So when does it stop being 'PC' and start being 'Common Decency'

[Crazy Eddie]

No, it isn't.

You have to be black, woman, short, say you're an environmentalist and have some sort of horrendous disease, then you can do pretty much whatever you want.

No, you can't.

Has anyone defined common decency?

Common decency is showing respect for others. It isn't unquestionably accepting their ideology as the PC crowd demand. Disagreement is not disrespect

But disagreement can only exist when a subject is truly debatable.
.

No argument. However anyone who holds the opinion that ILLEGAL immigration is a problem that should be addressed immediately faces vicious ad hominem attacks of being a racist by the PC crowd. Immigration is certainly a debatable issue but not for those who abandon all civility with their personal attacks (rather than discussion) against anyone who considers ILLEGAL immigration a problem.

Hate to say this, but this is a rhetorical poisoned well; the personal attacks are largely a reaction to the fact that the (illegal) immigration debate is all mixed up on nativist rhetoric and white nationalist narratives that push an openly racist message dressed up as "economic concern." A bigger part of the problem is the fact that those who might otherwise be rational on wanting a SOLUTION to the illegal immigration problem are either quiet or deferential to more reactionary voices who oppose immigration reform or a streamlined path to citizenship, primarily on the basis that such policy changes wouldn't do enough to punish illegals.

A conversation that begins with "11 million illegals need to be deported before we can talk about it" is a conversation that is going nowhere fast. So people looking for a more rational solution must, unfortunately, distance themselves from those that aren't.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, it isn't.

You have to be black, woman, short, say you're an environmentalist and have some sort of horrendous disease, then you can do pretty much whatever you want.

No, you can't.

Has anyone defined common decency?

Common decency is showing respect for others. It isn't unquestionably accepting their ideology as the PC crowd demand. Disagreement is not disrespect

But disagreement can only exist when a subject is truly debatable.
.

No argument. However anyone who holds the opinion that ILLEGAL immigration is a problem that should be addressed immediately faces vicious ad hominem attacks of being a racist by the PC crowd. Immigration is certainly a debatable issue but not for those who abandon all civility with their personal attacks (rather than discussion) against anyone who considers ILLEGAL immigration a problem.

Hate to say this, but this is a rhetorical poisoned well; the personal attacks are largely a reaction to the fact that the (illegal) immigration debate is all mixed up on nativist rhetoric and white nationalist narratives that push an openly racist message dressed up as "economic concern." A bigger part of the problem is the fact that those who might otherwise be rational on wanting a SOLUTION to the illegal immigration problem are either quiet or deferential to more reactionary voices who oppose immigration reform or a streamlined path to citizenship, primarily on the basis that such policy changes wouldn't do enough to punish illegals.

A conversation that begins with "11 million illegals need to be deported before we can talk about it" is a conversation that is going nowhere fast. So people looking for a more rational solution must, unfortunately, distance themselves from those that aren't.

Exactly my point... a great illustration of PC personal attack rather than debate, thanks.

You immediately assign a racist mindset to anyone who would dare suggest that ILLEGAL immigration could be a problem thus denying any possibility of debate. Such personal attacks are certainly not "common decency" nor do they show any respect for the right of others to hold opinions contrary to the PC dictates.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, it isn't.

You have to be black, woman, short, say you're an environmentalist and have some sort of horrendous disease, then you can do pretty much whatever you want.

No, you can't.

Has anyone defined common decency?

Common decency is showing respect for others. It isn't unquestionably accepting their ideology as the PC crowd demand. Disagreement is not disrespect

But disagreement can only exist when a subject is truly debatable.
.

No argument. However anyone who holds the opinion that ILLEGAL immigration is a problem that should be addressed immediately faces vicious ad hominem attacks of being a racist by the PC crowd. Immigration is certainly a debatable issue but not for those who abandon all civility with their personal attacks (rather than discussion) against anyone who considers ILLEGAL immigration a problem.

Hate to say this, but this is a rhetorical poisoned well; the personal attacks are largely a reaction to the fact that the (illegal) immigration debate is all mixed up on nativist rhetoric and white nationalist narratives that push an openly racist message dressed up as "economic concern." A bigger part of the problem is the fact that those who might otherwise be rational on wanting a SOLUTION to the illegal immigration problem are either quiet or deferential to more reactionary voices who oppose immigration reform or a streamlined path to citizenship, primarily on the basis that such policy changes wouldn't do enough to punish illegals.

A conversation that begins with "11 million illegals need to be deported before we can talk about it" is a conversation that is going nowhere fast. So people looking for a more rational solution must, unfortunately, distance themselves from those that aren't.

Exactly my point...

