Your Opinion of Political Correctness

[Farnhamia]

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.

Inciting violence is certainly illegal. Inciting hatred is probably not, in most cases, unless coupled with the threat of violence.

[Zottistan]

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

Inciting violence is certainly illegal. Inciting hatred is probably not, in most cases, unless coupled with the threat of violence.

Incitement to ethnic hate is illegal in the UK. I don't know about the US.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

For a movement like Holocaust Denialism to exist and for there to be people who take this seriously I doubt that Germany wants to go the same route the U.S. did by tolerating Neo Nazis.

[Text People]

Political Correctness is edging into thought control territory in the truest Orwellian sense.

Control what people see, hear, and how they conduct themselves privately, by expressing their inner-most thoughts to friends, and you have the closest thing to thought control yet.

That's why there are more people noticing this and getting pissed about it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Yes, but you said that freedom of speech is absolute.

I challenged your assertion by asking you several cases where you and I should think it's wrong to let things like that be actually protected under the First Amendment.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Political Correctness is edging into thought control territory in the truest Orwellian sense.

Control what people see, hear, and how they conduct themselves privately, by expressing their inner-most thoughts to friends, and you have the closest thing to thought control yet.

That's why there are more people noticing this and getting pissed about it.

Good thing that nobody is legislating for the restriction of speech.

[Zottistan]

Political Correctness is edging into thought control territory in the truest Orwellian sense.

Control what people see, hear, and how they conduct themselves privately, by expressing their inner-most thoughts to friends, and you have the closest thing to thought control yet.

That's why there are more people noticing this and getting pissed about it.

No, people are getting pissed because they don't like the fact that free speech goes both ways.

[Text People]

Political Correctness is edging into thought control territory in the truest Orwellian sense.

Control what people see, hear, and how they conduct themselves privately, by expressing their inner-most thoughts to friends, and you have the closest thing to thought control yet.

That's why there are more people noticing this and getting pissed about it.

Good thing that nobody is legislating for the restriction of speech.

Not in the U.S., yet.

But any person making a private statement in his own home shouldn't be subjected to any outside judgement at all.

The news media shouldn't be the judge of private, personal behavior. They aren't good enough to be the social conscience of the world.

[Socialist Czechia]

For a movement like Holocaust Denialism to exist and for there to be people who take this seriously I doubt that Germany wants to go the same route the U.S. did by tolerating Neo Nazis.

You don't understand. These 'people' at least in Europe, actually enjoys to be sorta 'underground movement'. Let them be legal, and you'll se clear decline.

In Denmark, for example, you can be Nazi legally, because Danish people are smart enough to let crazy people live alone or just make fun about them

When you ban something, it looks cool for someone. Forbidden fruit. So just let crazy people yell in street about master race and Fuhrer and everyone, especially kids, will just laugh on them and all their 'seriousness' will be gone.

[Zottistan]

But any person making a private statement in his own home shouldn't be subjected to any outside judgement at all.

It's funny that the guy calling manners Orwellian is basically calling for controlling people's opinions of eachother.

[Farnhamia]

Good thing that nobody is legislating for the restriction of speech.

Not in the U.S., yet.

But any person making a private statement in his own home shouldn't be subjected to any outside judgement at all.

The news media shouldn't be the judge of private, personal behavior. They aren't good enough to be the social conscience of the world.

What sort of "outside judgement" are you talking about?

[Text People]

But any person making a private statement in his own home shouldn't be subjected to any outside judgement at all.

It's funny that the guy calling manners Orwellian is basically calling for controlling people's opinions of eachother.

It's about people losing their livelihood, and, in some cases, their private property.

It's about far more than manners and opinions, and you know it.

[Text People]

Not in the U.S., yet.

But any person making a private statement in his own home shouldn't be subjected to any outside judgement at all.

The news media shouldn't be the judge of private, personal behavior. They aren't good enough to be the social conscience of the world.

What sort of "outside judgement" are you talking about?

One example is people leaking snippets of conversations to the media. That may actually be illegal, but it's allowed.

