What is wrong with Political Correctness in some cases?

Post Reply New Topic

Only the really top ones (jazz and blues musicians) did "very well commercially."

There were so many doo-wopp groups who didn't get paid too well. Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers come to mind. They signed contracts very advantageous to the record companies, and received hardly any royalties. There was a song, "Sincerely," which was not written by Alan Freed---but Alan Freed got credit for writing it, anyway. The Moonglows, who did the original hit version of the song, hardly made any money at all.

Louis Armstrong did very well because he sort of kowtowed to the white audiences, and he was at the same time pretty innovative and talented. Fats Domino had a charm to him that appealed to all audiences; he wasn't really seen as being a "threat" at all. Little Richard and Chuck Berry were seen as "threats," but did very well because they were top-flight musicians and lyricists. And also because they had a sense of "rebellion" which appealed to teenagers.

Never even heard of "808"----I guess I'm behind the times. I think of "808" as being the area code for Hawaii.

Like anything, we must do some critical thinking when it comes to philosophies and ideas in general.

I certainly don't espouse all aspects of capitalism-----but I believe a capitalist framework in an economy is probably better than a socialist framework in an economy.

I am fine with some aspects of Critical Race Theory. Other aspects, I'm not so fine with.

I don't believe a biology professor in a college should give lectures on Critical Race Theory. It's a waste of class time. Stick to biology. And the vast majority of these professors actually do only stick to biology.

We must teach Emmett Till----but we must not teach that every white person has the potential to do what was done to Emmett Till. What was done to Emmett Till because he allegedly whistled at a white woman was worse than what was done by Jack the Ripper to the prostitutes whom he killed.

The Roland TR808 was a piece of trash analog drum machine that was meant as a practice tool for guitar players. The problem was that it sounded nothing like drums. Only a few were made, and most of them ended up getting dumped in pawn shops. Hip hop artists rediscovered them and began using them as production tools. The kick on those had a characteristic BOOM sound that's unmistakeable, so it's often copied on synthesizers and other drum machines.

Here's a sad country song featuring the 808 sound. It's really clear at the beginning and first verse of the song.

Hip hop artists also appropriated the turntable (aka record player). For a while, turntables were only used by hip hop artists as tools to "scratch" records. After a few years, there was sort of a revival of the use of vinyl "records." We didn't call them "vinyls" then; we called them "records."

Yes. I think a lot of these worries about teachers brainwashing their students in the "wrong" way could be allayed if there was more emphasis on encouraging students to think for themselves and to draw their own conclusions, instead of this tacit assumption that teaching has to be about imposing beliefs and telling them what to think.

One problem with this is that children are usually more gullible when they're very young. To me it's a sign of maturity when somebody learns independence of thought, and I wish it were encouraged more. But unfortunately most of the outcries about dogma in education are about when the content of the dogma is against the complainer's ideology instead of simply being about the fact that it's dogma at all.

Yep.....too much "all or nothing" these days. Indeed....

On all sides of the philosophical spectrums.

Not just hip-hop, but also not all hip-hop. Southern hip-hop's always loved 808s, but so did Skinny Puppy and a fair bit of other contemporaries both within industrial and within techno (and other EDM). Around the same time Southern hip-hop was big on them East Coast hip-hop was going all in on samplers with similar reputations and fixating on samples of acoustic drum breaks.

I'm not sure if this is still true but I seem to recall a degree of split, both within hip-hop and electronic music between stuff based around drum machines and stuff driven by 'breaks'.

Turntable culture wasn't really limited to hip-hop. Among things, it's association with hip-hop from the very earliest days is because hip-hop as a musical form grew out of turntable culture, not the other way around. Before samplers were invented DJs would often 'remix' songs live and on the fly at disco/funk/soul/etc clubs. This would often involve having two copies of the record and using the turn table to play the same part in a loop, cueing it up back and forth between both tables. Most techniques used by turntablists, whether it's in EDM or hip-hop or even alternative metal like Slipknot grew out of something invented by disco, funk and soul scenes, but then again so did those genres (not metal, but alternative metal is big on incorporating not-metal influences).

Sometimes this could be used to create sections that strongly hinted at what would become house and techno, but if it was just a break an emcee could rap over it. Once rapping met that type of musical accompaniment hip-hop started to solidify as a genre.

I don't think appropriate is really the word to describe it since they can trace a pretty solid connection. The reason terms like DJ and MC are common in hip-hop even now is directly due to the genre's connection to club scenes and those two roles that exist within a club (the guy playing the music and the guy who controls the microphone).

