On Political Correctness

[PPCLI Guy]

Failure to declare everything you buy or conveniently forgetting a few things to stay under your limit is fairly minor by comparison though.

Kind of like failure to scan all of the items at self checkout is not shop lifting, right?

Conveniently forgetting that you stuffed some pork chops in your pants when you get to the cashier is okay too I guess.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just like when they ask what's down your pants and you say 'pork chops.' Then they say 'have a nice day.' I guess you should run to the nearest police officer and turn yourself and the customs officer in?

Just wondering where you limit the morality.

Because, I declare everything. Hundreds of dollars sometimes. Been told to proceed and have a great day. Should I present at secondary anyway and demand to pay taxes and duty?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>they have no idea that you're Canadian

They have ways.  Often they will guide the conversation to trick you into pronouncing the word "about".

 

[ModlrMike]

My wife and I shop in the US 2-3 times per year. Normally we take the time to itemize everything before we return to the border. I just hand the passports and the list to the border agent. Half the time I'm let go, the other half I'm directed to secondary. Even with paying at secondary I've yet to be on the losing end.

Honesty at the border is always the best policy.

 

[Remius]

Kind of like failure to scan all of the items at self checkout is not shop lifting, right?

Conveniently forgetting that you stuffed some pork chops in your pants when you get to the cashier is okay too I guess.

My point is that actually trying to bringing a taser into the country and have the retailer report you isn't the same as me buying shoes and having the retailer pass that info on to CBSA just in case I might fail to declare that.

For the record I always disclose everything I buy.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

>they have no idea that you're Canadian

They have ways.  Often they will guide the conversation to trick you into pronouncing the word "about".

You are joking right??

 

[Loachman]

I almost snorted.

 

[FJAG]

Just like when they ask what's down your pants and you say 'pork chops.' Then they say 'have a nice day.' I guess you should run to the nearest police officer and turn yourself and the customs officer in?

Just wondering where you limit the morality.

Because, I declare everything. Hundreds of dollars sometimes. Been told to proceed and have a great day. Should I present at secondary anyway and demand to pay taxes and duty?

My experiences are just like yours. We go across several months every winter and usually come back well under our limit. On day trips (3 or 4 per year) we're constantly over but declare every nickle we bought and have the receipts ready to go. Every time they say "have a nice day" and send us off without a secondary. Most of the stuff we (and most people buy) buy is NAFTA duty free anyway and would only be subject to HST.

Morality aside (although I subscribe to it) it's just not worth it to try and cheat. Besides being able to seize the goods and vehicle you open yourself up to having a black mark on your record which means that you'll be quite likely shuttled to a secondary on each and every subsequent crossing.

Like you I live near the border and find that there are things that you can only get on the other side of the border - Trader Joe's Orange Chicken; Oscar Meyer Lite Hot Dogs; Sunkist Diet Orange Soda; Amsterdam Coconut Vodka  ;D

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile, at Facebook

Facebook's algorithms have ruled that parts of the US Declaration of Independence are hate speech and removed excerpts of them posted to the platform.

In the run-up to Independence Day, a US community paper based in Texas had been posting small daily chunks of the historic document on its Facebook page.

At issue was a part of it that referred to "merciless Indian savages".

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44722728

 

[Altair]

Meanwhile, at Facebook

Facebook's algorithms have ruled that parts of the US Declaration of Independence are hate speech and removed excerpts of them posted to the platform.

In the run-up to Independence Day, a US community paper based in Texas had been posting small daily chunks of the historic document on its Facebook page.

At issue was a part of it that referred to "merciless Indian savages".

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44722728

And then humans took a look and allowed it?

 

[a_majoor]

A very interesting piece on "compelled speech", including an interview with Barbara Kay. Well worth watching the interview. Kay points out the plight of journalists and commentators who oppose this but don't speak out publicly, most of them are not financially secure and if kicked off from a platform, would have a hard time finding a new position (especially since Canadian media is hight concentrated in terms of ownership)

http://www.andrewlawton.ca/compelled-speech-is-the-new-censorship/

 

[daftandbarmy]

A very interesting piece on "compelled speech", including an interview with Barbara Kay. Well worth watching the interview. Kay points out the plight of journalists and commentators who oppose this but don't speak out publicly, most of them are not financially secure and if kicked off from a platform, would have a hard time finding a new position (especially since Canadian media is hight concentrated in terms of ownership)

http://www.andrewlawton.ca/compelled-speech-is-the-new-censorship/

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell, 1984

 

[Xylric]

A thought on Political Correctness, drawn from a personal anecdote.

