The Value of Free Speech

[Mac1958]

I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.

The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "responsibly implemented" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "guarding against" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "to a point" means? Where, precisely, is that point?

Why does the answer to the above three questions almost always end up being the American Left when they have a chance to gain advantage?

How is screaming "racist" when some says the wrong thing justified? How is changing words and phrases you don't like into different words supposed to change the meaning of those words and phrases? Why in the world do we need to play such silly linguistic games? To what end?

Example: I hate the "N" word. I have never used it, nor will I ever. But if someone else wants to use it, that's up to them. And it helps me identify them and treat them accordingly (most likely by no longer being in their presence). I would also not be a client of theirs or a friend. But that's their call, and I strongly suspect that others would behave the same as I would. And, I'd also like to know who agrees with them.

I want to know who the crazies are, where the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (probably most importantly) who agrees with them. If you're afraid to know this critical information, then don't listen. If you think you can't defeat them in a contest of ideas, stay away, let someone else to it. But intimidating them from being public idiots isn't going to fix the core problem. It's nothing more than a temporary band-aid.

But I don't think PC is about responsibility or guarding against something or protecting someone's "feelings". It's about getting advantage.

Political Correctness: Strategic hypersensitivity deployed specifically to put your target on the defensive and control the conversation.

It's been very effective, but the hand has been over-played.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.

The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "responsibly implemented" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "guarding against" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "to a point" means? Where, precisely, is that point?

Why does the answer to the above three questions almost always end up being the American Left when they have a chance to gain advantage?

How is screaming "racist" when some says the wrong thing justified? How is changing words and phrases you don't like into different words supposed to change the meaning of those words and phrases? Why in the world do we need to play such silly linguistic games? To what end?

Example: I hate the "N" word. I have never used it, nor will I ever. But if someone else wants to use it, that's up to them. And it helps me identify them and treat them accordingly (most likely by no longer being in their presence). I would also not be a client of theirs or a friend. But that's their call, and I strongly suspect that others would behave the same as I would. And, I'd also like to know who agrees with them.

I want to know who the crazies are, where the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (probably most importantly) who agrees with them. If you're afraid to know this critical information, then don't listen. If you think you can't defeat them in a contest of ideas, stay away, let someone else to it. But intimidating them from being public idiots isn't going to fix the core problem. It's nothing more than a temporary band-aid.

But I don't think PC is about responsibility or guarding against something or protecting someone's "feelings". It's about getting advantage.

Political Correctness: Strategic hypersensitivity deployed specifically to put your target on the defensive and control the conversation.

It's been very effective, but the hand has been over-played.

.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ and there is also no ‘strategy.’

You act as if there is some sort of officially designated ‘PC’ entity with leaders and members, following codified dogma.

There isn’t.

If someone has been put on the defensive and has lost control of the conversation, that’s his fault for not making a persuasive argument or engaging effective debating techniques.

Consider also the fact that if one is advocating a policy of racism, hate, and ignorance, devoid of fact or reasoning, he’s likely going to be put on the defensive, indeed losing control of the conversation, and justifiably so.

Consider it the proverbial free marketplace of ideas, the rough and tumble, bare knuckles brawl that is a free, democratic society.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.

The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "responsibly implemented" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "guarding against" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "to a point" means? Where, precisely, is that point?

Why does the answer to the above three questions almost always end up being the American Left when they have a chance to gain advantage?

How is screaming "racist" when some says the wrong thing justified? How is changing words and phrases you don't like into different words supposed to change the meaning of those words and phrases? Why in the world do we need to play such silly linguistic games? To what end?

Example: I hate the "N" word. I have never used it, nor will I ever. But if someone else wants to use it, that's up to them. And it helps me identify them and treat them accordingly (most likely by no longer being in their presence). I would also not be a client of theirs or a friend. But that's their call, and I strongly suspect that others would behave the same as I would. And, I'd also like to know who agrees with them.

I want to know who the crazies are, where the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (probably most importantly) who agrees with them. If you're afraid to know this critical information, then don't listen. If you think you can't defeat them in a contest of ideas, stay away, let someone else to it. But intimidating them from being public idiots isn't going to fix the core problem. It's nothing more than a temporary band-aid.

But I don't think PC is about responsibility or guarding against something or protecting someone's "feelings". It's about getting advantage.

Political Correctness: Strategic hypersensitivity deployed specifically to put your target on the defensive and control the conversation.

It's been very effective, but the hand has been over-played.

.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ and there is also no ‘strategy.’

You act as if there is some sort of officially designated ‘PC’ entity with leaders and members, following codified dogma.

There isn’t.

If someone has been put on the defensive and has lost control of the conversation, that’s his fault for not making a persuasive argument or engaging effective debating techniques.

Consider also the fact that if one is advocating a policy of racism, hate, and ignorance, devoid of fact or reasoning, he’s likely going to be put on the defensive, indeed losing control of the conversation, and justifiably so.

