• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does "Political Correctness" violate "Free Speech"?

Does "Political Correctness" violate "Free Speech"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 40.9%
  • No

    Votes: 24 54.5%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 4.5%

  • Total voters
    44
SO you think the government should regulate speech.

Yes I do. As with most Rights, I believe they should be Privileges instead.

So not a speech issue.

It is a speech issue as related to motive for and punishment of the crime.

The issue with the sign would not be the speech, but the hiring practice. The sign would be evidence.

Either way, the right to employ those that I choose, which is both a matter of speech and assembly is being infringed upon by the Government.
 
Yes I do. As with most Rights, I believe they should be Privileges instead.



It is a speech issue as related to motive for and punishment of the crime.



Either way, the right to employ those that I choose, which is both a matter of speech and assembly is being infringed upon by the Government.

So you support Privilige and not Rights, but you demand that the govt not infringe on your Rights?
 
Under these traditions, the act *is* the main focus, with the motive only providing for enhanced sentences.

And I find it odd that you reject the legal systems of the US *and* every other other nation that has ever existed. It's an unusual position for someone who values order as much as you do.

It is exactly BECAUSE I value Order as much as I do that I reject systems which are focused on: preserving the supposed rights of the defendent over the rights of the violated, rehabilitation instead of punishment, and Legality over Justice.
 
So you support Privilige and not Rights, but you demand that the govt not infringe on your Rights?

I support the idea that the System should be changed. Until it is, I am protected by the stupidity of the system.
 
It is exactly BECAUSE I value Order as much as I do that I reject systems which are focused on: preserving the supposed rights of the defendent over the rights of the violated, rehabilitation instead of punishment, and Legality over Justice.

But you have also rejected the legal systems that are not focused on rights, rehabilitation, or legality. You have rejected all of them
 
Yes, that is exactly what I am advocating. I'm not a strong proponent of the Rights system the US uses. I'm more a proponent of a Privileges system.

Wow, it's not often I've heard a proponent of this (if ever). It seems to be it would be FAR more disastrous to tell people what they are allowed and not allowed to say and do. After all, what's to stop one political party from passing a law saying the only politician you're allowed to vote for would be one from their party?

I know this isn't a thread for that, but I'd be very interested at some point in hearing how you'd balance your belief with avoiding tyranny.

Does your belief extend to all rights? Or is it limited to this particular issue, to curb political correctness?
 
Yes I do. As with most Rights, I believe they should be Privileges instead.

Well that ain't gunna happen.



It is a speech issue as related to motive for and punishment of the crime.

Motive is not speech.



Either way, the right to employ those that I choose, which is both a matter of speech and assembly is being infringed upon by the Government.

Hiring is not speech.
 
Wow, it's not often I've heard a proponent of this (if ever). It seems to be it would be FAR more disastrous to tell people what they are allowed and not allowed to say and do. After all, what's to stop one political party from passing a law saying the only politician you're allowed to vote for would be one from their party?

I know this isn't a thread for that, but I'd be very interested at some point in hearing how you'd balance your belief with avoiding tyranny.

Does your belief extend to all rights? Or is it limited to this particular issue, to curb political correctness?

If you're really interested, contact me privately and we can have a conversation there.

Though I'll tell you this..... Where did I suggest I'd be against Tyranny? I'm an Authoritarian at heart.
 
I don't think of political correctness as being two faced. I think of political correctness as not saying inflammatory things about a particular demographic of people. If you are white and would go up to a black person you know and tell them you think they are a liar and an unethical person, that would not be in violation of political correctness. But if you called her the "n" word and a female dog, it would be.

I think the problem might be is that what we often view as inflammatory isn't really based on fact or reason, but the type of emotions it elicits.
 
Political correctness, as it were, is simply the adjustment of an overarching language structure largely in existence currently. It no more violates free speech than language which does not subscribe to "political correctness." If one were to supplant the English language preference of male for female or human, all you have done is adjust the mental preferences of patriarchy for matriarchy or gender-neutrality. Societal preference for male constrains thought which may be contrary, but it does so on an massively-accepted basis.
 
Last edited:
But you have also rejected the legal systems that are not focused on rights, rehabilitation, or legality. You have rejected all of them

They're all flawed in one way or another. At least the one's I've had the opportunity to read about and see over time.
 
That is not quite correct. If the gov't allows others (e.g. employers or coworkers) to punish you, without recourse, then you are still being punished for expressing non-PC thoughts. If your right to speak freely causes you to lose your job or opportunity to participate in public discussions then you are still being punished, just by being denied any "due process" for recourse. Just because there are no criminal penalties does not mean that there not civil consequences.