You immediately assign a racist mindset to anyone who would dare suggest that ILLEGAL immigration could be a problem thus denying any possibility of debate.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying illegal immigration is a problem in need of a genuine solution. I'm saying that ALOT of people use this problem as a vehicle for other less acceptable political issues, notably nativist/white nationalist agendas, and prefer to reject any discussion of illegal immigration that doesn't provide for harsh punitive measures against illegals. Put another way: there is a highly vocal and highly influential nativist clique that is leading the forefront of the immigration debate and it is THEIR voices more than anything that is being heard by legislative bodies in Washington and around the country.

That, unfortunately, is the nature of the political landscape. It's similar to how people will assume you are a racist if you believe elementary schools should be racially segregated. It's ENTIRELY possible that your belief has some rational basis in sociology, data, research, etc. But because of the political landscape and the fact that almost everyone else who advocates for racial segregation in the past has invariably done so as part of a broader white supremacist agenda, you'd have to do a lot of extra work distancing yourself from that legacy before anyone will listen to your arguments on their own merits.

I'm not saying it's fair. I'm saying it's the existing political landscape. Sometimes you assume a position that just happens to be downwind of a giant pile of shit. It's not YOUR fault your position stinks, but it doesn't matter, because you still have to convince most people that your position isn't as shitty as it smells.

Such personal attacks are certainly not "common decency" nor do they show any respect for the right of others to hold opinions contrary to the PC dictates.

Well, "common decency" and "being polite" aren't the same thing either. As my grandfather used to say (and, amusingly, reminded me again a few days ago), "There are lots of polite ways to call a woman a whore."

Even at the height of the civil rights movement, some of the most staunch segregationists were perfectly intelligent people who could explain, calmly and rationally, why niggers were sub-humans that shouldn't be allowed to mix with whites. This is still the case today: there's a difference between "political incorrect" and "being rude."

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm3__LMnXR0

A great speech at Oxford about the importance of giving offence and how everything from atheism to homosexuality has been considered offensive and how people have attempted to stop others from endorsing such. Just because you find something offensive, doesn't mean we should stop them from speaking or call them rude or impolite.

 

[bilby]

There's something deeply ironic about a person complaining that the "PC brigade" won't let them say whatever they want (however insulting), and claiming that the nature of this prohibition is ad hominem attacks upon the speaker.

In other words "It's unreasonable that if I insult people, I am met with insults".

What hypocrisy. What unmitigated and hilarious hypocrisy.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

"I demand my right to free speech, and it is unacceptable to say rude things about me excercising that right".

Jesus Fucking Christ.

 

[repoman]

This is a tenuous idea I have, but there are differences between what a person or groups advocates to happen (a power struggle) and a determination of fact.

Talking about segregation that is a power struggle and a type of collectivism. Basically it is a group (or enough of the people in it) saying they want to be live as separately from other group(s) as possible. The groups can be defined in many different ways, but mostly racial and religious.

There is no overarching reason why it should be so - but often it maintains itself because of fear of the nth cycle of reprisals from the other group for shit that happened hundreds of years ago. So in the short term it may be sensible for survival to have segregation, because a Catholic might have been killed by a Protestant in the wrong neighborhood of Northern Ireland. Same for the Hutus and Tutsi.

What may happen is in the middle of the reprisal cycle people come up with after the fact rationalizations of why the other side is so shitty.

Or some group may have had ancestors who defeated in battle or trade and so on another group. Instead of looking for rational reasons why this happened they look on their ancestors as uniquely skilled and the others as weak and evil.

With slavery, one thing is obvious is that it has been widely practiced and seems as if any population could under the right circumstance be either slaveholders or slaves. So saying that ancestors were evil/guilty (or badasses) or on the other hand as weak/cowardly/stupid (or morally pure) is totally insane.

---------------------------------------------------

A totally different question not related to group on group violence and subjugation is a topic like gender identity. How to talk about this topic is interesting and it is at the margins that the real action happens. On one extreme you have people who say anyone who is not rock solid cisgender is mentally ill and on the other you have some people who may really be "transtrenders" who yammer on about being trans to get attention. At this point hopefully both are getting rarer.

How open should the conversation be allowed to become for this topic? What if it got to the point where someone was fired for questioning that many ten year olds were getting transgender hormone therapy as an example? Is asking the question about it hate?

---------------------------------------------------

I think people should be able to ask all sorts of questions and should be allowed to be at least slightly rude at times doing it.

But most importantly, people and groups who are pissed about problems they have or opportunities they have blown need to calm their emotions down before they make up entire frameworks. A framework made without examining these real emotions will be very poor indeed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm3__LMnXR0

A great speech at Oxford about the importance of giving offence and how everything from atheism to homosexuality has been considered offensive and how people have attempted to stop others from endorsing such. Just because you find something offensive, doesn't mean we should stop them from speaking or call them rude or impolite.

Brendan O'Niell is great.

