Protected groups of people create needless social division

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by jcknapier711 (378 posts) -

Certain groups of people get special "politically correct" protections either by social norms or legal enforcement. At first glance, these groups appear merely as subject to social fads. Quite like a hoola-hoop, jelly shoes or friendship bracelets, certain groups go in and out of fashion.

Here is a short list of groups that you can bash with impunity:

White males

Christians

Here's a short list of protected groups:

homosexuals

blacks

"undocumented immigrants"

Although, in recent time it seems that blacks have fallen out favor in lieu of the homosexual. One can say a certain degree of things about black people (in contrast to a few years ago before the gay rights people got momentum) without it being considered "hate speech" but not to the degree that one can criticize homosexuals. Even the term, "homosexual" is becoming the big bad "N" word.

Immigrants are pretty untouchable too. Today it's considered a fact that they are the best thing to happen to this country since sliced bread or whatever. When, objectively speaking, that's actually just an opinion. But you can't ever counter the politically correct opinion, because then you are engaging in, "hate speech."

However, I can say the most awful things about Christians. I can claim that every last Catholic priest is a pedophile and nobody will so much as wince. I can go on a long diatribe and explain all the evils that white men have done, but never shall I break the sacred politically correct commandment of placing culpability for those things on the white female, nor shall it ever be known that other groups have committed similar evils.

It seems to me that this has created huge divisions in our country. It's white men vs black people, Christians vs homosexuals. I can only conclude that political correctness has not provided for a unitary socially cohesive group of Americans.

Should certain groups of people get special protections from criticism, if it only creates an artificial social divide?

Keep in mind that I am not endorsing any specific position here, just observing these socially constructed political correct norms.

#2 Edited by Iszdope (8929 posts) -

You stink.

That's what I think.

#3 Posted by iwilson1296 (2186 posts) -

sounds about right but i don't think many here will agree

#4 Posted by LJS9502_basic (148630 posts) -

Protection from criticism? No. Protection from discrimination? Yes.

#5 Posted by Korvus (1050 posts) -

@jcknapier711: I mostly agree. I think that "hate speech" is real and should be fought. I also think that every group (that doesn't hurt others with what they do) should have the right to be represented somehow but at the same time nobody should be "untouchable" or special. Then again, more often than not the most vocal people in those groups have the holier-then-thou attitude and will tell you (ad nauseam) that if you disagree with anything they say you're narrow-minded and are trying to take away their rights.

#6 Edited by themajormayor (25272 posts) -

Both blacks and whites should be ashamed. Whites gave us mainstream pop music and black people gave us hip hop. Whites should go back to making classical music and blacks to jazz.

#7 Edited by GazaAli (21509 posts) -

I agree that political correctness is so mundane and has gotten to the point of being a despotism of thought. The mere act of voicing a trivial criticism or an opinion that slightly diverges from the established one will render you a hateful bigot that must not be listened to or treated with any degree of consideration. I don't think that even the most liberal and supposedly free countries are actually free because you still need to carefully watch what you're saying. Religious despotism seems to be assuming the shape of secular despotism. No one will necessarily persecute you, in the most definite meaning of the word persecute, for saying something against the status quo, but they will effectively do so by marginalizing you and coercing you to at least voice opinions on sensitive topics that coincide with the public opinion on those topics or else you run the risk of being socially alienated and fringed. In my humble opinion, political correctness is only one expression of the intellectual decay and the despotism of majority rule the world is currently experiencing.

However, regarding the general acceptance or apathy towards criticizing groups like white people or Christians, I think its a twofold phenomenon. First it has to do with the antagonistic nature of the legacy of these two groups, the colonial white man and the reign of the Catholic church in Europe and what it brought to it. Second it has to do with the simple notable demographic volume of these two groups. People expect that its unlikely that white people or Christians can be subject to persecution and/or discrimination whether currently or in the foreseeable future simply because they're still able to maintain a substantial majority.

#8 Edited by foxhound_fox (85361 posts) -

Protection from criticism? No. Protection from discrimination? Yes.

Hard to disagree with this point. There is a differentiation between the two.

