A few questions

[MIKE BURN]

What you experience here is simply a board, which recruites a lot of members from outside the U.S.



The vast majority of the board visitors here are either from Europe, Scandinavia or Asia. just look at the board watch (the system clock beneath every posting... it shows MEZ - European time )



This is nothing bad, simply unusual for you. Simply.



What you consider "Bush-Bashing" here, simply reflects the opinion of many elected politicians outside the U.S., who call

Mr. Bush for example "Crazy" over here in public discussions, official speeches and in TV.

[DreamTone7]

I was referring specifically to this forum.....but it sounds like you're saying what is politically correct here is just an extension of what is politically correct in forum members respective countries. Is this what you meant to say? What about question number 2?

[MIKE BURN]

This is a free forum.



Look closer, find topics not related to Bush.



Start your own topics related or not related to Bush.



It doesn't matter.



Inter-Cultural exchange.



Make the best out of it.

[DreamTone7]

Mike, you misunderstand me. Bash Bush all you want....afterall it IS a free forum. The focus of my questions is not Bush, but what is and isn't politically correct. I mentioned Bush because discussion surrounding him is what prompted the question in my mind. Inter-cultural opinion on the subject is what I am seeking!



Anyone have an opinion?

[DreamTone7]

It has become apparant to me, and probably to many others, that "Bush-bashing" has become a "politically correct" thing to do in this forum. Be that as it may.



My questions are:



1) WHO decides what is and isn't "politically correct"?



2) Does that person(s) have any moral or ethical obligations in deciding what is and isn't politically correct?



I have my own opinions (of course), but I am interested in hearing what others have to say. Thanks.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

It has become apparant to me, and probably to many others, that "Bush-bashing" has become a "politically correct" thing to do in this forum. Be that as it may.

---

You mean to say that "Bush-bashing" is the socially and morally acceptable behaviour on this board?

I am merely checking that I understood you clearly, you know me being a 'foreigner' and all .



I believe you are mistaken. I for one do not indulge in "Bush-bashing" (when the administration is doing something positive I will applaud it and give you notice as soon as it happens. ..don't stay up and wait for it, though..) and I see as many ready to jump out the window because Bush told them to as I see the absolute opposite.



Ergo: "Bush-bashing" on this particular BB is as PC as it is not.



IMO Bush was pretty cool when he was campaigning and promised to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Quote:

---

My questions are:

---

Need help with Social Science work?

[NRKofOver]

1) WHO decides what is and isn't "politically correct"?



I don't think that there is any one person who can decide a politically correct vibe in a forum or in public. In this particular forum it does seem that most of the people are like minded in a certain distaste for President Bush. However, the same sentiments in public places in my city might get your ass kicked. So it's just a time and place kind of thing I think.



2) Does that person(s) have any moral or ethical obligations in deciding what is and isn't politically correct?



I would assume that most people who take a particular approach politically believe that they have a high moral/ethical standard on which those opinions are based. Even if two sides disagree completely, both sides believe their approach is the most ethically sound. So whether or not there is an obligation, I think that most intelligent people engaged in discussions about politics place ethics as very important. Bashing Bush for instance isn't about hating George Bush, it's about an ethical concern for the future of the United States and people who attack Bush and his administration believe it's necessary to insure a brighter future.

Read all about ME!

[debbie mannas]

Is that why you think we are "bashing" bush???

[bbchris]

1) WHO decides what is and isn't "politically correct"?

In this forum? Oh my Goodness that might be me! I know nothing about being politically correct - I am here to learn information and reach an understanding of world politics. I find the views from all over the world interesting.



2) Does that person(s) have any moral or ethical obligations in deciding what is and isn't politically correct?

Nothing has been censored in this Political forum. Is that being Politically correct?

|Blah Blah|Thinking Out Loud|Jane Eliz||Talk Soup |

[DreamTone7]

Galmin: "You mean to say that "Bush-bashing" is the socially and morally acceptable behaviour on this board?"



