• 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 There Too Much Political Correctness Now?

Is there too much political correctness now?


  • Total voters
    74
Just an observation from the Sterling fallout in the NBA, or CEO's resigning because they supported a political cause that was unpopular with the masses or the usual media fauxrage (Huffington Post headlines cough cough) that every time some politician (usually from the GOP) makes some sort of statement about gays or minorities or anything that the mainstream thinks is unacceptable and must be spread out across the internet so that outrage can pile on outrage. Is it getting out of hand or should it continue?

Vote and be heard.

Political correctness has always existed...it's just what's acceptable in society. The only difference between it now and like 50 years ago is who it benefits or who agrees with it. In 1940 you could yell the n-word but you sure as hell would have to be silent about being anything other a mainstream christian denomination. Now you can't say the n-word but you don't have to apologize for being Catholic.

That's the only difference. It's a new name conjured up by conservatives to pretend it's some new thing
 
Last edited:
In this context, I am campaigning for a change in the law, or at least our culture, to make it illegal or unacceptable for an angry mob or group to organize and intentionally try to harm or punish somebody, physically and/or materially, for no other offense than that person holds a politically incorrect view or says something 'offensive'. ...

It is already a crime to physically harm or threaten someone or their property. Exactly which specific acts are currently legal that you think should be banned.
 
Clearly not. You have a cartoon understanding of it. You think it's a conspiracy. Total lunacy.
Riight, as if you know me more than I know myself. :roll:

Good day.
 
And in the recent kerfuffles, nobody's been physically hurt, and only one person is losing anything. As far as Sterling goes, the NBA has a right to their own bylaws, which they feel he violated.

When somebody loses a job they love doing, that physically removes a person from something he/she wants to do and chooses to do, that does physical harm. It is not the kind that causes bruises, bleeding, and broken bones, but it has a physical effect on the person. And a person who has his/her income reduced, threatened, taken away suffers material harm to his/her property as well.

To do that to a person for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like flies in the face of every concept of liberty upon which this nation was founded.

If Sterling broke NBA rules and there are consequences for that, such matters are between Sterling and the NBA. If his players or others in his organization don't wish to work for somebody with Sterling's views, that is between him and them. If the fans don't wish to attend games or buy paraphenalia, that is their business. If the advertisers don't wish to utilize the Clippers organization to peddle their products, that is up to them.

But in my version of right and wrong, justice, fairness, and respect for individual liberties, none of the rest of us should have any stake whatsoever as to what happens to Sterling. We can all express our opinions about it. But to organize an angry mob to badger, coerce, or threaten fans, advertisers, members of the organization etc. for the purpose of hurting Sterling just because he said something politically incorrect? That is wrong. That is evil. And it should not be condoned by a society who values liberty and recognizes that people have certain unalienable rights.
 
So in answer to my question, "what do you want to say but feel prevented from doing so because of political correctness?" Your answers can be summed up as,

*you want to call a "vertically challenged" person a "dwarf."
*you want to call a mentally challenged person a "retard."
*You want to be able to use the n word.

Is that about right?
I wouldnt normally say those words myself but I will defend other people's rights to say them.
 
What do you mean by hurt physically, which is rarely the result of a boycott or protest? Vandalism, physically attacking someone or threatening to physically harm a person or their property are all already illegal.

Protests and boycotts are clearly protected first amendment activities. People have a right to say what they want, and others have an equal right to express their disagreement with a protest or by refusing to do business with them. There is likely to be a loss of business from a protest or boycott (or a gain in business if there is a backlash against the boycott as in the case of Chick-A-Fil-A), but no one is guaranteed other people's continued patronage of their business. Customers have a right to know what they are supporting when they do business with a person or company. We all have a right to express our views, but we have no right to be protected from completely legal and ethical actions such as boycotts in response to those views. Protests and boycotts are non-violent ways and harmless to express opinions that are essential to a free society and representational democracy.

See my Post #129
 
Riight, as if you know me more than I know myself. :roll:

Good day.

I don't know crap about you personally. But I know, for a fact, that your understanding of PC is BS. Flat-out cult-like brainwashed BS.

The only advice I can think of is... kids, don't get your sociology education in a racist militia.
 
It is already a crime to physically harm or threaten someone or their property. Exactly which specific acts are currently legal that you think should be banned.

Again I refer you to my Post #129.

It should be illegal for anybody to try to harm somebody physically and/or materially for no other reason than the 'offender' holds an opinion or point of view that the other disagrees with. So long as they do not violate anybody else's rights, a free people must be able to be who and what they are without fear that some angry mob will descend upon them or else nobody is free.
 
Just an observation from the Sterling fallout in the NBA, or CEO's resigning because they supported a political cause that was unpopular with the masses or the usual media fauxrage (Huffington Post headlines cough cough) that every time some politician (usually from the GOP) makes some sort of statement about gays or minorities or anything that the mainstream thinks is unacceptable and must be spread out across the internet so that outrage can pile on outrage. Is it getting out of hand or should it continue?

Vote and be heard.


Political incorrectness is not something that is mostly on one side or the other. The right just goes crazy when some one gets in trouble for racism or homophobia. They want people to be free to say racist and homophobic things. However, when people say things that are critical of America, the troops, religion, etc they need to be silenced!!!!!

The reality is people trying to silence others for being politically incorrect is a bipartisan issue. Saying homophobic things isn't even that politically incorrect, depending on where you live (it is obviously more acceptable in some areas than others). Making anti-Islamic statements is completely fine. However, say something that is critical of the idea of American exceptionalism, or even worse something critical of the troops, and there is no one getting away with that.

So my point is, I do think there is too much political correctness to an extent. It is just definitely not a partisan issue.
 
I nearly picked no, simply because you can never have enough bacon. Yes, bacon is more important than politics.
 
But in my version of right and wrong, justice, fairness, and respect for individual liberties, none of the rest of us should have any stake whatsoever as to what happens to Sterling. We can all express our opinions about it. But to organize an angry mob to badger, coerce, or threaten fans, advertisers, members of the organization etc. for the purpose of hurting Sterling just because he said something politically incorrect? That is wrong. That is evil. And it should not be condoned by a society who values liberty and recognizes that people have certain unalienable rights.

Excessive 'badgering' can be prosecuted as trespassing, harassment or stalking. Coercing with a physical threat is illegal. Threatening violence or vandalism is illegal. What is an example of an action that is currently legal that you would ban?
 
Excessive 'badgering' can be prosecuted as trespassing, harassment or stalking. Coercing with a physical threat is illegal. Threatening violence or vandalism is illegal. What is an example of an action that is currently legal that you would ban?

Please don't change the subject here. I would ban any group organizing for the purpose of physically and/or materially hurting, damaging, or if possible destroying another person for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that the group doesn't like or because of who the person is. That would include contacting the person's employer or those he/she does business with and demanding that the person be fired; that would include contacting the person's advertisers or customers and threatening action if those continued to do business with the person, or otherwise actively attempting to harm that person.
 
I wouldnt normally say those words myself but I will defend other people's rights to say them.

Other people have the right to say them.
 
Please don't change the subject here. I would ban any group organizing for the purpose of physically and/or materially hurting, damaging, or if possible destroying another person for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that the group doesn't like or because of who the person is. That would include contacting the person's employer or those he/she does business with and demanding that the person be fired; that would include contacting the person's advertisers or customers and threatening action if those continued to do business with the person, or otherwise actively attempting to harm that person.

That would not survive a first amendment challenge, and it shouldn't since you want to suppress people who are simply expressing their opinion. Why should the original speaker have freedom of speech, but those who disagree that opinion would not? Keep in mind that your proposal would also suppress the opinions of people that you agree with at times, when you think that a person's opinions are so outrageous that they should be boycotted. Right wingers have gotten more people in trouble with their employers than the left. Remember the McCarthy era blacklists? Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, Shirley Sherrod?

I do support a law protecting employees rights to not be discriminated against because of their off-work activities, including expressions of opinions. However, an exemption for certain employees, including owners, public relations staff and top executives would be necessary since those people actually do represent the company at all times, unlike lower level employees.
 
