Political correctness out of control

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How about Donald Trump and his speech on Mexicans and other bs?

Where is the threshold in where my freedom ends?

Is it okay, if I write a letter to news agencies asking that they not cover him? Is that too pc?

If I am a shareholder of a news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to not cover him?

If I am a consumer of news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to cover him?

If I work there and work on the debates, am I disallowed from asking Donald Trump to be considerate his next debate?

 

[dismal]

How about Donald Trump and his speech on Mexicans and other bs?

Where is the threshold in where my freedom ends?

Is it okay, if I write a letter to news agencies asking that they not cover him? Is that too pc?

If I am a shareholder of a news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to not cover him?

If I am a consumer of news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to cover him?

If I work there and work on the debates, am I disallowed from asking Donald Trump to be considerate his next debate?

You have a right to be offended by what offends you.

You have no right to not be offended.

You have a right to take what legal steps are available for you to take to silence those who offend you.

You do not have the right to use the force of government to silence those who offend you.

Others have the right to think you are a clown or an asshole for your attempts to silence those who offend you.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I've always found it curious that Conservatives have attacked political correctness. Let's consider the alternative:

1) Not listening to another's point of view
2) Actively insulting and disrespecting another person or group to their face
3) Dismissing another's opinion because of their race, culture, place of birth, girth

So what is so great about this?

- - - Updated - - -


Check the mirror before you judge others.

I didn't judge anyone there. But look at you.

Like I said check the mirror before judging others. And don't be so defensive.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How about Donald Trump and his speech on Mexicans and other bs?

Where is the threshold in where my freedom ends?

Is it okay, if I write a letter to news agencies asking that they not cover him? Is that too pc?

If I am a shareholder of a news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to not cover him?

If I am a consumer of news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to cover him?

If I work there and work on the debates, am I disallowed from asking Donald Trump to be considerate his next debate?

You have a right to be offended by what offends you.

You have no right to not be offended.

You have a right to take what legal steps are available for you to take to silence those who offend you.

You do not have the right to use the force of government to silence those who offend you.

Others have the right to think you are a clown or an asshole for your attempts to silence those who offend you.

What makes you think it's about "offending" me as opposed to say hate speech, misinformation, or hateful misinformation that could contribute to the rise of hate groups? I am not saying that any of these options are the "why" but I am asking why you think it's about offending me?

Also, these seem like contradictory statements:

You have a right to take what legal steps are available for you to take to silence those who offend you.

You do not have the right to use the force of government to silence those who offend you.

 

[dismal]

You have a right to be offended by what offends you.

You have no right to not be offended.

You have a right to take what legal steps are available for you to take to silence those who offend you.

You do not have the right to use the force of government to silence those who offend you.

Others have the right to think you are a clown or an asshole for your attempts to silence those who offend you.

What makes you think it's about "offending" me as opposed to say hate speech, misinformation, or hateful misinformation that could contribute to the rise of hate groups? I am not saying that any of these options are the "why" but I am asking why you think it's about offending me?

It doesn't matter why or what you don't like about what someone else is saying all of the above still applies.

Also, these seem like contradictory statements:

You have a right to take what legal steps are available for you to take to silence those who offend you.

You do not have the right to use the force of government to silence those who offend you.

It's legal for you to protest, buy TV time, conduct a letter writing campaign, boycott, go on a hunger strike,start a #hashtag, and/or probably do 1000 other things to shut someone up.

The government is not allowed to shut people up by force of law because it's unconstitutional for it to do so.

 

[ronburgundy]

How about Donald Trump and his speech on Mexicans and other bs?


Is it okay, if I write a letter to news agencies asking that they not cover him? Is that too pc?

If I am a shareholder of a news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to not cover him?

If I am a consumer of news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to cover him?

If I work there and work on the debates, am I disallowed from asking Donald Trump to be considerate his next debate?

You are allowed to do all those things, and others are allowed to point out when your actions are unreasonable or an attempt to silence valid discourse under the guise that you are protecting yourself or others from imagined harms of that speech.

Where is the threshold in where my freedom ends?

Where other people's freedom begins, which is at their ability to voice any and all ideas, provided they do not directly call for criminal actions against other persons, thereby constituting an effort to violate the legal liberties of others.
For example, you do not have the freedom to pass a law that bans other people's speech unless you can prove it is a direct attempt to cause criminal actions against others IOW, you don't have the freedom to pass most of the hate-speech laws on the books in Europe but fortunately struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional in the US.
You do not have the right to restrict speech on publicly funded college campuses, except in the very narrow (direct call for violence) sense above.
You do not have the right to engage the the type of physical protests that prohibit other people's freedom of movement in order to try and coerce people to use the language you prefer.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

You're missing the point. Why should it matter if he gets criticism for it? It's one thing being angry and offended.

I would say that the 'Political Correctness' of some content is inversely related to the number of people who are (or have the potential to be) offended by it. Whether one finds content offensive or not is more binary - either something offends you or it doesn't (even if you are only slightly offended the light is still on vs. completely off). Political Correctness exists more on a spectrum - if many people are offended, the content is probably not very PC and if no one is offended it's probably very PC. Granted, it is still an opinion. You aren't doing any actual polling, you're just trying to determine how many people might be offended - and if you were personally offended then you probably think more people will share your opinion.