 

[LordKiran]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm3__LMnXR0

A great speech at Oxford about the importance of giving offence and how everything from atheism to homosexuality has been considered offensive and how people have attempted to stop others from endorsing such. Just because you find something offensive, doesn't mean we should stop them from speaking or call them rude or impolite.

What's different this time around however is a lot of the offenders are offensive for its own sake. They offend solely to upset others more so than as an indirect consequence of taking up a certain position.

There's a pretty big difference between someone being offended because you stand for gay rights, and someone being offended because you called them a faggot crybaby cuck.

They do it not to push an agenda. They do it because they enjoy upsetting others and getting reactions out of them. Glorified internet trolls are now driving public discourse which is never good.

 

[J842P]

There's something deeply ironic about a person complaining that the "PC brigade" won't let them say whatever they want (however insulting), and claiming that the nature of this prohibition is ad hominem attacks upon the speaker.

In other words "It's unreasonable that if I insult people, I am met with insults".

What hypocrisy. What unmitigated and hilarious hypocrisy.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

"I demand my right to free speech, and it is unacceptable to say rude things about me excercising that right".

Jesus Fucking Christ.

This is a total strawman. No one is arguing that they should be allowed to use slurs without reproach. But many things have become taboo to even talk about. For example, you will get excoriated for discussing possible innate differences between men and women -- and in some circles, the idea that men and women even exist! This is an example of political correctness.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it isn't.

You have to be black, woman, short, say you're an environmentalist and have some sort of horrendous disease, then you can do pretty much whatever you want.

No, you can't.

Has anyone defined common decency?

Common decency is showing respect for others. It isn't unquestionably accepting their ideology as the PC crowd demand. Disagreement is not disrespect

But disagreement can only exist when a subject is truly debatable.

Saying things like "I disagree with gay people being homosexual" isn't debatable. It's just incorrect. It's like saying "I disagree with black people being black".

No one "disagrees with gay people being homosexual", at least not literally. Most likely, that is simply the result of someone being inarticulate. Likely, this disagree that homosexuality should be an acceptable and normalized behavior/lifestyle.

 

[J842P]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm3__LMnXR0

A great speech at Oxford about the importance of giving offence and how everything from atheism to homosexuality has been considered offensive and how people have attempted to stop others from endorsing such. Just because you find something offensive, doesn't mean we should stop them from speaking or call them rude or impolite.

What's different this time around however is a lot of the offenders are offensive for its own sake. They offend solely to upset others more so than as an indirect consequence of taking up a certain position.

There's a pretty big difference between someone being offended because you stand for gay rights, and someone being offended because you called them a faggot crybaby cuck.

They do it not to push an agenda. They do it because they enjoy upsetting others and getting reactions out of them. Glorified internet trolls are now driving public discourse which is never good.

But that is *exactly the result* of the current strain of political correctness. First, they do it because the left, and particularly the left on college campuses, has completely jumped the shark on multiple issues. It is particularly strong in youth culture, and that is part of the reason why this sort of trolling is more common among the youth. It has become downright reality-denying and stifling to the point of absurdity, in many cases. Just try to discuss issues regarding gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion etc. with college students these days. They rarely discuss anything of substance, and rather, they just pat each other on the back for holding virtuous stances. I blame the humanities and what passes for scholarship nowadays. It is invariable the sheep that go into grad school these days, and likely has been that way for some time.

 

[repoman]

The same way that SJWs fatigued people about real issues with excessive wackiness the right wing version will do the same.

 

[bilby]

This is a total strawman. No one is arguing that they should be allowed to use slurs without reproach. But many things have become taboo to even talk about. For example, you will get excoriated for discussing possible innate differences between men and women -- and in some circles, the idea that men and women even exist! This is an example of political correctness.

The right to excoriate those with whom you disagree is a subset of the right to freedom of speech.

Now if people were being incarcerated, fined or physically assaulted by the authorities, that would be unacceptable. But they are not - so I'm afraid that if you care about freedom of speech, you will just have to put up with people using it to say nasty things about your freely made speech.

That's how it works. Unless you don't support freedom of speech, in which case the authorities have the right to not only tell you to shut up, but to make you do so.

Again, for the hard of thinking: Getting offended about people telling you that your speech is offensive, is hypocrisy.

This isn't rocket surgery.

 

[LordKiran]

What's different this time around however is a lot of the offenders are offensive for its own sake. They offend solely to upset others more so than as an indirect consequence of taking up a certain position.

There's a pretty big difference between someone being offended because you stand for gay rights, and someone being offended because you called them a faggot crybaby cuck.

They do it not to push an agenda. They do it because they enjoy upsetting others and getting reactions out of them. Glorified internet trolls are now driving public discourse which is never good.