Last edited:
That would not survive a first amendment challenge, and it shouldn't since you want to suppress people who are simply expressing their opinion. Why should the original speaker have freedom of speech, but those who disagree that opinion would not? Keep in mind that your proposal would also suppress the opinions of people that you agree with at times, when you think that a person's opinions are so outrageous that they should be boycotted. Right wingers have gotten more people in trouble with their employers than the left. Remember the McCarthy era blacklists? Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, Shirley Sherrod?

I do support a law protecting employees rights to not be discriminated against because of their off-work activities, including expressions of opinions. However, an exemption for certain employees, including owners, public relations staff and top executives would be necessary since those people actually do represent the company at all times, unlike lower level employees.

You are missing the point. I don't want to make it illegal to express an opinion. I want to make it illegal to intentionally and physically/materially attack people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion. There is no right to express an opinion by firebombing or intentionally destroying a person's physical property or physically assaulting somebody. There should be no right to organize to destroy a person's livelihood and/or deny him right to his own property for no other reason than you disagree with that person's opinion.
 
You are missing the point. I don't want to make it illegal to express an opinion. I want to make it illegal to intentionally and physically/materially attack people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion. There is no right to express an opinion by firebombing or intentionally destroying a person's physical property or physically assaulting somebody. There should be no right to organize to destroy a person's livelihood and/or deny him right to his own property for no other reason than you disagree with that person's opinion.

Expressing the opinion that someone should be fired to that person's employer or clients is not harming someone. If the employer or client then decides to fire or stop doing business with that person, it is the employer or client who caused the harm. The courts have settled the matter already, libel and slander are actionable, but expressing opinions and true facts is protected speech. Your proposed new crime would suppress speech more than the people who express the opinion that someone should be boycotted or fired. The solution to speech you don't like is encouraging more expression of opinions by more people, not to suppress speech.
 
Expressing the opinion that someone should be fired to that person's employer or clients is not harming someone. If the employer or client then decides to fire or stop doing business with that person, it is the employer or client who caused the harm. The courts have settled the matter already, libel and slander are actionable, but expressing opinions and true facts is protected speech. Your proposed new crime would suppress speech more than the people who express the opinion that someone should be boycotted or fired. The solution to speech you don't like is encouraging more expression of opinions by more people, not to suppress speech.

If I complain to a business owner that I or a member of my family or my friend was mistreated or served poorly that is one thing. For me to go organize a whole group or mob to demand that a person be fired, or threaten his advertisers or customers or suppliers, for no other reason than I don't like an opinion the person expressed that had absolutely nothing to do with me personally is something quite different.
 
If I complain to a business owner that I or a member of my family or my friend was mistreated or served poorly that is one thing. For me to go organize a whole group or mob to demand that a person be fired, or threaten his advertisers or customers or suppliers, for no other reason than I don't like an opinion the person expressed that had absolutely nothing to do with me personally is something quite different.

Not really, and the business owner/board still has the right to make the final call on that. And threatening anybody's physical well-being is a crime.
 
Other people have the right to say them.
Yes, for now. But people are being forced from their jobs or forced to sell their business for expressing their beliefs isnt right.
 
'Political correctness', as everyone unbrainwashed knows, is rightwing bull****, a noise to signal their hatred of not being able to insult people. Why do we have to bother with this antiquated crap?
 
'Political correctness', as everyone unbrainwashed knows, is rightwing bull****, a noise to signal their hatred of not being able to insult people. Why do we have to bother with this antiquated crap?
Yesss, because everybody is so sensitive that its better to tell lies about each other than saying what you really feel... :roll:

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
 
Yesss, because everybody is so sensitive that its better to tell lies about each other than saying what you really feel... :roll:

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

Bullying, mostly, and paying lower wages, charging higher rents, stuff like that, which the racist crap helped work. I am pissed off with being called a 'Celt' myself, as a prelude to being insulted and cheated.
 
Of course the usual suspects voted NO.
 
Seriously, hold old are these people who think there shouldn't be any negative ramifications for expressing unpopular opinions? Wouldn't such stupidity render them essentially nonfunctional in the real world?
 
Seriously, hold old are these people who think there shouldn't be any negative ramifications for expressing unpopular opinions? Wouldn't such stupidity render them essentially nonfunctional in the real world?

Aye, ****in' Nazi thickoes! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom