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

[Bonzi]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

LOL. No.

Explain.

If I reference a PC taboo subject in the course of making a point, that is not bullying.

Some "offendee" who spends days viciously slandering someone because that person made a point the "offendee" could not answer honestly, is bullying.

If you constantly having to think about how you say things before you say it due to fear of retribution or because people will think less of you because of what you say, that is bullying. It’s a peer pressure type of bullying, and putting a PC label on it, you can ad infinitum to the list as a way to control people. Thinking it’s for the greater good, when, in fact, it can/could have the reverse effect of resentment and hostility.

 

[jillian]

Thats inherently untrue. The person not being PC isnt listening to the offended person.

says who?

Intellect.

In my experience, I have constantly seen the "offenders" being willing and able to continue discussion the topic but unable to get the offended person to discuss it any more, as they are now focused on personally attacking the alleged offender.

That only occurs when the offender doesnt correct their mistake which shuts down communication.

Who says there was a mistake?

The claim of offense is a tactic, a way of shutting down a line of debate that is not going to the "offendees" way.

Your assumption that there is a real offense is unsupported.

And furthermore the idea itself is often considered the offense, so there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to continue to discuss the idea under the rules of Political Correctness.

one thing you should probably learn is that it's not for you to decide what should and should not offend others.

because really, no one cares if you think someone should be offended. but normal discourse, as you call it, does not include intentionally offending people and then saying "well, I don't care about political correctness".

what it really means is you're a bully without empathy. and childish, to boot, (which we knew from your psots) since only children don't respect social conventions.

 

[Correll]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

LOL. No.

Explain.

If I reference a PC taboo subject in the course of making a point, that is not bullying.

Some "offendee" who spends days viciously slandering someone because that person made a point the "offendee" could not answer honestly, is bullying.

Please explain and make sense. I would suggest you look up bullying first.

That was my explanation.

It was pretty clear. If you have a question, ask it.

 

[Correll]

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.

people can be as bigoted as they want (which is really what we're talking about) but there are ramifications to stupid. that's the part the bigots tend not to like.

realistically, it's just about not marginalizing people.

No, we are not talking about being bigoted.

 

[Asclepias]

The inherent reason is that no one is listening when discussion is heated. Everyone is talking at each other and over each other instead of with each other. If talking was like chess then people would have time to think before responding. Unfortunately that breaks most of the protocols of conversing.

If the person "thinking" is purposefully using Political Correctness as a tactic to avoid the topic and launch personal attacks there will be no productive discussion regardless of how heated or not the discussion was.

Which is the goal.

Instead of admitting the other side has the point, the user of PC can claim victory because he/she defamed and demonized his opponent.

And it is true. Policies have been crafted and maintained in this fashion to the detriment of the society as a whole.

This is where you use your intellect. If a person is launching attacks they obviously are not trying to communicate. They are doing the same thing that people who refuse to be PC are doing.

No, they are not.

People who refuse to be PC are refusing to self censor.

People who launch personal attacks are censoring others, by ending debates they were losing.

My intellect has nothing to do with this process.

Refusing to self censor is a failure. Specifically a failure to communicate because if you dont self censor no one is going to listen or be influenced by your opinion.

People who launch personal attacks are not censoring anyone. They are just launching personal attacks and yes ending conversation. If you want to debate then you have to follow the rules. If you want to keep talking you are free to do so hence you are not being censored. Its just that no one is listening to you.

It is not Common Sense to expect people to Self Censor.

I don't expect anyone else to Self Censor in order to talk to me.

Yes, people who shut down debates by launching personal attacks are censoring because they are preventing public speech they do not like.

There are no rules requiring Self Censorship. That is not a reasonable expectation.

It is telling that you want for "productive discussion" to involve those you disagree with to have to self Censor, and for youto be the Judge of when they fail to do so well enough.

Actually it is common sense to expect people to self censor if they want to be listened to. Where did you get this idea that it wasnt common sense?

 

[Correll]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

LOL. No.

Explain.

If I reference a PC taboo subject in the course of making a point, that is not bullying.

Some "offendee" who spends days viciously slandering someone because that person made a point the "offendee" could not answer honestly, is bullying.

If you constantly having to think about how you say things before you say it due to fear of retribution or because people will think less of you because of what you say, that is bullying. It’s a peer pressure type of bullying, and putting a PC label on it, you can ad infinitum to the list as a way to control people. Thinking it’s for the greater good, when, in fact, it can/could have the reverse effect of resentment and hostility.

VEry much correct. I can attest to the effect of resentment and hostility personally and to a great extent.

 

[Asclepias]

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

LOL. No.

Explain.

If I reference a PC taboo subject in the course of making a point, that is not bullying.

Some "offendee" who spends days viciously slandering someone because that person made a point the "offendee" could not answer honestly, is bullying.

Please explain and make sense. I would suggest you look up bullying first.

That was my explanation.

It was pretty clear. If you have a question, ask it.

You didnt explain anything. Thats why I asked you to make sense.

