• 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!

Political Correctness

Is Political Correctness Real

  • Yes

    Votes: 82 82.8%
  • No

    Votes: 8 8.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 9.1%

  • Total voters
    99
What does almost everything mean though? Did you get input directly from HR or are you speculating?

HR? We don't have an HR. It means we have a small staff and that she made her comments publicly to everybody to hear and that the result is as I described.

Everything I am stating is merely a fact. Now, stick with that.
 
HR? We don't have an HR. It means we have a small staff and that she made her comments publicly to everybody to hear and that the result is as I described.

Everything I am stating is merely a fact. Now, stick with that.

Look I'm just trying to have an exchange with you here and blindly buy into your outrage. You left a lot out. Excuse me for asking questions.
 
Look I'm just trying to have an exchange with you here and blindly buy into your outrage. You left a lot out. Excuse me for asking questions.

It is a topic... not outrage. In fact, I am glad I didn't get the position again because after years of it I was tired of it. What she did, and what the administration allowed, was sexism, that's all.

Now, it has been cleared up for you... your thoughts?
 
As hoped according to your agenda and I know very well what free speech is... You say making racist comments is bad and so you support Political Correctness that ruins free speech. Justification... that's all. Doesn't make a logical point either.

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. Free speech is a powerful tool for crushing things like racism. That's the whole point of it- to expose evil and stupid ideas and move society past them.
 
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. Free speech is a powerful tool for crushing things like racism. That's the whole point of it- to expose evil and stupid ideas and move society past them.

That's a very aggressive, pro-male, pro-violence attitude of force. I'm deeply offended, and I'm going to carry a mattress around until your place of business fires you and the news makes you unhireable. Your life deserves to be destroyed because of my feelings about this post.
 
... Can't remember where we left it so I will pick up the debate from here. USA just beat Japan in Women's World Cup!!

USA

USA

USA

I'm pretty sure it wasn't there! Congrats to the USA footballing women. They thoroughly deserved the trophy - they were the best team by some distance in the competition, but watch out, the English are coming!
 
That's a very aggressive, pro-male, pro-violence attitude of force. I'm deeply offended, and I'm going to carry a mattress around until your place of business fires you and the news makes you unhireable. Your life deserves to be destroyed because of my feelings about this post.

Well, by all means, free speech gives you a right to do that. But, the beauty of free speech is that it gives others the choice whether they want to support your view or mine. If a lot of people do take your view, and few take mine, then your view will ultimately prevail and I will be publicly discredited and shamed. The hope behind free speech is that that process isn't random- good ideas tend to get more support and bad ideas tend to get less support. So, if your position is sound, you should come out on top in that exchange, but if it is not, you most likely won't.

The goal of free speech is not to protect the speakers of dumb ideas from criticism, it is to hone our society's position on issues.
 
Well, by all means, free speech gives you a right to do that. But, the beauty of free speech is that it gives others the choice whether they want to support your view or mine. If a lot of people do take your view, and few take mine, then your view will ultimately prevail and I will be publicly discredited and shamed. The hope behind free speech is that that process isn't random- good ideas tend to get more support and bad ideas tend to get less support. So, if your position is sound, you should come out on top in that exchange, but if it is not, you most likely won't.

The goal of free speech is not to protect the speakers of dumb ideas from criticism, it is to hone our society's position on issues.

:doh

OverYourHead.PNG


Let's break it down:

Well, by all means, free speech gives you a right to do that. But, the beauty of free speech is that it gives others the choice whether they want to support your view or mine. If a lot of people do take your view, and few take mine, then your view will ultimately prevail and I will be publicly discredited and shamed

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.

The hope behind free speech is that that process isn't random- good ideas tend to get more support and bad ideas tend to get less support.

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

So, if your position is sound, you should come out on top in that exchange, but if it is not, you most likely won't.

:lamo In a nation of Spocks', perhaps :). In the United States, not so much.

The goal of free speech is not to protect the speakers of dumb ideas from criticism, it is to hone our society's position on issues

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.
 
Last edited:
Political Correctness is the newspeak idealogy of the new Stasi. A lot of people don't realize that most times when a mob is bullying an individual who's been politically incorrect, the mob is being incited by paid secret police. Hard to believe? I would have thought so once too.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:lamo 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.

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.
 
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
 
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?

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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. . . .
 
If speech is as useless or even counter-productive as you say, why should we care what happens to it?

Because it is a Right. It's part of your self-ownership. That's the ideological reason.

The Utilitarian reason is because we have discovered that the only thing more likely to make stupid, irrational decisions than an individual is a group of individuals when that group of individuals is demonstrating groupthink (which is an important part of the PC culture, but can be found in any grouping of humans of sufficient ideological closeness). Close-mindedness can take even a powerful nation and lead it to intellectual repression, stultification, loss of innovation, and, ultimately, societal defeat (see: Ottoman Empire) because self-appointed mindguards are never quite so capable as they think themselves to be. Quite the opposite.

