Has Political Correctness in the USA gone too far?

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

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?

See: Nicki Minaj.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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?

Well, to put it in a way I think most people would understand here:

If you hold the view that black people should be tossed into a fire and die that's your opinion, and if you only accept white customers while denying service to black customers because of this I have all the right to fire you (general you). I don't have the right to refuse anyone to be employed, but they don't have a right to remain employed once their stupid beliefs affect my clientele and the cohesion of my team.

[Kelinfort]

I find it funny so many people are afraid of PC overreach, yet they themselves are in the majority concerning PC's overreach. What exactly are they afraid of?

[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?

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.

Please. Stop it with the freedom of speech thing. That is not what I am talking about.

People have the right to do many things. But are all of those things okay? Is it okay to publish someone's personal information because they were "racist" on the internet and then attempt to contact their employer to get them fired (as that employer will face heavy social stigmas for not firing the "racist" person). While all of this is legal and should be allowed, does that mean that is a good thing?

[Jumalariik]

I knew that, what is your point?

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

You either misread or read to much into the post.
All I was doing was making a joke.
I was saying that kilts are at times worn by some Scots. The kilt that most people seem to wear is not the more traditional great kilt, instead, one with more of the appearance of the skirt. That's all.

[Des-Bal]

Well, to put it in a way I think most people would understand here:

If you hold the view that black people should be tossed into a fire and die that's your opinion, and if you only accept white customers while denying service to black customers because of this I have all the right to fire you (general you). I don't have the right to refuse anyone to be employed, but they don't have a right to remain employed once their stupid beliefs affect my clientele and the cohesion of my team.

The problem is that people aren't being fired for their treatment of others they're being fired for comments that may or may not indicate they hold those opinions.

[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?

Well, to put it in a way I think most people would understand here:

If you hold the view that black people should be tossed into a fire and die that's your opinion, and if you only accept white customers while denying service to black customers because of this I have all the right to fire you (general you). I don't have the right to refuse anyone to be employed, but they don't have a right to remain employed once their stupid beliefs affect my clientele and the cohesion of my team.

But let's say you have no problem with it. Is it right for you receive threats and boycotts? Is it right for you to be harassed because of it?

I am not denying the right of anyone to do anything. I am just asking if these things are morally right.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Please. Stop it with the freedom of speech thing. That is not what I am talking about.

People have the right to do many things. But are all of those things okay? Is it okay to publish someone's personal information because they were "racist" on the internet and then attempt to contact their employer to get them fired (as that employer will face heavy social stigmas for not firing the "racist" person). While all of this is legal and should be allowed, does that mean that is a good thing?

Publising someone's information is not legal and not allowed. I don't know where you got that idea from.

That a customer I have served or a potential customer calls me and tells me they came into my office and they were refused service for no reason whatsoever by one of my employees and, upon questioning I find out they are racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.? Yes, I have all the right in the world to fire them. An employee is not going to cost me money, simple as.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Well, to put it in a way I think most people would understand here:

If you hold the view that black people should be tossed into a fire and die that's your opinion, and if you only accept white customers while denying service to black customers because of this I have all the right to fire you (general you). I don't have the right to refuse anyone to be employed, but they don't have a right to remain employed once their stupid beliefs affect my clientele and the cohesion of my team.

The problem is that people aren't being fired for their treatment of others they're being fired for comments that may or may not indicate they hold those opinions.

They're being fired for unprofessional behavior which often casts their employer in a bad light depending on how visible these comments are which in turn has serious potential to negatively impact on their employer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, to put it in a way I think most people would understand here:

If you hold the view that black people should be tossed into a fire and die that's your opinion, and if you only accept white customers while denying service to black customers because of this I have all the right to fire you (general you). I don't have the right to refuse anyone to be employed, but they don't have a right to remain employed once their stupid beliefs affect my clientele and the cohesion of my team.

The problem is that people aren't being fired for their treatment of others they're being fired for comments that may or may not indicate they hold those opinions.

I don't particularly agree with firing someone while they are off the clock.

