View Poll Results: Is Political Correctness Real

Voters
100. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    83 83.00%
  • No

    8 8.00%
  • Other

    9 9.00%
Page 27 of 46 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 456

Thread: Political Correctness

  1. #261
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Last Seen
    08-04-15 @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    981

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    Its weakness and cowardice.
    It's not, but it relies on that in the majority.

  2. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    09-08-15 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by Unicron View Post
    It's not, but it relies on that in the majority.
    No, it relies on the weak and cowards to fold over to.
    This whole Confederate Flag issue is about cowardice and weakness.
    Of course its also about forgetting US history and forming it into something it is not.

  3. #263
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Last Seen
    08-04-15 @ 02:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    981

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    No, it relies on the weak and cowards to fold over to.
    This whole Confederate Flag issue is about cowardice and weakness.
    Of course its also about forgetting US history and forming it into something it is not.
    Yes but it's not happening by accident. We are being herded by paid proffesionals.

    You don't need to be under the impression that the people herding us are braver than our peers. They just have support, cash flow, time, proffesional training...

    But they are not braver.

  4. #264
    Why so serious?
    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    Its weakness and cowardice.
    True. It's a way to control the words and thoughts of political opponents. If you're unable to debate someone, then find a way to silence them.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  5. #265
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    This is unfortunately not true. If the people who take my view are louder and more willing to exert coercion to get their way in this argument, then my view will prevail and you will be publicly discredited and shamed. What we are discussing here isn't an electoral process, but rather the electronic version of whipped-up mobs.

    Unfortunately this is also not necessarily true - people like bad ideas quite a lot, especially when they come hooked to emotion.

    In a nation of Spocks', perhaps . In the United States, not so much.
    The above just sounds like you don't have much faith in free speech. That's not totally unreasonable. Perhaps people do act more like mobs and act irrationally and all that. If so, then the right to free speech is not very important or useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The goal of free speech is to limit repression by limiting the ability of the majority to shut a minority up. It is hoped that a result can be to hone a society's position on issues, but in order for that to happen there has to be a reasoned, public debate. Using media (social and traditional) to whip up mobs to shut your opposition up doesn't hone anything.
    The reasoned debate on questions like "is racism ok?" were resolved literally generations ago. The people advocating those positions have nothing to do with reason, they just have emotional problems that they're trying to vent by attacking minorities.

    Free speech is not just useful for politely ironing out intellectual disagreements. It is also how we enforce moral norms, how we shame the vicious, how we enforce minimum standards, etc. Free speech is not the right to have one particular kind of speech in one kind of way. It is the idea that government should just stay out of the whole sphere of speech. It's the idea that if you just leave people to their own devices, they will work this stuff out between themselves better than government could.

  6. #266
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    54,518

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    The above just sounds like you don't have much faith in free speech. That's not totally unreasonable. Perhaps people do act more like mobs and act irrationally and all that. If so, then the right to free speech is not very important or useful.
    I don't have much faith in people to wisely use free speech. I have even less faith in their ability to wisely repress free speech, regardless of whether they use the coercive measures of the state or the mob.

    The reasoned debate on questions like "is racism ok?" were resolved literally generations ago. The people advocating those positions have nothing to do with reason, they just have emotional problems that they're trying to vent by attacking minorities.
    1. That is not accurate and
    2. That is also not what the discussion of PC is about. PC today says very little about the KKK and quite a lot about whether or not you should be free to state that you, personally, do not want to serve a gay wedding, or think that perhaps we should secure our border against mass illegal immigration. PC today is not about fighting off Progressives Eugenics (though in it's day it was brought to bear in support of that program), it is about ever-more-byzantine rules of seeking out and finding offense in the mundane. PC today is not about a wide majority opposing a vocal, angry, violent, and small minority, it is about punishing the 50% of our populace who dares to hold different beliefs when they prove willing to state or stand on them. It is about hounding heretics of the Received Wisdom in order to avoid public debate, not engage in it.

    PC does not encourage Speech - it actively discourages it through threats and coercion.

    Free speech is not just useful for politely ironing out intellectual disagreements. It is also how we enforce moral norms, how we shame the vicious, how we enforce minimum standards, etc. Free speech is not the right to have one particular kind of speech in one kind of way. It is the idea that government should just stay out of the whole sphere of speech. It's the idea that if you just leave people to their own devices, they will work this stuff out between themselves better than government could.
    Well, firstly, government shouldn't stay out of "the whole sphere of speech". Like all our rights, speech is not limitless - when you use speech to threaten someone else, or to falsely advertise, or to put others at risk, that is a portion of speech that Government has a right to intervene in. We have laws against slander, and laws protecting privacy as well.

