• 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
Freedom is an official ideology, not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is just one part of overall freedom. Please explain your question. What do you mean by "can we use it?" Your question is just so vague.

Well, "freedom of speech" is a right, right? So, the question is "Can we use our right of free speech" or PC violates that? :peace
 
In the discussion of speech, no it is not. You're free to say gays should go back in the closet (as someone else did). I'm free to say a person like you should not be hired to any job which requires interaction with people. Your opinion is yours and my opinion is mine. In the context of free speech, there is no difference.

Are the outcomes different? Sometimes, yes, but that is not the fault of the person who is demanding, it is the fault of the person who complies.



First of all, what does that have to do with what I said? Second of all, so? The 1st Amendment is not going anywhere, so as long as the government does not start jailing people for thinking gays should go back into the closet, so what?


Starbucks is not part of the government. The CEO says they do not want someone's business. What's the problem? If you support traditional marriage, then don't spend your money at Starbucks. Starbucks disapproves of what you say and you disapprove of what Starbucks says by not going there. It's the same thing which happened to Chick-Fil-A.

We are not talking about just government, we are talking about political correctness in general. And yes, it is the same that happened with Chick-Fil-A. Now I want to see the same outrage by the MSM as we did when Chick-Fil-A owner said what he said. I doubt very much we will see it though, thus political correctness. If it doesn't fit into the lefts narrative it is not presented by most MSM outlets.
 
I was all for Cathy until it became obvious CFA and Fox were using a religious belief to advertise a buisness and start another Fauxrage. That is not political correctness, it is just wrong.
We are not talking about just government, we are talking about political correctness in general. And yes, it is the same that happened with Chick-Fil-A. Now I want to see the same outrage by the MSM as we did when Chick-Fil-A owner said what he said. I doubt very much we will see it though, thus political correctness. If it doesn't fit into the lefts narrative it is not presented by most MSM outlets.
 
then you'd go to jail. there is no way i would let anyone treat my employees that way. i'd get fired if i had to, but you'd be ejected from the bank.

I don't know. I'd be very interested to see how a court dealt with a situation where a financial institution refused to give a customer their money and then had the customer extract it by force. I was as polite as I could possibly be. If the individual hadn't repeatedly asked why I was closing the accounts (which is a personal matter, and none of his business), or accepted the "personal reasons" response I gave the first two times, it wouldn't have gotten to that. He chose to continue to pry. As a good friend of mine says regularly.... "Don't ask questions you're not sure you really want the answer to."

First of all, what does that have to do with what I said? Second of all, so? The 1st Amendment is not going anywhere, so as long as the government does not start jailing people for thinking gays should go back into the closet, so what?

What is has to do with what you said is that not everyone believes that the First Amendment should exist in the form that it does. It's not just about the Government's response; though I would be interested in finding out where it is you believe that the Government has the right to tell me I can't open a restaurant that caters ONLY to a certain group of people and ONLY hires certain groups of people. It's mostly about the ability of the citizenry to adversely affect the lifestyle of an individual for speaking the Truth rather than what people want to hear.
 
We are not talking about just government, we are talking about political correctness in general.
But the 1st Amendment which protects free speech IS talking about just the government, specifically Congress.

And yes, it is the same that happened with Chick-Fil-A. Now I want to see the same outrage by the MSM as we did when Chick-Fil-A owner said what he said.
Yes...how awful that the MSM hasn't picked up on a CEO who supports equality...

I'm sorry, did you really just say supporting equality is a bad thing? Of course, I could also point out the difference in what the two CEO's said, one of which said he thought people should be denied equal rights and the other simply said we don't want your business, but I'm sure you're probably not interested in that.

I doubt very much we will see it though, thus political correctness.
If supporting equality is "political correctness", then sign me up.

If it doesn't fit into the lefts narrative it is not presented by most MSM outlets.
Again, I refer you back to the difference between what the two people said.

And for what it's worth, I have absolutely no problem with what Dan Cathy said. I still eat Chick-Fil-A. As long as Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A do not discriminate against homosexuals in their business, I have no problem with them. But there is a huge difference in what the two people said. One said they do not support equality. The other said they do not want the business of those who do not support equality. Big difference.
What is has to do with what you said is that not everyone believes that the First Amendment should exist in the form that it does.
And they are certainly welcome to believe that. But until it is actually changed, it doesn't matter what they think.

It's not just about the Government's response; though I would be interested in finding out where it is you believe that the Government has the right to tell me I can't open a restaurant that caters ONLY to a certain group of people and ONLY hires certain groups of people.
Which federal laws do this? I'm not asking a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.

It's mostly about the ability of the citizenry to adversely affect the lifestyle of an individual for speaking the Truth rather than what people want to hear.
There is NOTHING which prevents any person from speaking the truth. Speak the truth all you want (as long as you don't infringe upon another's rights). But just as you get to say what you want, I am equally allowed to say what I want about what you said.

To borrow a quote from the movie The American President: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
 
Last edited:
Political Correctness does not violate free speech. Just as you are free to express your racist/sexist/otherwise offensive statements, I and others are free to express our disdain for such ridiculous comments. Your free speech does not get to trump mine, and mine does not trump yours. Having free speech does not protect you from all the consequences of that speech, it only protects you (in most cases) from governmental punishment of that speech.

You forgot one:

- insensitive white guys need to shut up about everyone else they think is whining

You're right, I'm insensitive, particularly when whining isn't backed up worth a crap and people just try to play the victim card.

Blacks make the excuse that the grade schools they go to are poorer as to why they have the worst grades. I know that's BS, because I went to grade school in Baltimore. Furthermore, Asians have better grades than whites and sure as heck don't go to better schools than the whites. Even a glance at culture and it's clear that it's based on how likely a family is to emphasize education to their kids. I seriously hope Dr. Ben Carson gets more involved in politics, as he has hinted at, to get this message across to the black community. Obama's sorry *** does crap like talking to New Orleans in a tone as if they're victims of hatred that must rebel.

My disdain for feminists is not based on sexism. It's their sorry *** logic of expecting women to be treated like men if and only if it benefits them. They want the women given access to the front line military positions for promotion purposes, yet don't expect women to have to register for selective service. Heck, women don't even have the same physical standards for the same position in the military. Either abstract from gender on the resume or don't, but be consistent for crying out loud.
 
Last edited:
Political Correctness is the verbal version of Affirmative Action; both of which are unConstitutional by nature.

If it's legally required, which it isn't.

You're allowed to call people every name in the book if you want to, and everyone else is allowed to think you're an asshole for doing it.
 
Well, "freedom of speech" is a right, right? So, the question is "Can we use our right of free speech" or PC violates that? :peace

Okay, much more clear now. Thanks. :mrgreen:

I don't think that is a problem here in the United States. We DO have the Westboro Baptists afterall.
 
I was all for Cathy until it became obvious CFA and Fox were using a religious belief to advertise a buisness and start another Fauxrage. That is not political correctness, it is just wrong.

All that free advertising on Fox was great business for Chik-fil-A. It's funny how the same people who say "don't believe the MSM" are more than happy to go along with the next Fox outrage.
 
You're right, I'm insensitive, particularly when whining isn't backed up worth a crap and people just try to play the victim card.

You mean like the premise of this whole thread? "I'm a victim of the Left!"
 
Yes and no. I haven't read the posts yet so this may be a repeat. I vote yes and no. Yes when orders from the top (president and top advisers) tell the other members, etc. not to use certain words it is a violation. I can't remember the specifics but I remember something about when a new president took over, probably during Clinton, there were new orders not to use certain terms or wording.

Otherwise, no it just dishonesty.
 
Howdy!

So, we have "freedom of speech" but can we use it? What do you think?

:)

If the government is regulating it and punished individuals from deviating from PC, then yes.
 
And they are certainly welcome to believe that. But until it is actually changed, it doesn't matter what they think.

No. It just means that like many other things, some of us are going to ignore it, regardless.

Which federal laws do this? I'm not asking a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious.

You can start with the EEOC. The idea that I would have to interview and/or accept applications from people who I wouldn't hire if they were the only candidate.

There is NOTHING which prevents any person from speaking the truth. Speak the truth all you want (as long as you don't infringe upon another's rights). But just as you get to say what you want, I am equally allowed to say what I want about what you said.

The problem is that there is nothing preventing people from speaking UnTruth either.

To borrow a quote from the movie The American President: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Which is part of why I have very little use for America and/or its system of Government at this point in history.
 
