NationStates

Ucropi wrote:

Caninope wrote:Under your logic, why not? Why should you have to convenience yourself with not insulting everyone you meet?

How do you people not understand that there is a difference between being allowed to do something and actually doing it?

Tomorrow murder could stop being illegal. Am I going to murder people? No.

This whole thread is full of people saying they want to do the thing.

Ucropi wrote:

Caninope wrote:Under your logic, why not? Why should you have to convenience yourself with not insulting everyone you meet?

How do you people not understand that there is a difference between being allowed to do something and actually doing it?

I very well understand this.

However, Viritica said that he didn't want to inconvenience himself for anybody, so I'm asking why he inconveniences himself with doing stuff like even learning their names.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Ucropi wrote:How do you people not understand that there is a difference between being allowed to do something and actually doing it?

Tomorrow murder could stop being illegal. Am I going to murder people? No.

This whole thread is full of people saying they want to do the thing.

No pretty sure it's full of people saying they don't want to be told they can't do something they weren't.

Ucropi wrote:

Caninope wrote:Under your logic, why not? Why should you have to convenience yourself with not insulting everyone you meet?

How do you people not understand that there is a difference between being allowed to do something and actually doing it?

Tomorrow murder could stop being illegal. Am I going to murder people? No.

Exactly right. Many people think that if there is no legislation against a particular problem then people will be unable to restrain themselves from doing it. Give people responsibility for themselves.

Ucropi wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
This whole thread is full of people saying they want to do the thing.

No pretty sure it's full of people saying they don't want to be told they can't do something they weren't.

You clearly have not read the thread, then.

Viritica wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I'm not one of those people who think "illegal immigrant" is offensive. However, "illegal(s)" has become a racially charged attack at Latinos during all this 1 year-long debate spanning multiple networks (NS is not the only network that actually is debating immigration on the net).

It's why in debates I tend to correct people to use "illegal immigrant" if they must use a term that is not "undocumented immigrant".

I can live with that. But there are people who would go so far as I go want to eliminate the term "illegal immigrant".

And there are people who want to ban dogs, too. We don't take them all seriously. The point is, if someone says they're offended by what you say you ought to ask why and see if they have a reasonable point. What I see going on here in these discussions of political correctness is people getting bent out of shape because they can't act like assholes all the time (not you specifically) or because they think a political agenda is being forced on them. The former is not a valid reason to question PC, the latter is, but the discussion should be had on the issues, not just an exchange of "You can't tell me what to say!" and "Why are you insistent on being a dick?" That gets us nowhere.

Altarica wrote:

Ucropi wrote:How do you people not understand that there is a difference between being allowed to do something and actually doing it?

Tomorrow murder could stop being illegal. Am I going to murder people? No.

Exactly right. Many people think that if there is no legislation against a particular problem then people will be unable to restrain themselves from doing it. Give people responsibility for themselves.

No one has advocated for legislation in this thread to the best of my knowledge, at least certainly not for the last few pages.

Altarica wrote:

Ucropi wrote:How do you people not understand that there is a difference between being allowed to do something and actually doing it?

Tomorrow murder could stop being illegal. Am I going to murder people? No.

Exactly right. Many people think that if there is no legislation against a particular problem then people will be unable to restrain themselves from doing it. Give people responsibility for themselves.

We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Juristonia wrote:

Altarica wrote:
Exactly right. Many people think that if there is no legislation against a particular problem then people will be unable to restrain themselves from doing it. Give people responsibility for themselves.

We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political Correctness is exactly that! You are telling them what they can and cannot say.

Caninope wrote:

Altarica wrote:
Exactly right. Many people think that if there is no legislation against a particular problem then people will be unable to restrain themselves from doing it. Give people responsibility for themselves.

No one has advocated for legislation in this thread to the best of my knowledge, at least certainly not for the last few pages.

I was using legislation as an example. Many people were saying that if it wasn't for political correctness then everybody would be being insulted by everybody else. I was simply pointing out that people still have responsibility over themselves and just because they can doesn't mean they will.

Ucropi wrote:

Juristonia wrote:
We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political Correctness is exactly that! You are telling them what they can and cannot say.

No. Try again.

Ucropi wrote:

Juristonia wrote:
We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political Correctness is exactly that! You are telling them what they can and cannot say.

No, we're not.

Juristonia wrote:

Altarica wrote:
Exactly right. Many people think that if there is no legislation against a particular problem then people will be unable to restrain themselves from doing it. Give people responsibility for themselves.

We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political correctness is telling people that certain language is unacceptable, in my view that's censoring free speech.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Ucropi wrote:Political Correctness is exactly that! You are telling them what they can and cannot say.

No, we're not.

If you weren't telling people what to say PC wouldn't exist.

Ucropi wrote:

Juristonia wrote:
We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political Correctness is exactly that! You are telling them what they can and cannot say.

This is, what, the sixth time you've illustrated not having a clue what PC actually means now?

Altarica wrote:

Juristonia wrote:
We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political correctness is telling people that certain language is unacceptable, in my view that's censoring free speech.

How is that censoring? If I tell you I find your language unacceptable, are you restrained or prohibited from using it anyway?

Altarica wrote:

Juristonia wrote:
We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political correctness is telling people that certain language is unacceptable, in my view that's censoring free speech.

Then your opinion is factually inaccurate since no one is legislating against free speech.
If anything, they're using free speech to criticize you.

Ucropi wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
No, we're not.

If you weren't telling people what to say PC wouldn't exist.

That's not what political correctness is.

Juristonia wrote:

Ucropi wrote:Political Correctness is exactly that! You are telling them what they can and cannot say.

This is, what, the sixth time you've illustrated not having a clue what PC actually means now?

As per Google

Google wrote:po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
noun
the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Ucropi wrote:If you weren't telling people what to say PC wouldn't exist.

That's not what political correctness is.

What is it then?

Altarica wrote:

Juristonia wrote:
We do. And we reserve the right to address them based on how they use that responsibility.
This is about political correctness. Not eliminating free speech and legislating language.
They're two different things.

Political correctness is telling people that certain language is unacceptable, in my view that's censoring free speech.

Hahaha please tell me how your "freedom of speech" is being violated by people voicing their own opinions and saying "Dat shit's racist, yo."

Ucropi wrote:

Juristonia wrote:
This is, what, the sixth time you've illustrated not having a clue what PC actually means now?

As per Google

Google wrote:po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
noun
the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

That definition directly contradicts you.

Ucropi wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
That's not what political correctness is.

What is it then?

Telling people who say offensive things that they're assholes.

Revanchism wrote:

Altarica wrote:
Political correctness is telling people that certain language is unacceptable, in my view that's censoring free speech.

Hahaha please tell me how your "freedom of speech" is being violated by people voicing their own opinions and saying "Dat shit's racist, yo."

No it's the telling people what they can or cannot say that's censoring

Juristonia wrote:

Altarica wrote:
Political correctness is telling people that certain language is unacceptable, in my view that's censoring free speech.

Then your opinion is factually inaccurate since no one is legislating against free speech.
If anything, they're using free speech to criticize you.

I never mentioned legislation. Telling people that they cannot use certain language is certainly not free speech.