Has Political Correctness in the USA gone too far?

[The Predator Federation]

but it's still offensive to the victims of 9/11
However no one is screaming "HOW DARE YOU SIR YOU DELETE THAT CONSPIRACY VIDEO OR ARTICLE THAT YOU WROTE, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME"

[Des-Bal]

Not sure that's the same thing.

Sure it is. You're saying it's fine to punish people for their views, I'm wondering if you're legitimately a fan of that standard or you just like it when you aren't fond of the people effected.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay. Are they actually racists, though?

Are they actually communists, though?

In many cases, no, and in other cases, it was irrelevant, as there was no way that their political beliefs could affect their ability, to, say, put makeup on actors.

Now, were the people actually racists?

[Des-Bal]

but it's still offensive to the victims of 9/11
However no one is screaming "HOW DARE YOU SIR YOU DELETE THAT CONSPIRACY VIDEO OR ARTICLE THAT YOU WROTE, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME"

1. Yes they are.
2. You are missing the point. You said political correctness has gone to far because when you say "rape isn't as bad as people say it is" people get upset. That's not political correctness.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay. Are they actually racists, though?

Remember Shirley Sherrod? She talked about growing as a person, overcoming prejudice, and doing the right thing to an assembly of the NAACP. The footage was edited for Fox News and it was made to appear as though she was confessing to screwing over white farmers as revenge for the way she herself had been treated. She was forced to resign even though the NAACP KNEW it was bullshit as they were the recipients of the actual undoctored speech. They KNEW she wasn't railing against whitey but they immediately called her a racist and cast her out because they that being associated with her would be bad for them.

Exactly. If someone's speech is edited to make it appear as if the person is a racist, and that person is not a racist, then the firing was obviously unjustified. However, if the person is in a racist, and is in a position of public trust, then I can see racist statements as being cause for dismissal.

[Anglo-California]

I would invite you to read this page before smugly assuming a falsehood.

In fact, I'll help you:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=312075&p=21710614#p21710614

So you provide examples of legitimate racists and call them victims, stay classy.

You're right. I shouldn't have assumed those communists might have been innocent, or if they actually were communists, then harmless. I mean, they were legitimate communists and a threat to the cohesion of our society. Sure, these people built lives for themselves and what they did was enjoyed by others, but their views do make them a threat, and our society shouldn't stand for their filth.

Of course, I'm not even going to listen to what a communist has to say because since he is communist, he is a terrible person who wouldn't last a day in "my neighborhood". He is truly a threat to the orthodoxy.


So, before I go, tell me when the next JBS meeting is?

[Patridam]

Let's take a look at the people who have been fired from their jobs, have had their careers ruined, have faced public humiliation, or some combination due to either racism or homophobia:

Maybe this woman should learn to be a God-Fearing American embrace social justice.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/21/texas-woman-fired-from-job-over-offensive-and-very-racist-ferguson-facebook-post/

A Tumblr is now dedicated to exposing and publicly outing and shaming these people. McCarthy would be proud.
http://readwrite.com/2012/11/15/shaming-racists-on-social-media-continues-with-new-tumblr

Can't have a commie racist protecting our town oppressed groups.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-ne ... ations.ece

I tried to avoid celebrities too, but here you are:

Maybe this communist racist should now his place and the people he works with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling#Racial_remarks_and_lifetime_ban

Yeah, he just decided to get up a retire all of a sudden. It had nothing to do with harassment from the John Birch Society SJWs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#CEO_appointment_and_resignation

Hell, this man could be facing a jail sentence because he was exposed as being a communist racist:
http://newsone.com/1860825/racist-internet-troll-exposed/

I could really go on and on.

How does being fired for actual current hate speech made on public forums (or even in private conversations that you've asked to be recorded) compare to official Congressional investigations of people for decades-ago membership in groups that were later seen as Communist front groups? How does it compare to being driven into exile? To losing residency status? To going to prison for a refusal to name the names of other people who belonged to these organizations?