If it's legally required, which it isn't.

You're allowed to call people every name in the book if you want to, and everyone else is allowed to think you're an asshole for doing it.

Except that it IS legally required. We have "Hate Crimes" legislation on the books which makes it MORE of a crime to do something to someone you don't like than just some random individual on the street. If that's not legally enforced thought policiing, I'm not sure what is.
 
Well, "freedom of speech" is a right, right? So, the question is "Can we use our right of free speech" or PC violates that? :peace

PC is more about feel good language. Not using words that would make someone else feel bad. Although PC has frequently been used to suppress the voicing of ones political views. So in that way, yes PC does sometimes suppress free speech.

But I am an old foggie who doesn’t give PC a second thought. I would rather someone come to me, call me a few names and tell me he hates my gut, at least I know where I stand with him. That is a lot better than having him come up to me smiling and say some nice things he doesn’t mean, then do the back stabbing thing behind my back. But I suppose way too many people have very thin skins today. Hiding true feelings behind PC sometimes can cause those feeling to build up and have an eruption occur. Whereas getting things out in the open sort of acts like a safety valve.

So I will smile and tell you what you want to hear and then do my dirty work behind you backs. I can be really good at PC’ing.
 
Political correctness is incredibly stupid, but it's not law so it doesn't infringe upon free speech.
 
If the government is regulating it and punished individuals from deviating from PC, then yes.

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.
 
How bout if they just dont like you? Would you still hold the employer responsible?
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.
 
Political correctness is self-imposted -- obviously so.

Anybody who would view it as any sort of infringement upon free speech is too entirely ignorant of the concept to be credible. THe notion of free speech is predicated upon the relationship between the government and the individual, and not between different individuals.
 
Except that it IS legally required. We have "Hate Crimes" legislation on the books which makes it MORE of a crime to do something to someone you don't like than just some random individual on the street. If that's not legally enforced thought policiing, I'm not sure what is.

Once you're charged with a crime, they can and will use anything against you. If I wrote in an e-mail that I was going to kill a specific person, and I ended up arrested for that person's murder, they'd use that e-mail as evidence in a trial. Does that mean I have no Freedom of speech?

If you don't commit a crime, you don't have to worry about "hate crimes."
 
Howdy!

So, we have "freedom of speech" but can we use it? What do you think?

:)
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?
 
PC is more about feel good language. Not using words that would make someone else feel bad. Although PC has frequently been used to suppress the voicing of ones political views. So in that way, yes PC does sometimes suppress free speech.

But I am an old foggie who doesn’t give PC a second thought. I would rather someone come to me, call me a few names and tell me he hates my gut, at least I know where I stand with him. That is a lot better than having him come up to me smiling and say some nice things he doesn’t mean, then do the back stabbing thing behind my back. But I suppose way too many people have very thin skins today. Hiding true feelings behind PC sometimes can cause those feeling to build up and have an eruption occur. Whereas getting things out in the open sort of acts like a safety valve.

So I will smile and tell you what you want to hear and then do my dirty work behind you backs. I can be really good at PC’ing.

Good morning, Pero.

Sorry, I would never believe that of you in a million years! If there is one person on this site, you are it when it comes to telling it like it is...and you do it in such a nice way, too! :thumbs:
 
How bout if they just dont like you? Would you still hold the employer responsible?

Not at all. But just try to fire a "protected" person for the reason that you just simply do not like them. That is also part of PC, defining folks that are allowed to be morons yet may not be fired or denied promotions. ;)
 
Good morning, Pero.

Sorry, I would never believe that of you in a million years! If there is one person on this site, you are it when it comes to telling it like it is...and you do it in such a nice way, too! :thumbs:


I'm feeling a little jealous ...
 
Political correctness is self-imposted -- obviously so.

Anybody who would view it as any sort of infringement upon free speech is too entirely ignorant of the concept to be credible. THe notion of free speech is predicated upon the relationship between the government and the individual, and not between different individuals.
Heh. Or even the same individual, as we see here from time to time. Nevertheless, I consider delivering a good cussing a creative and cathartic enterprise from time to time. When such a cussing is required, PC is not an element considered, and would significantly detract from a good cussing's overall quality and effectiveness. Don't ever impose restrictions on one's self when a good cussing opportunity avails itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom