• 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
AlbqOwl said:
Why? If I say I support traditional marriage or I am pro life or I am pro choice or I am Atheist or I am an alien from Mars, but I am violating nobody else's rights and I am not forcing my opinions or belief upon anybody; what gives you a RIGHT to organize a boycott and damage my business because you don't like my point of view? How is that not a restraint of my legal trade? A violation of my person and right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How is that not a violation of my unalienable rights to be who and what I am? How do you justify it on any kind of sense of justice, fair play, or morality?

And if you are convinced that such boycotts are the American way then is it okay to organize a boycott against the minority owned business? The women owned business? The gay guy who opens up a shop? The person who speaks out in favor of political correctness? Where do you draw the line? Or do you?

(For the record I think trying to intentionally hurt somebody's livelihood or drive a person out for such reasons is entirely immoral, should be culturally taboo, and should be illegal.)
Click to expand...

Chick-fil-a comes to mind! The fact that they offer free breakfasts to the needy seems to be something that need not be considered, according to the haters among us! :thumbdown:
 
polgara said:
Chick-fil-a comes to mind! The fact that they offer free breakfasts to the needy seems to be something that need not be considered, according to the haters among us! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Sure it should be considered, and I'd argue that thousands of people still patronize their establishments on a daily basis. Many of whom, I'm quite sure appreciate that they give to the needy.

I however, have not gone into a Chick-fil-a in years, because I don't think their contribution to the needy (in the form of fast food) out weighs the damage they've caused to the LGBT community. After years of people boycotting Chick-fil-a, and them still doing good business, I'd say that the free market as ruled in their favor.
 
polgara said:
Chick-fil-a comes to mind! The fact that they offer free breakfasts to the needy seems to be something that need not be considered, according to the haters among us! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

That is an excellent example. Dan Cathy was not accused of any discrimination in hiring practices, who his restaurants served, and implemented Christian principles in all his business practices including closing on Sundays so all his personnel who chose to do so could attend church. Non Christian employees who ask for time to attend Synagogue or Mosque services etc. are accommodated. In addition he gives away millions of his money in scholarships and to help folks attend retreat centers, kids to go to summer camps, and many charities.

So why did the angry mob assemble and try to punish him? Because he openly personally expressed his Christian conviction that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. That had nothing whatsoever to do with his business or anybody or anything else, but it was sufficient for the PC police to try to destroy him as much as possible.

To do that is wrong. It is unAmerican. It is evil.
 
Starbuck said:
Boycotting and/ or organizing is a form of expression and opinion. So, I'd say the same ideal that gives you the right to express your support of traditional marriage or atheism is what gives me the right to organize and boycott.

I don't actually see how someone who is upset about not being able to express their opinions without fear of reprisal can disagree with a group of people doing the exact same thing.




Only the government can violate your right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Anything short of the government coming down and taking what is yours and/ or telling you what to do is a civil matter. Unfortunately, most companies have little to no luck fighting boycotts in court.

It really comes down to which side can last longer, or at all, under the circumstances.



Sure it's okay to organize a boycott against any business, if someone doesn't like a business, how its run or what someone said in relation to said business, they can boycott.

And for the record, boycotts against minority and/ or women owned business was the way of life for decades and decades. Hell, people used to boycott businesses for even doing business with minorities in the past.

Still might in some pockets of the country.




To an extent I agree with you, however I'm also a big proponent of the free market, and boycotts are just a function of said market.
Click to expand...

I have not been arguing against what CAN BE DONE. I am arguing for a principle. I want all who have any sense of justice and fair play and/or who value liberty and unalienable rights would see how evil it is and how destructive to liberty it is to presume to punish people for no other offense than they hold an opinion.

And I hope there are more who value individual liberty and unalienable rights than there are self righteous assholes who think they have the right to tell other people what they are required to think, believe, hope for in order to be allowed to live in peace.
 
AlbqOwl said:
So why did the angry mob assemble and try to punish him? Because he openly personally expressed his Christian conviction that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. That had nothing whatsoever to do with his business or anybody or anything else, but it was sufficient for the PC police to try to destroy him as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Thing is, he did a little more than openly express his "christian" views. He also donated millions of dollars to organizations that actively worked to further bigoted legislation. So for me, I figured that a portion of every dollar spent at the establishment went to these causes that I felt were not only harmful, but blatantly ignorant.

That was the primary reason for me no longer patronizing Chick-fil-a

AlbqOwl said:
To do that is wrong. It is unAmerican. It is evil.
Click to expand...

I honestly think that sitting idle while others stomp over what you find to be important is un-American, standing silent is very un-American.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I have not been arguing against what CAN BE DONE. I am arguing for a principle. I want all who have any sense of justice and fair play and/or who value liberty and unalienable rights would see how evil it is and how destructive to liberty it is to presume to punish people for no other offense than they hold an opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware that you aren't arguing about "what can be done," as you've made this very clear.

And as I've previously stated, I do understand where you are coming from, however I am a big proponent of the free market. Sure boycotts are destructive, but that's the intent. Some of them win, and some of them loose, just look at the results of the big Chick-fil-a boycott. In the end, Chick-fil-a actually benefitted from the backlash against Dan Cathy's donations and/ or remarks.


AlbqOwl said:
And I hope there are more who value individual liberty and unalienable rights than there are self righteous assholes who think they have the right to tell other people what they are required to think, believe, hope for in order to be allowed to live in peace.
Click to expand...

I think the point you are missing is that boycotting is a from of individual liberty, and people should be just as free to do that as they are are to simply express their opinions.

Again, free market.
 
Moot said:
If you've ever read George Washington's list...almost everything in it could be considered political correctness for his day.


George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior @ Foundations Magazine
Click to expand...

No. That would be an Emily Post or Miss Manners rules of etiquette of his day, a very different animal from political correctness. In not a single one of that long list of rules for good manners does he express what anybody is supposed to speak or think about anything. He does offer some suggestions of how to be courteous when we do speak and how to be thoughtful and considerate of others.

Being militantly anti-PC, which I am, is not license to be rude, cruel, hateful, insensitive, or presume moral superiority.
 
Starbuck said:
Thing is, he did a little more than openly express his "christian" views. He also donated millions of dollars to organizations that actively worked to further bigoted legislation. So for me, I figured that a portion of every dollar spent at the establishment went to these causes that I felt were not only harmful, but blatantly ignorant.

That was the primary reason for me no longer patronizing Chick-fil-a



I honestly think that sitting idle while others stomp over what you find to be important is un-American, standing silent is very un-American.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you choosing who you will or will not do business with or the reasons that guide your choices.

But I will continue having a huge problem if you assume the self-righteous right to organize a viscious attack on another person physically and/or materially for no other offense than a point of view that person holds. If you don't see how dictating what people are required to think, believe, express, or contribute to if they do not wish to be attacked is unAmerican, God help us all.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But I will continue having a huge problem if you assume the self-righteous right to organize a viscious attack on another person physically and/or materially for no other offense than a point of view that person holds.
Click to expand...

**Disclaimer, I disagree with violence of any form and don't think that people should physically attack someones person and or property.**

That being said, in order for any boycott to work there must be more people to agree with the premise of said boycott and disagree. Again, it all falls under the principles of free market.

Chick-fil-a being the perfect example, thousands of people (myself included) stopped patronizing their establishments, with the intent of causing them financial harm through peaceable methods. In the end, Chick-fil-a actually saw a boost in business and profitability through a backlash to the protests.

The free market ruled that Chick-fil-a was stronger than the boycott.
 
Last edited:
Starbuck said:
False.

There's plenty that people aren't offended by, things which used to cause a huge uproar.

  • Bi-Racial marriage, for example, is something that doesn't offend nearly as many people as it used to.
  • Being an atheist, or at the least having no acknowledgment of religion, is another example.


Back in the good old days, both of these simple things caused great ire in the community. Was that then political correctness gone awry?

It's not that political correctness as gone awry in recent years, it's that the definitions of what's acceptable has changed.
Click to expand...

Those are both valid points, and that is a really good thing and due to education and information being circulated, thankfully. However, there are always going to be dumbarses out there. There's really nothing that can be done about the truly ignorant or those who wish to remain ignorant in their views, and those people are always going to be saying something offensive, and then we will always have our groups of "offendees." It's kind of like a vicious circle that no one really ever wins.
 
AlbqOwl said:
PC is NOT a way of society regulating itself. PC is a bunch of bullies, a minority at that, presuming to be the virtue police and FORCE others to be who and what that minority demands that they be or else that minority will punish them physically and/or materially. It is anti-liberty, anti-American, and it is wrong and it is evil.

Unless there is a clear agreement within the social contract--conditions of a business license for instance--no business person should be forced to do business with or provide services for somebody or something that they believe to be morally or ethically wrong. And nobody should be forced to do business with that business owner for any reason. But the only ethical policy is a live and let live policy for both. So long as we are not violating the rights of anybody else, each person should be able to be who and what he/she is and make his/her own choices without fear that some angry group or mob will descend on them to punish them for having a wrong attitude or using a wrong word or uttering an unacceptable phrase.

Unless we are all free to be who and what we are, short of violating anybody else's rights, there is no liberty at all and none of us have any rights at all.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to disagree. I think it kind of is a way for society to regulate itself and let people know acceptable versus unacceptable behavior. However, like I noted, it has turned into an ugly monster that people take advantage of for lawsuits and all kinds of ridiculous things.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, I have to disagree. I think it kind of is a way for society to regulate itself and let people know acceptable versus unacceptable behavior. However, like I noted, it has turned into an ugly monster that people take advantage of for lawsuits and all kinds of ridiculous things.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with society regulating itself. Society MUST regulate itself in order to function in a way to recognize and protect everybody's unalienable rights and form a society that is the way the people choose to live.