After I graduated from Bible College with my bachelor's degree in Religious Education, my family held something of a celebration of the fact. Beyond several members of my extended family, we had invited a number of my friends to high school. One such friend (whom I am happily no longer in contact with as a result) brought his girlfriend along. I'd met her before, so I didn't particularly mind. I wasn't entirely fond with her because something about her raised several warning flags, and it didn't take very long for me to gain an understanding of why.

My mother's father passed away in 1999 from cancer, and as he had spent his retirement as a carpenter, made many different objects - including the candy bowl sitting next to me at this moment. One such object was a piece of Christian iconography, which were three crosses joined together in a single piece. As he wasn't the most emotional person, it was difficult for him to speak with affection to anyone. But he was a man of a deep and real faith, so he had made five of these crosses, one for each of his children (the one he made for my grandmother is slightly different), as a symbol both of his love for his children, and his hope that they would have as deep a faith as his own - even if they did not hold the same beliefs.

The barbecue and event was going quite well to my eyes, so I didn't learn of this incident until some time had passed, but apparently the girlfriend took objection to the open display of this piece of art, and effectively demanded my mother remove it from her sight. My mother quite wisely refused, and they left rather rapidly shortly there after. I'm significantly understating things when I merely say that she took objection to this piece being visible. I have many friends with a variety of beliefs, including someone best described as a pagan priestess. All of them recognize a little thing called the sacredness of hospitality, of which this event was a remarkable violation.

A mutual friend later asked why I was no longer in contact with this particular couple, so I informed him of this particular matter. While he was at the same celebration, he was not aware that this had occurred. His simple response was a horrified expletive, to put mildly, because you just don't do that. Her hatred for even the slightest indication of Christian belief is still something I can't wrap my head around, because her personal past meant that she could look upon this symbol of a father's love for his children and be sufficiently offended that she demanded it be removed.

A lot of the troubles around certain hot-button disputes strike me as being ultimately the same thing in function - the projection of one's negative experiences into the assumed motivations of those one disagrees with. In all honesty, this is why I'm proud to have had someone tell me that they figured I would be offended if they suggested that I was trustworthy. Not because I'm a duplicitous individual, but because he was acknowledging that he could not accurately determine my motivations and reasons. In other words, he acknowledged that I was an inherently honest individual because I was very much like the fabled scorpion - he could not be certain that I would act in a fashion that would be beneficial to him, but he knew with certainty that I would always act in a fashion that was consistent with my own nature and character.

I extend the concept of hospitality being sacred to go beyond one's domicile, and include things like one's sense of self and intrinsic being. After all, if one does not feel at home inside one's own mind, one is in very dire circumstances indeed. I hold nothing to be more important on the personal level than the sanctity of one's own mind. How threatened must one feel when basic social interaction with someone who has a different background is determined to be inherently dangerous?

I put it this way - the problem with political correctness is neatly illustrated in the film The Hunt for Red October - isn't the Political Officer the first person murdered?

 

[Kirkhill]

For general information - The poll was conducted by YouGov


"80 Percent Of Americans Think Political Correctness Is A National Problem


....Eighty percent of Americans say “political correctness is a problem in our country,” according to newly released data from a nationally representative poll drawing upon 8,000 survey respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus group. Some of this data, compiled with help from YouGov, has been newly released in a report called “Hidden Tribes.”....


Opposition to political correctness was higher among Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) than among white Americans (79 percent). In fact, just about every single demographic studied showed overwhelming objection to political correctness except the Americans the study reporting the poll results identified as “progressive activists.” Progressive activists, the study says, “have an outsized role in political discourse, even though they comprise a small portion of the total population (about 1 in 12 Americans).”

About the 8 Percent of People Who Love PC

“Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem,”

...progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country. ..."

