Has Political Correctness in the USA gone too far?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Marxism was associated with state atheism. An example was the Cossack Ukrainian and the Polish PDR
Everything else isn't my duty to argue, just throwing that fact out there.

I don't see how it's a proper term at all.

Neither do I. He's making a failed connection with atheism and Marxism.

[Jumalariik]

No, there is something mentally wrong with them, no question about it. Simple as that.

Problem being you can only suggest they have something wrong with them. Only a professional can truly diagnose if they even have something wrong in the first place.

No. I'm not going to continue this discussion. There is no healthy reason to think that you're a lemur. If someone thinks that they're a lemur, I will treat them like a lemur: like a silly animal that looks silly and can't help but laugh at. I would ask "it" why "it" is not on the set of zoboomafoo.

[Benuty]

Problem being you can only suggest they have something wrong with them. Only a professional can truly diagnose if they even have something wrong in the first place.

No. I'm not going to continue this discussion. There is no healthy reason to think that you're a lemur. If someone thinks that they're a lemur, I will treat them like a lemur: like a silly animal that looks silly and can't help but laugh at. I would ask "it" why "it" is not on the set of zoboomafoo.

Their use of sapience defies the standard of them being an "it".

[Jumalariik]

No. It's an idiotic point. I am not going to be attracted to someone if they don't actually have female genitals and are not actually female, if I find it out, I will no longer be attracted. That is not transphobia, I just like the idea of "real" people.

Someones character, personality, and the things that make them who they are < genitalia...

Really now?

That just seems absurdly illogical.

Sexual attraction, I'm not sexually attracted to "fake" people. Does that mean I can't love them? No. To me love is platonic, I can't be attracted to them in the real sense of the word.

[Jumalariik]

No. I'm not going to continue this discussion. There is no healthy reason to think that you're a lemur. If someone thinks that they're a lemur, I will treat them like a lemur: like a silly animal that looks silly and can't help but laugh at. I would ask "it" why "it" is not on the set of zoboomafoo.

Their use of sapience defies the standard of them being an "it".

If they hold such views, they aren't sapient.

[Flyover]

So because you advocate wrong viewpoints and people call you out on it or not define populations well enough in History class now that's political correctness?

So because you advocate wrong viewpoints and people call you out on it

you advocate wrong viewpoints

wrong viewpoints

Opinions cannot be wrong, folks. They can be stupid, and the facts behind them can be wrong, but no viewpoint is wrong. Political correctness should not be a tool to hold back opposing views.

Is racism not an opinion? To say black people are inferior is objectively false, but it is still an opinion ignorant people hold, no?

Definition of opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As for PC: We have the right to express our opinions, but everyone else has the right to tell you if you're stupid and wrong.

[Benuty]

Someones character, personality, and the things that make them who they are < genitalia...

Really now?

That just seems absurdly illogical.

Sexual attraction, I'm not sexually attracted to "fake" people. Does that mean I can't love them? No. To me love is platonic, I can't be attracted to them in the real sense of the word.

Sexual attraction is entirely subjective, therefore I have to ask what do you mean by "fake" people?

[Jumalariik]

Sexual attraction, I'm not sexually attracted to "fake" people. Does that mean I can't love them? No. To me love is platonic, I can't be attracted to them in the real sense of the word.

Sexual attraction is entirely subjective, therefore I have to ask what do you mean by "fake" people?

People with modifications on their body to make them the gender that I'm sexually attracted to, females.

[Jumalariik]

Sexual attraction, I'm not sexually attracted to "fake" people. Does that mean I can't love them? No. To me love is platonic, I can't be attracted to them in the real sense of the word.

Sexual attraction is entirely subjective, therefore I have to ask what do you mean by "fake" people?

People with modifications on their body to make them the gender that I'm sexually attracted to, females.

[Keyboard Warriors]

These days you're not really allowed to say what you want however it's not the government that is limiting your freedom of speech, it is the people. These days you cannot express your opinions for example Redacted/Removed Without some offended teen going up to you and hitting you and basically just shaming you. (Yes this has happened several times) So what do you think NS? has political correctness gone too far or is it fine where it is

EDIT:
Okay I used a pretty bad example but you get the point

You know how you have the freedom of speech right? Well, so does everyone else.