I have as much right to tell you that you (the rhetorical you) are a jerk because you said or did whatever as you have the right to do the same to me. I have a perfect right to shop elsewhere and to tell you that is why I am shopping elsewhere. But neither of us should ever have the right to organize an angry, self-righteous mob, that physically or materially attacks somebody for no other reason than we disagree with that person's point of view, belief, conviction or whatever.

I don't know why so many here are having so much problem making a distinction between those two things. Or maybe they do not see a distinction. But if most people can't or won't see the difference, as I have said before, God help us all. Because the nation the Founders intended to give us is now dead and there is something very sinister and evil that has replaced it.
 
Political Correctness seems to be a set of phony standards popularized for appearances sake or a form of accusatory hypocrisy. It's pretentious and goody goody in nature, making no allowances for human weakness and flaws or forgiveness, based on a restrictive morality not inline with freedom, equity or the law. It's an inflammatory and inflexible idealism of what a right society should be, based on perfectionist concepts, not a realistic view of what society can only be.

True accountability and correction in our society is meant to allow the ability to learn from our mistakes and poor judgment. To gain insight and a change in attitude, not to crush the life out of the unfortunate and misguided. If there is no latitude in freedom of expression, then you end up with a narrow minded cult of people, instead of a culture of imaginative and innovative individuals driven by their own visions.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I have no problem with society regulating itself. Society MUST regulate itself in order to function in a way to recognize and protect everybody's unalienable rights and form a society that is the way the people choose to live.

I have as much right to tell you that you (the rhetorical you) are a jerk because you said or did whatever as you have the right to do the same to me. I have a perfect right to shop elsewhere and to tell you that is why I am shopping elsewhere. But neither of us should ever have the right to organize an angry, self-righteous mob, that physically or materially attacks somebody for no other reason than we disagree with that person's point of view, belief, conviction or whatever.

I don't know why so many here are having so much problem making a distinction between those two things. Or maybe they do not see a distinction. But if most people can't or won't see the difference, as I have said before, God help us all. Because the nation the Founders intended to give us is now dead and there is something very sinister and evil that has replaced it.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think people are necessarily sinister and evil as much as they are just wrapped up in their own ideologies so much so that they overreact to a given situation.
 
grip said:
Political Correctness seems to be a set of phony standards popularized for appearances sake or a form of accusatory hypocrisy. It's pretentious and goody goody in nature, making no allowances for human weakness and flaws or forgiveness, based on a restrictive morality not inline with freedom, equity or the law. It's an inflammatory and inflexible idealism of what a right society should be, based on perfectionist concepts, not a realistic view of what society can only be.

True accountability and correction in our society is meant to allow the ability to learn from our mistakes and poor judgment. To gain insight and a change in attitude, not to crush the life out of the unfortunate and misguided. If there is no latitude in freedom of expression, then you end up with a narrow minded cult of people, instead of a culture of imaginative and innovative individuals driven by their own visions.
Click to expand...

Really, really good. Totally agree with that idea.
 
ChrisL said:
It's kind of like a vicious circle that no one really ever wins.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty well sums it up, a vicious cycle.

Today's PC term is tomorrow's insult and yesterdays unacceptable behavior/ opinion is today's norm. As you've said, there will always be 'offendees,' and ignorant people out there.

No one person really wins, but I think that it's an overall reflection of societies opinion.

Kind of free market.
 
grip said:
It's pretentious and goody goody in nature, making no allowances for human weakness and flaws or forgiveness, based on a restrictive morality not inline with freedom, equity or the law.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think that our 'PC' culture has always made allowances for human weakness and flaws.

Taking Mr. Sterling as an example, if he was just some janitor working for the clippers who said exactly the same thing, we wouldn't be talking about it right now and he might have been reprimanded (at most) for his actions.

Power is a very tangible and alterable thing, and there isn't much room for weakness at the top.
 
ChrisL said:
I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think people are necessarily sinister and evil as much as they are just wrapped up in their own ideologies so much so that they overreact to a given situation.
Click to expand...

No it is evil even when somebody convinces themselves they are doing good. I'm sure Hitler thought what he was doing was the right thing to do. Ditto Lenin. Ditto Marx. Ditto Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Ditto Muslim extremists when they commit terrorist acts or behead their victims. They all believe they are doing good. None believe they are over reacting. But it is still evil in its result and effect regardless of what those who do it believe their motives are.