But rather than dismiss something as not PC - which to me implies that it offends absolutely everyone, might it be better to consider content not very PC? or that there is a more PC alternative available?

In this case I don't have a problem with the curator asking the artist to change the title to something more politically correct, and I also don't have a problem with the artist saying "no, that actually misses the point of the art." In which case the gallery runs the art with the artist's title, and yes he gets criticicized for it and some people will be angry and offended (which as you point out isn't a big deal). But it is also true that the artist's selected title was not very PC and that more PC alternatives were available. I don't think that's out of control, that's just how it is.

Quite another to force the artist to change the name of the show. I'd say they're a world apart. The first is cool. The second is not cool.

That's also censorship and possibly breach of contract. Those are not cool and shouldn't be superceded by Political Correctness.

aa

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've always found it curious that Conservatives have attacked political correctness. Let's consider the alternative:

1) Not listening to another's point of view
2) Actively insulting and disrespecting another person or group to their face
3) Dismissing another's opinion because of their race, culture, place of birth, girth

So what is so great about this?

Are those really about political correctness? If you're actively trying to insult another than the term is hardly applicable, is it? I thought political correctness was primarily about self-censorship in order not to offend someone or some group. Shaming somebody for their lack of politically correctness only works if the person feels the shame. That's what's so insidious about it.

It's also confusing symbols for the thing. Louis CK nails it in the clip. There's no difference at all between saying "n-word" and "nigger". We have to be able to take any word in our mouths if only to be able to talk about it. Once we start banning words who the fuck knows what we're talking about? China has a long list of banned words. So what is the result. People use otherwise ordinary words for other things out of context and then everybody immediately understands what they're really talking about. Pre-freedom of press Europe was full of the same thing. All it ends up doing is making the public discourse slightly more impenetrable for immigrants and children, ie those with less than optimal command of language. These are people we should be trying to include as much as possible.

Just saying nigger doesn't make you a racist. It's the context that shows if it's racism or not. Today nobody cares about context. Just saying that word makes people squirt their morning coffee across the room and fall off their chairs.

 

[JonA]

Being liberal, I find political correctness to be perfectly opposed to the concept of liberalism.

A society cannot observe both at the same time.

I find it peculiar, some people seem to think everyone should be free to say what they want and believe, but at the exact same time, seem to be against other people being able to say what they want or believe in response to the original statement.

People are free to say as they think, but people aren't free to have an opinion on it. ???

Huh? I'm not sure how this relates to what I said...

 

[arkirk]

A long time ago I saw a political cartoon with politicians, dictators, and terrorists saying "Political correctness depends on your politics". There is no end of examples of people railing against PC, then turning around and denouncing some statement that they found offensive. It is supposed to be about not being a dick and being offensive, which I would agree with. But there are people who seem determined to be offended by anything that is in complete agreement to their ideas. So you have people who want to be openly offensive, people who want to censor anyone who they think is offensive, and wishy-washy types who are too afraid they might offend if they call someone out on the truth.

If I had to choose between those three extreme positions, I would likely side with those being openly offensive. I don't want censorship, and I want people to be called out on their BS rather than be afraid to offend them with the truth. Let the bigots use racial slurs freely, it makes them a lot easier to identify and avoid. After all, freedom of expression does not include freedom from repercussions from saying stupid stuff. Be offensive, and you will be treated accordingly.

To some extent I agree with you. I highlighted the part I agree with. I also feel that some forms of offensive language is threatening and intended to incite violence or harmful discrimination. These forms are not always as identifiable as they are coded forms of insult. Example: THUG used to describe any person at all regardless of his or her actual behavior. Usually applied in a racist context. Modern political offense is becoming far more subtle. We do not need to concern ourselves with the uniformed Nazi anywhere near as much as the banker denigrating the stupid fools who took out sub prime mortgages. This guy's exhibit does not particularly excite me and it is in a publicly owned venue. I say okay as long as we can have PISS CHRIST on display right next to it.

 

[dystopian]

In Sweden right now there's controversy about the artist Makode Linde who is setting up a show in Stockholm's flashiest and most central art venue. He's calling the show "Negerkungens återkomst" which is Swedish for "Return of the Nigger King".

Off topic, and also kind of on-topic: but isn't the Swedish 'neger' just the same as the Dutch 'neger', which simply means black person? The word has traditionally just been a neutral descriptive term (probably originating with the Spanish/Portugese term for the color black); there's other words that are actually equivalent to the American term in terms of connotation and offensiveness. More recently, people have started associating/confusing the term with the american slang, but these words are not proper translations of each other.

This could be seen as an example of what you're talking about; political correctness going so far as to change the meaning of words in one language because they sound similar to bad words in another, more culturally dominant language. I'm not sure I'd necessarily describe that as out of control behavior though, just a tad misguided.

 

[arkirk]

How about Donald Trump and his speech on Mexicans and other bs?

Where is the threshold in where my freedom ends?

Is it okay, if I write a letter to news agencies asking that they not cover him? Is that too pc?