[Patridam]

Opinions cannot be wrong, folks. They can be stupid, and the facts behind them can be wrong, but no viewpoint is wrong. Political correctness should not be a tool to hold back opposing views.

So Nazism isn't wrong? Or Stalinism? Or the viewpoint of the Khmer Rouge wasn't wrong?

Okay then.

No, they're not wrong, at least in the factual sense. Bad? Yes. Stupid? Yes. But no opinion is *wrong*, and no one is wrong for having one, whatever it may be. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and should be able to express it. No matter how much we may disagree with their opinion, we should not infringe on their rights.

And no, political correctness is not even in the same ballpark as the legitimate exceptions like death threats or defamation of character/libel.

[Benuty]

Sexual attraction is entirely subjective, therefore I have to ask what do you mean by "fake" people?

People with modifications on their body to make them the gender that I'm sexually attracted to, females.

So a male who goes through every process to become a female that is humanly possible is just a "modified" male?

[Jumalariik]

People with modifications on their body to make them the gender that I'm sexually attracted to, females.

So a male who goes through every process to become a female that is humanly possible is just a "modified" male?

Yes, obviously.

[Benuty]

So a male who goes through every process to become a female that is humanly possible is just a "modified" male?

Yes, obviously.

Psychology would vehemently disagree, unless you subscribe to the proto-Freudian system.

[Jumalariik]

Yes, obviously.

Psychology would vehemently disagree, unless you subscribe to the proto-Freudian system.

You need a real working vagina and womb to be a woman. Until men beget children because of surgery, they are men, simple. I can call them what they want, but their sex is in fact male.
Just because someone wears a skirt doesn't mean that they're a female, look at the scots who wear day kilts. (great kilt FTW!)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So Nazism isn't wrong? Or Stalinism? Or the viewpoint of the Khmer Rouge wasn't wrong?

Okay then.

No, they're not wrong, at least in the factual sense. Bad? Yes. Stupid? Yes. But no opinion is *wrong*, and no one is wrong for having one, whatever it may be. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and should be able to express it. No matter how much we may disagree with their opinion, we should not infringe on their rights.

And no, political correctness is not even in the same ballpark as the legitimate exceptions like death threats or defamation of character/libel.

Everyone has a right to an opinion yes, but everyone also has to take it like grown ups when you call someone on their bullshit or be ignored or mocked at or point out how wrong they are about their opinion.

You say they are bad and stupid, you're just playing semantics to make it seem like it's not wrong, but if something isn't bad then how can it not be wrong? If it is bad it is fundamentally wrong.

And no, there's certain things that I think should be educated until they disappear from the face of the Earth, but Political Correctness is not a piece of legislation either, so I don't see your point.

[Benuty]

Psychology would vehemently disagree, unless you subscribe to the proto-Freudian system.

You need a real working vagina and womb to be a woman. Until men beget children because of surgery, they are men, simple. I can call them what they want, but their sex is in fact male.
Just because someone wears a skirt doesn't mean that they're a female, look at the scots who wear day kilts. (great kilt FTW!)

Kilts are a 16th century affair not truly historical in the sense some claim them to be.

A male has begotten children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie

[Anglo-California]

There seems to be a confusion here. Nobody on either side is saying that freedom of speech needs to be restricted. The debate is over the ethics of people to be publicly hounded and have their lives and careers destroyed for expressing politically incorrect views. Of course companies have the right to fire people for whatever reason they want. But is it right?

[Jumalariik]

You need a real working vagina and womb to be a woman. Until men beget children because of surgery, they are men, simple. I can call them what they want, but their sex is in fact male.
Just because someone wears a skirt doesn't mean that they're a female, look at the scots who wear day kilts. (great kilt FTW!)

Kilts are a 16th century affair not truly historical in the sense some claim them to be.