Consider it the proverbial free marketplace of ideas, the rough and tumble, bare knuckles brawl that is a free, democratic society.

Who do you think Mac is accusing of overplaying their hand? I would really like to nail down the "who" behind the PC conspiracy. Have you any idea who the demons are, CC?

I mean.....the are people who have made millions of dollars for doing exactly what Mac thinks is being shut down. How have they done this? How has Rush Limbaugh made so much money, given the fact that his business plan is simply to say things that the PC police want him to not be able to say? The fat fuck is still jawboning for three hours a day. How can this be?

 

[Mac1958]

I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.

The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "responsibly implemented" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "guarding against" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "to a point" means? Where, precisely, is that point?

Why does the answer to the above three questions almost always end up being the American Left when they have a chance to gain advantage?

How is screaming "racist" when some says the wrong thing justified? How is changing words and phrases you don't like into different words supposed to change the meaning of those words and phrases? Why in the world do we need to play such silly linguistic games? To what end?

Example: I hate the "N" word. I have never used it, nor will I ever. But if someone else wants to use it, that's up to them. And it helps me identify them and treat them accordingly (most likely by no longer being in their presence). I would also not be a client of theirs or a friend. But that's their call, and I strongly suspect that others would behave the same as I would. And, I'd also like to know who agrees with them.

I want to know who the crazies are, where the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (probably most importantly) who agrees with them. If you're afraid to know this critical information, then don't listen. If you think you can't defeat them in a contest of ideas, stay away, let someone else to it. But intimidating them from being public idiots isn't going to fix the core problem. It's nothing more than a temporary band-aid.

But I don't think PC is about responsibility or guarding against something or protecting someone's "feelings". It's about getting advantage.

Political Correctness: Strategic hypersensitivity deployed specifically to put your target on the defensive and control the conversation.

It's been very effective, but the hand has been over-played.

.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ and there is also no ‘strategy.’

You act as if there is some sort of officially designated ‘PC’ entity with leaders and members, following codified dogma.

There isn’t.

If someone has been put on the defensive and has lost control of the conversation, that’s his fault for not making a persuasive argument or engaging effective debating techniques.

Consider also the fact that if one is advocating a policy of racism, hate, and ignorance, devoid of fact or reasoning, he’s likely going to be put on the defensive, indeed losing control of the conversation, and justifiably so.

Consider it the proverbial free marketplace of ideas, the rough and tumble, bare knuckles brawl that is a free, democratic society.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we could clarify the terminology. You say there is no such thing as political correctness, yet the phrase and its meaning are commonplace in the American lexicon. So I think it would be helpful if I (a) provided specific examples of what I'm talking about, and (b) tied those examples to the phrase "political correctness" without any ambiguity so that you'll then understand without any doubt what the phrase means.

1. Screaming "racist" when someone disagrees with Obama about (for one example of many) Obamacare, and when there is absolutely no evidence that said person is, in fact, racist
2. Creating seemingly countless euphemisms such as "undocumented American" to replace "illegal immigrant", and then screaming "racist" when the term "illegal immigrant" is correctly used
3. Demanding that certain words and names are scrapped from usage, such as "Washington Redskins", when there is absolutely no evidence the word is meant to signify anything other than strong and brave.
4. Demanding that words are no longer used when someone says something that someone else claims has "offended" them.
5. Demanding that someone loses their job because they said a word or phrase that someone feels has hurt their feelings or offended them in some way.

Let's see, another one or two...

1. Not keeping score at kids' sporting events because losing might hurt someone's feelings.
2. Not reading test scores out in class because it may hurt someone's feelings.
3. Not allowing an American child at an American school to wear an article of clothing with an American flag on it.
4. Dividing Americans into little ethnic groups via the use of hyphenation
5. Demanding that traditional American words & phrases are changed to avoid hurting anyone's feelings - "Holiday tree" instead of "Christmas tree" pops to mind, and I'm an agnostic. And wasn't "Easter Bunny" changed into something else to avoid making anyone the slightest bit uncomfortable?

These are all just examples picked out my little brain on a moment's notice. I could, of course, go on and on, but I'm confident you are now seeing a trend.

These are all examples of what I would call "Political Correctness". Perhaps you have another word or phrase that describes this, I don't know. But now you know what I'm talking about when I use the phrase, and I'm sure you're intellectually honest enough to admit that these things actually happen.

No, there's no PC Police department. No, there are no badges, no meetings, no secret handshakes, no decoder rings. No one wears a Fez. But, as you have seen by the above examples, there are people who do things in specific situations that they feel will give them some advantage. That's a way to describe "strategy". And I'm confident that, now that I have provided specific examples and identified the use of the term "political correctness", you'll be very clear what it is as we go forward.