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/12/80-percent-of-americans-think-political-correctness-is-a-national-problem/

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last

The detailed study on political tribes and political correctness  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

The only tribe with a majority supporting political correctness is that of the progressive activists.  All other tribes, including the traditional liberals, have majorities ranging from 61% to 97% perceiving political correctness as a problem. 

The perception is congruent for

74% of youngsters of 24-29
75% of African Americans
79% of youngsters under 24
79% of Whites
82% of Asians
87% of Hispanics
88% of American Indians

progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

Progressive activists - 8% of the population
Traditional liberals
Passive liberals
Disengaged
Moderates
Traditional conservatives
Devoted conservatives - 25% of the population

The study identifies the 63% in the middle as the Exhausted Majority - people open to compromise and not finding any evidence of it.

The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.

The Atlantic is not a notably conservative journal.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A thought on Political Correctness, drawn from a personal anecdote.

After I graduated from Bible College with my bachelor's degree in Religious Education, my family held something of a celebration of the fact. Beyond several members of my extended family, we had invited a number of my friends to high school. One such friend (whom I am happily no longer in contact with as a result) brought his girlfriend along. I'd met her before, so I didn't particularly mind. I wasn't entirely fond with her because something about her raised several warning flags, and it didn't take very long for me to gain an understanding of why.

My mother's father passed away in 1999 from cancer, and as he had spent his retirement as a carpenter, made many different objects - including the candy bowl sitting next to me at this moment. One such object was a piece of Christian iconography, which were three crosses joined together in a single piece. As he wasn't the most emotional person, it was difficult for him to speak with affection to anyone. But he was a man of a deep and real faith, so he had made five of these crosses, one for each of his children (the one he made for my grandmother is slightly different), as a symbol both of his love for his children, and his hope that they would have as deep a faith as his own - even if they did not hold the same beliefs.

The barbecue and event was going quite well to my eyes, so I didn't learn of this incident until some time had passed, but apparently the girlfriend took objection to the open display of this piece of art, and effectively demanded my mother remove it from her sight. My mother quite wisely refused, and they left rather rapidly shortly there after. I'm significantly understating things when I merely say that she took objection to this piece being visible. I have many friends with a variety of beliefs, including someone best described as a pagan priestess. All of them recognize a little thing called the sacredness of hospitality, of which this event was a remarkable violation.

A mutual friend later asked why I was no longer in contact with this particular couple, so I informed him of this particular matter. While he was at the same celebration, he was not aware that this had occurred. His simple response was a horrified expletive, to put mildly, because you just don't do that. Her hatred for even the slightest indication of Christian belief is still something I can't wrap my head around, because her personal past meant that she could look upon this symbol of a father's love for his children and be sufficiently offended that she demanded it be removed.

A lot of the troubles around certain hot-button disputes strike me as being ultimately the same thing in function - the projection of one's negative experiences into the assumed motivations of those one disagrees with. In all honesty, this is why I'm proud to have had someone tell me that they figured I would be offended if they suggested that I was trustworthy. Not because I'm a duplicitous individual, but because he was acknowledging that he could not accurately determine my motivations and reasons. In other words, he acknowledged that I was an inherently honest individual because I was very much like the fabled scorpion - he could not be certain that I would act in a fashion that would be beneficial to him, but he knew with certainty that I would always act in a fashion that was consistent with my own nature and character.

I extend the concept of hospitality being sacred to go beyond one's domicile, and include things like one's sense of self and intrinsic being. After all, if one does not feel at home inside one's own mind, one is in very dire circumstances indeed. I hold nothing to be more important on the personal level than the sanctity of one's own mind. How threatened must one feel when basic social interaction with someone who has a different background is determined to be inherently dangerous?

I put it this way - the problem with political correctness is neatly illustrated in the film The Hunt for Red October - isn't the Political Officer the first person murdered?

I'm not a religious guy, except when I swear, but I once dealt with an issue like this by signing up the offending party for a subscription to this magazine:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/

Feel free to poach my idea...