Your flow of thought is illogical, On the one hand you admit that systematic racism exists in the USA but then you say you object to CRT because it i) is based on correlating factors (thus invalidating it using the precept that correlation does not amount to causation) and ii) oppresses white people?

The fact you acknowledge systematic racism still exists in 2022 is a start. So lets now deal with your specific objections.
1. Your claim you can't correlate systemic barriers with discrimination black people face today - wrong. Almost all peer reviewed research on historical study attests systemic racism as contributing to current discrimination. Does it account 100%? no. But does that mean young people not learn about it? no....college level study of US society whether social studies, history or psychology must factor all contributing factors and race is one of the biggest if not most toxic

2. CRT oppresses white people....so this is the biggest lie perpetuated by the anti-CRT movement (perhaps 2nd biggest after the claim its taught in primary and highschool). Focusing on college where CRT is actually taught - the audience are adults. Learning about the relationship between systemic barriers and discrimination is simply teaching a face that a relationship exists. Is it causal? (that's what the literature tells us), But does causality mean it's 100% responsible? no, that not how it works. Just because you cant put a number against the factor doesn't mean it invalidates the relationship.

So young adults who are exposed to this research learn that certain segments of society enjoy privilege. Does that mean they will feel oppressed or does it mean they will sacrifice their own social benefits? no...of course not. What a joke. The republican party use parents to scour the education of schools all over America in what appears to be "Mcarthyist" picking on individual teachers for daring to mention "race" and using state legislation to enforce sackings. This is undemocratic and fear mongering.

1. Ok, but evidence, please? This is entirely about a narrative. It's all about storytelling. That's not evidence.

2. YES. IT. DOES. Victim class struggle under CRT is all about race. I’m black, therefore I’m entitled to special treatment. The white man is going to point to Obama and Harris as examples of how the hegemony has shifted to show how blacks and whites achieved equality. Bull stuff. ONE black president. WOW! So generous, white man! ONE black VP, because the WHITE man picked her. How many black senators now? What about SCOTUS? Oh yeah...Clarence Thomas, appointed by a WHITE MAN, and he’s an Uncle Tom besides who sexually harrassed a black woman. If black people are to move the needle on racial oppression, it's going to require a complete hegemonic shift. White people have to get out of the way. Power structures have to be by and for black people. The democratic process is a failure for black people. Blacks must assume power at every level from the top down.

By its nature, there is no room for us. It's not about equality. The majority IS white, all whites are racist, and blacks either have to be left alone to govern themselves in isolation, which IMO isn't entirely a bad idea (will explain), or blacks must have the reins of government over the majority.

Segregation isn't exactly a bad idea when self-imposed and results in meeting the best interests of segregated individuals. In corporate structures, executives are isolated from laborers. This is because the most important people are the ones with the ideas driving the rest of the business. It is common practice that entrepreneurs take vacations and meet together to exchange ideas and recharge away from their areas of responsibility. This allows them to make the best possible decisions which ultimately will affect labor. It's not that leaders don't value labor--it keeps them in business after all. Doesn't mean you can't do the whole undercover boss thing. Doesn't mean you can't confide in subordinates or listen to their concerns. It just means that if you're so busy worrying about workers you won't be effective as a leader since you’re neglecting operations.

Segregation is often necessary. If you are unsafe, and you KNOW you are unsafe, it's just wise to move to a safe place. Do urban areas experience violence? Well, sure. So we leave urban areas for safer suburbs. It happens that white people are the ones mostly moving out of urban areas, which consequently drives up property value and taxes. The fallacy is that black people can't do the same thing--blacks have the same if not better access to college education, and racial discrimination in the workplace is illegal, meaning they have the same access to jobs and the same right to start their own businesses. They have the same right to self-determination, and blacks are increasingly moving into what used to be exclusive white neighborhoods. There is actually a reverse trend that white families are taking advantage of lower property values and taxes in urban areas and spending comparable amounts of money on improvements, meaning increased property values and taxes. This has the benefit of running off organized crime who are now targeting the ‘burbs. Gentrification is risky but highly effective.

But the main point is that people working in certain occupations and earning certain levels of income tend to congregate in the same places, and what they all have in common are homes that meet their needs at their income level. After I started my family, we moved to a nice development. Because we were struggling economically and because of problems I had with students, I had to deal with vandalism and a nosy preacher’s wife with a grudge and a mental illness. It became unsafe. So we moved to a trailer park where our neighbors knew to mind their own business and everyone owned guns. Nobody in their right mind would bother us there, and we liked it that way.