 

[jillian]

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.

people can be as bigoted as they want (which is really what we're talking about) but there are ramifications to stupid. that's the part the bigots tend not to like.

realistically, it's just about not marginalizing people.

No, we are not talking about being bigoted.

you are talking about being insensitive to others. that is generally the result of bigotry

 

[Skull Pilot]

He obviously was discussing his judgement of people based on his observations of their actions.

For you to conclude he was implying he could read minds was not Common Sense.

That would be assuming his observations and the opinion he formed after making those observations was correct. What makes him qualified to push his opinion as fact?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

Thats correct. My opinion is not fact just like the claim that people are using PC to avoid debate.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

 

[jillian]

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

LOL. No.

Explain.

If I reference a PC taboo subject in the course of making a point, that is not bullying.

Some "offendee" who spends days viciously slandering someone because that person made a point the "offendee" could not answer honestly, is bullying.

If you constantly having to think about how you say things before you say it due to fear of retribution or because people will think less of you because of what you say, that is bullying. It’s a peer pressure type of bullying, and putting a PC label on it, you can ad infinitum to the list as a way to control people. Thinking it’s for the greater good, when, in fact, it can/could have the reverse effect of resentment and hostility.

VEry much correct. I can attest to the effect of resentment and hostility personally and to a great extent.

both of you are wrong. it's about having good manners. not "being afraid" because again, what is it you're afraid of, being called on saying something that is construed as bigoted.

you want a blanket pass.

that's just silly, imo.

 

[emilynghiem]

So far no one has explained why being PC is a bad thing when attempting to communicate with someone. Can someone address that and make sense?

What Asclepias? TNHarley and I both explained in multiple ways and examples
how PC fails when it is one sided and controlling someone else. That is how it is a bad thing!
We already answered that many times, in many different ways, all complaining about the same basic thing.

EX:
(1) by projecting and making telling or dictating to others how to say or think
(2) by collectively blaming whole groups which invokes rejection hostility defensiveness and the opposite
reaction of not only refusing but going on the counteroffensive and demanding the other side change their attitude first
(3) by not being mutual but hypocritical
enforcing PC only when it benefits that person or group agenda,
but refusing to include others or change when asked to be more sensitive in other areas

I acknowledged when TN provided an example.

Great Asclepias
So how do we take that example and "spell out"
in the terms you need to see to verify the question was answered.

How do we take the concept expressed and put it in "correct terms" you recognize as on target.

Instead of accepting TNHarley's way of expressing that answer
with respect to that individual,
how do we force a political correct standard that satisfies your need,
onto the meaning that TNHarley conveyed,
where you don't blame or judge any of us for "not answering your question"
because our meaning did not fit your projected standards or expectations.

Can you please show us how to take what we said
and say it the way you need it said, so we can do that next time.
Instead of accusing us of not answering because we can't read
your mind and say it exactly as you need it spelled out to feel we answered it.

Its pretty easy. You take the question I posed in the OP and tell me how being PC stops you from communicating.

^ EXCELLENT Asclepias YOU JUST ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION ^
This thread shows you directly.

People answered using examples.
And you said they didn't answer the question.

That's exactly how PC prevents people from communicating.
This illustrates the point, thanks to OldLady TNHarley et al.

 

[jillian]

That would be assuming his observations and the opinion he formed after making those observations was correct. What makes him qualified to push his opinion as fact?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

Thats correct. My opinion is not fact just like the claim that people are using PC to avoid debate.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

calling something a "PC tactic" is just a way of excusing bigotry and thinking no one should call you on it.

 

[Asclepias]

That would be assuming his observations and the opinion he formed after making those observations was correct. What makes him qualified to push his opinion as fact?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

Thats correct. My opinion is not fact just like the claim that people are using PC to avoid debate.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Thats not a PC tactic. Thats actually proof that not being PC shuts down communication.

 

[jillian]

So far no one has explained why being PC is a bad thing when attempting to communicate with someone. Can someone address that and make sense?

What Asclepias? TNHarley and I both explained in multiple ways and examples
how PC fails when it is one sided and controlling someone else. That is how it is a bad thing!
We already answered that many times, in many different ways, all complaining about the same basic thing.

EX:
(1) by projecting and making telling or dictating to others how to say or think
(2) by collectively blaming whole groups which invokes rejection hostility defensiveness and the opposite
reaction of not only refusing but going on the counteroffensive and demanding the other side change their attitude first
(3) by not being mutual but hypocritical
enforcing PC only when it benefits that person or group agenda,
but refusing to include others or change when asked to be more sensitive in other areas

I acknowledged when TN provided an example.

Great Asclepias
So how do we take that example and "spell out"
in the terms you need to see to verify the question was answered.

How do we take the concept expressed and put it in "correct terms" you recognize as on target.

Instead of accepting TNHarley's way of expressing that answer
with respect to that individual,
how do we force a political correct standard that satisfies your need,
onto the meaning that TNHarley conveyed,
where you don't blame or judge any of us for "not answering your question"
because our meaning did not fit your projected standards or expectations.

