Do you have any "politically incorrect" opinions?

I have lots of "politically incorrect" opinions. None of them were specifically mentioned in the options, but the subject matter was. I'm not about to start volunteering them just so I can get flamed, and become a pariah on this site.

I say what I think about things, no matter whether others deem it politically correct or not.

Nothing particular that comes to mind right now. On the subject of staying at home to look after the children, I think ideally a parent should do it, but it doesn't have to be the mother.

I think that *gasp* People Are Different - some people find this notion shocking

I don't think I have any...I could, I suppose.

I don't have any of these opinions, but I may have some opinion not listed here that is unacceptable in civilised society! I'm not so sure about ticking the "I have no "politically incorrect" opinions. I hate the phrase "politically incorrect". It implies that there's something sinister going on.

Good survey.

As I mentioned in another survey, the beliefs listed are often not either-or phenomenon, but gradations. For instance, my relatives would never say that people of such-and-such race are inferior, but they sure put up a fuss when I started dating one.

And while I don't have those qualms, I do tend to lock my car door more often in neighborhoods where my own race is a minority.

My own indulgence in sexism: a magnet on my fridge that says, "No woman ever shot a man while he was doing the dishes."

I'm extremely prejudice.

I am sure I do. Would believing that booze should be illegal be politically incorrect? I don't know. Although, a beer sounds pretty good right now. NO, that wouldn't be politically incorrect. I don't know if I have those beliefs or not.
I think it is time to go to bed soon.

Oh!! Midgets look funny!
It's not right to think that way.

I have very few opinions that are not 'politically incorrect'.

I usually think of political correctness as having to do with use of language (calling someone altitudinally challenged rather than short). In that sense, I'm very politically incorrect.

No to 'care in the community.' Work houses for beggars... Pro-capital punishment (in UK.) I have a habit of upsetting the class in 'ethics' debates. But political correctness is such a thin grey tightrope to walk - why bother as long as you don't hit the irrational extremes (ie. overt racism)

I believe that there is a fundamental difference in the genetic code of americans of european descent and americans of african descent, which accounts for
A) At least 10% of the difference in median I.Q. scores for the 2 groups (average white I.Q. in america, 103. Average black, 85.
B) At least 10% of the difference in the rate of violent criminal activity.
C) At least 25% of the difference in the median athletic abilities of the 2 races.
D) At least 25% of the difference in the median United States Chess Federation performance ratings between the 2 races.
E) At least 10% of the difference in the median lifetime incomes of the 2 races.
F) At least 75% of the difference in vertical height between the 2 races.
G) At least 75% of the difference in the fingertip to fingertip arm span of the 2 races.

Please note that this is dealing only with African AMERICANS, and European AMERICANS, and is by no means a comparison between Africans in africa and europeans in europe.

Comparatively, I believe there is a genetic difference which accounts for the prevalence of alcoholism among American Indians.

Now, does this make one race "inferior" to the others... of course not. But it does allow room for a personal preference. Whenever thigns are ddifferent, you can always prefer one over the other.

cody, I'm curious, where are you getting these stats?
I've always been inclined to view differences in IQ as due largely to the fact that Caucasians created the IQ tests.

Beachy: So covert racism is ok, then?

Is this from The Bell Curve?

I would agree that the two 75% examples you gave were related to genetics. However, the other examples (which in no way surprise me) have more to do with the inherent racism in America than genetics. The rate of violent criminal activity is very likely a report on the criminal justice system, than on specific incidences. Chess? I bet that's real popular with the "brothers in the 'hood". Hardly a balanced playing field there.

But they do look funny don't they?

Among people who have participated in 3 tournaments, (typical entry fee is around $100) and recieved a USCF rating, I find myself assuming that they are mostly middle class...

Your statement about violent criminal activity doesn't make any sense to me at all, re-phrase?

I base my statistics on STUDIES, not BOOKS. But yes, I do believe the STUDIES were cited in the BOOK.

Furthermore, no it is not from the bell curve. Most of the literature I have read on the issue has appeared in FBI crime reports and independent analysis.

Here is a report on the subject and a link.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_jensen.html
Income, Intelligence, Inequality
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability
Arthur R. Jensen
Praeger, 1998
Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 39 (Spring 1999) No. 3, 337-354 Edward M. Miller
University of New Orleans

Hehe, that is a common theory, but there are 4 main problems with it. Firstly, and most importantly, they ARENT written by whites. Modern I.Q. tests are written by multiracial teams. Same goes for the ACT and SAT.

Secondly, the CONCEPT of the IQ test originated in 1900's france, Frankly, I dont see how that could be biased in favor of a 2000 american!

Thirdly, Asians don't seem to mind that the test was produced by whites, as they consistently outscore whites by 10 points.

Fourthly, there is YET to be produced an intelligence test where blacks score higher than whites... Even those created by blacks.

http://www.act.org/news/data/97/t5-6-7.html

Here is a chart to look at.

I was trying to be brief. What I meant was: I suspect that the statistics in question probably refer to convictions, rather than actual incidents of violence. It would be impossible to get information on how many violent criminal acts were committed by people of this or that race. It would be comparatively easy to get statistics on convictions for such things. Therefore, the statistics are "filtered" through the American judicial system which, as most people know, is rife with bias against blacks.

I have a lot of politically semi-correct opinions. I don't think I really think people with religion are inferior to me, but I do tend to think the world would be better off in many ways without religion. It would be more boring too, though. Mostly I think specific, identifiable people are inferior to me (this is politically incorrect) and I think people of different races, genders, cultural backgrounds, religions and what have you are all pretty funny and I laugh at them. This is also politically incorrect. Lastly I think I am pretty goofy and I laugh at myself. This is politically incorrect.

I think women are as good as men. Is that politically incorrect?

On the other hand, if we could somehow isolate it from all the other factors, I would not be surprised to find a different degree of genetic predisposition towards, let's say, violence, between "african americans" and "european americans". The question is really whether or not we can isolate the genetic influence in this kind of vague and highly socially driven behavior.

The issue is similar to the "glass ceiling" and pay gap experienced by women. Last I heard, there are clear issues of bias and preferential treatment (and of course social pressure to take certain kinds of employment) that explain a large portion of the pay differential between women and men in the US. But these issues don't explain all of the differences. I don't think there's a gene for making low wages, but I do think the situation is similar in that it's often very hard to find subtle causes for complicated events.

Fair enough...

Yes it is. The Politically Correct answer is that men only succeed in life by physically oppressing the women. Women are far superior.

Although if they're superior, how come they let themselves be oppressed by men?

I think using the phrase "politically incorrect" in a first world country is misleading and cheapens the experiences of people around the world who have been imprisoned, tortured, or killed for views that are "politically incorrect". We really have no idea what it means to be politically incorrect.

This, for the most part Joachim, details my opinion on the issue. But, I think there is substantial evidence (and it is getting more substantial every day) that Genetics is winning the war (genes vs. environment). If we could accept certain things, namely that there are differences between the races, then we could start moving past these differences. As long as we continue to deny the differences, it will be chaos.

Women and men are so immensely different, that any attempt to explain trends based on the "I see the effect, now what is the cause" method, are going to be fruitless. Instead, the only good method is the "That must be causing something to happen".

We cannot analyse the differences in male and female salaries based on charts of the salaries, it is far too complex. We have to take EVERYTHING into account. There are millions of things and customs on this planet, and any one of them could be responsible for some, or all of the difference in salary. Personally, I think women earn less, because they don't have the undying urge to be filthy rich like most men do. I spend many hours a week thinking about how I can become rich, and I think women spend more time thinking about their friends and family, and less thinking about money.

That's where the great mastery and obvious superiority of women comes in! Men are still necessary for the preservation of the species (and sometimes they're kind of fun to have around). But they are so insecure, and so ego-driven, that we women have to make them think they are in control or the entire world order would crumble. By cleverly massaging their egos and giving them the illusion of control, we continue along more or less peacably. Some women are just better at this than others. But never doubt that women actually run things!

Everyone at some point or another has had some kind of politically incorrect opinion about people. You'd be lying if you tried to say otherwise.

As amusing as your comment is, I've heard it often enough to wonder whether it is really women who need the ego-massage. After all, they are (overall) the ones with less money, less respect and less influence on politics - in short the disadvantaged party. Have not disadvantaged groups everywhere, throughout all time, exaggerated their own importance and denigrated others in order to make themselves feel better?

So you're saying that historically men are the disadvantaged party?

Republicans and conservatives are BIGOTS, and RACISTS, and HOMOPHOBES, and COLDHEARTED, and MEANSPIRITED, and CRUEL, and HATEFUL, and PARTISAN, and a bunch of right-wing religious pro-life pro-death penatly, capitalistic, war mongering butt-holeS!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm saying that the idea that women somehow don't have egos is a patently absurd piece of Freudian bullcrap that has only been allowed to stand this long because it makes women feel better.

I'm not saying women don't have egos. I'm just saying men are more insecure about theirs and consequently need more massaging.

I have an ego and I like it, and I'm not always perfect so sometimes I like people to tell me that I'm not screwing up, but that's about as far as the massaging goes for me. I think it's only men who shoot people and punch walls a lot that have the kind of ego you're thinking of.

I think the men who have historically run things have a lot of insecurities, and are afraid of losing their power. In order to maintain stability, though, it's helpful for them to stay in power, and that's where women come in. In cultures where there was a harem, it was the women who determined who would become the next king. They did all the political jockeying with the king to get his favor and hence to get their sons on the throne. Once they did so, the mothers tended to function as advisors to their sons. The queen mother was one of the most powerful women in such cultures, although she had no official political position. And in plenty of other cultures, it is mothers and wives who have been instrumental in their sons' and husbands' successes.

Anon. #2, that's politically CORRECT!

Women earn less because they get stuck doing the grunt work at home and the help-meet work with friends and family. They take care of the children and the elders. This makes men jerks because they usually don't bother to pitch in, and women suckers because they don't INSIST that men pitch in.

I believe in the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

I believe in the individual's ownership of his/herself.

I think that there should be hardcore porn on prime-time network TV.

Why are IQ tests 'biased'? Is there something about me being white that lets me memorize symbols better? Or arrange blocks into a pattern faster?

In any case, statistics can't tell you anything about the individual. So there's no *point* in discriminating against people, because all you're doing is playing the odds...

I think women need to stay at home and look after the children.. if they can. Or if it's a single dad he needs to stay home at look after the children if he can. Am I politically incorrect or just stupid? (yes or no) (can check more than one)

many