Has modern Western society gone too far with political correctness? (89)

Thanks for taking the time to reply Jac...

Will read it again tomorrow evening.. as its way too late for me now.. work in the morning and all that... and its 11.15pm now..

BTW... you might be interested.. this is what I was watching until 5 mins ago...

and I have not finished watching yet..

Called Born at home..


Night Jac

Thanks Merri. I'll try to watch this during the day so we're on the same page for discussion.

Nos da.

Wiki views on science PC

Among scientists, the correctness of procedure, result, and consequent scientific data derives from the factual truth of the matter, and from the soundness of the reasoning by which it can be deduced from observations, first principles, and quantifiable results. When the publication, teaching, and public funding of science is decided by peer committees, academic standards, and either an elected or an appointed board, the conservative allegation can arise that the acceptability of a scientific work was assessed politically. As such, in What is Political Correctness (1999), the physicist Jonathan I. Katz applies the term PC as censure, characterized by emotional discourse rather than by rational discourse.
Conservative and reactionary groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, and other politically contentious scientific matters, said that PC liberal orthodoxy of academia is the reason why their perspectives of those matters fail to receive a fair public hearing; thus, in Lamarck's Signature: How Retrogenes are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm (1999), Prof. Edward J. Steele said:


We now stand on the threshold of what could be an exciting new era of genetic research.... However, the ‘politically correct’ thought agendas of the neo–Darwinists of the 1990s are ideologically opposed to the idea of ‘Lamarckian Feedback’, just as the Church was opposed to the idea of evolution based on natural selection in the 1850s!


In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (2005), Tom Bethell said that mainstream science is dominated by politically-correct thinking. He argues that many scientists are motivated more by passionate emotion than by dispassionate reason.

In the book The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America (1995), liberal opponents of the racially-determined-I.Q.-theory proposed in The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994) argued against the conservative and reactionary propositions that genetic determinism explains the statistical intelligence-test-score differences between black people and white people, and thus explained and justified the socio-economic inequality inherent to U.S. society. Moreover, in that matter, the conservatives said that criticism of their racialist and mono-cultural perspectives is unfair, because it is based upon the political correctness derived from a liberal and humanist worldview.

I've watched it.

What did you reckon?

Exactly ! then the whole world call you revolutionary !!!!!

..and they won't stop until the voting public stop putting them in office