1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

More political correctness run amuck...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by MobBoss, Jun 2, 2007.

  1. C~G

    C~G Untouchable

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,146
    I already mentioned that there are more than two choices.

    But if I would have to choose between those two choices, it would be PC and the basis for this (unless you think that PC are also intolerant) that intolerance in general is threat while PC can be seen only as nuisance thus far.

    Of course there are also those that complain about both of intolerance and PC and do nothing but whine...etc.
     
  2. The_anteater

    The_anteater Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Surrey, England
    And I am neither. The last thing our society can afford to do is hide away from issues behind a defensive wall of policial correctness. Take religion as an example. Different religions conflict, they clash, they disagree, and if some is inclined to be upset about it the I couldn't give tuppence. I shall not be censored to satisfy that person in the name of political correcness! That is not to say I shall attempt to be aggressive, upsetting or rude, but merely that I will not speak for fear of causing offense.

    Society today has had enough racial, ethinic and religious tension, which is hightened only by beating around the bush on the issues. It is not right that we should have a "freedom of not being offended by someone disagreeing with you" higher in our priorities than the freedom of speech. I support religious freedom, and not being allowed to speak about it is no freedom!

    I am a patriot, and a patriot of Britain. Britain was historically a nation to take tough decisions, to take them not because it helps her, but because she knows it to be right. It was she who first abolished the slave trade, it was she who introduced a minimum wage, it was she who ensured her workers got their due, and it was she who first came to France's aid in the early 20th century, risking her every asset to fight for what she knew was right, not for Germany, a far more suitable ally tactically. I will be damned if she cannot decide to speak about this issue now! I will be damned if the world cannot! I will be damned if I cannot speak out because someone may disagree, take it personally, for any reason under the heading of political correcness! For that I shan't be silenced! It is necessary that we can talk about this without fear of upsetting another person, for the upsetting may eventually lead to that person reaching some realisation about their beliefs. Once when Alister McGrath demonstrated the flaws in Richard Dawkins' arguments on religion a member of the audience was fuming, fuming, and for what? Because he had been shown to be wrongly dogmatic, and wrongly convicted to his atheistic beliefs. But it can only have done him good. But I digress.
    We cannot allow our society to be scared of speaking out because of political correctness, and so I recommend that political correctness is abolished, because the consquences of limiting dialogue are as bad, if not worse than the consequences of causing offense
     
  3. nihilistic

    nihilistic Intergalatic Delivery Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    NNYC
    You don't get it do you? A website like that is just a big relational database. To allow for "male seeking male" and "female seeking female" queries when they already have "male seeking female" and "female seeking male" is trivial. And it can be done such that if the heretosexuals donot want to see homosexual listings or vice versa, they don't. From a business standpoint, there is no reason for them not to do it. I wouldn't be suprised if a few years from now eHarmony loses its momentum and fades away
     
  4. C~G

    C~G Untouchable

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,146
    I fear there's slight contradiction there.

    Personally I think we have to live with certain amount of PC as we have to live with certain amount of intolerance.

    Limiting dialogue is of course bad but it doesn't mean you have to be outright rude either.

    Causing unnecessary offence leads into such situations you aren't able to get out of as the communications are blocked towards the other side. We can see it can of course happen with both ways, speaking too directly or being scared to talk.

    Since it's evident certain amount of intolerance will always exist in the world we need PC to calm it down. And hell, it doesn't mean PC should run amok. It needs leashes as everything else but abolishing it will lead into silencing those that speak against intolerance and discrimination at the same time.

    What comes to middle part of your message I don't understand this fuming about Dawkins etc. I don't see the relevance of that in this discussion.
     
  5. ShannonCT

    ShannonCT Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,456
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Sorry, you're wrong. eHarmony has positioned itself very differently from a site like Match.com or LavaLife. They have you fill out long questionaires on the premise that they can match you with people better than you could yourself by just telling a site what you want in a partner and then browsing through hundreds or thousands of profiles. eHarmony's position is that it's founder is an expert in male-female marriages and knows what makes people compatible for marriage. Just look at the site. They have an entire section for helping married couples to improve their relationship. Adding a gay/lesbian matchmaking service would require a complete market repositioning and a new or revised matchmaking methodolgy. eHarmony offering homosexual matchmaking would be like Harley-Davidson making minivans. Yeah, they could probably do it, but it would distract from their core business and almost certainly reduce profitability. There are so many business reasons why eHarmony isn't getting into homosexual matchmaking.
     
  6. nihilistic

    nihilistic Intergalatic Delivery Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    NNYC
    And what's so fundamentally different between homosexual and heretosexual relationships that such evaluations would completely fail to adapt?

    On the other hand, you don't seem to understand the point of an social networking website, where its usefulness is dependent on no small part on the size of its user base. The algorithm that eHarmony uses can be inferred and/or emulated easily by a rival website that simply decides to go through with all the questions eHarmony asks. They have no big "magic formula" like Google. If their user base sees another site with less clumsy restrictions, more choices of matching, and an roughly equivalent match-making engine, guess what? They are done for.
     