But that is *exactly the result* of the current strain of political correctness. First, they do it because the left, and particularly the left on college campuses, has completely jumped the shark on multiple issues. It is particularly strong in youth culture, and that is part of the reason why this sort of trolling is more common among the youth. It has become downright reality-denying and stifling to the point of absurdity, in many cases. Just try to discuss issues regarding gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion etc. with college students these days. They rarely discuss anything of substance, and rather, they just pat each other on the back for holding virtuous stances. I blame the humanities and what passes for scholarship nowadays. It is invariable the sheep that go into grad school these days, and likely has been that way for some time.

Maybe. The question is whether the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[bilby]

But that is *exactly the result* of the current strain of political correctness. First, they do it because the left, and particularly the left on college campuses, has completely jumped the shark on multiple issues. It is particularly strong in youth culture, and that is part of the reason why this sort of trolling is more common among the youth. It has become downright reality-denying and stifling to the point of absurdity, in many cases. Just try to discuss issues regarding gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion etc. with college students these days. They rarely discuss anything of substance, and rather, they just pat each other on the back for holding virtuous stances. I blame the humanities and what passes for scholarship nowadays. It is invariable the sheep that go into grad school these days, and likely has been that way for some time.

Maybe. The question is whether the cure is worse than the disease.

As long as everyone is just throwing insults and not punches, neither is truly bad.

Freedom of speech entails the freedom to have others think you a fuckwit, and to say so - whether or not they are right is for the audience to decide.

 

[Elixir]

This isn't rocket surgery.

But it IS brain science!

 

[Juma]

Maybe. The question is whether the cure is worse than the disease.

As long as everyone is just throwing insults and not punches, neither is truly bad.

Freedom of speech entails the freedom to have others think you a fuckwit, and to say so - whether or not they are right is for the audience to decide.

I do not agree. Spreading lies and bad thoughts can be much worse than physical violence.

 

[laughing dog]

But that is *exactly the result* of the current strain of political correctness. First, they do it because the left, and particularly the left on college campuses, has completely jumped the shark on multiple issues. It is particularly strong in youth culture, and that is part of the reason why this sort of trolling is more common among the youth. It has become downright reality-denying and stifling to the point of absurdity, in many cases. Just try to discuss issues regarding gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion etc. with college students these days. They rarely discuss anything of substance, and rather, they just pat each other on the back for holding virtuous stances. I blame the humanities and what passes for scholarship nowadays. It is invariable the sheep that go into grad school these days, and likely has been that way for some time.

On what do you base this view?

 

[bilby]

As long as everyone is just throwing insults and not punches, neither is truly bad.

Freedom of speech entails the freedom to have others think you a fuckwit, and to say so - whether or not they are right is for the audience to decide.

I do not agree. Spreading lies and bad thoughts can be much worse than physical violence.

Then you don't believe in the absolute right to freedom of speech.

That's OK - I don't either. But I do believe that the limits should be very carefully defined, and should err on the side of freedom.

In most cases, the solution to the spreading of lies and bad thoughts is not prohibition, but mere correction. Tell everyone that the liar is lying, and show them the truth. To my mind that is less dangerous than simply banning people from saying things that are untrue - not least because prohibition is a very effective way to make a lie feel true. People have a tendency to say "If it's not true, then why are the authorities so determined to suppress it?".

And when the lies are truly outrageous, mockery is the best response. Totalitarians and fundamentalists in particular HATE to be laughed at.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[J842P]

This is a total strawman. No one is arguing that they should be allowed to use slurs without reproach. But many things have become taboo to even talk about. For example, you will get excoriated for discussing possible innate differences between men and women -- and in some circles, the idea that men and women even exist! This is an example of political correctness.

The right to excoriate those with whom you disagree is a subset of the right to freedom of speech.

Now if people were being incarcerated, fined or physically assaulted by the authorities, that would be unacceptable. But they are not - so I'm afraid that if you care about freedom of speech, you will just have to put up with people using it to say nasty things about your freely made speech.

That's how it works. Unless you don't support freedom of speech, in which case the authorities have the right to not only tell you to shut up, but to make you do so.

Again, for the hard of thinking: Getting offended about people telling you that your speech is offensive, is hypocrisy.

This isn't rocket surgery.

You seem to replying to some other post, and are mistakenly quoting mine. I never said people don't have the right to excoriate those they disagree with. I merely stated that you are misrepresenting the argument against political correctness, which you merely continue to do here.

Look, I get it. You've probably been outside of academia for some time now, and I'm not sure how much exposure you've had to American colleges. But things have changed drastically in the last 10 or so years. I've witnessed it first hand. For example, do you think it is tantamount to hate speech when you refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns like "ze and hir"? Because that is the position of some of the people on campus nowadays. That it is *violence* to use she and he. Take a look at what is happening in Canada. It is creeping closer and closer to this by the day. The other disturbing trend is for colleges to ban conservative speakers. I say this as someone on the far left of the spectrum who sees this as detrimental to the cause.