If I am a shareholder of a news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to not cover him?

If I am a consumer of news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to cover him?

If I work there and work on the debates, am I disallowed from asking Donald Trump to be considerate his next debate?

I have signed petitions to get rid of that rapist thug lunatic homicidal maniac robber thief Trump. Feel free to criticize anything and everything about this vituperative piece of carbon consumption.

 

[Bronzeage]

How about Donald Trump and his speech on Mexicans and other bs?

Where is the threshold in where my freedom ends?

Is it okay, if I write a letter to news agencies asking that they not cover him? Is that too pc?

If I am a shareholder of a news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to not cover him?

If I am a consumer of news agency, should I not be allowed to ask the news agency to cover him?

If I work there and work on the debates, am I disallowed from asking Donald Trump to be considerate his next debate?

I have signed petitions to get rid of that rapist thug lunatic homicidal maniac robber thief Trump. Feel free to criticize anything and everything about this vituperative piece of carbon consumption.

What does "get rid of" mean in this context?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What does "get rid of" mean in this context?

If it means send him to Canada, then you can forget about that. We're full.

 

[untermensche]

"Political Correctness" is a term with no objective definition.

.

No term has an objective definition. Words are strings of squiggly line and/or sounds that at best come to have a commonly but never universally shared meaning, and even then that shared meaning changes over time.

Terms at least have agreed upon definitions.

"Political Correctness" has no definition what-so-ever.

It is just something people say when they have no rational objection and when they want to lump many kinds of behavior into the same irrational category.

It is kind of a voodoo spell.

 

[arkirk]

No term has an objective definition. Words are strings of squiggly line and/or sounds that at best come to have a commonly but never universally shared meaning, and even then that shared meaning changes over time.

Terms at least have agreed upon definitions.

"Political Correctness" has no definition what-so-ever.

It is just something people say when they have no rational objection and when they want to lump many kinds of behavior into the same irrational category.

It is kind of a voodoo spell.

You know there are buzzwords that are forbidden and buzzwords you can use to attack people for their color, their poverty, their homelessness, their immigration status. I think the television every night tells us what Hillary and Trump said and where they are campaigning. Last night Charlie Rose did an hour with Hillary. We did not hear one word about Bernie Sanders, where he has been and what he is saying. If you want to know what the idiot Ted Cruz is saying and where he is...okay. There is an unwritten schedule of allowable and unallowable conversation that the mainstream media observes. That is clear. So they have their own Political Correctness. I think it actually has a clearly defined rhetorical neighborhood and can be defined.

I have noticed that on most issues, the reporters on mainstream news shows ask Hillary and Trump and Cruz and even Christi what they think then tell us what Bernie thinks if they mention him at all. To actually show him with his supporters...kept a the bare minimum. That is how political correctness works. It is all in service of big money. The common man actually doesn't have a political correct or incorrect as he is just being shaped by market forces...and can like any good fascist change overnight depending on the news feed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are allowed to do all those things, and others are allowed to point out when your actions are unreasonable or an attempt to silence valid discourse under the guise that you are protecting yourself or others from imagined harms of that speech.

Do you think that Trump was engaging in "valid discourse?"

Where other people's freedom begins, which is at their ability to voice any and all ideas, provided they do not directly call for criminal actions against other persons, thereby constituting an effort to violate the legal liberties of others.

So then you'd be okay with a White teacher calling their Black students "niggers?"

 

[Bronzeage]

Do you think that Trump was engaging in "valid discourse?"

Where other people's freedom begins, which is at their ability to voice any and all ideas, provided they do not directly call for criminal actions against other persons, thereby constituting an effort to violate the legal liberties of others.

So then you'd be okay with a White teacher calling their Black students "niggers?"

It wouldn't be any bigger a problem than addressing the teacher as "Fucking Cunt."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Do you think that Trump was engaging in "valid discourse?"



So then you'd be okay with a White teacher calling their Black students "niggers?"

It wouldn't be any bigger a problem than addressing the teacher as "Fucking Cunt."

So verbal abuse and harassment laws?

 

[ronburgundy]

Can you point to anyone is this thread who thinks that those who advocate PC positions should not be free to advocate those positions. The critique against PC is itself just a voicing the argument that the PC position is morally vacuous and often factually incorrect dogmatism. In addition, PC advocates often go beyond merely voicing displeasure with other people's language, and attempt to rob others of the freedom to voice theirs via regulations that prohibit and punish speech.

Prohibit and punish speech? Interesting. Where?

Nearly every so-called "hate-speech" law seeks to do this, and fails to require that the speech be intended to incite criminal acts against others. Many such laws in Europe do not even require that the speech be intended to stir up "hate", merely that it might be interpreted in a manner that might be offensive to particular groups.
As the ACLU correctly points out, radical leftists have coerced college campuses into adopting policies that prohibit and punish speech, again without any requirement that he speech be shown to have an actual or intended effect of inciting unlawful action towards anyone.

On the whole the PC advocates have been unsuccessful in the US in getting bans and punishment enshrined into government law, because fortunately SCOTUS has struck such efforts down, recognizing that the violate the most critical cornerstone of all forms of liberty.