No, I wouldn't want a 911 operator who sees blacks as inferior, as I wouldn't trust her to do as thorough or helpful a job in the case of an emergency on the part of one of my black neighbors. Similarly, I wouldn't want a police officer who thought that whites deserved to get robbed due to a generally higher economic status, or a firefighter who loudly complained about Jews leaving candles burning all night on the menorah.

You're trying to turn hateful bigots into free speech martyrs. It isn't working.

I think you may be applying 'hate speech' a bit broadly, and that statement in and of itself is not necessarily racist. Even so, it's the double standard here that's the most bothersome. Protesters in Fergueson who can shout "kill all the cops" and loot places; that's exercising their right to free speech. Someone posts an admittedly insulting, but not actually harmful, opinion online and she gets fired for hate speech.

[Anglo-California]

Are they actually communists, though?

In many cases, no, and in other cases, it was irrelevant, as there was no way that their political beliefs could affect their ability, to, say, put makeup on actors.

Now, were the people actually racists?

Only if the term racist is used to incredibly loosely.

[Anglo-California]

Should you be able to lose your job for supporting gay marriage?

Not sure that's the same thing.

People who called for his resignation would probably support the resignation of the others.

[Patridam]

I haven't tried being religious anywhere. The holy water just seems to burn too much.

Is all censorship dumb?

Yes, all censorship is dumb. It's an inherently irrational process. You don't have to be right to ban dissent, but you do have to be right to convince people using rational processes. If we want to believe more true things and fewer false things, we should use rational processes, like, for example, arguing our opponents down fairly, without lying or using fallacies.

Or resorting to questioning their character, i.e. calling them a racist and trying to nullify all of their statements through that means.

[Fartsniffage]

I haven't tried being religious anywhere. The holy water just seems to burn too much.

Is all censorship dumb?

Yes, all censorship is dumb. It's an inherently irrational process. You don't have to be right to ban dissent, but you do have to be right to convince people using rational processes. If we want to believe more true things and fewer false things, we should use rational processes, like, for example, arguing our opponents down fairly, without lying or using fallacies.

So you'd be happy with the government of the country to live in releasing the names and photos of all intelligence agents working for it? How about your tax and income information being released in an annual publication for public consumption?

[Des-Bal]

Exactly. If someone's speech is edited to make it appear as if the person is a racist, and that person is not a racist, then the firing was obviously unjustified. However, if the person is in a racist, and is in a position of public trust, then I can see racist statements as being cause for dismissal.

The problem is the accusation is enough, even if the accusation is known to be false. Saying something racist doesn't mean you're racist and certainly doesn't mean you're incapable of doing your job. If there was evidence that someone was treating people differently based on race that's one thing but that's not what's going on. Are you honestly prepared to be judged by the worst thing you ever said, are you prepared for your every word to be 100% kosher even without context? We've begun holding people to an unreasonable standard and regardless of the weird foot the OP got off on I think that's a problem.

[Anglo-California]

Yes, all censorship is dumb. It's an inherently irrational process. You don't have to be right to ban dissent, but you do have to be right to convince people using rational processes. If we want to believe more true things and fewer false things, we should use rational processes, like, for example, arguing our opponents down fairly, without lying or using fallacies.

Or resorting to questioning their character, i.e. calling them a racist and trying to nullify all of their statements through that means.

It's a cultural thing. Racism is a huge social crime. Calling someone a racist today would be like getting called an atheist in earlier eras.

[Margno]

but it's still offensive to the victims of 9/11
However no one is screaming "HOW DARE YOU SIR YOU DELETE THAT CONSPIRACY VIDEO OR ARTICLE THAT YOU WROTE, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME"

Lots of people are saying that. 9/11 conspiracy theories are widely rejected and considered extremely offensive.
It's just a little less offensive to say "I bet the government was responsible for this horrible thing" than "this horrible thing never happened" or "this horrible thing is not horrible."