But if they are on the clock and making those types of comments while working and while on the uniform or displaying the company's attire or car decals? Yes, they can be fired and I have no issues with it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, to put it in a way I think most people would understand here:

If you hold the view that black people should be tossed into a fire and die that's your opinion, and if you only accept white customers while denying service to black customers because of this I have all the right to fire you (general you). I don't have the right to refuse anyone to be employed, but they don't have a right to remain employed once their stupid beliefs affect my clientele and the cohesion of my team.

But let's say you have no problem with it. Is it right for you receive threats and boycotts? Is it right for you to be harassed because of it?

I am not denying the right of anyone to do anything. I am just asking if these things are morally right.

If I receive threats and boycotts that's the clientele's business decisions and in the best interest of my business I will be pressured to comply.

I am sorry, but between my means of living and someone else's means of living I prefer to be selfish and throw the person who is being a problem off the curb.

[Flyover]

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.

Please. Stop it with the freedom of speech thing. That is not what I am talking about.

People have the right to do many things. But are all of those things okay? Is it okay to publish someone's personal information because they were "racist" on the internet and then attempt to contact their employer to get them fired (as that employer will face heavy social stigmas for not firing the "racist" person). While all of this is legal and should be allowed, does that mean that is a good thing?

Breaking the law by threatening or acting on threats -or hacking information, I guess- is still wrong in this case. That has nothing to do with PC Gone Mad. Why would breaking the law be justified in any context like this? I don't think anybody is advocating for that. This is a topic about free speech and how people react, not if breaking the law is justified when people are stupid.

As for the second part, I can feel no sympathy for a racist person getting punished. If I spout racist nonsense about how Mexicans are evil, and there are Mexicans that also work with me, I am a threat to team morale and organization, and can only cause people to get angry and uncomfortable (unless everybody is racist, but then it becomes uncomfortable and infuriating to customers) and I should be fired.

[Des-Bal]

They're being fired for unprofessional behavior which often casts their employer in a bad light depending on how visible these comments are which in turn has serious potential to negatively impact on their employer.

Which is exactly as justifiable as firing them for supporting gay marriage. You can't say it's only okay when it's censuring opinions you don't like.

[Anglo-California]

But let's say you have no problem with it. Is it right for you receive threats and boycotts? Is it right for you to be harassed because of it?

I am not denying the right of anyone to do anything. I am just asking if these things are morally right.

If I receive threats and boycotts that's the clientele's business decisions and in the best interest of my business I will be pressured to comply.

I am sorry, but between my means of living and someone else's means of living I prefer to be selfish and throw the person who is being a problem off the curb.

You're still missing my point. Is it right for people to essentially demand you to sacrifice one of your own for your own survival. From your standpoint as an employer, it's a wise decision. But are the forces that pressured you to make that decision right? I would say no.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They're being fired for unprofessional behavior which often casts their employer in a bad light depending on how visible these comments are which in turn has serious potential to negatively impact on their employer.

Which is exactly as justifiable as firing them for supporting gay marriage. You can't say it's only okay when it's censuring opinions you don't like.

Here's the thing I find ethical myself in business:

Fire them for actually promoting opinions you do not want your company to be associated with and that you know will affect your revenue.

Businesses have to be moral agents, yes, but the moral agency comes from the higher ups of the company. It's their problem if they want to sink or float.

[Keyboard Warriors]

They're being fired for unprofessional behavior which often casts their employer in a bad light depending on how visible these comments are which in turn has serious potential to negatively impact on their employer.

Which is exactly as justifiable as firing them for supporting gay marriage. You can't say it's only okay when it's censuring opinions you don't like.

Holding an opinion is not unprofessional behavior. Expressing it in a particular manner may well be.

[Faschist Deutsch Reich]

People go out of their way these days to catch out those who say something slightly "Un-PC". People get offended too easy now, "political correctness" has gone way too far.

[Des-Bal]

If I receive threats and boycotts that's the clientele's business decisions and in the best interest of my business I will be pressured to comply.

I am sorry, but between my means of living and someone else's means of living I prefer to be selfish and throw the person who is being a problem off the curb.

The smart move is to tell the Nazis all about the jews in your neighbors attic. I don't think , and I don't think you'll disagree, that what is smart is not the same thing as what is right.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If I receive threats and boycotts that's the clientele's business decisions and in the best interest of my business I will be pressured to comply.