Can you please show us how to take what we said
and say it the way you need it said, so we can do that next time.
Instead of accusing us of not answering because we can't read
your mind and say it exactly as you need it spelled out to feel we answered it.

Its pretty easy. You take the question I posed in the OP and tell me how being PC stops you from communicating.

^ EXCELLENT Asclepias YOU JUST ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION ^
This thread shows you directly.

People answered using examples.
And you said they didn't answer the question.

That's exactly how PC prevents people from communicating.
This illustrates the point, thanks to OldLady TNHarley et al.

what are you talking about?

 

[Skull Pilot]

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

Thats correct. My opinion is not fact just like the claim that people are using PC to avoid debate.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

calling something a "PC tactic" is just a way of excusing bigotry and thinking no one should call you on it.

You assume that everything that offends the PC crowd is indeed bigotry

 

[Bonzi]

There is a line.
The problem is it's different places for different people.
So there can be no steadfast rule.

But I understand why people get tired of being told things are not PC because some of them are dumb.

 

[Asclepias]

So far no one has explained why being PC is a bad thing when attempting to communicate with someone. Can someone address that and make sense?

What Asclepias? TNHarley and I both explained in multiple ways and examples
how PC fails when it is one sided and controlling someone else. That is how it is a bad thing!
We already answered that many times, in many different ways, all complaining about the same basic thing.

EX:
(1) by projecting and making telling or dictating to others how to say or think
(2) by collectively blaming whole groups which invokes rejection hostility defensiveness and the opposite
reaction of not only refusing but going on the counteroffensive and demanding the other side change their attitude first
(3) by not being mutual but hypocritical
enforcing PC only when it benefits that person or group agenda,
but refusing to include others or change when asked to be more sensitive in other areas

I acknowledged when TN provided an example.

Great Asclepias
So how do we take that example and "spell out"
in the terms you need to see to verify the question was answered.

How do we take the concept expressed and put it in "correct terms" you recognize as on target.

Instead of accepting TNHarley's way of expressing that answer
with respect to that individual,
how do we force a political correct standard that satisfies your need,
onto the meaning that TNHarley conveyed,
where you don't blame or judge any of us for "not answering your question"
because our meaning did not fit your projected standards or expectations.

Can you please show us how to take what we said
and say it the way you need it said, so we can do that next time.
Instead of accusing us of not answering because we can't read
your mind and say it exactly as you need it spelled out to feel we answered it.

Its pretty easy. You take the question I posed in the OP and tell me how being PC stops you from communicating.

^ EXCELLENT Asclepias YOU JUST ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION ^
This thread shows you directly.

People answered using examples.
And you said they didn't answer the question.

That's exactly how PC prevents people from communicating.
This illustrates the point, thanks to OldLady TNHarley et al.

No one answered using an example except Bonzi and TN. Again this is using the definition of PC I posted earlier.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

Thats correct. My opinion is not fact just like the claim that people are using PC to avoid debate.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Thats not a PC tactic. Thats actually proof that not being PC shuts down communication.

It's the PC people shutting down the conversation because they can't separate their oh so fragile feelings from the argument

 

[Ravi]

That would be assuming his observations and the opinion he formed after making those observations was correct. What makes him qualified to push his opinion as fact?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

Thats correct. My opinion is not fact just like the claim that people are using PC to avoid debate.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

 

[Valerie]

open your eyes and recognize your own various contradictions, people...



"Short of walking into a conversation, sandblasting the brick and installing track lighting, there is no surer way to announce one is from the 1980s than to mount an assault on 'political correctness,' the contemporary phrase for which is "not being a jackass."

Political correctness - RationalWiki

The cliché term political correctness or "PC" is a snarl word usually referring to upholding a social taboo against language and attitudes that might be considered offensive and/or stupid.[1] This loaded term has become a boogey-man for the right-wing, who use it to tar anything that runs contrary to their own policies, such as letting women out of the kitchen or gays out of the closet.

Ruth Perry wrote in an essay entitled A Short History of the Term "Politically Correct"[2] that the term was first coined by Mao Zedong,[3] but was later hijacked by conservative eclectics who proceeded to overuse it in exactly the manner above described, hence taking all the juice out of it.[4] (Defending oneself with it might be the most popular handwave to dismiss social criticism.) More recently, advocates of political correctness have therefore substituted the term "civilized speech" for "politically correct" in order to boost its image in light of the PC backlash.

In full irony, conservatives have also adopted political correctness widely; trying to justify censorship on the grounds that something is "offensive to Christians," for example, or Conservapedia's insistence on BC/AD to the total exclusion of BCE/CE.

In fact, it's probably helpful to remember that in common parlance anything a conservative would consider to be polite speech isn't PC, whereas anything a liberal would consider to be polite speech is. This is why banning the "f-word" from broadcast is neutral and not PC at all, whereas banning a racial epithet from broadcast is.[5]

As above, passive-aggressive people who defend racism or reactionary views and but don't want to be labeled that way attack dissenters as "politically correct."[6]