No....not THE socially and morally accepted behavior, but most certainly one of them. Another question would be who is doing it for reasons other than desiring to be politically correct, and who isn't.....but I can't believe I'd get reasonable answers to that one.



Galmin: "Need help with Social Science work?"



No......just curious. (I'm like that.)





Debbie: "Is that why you think we are "bashing" bush???"



For some, yes.





chris: "Nothing has been censored in this Political forum. Is that being Politically correct? "



Yes it is.







Here's short definition that I got off the web. I think it comes pretty close to what I am talking about:



"Political correctness is a rigid orthodoxy precluding the acceptability of any contrary view, which has gained such acceptance in any group that it, in effect, becomes the institutionalized position of that group. Once that view becomes the politically correct view of the group, any member who raises a contrary view may be viewed with suspicion, ignored, shunned, denounced, attacked, or silenced."



If you think about it, this applies to many different things. One of the things it does is prevent acceptance of opposing views....or puts pressure on another person to agree, or at least not disagree with "the group". Under this lies the acceptance of the idea that it is OK to attack someone with opposing views (note that this is more than just disagreeing with them). Please think about it when you feel like attacking someone! (Please also note that this is not aimed at any one person!)





I never expected a straight answer to #1......and chris, you actually do a pretty good job of remaining neutral on most things (in my opinion, anyway).



It's question number two I'm mostly concerned with. There are those in the populace around the world that are, shall we say, "followers". They are those most concerned with being accepted by a group. These people can be lead, without realizing it, to do some things that can be considered "damaging". (Use your own judgement as far as what "damaging" means.) Do those that, for whatever reason, determine what is politically correct have any obligation to be careful about their "politically correct" determinations? One thing I can say is that ignorance is bliss......or, they would at least have to be aware that they do indeed determine (to a certain extent) what is and isn't politically correct before they could be held accountable. But what about once they are aware of it?

This is my big question.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

any member who raises a contrary view may be viewed with suspicion, ignored, shunned, denounced, attacked, or silenced

---

Yes. This behaviour is still present on this BB. One just have to read. Does that mean that "bashing of people questioning the recent events regarding a pre-emptive war trigged by dubious evidence presented by a world leader" is a politically correct thing to do?



So it seems.

Quote:

---

If you think about it, this applies to many different things. One of the things it does is prevent acceptance of opposing views....or puts pressure on another person to agree, or at least not disagree with "the group". Under this lies the acceptance of the idea that it is OK to attack someone with opposing views (note that this is more than just disagreeing with them). Please think about it when you feel like attacking someone! (Please also note that this is not aimed at any one person!)

---

I hear ya. Good rules we should all live by.

[Rev9Volts]

i may be wrong but i do not think bush campaigned to ratify the kyoto thing. it will waste zillions of dollars and punish the industrialized nations. plus the 3rd word countries can sell their allotment of polution to the highest bidder.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

i may be wrong but i do not think bush campaigned to ratify the kyoto thing.

---

No, he campaigned to become president (doh ).

Nevertheless, duirng campaign he promised to ratify the Kyoto protocol, should he become president.

[Rev9Volts]

President Bush on Kyoto Protocol



I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns. As you also know, I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality. Consistent with this balanced approach, I intend to work with the Congress on a multi-pollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. A recently released DOE Report, Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Power Plants, concluded that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices compared to scenarios in which only sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were reduced. This is important new information that warrants a reevaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage. Coal generates more than half of America's electricity supply. At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers. This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide. Consistent with these concerns, we will continue to fully examine global climate change issues - including the science, technologies, market-based systems, and innovative options for addressing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I am very optimistic that, with the proper focus and working with our allies, we will be able to develop technologies, market incentives, and other creative ways to address global climate change.





hmm i may be wrong, but i do not think bush ever supported it because of how it would unfairly harm the us economy.

[Galmin]

Yep. Interresting how things chance when you become president.