BobDobolina said:
44-sec, the only manner in which it exists is as a shield for jerks to defend themselves when people point out that they're jerks.
This ignores the very real issues faced by the inevitable clash of differant cultures as they try to merge into something that can coexist, the struggle to find points of compramise whcich are acceptable to both sides or indeed the multitude of sides and the inevitable missteps that occur. Its tone is also very insulting, it does not leave room for, 'oh this is only if you have nothing else to say' It is clear, unambigous and more importantly, opes the bloody video.
Imagine if the opening to my post was 'the only people who agree with bob are jerks who cannot cope with the real world' despite being blatantly false, it does nullify any attempt at reconcillation I make in the same post.
46-its like some sort of satanic rhetorical judo.
Yep, still piling on the hate, and no qualifier yet in sight, lets keep on truckin (do you yanks still say that?)
47-say something bigoted and hurtful- Well that could be a qualifier, if he bothered to point out that not all non-PC comments are bigoted and hurtful.
2:06-A tiny minority took it to redicoulous extreames,-Recognition that all was not well with the concept, but still the language implies that it is an issue the same way taht being killed in an elevator is an issue. The tone pretty dishonestly plays down the whole thing and, since it is followed by a picture that claims the ninetees sucked, it implies that the whole thing is in the past and that PC has evolved beyond them.
2:12-Since it was the ninetees, that nice ambivalent happy spot-I have to agree that the ninetees was the last time that we had nothing to worry about but the use of the WTF is unessecarily dismissive. As of yet, I am still not seeing the part where you claim it to be only directed at real racists and sexists.
2:33-displaying anyone who opposes PC (remember, we have still to gain any qualifier on who this is based against) as an old racist, claiming that anyone who disagrees has bought into a 'media driven mythology'. Cue Glen Beck, becuase hey, its not a spectrum of differant views, you either agree with bob or you agree with that guy.
3:24-Words mean things and most of what being said is just being nice- A bit condescending there, ignores that fact that simple disagreement that PC is simply being nice is possible.
To my mind, most of what drives political correctness (and note that bob ignores all non-language forms of this) is a value judgement made by others with regards to what is and is not culturally acceptable. In my country, several councils have banned ham at meetings as the consumption of ham has been deemed to be culturally unacceptable to Jewish and Muslim people and therefore politically incorrect. There are designated days where all men are banned from swimming pools because men swimming with women is deemed culturally unacceptable and thus politically incorrect. There are children suffering abuse who are ignored because to help them would be culturally unacceptable and thus politically incorrect.
That, to my mind is the issue with politcal correctness and thus far, this video, and indeed your posts have been geared not towards differentiating my moderate views from the extreame, but rather lumping us all together and claiming that none of us even have a point worth discussing, that our views are nothing more than a sheild to troll from. No one here is defending racism, no one here is defending sexism (at least I don't think so, this is a long thread) what many of us are trying to point out that it is offensive to make value judgements on the mores of one culture compared to the mores of another, and then to force the mores of the minority upon the rest of us.
Also, the best way to rob these words of their stigma, is to use them in a light hearted context with the friends that are supposed to be offended by them, I remember being out camping a while back witht he cadets, when me and a turkish bloke were making cracks about each other, him about how lazy I was and me about how his country was backward and why hadn't he had a puch up with the greek kid yet. In this situation, both of us were comfertable enough with each other to make comments of that nature in jest, and yet I was placed in a great deal of trouble over being racist, even though the only turkish person there was in on the joke with me. That is my problem with politcal correctness, in insists on mollycoddling us.
3:33-Hooray, some qualifier, only most people who disagree with him are racist, sexist jerkwads, not all of them, wanna pave the way for some concilliation with the moderate bob... bob...
3:46- Now I understand the rational for not putting in that sheva costume, people legitimatly are offended by it, but I don't really understand where that offense comes from, I mean, do scandinavian people complain about viking imagery, do italian people complain about roman costumes, I mean, Italy of today has slightly less corruption than rome did, and all in all is not a whole lot like its ancestor.
4:19-I wouldn't quite say that it is an acknowledgement that this is the twenty first century, mostly because in the settings discussed (thor doesn't count because valhalla is not a real historical setting) people of other ethnicities weren't present. There weren't black doctors during the korean war, WWII units weren't intergrated etc. I mean its like John Wayne playing ghengis khan, sure it was inclusive of anglo saxons, but it was also really really stupid.
4:20- On second viewing, he does claim that his use of the 'meathead voice' was aimed only at actuall sexists, so I appologise, that's on me. However, that is the only time that non-PC views are given a word in, so it doesn't really help his case
Closing seconds-Uses 'for the most part' which is a step forward, but still gives no recognition to either the 'we do this so that language can become more inclusive through de-stigmatizing offesensive language in genial circumstances' or 'I disagree with making cultural value judgments' groups, leaving those groups with the impression, as conveyed by the tone and props, that at least some of the hate was directed at them.
See, none of this would be an issue if this was just the OP of a thread, bob could clarify, issue concilliatory responses, move towards a healthy consensus so that everybody can get back on the track of beating up the real racists. But as this is a video, it exists almost in a vacuum, and any response from bob in video form would be just as insulting as his responses to the furor over his being 'out of touch' and the anger over his comments about the expendables. The meathead voice would be included.
Also, I would like an appology for your claim that I was 'obviously a troll who hid behind a PC shield', I pride myself of how inclusive I am, and how I regard everybody as equal until proven otherwise.