Advertisement
by Baltic Finland (Ancient) » Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:57 am
by Yumyumsuppertime » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:03 am
Big Jim P wrote:To hell with PC. Some people deserve to be offended.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:03 am
Baltic Finland wrote:Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?
by Baltic Finland (Ancient) » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:06 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Baltic Finland wrote:Political correctness is fucking bullshit. Why shouldn't I be allowed to criticize a nutjob whose opinions are goddamn stupid with harsh words?
Nobody is stating that you don't have that right. I'm not sure where you got the idea from that anyone is trying to take it away, or has succeeded in doing so.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:15 am
by Vitaphone Racing » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:16 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I was having a discussion on Facebook regarding concepts of free speech with various friends, and one posted this video from Dr. Ben Carson, Republican poster boy and future hope of the right. In this video, Dr. Carson makes the argument that political correctness is the death knell of open and honest discussion in modern discourse, insofar as whenever someone makes a point that could be considered controversial to anyone, one response is generally "I'm offended", which means that said offense effectively neutralizes one's ability to continue communicating said point.
But...why?
What he's saying is that people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of offending someone. Well, so what? So he offends someone. Then that person has the right to state that they're offended. At that point, it doesn't stop. He has the right to respond to that person if he wishes to do so, and to perhaps educate him or her regarding his point. He has the right to ignore that person. He has the right to stop, think about what he's said, change his mind, and agree, or at least modify his position. What Dr. Carson is really saying here seems to be "You shouldn't be offended by what I've said". Well, who is he to say what we should or shouldn't be offended by? How is it that he lacks such courage in his convictions that offense caused to another is cause for him to stop speaking? And why should anyone take his reluctance to speak further in the face of offense as cause to stop showing offense? "I'm offended by your offense" is just nonsense. The man needs to put on his big boy pants, speak his mind regardless, and stop blaming "PC" when people express dissent from his viewpoints.
Seriously, what most people call "PC" seems to me to actually be the way that free speech is supposed to work.
Now, I'm not saying that municipalities and institutions such as universities haven't occasionally gone overboard in terms of "creating a safe space" or "promoting diversity" at the expense of free expression (thus the "semi" modifier in the title), but this hardly seems to be evidence of a significant trend in society, especially since such crackdowns have generally been successfully challenged in court.
Of course, in the interests of free speech, I welcome dissenting viewpoints....
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:21 am
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I was having a discussion on Facebook regarding concepts of free speech with various friends, and one posted this video from Dr. Ben Carson, Republican poster boy and future hope of the right. In this video, Dr. Carson makes the argument that political correctness is the death knell of open and honest discussion in modern discourse, insofar as whenever someone makes a point that could be considered controversial to anyone, one response is generally "I'm offended", which means that said offense effectively neutralizes one's ability to continue communicating said point.
But...why?
What he's saying is that people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of offending someone. Well, so what? So he offends someone. Then that person has the right to state that they're offended. At that point, it doesn't stop. He has the right to respond to that person if he wishes to do so, and to perhaps educate him or her regarding his point. He has the right to ignore that person. He has the right to stop, think about what he's said, change his mind, and agree, or at least modify his position. What Dr. Carson is really saying here seems to be "You shouldn't be offended by what I've said". Well, who is he to say what we should or shouldn't be offended by? How is it that he lacks such courage in his convictions that offense caused to another is cause for him to stop speaking? And why should anyone take his reluctance to speak further in the face of offense as cause to stop showing offense? "I'm offended by your offense" is just nonsense. The man needs to put on his big boy pants, speak his mind regardless, and stop blaming "PC" when people express dissent from his viewpoints.
Seriously, what most people call "PC" seems to me to actually be the way that free speech is supposed to work.
Now, I'm not saying that municipalities and institutions such as universities haven't occasionally gone overboard in terms of "creating a safe space" or "promoting diversity" at the expense of free expression (thus the "semi" modifier in the title), but this hardly seems to be evidence of a significant trend in society, especially since such crackdowns have generally been successfully challenged in court.
Of course, in the interests of free speech, I welcome dissenting viewpoints....
I agree with this, although you've missed adding in the fine point which excludes language being designed to offend from being protected under freedom of speech. Which coincidentally is where most arguments around political correctness start.
by Baltic Finland (Ancient) » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:26 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Baltic Finland wrote:Just stating my opinion. Isn't what I said what political correctness means?
That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want. If there were such a movement, it would run straight up against the First Amendment of the Constitution (the most popular of the amendments), and wouldn't stand a chance of passing any law, or of having any such law upheld by the courts if passed.
See, my point is that "politically correct" has become a catchphrase that people use to dismiss criticism rather than addressing it. If someone wants to stand up and say something like "Homosexuals are degenerates who are destroying the foundation of our national culture" (a phrase I bumped into just recently in the comments over on Rep. Allen West's Facebook page), then I'm going to call out that person for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of scum. Now, this person is perfectly free to dismiss my response with the phrase "That's so P.C.". However, in the process, he hasn't actually responded to my accusation. He hasn't stated how considering gay people to be degenerates who are destroying the foundation of American is anything other than a bigoted view held by a homophobic piece of scum. In fact, he's essentially ceded the point by essentially asserting his right to say such a thing without the consequence of a response.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:33 am
Baltic Finland wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want. If there were such a movement, it would run straight up against the First Amendment of the Constitution (the most popular of the amendments), and wouldn't stand a chance of passing any law, or of having any such law upheld by the courts if passed.
