Two questions about Political Correctness

[Mac1958]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

 

[Katzndogz]

Did you read 1984? One of the essential points it made was the destruction of the language and how language could be used to control a population. It worked double plus good.

 

[dilloduck]

It's bullying and shaming. Pure and simple.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Well, if I can get any answers, maybe we'll find out.

.

 

[FJO]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

1. I, personally have not got the presence and/or the personality to intimidate anyone, including my two grand kids, aged 4 and 6.

2. The hearts and minds of those who relish the role of and profit from perpetual victimhood will and can never be changed, so there is no use in trying.

I never called anyone a racist or a homophobe, but neither have I ever been offended when somebody called me such. My answer have always been that|: "I have been called worse than that by better people than you" and that usually shut them up. When it did not, I referred them to the nursery rhyme about sticks and stones.

 

[blackhawk]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

The goal would be silence all dissent to get total power and control.
The possible downside if a group silenced and has no power or say they can rise up in a violent revolt.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have no problem saying what I have to say. Those with problems with it can submit their complaints to the basement section of the third portolet to the right.

What I believe and say is my right, and I will continue to post accordingly.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

Who are you talking to?

If there is no law against a word being said, then the reaction that one gets by saying the word is not something that can be considered a violation of one's first amendment rights.

As you have not provided an example of what you mean, lets take Don Imus and his "nappy headed ho's" comment of a few years ago. He was not arrested for what he said. His employers ended his contract for a period of time in response to complaints that they received. It was their right to do so. If they were wrong to do so, Imus could have sued them.

Don is back on the air. He is free to call someone a 'nappy headed ho" any time he wants to. Of course, he will have to accept the consequences for it if he does. It is his choice whether or not he does.

What Imus cannot do is call someone a ******, a ****, a shithead, an asshole or a dick. He cannot do that because of laws that have been passed. I find this to be more of a problem than the thing that you are whining about. As the great Howard Stern proudly exclaims....."**** the FCC!"

After the incident, every comedian on the planet used the term "nappy headed ho's" in a joke or a skit. Not one of them faced any consequences for it. You see....it is not the words that matter......it is the intent.

Downside? Downside to what? Reacting to someones intent? Maybe. Depends on how inappropriate your reaction is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PC is a Neo-Nazi Leftist tactics to silence opposition

 

[LoneLaugher]

PC is a Neo-Nazi Leftist tactics to silence opposition

OooooooooKaaaaaayyyyy!

 

[JoeBlam]

These chat rooms are a steam-valve that didn't exist 15 years ago to let people vent their pent-up emotions. But they are also an enabling entity for bigots, racists, women-haters, rich-haters, etc. that let people see there are others out there, maybe many others, who hold the same hatreds and make that seem okay. Give anybody the power to censor other's words and they will use it as often and as harshly as they can. I've seen combatants made moderators ban their former foes within minutes of taking over the magic button. The "fairness doctrine" is nothing but a democRAT effort to silence right-wing talk radio. "Human Resources" departments in corporations don't deal in fairness or context...one slip that's reported and they go for the throat at both real and imaginary offenders. The answer is to understand words are only words, not rocks. And the old saying your right to offend me ends at the tip of my nose....in other words, there are fighting words. The courts have made clear there are indeed words a normal citizen doesn't have to put up with being directed at them. In my experience, what happens on these boards, in these chat rooms, never gets past the log-off button so this is probably the last real means the American citizen has for truly free speech without getting punched in the snout.

 

[mudwhistle]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

Who are you talking to?

If there is no law against a word being said, then the reaction that one gets by saying the word is not something that can be considered a violation of one's first amendment rights.

As you have not provided an example of what you mean, lets take Don Imus and his "nappy headed ho's" comment of a few years ago. He was not arrested for what he said. His employers ended his contract for a period of time in response to complaints that they received. It was their right to do so. If they were wrong to do so, Imus could have sued them.