While the ideological argument (from an American / Lockean perspective) is that Free Speech is desirable because no man has the right to limit anothers' speech or thought absent harm to another (quality of thought is irrelevant), the utilitarian perspective is that we allow free speech not because man is so good at figuring out what is good to believe and say, but rather because he is so very bad at it.

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.

....have you been in a time capsule for the past decade or so?

How about "politely decline to participate in someone's wedding with your goods or services"? That's not an attack. How about "believe that marriage is between a man and a woman"? that's not an attack. How about "Thinking that when you put someone on trial for rape, the evidence should be controlling rather than the accusers' desire to be publicly vindicated"? That's not an attack. How about stating that "America is the land of opportunity" or "all lives matter"? Those aren't attacks But all these things are Not PC, and those who have dared to do or say them have and will be appropriately punished. Statistically true information about immigration and rape culture is attacked for not being PC. That's an indication that we are not using the power of the electronic mob to improve debate by getting rid of bad ideas, but rather to shut up heretics who question the Received Wisdom, regardless of their ability to foment arguments.

And, no, I don't think that is at all true that 50% of the population gets attacked by PC.

Of course not. Most folks don't end up a target and most folks learn to keep their heads down. But if you are Ms America, well, you must be politicized and attacked.... for holding a belief that half the country holds.
 
tuhaybey said:
Most Republicans never get called racist or anything like that. It is a certain segment of the GOP that draws all the criticism.

Yeah. The part that is publicly active. Speak up, as a Conservative, and you will be called a racist by Democrats and their supporters, regardless of the truth of the charge. Unless you are black, in which case you will be called an Uncle Tom for daring to wander off the intellectual plantation. FFS, remember when Chris Matthews declared that Scott Brown talking about driving his truck around the state of Massachusetts was a "racist dog whistle"?

Generally, they're white supremacists or anti-gay hatemongers or and-Muslim nuts or whatever.

I would like to see your evidence that Scott Brown, Paul Ryan, the entire GOP, Anti-Obamacare Protesters, People who think that you ought to show an ID to vote, People who don't like President Obama, Joe Wilson, etc., so on, and so forth, ad nauseum. Did you know that the GOP wants to literally take us back to Jim Crow?

Democrats accuse Republicans of racism, or sexism, or some other form of bogeymanism whenever they lack good arguments. It's how they make up for the fact that many of their ideas haven't changed much since the 60s - you turn the opponent into an evil monster, and then make low-information voters afraid of him. Mean Old Republicans Are Gonna Put Ya'll Back In Chains... unless you just keep voting Democrat, now, Y'Hear?

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.

:lamo What? The GOP is by far the quicker of the two parties to expel and pull away from someone who actually does something stupid or wrong. I dare you to find any example of GOP behavior when ti comes to protecting it's membership compared to (for example) Democrats covering for massive tax fraud by Charlie Rangel. When a Senate Majority Leader complimented an old man on his birthday he was g-o-n-e. When Harry Reid said that Obama was pretty clean for a black guy, and that wasn't it neat that he didn't speak like the other negroes, Obama went on TV and said "he knew Harry's heart" and all was fine. Obama can talk about "typical white people" all he likes, but let a Republican talk about "typical black people" and he's out. Instantly.

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.

...so, maybe this is just a conservative, small-government, "thing", but most folks here on the right thing that it is possible for someone to abuse their freedoms by acting wrongly without creating a requirement for government to stop them from doing so. The PC culture is wrong. That doesn't mean that we should have some kind of state restrictions on them, simply that we should recognize that the mob is an unreasonable and abusive animal, not a picture of beautiful representative government, and that the PC mob is no better now than it was when it killed Socrates. The only restriction I'd make via the state is that I would strip the PC crowd's ability to bring the State coercive power to bear on the exercise of our first amendment freedoms that do not infringe on the rights of others.
 
Because it is a Right. It's part of your self-ownership. That's the ideological reason.

"Because I said so" isn't a reason.

The Utilitarian reason is because we have discovered that the only thing more likely to make stupid, irrational decisions than an individual is a group of individuals when that group of individuals is demonstrating groupthink (which is an important part of the PC culture, but can be found in any grouping of humans of sufficient ideological closeness). Close-mindedness can take even a powerful nation and lead it to intellectual repression, stultification, loss of innovation, and, ultimately, societal defeat (see: Ottoman Empire) because self-appointed mindguards are never quite so capable as they think themselves to be. Quite the opposite.

Not sure I'm following. You seem to be arguing that free speech is bad because it leads to groupthink and close-mindedness and mindguarding. That's clearly an argument against free speech. You are arguing that we should silence the close-minded mindguards, no?

....have you been in a time capsule for the past decade or so?

How about "politely decline to participate in someone's wedding with your goods or services"? That's not an attack.

See, that sounds like you've been in a time capsule since the 1950s... As a society, we decided, overwhelmingly, in the 1960s, that denying people access to goods and services because of the demographic group they are in is flat out monstrous. Yes, it is an attack of gay people.

