Your Opinion of Political Correctness

[Camelza]

I never said tolerating slurs promotes equality, I'm against using slurs myself, but I also believe that slurs should be slowly de-vilified, or forgotten through public education, not shunning.

And until that day comes where the meaning of a word has shifted entirely that it's no longer regarded as a slur, how do you recommend dealing with it in the present if not through shunning? Why shouldn't people express their disgust when they feel it? Why should slurs be given a free pass from criticism? If you don't believe that we should tolerate slurs, I'm not sure how you can assert that they shouldn't be "shunned".

Why must I repeat myself? Through motherfucking political education of all citizens, so that the next generation will consider the very meaning of "slur" ridiculous. Also, when I refer to political correctness, I also include non-discriminatory terms like, ie; "pursue other opportunities." instead of "got fired".
Shunning solves nothing, education does.

[Keyboard Warriors]

And until that day comes where the meaning of a word has shifted entirely that it's no longer regarded as a slur, how do you recommend dealing with it in the present if not through shunning? Why shouldn't people express their disgust when they feel it? Why should slurs be given a free pass from criticism? If you don't believe that we should tolerate slurs, I'm not sure how you can assert that they shouldn't be "shunned".

Why must I repeat myself? Through motherfucking political education of all citizens, so that the next generation will consider the very meaning of "slur" ridiculous.

Let's be realistic here. "Education" is not some magical, snap-your-fingers-and-it-happens quick-fix that will entirely eliminate discrimination if we start tomorrow. Whether or not you're aware of this, I don't know, but if you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see I specifically asked what we should be doing in the present which was to imply, what should we be doing now before this education you speak of runs it's course. Also, when people speak up against discrimination and voice their opposition to what's being said, that's education at work. It's crude, but at the core it's people teaching other people about the truth behind their words and actions. What, precisely, is undesirable about that?

If you aren't going to encourage people to confront and debate intolerance, then you can hardly claim to be relying on "education" to solve this problem.

Also, when I refer to political correctness, I also include non-discriminatory terms like, ie; "pursue other opportunities." instead of "got fired".

I fail to see how businesses and individuals choosing to use different phrases of their own accord is something worth debating, tackling or any form of action whatsoever really.

[Camelza]

Why must I repeat myself? Through motherfucking political education of all citizens, so that the next generation will consider the very meaning of "slur" ridiculous.

Let's be realistic here. "Education" is not some magical, snap-your-fingers-and-it-happens quick-fix that will entirely eliminate discrimination if we start tomorrow. Whether or not you're aware of this, I don't know, but if you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see I specifically asked what we should be doing in the present which was to imply, what should we be doing now before this education you speak of runs it's course. Also, when people speak up against discrimination and voice their opposition to what's being said, that's education at work. It's crude, but at the core it's people teaching other people about the truth behind their words and actions. What, precisely, is undesirable about that?

If you aren't going to encourage people to confront and debate intolerance, then you can hardly claim to be relying on "education" to solve this problem.

No, shunning is not education, they don't explain why the use of slurs is bad, they just say "Don't do it, it's bad".
Education, say whatever you want about how successful it is or not, is the best way to deal with discrimination and most other societal problems. It's practically the shrink of society.

Also, when I refer to political correctness, I also include non-discriminatory terms like, ie; "pursue other opportunities." instead of "got fired".

I fail to see how businesses and individuals choosing to use different phrases of their own accord is something worth debating, tackling or any form of action whatsoever really.

Pherhaps, I just wanted to make clear what I mean by political correctness.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Let's be realistic here. "Education" is not some magical, snap-your-fingers-and-it-happens quick-fix that will entirely eliminate discrimination if we start tomorrow. Whether or not you're aware of this, I don't know, but if you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see I specifically asked what we should be doing in the present which was to imply, what should we be doing now before this education you speak of runs it's course. Also, when people speak up against discrimination and voice their opposition to what's being said, that's education at work. It's crude, but at the core it's people teaching other people about the truth behind their words and actions. What, precisely, is undesirable about that?