Governmental 'legislation' isn't necessary when the media makes itself the govt. and judge, jury, executioner.

[Zottistan]

It's funny that the guy calling manners Orwellian is basically calling for controlling people's opinions of eachother.

It's about people losing their livelihood, and, in some cases, their private property.

It's about far more than manners and opinions, and you know it.

Give me an example of somebody losing their livelihood or property in the context you mean.

It really isn't. If you say bigoted things, people will consider you a bigot and treat you accordingly.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What sort of "outside judgement" are you talking about?

One example is people leaking snippets of conversations to the media. That may actually be illegal, but it's allowed.

If it is a conversation with someone popular or famous enough it will end up in the tabloids and magazines, somehow.

[Text People]

It's about people losing their livelihood, and, in some cases, their private property.

It's about far more than manners and opinions, and you know it.

Give me an example of somebody losing their livelihood or property in the context you mean.

It really isn't. If you say bigoted things, people will consider you a bigot and treat you accordingly.

Donald Sterling, obviously.

[Farnhamia]

What sort of "outside judgement" are you talking about?

One example is people leaking snippets of conversations to the media. That may actually be illegal, but it's allowed.

Governmental 'legislation' isn't necessary when the media makes itself the govt. and judge, jury, executioner.

Recording conversations has legal implications surrounding it that make it questionable, but simply describing a conversation to a reporter is not illegal. Kind of like, "The Text People told me that they thought that leaking snippets of conversations to the media was illegal," that kind of thing. If what I say or write about you causes you harm, you have recourse to the slander and libel laws.

[Zottistan]

Give me an example of somebody losing their livelihood or property in the context you mean.

It really isn't. If you say bigoted things, people will consider you a bigot and treat you accordingly.

Donald Sterling, obviously.

I don't really follow US news and I sure as fuck don't follow US sports. He was banned from the NBA for racist comments, right?

[Farnhamia]

Donald Sterling, obviously.

I don't really follow US news and I sure as fuck don't follow US sports. He was banned from the NBA for racist comments, right?

I don't know about banned but enough pressure was brought to bear on him so that he was forced to sell the LA Clippers.

[Text People]

Donald Sterling, obviously.

I don't really follow US news and I sure as fuck don't follow US sports. He was banned from the NBA for racist comments, right?

Yes, he lost his team because of a personal conversation with a woman who was setting him up to take a fall.

He may be a person that I oculdn't stand if I met him, but he was railroaded.

He was banned outright without even using a racial slur.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't really follow US news and I sure as fuck don't follow US sports. He was banned from the NBA for racist comments, right?

Yes, he lost his team because of a personal conversation with a woman who was setting him up to take a fall.

He may be a person that I oculdn't stand if I met him, but he was railroaded.

He was banned outright without even using a racial slur.

The skill of masterful communication is important in any circumstance.

Being set up isn't an excuse to be racist.

[ESTU]

I always though "political correctness" was just a fancy word for "ass kissing."

[Zottistan]

I don't really follow US news and I sure as fuck don't follow US sports. He was banned from the NBA for racist comments, right?

Yes, he lost his team because of a personal conversation with a woman who was setting him up to take a fall.

He may be a person that I oculdn't stand if I met him, but he was railroaded.

He was banned outright without even using a racial slur.

Not sure what the structure of the NBA is or anything like that, but it sounds like an organization kicking a guy out who was bad for their press. Not a problem.

[Text People]

Yes, he lost his team because of a personal conversation with a woman who was setting him up to take a fall.

He may be a person that I oculdn't stand if I met him, but he was railroaded.

He was banned outright without even using a racial slur.

The skill of masterful communication is important in any circumstance.

Being set up isn't an excuse to be racist.

In a truly free society being racist is, in a sense, protected.

It's the same thing as not being able to legislate morality either.

[Zottistan]

The skill of masterful communication is important in any circumstance.

Being set up isn't an excuse to be racist.

In a truly free society being racist is, in a sense, protected.

It's the same thing as not being able to legislate morality either.

Protected from what?