And those who think or speak contrary to currently accepted thoughts and cultural mores are somehow not punished for not following the norm? Essentially, you do subscribe to what, you perceive to be, "political correctness", it is just that you subscribe to a specific set of forms and norms that are enforced through societal structures against other groups of people. All that is really different is they are supplanting one set of forms and norms for another.
 
You are more than welcome to ignore those who wish for political correctness.

Interviewing and accepting applications is not the same thing as hiring people, which is what you said.

A lament myself and many others like me have about Fox News and MSNBC.

It's just part of it.

I'm confused, are you advocating people NOT being allowed to express opposing opinions? Could you please clarify?


I don't think of political correctness as being two faced. I think of political correctness as not saying inflammatory things about a particular demographic of people. If you are white and would go up to a black person you know and tell them you think they are a liar and an unethical person, that would not be in violation of political correctness. But if you called her the "n" word and a female dog, it would be.


Perhaps to you, but PC has developed way beyond just not calling someone the n word or a b. What you are talking about is what my parents called manners. It is not PC in the sense of what it has become.
 
It doesn't violate free spech- it just make some people feel hesitant to express themselves openly, for fear of being viewed as not a part of the herd.
 
There are worse things in life than being thrown in jail, Helix. The loss of a job, the loss of social standing in a community, etc... can often have much more extensive reprecussions than any jail time. As we say in the medieval group I'm part of.... "Laws can often by broken without any consequence, but a beloved tradition, if ignored, most often brings about swift and long lasting retribution upon one's head." That's my bigger problem with both Political Correctness in speech and Affirmative Action. At least in terms of the legal system, you get a trial. When it comes to the court of public opinion, sentences are generally handed out before the trial even begins.

It isn't a violation of the Constitution, though, because Congress hasn't made any laws against "political incorrectness". The Constitution is purely a legal document, not a social one.
 
Since many people here seem vastly confused as to what "free speech" is(hint: the constitutional protection to free speech is protection from the government), let me ask a simple question: what laws have been enacted where political correctness trumps free speech?

I don't know any but PC has become somewhat mainstream, imho. May be it's a cultural norm rather than a legislative one.
 
Wow. Such a simple question. Should be easy to answer shouldn't it. Oh, but what exactly is 'Fredom of Speach'? And what is 'Political Correctness'?
Hum. Here is an example: If I know that a coworker who I report to has cheated the company with a false time card, and I don't use my freedom of speach was it 'Political Correctness' that kept me from telling anyone?

Hardly. :)
 
It does violate freedom of speech under certain circumstances; for example, when the administration of a publicly funded college imposes speech codes on the campus. Most often, it's just the left-wing version of obnoxious preachy righteousness.
 
Last edited:
Hm, I just wonder if it needs to be called "political correctness" in that case. Maybe it's just a "false assumption common in the mainstream".

The term "political correctness" is usually used by right-leaning people against a left mainstream, but I think such false assumptions as well occur on the right side of the spectrum and are challenged by left-leaning people.

The right has it's sacred hobby horses, as well. Like supporting the troops, patriotism, gun rights, etc. Political correctness usually involves social topics and perceived protected classes, like homosexuality, religious and racial minorities.
 
Perhaps to you, but PC has developed way beyond just not calling someone the n word or a b. What you are talking about is what my parents called manners. It is not PC in the sense of what it has become.

I don't know that PC has become that at all. I agree PC is/should be interchangeable with manners, but I don't know if the so-called "PC crowd" get riled up simply for one person telling another they do not like them. Generally I find the PC crowd gets riled up when they feel a certain group has been targeted with words or actions. Sometimes political correctness is carried to extremes (as anything can be...for example, I think it's ridiculous to be offended at being called black instead of African American, especially since most black people have never been to Africa), but overall, whether you agree on whether someone is oversensitive, I think the vast majority of the time it will be in response to a group comment or action, not an individual.
 
I don't know that PC has become that at all. I agree PC is/should be interchangeable with manners, but I don't know if the so-called "PC crowd" get riled up simply for one person telling another they do not like them. Generally I find the PC crowd gets riled up when they feel a certain group has been targeted with words or actions. Sometimes political correctness is carried to extremes (as anything can be...for example, I think it's ridiculous to be offended at being called black instead of African American, especially since most black people have never been to Africa), but overall, whether you agree on whether someone is oversensitive, I think the vast majority of the time it will be in response to a group comment or action, not an individual.

Perhaps, but I have seen the other side more times that I care to. I'll stick with my old fashion manners and let the PC stuff to the younger generations.
 
