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

[dilloduck]

If the goal is just to have a light pleasant chit chat then PC is fine. If you want to have an honest and rational conversation and exchange of ideas then PC is counter productive.

Thank you. Ok now explain to me why you think its counter productive? Show me how keeping the lines of communication flowing is a bad thing.

The offended person is the one who refuses to listen.

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

I've never had a conversation with anyone who has given me a list of words that offend them BEFORE we start speaking.

Thats great. What does that have to do with the observation I just pointed out to you? You claimed that the person that was offended and wouldnt listen was the only person not listening.

OK---two people decide to have a conversation. Let's assume they both want to learn something from it. Are you suggesting that hand each other a list of words that offend them before it starts so they can find alternate words to use instead of the ones that they normally use in conversations ?

 

[Meathead]

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

"Politically Correct" is an inherently derogatory term much like "Nazi" in content if not character.

Both are monolithic, intolerant and a creation of the left.

 

[kwc57]

Here's the problem with PC. It is employed by the weak minded and lazy who would rather be told what to think, how to live and how to speak by their government and/or popular culture than using critical thinking skills and common sense.

 

[Correll]

If the goal is just to have a light pleasant chit chat then PC is fine. If you want to have an honest and rational conversation and exchange of ideas then PC is counter productive.

Thank you. Ok now explain to me why you think its counter productive? Show me how keeping the lines of communication flowing is a bad thing.

The offended person is the one who refuses to listen.

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.

 

[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.

Dear Asclepias If the process of establishing neutral language is MUTUAL
as you describe above, where BOTH Sides are EQUALLY respected and free to address what offends them and what works,
then there is NO PROBLEM.

You seem to want it to be mutually open and want to hear all sides, whether you succeed at this or not.

However, what people are saying is it comes across as ONE SIDED
only ONE SIDE gets to say what is so offensive
but the other side gets struck down for doing the same.

I agree with you if the process were MUTUAL then it would be better received and practiced.

This wouldn't be called political correctness, but might be political inclusion or political sensitivity where both the right and left views are recognized as being excluded and offended by the language of the other.

None of that is true. If you and I are having a discussion and I dont want you to use certain words and you dont want me to use certain words then we have to work that out during the course of our discussion. There is no one side to this. Both parties get to have input on the language used. My back ground is in network engineering and we have these things called routing protocols. Basically the routing protocols talk to each other until they find a consensus on how they are going to communicate. Thats the only way they will be able to work. Humans are the same way and its not a one sided conversation.

 

[Correll]

No one has answered my question to this point. You have only talked around the question.

Again, there have been answers, but you don't like them.

So far only one answer and I condone the persons show of intellect.

I have explained why PC is "bad", I have separated etiquette from PC, where you try to amalgam the two. You can decide if you agree with my answer or not, but you cannot say I have not answered your question.

I already explained to you that PC and etiquette have nothing to do with each other. If you cant understand that I dont know what to tell you.

Your example of how your initial debated addressed the fictional woman in your example is one of etiquette. PC is about the content of the debate, not about the debaters.

Though the USER OF the tactic of Political Correctness might claim otherwise.

 

[Asclepias]

Here's the problem with PC. It is employed by the weak minded and lazy who would rather be told what to think, how to live and how to speak by their government and/or popular culture than using critical thinking skills and common sense.

I asked that you be able to prove your point not just state your opinion.

 

[Asclepias]

Thank you. Ok now explain to me why you think its counter productive? Show me how keeping the lines of communication flowing is a bad thing.

The offended person is the one who refuses to listen.

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

I've never had a conversation with anyone who has given me a list of words that offend them BEFORE we start speaking.

Thats great. What does that have to do with the observation I just pointed out to you? You claimed that the person that was offended and wouldnt listen was the only person not listening.

OK---two people decide to have a conversation. Let's assume they both want to learn something from it. Are you suggesting that hand each other a list of words that offend them before it starts so they can find alternate words to use instead of the ones that they normally use in conversations ?

Yes if thats the way they want to do it. Normal people just do it during the course of the conservation. You call me a dodo head and I say dont do that. Works pretty good.

 

[Meathead]

My favorite quote on PC:

"Spinoza said: ‘Every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts.’ The great fallacy of monolithic docrines like political correctness is that they seek to eliminate an important step in human cognition: the dialogue with the self, the act of dialectical mastication that allows us to absorb and process experience, to direct and enable our own moral lives. Only in the inviolable sanctuary of the soul, in the sacred act of self-communion, can man realize his own transcendence and salvation. Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages."

America in Crisis: The Triumph of Political Correctness

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Dear Asclepias If the process of establishing neutral language is MUTUAL
as you describe above, where BOTH Sides are EQUALLY respected and free to address what offends them and what works,
then there is NO PROBLEM.

You seem to want it to be mutually open and want to hear all sides, whether you succeed at this or not.

However, what people are saying is it comes across as ONE SIDED
only ONE SIDE gets to say what is so offensive
but the other side gets struck down for doing the same.

I agree with you if the process were MUTUAL then it would be better received and practiced.

This wouldn't be called political correctness, but might be political inclusion or political sensitivity where both the right and left views are recognized as being excluded and offended by the language of the other.

None of that is true. If you and I are having a discussion and I dont want you to use certain words and you dont want me to use certain words then we have to work that out during the course of our discussion. There is no one side to this. Both parties get to have input on the language used. My back ground is in network engineering and we have these things called routing protocols. Basically the routing protocols talk to each other until they find a consensus on how they are going to communicate. Thats the only way they will be able to work. Humans are the same way and its not a one sided conversation.

Humans aren't machines and you understand the words that offend you. You simply refuse to listen.

 

[Asclepias]

Thank you. Ok now explain to me why you think its counter productive? Show me how keeping the lines of communication flowing is a bad thing.

The offended person is the one who refuses to listen.

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.

 

[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.

Dear Asclepias If the process of establishing neutral language is MUTUAL
as you describe above, where BOTH Sides are EQUALLY respected and free to address what offends them and what works,
then there is NO PROBLEM.

You seem to want it to be mutually open and want to hear all sides, whether you succeed at this or not.

However, what people are saying is it comes across as ONE SIDED
only ONE SIDE gets to say what is so offensive
but the other side gets struck down for doing the same.

I agree with you if the process were MUTUAL then it would be better received and practiced.

This wouldn't be called political correctness, but might be political inclusion or political sensitivity where both the right and left views are recognized as being excluded and offended by the language of the other.

None of that is true. If you and I are having a discussion and I dont want you to use certain words and you dont want me to use certain words then we have to work that out during the course of our discussion. There is no one side to this. Both parties get to have input on the language used. My back ground is in network engineering and we have these things called routing protocols. Basically the routing protocols talk to each other until they find a consensus on how they are going to communicate. Thats the only way they will be able to work. Humans are the same way and its not a one sided conversation.

Humans aren't machines and you understand the words that offend you. You simply refuse to listen.

I agree but the machines are modeled on human behavior.

 

[dilloduck]

The offended person is the one who refuses to listen.

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

I've never had a conversation with anyone who has given me a list of words that offend them BEFORE we start speaking.

Thats great. What does that have to do with the observation I just pointed out to you? You claimed that the person that was offended and wouldnt listen was the only person not listening.

OK---two people decide to have a conversation. Let's assume they both want to learn something from it. Are you suggesting that hand each other a list of words that offend them before it starts so they can find alternate words to use instead of the ones that they normally use in conversations ?

Yes if thats the way they want to do it. Normal people just do it during the course of the conservation. You call me a dodo head and I say dont do that. Works pretty good.

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

 

[dilloduck]

The offended person is the one who refuses to listen.

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.

You mean when the offender doesn't censor himself simply because you want him to.

 

[Asclepias]

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

I've never had a conversation with anyone who has given me a list of words that offend them BEFORE we start speaking.

Thats great. What does that have to do with the observation I just pointed out to you? You claimed that the person that was offended and wouldnt listen was the only person not listening.

OK---two people decide to have a conversation. Let's assume they both want to learn something from it. Are you suggesting that hand each other a list of words that offend them before it starts so they can find alternate words to use instead of the ones that they normally use in conversations ?

Yes if thats the way they want to do it. Normal people just do it during the course of the conservation. You call me a dodo head and I say dont do that. Works pretty good.

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

 

[Correll]

The offended person is the one who refuses to listen.

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.

 

[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.

Dear Asclepias If the process of establishing neutral language is MUTUAL
as you describe above, where BOTH Sides are EQUALLY respected and free to address what offends them and what works,
then there is NO PROBLEM.

You seem to want it to be mutually open and want to hear all sides, whether you succeed at this or not.

However, what people are saying is it comes across as ONE SIDED
only ONE SIDE gets to say what is so offensive
but the other side gets struck down for doing the same.

I agree with you if the process were MUTUAL then it would be better received and practiced.

This wouldn't be called political correctness, but might be political inclusion or political sensitivity where both the right and left views are recognized as being excluded and offended by the language of the other.

None of that is true. If you and I are having a discussion and I dont want you to use certain words and you dont want me to use certain words then we have to work that out during the course of our discussion. There is no one side to this. Both parties get to have input on the language used. My back ground is in network engineering and we have these things called routing protocols. Basically the routing protocols talk to each other until they find a consensus on how they are going to communicate. Thats the only way they will be able to work. Humans are the same way and its not a one sided conversation.

Humans aren't machines and you understand the words that offend you. You simply refuse to listen.

I agree but the machines are modeled on human behavior.

There is only ONE side here that is refusing to listen

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You mean when the offender doesn't censor himself simply because you want him to.

Exactly.

 

[dilloduck]

I've never had a conversation with anyone who has given me a list of words that offend them BEFORE we start speaking.

Thats great. What does that have to do with the observation I just pointed out to you? You claimed that the person that was offended and wouldnt listen was the only person not listening.

OK---two people decide to have a conversation. Let's assume they both want to learn something from it. Are you suggesting that hand each other a list of words that offend them before it starts so they can find alternate words to use instead of the ones that they normally use in conversations ?

Yes if thats the way they want to do it. Normal people just do it during the course of the conservation. You call me a dodo head and I say dont do that. Works pretty good.

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

 

[kwc57]

Here's the problem with PC. It is employed by the weak minded and lazy who would rather be told what to think, how to live and how to speak by their government and/or popular culture than using critical thinking skills and common sense.

I asked that you be able to prove your point not just state your opinion.

I'm well aware of what you asked. I also have enough experience with you to be well aware that you base everything off of your opinion and are never swayed by proof given. So I cut to the chase and countered with my opinion.