 

[Navy_Wannabe]

^ pure savagery

 

[Journeyman]

^ pure savagery

Yes, it's one of his positive attributes.  :nod:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

An interesting article - I am definitely in the Exhausted Majority camp...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-need-the-exhausted-majority-to-speak-up/2018/10/15/160440fa-d090-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html?utm_term=.f944d4a97f0d

We’re staying silent out of fear

An activist wears tape on her mouth while protesting in San Francisco on Oct. 4. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

By Charles Lane
Opinion writer
October 15 at 6:51 PM

Most ordinary people found it unbearable to live under communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The reasons varied: shortages of consumer goods, incessant propaganda, restrictions on travel.

Nothing was more psychologically exhausting than the constant pressure to watch every word one said, and to pretend to believe things one did not, for fear of negative repercussions. Dissidents called this “double morality” or “double consciousness.” It drove people crazy. Actually, it drove some to suicide.

Only among trusted family and friends was it possible to speak one’s mind, yet even that was not guaranteed. Of all aspects of totalitarian life, citizens of the former Eastern Bloc say, this is the hardest to explain to those who grew up in the democratic West.

Until now, perhaps. A new study of political attitudes in the United States offers stunning evidence that most Americans censor themselves, except among people they regard as like-minded, on a bundle of sensitive topics: immigration and immigrants; race and racism; gay, lesbian and gender issues; and Islam and Muslims.

The report by More in Common, a new nonprofit dedicated to understanding and healing political polarization in the United States and Europe, is based on a nationwide survey of nearly 8,000 people conducted this past December and January.

It found that between 51 and 66 percent of Americans agree there is “pressure to think a certain way about” each of the aforementioned topics, with immigration seen as the least sensitive and Islam the most.

Meanwhile, 68 percent report that “it is acceptable for me to express what I think” about race, or Islam, only among “people who are like me.” On immigration, 73 percent feel that way; on gay, lesbian and gender issues, the figure is 70 percent.

Political freedom has never been absolute in the United States, to be sure. For much if not most of our history, ostracism or worse awaited advocates of racial equality, especially in the South. If anyone understands the oppressiveness of being forced to present a false front every day, it would be the American gay men and lesbians who grew up in the era of the closet.

Conversely, a certain measure of self-censorship is necessary to democracy; to the extent that people refrain from gratuitously broadcasting bigotry, it promotes trust and rational discourse.

For all that, the More in Common report confronts us with a disturbing reality. We are a long way from the “double morality” of Eastern Europe, but we are, apparently, living among many millions of citizens who routinely lie or dissemble about their political opinions out of fear.

And what do they fear? Not necessarily government repression, the report suggests, but ridicule and harassment from their fellow citizens, which is often magnified by social media and can sometimes lead to trouble at school or work.

Large majorities of the public — 80 percent or more — see both hate speech and political correctness as problems plaguing American politics.

Defiance of the latter fueled Donald Trump’s electoral rise. Outrage at the former fuels the anti-Trump resistance.

Under communism, members of the party had to watch their words and deeds as much or more than other citizens did.

In the United States today, right- and left-wing tribes — Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives, as the More in Common report designates them — enforce “core beliefs” within their own ranks. A quarter to a third of Americans feel pressure to “think a certain way” about controversial issues even among people like themselves, according to the report.

Among progressives, more men than women felt pressure to conform; among conservatives, more women than men did.

With these less-than-tolerant ideological factions dominating everything from town hall meetings to Twitter, the far larger percentage of Americans who do see nuances, and who do favor policy compromise, keep their heads down.

They now constitute what the report describes as an Exhausted Majority, consisting of about two-thirds of the electorate. And 65 percent of the Exhausted Majority agree with the statement “people I agree with politically need to be willing to listen to others and compromise.” Yet their views are not reflected in political discourse, they believe.

They’re right: According to the report, the progressive and conservative ideologues who dominate Democratic and Republican party politics are 14 points more likely than the Exhausted Majority to believe that “people I agree with politically need to stick to their beliefs and fight.”

For the time being, the president of the United States is openly sowing fear and anger for political gain in the 2018 midterm elections, and his Democratic Party opponents seem increasingly tempted to respond in kind. Hope for more decent and, indeed, freer politics lies in the possibility that members of the Exhausted Majority will wake up and raise their voices.

 

[Journeyman]

An interesting article -

Anyone disbelieving the premise of the article, just read the comments that follow.  Déjà vu.