The question I've been asking for the past few decades, who decides what words (speech) is unacceptable and not politically correct ?

Is it just one white beard scratching liberal or is there a panel of leftist who decide how we should talk ?

For example since after the Vietnam War the term "gook" has been labeled by liberals as being a derogatory term in reference to Asians. But the word is a Marine Corps slang word, a noun for any person, place or thing that is strange or foreign. First believed to be used by U.S. Marines during the early 1800's during the Barbary Pirate Wars.

In 1846 during the Mexican - American War, Joseph Walker (famous fur trapper) wrote in his journal that when Capt. Archibald Gillespie was making a report to Commodore Stockton in San Diego, California he said that "They killed some gooks yesterday." Joseph Walker never hearing this term used before asked Capt. Gillespie what was a "gook"? Gillespie told him it's a term for strange or foreign things or people, Mexicans.

The U.S. Marines never had any contact with Asians before the Mexican - American War.

In Richard Tregaskis published book "Guadalcanal Diary" about U.S. Marines fighting on the Solomon Islands during 1942 has in the book of Marines referring to Guadalcanal Island as a "gook island" not in reference to the natives or Japanese troops but the island was strange to the Marines, the jungle, swamps, heat and humidity.

American soldiers picked up on the slang term from U.S. Marines during the Philippine Insurrection and used the term to describe the Muslim Moro's they were fighting.

During WW ll U.S. Army soldiers who were fighting in southeastern Europe would call the white Europeans "gooks" because they were different from other Europeans.

During the Vietnam War both Marines and soldiers would refer to Vietnamese as gooks and also white Australian soldiers who were fighting in Vietnam were called gooks at times.

But right after the Vietnam War, some liberal in America decided that the term "gook" only referred to Asians and decided that it was a politically incorrect derogatory term without researching the true definition of the word.

Around the same time liberals decided the term "Oriental" was a derogatory term and by the early 1980's they decided that the term "wetback" was politically incorrect to use and didn't bother asking Mexican illegal aliens if they took offense to the term, which they didn't until some white liberal told them the term was offensive.

So why is it that only white liberals get to decide what we can say and not say ?
 
The question I've been asking for the past few decades, who decides what words (speech) is unacceptable and not politically correct ?

Is it just one white beard scratching liberal or is there a panel of leftist who decide how we should talk ?

For example since after the Vietnam War the term "gook" has been labeled by liberals as being a derogatory term in reference to Asians. But the word is a Marine Corps slang word, a noun for any person, place or thing that is strange or foreign. First believed to be used by U.S. Marines during the early 1800's during the Barbary Pirate Wars.

In 1846 during the Mexican - American War, Joseph Walker (famous fur trapper) wrote in his journal that when Capt. Archibald Gillespie was making a report to Commodore Stockton in San Diego, California he said that "They killed some gooks yesterday." Joseph Walker never hearing this term used before asked Capt. Gillespie what was a "gook"? Gillespie told him it's a term for strange or foreign things or people, Mexicans.

The U.S. Marines never had any contact with Asians before the Mexican - American War.

In Richard Tregaskis published book "Guadalcanal Diary" about U.S. Marines fighting on the Solomon Islands during 1942 has in the book of Marines referring to Guadalcanal Island as a "gook island" not in reference to the natives or Japanese troops but the island was strange to the Marines, the jungle, swamps, heat and humidity.

American soldiers picked up on the slang term from U.S. Marines during the Philippine Insurrection and used the term to describe the Muslim Moro's they were fighting.

During WW ll U.S. Army soldiers who were fighting in southeastern Europe would call the white Europeans "gooks" because they were different from other Europeans.

During the Vietnam War both Marines and soldiers would refer to Vietnamese as gooks and also white Australian soldiers who were fighting in Vietnam were called gooks at times.

But right after the Vietnam War, some liberal in America decided that the term "gook" only referred to Asians and decided that it was a politically incorrect derogatory term without researching the true definition of the word.

Around the same time liberals decided the term "Oriental" was a derogatory term and by the early 1980's they decided that the term "wetback" was politically incorrect to use and didn't bother asking Mexican illegal aliens if they took offense to the term, which they didn't until some white liberal told them the term was offensive.

So why is it that only white liberals get to decide what we can say and not say ?

Good afternoon, Apacherat

It's probably the same group who decided that tropheys for the winning team was unfair to the losing team, so now everyone gets a trophey. No wonder kids feel they are owed something just for showing up! And talking to some Human Resource people I know, they have the same attitude when they're applying for a job!....:thumbdown:
 
Back
Top Bottom