• 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!

Is Political Correctnes a form of supressing Free Speach?

Is Political Correctness a form of suppressing Free Speech?


  • Total voters
    66
In case somebody needs refreshment of definitions:

Political correctness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, what's your say?

P.S. Sorry for the mistakes in the title. :3oops: Still drinking my morning coffee. :coffeepap

Depends upon execution.

Using the Wiki (which I find agreeable)...

refers to language, ideas, or policies

The bolded is the issue, here.

Promoting political correctness on a sociological level is not suppression, in the same way that its opposite (extreme bigotry) isn't, so long as it is not trying to dictate policy.

When someone tries to ban something, however, that is proposed suppression of speech.

People who promote PC have a right to do so -- to promote a social shift towards their ideas, in the public forum of their country. What they don't have a right to do is try to prosecute people for not doing as they like.

A bigot can say women shouldn't speak in town halls all they like, and that is their right. But if they try to propose legislation to ban women from speaking in town halls, that's a first amendment issue.

An ultra-PC person can jump on people using language they don't like all they want, and that is their right. But if they try to propose legislation to ban language, that's a first amendment issue.
 
Libbos say it here all the time.

Usually not with impunity. That usually gets at least 5 or 6 conservatives in a tizzy. The hypocrisy bothers me too, but the people that get their knickers in a knot over "white trash" are the ones saying that "political correctness is evil."
 
Yes, but no more than accepted speech parameters of the past. It is just that the term "PC" has been associated with New Left thought since the 1960s.
 
Usually not with impunity. That usually gets at least 5 or 6 conservatives in a tizzy. The hypocrisy bothers me too, but the people that get their knickers in a knot over "white trash" are the ones saying that "political correctness is evil."

I've never seen you get to out of shape over the hypocrisy.
 
And that's why it's not supressing anything.

It does suppress a great deal of speech. The difference here is that folks aren't quite comfortable in separating de facto speech parameters from de jure speech. Social suppression and legal suppression are merely two different (but possibly complimentary) tools for those who wish to suppress speech.

My only argument is that damn near everyone engages in it. Even those who are against "PC" argue for suppression of speech, whether they wish to suppress left-wing thought, or if they want freedom of thought and expression to be embraced (in the process: attempting to silence those who do not).
 
Last edited:
You talk alot about manholes...:mrgreen:

Better than a conversation about manhole covers. ;)

19202_sm.png
 
It does suppress a great deal of speech. The difference here is that folks aren't quite comfortable in separating de facto speech parameters from de jure speech. Social suppression and legal suppression are merely two different (but possibly complimentary) tools for those who wish to suppress speech.

My only argument is that damn near everyone engages in it. Even those who are against "PC" argue for suppression of speech, whether they wish to suppress left-wing thought, or if they want freedom of thought and expression to be embraced (in the process: attempting to silence those who do not).

There is a point where it gets completely out of hand. There's being a nice person, and then there's over the top.

Case in point: I once went to a church that used a gender-neutral Bible. The reading was one of those cases where Jesus heals some guy...you know, pretty standard stuff for the Gospels. The translation was so over the top that it went out of its way to not refer to anybody as "he" or "him." Instead it was "this person" or "Jesus." I don't think it's very respectful of the man who was healed, or of Jesus, to emasculate them. In no way would I infer that only men are worthy of God, but I had a problem with that translation.

On the other hand, going around calling people "niggers" and "fags" is just plain mean and rude. So while I think there's a practical limit, some level of PC speech is a good thing.
 
Neither of which is exclusive to or required by "Political Correctness." In general, it seems that those who rail against the notion take offense to the fact that it's becoming more and more difficult to be an asshole.

This. This this this this this.

This.
 
What say me ?

Political correctness is Marxism.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS / CULTURAL MARXISM

>"America today is dominated by a system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” For many it is an annoyance and a self parodying joke. But Political Correctness is deadly serious in its aims, seeking to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. It is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which sees culture, rather than the economy, as the site of class struggle.

Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures; instead they blamed the “ruling class,” which had bought off the workers by giving them “rights,” and had blinded them with a “false consciousness” that led them to support national governments and liberal democracy.

One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved this apparent contradiction of Marxist theory by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic “base” as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.

Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory that cultural hegemony is the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created through a changed culture before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and media..."<

Continue -> Political Correctness / Cultural Marxism - Discover the Networks

Tommy-Lee-Jones-tommy-lee-jones-25049805-500-307.jpg
 
In case somebody needs refreshment of definitions:

Political correctness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, what's your say?




P.S. Sorry for the mistakes in the title. :3oops: Still drinking my morning coffee. :coffeepap
Sans honesty and context, it may well be misconstrued as censorship. But then the more rational among us recognise that every last contentious statement is hardly productive.
 
In case somebody needs refreshment of definitions:

Political correctness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, what's your say?




P.S. Sorry for the mistakes in the title. :3oops: Still drinking my morning coffee. :coffeepap

Yes it is. So long as it stays at just the speech part. When it starts being made law then it goes against free speech as being politically incorrect is also free speech.

When it comes to freedoms and Rights you have to take the good with the bad so long as the bad does not violate anothers Rights. And in this case there is no Right to not be offended for something someone says.
 
if he's shouting down students, it sounds like he's probably just an asshole. i'm still ok with somebody being afraid to tell me racist jokes in public, though. people who do that are even bigger assholes than your teacher.

I didn't realize the two were mutually exclusive.

So why exactly can't we forbade the over the top racist jokes/comments, as well as shouting racism when race isn't a part of the discussion at hand? Both are bad for a free society because both are forms of intimidation.
 
I didn't realize the two were mutually exclusive.

So why exactly can't we forbade the over the top racist jokes/comments, as well as shouting racism when race isn't a part of the discussion at hand? Both are bad for a free society because both are forms of intimidation.

how would we "forbid" them?

seems to work pretty well the way it is. if racist idiots spout racism, they get labeled as racist idiots, and then nobody gives a **** about anything else they have to say. works for me.
 
how would we "forbid" them?

seems to work pretty well the way it is. if racist idiots spout racism, they get labeled as racist idiots, and then nobody gives a **** about anything else they have to say. works for me.

Works for me, too. In fact, I think racist idiots should be encouraged to express their opinions in the plainest terms possible. That way, they'd be easier to identify.
 
Don't forget:

trailer trash, white trash, hillbilly, redneck- any white person that lives in the South or votes Republican.

(Hey, if we're not going to be PC, it goes both ways.)

Agreed, those terms are just as "good" as the other ones I listed.
 



"Tyranny?" Wow, that's some harsh words.

I had no idea saying "African-American" instead of "nigger" was just like living under an oppressive police state.
 
Those who rail against the concept of political correctness the most are generally those most guilty of it. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and not call them duplicitous, but they are at least blind to their own actions and motivations.

As always... maybe for some.

For many, including me, political correctness is about some people telling others what they can and can't say... and if you say what they say you can't, then you are a racist, bigot, sexist, one that lacks courtesy, etc. I think that those telling me what is OK to say are the oppressive jerks using their morality to judge others.
 
PC creates so many jobs that would not be there otherwise. I am referring to the professional whiners, they call themselves the media.
 
Back
Top Bottom