Your Opinion of Political Correctness

[Kelinfort]

That's also false. I'm sure a racist could very well find a job- in fact, I'm fairly sure I've met quite a few. But the biggest problem you have with political correctness is that you want to exercise your rights without recognizing their corresponding responsibilities.

Words should be answered with words or silence, not actions.

Your employer thinks otherwise.

[Ucropi]

It depends on the context. A Politician, Diplomat, Judge or other public figure should be Politically Correct, as should teachers and police. But non-officials should be able to say things that aren't blatantly offensive. For example, saying 'Black/White' isn't rude, Saying "African American/Caucasian" is politically correct, and saying "Nigger/Cracker" is blatantly offensive, and shouldn't be used in an offensive manner.

"African-American" is as racist as the "N-word"

No, it's not. African-American is recognizing someone who's an American citizen of African decent, just like a European-American (although you rarely hear that) or Asian-American or (Nationality)-American, etc. The N word (Unless I'm thinking of the wrong one) is a racism term used to imply inferiority with a heavily negative connotation.

Would you call a white guy from South Africa "African American"? No because he's not black?

[Ucropi]

Pretty sure there are white people in africa that have been there longer than America has been a country. Why are they not african american? Because they're white?

Well, I'd assume it's because if they're in Africa, they're not in America.

because no one has ever immigrated to America before?

[Kelinfort]

It depends on the context. A Politician, Diplomat, Judge or other public figure should be Politically Correct, as should teachers and police. But non-officials should be able to say things that aren't blatantly offensive. For example, saying 'Black/White' isn't rude, Saying "African American/Caucasian" is politically correct, and saying "Nigger/Cracker" is blatantly offensive, and shouldn't be used in an offensive manner.


No, it's not. African-American is recognizing someone who's an American citizen of African decent, just like a European-American (although you rarely hear that) or Asian-American or (Nationality)-American, etc. The N word (Unless I'm thinking of the wrong one) is a racism term used to imply inferiority with a heavily negative connotation.

Would you call a white guy from South Africa "African American"? No because he's not black?

Technically yes, if he wanted to use another word, he can just tell me.

[Keyboard Warriors]

No its not because it's exactly as I described it; common sense and also honesty. It's not continuing to offend people when they raise an issue and ask you to stop. Most importantly it's about taking responsibility for what you say and how you act, accepting that others might take issue with what you're saying and not complaining about being called a bigot for it. It's never been about ensuring you never offend anybody by never talking about certain topics, that's a load quite frankly.

Except not. If you look at a dictionary definition of political correctness it goes like this

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

OR

demonstrating progressive ideals, esp by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental

I agree with all of what you said. I think that your right but I'm sorry, your not describing political correctness your describing something different. We are in essence in agreement just the way you've defined political correctness is wrong.

PC isn't simply "don't be a dick" as the name suggest's it contains within it restriction on language and expression on the grounds that it "might be offensive" not that it definitely is.

See, if I had to summarize either of those two definitions in five words or less, I'd always end up with something similar to "don't be a dick". Those dictionary excerpts are just long winded, sophisticated ways of saying you should be nice to people and respect their feelings.That's all political correctness is, that's all it will ever be about and pretending it's about anything else is just plain dishonest.

Which is why its politically correct to use terms like "Afro-Caribbean" or "African American" despite the fact most people aren't bothered about the use of the world "black".

It's also politically correct to use the word black. Unless a black person says "look, I don't like that word, can you call me this instead?" and then if you decide to be nice and call them something different, you're also being politically correct. Although most people would call that being reasonable.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And hence if you want to have a job you cant express your opinion on something, because political correctness.

That's also false. I'm sure a racist could very well find a job- in fact, I'm fairly sure I've met quite a few. But the biggest problem you have with political correctness is that you want to exercise your rights without recognizing their corresponding responsibilities.

Oh even people who type in that txtspk thing can find a job.

Problem being that some people tend to not distinguish between they speaking as a company's representative and they talking as themselves.

It's like when you don a school's uniform. What you do in that uniform represents the school even outside the school. Once you take it off you can say or do whatever the hell you want. Some people just forget they're still donning the uniform.

[Juristonia]

Which has nothing to do with the right to free speech since the government =/= private enterprise.

So if I got a job at say the DMV I could spout offensive crap all day and would be protected?

Your right to say it is.
Your right to the job is not.

Especially if your behaviour directly reflects badly on said job.

[Great Kleomentia]

If the government cannot insure free speech to all of its citizens then it is equally their fault.

You have the right to say what you want.
Your employer has the right to can you.
As a capitalist, I would've thought you loved that sorta thing.

I'm not entirely fine with it. Sure, the employer should have the right to "control" his/her employees, but to a point. If the employers interest collides with the rights of the employee then we have a problem.

[Ucropi]

Would you call a white guy from South Africa "African American"? No because he's not black?

Technically yes, if he wanted to use another word, he can just tell me.

"Technically yes" But if you saw him on the street you would just classify him as white.

[Keyboard Warriors]

That's also false. I'm sure a racist could very well find a job- in fact, I'm fairly sure I've met quite a few. But the biggest problem you have with political correctness is that you want to exercise your rights without recognizing their corresponding responsibilities.

Words should be answered with words or silence, not actions.

And someone being fired for racism on the job isn't being fired because they had a nasty opinion, they're being fired because certain customers heard said opinion and proceeded to take their business elsewhere. You can continue to pretend that an employee exists in a vacuum where their actions have no affect on their co-workers and the rest of the business, but this is clearly not the case.

[Greater-London]

Would you call a white guy from South Africa "African American"? No because he's not black?

I would I'd just think it was ridiculous. Because whilst he is of course from Africa and now lives in America it does make sense logically; however he's identifying with a term that has until that point has only been used by people with Black skin. It would just be odd.

[Caninope]

But how is it actually racist?

It is racist since it is labeling a whole group of people under the same denomination based on the colour of their skin. (i.e: "since you are black, you must be of African descent").

Not quite. Those of black non-African descent (i.e. Papa New Guineans) have other appropriate categories to be used.

[Ucropi]

So if I got a job at say the DMV I could spout offensive crap all day and would be protected?

Your right to say it is.
Your right to the job is not.

Especially if your behaviour directly reflects badly on said job.

Is the DMV not a government organization? The government cannot impede my freedom of speech.

[Krasivovia]

You realize how ridiculous your argument is?

Of course it is ridiculous. I meant to show how everything can sound offensive to anyone.

[Kelinfort]

You have the right to say what you want.
Your employer has the right to can you.
As a capitalist, I would've thought you loved that sorta thing.

I'm not entirely fine with it. Sure, the employer should have the right to "control" his/her employees, but to a point. If the employers interest collides with the rights of the employee then we have a problem.

This is what the Supreme Court defines as commercial speech:

Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia:[119]

The contents do "no more than propose a commercial transaction."
The contents may be characterized as advertisements.
The contents reference a specific product.
The disseminator is economically motivated to distribute the speech.
Alone, each indicium does not compel the conclusion that an instance of speech is commercial; however, "[t]he combination of all these characteristics...provides strong support for...the conclusion that the [speech is] properly characterized as commercial speech."[120]

In Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942),[121] the Court upheld a New York City ordinance forbidding the "distribution in the streets of commercial and business advertising matter."[122] Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Owen Roberts explained:

This court has unequivocally held that streets are proper places for the exercise of the freedom of communicating information and disseminating opinion and that, though the states and municipalities may appropriately regulate the privilege in the public interest, they may not unduly burden or proscribe its employment in their public thoroughfares. We are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising.[123]

In Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976),[124] the Court overruled Valentine and ruled that commercial speech was entitled to First Amendment protection:

What is at issue is whether a State may completely suppress the dissemination of concededly truthful information about entirely lawful activity, fearful of that information's effect upon its disseminators and its recipients... [W]e conclude that the answer to this one is in the negative.[125]

In Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978),[126] the Court ruled that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment as much as other types of speech:

We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite a dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the [First] Amendment's guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech.[127]

In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980),[128] the Court clarified what analysis was required before the government could justify regulating commercial speech:

Is the expression protected by the First Amendment? Lawful? Misleading? Fraud?
Is the asserted government interest substantial?
Does the regulation directly advance the governmental interest asserted?
Is the regulation more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest?
Six years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, applying the Central Hudson standards in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986),[129] affirmed the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico's conclusion that Puerto Rico's Games of Chance Act of 1948, including the regulations thereunder, was not facially unconstitutional. The lax interpretation of Central Hudson adopted by Posadas was soon restricted under 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996),[130] when the Court invalidated a Rhode Island law prohibiting the publication of liquor prices.