If you aren't going to encourage people to confront and debate intolerance, then you can hardly claim to be relying on "education" to solve this problem.

No, shunning is not education, they don't explain why the use of slurs is bad, they just say "Don't do it, it's bad".
Education, say whatever you want about how successful it is or not, is the best way to deal with discrimination and most other societal problems. It's practically the shrink of society.

I never said anything to the contrary of education being effective, although I think we have very different viewpoints on what "education" should entail. Although, being against people debating intolerance in public seems like a very anti-intellectual opinion to hold.

I fail to see how businesses and individuals choosing to use different phrases of their own accord is something worth debating, tackling or any form of action whatsoever really.

Pherhaps, I just wanted to make clear what I mean by political correctness.

If people not wording things how they traditionally would be worded because they think it will spare feelings is what you mean by political correctness, then it's very hard to take you seriously on this matter.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No I'm actually right.


Exactly, that's people telling you that they dislike what you are saying. They are perfectly entitled to do so. It's called the right to the freedom of speech. You can't honestly expect to get around saying divisive words like "nigger" or "whore" whenever you feel like without people having some opposition to what you're saying, that's nuts.

Don't you feel yourself demagogic, a little?

But yes, freedom of speech must be total or there isn't. It's simple as that. When you try to create list of 'offensive word' to ban or even start sending people to jail, it's automatic start of tyranny.

Newspeak is bad, m'kay?

So I can shout fire in a theater or advocate for the killing of my neighbors if I feel like it without repercussion? I guess I can also go and upload into the internet plans on how to take down the Empire State building and the FBI or the CIA or the local authorities have to deal with it because it is "my freedom of speech" - I mean, how dare they interrupt my freedom to speak publicy and denounce the U.S. as an evil democracy and the fact that those damn Yanks should all die in flames, right?

Here's a hint - your right to speech isn't absolute, and I doubt the government would find it funny if I actually was saying what I said seriously enough.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Let's be realistic here. "Education" is not some magical, snap-your-fingers-and-it-happens quick-fix that will entirely eliminate discrimination if we start tomorrow. Whether or not you're aware of this, I don't know, but if you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see I specifically asked what we should be doing in the present which was to imply, what should we be doing now before this education you speak of runs it's course. Also, when people speak up against discrimination and voice their opposition to what's being said, that's education at work. It's crude, but at the core it's people teaching other people about the truth behind their words and actions. What, precisely, is undesirable about that?

If you aren't going to encourage people to confront and debate intolerance, then you can hardly claim to be relying on "education" to solve this problem.

No, shunning is not education, they don't explain why the use of slurs is bad, they just say "Don't do it, it's bad".
Education, say whatever you want about how successful it is or not, is the best way to deal with discrimination and most other societal problems. It's practically the shrink of society.

I fail to see how businesses and individuals choosing to use different phrases of their own accord is something worth debating, tackling or any form of action whatsoever really.

Pherhaps, I just wanted to make clear what I mean by political correctness.

When you include political correctness as to include every iteration of language ever you're doing it wrong.

[Camelza]

No, shunning is not education, they don't explain why the use of slurs is bad, they just say "Don't do it, it's bad".
Education, say whatever you want about how successful it is or not, is the best way to deal with discrimination and most other societal problems. It's practically the shrink of society.

I never said anything to the contrary of education being effective, although I think we have very different viewpoints on what "education" should entail. Although, being against people debating intolerance in public seems like a very anti-intellectual opinion to hold.

I'm not against people debating intolerance in public, quite the contrary. Way to distort my post.

Pherhaps, I just wanted to make clear what I mean by political correctness.

If people not wording things how they traditionally would be worded because they think it will spare feelings is what you mean by political correctness, then it's very hard to take you seriously on this matter.

What's your definition of political correctness?

