Someone needs to invite me into the GS clan!

Offline Borogove

  • Venture Conqueror
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • mimsy: adj. - flimsy and miserable :(
    • View Profile
    • Meyermike.com
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #78 on: December 23, 2005, 09:41:14 am »
Bit of a Catch-22, yes.

Regardless of why, we can see government getting more powerful and more invasive all the time.  With the system we have in place, it's hard for me to see how it could go the opposite direction, and congress isn't paid to sit there not making laws.

So it's going to change, and there's only one direction to go. :'(
If there's a way to change that, or I'm wrong, please share the good news.
Use those talents you have. You will make it. You will give joy to the world. Take this tip from nature: The woods would be a very silent place if no birds sang except those who sang best.
-- Bernard Meltzer

Check out my games:  http://www.meyermike.com

Offline Pando

  • Spy Hunter Spook
  • *****
  • Posts: 2077
  • panda? yes please
    • View Profile
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #79 on: December 26, 2005, 02:25:35 pm »

Offline Cobra

  • Moderator
  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8951
  • People want ducks.
    • View Profile
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #80 on: December 26, 2005, 08:47:35 pm »
Havent u heard you can't say winter soltace because it's offense to southern hemisphere people. :P

Offline sgore

  • SunDog Pilot
  • *****
  • Posts: 3384
  • Actually, Jeopardy is my second favorite game show
    • View Profile
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #81 on: December 27, 2005, 06:26:09 am »
you read that strip too?
What meme is relevant right now? Look, just imagine I'm riffing on that. Updating signatures is exhausting.

Sam:The Ploofy Master

Offline 762

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5073
    • View Profile
Re: Political Correctness going too far?
« Reply #82 on: December 27, 2005, 07:06:20 am »
Where are the other book covers located? I saw another one that Pando posted, and they look funny.

Spore countdowns: USA Europe