[Sdaeriji]

You have the right to say what you want.
Your employer has the right to can you.
As a capitalist, I would've thought you loved that sorta thing.

I'm not entirely fine with it. Sure, the employer should have the right to "control" his/her employees, but to a point. If the employers interest collides with the rights of the employee then we have a problem.

Your sig says you're a capitalist, but you seem to actually be a bit of a marxist.

[Juristonia]

You have the right to say what you want.
Your employer has the right to can you.
As a capitalist, I would've thought you loved that sorta thing.

I'm not entirely fine with it. Sure, the employer should have the right to "control" his/her employees, but to a point. If the employers interest collides with the rights of the employee then we have a problem.

Freedom.. to a point.
Very capitalist of you.

The employee's righrs are not being infringed.
They can still say what they want.
This, however, does not mean you have a right to that job.

Or are you trying to argue that having an occupation is a right?
Cause that'll be fun to legislate.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Your right to say it is.
Your right to the job is not.

Especially if your behaviour directly reflects badly on said job.

Is the DMV not a government organization? The government cannot impede my freedom of speech.

They can't shut you up but they can fire you for not being able to do your job properly. I'd hazard a guess and say that angering your clients and co-workers isn't doing your job properly.

[Ucropi]

It is racist since it is labeling a whole group of people under the same denomination based on the colour of their skin. (i.e: "since you are black, you must be of African descent").

Not quite. Those of black non-African descent (i.e. Papa New Guineans) have other appropriate categories to be used.

I know a bunch of Jamaicans who would beat someone for calling them African American they are not of African decent they are of Jamaican decent.

[Roski]

Fuck all that bullshit.

You offended?

Well I don't give a fuck.

[Kelinfort]

Your right to say it is.
Your right to the job is not.

Especially if your behaviour directly reflects badly on said job.

Is the DMV not a government organization? The government cannot impede my freedom of speech.

They're not preventing you from saying anything, or making a law preventing you from saying anything.

[Juristonia]

Your right to say it is.
Your right to the job is not.

Especially if your behaviour directly reflects badly on said job.

Is the DMV not a government organization? The government cannot impede my freedom of speech.

And it isn't.
It can however, decide your employment is not welcome anymore.

[Great Kleomentia]

Words should be answered with words or silence, not actions.

And someone being fired for racism on the job isn't being fired because they had a nasty opinion, they're being fired because certain customers heard said opinion and proceeded to take their business elsewhere. You can continue to pretend that an employee exists in a vacuum where their actions have no affect on their co-workers and the rest of the business, but this is clearly not the case.

You do know that this goes much deeper? To the point where one is fired for posting a comic that makes a "black joke" on facebook. You can't seriously believe that this reduces business for the employer.

[Caninope]

That's also false. I'm sure a racist could very well find a job- in fact, I'm fairly sure I've met quite a few. But the biggest problem you have with political correctness is that you want to exercise your rights without recognizing their corresponding responsibilities.

Words should be answered with words or silence, not actions.

So, tell me then, how are we supposed to hold people responsible for their ideas?

[Kelinfort]

And someone being fired for racism on the job isn't being fired because they had a nasty opinion, they're being fired because certain customers heard said opinion and proceeded to take their business elsewhere. You can continue to pretend that an employee exists in a vacuum where their actions have no affect on their co-workers and the rest of the business, but this is clearly not the case.

You do know that this goes much deeper? To the point where one is fired for posting a comic that makes a "black joke" on facebook. You can't seriously believe that this reduces business for the employer.

It can. Also, the employer can do whatever he wants, legally, of course, with his employees, no matter how stupid.