[Camelza]

No, shunning is not education, they don't explain why the use of slurs is bad, they just say "Don't do it, it's bad".
Education, say whatever you want about how successful it is or not, is the best way to deal with discrimination and most other societal problems. It's practically the shrink of society.

Pherhaps, I just wanted to make clear what I mean by political correctness.

When you include political correctness as to include every iteration of language ever you're doing it wrong.

Only I don't.

[Divitaen]

I think an excellent example of how political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak is the expanding use of the term 'Undocumented Aliens' to replace the term 'Illegal Immigrants". The latter is, in my opinion, more correct as it describes someone who immigrated into a country in violation of the law. The former removes the onus of personal responsibility from the actor and replaces it with a bureaucratic misstep. To me, it is the equivalent of the passive voice error one's grammar checker often warns us of, where an action is taken without assigning responsibility to anyone.

No, "undocumented migrants" is meant to be a term to humanise these people. A person isn't illegal. No person is inherently, by his or her mere existence, an aberration of the law. The means by which they entered was illegal, but their person doesn't become a contravention of the law. The term "illegal immigrant" allows xenophobic groups to demonise these people and turn their illegal entry into the defining point of their existence. It's not "totalitarian Newspeak" to ask people to use terms that humanise rather than demonise. Would it be 'Newspeak' to look down on people who use the word 'fag'?

[Socialist Czechia]

Don't you feel yourself demagogic, a little?

But yes, freedom of speech must be total or there isn't. It's simple as that. When you try to create list of 'offensive word' to ban or even start sending people to jail, it's automatic start of tyranny.

Newspeak is bad, m'kay?

So I can shout fire in a theater or advocate for the killing of my neighbors if I feel like it without repercussion? I guess I can also go and upload into the internet plans on how to take down the Empire State building and the FBI or the CIA or the local authorities have to deal with it because it is "my freedom of speech" - I mean, how dare they interrupt my freedom to speak publicy and denounce the U.S. as an evil democracy and the fact that those damn Yanks should all die in flames, right?

Here's a hint - your right to speech isn't absolute, and I doubt the government would find it funny if I actually was saying what I said seriously enough.

Yes. Words alone can't harm. You shouldn't be punished for anything what left your mouth, no matter which garbage you supports.
People are smart enough to not listen.
Because when they are not so smart, they would support bad ideas anyway, so it doesn't matter if you ban anything verbal or literal.

Nuff said.

[Divitaen]

So I can shout fire in a theater or advocate for the killing of my neighbors if I feel like it without repercussion? I guess I can also go and upload into the internet plans on how to take down the Empire State building and the FBI or the CIA or the local authorities have to deal with it because it is "my freedom of speech" - I mean, how dare they interrupt my freedom to speak publicy and denounce the U.S. as an evil democracy and the fact that those damn Yanks should all die in flames, right?

Here's a hint - your right to speech isn't absolute, and I doubt the government would find it funny if I actually was saying what I said seriously enough.

Yes. Words alone can't harm. You shouldn't be punished for anything what left your mouth, no matter which garbage you supports.
People are smart enough to not listen.
Because when they are not so smart, they would support bad ideas anyway, so it doesn't matter if you ban anything verbal or literal.

Nuff said.

You can make a false bomb threat or shout fire in a crowded area, possibly cause a public panic and a stampede that could potentially kill people, and that's alright? You can't even restrict speech that kills people?

[Socialist Czechia]

For example, due to history and political correctness, almost no one in Germany can see nazi stuff, be it Mein Kampf or Der Ewige Jude.
From no good reason, since for anyone today, these are incredibly stupid and it would totally shown how easily their ancestors could be controlled.

Instead, it's banned, people ends in jail often, even due to misunderstanding, and neo-nazi bold heads are happy to be 'resistance' and 'underground' movement. If this stuff was legal, if was legal to have public party on Fuhrer's birthday, if was legal to go in street in SS uniforms, it wouldn't be so 'cool' for them, since 99% of people would laugh on them in every such event.