    Secondly, PC =/= Free Speech. It is simply a non-state coercive means to reduce the exercise of free speech through the threat of the power of the mob. "Better than having the government do it" does not mean "well". Nor do I see anyone here arguing that what is needed is state repression of PC. What people are arguing is that PC has gotten stupidly out of hand, and needs to be dramatically restrained, in order to allow for actual reasoned public debate. Whipping up mobs to attack opponents and threaten the lives of their children for thought crimes is not that

  7. #267
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I don't have much faith in people to wisely use free speech. I have even less faith in their ability to wisely repress free speech, regardless of whether they use the coercive measures of the state or the mob.
    If speech is as useless or even counter-productive as you say, why should we care what happens to it?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    PC today ... is about ever-more-byzantine rules of seeking out and finding offense in the mundane. PC today is not about a wide majority opposing a vocal, angry, violent, and small minority, it is about punishing the 50% of our populace who dares to hold different beliefs when they prove willing to state or stand on them.
    It isn't "ever-more-byzantine." It's really simple. Just don't attack a demographic group. Period. That's it. Just that one rule. Attack ideas all you want, attack political groups, etc., but don't attack a demographic group. If you can refrain from doing that one thing, you will never be on the wrong side of PC.

    And, no, I don't think that is at all true that 50% of the population gets attacked by PC. Most Republicans never get called racist or anything like that. It is a certain segment of the GOP that draws all the criticism. Generally, they're white supremacists or anti-gay hatemongers or and-Muslim nuts or whatever. But then, when they're attacked, they try to hide behind the GOP and the GOP gives them cover, so then other Republicans perceive it as if they have been attacked or accused or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Secondly, PC =/= Free Speech. It is simply a non-state coercive means to reduce the exercise of free speech through the threat of the power of the mob. "Better than having the government do it" does not mean "well". Nor do I see anyone here arguing that what is needed is state repression of PC. What people are arguing is that PC has gotten stupidly out of hand, and needs to be dramatically restrained, in order to allow for actual reasoned public debate. Whipping up mobs to attack opponents and threaten the lives of their children for thought crimes is not that
    I'm not really sure what your position is. Are you arguing that instead of free speech we should have some kind of rule where only speech you consider polite or non-accusatory or something is permitted? That would be a radically different right than we have now.

  8. #268
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    50,939

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    You aren't following. Free speech isn't a condition where decent people are forced into silence because speaking out against bigots and idiots would make the bigots and idiots feel ashamed... Exactly the opposite. Free speech is a condition where everybody is free to denounce those who they think are idiots and bigots as loud as they want..
    That sounds all flowerily and nice but it is just code for what you really deliver next:

    Free speech is a powerful tool for crushing things like racism.
    That is the whole point of it... to "crush" what the "politically correct" tell society what is correct and what is undesirable.

    That's the whole point of it- to expose evil and stupid ideas and move society past them
    Again... to expose "evil and stupid ideas". Subjective oppressive intolerance designed to "crush" dissenting views. Sure, it is easy to point out racism but there are a myriad of terms, ideas, words, etc. that are targeted to be crushed that are not slavery or racism. It has moved away from pointing out racists to making white people racist simply due to their colour. I have seen very few, very few, call those people racists. Whiteness Studies... that is just one example but there are many others that are just as oppressive.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  9. #269
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Political Correctness

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    That sounds all flowerily and nice but it is just code for what you really deliver next:

    That is the whole point of it... to "crush" what the "politically correct" tell society what is correct and what is undesirable.

    Again... to expose "evil and stupid ideas". Subjective oppressive intolerance designed to "crush" dissenting views.
    You've kind of got the agency backwards. It isn't about somebody telling society what is correct, free speech is society deciding what is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    It has moved away from pointing out racists to making white people racist simply due to their colour.
    Uh, no lol. Don't be ridiculous.

  10. #270
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,651
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Political Correctness

    Judge to Bakers: No Free Speech for You - Rachel Lu, The Federalist

    By decree of the great state of Oregon, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa must pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple whom they “mentally raped” by refusing to bake their wedding cake. This was expected, but the final judgment, handed down last Thursday, came with another twist. Aaron and Melissa Klein have also been given a “cease and desist” order, which effectively decrees they must refrain from stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs.

    Land of the What-Was-That?

    Let’s be clear on why this is so sinister. There are times when speech rights conflict with other legitimate social goods. The public’s right to know can conflict with individual privacy rights. Sometimes threats to public safety warrant keeping secrets. There can be interesting debates about intellectual property rights. These cases can get tricky, and we should all understand that speech rights necessarily do have certain pragmatic limits.

    None of those concerns apply here. The Kleins did not threaten public safety. They violated no one’s privacy or property rights. Rather, the Oregon labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, wanted to silence them because the content of their speech. Presumably he was angry that the Kleins’ defiant stance had earned them a potentially profitable reputation as heroes for religious freedom. They were meant to be humiliated and cowed; instead there was a real chance they would land on their feet. So they had to be gagged to prevent that from happening.

    If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a case like this, it is meaningless. . . .
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Page 27 of 46 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •