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

[Asclepias]

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.

I would too. However if a person isnt intelligent enough to render that opinion without offending why would I give it any credibility?

 

[TNHarley]

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?
.

I was just thinking I should alert you to this thread LOL

 

[Ava]

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.

Perfectly-stated. Nothing to add.

 

[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.

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

That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.

Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.

When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.

 

[Ringel05]

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

Then you need to expand your definition to be all inclusive and not simply narrowly focused in an obvious effort to "stack" the argument in your favor.
By the way your "flowery" definition is nothing more than a kinder, gentler way of saying; "let's stifle any free speech we disagree with or what we determine is offensive and derogatory".
To be completely un-PC, blow it out your ass........

 

[Asclepias]

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?
.

If the people using the offending language were actually looking for resolution wouldnt it be in their best interests to find a way to communicate without offending? What it sounds like to me is that using the term PC is really just an excuse for the offending party to not exercise their intellect. That concept goes against every leadership quality I have ever observed or read about.

 

[dilloduck]

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?

It's not a rule. It's reality. An emotionally driven conversation isn't rational.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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

That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.

Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.

When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.

That doesnt make sense though. There is no limit to what offends someone. You cant tell someone something doesnt offend them. Youre not them.

 

[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.

I would too. However if a person isnt intelligent enough to render that opinion without offending why would I give it any credibility?

Only you can allow yourself to be "offended." Unless someone's views advocate violence against others I could give a crap. I suspect you mostly feel the same way.

 

[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?

It's not a rule. It's reality. An emotionally driven conversation isn't rational.

You dont seem to understand that people are not going to listen to you if your offensive. Its amazing you consider offending someone rational if your aim is to communicate.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

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

That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.

Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.

When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.

Bravo.
.

 

[martybegan]

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?

What authority made the rule that the level of discourse is set by the most easily offended person in the discussion?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

I would too. However if a person isnt intelligent enough to render that opinion without offending why would I give it any credibility?

Only you can allow yourself to be "offended." Unless someone's views advocate violence against others I could give a crap. I suspect you mostly feel the same way.

Yes thats correct only you determine what offends you. So your position is you could give a crap if your goal is not obtained and you cant communicate with someone? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Ava]

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

You are already being judgmental ^^^ by expecting others to be whom they may not be, by dictating what is considered offensive, discriminatory and relating to race and gender. Let people be, who they are at home?

 

[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?

What authority made the rule that the level of discourse is set by the most easily offended person in the discussion?

Human nature. I'm amazed you dont understand that concept.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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

That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.

Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.

When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.

That doesnt make sense though. There is no limit to what offends someone. You cant tell someone something doesnt offend them. Youre not them.

It's not telling them "not to be offended", its not allowing them to define the conversation due to their preconceptions and inability to handle ideas they don't like.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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

You are already being judgmental ^^^ by expecting others to be whom they may not be, by dictating what is considered offensive, discriminatory and relating to race and gender. Let people be, who they are at home?

What? That doesnt make sense. Can you rephrase your post?

 

[dilloduck]

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?

It's not a rule. It's reality. An emotionally driven conversation isn't rational.

You dont seem to understand that people are not going to listen to you if your offensive. Its amazing you consider offending someone rational if your aim is to communicate.

No one is INTENDING to offend when they begin a rational conversation. If you are too unstable to have a rational conversation you should avoid them

 

[martybegan]

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?

What authority made the rule that the level of discourse is set by the most easily offended person in the discussion?

Human nature. I'm amazed you dont understand that concept.

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

 

[Asclepias]

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

That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.

Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.

When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.

That doesnt make sense though. There is no limit to what offends someone. You cant tell someone something doesnt offend them. Youre not them.

It's not telling them "not to be offended", its not allowing them to define the conversation due to their preconceptions and inability to handle ideas they don't like.

That doesnt make sense either. You cant have communication if both parties dont have input on defining the conversation.