[Socialist Czechia]

Yes. Words alone can't harm. You shouldn't be punished for anything what left your mouth, no matter which garbage you supports.
People are smart enough to not listen.
Because when they are not so smart, they would support bad ideas anyway, so it doesn't matter if you ban anything verbal or literal.

Nuff said.

You can make a false bomb threat or shout fire in a crowded area, possibly cause a public panic and a stampede that could potentially kill people, and that's alright? You can't even restrict speech that kills people?

That's different. Debate is about public speech, articles, opinions etc. in general.

[Grinning Dragon]

IMO, P.C. is used to stifle unpopular speech and P.C. needs to be eliminated.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I never said anything to the contrary of education being effective, although I think we have very different viewpoints on what "education" should entail. Although, being against people debating intolerance in public seems like a very anti-intellectual opinion to hold.

I'm not against people debating intolerance in public, quite the contrary. Way to distort my post.

Yet you've argued against turning words into taboos; how do you have words and phrases to debate if they aren't regarded as slurs like they are? You've already made your bed, now I ask that you sleep in it.

Pherhaps, I just wanted to make clear what I mean by political correctness.

If people not wording things how they traditionally would be worded because they think it will spare feelings is what you mean by political correctness, then it's very hard to take you seriously on this matter.

What's your definition of political correctness?[/quote]
I don't use the term political correctness at all. It was a term coined by the social right wing in the late 1990's who were protesting about changes in societal language to be more inclusive (changes which had been occurring since the 1960's) and were copping flak for being seen as furthering the divide.

[Divitaen]

You can make a false bomb threat or shout fire in a crowded area, possibly cause a public panic and a stampede that could potentially kill people, and that's alright? You can't even restrict speech that kills people?

That's different. Debate is about public speech, articles, opinions etc. in general.

This point is a bit different from your earlier claim that "words alone can't harm people", because it sounds like you're now saying "words outside a debate can't harm people". Nevertheless, debate that attempts to sway people towards prejudice, hate and even communal violence can be harmful.

[Camelza]

I'm not against people debating intolerance in public, quite the contrary. Way to distort my post.

Yet you've argued against turning words into taboos; how do you have words and phrases to debate if they aren't regarded as slurs like they are? You've already made your bed, now I ask that you sleep in it.

Taboo=/=slur. No need to be so cocky.

What's your definition of political correctness?

I don't use the term political correctness at all. It was a term coined by the social right wing in the late 1990's who were protesting about changes in societal language to be more inclusive (changes which had been occurring since the 1960's) and were copping flak for being seen as furthering the divide.

So, what's your term of the "vilification of words and ways of expression that do not physically hurt individuals but are either sentimentally strong, or connected to shamfeul past practices."?

[The Rich Port]

That's different. Debate is about public speech, articles, opinions etc. in general.

This point is a bit different from your earlier claim that "words alone can't harm people", because it sounds like you're now saying "words outside a debate can't harm people". Nevertheless, debate that attempts to sway people towards prejudice, hate and even communal violence can be harmful.

Huh, never tried that in a debate.

"There is a bomb under all your seats. If you don't agree with me, I will detonate them all. So, about Gouda cheese being best cheese..."

[Keyboard Warriors]

Yet you've argued against turning words into taboos; how do you have words and phrases to debate if they aren't regarded as slurs like they are? You've already made your bed, now I ask that you sleep in it.

Taboo=/=slur. No need to be so cocky.

And yet all slurs are taboo by definition so what is your point?

I don't use the term political correctness at all. It was a term coined by the social right wing in the late 1990's who were protesting about changes in societal language to be more inclusive (changes which had been occurring since the 1960's) and were copping flak for being seen as furthering the divide.

So, what's your term of the "vilification of words and ways of expression that do not physically hurt individuals but are either sentimentally strong, or connected to shamfeul past practices."?