Don is back on the air. He is free to call someone a 'nappy headed ho" any time he wants to. Of course, he will have to accept the consequences for it if he does. It is his choice whether or not he does.

What Imus cannot do is call someone a ******, a ****, a shithead, an asshole or a dick. He cannot do that because of laws that have been passed. I find this to be more of a problem than the thing that you are whining about. As the great Howard Stern proudly exclaims....."**** the FCC!"

After the incident, every comedian on the planet used the term "nappy headed ho's" in a joke or a skit. Not one of them faced any consequences for it. You see....it is not the words that matter......it is the intent.

Downside? Downside to what? Reacting to someones intent? Maybe. Depends on how inappropriate your reaction is.

To answer your first question, I wonder if you remember the last Olympics? Do you remember all of the medal grabbing the Olympic Committee did? Some athlete says something racist or offensive to the left on Twitter and next thing they know some official is banging on their door demanding their medal back.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sorry, Mud. Don't know what you are talking about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

Your first question is moot, as no one advocates intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking, thus question two is moot as well.

Remember also that the First Amendment applies only to the public sector, such as government law and policy making entities; that a private entity might admonish someone for expressing his racist views does not constitute a violation of free expression.

Indeed, this is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness’ to begin with.

If Congress were to enact a Federal law, for example, or a state government a state law, making it illegal to say the word ‘******,’ punishable by fine or imprisonment, then such a measure would clearly be offensive to the First Amendment, and invalidated accordingly.

Late last year Justice Kennedy gave an address concerning the Constitution and democracy, where he referred to the Constitution with an upper case ‘C,’ and the constitution with a lower case ‘c.’ The former of course deals with the law of the land, the case law that jurists debate and use to make rulings on conflicts and controversies that come before them in the courts. The latter, however, refers to our free and open democracy, where the people are at liberty to discuss conflicts and controversies of the day free from interference by the government and courts, and where the people are at liberty to come to a resolution as to these conflicts and controversies.

As a conservative Justice Kennedy would rather national conflicts and controversies be addressed in the context of the constitution with a lower case ‘c,’ without the need to make issues political, where national conflicts and controversies eventually, and needlessly, end up in the courts.

If Justice Kennedy is correct in his view of the constitution, which I believe he is, then our free and democratic society is at liberty to come to a resolution as to what is and is not appropriate concerning what individuals say and what they do, where these resolutions manifest neither ‘intimidation’ nor ‘political correctness.’

And in the end employers will always be at liberty to terminate the employment of someone who says something inappropriate. We can seek to “change hearts & minds” of employers to be more accommodating of their employees’ personal opinions, but they’ll retain that right regardless.

 

[Mac1958]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

Who are you talking to?

If there is no law against a word being said, then the reaction that one gets by saying the word is not something that can be considered a violation of one's first amendment rights.

As you have not provided an example of what you mean, lets take Don Imus and his "nappy headed ho's" comment of a few years ago. He was not arrested for what he said. His employers ended his contract for a period of time in response to complaints that they received. It was their right to do so. If they were wrong to do so, Imus could have sued them.

Don is back on the air. He is free to call someone a 'nappy headed ho" any time he wants to. Of course, he will have to accept the consequences for it if he does. It is his choice whether or not he does.

What Imus cannot do is call someone a ******, a ****, a shithead, an asshole or a dick. He cannot do that because of laws that have been passed. I find this to be more of a problem than the thing that you are whining about. As the great Howard Stern proudly exclaims....."**** the FCC!"

After the incident, every comedian on the planet used the term "nappy headed ho's" in a joke or a skit. Not one of them faced any consequences for it. You see....it is not the words that matter......it is the intent.

Downside? Downside to what? Reacting to someones intent? Maybe. Depends on how inappropriate your reaction is.

To answer your first question, I wonder if you remember the last Olympics? Do you remember all of the medal grabbing the Olympic Committee did? Some athlete says something racist or offensive to the left and next thing they know some official is banging on their door demanding their medal back.

Lone Laugher, your response is an absolutely perfect example of why your original posts no longer appear on my screen. I finally realized that it's simply impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation with you, and I no longer wanted to be tempted to try.

You start your post with yet another straw man argument: "If there is no law against a word being said, then the reaction that one gets by saying the word is not something that can be considered a violation of one's first amendment rights." I have never claimed that First Amendment rights are being violated; I have never claimed that there is some law in place against any word being said. Your attempts at deflection have gone beyond tedious.

I can understand that you don't want to give straight, direct answers to my straight, direct questions, because you've chosen to deny that PC even exists. As funny as that is, I request that you stop polluting my threads with your standard partisan ideology-driven denials, distortions, deflections, etc. Especially since you know I don't see your original posts.

I asked sincere, direct questions. Full disclosure, I never expect straight answers here. But I thought that in this case some would want to jump in with some honesty. We'll see.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fascism and Communism are still not cool in the USA, but when you call them Political Correctness and Progressivism, they become a lot more acceptable

 

[Mac1958]

.

Since no one will answer, I'm more convinced than ever that this is about control and political advantage.

They can't tell me what they're trying to accomplish, they won't admit there's a downside to the approach.

So, I guess in a way they DID answer my questions, huh?

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who are you talking to?

If there is no law against a word being said, then the reaction that one gets by saying the word is not something that can be considered a violation of one's first amendment rights.

As you have not provided an example of what you mean, lets take Don Imus and his "nappy headed ho's" comment of a few years ago. He was not arrested for what he said. His employers ended his contract for a period of time in response to complaints that they received. It was their right to do so. If they were wrong to do so, Imus could have sued them.

Don is back on the air. He is free to call someone a 'nappy headed ho" any time he wants to. Of course, he will have to accept the consequences for it if he does. It is his choice whether or not he does.

What Imus cannot do is call someone a ******, a ****, a shithead, an asshole or a dick. He cannot do that because of laws that have been passed. I find this to be more of a problem than the thing that you are whining about. As the great Howard Stern proudly exclaims....."**** the FCC!"

After the incident, every comedian on the planet used the term "nappy headed ho's" in a joke or a skit. Not one of them faced any consequences for it. You see....it is not the words that matter......it is the intent.

Downside? Downside to what? Reacting to someones intent? Maybe. Depends on how inappropriate your reaction is.

To answer your first question, I wonder if you remember the last Olympics? Do you remember all of the medal grabbing the Olympic Committee did? Some athlete says something racist or offensive to the left and next thing they know some official is banging on their door demanding their medal back.

Lone Laugher, your response is an absolutely perfect example of why your original posts no longer appear on my screen. I finally realized that it's simply impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation with you, and I no longer wanted to be tempted to try.

You start your post with yet another straw man argument: "If there is no law against a word being said, then the reaction that one gets by saying the word is not something that can be considered a violation of one's first amendment rights." I have never claimed that First Amendment rights are being violated; I have never claimed that there is some law in place against any word being said. Your attempts at deflection have gone beyond tedious.

I can understand that you don't want to give straight, direct answers to my straight, direct questions, because you've chosen to deny that PC even exists. As funny as that is, I request that you stop polluting my threads with your standard partisan ideology-driven denials, distortions, deflections, etc. Especially since you know I don't see your original posts.

I asked sincere, direct questions. Full disclosure, I never expect straight answers here. But I thought that in this case some would want to jump in with some honesty. We'll see.

.

Don't like my reply, see CC's post then. Unlike me, he still desires putting up with your arrogant and condescending tone. Unlike me, he still thinks you are willing to hear an opposing view and not claim that it is based in ignorance.

You have squandered what was once a real desire on my part to have discussions with you. What the **** was i thinking?

 

[daveman]

You see....it is not the words that matter......it is the intent.

Sometimes, it's who's saying the words.

 

[Ava]

Did you read 1984? One of the essential points it made was the destruction of the language and how language could be used to control a population. It worked double plus good.

Just as ObamaCare is designed to do....