...from last Wednesday's episode of South Park 'cause Matt and Trey managed to sneak a "Where's Waldo" appearance of him into the opening credits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southparkseason10opening.png
I love it. I know they've used Muhammad before as a character (in the "Super Best Friends" episode, but doing it again now that it's politically incorrect? That takes balls...
Some say this censored clip is a forgery.... I'll let you decide.
http://www.spscriptorium.com/SPMedia/muhammad.avi
"The Citizen" wrote in message news:[email]...
"The Citizen" wrote in message news:[email]...
The term "politically incorrect" originally meant any action or a manner of expression which showed clear bias against a group based on their age, race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, political or religious beliefs etc.
The term was both fortunate and unfortunate. It was unfortunate because it implied arrogance ("these are the CORRECT politics because I say they are") and fortunate because a lot of people who eventually got behind the idea were overzealous and in fact arrogant.
I think most people can agree that the government should be careful to avoid senseless prejudice. There is no reason for it, and it hurts us all. There are times when prejudice is called for, but the line between 'called for' and 'not called for' is a bit blurry, and it's an emotionally charged area since in relatively recent years many millions of people were killed for reasons of prejudice in Europe, Africa and what is now the USA. Extreme caution must be used in cases of necessary prejudice or it could slip across the line yet again.
If businesses want to treat people unfairly based on some group they fit into, it will cause problems for the society beyond just the interaction between that business and that customer. It can cause riots or worse. However a free society must be *very* careful about restricting the freedoms of business, as that is as slippery a slope as is allowing governmental prejudice.
The term 'politically correct' started to become loathsome when some people apparently came to believe that the government should protect people from things they find offensive. There is simply no possible way for the government to do this without becoming totalitarian and curtailing virtually all freedoms. It's a nice dream, but has no practical implementation; yet these people managed to bring about some ridiculous changes to the justice system and other areas of government.
Unfortunately, more reasonable minds which would ordinarily see the need for the prevention of institutionalized harmful and senseless prejudice have become polarized against the term "politically Correct" because of the extremists who perverted the term's original meaning.
"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...
All prejudice is senseless. It's generalisiation, and meaningless, and a bit facist. Racial or religion or hair colour or size stereo-typing or profiling is wrong.
No there aren't. That's like saying, " He has long hair - he's on drugs".
ANY form of prejudice is slipping across the line. Look, if you don't like an individuals actions, fine. That's your privalege. But holding an entire group of people accountable for the actions of a few is reprehensible.
A *FREE* society would not allow any freedoms to be restricted.
Poliically correct sucks. It's meaning can not be misconstued. It means a blanding down of the very fabric of society until every little person is exactly the same as every other. Dreck and manipulative bullshit! }:-{(
"Big_Fella" wrote in message news:44441b7c$0$16672$[email]...
Incorrect. Profiling allows law enforcement to zero in on the types of people most likely to have committed a particular crime and greatly enhances their ability to catch criminals. College graduates are more likely to be hired for certain jobs than high school dropouts because they are much more likely to have the skills or education. These are examples of prejudice.
Drug users are less likely to be hired for certain positions because there's a reasonably good chance the drug use will inhibit their performance. Do I want someone who regularly smokes pot to be my surgeon or jet pilot? HELL no. Is that prejudiced? Absolutely! Is it reasonable prejudice? It's debatable, but I think a lot of people, including some pot smokers, would say yes. There are MANY situations in which prejudice is appropriate and even necessary.
I think that you and I are using different definitions for the term prejudice. Everyone uses prejudice every day. You couldn't live without prejudices. You believe that when the street light is green, you can safely proceed through the intersection because the cross street's lights at that intersection are red. That belief is a sort of prejudice, because you don't know that it always works that way--there have been instances where traffic lights have malfunctioned or have been sabatoged.
That Guy wrote:
How about if they drink beer? Whiskey? Smoke tobacco?
I have no problem, providing the guy is straight when he's performing his professional duties.
"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message news:63I1g.772$[email]...
Yes, and therein lies the prejudice, see? Say I happen to know a surgeon smokes pot right before surgery. I don't want that surgeon to operate on me because I have judged him to be a poor surgeon, irresponsible and reckless.
Now, it is within the realm of possibility that this particular surgeon is a very good one and actually performs better with a slight buzz. Clearly, I don't have data on that, not having done any studies on surgeries this guy has performed stoned to compare with studies on surgeries he's done unstoned. Without that information, I am judging before I have enough information to make a valid judgment, or pre-judging. That's prejudice, and it's not only ok sometimes, it's necessary for survival.
If I drive to the mini-mart and a tiger runs up to my car, do I get out? No, I drive away and call the police. Now, it could be a tame tiger who is just curious about me or my car, but I'm not going to take the chance. I used prejudice to make that judgment.
If I am pulling into the mini-mart in a neighborhood known for street violence and a very questionable-looking character starts heading straight for me, I'm not going to get out of the car, I'm going to leave. Once again, I am using prejudice. He might intend to ask directions or tell me one of my headlights is out, but I'm not going to take that chance.
"That Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...
...and that should be the end of the argument. You've hit the nail on the head.
It won't be the end of the argument though...