A male has begotten children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie

1. What the fuck did you say?
2. That is messed up, that should never be allowed to happen, I feel bad for the children.
Also, she is not a male by sex, only by gender.

[Flyover]

There seems to be a confusion here. Nobody on either side is saying that freedom of speech needs to be restricted. The debate is over the ethics of people to be publicly hounded and have their lives and careers destroyed for expressing politically incorrect views. Of course companies have the right to fire people for whatever reason they want. But is it right?

If the law is going after people who say stupid things, probably not. (People in This Very Thread would be in a lot of trouble, if that were the case!) However, if a random celebrity goes on Twitter and says stupid stuff about how gender = sex and how genitals = everything, they will probably get dog-pilled by public opinion to the contrary. This is not wrong. If they have the freedom of speech to be stupid, everyone else has the same freedom of speech to tell them how stupid they are.

[Benuty]

Kilts are a 16th century affair not truly historical in the sense some claim them to be.

A male has begotten children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie

1. What the fuck did you say?
2. That is messed up, that should never be allowed to happen, I feel bad for the children.
Also, she is not a male by sex, only by gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt

Historical yes, but often stereotyped onto Scots of earlier centuries...such as William Wallace who was in the 1300s so he could not have possibly worn one.

[West Colovia]

Considering I fear for my life if I say 'black person' in history class or explaining my Creationist views in science class...yes, I think free speech is being suffocated by social Marxism.

Fear for your.life? Doubtful. Considering black person is.not a slur. Unless you refereed to them by something.else.
And bringing creation into.a science.class....that doesn't belong there anyway It's not a religion.class and being.told that is not "being suffocated".
I have no.idea what social Marxism is so not.even going.to touch.that.

[Jumalariik]

1. What the fuck did you say?
2. That is messed up, that should never be allowed to happen, I feel bad for the children.
Also, she is not a male by sex, only by gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt

Historical yes, but often stereotyped onto Scots of earlier centuries...such as William Wallace who was in the 1300s so he could not have possibly worn one.

I knew that, what is your point?

[Keyboard Warriors]

So Nazism isn't wrong? Or Stalinism? Or the viewpoint of the Khmer Rouge wasn't wrong?

Okay then.

No, they're not wrong, at least in the factual sense. Bad? Yes. Stupid? Yes. But no opinion is *wrong*, and no one is wrong for having one, whatever it may be. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and should be able to express it. No matter how much we may disagree with their opinion, we should not infringe on their rights.

And no, political correctness is not even in the same ballpark as the legitimate exceptions like death threats or defamation of character/libel.

This is complete bullshit.

First of all, yes opinions can be wrong. When you have opinions like "rape is good" and "black people are sub-human" which have no factual basis in reality whatsoever and only serve to inflame tensions in society, they are unquestionably wrong, ethically and factually. This moral nihilism idea in which people suggest that nothing is intrinsically wrong or right is pure hogwash, because morality is not purely subjective and anybody who admits that it is, is also admitting to being practically brainless. Reason and logic play a significant part in the determination of moral codes, both personal and societal. Everybody, whether they admit to it or not, exercised logic and considered evidence when determining the difference between right or wrong. Morality is not, and has never been, completely and entirely arbitrary. So when we are faced with opinions which defy logic and our well-reasoned concepts of right or wrong, we regard these opinions as wrong and rightfully so.

Secondly, that right to an opinion that you talk about works both ways. That means that you have the right to express your opinion, not to have your opinion placed in a protective bubble where people cannot attack it or you for holding that opinion in the first place. Freedom of speech has never been about protecting unpopular speech, offensive speech or people who are just plain fucking wrong. Attacking someone's opinion is not infringing on their rights; nobody has the right to speak their mind and not be held accountable for it. To deny people the right of reply is a much greater travesty than to force people to defend their own ideas.

[Benuty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt

Historical yes, but often stereotyped onto Scots of earlier centuries...such as William Wallace who was in the 1300s so he could not have possibly worn one.

I knew that, what is your point?

Common historical misconceptions in the west can be a real drag to deal with being my point.