Perspective: PC means denying reality

[Confederate Kahanist]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1040610




Tim Wildmon - Guest Columnist - 6/8/2010 7:40:00

Tim WildmonMy definition of "political correctness" is the denial of reality and the rejection of common sense in the name of some greater cause according to liberals. Generally speaking, political correctness has now been adopted by most institutions that influence our country, such as academia, law, government, the media, etc.

 

For example, political correctness is the reason you will only see white males as the villains in the Broadview Home Security (formally Brinks) ads we see on television. You would think watching these ads that all criminals who break in houses are white males. If it were only black males or Hispanic males, it would be a national news story, but Broadview knows there will no bad public relations if they just use white guys to kick down doors and run away despite the fact that statistically speaking, whites are the least likely race to break into your home.
 
This is what I mean when I define political correctness as denying reality.
 
Political correctness also does its best to affect the collective judgment of the American people when it comes to illegal immigration. There is no question it affects law enforcement agencies. I had one veteran police officer tell me when they stop illegal aliens for some violation, they often just send them on down the road for the same violation a lawful citizen would have been ticketed, fined, or jailed.
 
Evidently this attitude also affects the feds in charge of enforcing our immigration laws. Did you see the story out of the state of Washington where an illegal immigrant was arrested after being caught in the act of raping a woman? He had been deported nine times. You read that right -- nine times. This is what I mean when I say political correctness defies common sense. Common sense tell us this man should have locked away for many years after he broke into our country the second time. But we did not do what is common sense because we don't want to be accused of being a racist country. See what I mean?
 
Many in our country don't really care about enforcing our immigration laws. The only logical conclusion to this is that the politically correct crowd really doesn't care about our own citizens. If they did, this woman never would have been raped by this illegal alien because this man never would have been free to roam. She was a victim of political correctness.
 
While giving testimony before Congress recently, Attorney General Eric Holder could not even bring himself to admit that a "possible" motivation for terrorist attacks on America was "radical Islam." This is another example of how political correctness requires one to deny reality. The whole world knows we are under attack by radical Islam, and the top law enforcement officer of the United States of America gives the congressman a blank stare when asked to admit the obvious. If you did not see it, it's worth watching on YouTube.
 
Next, I was expecting this line of questioning:

    Congressman: "Attorney General Holder, is water wet?"
    AG Holder: "Well, Congressman, there are many aspects to water."
    Congressman: "But I asked you if water is wet? Simple question."
    AG Holder: "What kind of water are you talking about Congressman?"

Quite frankly, he might as well as had his pants on the ground because he looked like a fool.
 
Now President Obama, driven by political correctness, is trying to promote open homosexuality in the United States military. There are sound reasons why our military has forever had the policy of forbidding open homosexuals in the armed services beyond what the political left says is bigotry. Ever heard of sexual tension?
 
There is a reason we have segregated men and women in the military in terms of bunking, showering, etc. Why? Because the military understands human nature as far as sex is concerned. In the same way, why would Obama want to force heterosexual men to shower and bunk with other men they know are sexually attracted to men?
 
Again, we need to sometimes remind ourselves, a person's skin color is not the same as a person's sexual orientation/conduct. This is obvious, but political correctness forces a person to deny the obvious, reject reality, and put off common sense.
 
The part that bothers me the most is the callous and flippant attitude that President Obama takes on this very serious issue that will affect our military in unprecedented and profound ways. He gives no credence to the longstanding policy itself or the reasons for it.
 
He does not care.
 
Remember my definition of "political correctness" as you watch what is going on in our country. Number one, political correctness causes people to deny reality -- and number two, political correctness causes its subscribers to reject common sense. Don't be fooled, political correctness retards progress and prohibits sound judgment.

[muman613]

Political Correctness could possibly be the downfall of American civilization and possibly the entire civilized world.

One must be able to call a spade a spade, even if it means upsetting some people. We have seen that the PC crowd cares less about the Jews that they hurt with their words {witness Helen Thomas {yemach shemo}}...

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

PC is another word for hypocrisy and fear of social pressure.

[muman613]

Political Correctness and Moral Relativism are two curses on this generation.

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

Descriptive relativism is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards. Descriptive relativists do not necessarily affirm or deny the existence of a single correct normative appraisal, given the same set of circumstances. Likewise, they do not necessarily make any meta-ethical commitments to the semantics, ontology, or epistemology of moral judgements. That is to say, descriptive relativists are not necessarily normative or meta-ethical relativists, though they might be. Descriptive relativism is a widespread position in academic fields such as anthropology and sociology.

Meta-ethical relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all, rather only to societal convention and personal preference. They believe not only that, given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms; but further, that one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.

Normative relativists in turn believe not only this meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do: that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Just as not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty (1931–2007), for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.[3]