Being offensive? Seems to work just fine.

[Divitaen]

This point is a bit different from your earlier claim that "words alone can't harm people", because it sounds like you're now saying "words outside a debate can't harm people". Nevertheless, debate that attempts to sway people towards prejudice, hate and even communal violence can be harmful.

Huh, never tried that in a debate.

"There is a bomb under all your seats. If you don't agree with me, I will detonate them all. So, about Gouda cheese being best cheese..."

No, I'm talking about hate speech. Attempting to incite violence and discrimination against homosexuals or immigrants. That can be potentially harmful.

[Ragnarokee]

Just so were clear what's being discussed:

From Merriam Webster's:

Politically Correct: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

I know a lot of unnecessary rhetoric comes under scrutiny for being politically incorrect, but we're just discussing the above. Many of course claim that this is "onerous" and prevents truth from being told. So I want to know, NS, what is your opinion of political correctness?

As for me, I believe some of it is unnecessary and downright unneeded, however, the word political correctness is terrible for describing what it truly is: not being an asshole.

All this Political Correctness is a fucking joke - They place restrictions on what we can and cannot say but yet we still live in a time of de-facto relationships? And greater restrictions than ever. And with a PM like Abbott it will only get worse.

[Camelza]

Taboo=/=slur. No need to be so cocky.

And yet all slurs are taboo by definition so what is your point?

Nope, a taboo is a word that people are even feared of remotely saying, like the n-word.
Slurs are just a kind of curseword and not all slurs are considered taboo.

[Socialist Czechia]

Huh, never tried that in a debate.

"There is a bomb under all your seats. If you don't agree with me, I will detonate them all. So, about Gouda cheese being best cheese..."

No, I'm talking about hate speech. Attempting to incite violence and discrimination against homosexuals or immigrants. That can be potentially harmful.

Ban or jail someone for 'hate speech' is just dumb, because it's too subjective - what EXACTLY is hate?

I mean, you can dislike and criticize some group of people without hating them.

I do not hate Jews or american black people, but I disagree with their victimization, like whole world still owe them something and I seriously dislike 24/7/365 permanent complaints about insults, racism, xenophobia etc. in everywhere, everytime.

(I am from culture when jokes, even hardcore ones, are very important, since it help our resistance during Austrian, German or Soviet tyranny - it's unthinkable there to take anyone before court even for very cruel joke or spicy public insult)

[Zottistan]

No, I'm talking about hate speech. Attempting to incite violence and discrimination against homosexuals or immigrants. That can be potentially harmful.

Ban or jail someone for 'hate speech' is just dumb, because it's too subjective - what EXACTLY is hate?

I mean, you can dislike and criticize some group of people without hating them.

I do not hate Jews or american black people, but I disagree with their victimization, like whole world still owe them something and I seriously dislike 24/7/365 permanent complaints about insults, racism, xenophobia etc. in everywhere, everytime.

(I am from culture when jokes, even hardcore ones, are very important, since it help our resistance during Austrian, German or Soviet tyranny - it's unthinkable there to take anyone before court even for very cruel joke or spicy public insult)

Hate speech usually means incitement to hate. Stuff said to encourage violence and racial hatred.

[Socialist Czechia]

Ban or jail someone for 'hate speech' is just dumb, because it's too subjective - what EXACTLY is hate?

I mean, you can dislike and criticize some group of people without hating them.

I do not hate Jews or american black people, but I disagree with their victimization, like whole world still owe them something and I seriously dislike 24/7/365 permanent complaints about insults, racism, xenophobia etc. in everywhere, everytime.

(I am from culture when jokes, even hardcore ones, are very important, since it help our resistance during Austrian, German or Soviet tyranny - it's unthinkable there to take anyone before court even for very cruel joke or spicy public insult)

Hate speech usually means incitement to hate. Stuff said to encourage violence and racial hatred.

"Stuff said to encourage violence and racial hatred."

- Which you can say about literally anything.