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

[dilloduck]

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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

 

[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.

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

I disagree but lets pretend you are right. Are you claiming that you shouldnt talk to people you are trying to communicate with?

 

[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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

 

[TNHarley]

So basically the OP is just saying be nice. lol
I am sure we can ALL agree with that one. The problem enters when you have to re-define terms, not even talk about something, or hide your true emotions. Especially by way of legislation or having your life destroyed.

 

[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.

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

No. Its always been part of human nature. I dont like what you are saying and I cease to hear your point.

 

[martybegan]

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.

PC doesn't attempt to define the conversation, it seeks to control the conversation.

 

[AquaAthena]

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.

In communication, I want to hear the person speak as they truly feel. Not to be who they are not. This way, I learn more about them, sooner than later and can quickly determine if I want to associate with them or or not. Honesty is still the best policy.

 

[Asclepias]

So basically the OP is just saying be nice. lol
I am sure we can ALL agree with that one. The problem enters when you have to re-define terms, not even talk about something, or hide your true emotions. Especially by way of legislation or having your life destroyed.

Youre assuming your definition of the terms is correct and its the same definition of the person you are speaking to holds which is never the case.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

PC doesn't attempt to define the conversation, it seeks to control the conversation.

Saying it again doesnt make it true. I already gave you the definition of PC. Its controlling the method by which the conversation is conducted.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

If you are offended by words then you are unable to communicate rationally with them.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Asclepias
I think the posts by TNHarley explain it best
(1) it should not come across as the govt or "some other group"
trying to dictate to others how to say things or change their ways.
Nobody I know responds well to that approach
(2) with free speech, the focus should be on free choice to be more sensitive, not forcing it.
Such as Christians who use Bible language when they speak with each other,
"choosing or agreeing" to use secular terms when speaking with an atheist.
Faith in Jesus can be translated into faith in justice.
Faith in Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice, while Retributive Justice by ill will and fear that fuels war
is Antichrist and Satanic that causes hell.

This has to be respected as free choice and can't be forced on people or it's fake.

If you do not embrace the idea of Christians telling everyone we ALL have to pray
"in the name of Jesus" to be united and correct -- by FORCE instead of uniting by free choice --
as the only TRUE and correct way, then we can't expect others to magically adopt
our way of saying things by force or collective pressure. It is only truly unifying if it
is chosen by free will, because it is natural for people, and makes sense to say or do it that way.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

In communication, I want to hear the person speak as they truly feel. Not to be who they are not. This way, I learn more about them, sooner than later and can quickly determine if I want to associate with them or or not. Honesty is still the best policy.

Yes, and that's key.

Those who perpetrate this tactic DON'T want ANYONE to know what you're thinking.

Those of us who are against the tactic are confident in our arguments and are more than happy to have the opposing side exposed. These people are not.
.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

If you are offended by words then you are unable to communicate rationally with them.

Thats nonsensical. No one is offended by all words.

 

[AquaAthena]

So basically the OP is just saying be nice. lol
I am sure we can ALL agree with that one. The problem enters when you have to re-define terms, not even talk about something, or hide your true emotions. Especially by way of legislation or having your life destroyed.

The real problem is shutting down free speech.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

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.

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

If you are offended by words then you are unable to communicate rationally with them.

Thats nonsensical. No one is offended by all words.

I didn't say ALL words.

 

[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.

Dear Asclepias
I think the posts by TNHarley explain it best
(1) it should not come across as the govt or "some other group"
trying to dictate to others how to say things or change their ways.
Nobody I know responds well to that approach
(2) with free speech, the focus should be on free choice to be more sensitive, not forcing it.
Such as Christians who use Bible language when they speak with each other,
"choosing or agreeing" to use secular terms when speaking with an atheist.
Faith in Jesus can be translated into faith in justice.
Faith in Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice, while Retributive Justice by ill will and fear that fuels war
is Antichrist and Satanic that causes hell.

This has to be respected as free choice and can't be forced on people or it's fake.

If you do not embrace the idea of Christians telling everyone we ALL have to pray
"in the name of Jesus" to be united and correct -- by FORCE instead of uniting by free choice --
as the only TRUE and correct way, then we can't expect others to magically adopt
our way of saying things by force or collective pressure. It is only truly unifying if it
is chosen by free will, because it is natural for people, and makes sense to say or do it that way.

I dont understand your point about the government. Please explain. Now some other group is totally different. If that groups says "dont call us dodos" and you continue to call them dodos then you have broken down the communication you wanted with them. Again this is the difference between talking with someone and hoping to influence a change or talking at someone and not communicating at all.

 

[Asclepias]

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

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

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

Being offended is a fault. It is something to be owned and either accepted or overcome.

Who gave you this rule and how does it foster communcation?

If you are offended by words then you are unable to communicate rationally with them.

Thats nonsensical. No one is offended by all words.

I didn't say ALL words.

You didnt specify you were not talking about all words. How was I supposed to know you meant only some words?

 

[Asclepias]

So basically the OP is just saying be nice. lol
I am sure we can ALL agree with that one. The problem enters when you have to re-define terms, not even talk about something, or hide your true emotions. Especially by way of legislation or having your life destroyed.

The real problem is shutting down free speech.

This isnt about free speech. This is about effective speech or as you call it PC.

 

[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.

In communication, I want to hear the person speak as they truly feel. Not to be who they are not. This way, I learn more about them, sooner than later and can quickly determine if I want to associate with them or or not. Honesty is still the best policy.

I wasnt asking what you wanted. I was talking about using speech that people will accept so they can hear your message.

 

[AquaAthena]

One of the reasons Trump is so popular with real people is that he couldn't care less about political correctness. Just wish his ambitions were doable. Meanwhile it is Cruz/Carly for me.