#9 Edited by Master_Live (12352 posts) -

Hey buddy, you are gonna have that Black History Month and you will like it too.

#10 Posted by foxhound_fox (85361 posts) -

Hey buddy, you are gonna have that Black History Month and you will like it too.

#11 Posted by comp_atkins (30778 posts) -

Protection from criticism? No. Protection from discrimination? Yes.

/thread

#12 Posted by Aljosa23 (23625 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: lol wtf. End racism by not talking about it? ok. That's probably fake, too.

#13 Edited by Master_Live (12352 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@foxhound_fox: lol wtf. End racism by not talking about it? ok. That's probably fake, too.

There you go.

#14 Posted by LJS9502_basic (148630 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@foxhound_fox: lol wtf. End racism by not talking about it? ok. That's probably fake, too.

Not really. I get what he means....if you keep talking about it...you're making it an issue....and it won't go away as long as it's an issue.

#15 Edited by Aljosa23 (23625 posts) -

@Master_Live: Damn, I'm legitimately surprised.

Doesn't make it any less stupid though.

#16 Posted by LJS9502_basic (148630 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@Master_Live: Damn, I'm legitimately surprised.

Doesn't make it any less stupid though.

You do know he's saying we shouldn't label people and should see them for themselves...right?

#17 Posted by foxhound_fox (85361 posts) -
#18 Posted by foxhound_fox (85361 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@Master_Live: Damn, I'm legitimately surprised.

Doesn't make it any less stupid though.

I'm surprised you don't get what he's talking about.

#19 Posted by lostrib (26458 posts) -

Considering some of the shit you've posted, how have you not been banned

#20 Edited by Aljosa23 (23625 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@Master_Live: Damn, I'm legitimately surprised.

Doesn't make it any less stupid though.

I'm surprised you don't get what he's talking about.

I do get it but it's impossible.

#21 Edited by Master_Live (12352 posts) -

That is a great meme, but I would cut the last Q&A. It might give the impression that to end something you should just stop talking about it. Would that have worked in 1950? Or 1859? Maybe if we stop talking about same sex marriage it will all go away and same sex couples will be able to magically start marrying each other in all 50 states. The question is if the US is so far advance in their race relationships that giving platform to race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson which have an invested interest in creating race divisions in this country is counter productive.

Are we pass that? There isn't a definitive answer, it is more of a continuing process in search of the "more perfect Union" that Obama talked about in 2008. Perhaps as a symbolic gesture, at the end of his term Obama should ask the country to move pass this Black History Month thing, since in that regard Freeman is absolutely right, Black history is American history.

#22 Posted by foxhound_fox (85361 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

I do get it but it's impossible.

No it isn't.

#23 Posted by LJS9502_basic (148630 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@Master_Live: Damn, I'm legitimately surprised.

Doesn't make it any less stupid though.

I'm surprised you don't get what he's talking about.

I do get it but it's impossible.

It's not...but why do you think it is?

#24 Posted by Marth6352 (23 posts) -

If I see another person use affirmative action as an argument that black people are getting better treatment I'm going to pull my hair out. WHITE WOMEN are the winners in that regard.

#25 Edited by Master_Live (12352 posts) -

If I see another person use affirmative action as an argument that black people are getting better treatment I'm going to pull my hair out. WHITE WOMEN are the winners in that regard.

How come?

#26 Edited by Marth6352 (23 posts) -

@Master_Live: white women are the biggest benefactors of affirmative action. And let's set the record straight.... AA does not magically put under qualified people in positions. It makes sure minorities are not over looked when it comes to the application process or the hiring process. Qualifications do matter my friend.

#27 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (500 posts) -

I don't see it where I'm from =\

maybe it's just an American thing

#28 Posted by the_bi99man (10916 posts) -

Protected groups of people create needless social division

Well duh.

And Morgan Freeman is spot on on this issue. Absolutely, 100%, right.

#29 Posted by Makhaidos (1418 posts) -

False. Groups of people are protected because needless social division existed in the first place. This topic is idiotic and a vent for the OT racists to come out and complain about how hard it is to be a white person this day and age.