Justice requires us to ask ourselves: would we want the KKK or the Westboro Baptists or Code Pink to dictate what our point of view must be, what we are allowed to think, speak, and who we must be in order to be able to live our lives in peace? If our answer is "no", then we have to understand that neither do we have any moral authority to dictate to others what they are allowed to think, speak, or who they must be in order to be allowed to live their lives in peace.

My personal code is to judge people on what they DO and not on who and what they are. It is the only code I can support and defend and justify.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No. That would be an Emily Post or Miss Manners rules of etiquette of his day, a very different animal from political correctness. In not a single one of that long list of rules for good manners does he express what anybody is supposed to speak or think about anything. He does offer some suggestions of how to be courteous when we do speak and how to be thoughtful and considerate of others.

Being militantly anti-PC, which I am, is not license to be rude, cruel, hateful, insensitive, or presume moral superiority.
Click to expand...

Anyone who actually read the entire list can't help but notice a lot of focus on "class distinction". In fact, there was almost an entirely different set of rules for the way one is to behave and treat those deemed superior as opposed to those deemed less superior. Wouldn't that qualify as political correctness in Washington's day?
 
Last edited:
Starbuck said:
Honestly, I think that our 'PC' culture has always made allowances for human weakness and flaws.

Taking Mr. Sterling as an example, if he was just some janitor working for the clippers who said exactly the same thing, we wouldn't be talking about it right now and he might have been reprimanded (at most) for his actions.

Power is a very tangible and alterable thing, and there isn't much room for weakness at the top.
Click to expand...

That's a double standard that shouldn't exist for people, regardless of their position.
 
grip said:
That's a double standard that shouldn't exist for people, regardless of their position.
Click to expand...

How is it a double standard?

If the janitor somehow managed to weasel his/ her way up to CEO, then the standard would apply.

In higher positions, weakness is more detrimental and less tolerated. That's just a general concept, which applies across the board. The inability to control the words the come out of your mouth is a weakness, which isn't generally tolerated in some institutions.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No it is evil even when somebody convinces themselves they are doing good. I'm sure Hitler thought what he was doing was the right thing to do. Ditto Lenin. Ditto Marx. Ditto Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Ditto Muslim extremists when they commit terrorist acts or behead their victims. They all believe they are doing good. None believe they are over reacting. But it is still evil in its result and effect regardless of what those who do it believe their motives are.

Justice requires us to ask ourselves: would we want the KKK or the Westboro Baptists or Code Pink to dictate what our point of view must be, what we are allowed to think, speak, and who we must be in order to be able to live our lives in peace? If our answer is "no", then we have to understand that neither do we have any moral authority to dictate to others what they are allowed to think, speak, or who they must be in order to be allowed to live their lives in peace.

My personal code is to judge people on what they DO and not on who and what they are. It is the only code I can support and defend and justify.
Click to expand...

I don't really attribute these types of acts to "evil" as much as I do to mental illness, and I don't really think it's fair to compare the politically correct crowd with Hitler. The PC crowd just doesn't seem to understand the way real life works.
 
Starbuck said:
How is it a double standard?

If the janitor somehow managed to weasel his/ her way up to CEO, then the standard would apply.

In higher positions, weakness is more detrimental and less tolerated. That's just a general concept, which applies across the board. The inability to control the words the come out of your mouth is a weakness, which isn't generally tolerated in some institutions.
Click to expand...


Because it's not fair to judge someone harsher because of their position in life. It's not the way the law works, nor should it be the way society judges. If we're all equal, then we should be treated that way. In your concept, someones achievement equates them as better than others.

Though in reality someone in a more notable position will be given more attention, therefore more judgment. Some will say, with position and fame comes more scrutiny and worthiness, but that's still not really fair.
 
Starbuck said:
I think that pretty well sums it up, a vicious cycle.

Today's PC term is tomorrow's insult and yesterdays unacceptable behavior/ opinion is today's norm. As you've said, there will always be 'offendees,' and ignorant people out there.

No one person really wins, but I think that it's an overall reflection of societies opinion.

Kind of free market.
Click to expand...

This is true, but there are certain groups who will go out of their way to ruin a person's life and livelihood over a comment.
 
Moot said:
Anyone who actually read the entire list can't help but notice a lot of focus on "class distinction". In fact, there was almost an entirely different set of rules for the way one is to behave and treat those deemed superior as opposed to those deemed less superior. Wouldn't that qualify as political correctness in Washington's day?
Click to expand...

No. Again it was a matter of good manners which was really grilled into folks from the earliest American settlers up until sometime in the late 20th Century. We all knew different standards applied to different settings, different standards applied to the young vs the old, etc. Sometimes it dictated how something should be expressed--we were to be polite and not rude--and certain bad words were not to be used in polite company. But there was never any effort to do mind/thought/speech control as you have in political correctness, and there is not even the slightest inference of that in that list of good manners attributed to Washington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom