Politically Correct or Incorrect Bullshit Of The Day

[Butterboy]

Originally Posted by MidnightCaller

Here we go again. A 26-year-old white woman with breasts. Oh the shock! And she's donning a sports top and leggings..disgusting! Yes, according to the MailOnline, some viewers are "slamming" Coronation Street on account of Helen's attire..

Pfft they should come to my gym and see the slutty outfits the girls wear there before going to the supermarket in the same sweaty gym gear. Besides she's supposed to be at home working out and you get hot when you exercise. Hell April to September I sit around the house totally nude even when I'm doing nothing, too hot for clothes.

[Butterboy]

Killing animals is apparently wrong http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38894821

[zhora]

Every day alcoholics (and drug users) choose to drink and use, sometimes committing crimes and hurting people in the process, and are not fully held to account for their behavior, being thereby deprived of the opportunity to suffer the consequences of their actions in order to motivate better behavior. The circumstance is externalized from them with discussion by authority figures of their supposed "disease."
Our society has a serious problem with "enabling" behavior, which extends to public policy concerning our official response to alcoholism. Human interactions are dynamic, not static, and if alcoholics are not enabled in their behavior, their behavior, in general, will improve.
Recovery equals changed behavior over time. That changed behavior can be coerced. The claim that the person "has to want to change" is a myth. Change the behavior and the thinking will follow. The alcoholic needs to "act himself into a new way of thinking," this being the central fact of recovery.

[Decadence]

Today's exercise in WTF is described in a recent article from the Chicago Tribune.

It seems book publishers are now hiring "sensitivity readers" which scan new books for racist, sexist, or otherwise "offensive" content. Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

As subjective as "offensive" and "marginalized groups" are as terms, anyone else smell censorship? In this enlightened age, are we reverting to the times when things like Huxley's "Brave New World" and Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" were labelled as taboo (and outright banned) in some places just because someone in authority decided they were the final word in what was fit for public consumption?

During the days of his polemic "The Seven Words You Can't Say on television", the late Mr. Carlin often opined that if you don't like what you hear on the radio or television, you're always free to change the channel (or turn it off)... rather than demand that nobody else is allowed to hear/watch/read it either.

Freedom. What a concept. I'm reminded of the PMRC hearings in the 80s.. the do-good group headed by Tipper Gore that was going to save America from what they deemed as "explicit lyrics" in recordings. Frank Zappa, Dee Snider, and John Denver all testified in Washington.. all were in unison in saying that was censorship and had no place in America.

It wasn't what they wanted to hear. Shortly after testifying, Zappa released his "Jazz From Hell" LP which received one of the PMRC's "explicit lyrics warning" stickers... the only problem was there wasn't a spoken word on the entire album!

I don't think we're learning.

[snowy25]

We are walking slowly into a world where we won't be able to say anything to anyone unless its on an approved list soon. I remember the start many years ago when I was in prison. There the officers were ordered to call people Mr when addressing them. So instead of them shouting Smith here's your post they would have to say Mr Smith here is your post. Apparently prisoners felt that it degraded them and made them less human to just be called by their surname. It was a load of bollocks then and its a load of bollocks now.

Every day its one group or another upset themselves or upset for someone else complaining. Not a day goes by without someone upset because of some minor issue. My view is turn off or tune out if you don't like it. No one forces you to watch that tv show, listen to the album, read that book or go to that show. If its not for you then stay the fuck away from it, is it really that hard? I don't like screaming fucking kids or fat bastards blocking my path when I go shopping. So I make a choice and I go early or late to avoid both annoyances. Its about personal choices and that is what we are losing with these freaks deciding what is suitable and not.

[Mal Hombre]

Despite being a Fat Bastard Myself,I agree with You,We'll know when We've reached the end,When it's no longer acceptable to criticize white males..

[snowy25]

Oh it will never come to that. White males will always be the root cause of all the worlds problems, even Islamic terrorism. Just as any woman or non white politician they will all tell you who is really to blame for everything. We white males are to blame from the original sin to whatever happens next week in the news.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Today's exercise in WTF is described in a recent article from the Chicago Tribune.

It seems book publishers are now hiring "sensitivity readers" which scan new books for racist, sexist, or otherwise "offensive" content. Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

As subjective as "offensive" and "marginalized groups" are as terms, anyone else smell censorship? In this enlightened age, are we reverting to the times when things like Huxley's "Brave New World" and Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" were labelled as taboo (and outright banned) in some places just because someone in authority decided they were the final word in what was fit for public consumption?

The word I bolded makes this a financially correct move and not a Politically Correct one. Book publishers do not give a fuck about politics, they just want to sell books. At the end of the day if not turning off readers due to objectionable content accomplishes that goal, then that is what they will do.

Originally Posted by Decadence

During the days of his polemic "The Seven Words You Can't Say on television", the late Mr. Carlin often opined that if you don't like what you hear on the radio or television, you're always free to change the channel (or turn it off)... rather than demand that nobody else is allowed to hear/watch/read it either.

This is where it gets tricky. George great artist that he was did "7 dirty words" as commentary on government instituted censorship, which is different from a publisher not deciding to publish a book. 7 dirty words dealt with the person being jailed for his or her transgression. The writer still has the right to write the material, he or she is just not entitled to have it published. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Decaadence

Freedom. What a concept. I'm reminded of the PMRC hearings in the 80s.. the do-good group headed by Tipper Gore that was going to save America from what they deemed as "explicit lyrics" in recordings. Frank Zappa, Dee Snider, and John Denver all testified in Washington.. all were in unison in saying that was censorship and had no place in America.

It wasn't what they wanted to hear. Shortly after testifying, Zappa released his "Jazz From Hell" LP which received one of the PMRC's "explicit lyrics warning" stickers... the only problem was there wasn't a spoken word on the entire album!

You know what Tipper did ended up being the best marketing tool rap music ever had. Basically what those stickers did was to point out to all the white kids (which is/was 70%-75% of the market)
which rap music to buy. Jay-Z, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube and others have become multi-millionaires and in the case of Dre a billionaire off of Tipper's stickers. You talk about turning lemons into lemonade...

[haroldeye]

Diamelsx, The writer still has the right to write the material, he or she is just not entitled to have it published. Big difference.

There is no difference. Someone somewhere is stating what you can or can't say and saying what I can or can't hear.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by zhora

Every day alcoholics (and drug users) choose to drink and use, sometimes committing crimes and hurting people in the process, and are not fully held to account for their behavior, being thereby deprived of the opportunity to suffer the consequences of their actions in order to motivate better behavior. The circumstance is externalized from them with discussion by authority figures of their supposed "disease."
Our society has a serious problem with "enabling" behavior, which extends to public policy concerning our official response to alcoholism. Human interactions are dynamic, not static, and if alcoholics are not enabled in their behavior, their behavior, in general, will improve.
Recovery equals changed behavior over time. That changed behavior can be coerced. The claim that the person "has to want to change" is a myth. Change the behavior and the thinking will follow. The alcoholic needs to "act himself into a new way of thinking," this being the central fact of recovery.

Alcohol Psychotic Syndrome (as it was termed in the 1960s) is as much a mental illness as bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia. It appears to be closely related to bi-polar disorder. It is estimated that at least 60% of alcoholics are self medicating for depression. Conversely it is known that many bi-polar people use alcohol or drugs in an attempt to treat their symptoms. Sadly, alcohol in particular aggravates the mental conditions as it acts as a depressant on the Central Nervous System.

Please bear in mind that alcoholics and addicts are not excused from criminal behavior by the courts. The courts will often suspend sentences and grant probation if substance abusers enter treatment programs. Failure in the treatment program or violating the terms of probation brings normal sentencing into play, as well as new charges and additional fines and/or jail time. Many states require prison time for a third offense. Many professions will take a person's professional license for a second offense; others take it after one conviction (Doctors and nurses stealing narcotics, for example.) Very few abusers are able to engage the high quality legal teams that keep celebrities out of jail. Given the experience of poor treatment outcomes and risk to the public, there is much less tolerance for driving under the influence and penalties are much more severe than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

For reasons that are not clear, most substance abusers are not able to quit. For alcoholics, at least, it is known that chemical changes occur in the brain with prolonged abuse that destroy the power of choice and rational thinking. Also, it has recently been discovered that women have smaller amounts of the enzymes that break down alcohol and are physically damaged much more quickly. The rates of suicide, accidental death, fatal overdoses, heart attacks, liver and kidney failure, and strokes are very much higher at much younger ages among substance abusers than in the general population. Addicts and alcoholics are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes.

It is true that the recovery process requires changes in behavior and often cravings linger for sometime after behavioral changes begin. Done properly, the behavioral changes are self reinforcing. However, in my experience, the ability of addicts and alcoholics to evade and resist coercion is astonishing, as is their ability to deny overwhelming evidence that they are addicted, that their addictions are destroying their lives, and they are doing great harm to those around them. Even imprisoned drunks find ways to get alcohol.

IMO, given the risks to the public, the difficulty in getting addicts and alcoholics to actively engage in treatment and recovery, and the low percentage of successful treatment outcomes - everyone convicted of drunk driving should be required to have alcohol detection devices installed in their cars. They should remain on probation and be made to keep those devices for at least seven and preferably ten years after conviction. This is for the first offense. A second offense should require revoking the driver's license and mandatory testing, with ten years of clean tests required before the offender can apply for a new license. It is expected that many second offenders will be caught driving under the influence without a license and will find themselves imprisoned. These measures are harsh, but will keep our roads safer.