Debate Now Why Is Being "Politically Correct" A Bad Thing To Some People?

[Asclepias]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

 

[TNHarley]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

 

[Asclepias]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

 

[dilloduck]

Then the offended party needs to learn how to overcome his issues so he is able to listen rationally.

 

[TNHarley]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Then they should quit being so insecure. People need to grow up.
I see what you are saying, my point was, there is nothing wrong with being nice and hiding your true feelings(lol). It is a problem when you have a citizenry that wants it FORCED. Or, if not by govt, you get socially assassinated.

 

[martybegan]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

 

[Vigilante]

Free Speech is FORBIDDEN under PC...simple as that.... YOU have the right to be outraged by what I say, as I do with what you say!

 

[emilynghiem]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

(1) When the focus is on people correcting ourselves first, respecting the freedom of others to do the same, while encouraging them by our example,
this is not seen as negative. That is the proper priority.
(2) but too often people either
(a) try to force someone else to change out of guilt or anger or ill will over the issue
(b) insult or attack people personally instead of focusing on the actual content and points
(and Asclepias let's be honest, I even saw you jumping on people personally instead of just sticking to content, this is human, we all do it when we get pushed personally, of course, we get personal in return)
(c) blame or attack "whole groups" that "represent" that problem or inability to communicate, which insults anyone who associates with that group and puts them "on the defensive" so dialogue becomes hostile

I'd compare it to when Christians or prolife try to convince others.
Do you like it when they
(a) try to guilt trip or force you to change just because they changed their minds and decided X was wrong
(b) insult or attack you personally if you do not automatically understand or want to listen to their views
(c) blame or attack you as "representing a whole group" they are opposed to hostilely

If you don't like when opponents push things on you in a hostile, insulting way,
that's how people too often come across with
political correctness
global warming
equal marriage rights
gun control and health care reforms
immigration policies

the common factor I see that causes rejection
is rejecting the person or group to begin with,
then wondering why they don't respond any better
than if some person or group approached us that way.

we get what we give

if we project hostility and blame, don't want to listen to reason and understand the other side,
what makes them feel safe enough to listen to us and understand our side?

 

[Asclepias]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

The person being offended is the one that defines this of course. How can you offend yourself? For example. I say "hey woman this is the deal". The woman in turn asks me not to speak to her in that manner. Has nothing to do with the weight of the argument. Its only concerning the manner in which the information is exchanged. If I cant become PC and respect her wishes I just cut off communication. I may walk away feeling as if I "won" something but I have actually lost more. All I have really done is self validate my beliefs instead of learning something.

 

[Asclepias]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Then they should quit being so insecure. People need to grow up.
I see what you are saying, my point was, there is nothing wrong with being nice and hiding your true feelings(lol). It is a problem when you have a citizenry that wants it FORCED. Or, if not by govt, you get socially assassinated.

What does that mean? Why should they quit being insecure because you think they should? You dont have to hide your true feelings to be PC. Maybe thats the issue. You just have to have the intellect necessary to articulate your feelings without offending someone.

 

[TNHarley]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

The person being offended is the one that defines this of course. How can you offend yourself? For example. I say "hey woman this is the deal". The woman in turn asks me not to speak to her in that manner. Has nothing to do with the weight of the argument. Its only concerning the manner in which the information is exchanged. If I cant become PC and respect her wishes I just cut off communication. I may walk away feeling as if I "won" something but I have actually lost more. All I have really done is self validate my beliefs instead of learning something.

I wouldn't think, typically, people are talking about things like that when they say "PC is bad". That is just displaying that you have no respect.

 

[martybegan]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

The person being offended is the one that defines this of course. How can you offend yourself? For example. I say "hey woman this is the deal". The woman in turn asks me not to speak to her in that manner. Has nothing to do with the weight of the argument. Its only concerning the manner in which the information is exchanged. If I cant become PC and respect her wishes I just cut off communication. I may walk away feeling as if I "won" something but I have actually lost more. All I have really done is self validate my beliefs instead of learning something.

You are confusing PC with etiquette. Today's PC jumps to minutia, about what pronoun you are supposed to use, and if you use the wrong one, how much of an offense that is. It's gotten to the point where having the last name "Lynch" and having as the name of a Stadium is somehow offensive. In your example, you are not being un-PC, you are being uncouth, and there is a difference.

 

[Hossfly]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

One example: Yesterday there was a news flash about a kid who was suspended from school for wearing a Star Wars T-shirt promoting the new movie coming soon. The kid was told to remove or cover the T-shirt because the blasters carried by the soldiers resembled guns and therefore depicted violence. Were liberals not given common sense when brains were passed out?

 

[TNHarley]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Then they should quit being so insecure. People need to grow up.
I see what you are saying, my point was, there is nothing wrong with being nice and hiding your true feelings(lol). It is a problem when you have a citizenry that wants it FORCED. Or, if not by govt, you get socially assassinated.

What does that mean? Why should they quit being insecure because you think they should? You dont have to hide your true feelings to be PC. Maybe thats the issue. You just have to have the intellect necessary to articulate your feelings without offending someone.

Per your previous post, I don't think we are talking about the same thing.
I am referring to having to dumb down conversation, only use certain terms and not even MENTION others. Your example was one of disrespect.

 

[TooTall]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

One example: Yesterday there was a news flash about a kid who was suspended from school for wearing a Star Wars T-shirt promoting the new movie coming soon. The kid was told to remove or cover the T-shirt because the blasters carried by the soldiers resembled guns and therefore depicted violence. Were liberals not given common sense when brains were passed out?

The answer to your question is NO they weren't.

 

[Asclepias]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

Who gets to define offended? PC tries to impart an artificial constraint on debate, often to the advantage of the person with the weaker position/argument (real or perceived weakness).

The goal of PC isn't to debate, it's to squash debate, because the crux of those who ascribe to PC is that there really isn't any argument. Their position is "right" and anyone who disagrees is an idiot who needs to be silenced, or some maleficent entity that needs to be silenced.

The person being offended is the one that defines this of course. How can you offend yourself? For example. I say "hey woman this is the deal". The woman in turn asks me not to speak to her in that manner. Has nothing to do with the weight of the argument. Its only concerning the manner in which the information is exchanged. If I cant become PC and respect her wishes I just cut off communication. I may walk away feeling as if I "won" something but I have actually lost more. All I have really done is self validate my beliefs instead of learning something.

You are confusing PC with etiquette. Today's PC jumps to minutia, about what pronoun you are supposed to use, and if you use the wrong one, how much of an offense that is. It's gotten to the point where having the last name "Lynch" and having as the name of a Stadium is somehow offensive. In your example, you are not being un-PC, you are being uncouth, and there is a difference.

PC is not the same as etiquette. I'm using this definition.

politically correct
adjective
1.
demonstrating progressive ideals, esp by avoiding vocabulary that is considered offensive, discriminatory, or judgmental, esp concerning race and gender PC

 

[SassyIrishLass]

PC is for cowards who need "safe spaces". Most likely due to poor upbringing

 

[WelfareQueen]

The truth shall set you free. Political correctness often attempts to obscure the truth and squash a free exchange of ideas.

I would much rather have a person's honest opinion. At least then you know where they stand.

 

[Asclepias]

Then the offended party needs to learn how to overcome his issues so he is able to listen rationally.

Says who? What authority made this rule?

 

[Mac1958]

Political Correctness was kind of cute at first, a few people insisting that we say "dwarf" instead of "midget" and "receptionist" instead of "secretary", that stuff.

Yeah, okay, whatever, eyeroll, that's fine.

It's when it became weaponized that things changed. The Regressive Left realized that it could not only intimidate people into using words and phrases that it wanted us to use, but it could control the conversation by controlling conversation and (much more effectively) punish people.

They did this by turning our own freedoms against us. "Hey", they claim, "I'm just exercising my freedom of expression to see to it that you are damaged or destroyed for saying what you're thinking". Brilliant, I must say. And very intimidating.

Obviously this flies in the face of the spirit of freedom of expression, but they don't care. They want to avoid topics that are difficult for them, and they want to control others. What better way than through the language and the culture?
.