If black people enjoy strength in numbers and are safer together, it is logically in their best interest to stay and work together without fear of external interference. Segregation is illegal only to the extent that no government can make or enforce laws to segregate people along racial lines, nor are individuals allowed to marginalize racial or ethnic groups by denying them access to necessary goods and services. FORCED integration, however, is unconstitutional and bad for the individual. Even when public schools were integrated, it created the problem of white flight. You can't force people to live together when they don't want to live together, and it's not safe for minorities to attempt it. Because blacks have the same rights as whites based on their purchasing power, they can move into better school districts. Even the segregation academies I’ve worked in cannot deny minorities entrance as long as they pay tuition, and I’ve taught a few black students while working there. The term segregation academy isn't even relevant anymore. [Note: What I’m referencing here is one of those weird things that is unique to Mississippi. Private schools are normally church schools anywhere else.] I taught at a Catholic School for 5 years, and they have a history of admitting minorities that predates integration. The academy where I teach now has a sizable black enrollment, all things considered, and they get a better education than public school kids. The main problem with academies is that the prevalence of white flight public schools has made them irrelevant. And, TBH, I’ve been kinda disappointed that my superiors expect a lower standard of instruction than what I’m used to teaching. It's going to be nice taking a job where I don't have to be a glorified entertainer. At any rate, people have to have the freedom to choose who they are going to associate with and for what reason--be it having a place to live, the best educational choices, the jobs they are best suited for, access to the best goods and services they can afford. I’ve never had a very high income, so after living beyond my means for a couple of years and having two babies while homeless, we licked our wounds and bought what we could afford. We live in a black neighborhood now because it's what we can afford. We know our neighbors and visit often.

What about churches? Churches tend to serve the needs of specific cultures. We've visited black churches before. We love the vitality of worship there and wish we saw this more where we are. But the plain fact is we don't share their lived experience, and trying to fit in might actually do more harm than good. To be clear, EVERY TIME my family has visited a black church we were welcomed and told that they were glad to have us. And every time a black family visited our church, we do the same thing just like we would any family regardless of skin color. If the love of Christ transcends race, why aren’t churches more diverse? Well, newer churches ARE more diverse. Older churches serve the needs of specific communities and remain segregated as a result of that.

What offends me about integration is how it can be harmful to culture by transforming it into something it isn't. In Mississippi, we have the “Blues Trail,” several historical sights throughout the state but mainly concentrated in the Delta. This has had the advantage of increasing tourism to the area, and I think profiting from cultural contribution is always a positive. My complaint is that it places an entire culture into a living museum, turning them into objects of amusement for rubberneckers and stripping them of their uniqueness and character. For a culture that has legitimately struggled against oppression, I think celebrating victimhood rather than progress continues to harm them.

What would be the opposite? I’m huge fan if South Korean culture. Pop music, limited drama series, and FOOD FOR DAYS. Hyundai cars. Gangnam fashion. Traditional Korean work ethic. Balance between conservative values and forward-thinking innovation. South Korea is the new Japan, and BETTER. The Koreans appropriated western music, took what we got right back in the 80’s and 90’s and made it BETTER, and it's still better than the trash pop music we listen to here in America. K-dramas are visual works of art, are funny as heck, and explore a breathtaking array of emotion. They tell complete stories unlike American trash that gets canceled just when the story is getting good (like Jericho or Blood and Treasure). The whole country went from being a cesspool in the shadow of the communist North to being an economic powerhouse, all inside the last 2-3 decades. It's impressive, and I’m stunned to see how much has changed since I visited Seoul back in 1995 when things had just started taking off. The beauty of it that Korea’s success has been determined by the Korean people, not ethnic or racial diversity.

I think forcing one culture to integrate into another dilutes its value and diminishes its ability to compete in the marketplace. The Mississippi Delta is a world leader in agricultural innovation. But Delta farmers are white, not black. At one point Greenville was an industrial center for shipbuilding. Due to greed driving up the cost of labor and lack of interest from the largely black local community, manufacturers in the area closed and took jobs with them. What's the difference between black culture in the Delta and Korean culture that transformed a third-world country into a world leader? Corporate solidarity for one. Koreans also have greater incentive to produce. Delta people are largely dependent on “progressive” government programs that penalize productivity. In Korea, you are not guaranteed access to higher education—you either get scholarships or you work your way through. Delta schools are mostly tech-prep sites that make a show of career training but operate largely as prisons. There was a viral video some years back that showed a Greenville teacher dragging a special needs kid across the gym floor during PE. Korea has every opportunity for their own people, AND many of them learn to speak English and attend American universities. Many Delta kids will never see the other side of Hwy 49 or the Yazoo River. Korea survived and overcame oppression from China and Japan. Race relations in the Delta aren’t really that bad—BLM and Defund the Police just aren’t an issue in the Delta. So where are the transformative black, Delta industries? Where are the forward-thinkers? Where are the entrepreneurs? Rich, black Deltans do exist: preachers, funeral home directors, and lawyers. Black social workers make bank in the Delta. So…basically people who feed off of people who are already poor. Greedy people. Parasites. Exactly how has integration helped them? On the other hand, Korea doesn’t have quite the same diversity, and they are in many ways stronger than the rainbow West.

I know my post will just end up getting deleted by the mods for whatever reason but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

There used to be prejudice against women in our history (as all today's political correctness boils down to history), like women were often seen as inferior and all that, but if someone makes a feminist joke to me I don't get offended. I just laugh.

Just the other day a guy at work offered to lift a heavy piece of machinery for me, and I could have got offended and appealed to the head office being all up in arms about a guy thinking a woman is physically too weak to lift something. But I didn't. I just saw him as a gentleman, and I do admit that men are physically stronger than women, and I moved on.

Like there's a sign at work you put over a hazard that says "Men At Work", and I'm the only one who uses it. But do I really give two craps about the fact that the sign says "men at work" instead of "person at work"? All I care about is if other people see the sign and take heed for their safety.

I don't see anything dangerous or offensive in what you've written. I think if the powers that be put as much energy into policing people's actions as they put into policing their words, we might get somewhere. I know words can be powerful but in the end I think what people do is a lot more important than what they say. As for "offensive," nobody ever died of that. I try not to hurt people's feelings, and I don't like it when people hurt each other's feelings, but somehow I don't think making it illegal is going to work.

I agree there are some examples of things slipping through the cracks (I posted yesterday a thread on a NY bestselling school book about "Skin" that is aimed at 3 year olds (surprisingly and despite the robust rhetoric on CRT it hardly raised an eyebrow here on WP?).

Where there are examples of children being exposed to questionable material or individual teachers choosing to be activists instead of teachers I don't agree with the republican party that this is a tidal wave of wokeness brainwashing children. The latter is simply farcical.

There's an elderly British right wing historian who calls himself "History debunked" whom I regularly watch (I'm a history buff so I am interested in his content while not necessarily believing his claims). He has made some interesting and correct observations about the BBC TV and regular contributions my Manchester Prof of history David Olysego (A Nigerian born contributor), There are certainly examples where individuals like Olysego who are distorting British history to fit a particular narrative because the current culture promotes/encourages activism which allows information to sneak through into public view without proper vetting by the BBC.

So yes, I acknowledge it happens. But is it a major issue....no I don't think it is.

From what I see "wokeness" is mostly limited to elite prep-type schools and companies that have many zoomer employees and cater to that demographic. This makes it easy and convenient to dismiss it as an overhyped nothing burger. As we discussed in another thread the situation is being used to censor things conservatives do not like. Nothing burger used by bad actors for censorship - bad anti woke people - end of story.

If only. Problem is the people going to those schools and those companies will probably determine the future agenda. One could argue wokeness is the lesser of two evils and at the moment that seems correct. If that works for you great I guess, It doesn't for me at all.

In my opinion I believe that people who focus too much on not being racist actually become like racists themselves. If you've got to be careful what words you can say according to the colour of a person's skin then that means you're focusing too much on what colour a person is instead of just looking at everyone as an equal. And I don't mean going around insulting a certain race, because then that would be focusing on what colour a person is. But I mean having certain words we can say to one race but not another.

I just see a person's colour skin as how I see a person's colour hair; it has no effect on how I treat that person. It's just a person. So if something I said was deemed racist these days (but wasn't directly due to their race), it wouldn't be because of what race they are, it would be because I would have said the same to anybody or I say the same thing to everyone.

It's just confusing because these days there are some "racist" remarks that can easily be said to anyone regardless. The way I see it, if it's racist to one race then it should be racist to another. It shouldn't be one-sided.

Yes I can see how social activism has crept into the leafy gated suburbs of the upper middle class in the last 20 years. No shortage of opera houses, exhibition halls, art galleries hosting artists, photographers, dancers or sculptors with a message of anti-racism race, sex or global warming (or some current issue) in their neocon-style designs, photos, sculptures or alternative dance. But this ins't for the "hoi polloi". these are for the connoisseurs of the refined arts like ballet or opera.
After immersing themselves in the art they can wander to the nearest "hip" place and order a $15 soy latte and discuss why Rembrandt was so misunderstood interspersed with how "Chic" the BLM protests were through their Gucci mod spectacles while dragging smoke out of a vape pen.