How about "believe that marriage is between a man and a woman"? that's not an attack.

Do you mean just quietly thinking that to yourself? Or do you mean going out into the world and voting to deny gay people equal rights? The former is not an attack. The latter obviously is an attack on gay people.

How about "Thinking that when you put someone on trial for rape, the evidence should be controlling rather than the accusers' desire to be publicly vindicated"? That's not an attack.

Obviously the evidence should and does control in a trial. That would not be an attack. That said, if what you're really advocating for is turning rape trials into an inquisition into the victim, then obviously that would be an attack on women.

How about stating that "America is the land of opportunity"

That isn't an attack so much as just ignorant. The US used to be the land of opportunity back in the 60s and 70s. We had the highest intergenerational income mobility in the first world. But that hasn't been the case for decades now. Today, we have the lowest intergenerational income mobility in the first world.

or "all lives matter"? Those aren't attacks

Yes, obviously that is an attack. It is a dig at the "black lives matter" campaign that is designed to raise awareness of police violence. Why would you be trying to take a dig at that?

Statistically true information about immigration and rape culture is attacked for not being PC.

Well, you'd have to give an example before I could say whether it is true, but of course true information can also be an attack. Just think about it. Say, for example, that there is a kid in jr. high whose mom is poor and the other kids sit around all day taunting him about his mom being poor. Would you understand that that could be an attack?

Of course not. Most folks don't end up a target and most folks learn to keep their heads down.

No, I don't think so. It mostly just seems to happen to the variety of right wingers that seem to get some kind of thrill out of going around insulting demographic groups.
 
Yeah. The part that is publicly active. Speak up, as a Conservative, and you will be called a racist by Democrats and their supporters, regardless of the truth of the charge.

No, there are many politically active conservatives who don't say any racist stuff at all and hence never get called racists.

I would like to see your evidence that Scott Brown, Paul Ryan, the entire GOP, Anti-Obamacare Protesters, People who think that you ought to show an ID to vote, People who don't like President Obama, Joe Wilson, etc., so on, and so forth, ad nauseum. Did you know that the GOP wants to literally take us back to Jim Crow?

Democrats accuse Republicans of racism, or sexism, or some other form of bogeymanism whenever they lack good arguments. It's how they make up for the fact that many of their ideas haven't changed much since the 60s - you turn the opponent into an evil monster, and then make low-information voters afraid of him. Mean Old Republicans Are Gonna Put Ya'll Back In Chains... unless you just keep voting Democrat, now, Y'Hear?

Most those appear to be situations where a liberal says "some of X is motivated by racism", no? Well that's true of course, isn't it?

I can't believe you brought up the Biden one though lol. You know that was just a hoax, right? Romney said that Obama was trying to "put Wall Street in chains" and Biden quipped back that Romney was trying to put the people in chains. You really still didn't know that after all these years?

:lamo What? The GOP is by far the quicker of the two parties to expel and pull away from someone who actually does something stupid or wrong. I dare you to find any example of GOP behavior when ti comes to protecting it's membership compared to (for example) Democrats covering for massive tax fraud by Charlie Rangel. When a Senate Majority Leader complimented an old man on his birthday he was g-o-n-e. When Harry Reid said that Obama was pretty clean for a black guy, and that wasn't it neat that he didn't speak like the other negroes, Obama went on TV and said "he knew Harry's heart" and all was fine. Obama can talk about "typical white people" all he likes, but let a Republican talk about "typical black people" and he's out. Instantly.

You think the GOP is quicker to kick out racists lol? Do you not follow the news at all lol? Like 1/2 of your presidential candidates both this time and in 2012 have said overtly white supremacist things... Donald Trump is currently #2! He wasn't kicked out for his white supremacist rant, that is why he's #2- because white supremacist ranting boosts your ranking in the GOP. Republican politicians are constantly being caught in racist rants and the best example you can come up with of the GOP kicking somebody out for that was over 20 years ago?

Obviously you're smart enough to know that those Democratic lines you're quoting are not actually racist. Don't play dumb.

...so, maybe this is just a conservative, small-government, "thing", but most folks here on the right thing that it is possible for someone to abuse their freedoms by acting wrongly without creating a requirement for government to stop them from doing so. The PC culture is wrong. That doesn't mean that we should have some kind of state restrictions on them, simply that we should recognize that the mob is an unreasonable and abusive animal, not a picture of beautiful representative government, and that the PC mob is no better now than it was when it killed Socrates. The only restriction I'd make via the state is that I would strip the PC crowd's ability to bring the State coercive power to bear on the exercise of our first amendment freedoms that do not infringe on the rights of others.

"PC culture" is free speech. That's what free speech is- the right to denounce things you think need to be denounced. You can't be anti-PC and pro-free speech, that doesn't make any sense.
 
I checked "other". The whole notion of PC is certainly real; but it has become some sort of plague. The truth might hurt, but it's still the truth. To solve a problem, you need real hard facts; that way you'll get a result that has a chance of working.
 
Back
Top Bottom