See, my point is that "politically correct" has become a catchphrase that people use to dismiss criticism rather than addressing it. If someone wants to stand up and say something like "Homosexuals are degenerates who are destroying the foundation of our national culture" (a phrase I bumped into just recently in the comments over on Rep. Allen West's Facebook page), then I'm going to call out that person for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of scum. Now, this person is perfectly free to dismiss my response with the phrase "That's so P.C.". However, in the process, he hasn't actually responded to my accusation. He hasn't stated how considering gay people to be degenerates who are destroying the foundation of American is anything other than a bigoted view held by a homophobic piece of scum. In fact, he's essentially ceded the point by essentially asserting his right to say such a thing without the consequence of a response.
You do realize we're on the same side, right?
by Baltic Finland (Ancient) » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:42 am
by Big Jim P » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:46 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Big Jim P wrote:To hell with PC. Some people deserve to be offended.
That's fine. The point is that the offended have the right to raise their voices in response, and the response of "Oh, that's just political correctness" is little more than dismissiveness without addressing the concerns raised. Of course, a person has the right to do this, but it doesn't advance the dialogue.
by Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:07 am
by GCMG » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:25 am
by Conservative Conservationists » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:30 am
by Ethel mermania » Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:30 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Big Jim P wrote:To hell with PC. Some people deserve to be offended.
That's fine. The point is that the offended have the right to raise their voices in response, and the response of "Oh, that's just political correctness" is little more than dismissiveness without addressing the concerns raised. Of course, a person has the right to do this, but it doesn't advance the dialogue.
by Big Jim P » Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:40 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
That's fine. The point is that the offended have the right to raise their voices in response, and the response of "Oh, that's just political correctness" is little more than dismissiveness without addressing the concerns raised. Of course, a person has the right to do this, but it doesn't advance the dialogue.
you really cant argued against offeded, it changes the conversation from the one at hand to being "offended".
once offended comes into the game, its morality, with the "offensive one automaticly being placed in the" bad? possition. and the one who claims offense in the "just" position.
by Alien Space Bats » Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:56 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:That's the myth part of it. There is literally no major movement afoot in the United States (nor, so far as I am aware, any other Western nation) to take away your right to say whatever you want. If there were such a movement, it would run straight up against the First Amendment of the Constitution (the most popular of the amendments), and wouldn't stand a chance of passing any law, or of having any such law upheld by the courts if passed.
See, my point is that "politically correct" has become a catchphrase that people use to dismiss criticism rather than addressing it. If someone wants to stand up and say something like "Homosexuals are degenerates who are destroying the foundation of our national culture" (a phrase I bumped into just recently in the comments over on Rep. Allen West's Facebook page), then I'm going to call out that person for being a bigoted, homophobic piece of scum. Now, this person is perfectly free to dismiss my response with the phrase "That's so P.C.". However, in the process, he hasn't actually responded to my accusation. He hasn't stated how considering gay people to be degenerates who are destroying the foundation of American is anything other than a bigoted view held by a homophobic piece of scum. In fact, he's essentially ceded the point by essentially asserting his right to say such a thing without the consequence of a response.
by Quintium » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:03 am
Alien Space Bats wrote:Let's be honest with ourselves: Conservative carpring about political correctness is largely an effort to avoid getting called out for being racist, sexist, or homophobic.
Alien Space Bats wrote:It's as if Conservative America is telling the rest of us, "Look, if I want to call a black man 'nigger', a woman 'slut', and a gay man 'faggot", that's not my problem — it's yours. Grow a pair, accept my right to offend you, AND DON'T TALK BACK."
Alien Space Bats wrote:But don't whine when I rhetorically tear you a bloody new asshole, calling you out for your small-minded hatefulness and unsuitability as even a poor facsimile of a human being.
by Madenia » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:44 am
by Liriena » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:54 am
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Liriena » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:57 am
Madenia wrote:Political correctness is tearing society apart.
It's why I'm always arguing with feminists about sexism in pop culture. They think the most idiotic things are sexist. Maxims are sexist. News flash: We are appreciating your beauty not objectifying you.
We also have to make gender neutral terms according to them. That is an awful idea. Please don't tamper with the English language women: Mankind includes you too.
And can we stop calling Christmas trees holiday trees? We all know it is from Christmas.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Frisivisia » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:58 am
Madenia wrote:Political correctness is tearing society apart.
It's why I'm always arguing with feminists about sexism in pop culture. They think the most idiotic things are sexist. Maxims are sexist. News flash: We are appreciating your beauty not objectifying you.
We also have to make gender neutral terms according to them. That is an awful idea. Please don't tamper with the English language women: Mankind includes you too.
And can we stop calling Christmas trees holiday trees? We all know it is from Christmas.
by Kumrann » Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:19 am
Liriena wrote:People whining about "political correctness" don't have any idea what the fuck they are talking about.
by Thama » Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:30 am
Economic Left/Right: -5.00Factbook, not stats. Not a guy, not a gal.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.50
- The Nikopolian Empire and Archoncy of Thama -
- Des Nikopolsraik ed Arkoncy of Thama -Capital city: Capital District Territory
Official languages: Ostspeak, Llynduneg
Government: Federated Parliamentary Monarchy
Population: 234,240,000
Head of State: Cedric Stargard
National Anthem: First March
Technology Level: Class V11 (Late PMT)
Area: 6,103,670 Sq km (mainland)
Old Map
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Almonaster Nuevo, El Lazaro, The Huskar Social Union, United Calanworie, Vanuzgard
Advertisement