I am sorry, but between my means of living and someone else's means of living I prefer to be selfish and throw the person who is being a problem off the curb.

You're still missing my point. Is it right for people to essentially demand you to sacrifice one of your own for your own survival. From your standpoint as an employer, it's a wise decision. But are the forces that pressured you to make that decision right? I would say no.

To a point you're right, but then the situation would have to be spinned differently as a personal matter of opinion.

If I was threatened and boycotted because I had, say, a transgender or homosexual employee working for me. I'd be pressured to fire them, but I'd say it isn't right, no. However, the law would actually make me liable for damages and I'd have no issues pleading guilty because of the pressure of a community, either that or just stay out of business or close shop and remain underground and switch from being a centralized office to a decentralized business.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If I receive threats and boycotts that's the clientele's business decisions and in the best interest of my business I will be pressured to comply.

I am sorry, but between my means of living and someone else's means of living I prefer to be selfish and throw the person who is being a problem off the curb.

The smart move is to tell the Nazis all about the jews in your neighbors attic. I don't think , and I don't think you'll disagree, that what is smart is not the same thing as what is right.

Right, what's smart is not always what's right. And sometimes we have to look at the situation and determine what's best for everyone's well being.

This is why I have an issue with absolute statements and rules, because every decision you have to make is situational depending on many factors.

[Des-Bal]

Here's the thing I find ethical myself in business:

Fire them for actually promoting opinions you do not want your company to be associated with and that you know will affect your revenue.

Businesses have to be moral agents, yes, but the moral agency comes from the higher ups of the company. It's their problem if they want to sink or float.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that morality should be a concern of a business until it impacts the buyer seller relationship. The problem is that too many people seem to think it's GOOD that people are fired for having these opinions. From a business perspective yes they should be fired but expecting and encouraging this is bad.

[Des-Bal]

Right, what's smart is not always what's right. And sometimes we have to look at the situation and determine what's best for everyone's well being.

This is why I have an issue with absolute statements and rules, because every decision you have to make is situational depending on many factors.

As a matter of practice yes but as a matter of ethics I think absolutes are pretty good to have around. If it's only ethical because it's not presently harming your interests it's not ethical.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Here's the thing I find ethical myself in business:

Fire them for actually promoting opinions you do not want your company to be associated with and that you know will affect your revenue.

Businesses have to be moral agents, yes, but the moral agency comes from the higher ups of the company. It's their problem if they want to sink or float.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that morality should be a concern of a business until it impacts the buyer seller relationship. The problem is that too many people seem to think it's GOOD that people are fired for having these opinions. From a business perspective yes they should be fired but expecting and encouraging this is bad.

Yea, I don't think that holding an opinion is, in itself, grounds of expecting termination. There's even conspiracy theorists working on offices and that doesn't mean conspiracy theorists are people who do not deserve a job either. At the same time I do agree with you that morality shouldn't be a concern for a business until it impacts the buyer/seller relationship or the cohesion of a team.

[Cannot think of a name]

If I receive threats and boycotts that's the clientele's business decisions and in the best interest of my business I will be pressured to comply.

I am sorry, but between my means of living and someone else's means of living I prefer to be selfish and throw the person who is being a problem off the curb.

You're still missing my point. Is it right for people to essentially demand you to sacrifice one of your own for your own survival. From your standpoint as an employer, it's a wise decision. But are the forces that pressured you to make that decision right? I would say no.

So what you're saying is it's not right to exclude someone who is being exclusionary based entirely on race because excluding people because of their exclusionary beliefs is wronger than being exclusionary based on race?

[Des-Bal]

People go out of their way these days to catch out those who say something slightly "Un-PC". People get offended too easy now, "political correctness" has gone way too far.

Absolutely. Alec Baldwin has supported gay causes in the past but he said "Faggot" in anger and people tried to call him a homophobe. Joss Whedon made a tweet that failed to account for women with male genitalia and even though NOBODY actually believed he was speaking out of hate or that he had any hate in his heart it was demanded that he apologize. We've gotten to the point where people are actually saying "I misunderstood you, possibly deliberately, now apologize." I think it's very gratifying and easy to "catch " someone but it's not helpful.