[Margno]

Yes, all censorship is dumb. It's an inherently irrational process. You don't have to be right to ban dissent, but you do have to be right to convince people using rational processes. If we want to believe more true things and fewer false things, we should use rational processes, like, for example, arguing our opponents down fairly, without lying or using fallacies.

So you'd be happy with the government of the country to live in releasing the names and photos of all intelligence agents working for it? How about your tax and income information being released in an annual publication for public consumption?

...anarchist.

[Fartsniffage]

So you'd be happy with the government of the country to live in releasing the names and photos of all intelligence agents working for it? How about your tax and income information being released in an annual publication for public consumption?

...anarchist.

...enjoyer of poptarts.

Really, what is your point?

[Benuty]

So you'd be happy with the government of the country to live in releasing the names and photos of all intelligence agents working for it? How about your tax and income information being released in an annual publication for public consumption?

...anarchist.

Depends on the kind honestly.

[Margno]

Yes, all censorship is dumb. It's an inherently irrational process. You don't have to be right to ban dissent, but you do have to be right to convince people using rational processes. If we want to believe more true things and fewer false things, we should use rational processes, like, for example, arguing our opponents down fairly, without lying or using fallacies.

Or resorting to questioning their character, i.e. calling them a racist and trying to nullify all of their statements through that means.

Yeah, ad hominem is a fallacy.
Nothing wrong with arguing that an idea or practice is racist and therefore wrong, though, if you and your audience are both already convinced that racism is wrong.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

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.

[Jumalariik]

Yes. Political correctness at all is too far.

Political correctness is the idea of limiting any forms of action or expression that exclude, oppress or single out other groups. By definition, that idea is reactionary and by definition, it will always be used by established powers to attack the lower classes. It is politically incorrect to call people who insane, insane. It is politically incorrect not to be attracted to trans people. It is politically incorrect to not be attracted to fat people. The people who understand and agree with this are either 1. idiots. 2. crazy, or 3. they have the intent of using it to cause problems to people who are threats to them, i.e. people not indoctrinated into their bullshit. The people who know political correctness enough to be truly politically correct are invariably thin skinned and are usually tied in with academia, a reactionary institution. Those who do not understand it are those who are not educated (indoctrinated) into this system of beliefs, usually people with not enough money/leisure to spend it on college, thus, poorer people are less able to conform to this reactionary institutional viewpoint, thus, they are continually going to be put down by thin-skinned Machiavellian academic assholes.
The other obvious problem is that it makes the focus of everything on gender, thus isolating people's minds from the truly important realms of race and class. Political correctness does not seek as an ideology to subvert the current order, simply to tweak it, or more accurately, to tweak the subjects of the current order, the working class.

Now you see how I feel.

[Ifreann]

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.

It's funny because you think you ever had free speech in your classroom.

[Benuty]

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.

Cultural Marxism is a fallacious term.

Also has not Ken Ham been scientifically discredited enough to not be considered a valid intellectual?

On that note Creationism does not belong on science curriculum hence I can see why they would get mad if you brought religion (from that POV) in to it.

[Margno]

...anarchist.

...enjoyer of poptarts.

Really, what is your point?

I want neither intelligence agents, nor a government to fund them, nor secrecy to protect them, nor tax, nor income, nor secrecy regarding any tax or income, so I suppose the strict answer to your question would be, no, I wouldn't be happy about anything the government did except stop existing, but by the same coin, I have no stake whatsoever in defending any kind of lies.
But the easier answer is to point out that you've given examples of keeping secrets to protect the identities of people in dangerous situations, whereas the subject was banning the expression of ideas considered offensive. I am also opposed to the former, but the two are unrelated.

[Jumalariik]

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.

It's funny because you think you ever had free speech in your classroom.

He should have the right to express these views, where do you think we are? In thin-skin never-hear-opposing-views land? I think that that is where you think we are.

[Sisterhood]

yes, it's has gone too far.