  7. amaterasu

    amaterasu the true messiah

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    568
    Location:
    Rebelling

    umm... we only introduced the minimum wage 10 years ago :rolleyes:
    and only abolished slavery because it wasn't profitable for us anymore and the public was getting on parliament's back about it...
    and we only aided france becuase germany was challenging our naval might :rolleyes:

    there is a difference between disagreing with someone and being forced to be quiet for dear of offending, but you can't accept out right discrimination, which will generally flourish in a climbate wihtout politcal corectness, PC is a good thing so long as it doesn't get out of hand.

    Hi anty!
     
  8. ShannonCT

    ShannonCT Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,456
    Location:
    Connecticut
    No doubt there are some similarities and some differences, and no doubt that their algorithm could be adapted to gays and lesbians given enough work and the right people (note that this would require two new methodologies, as male-male relationships can be very different than female-female relationships). But why should eHarmony deviate from its core brand of hetero matchmaking when they might lose a lot more clients than they gain. My mom, who is a Christian, has a couple Christian friends who have gained boyfriends through eHarmony. I'm sure they were attracted to the site by the fact that the founder is a Christian and is very pro-family and anti-casual-sex. How many Christians would still use the site if it went pro-gay? What are there more of in this country? Christians or homosexuals? The right business decision is pretty obvious here.

    This makes no sense. How does adding a gay/lesbian service increase the number of choices for heterosexuals? It obviously doesn't. It would be a completely different social pool. It adds nothing to their current business.

    And unless you work for eHarmony, I'm sure you don't know how simple or complex their algorithm is. Their whole product position is that they don't use a simple matching algorithm like Match.com, but that they have a "magic formula" for getting compatible men and women together, for the purpose of marriage. Whether you believe their claim or not, that is their product position. And that position would be compromised if they suddenly said, "Hey, we know how to match gays and lesbians now too!"

    eHarmony is the market leader in their niche and it's going to be very hard for someone to knock them out of their niche.
     
  9. The_anteater

    The_anteater Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Surrey, England

    There is no contradiciton at all, there is no need for politcal correctness to not be rude. As I will no doubt prove to you, I am not rude. Nor do I consider political correctness.

    Speaking "too directly" I don't have a problem with either. Surely it is in societies best interests that everyone speaks what they think, so then we don't have to try to look through them to find it out.

    I speak against intolerence, but not from the point of view of Political correctness, but rather that it is not justifiable, intolerance in the context of Political correctness is against a group, and so is stereotypical. Intolerance against Hitler would surely be a good thing too, so its the stereotypical intolerance that is wrong.

    The think about Dawkins was that someone had had complete faith in everything he said, and was inclined to be angy when Dawkins was shown to be wrong, but surely it was right to let him have the benefit of that knowledge even if it was upsetting.
     
  10. The_anteater

    The_anteater Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Surrey, England
    We still introduced the minimum wage.
    We still introduced laws in the reign of Victoria about working practices.
    We still had a public wanting to abolish slave trade, and applying pressure.
    We still could have allied with Germany, thus meaning we didn't have to combat them navally.

    There is a difference, and I don't accept outright discrimination, and we can show the discrimination to be wrong without political correctness. PC is a bad thing because it does get out of control. The case which began the topic has proven this.
     
  11. King Alexander

    King Alexander Universe explorer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Thessaloniki, Hellas
    Political Corectness is the FASCISM of the 21st Century.
     
  12. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    You dont think there are differences? Of course there are. However, if you look at the founders books and area of expertise, its not about homosexual relationships....and there are psychologists and counselors who special in that as well. His area of expertise is male/female relationships with an emphasis on marriage.
     
  13. Leonel

    Leonel Breakfast Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    10,348
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Ya know what really rubs me the wrong way about those ads? They way the actors act so pretentious when they're talking. "Jee wizz! I wonder why eHarmony won't match me! Teehee! ^.^"
     
  14. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    1. This is nothing to do with "political correctness" - that phrase is totally off-topic for this issue.

    2. Is the website a business, or not?

    If it is a business, then given the state has laws about discrimination based on sexual orientation, then it would seem they are breaking the law. You can debate whether

    Recently in the UK we've introduced a law stopping discrimination by businesses based on sexual orientation. The same law also prevented discrimination based on religious belief - but strangely, people (some Christians) only had a problem with the sexual orientation bit. I didn't say gay/bisexual people claiming for their right to discriminate against Christians.

    Or maybe it's akin to a business refusing to serve Christians.
     
  15. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    To elaborate on political correctness, it means:

    1. Changing language out of fear of offending people.

    2. More broadly, it means doing or not doing things out of fear of offending people.

    But it's also become:

    3. A term use to ridicule something, when the person can't come up with any rational arguments against it. (As popularised by the Daily Mail.)
     
  16. nihilistic

    nihilistic Intergalatic Delivery Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    NNYC
    But they can't hire some extra people in order to capture a major market segment?

    If those people are such experts they should not have too much trouble innovating into this new field with a huge market.

    Because it is not an either-or. If the website is designed well, your mom won't need to see a homosexual person at all if she doesn't want to.
     
  17. King Alexander

    King Alexander Universe explorer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Thessaloniki, Hellas
    I know that, from country to country, things are not the same, neither should be the same, IMHO, as every country has it's unique traditions/culture.
    So, I'll answer this issue as I'd answer if such kind of issue(the article story) was an issue in *MY* country, to avoid further misunderstanding, and to not offend the country in which this issue took place(maybe I'm bored of explaining/have to defend to anyone -that is bored to think- of why I said what I said).

    First, everyone would lough their belly off. Probably some, would ask if the woman got her medication or if she needs to be examed by a psychiatrist or if she had already escaped from an institution, and I'm seriously about it.

    Now, to get to the core:
    Thing is, the owners of the site want to offer a service only for specific groups. They DO NOT have to offer ANY EXCUSE to ANYONE of WHY they want only a specific group, as long as they don't do an illegal advertisement.
    If that's annoying to specific groups it's THEIR problem and they should learn to DEAL WITH IT, clear and period, and they should seek sites that have what they want and/or visit a pshychiatrist because the world isn't made to satisfy anyone to 100%(I mean anyone from ANY group).

    If *I* wanted to make a site advertising men and women<30 years old, I wouldn't think if I didn't please older women or men seeking older women, and I WOULD NOT WANT TO PLEASE anyone and everyone, I don't have the time or the intention to please everyone, and, frankly, I don't care to please everyone, plain and simple.

    I don't mind of people making sites aiming at specific groups and with the content that they like.
    But(if we assume I liked to visit such sites) when it comes to dating/sex, I want to have/see what it pleases *ME* and my instict, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE, neither I'd spend hours thinking if other groups like the site :lol: (only a madman would do that, IMHO, and I don't discuss it further, got it?), neither I'd explain to everyone WHY I like it that way: just because it pleases me that way and I want it that way, and I have the right to do so(in *my country's Democracy*, anyway) nothing more, nothing less.
     
  18. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    And, according to the OP, in the country this occurred in, the law - the tradition, the culture, the thing set by the democratic process - is that discrimination on sexual orientation is illegal.

    Can someone clarify more on what US law is? Does this apply to provision of services (like it does in the UK)?
     
  19. ShannonCT

    ShannonCT Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,456
    Location:
    Connecticut
    They aren't breaking the law. The law says that a business can't refuse someone service because of his/her race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. eHarmony doesn't do that. If the woman in question wanted to find a man for companionship, she would be welcome even though she is a lesbian, and even though the founder might not like lesbians. If the law meant that every business in California had to cater to every racial/religious/sexual group, tens of thousands of businesses operating in California would have to shut down - restaurants that serve any type of ethnic food, hair salons that specialize in a particular ethnic group's hair type, bookstores that specialize in gay or Black or Christian literature, bars and clubs that play only rock or hip hop or salsa music, etc...

    Sorry, this lawsuit fails a basic common sense test. eHarmony and the state of California should countersue any law firm foolish enough to bring such a suit to court.

    Major market segment? Single gays and lesbians looking to get married? Are you kidding? What percent of the population do you think this segment is? Maybe 1-2&#37;. Much smaller than single Christians looking to get married.

    Again, the founder is an expert on heterosexual relationships and there are many people much more qualified than he to operate a homosexual matchmaking site.

    eHarmony has every right to do either-or, just as the many many gay and lesbian sites do either-or. Most Christians aren't going to use a dating service that explicitly offers matchmaking services to homosexuals. If eHarmony suddenly added the choices "I am a man seeking a man" and "I am a woman seeking a woman", there would be a big backlash against eHarmony. It's happened so many times before. Even if eHarmony started a separate gay site, it would be all over the media, especially after the lawsuit from Ms. Fecesforbrains Axetogrind. They'd lose a lot more business than they gained.
     
  20. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    With the UK's law, one of the examples was B&Bs refusing a rooms to same sex couples.

    The problem with the logic you give, they could happily offer "double rooms for a man and a woman", and that would still be legal, as two gay people of the opposite sex could still get such a room.

    But that's clearly not what the law is about - if that were true, gay people would still be discriminated against, and the law would be worthless.

    I think the question is, how much different is offering the service for same sex couples, to opposite sex couples? Clearly there's not much difference with double rooms, so advertising "double room for man and woman" is an entirely artifical restriction. OTOH, a particular type of music or food is intrinsic to the thing being sold - one type of food is by definition different to another type of food. I could perhaps understand if we were dealing with, say, the complexities of polyamorous relationships, but when they already handle male and female customers, it's not clear why it matters who matches up with who.

    I'm not saying the lawsuit should succeed, but it's not obvious the lawsuit is wrong, and it _certainly_ doesn't fail a common sense test.

    That's the point - it's not about whether we think they have a right or not. Yes, there's an argument that says private companies should choose their customers. But that's not what the law is.

    Why would there be a backlash? Do some people have a problem with such options being offered?
     

Share This Page