Here's a few examples from the web (I used "Google") that might provide some more assistance here. Even Merriam-Webster defines it, hopefully that will be enough evidence for you:

Politically correct - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
What are examples of political correctness
Fun:More insidious examples of political correctness - RationalWiki
Urban Dictionary: political correctness
11 Examples Of Political Correctness Gone Mad

I'm sure we're on the same page now. I'll bookmark my explanation in case you need clarification in the future.

.

 

[Pogo]

The liberals are the ones that want people punished for saying things that offend people, why the fuck would I trust idiots like that to defend anything?

Like your own post immediately before that one?

Postululation inoperative, since it was Liberalism that wrote the First Amendment.

Wrong Amendment anyway, once again this thread, as I read the OP and worthy though it is, is about the Fourth Amendment, not the First.

If you look closely Pogo, you have to violate the Fourth Amendment to limit someones First Amendment rights.

No you don't. That's absurd.

Gummint passes a law that makes it illegal for a newspaper to criticize the Prezzydent -- clear violation of First, doesn't involve the Fourth.

No, they're not redundant. And yes they are distinct.

 

[PrometheusBound]

debating free speech on a non-free speech site.

You do have a point, but this is a private site so the owner can run it however he or she wants to.

You can declare that Libretardian fallacy, but that doesn't make it true. Once they open the site to the public, they lose Ownership Supremacy. You've got all the private powers backing you up on your declaration, including their controlled opposition. That's all you got, intimidation by loudness.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Better yet, find me a libertarian leaning person who wants the government to shut someone up for them.

When, on the thread somewhere dealing with the Libretardian pope, Paul II, the Randists showed their true nasty nature by joyously praising the fact that the websites have moderators. "Oh, that's different" is the gateway to Stalinism. Like a mirror, they change things from Left to Right but it's still just as ugly. We've been warned in advance that if they ever crippled the government, their business heroes would hire people to spy on employees' private lives. But, oh, that's different, it's the Boss's own money spent on goons, not taxpayers' money spent on Homeland Security Men in Black.

Lol, another far leftist who has his head buried in his glutes. I frankly want the government to vanish. I want it to be rebuilt on Constitutional foundations, not on bureaucratic ones.

Who cares what you want? You are outnumbered. You are just a self-obsessed Greedhead walking tall by walking all over people.

 

[PrometheusBound]

debating free speech on a non-free speech site.

Strange, I have never really run afoul of the rules here, even though I routinely insult just about everyone, including the admin of this site.

We don't need no Netiquette Nannies
We don't need no thought control

Hey!
Web Wizard!
Whiz on the other side of the wall

All in all, you're just a
Brick through our Window

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.

The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.

Wrong again, keep up the good work.

The only cons come about when the government tries to tell people what they can and cannot say. If that ends up with a little of the freedom that scares the shit out of your small mind, good.

The only thing wrong is your logic, by mine everyone can say what they like until they start advocating (or engaging in) mass genocide and violence. By your logic that behaviour should be tolerated, fortunately it hasn't been.

The government isn't some bogeyman out to get you, nor is it a friendly hand. I don't have a small mind because I am not a racist, a religious radical, or any of those things. Unlike yourself I am an anarchist-communist, and anarcho-capitalist so I actually believe in social contract, so keep ranting on about me being pro-government; it is rather funny considering that the constitution you are supporting is a product of government (nor does it apply to the rest of the world).

A truly free society is one where groups and individuals can say and think what they like, but we don't live in that kind of society because humans are capable of terrible things as individuals or groups. Advocate absolute free speech, but when the local community tries you as a witch or communist, don't say I didn't warn you. But you would never be in such a position, those times are over surely you tell yourself, but there is always a movement ready to rise and cause trouble.

Damn, even rdean understands the difference between the government and people. I will admit he barely gets it, and he sometimes thinks the government should be able to tell the people how to think, but he does understand the difference. You, on the other hand, do not even grasp the fundamental concept that only the government can put people on trial, and confuse the freedom of an individual to quote the Bible about not allowing a witch to live and the government actually killing them.

Come back when you pass 2nd grade.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.

True, since before Gitlow liberals have fought to protect the right to free expression, including applying those rights to state and local governments.

Which is why they keep whinging about Citizen's United, despite your lecture to them that it being a good decision that upheld free speech.

But, please, tell me again how they don't want to limit speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

Our Freedom of Speech rights are not in danger from the government, thankfully, so we're not going to lose that right in the forseeable future.

Unfortunately, intimidation does clearly exist within what remains of our culture in the form of Political Correctness, which intimidates people into not saying what they're thinking because they don't want to lose their job and/or they don't want to be branded with certain labels. The threat of those labels is used to take the conversation off it tracks and control it.

On the bright side, however, PC has been overplayed and is beginning to lose its effectiveness. People are finally telling these people to take their phony indignation, fold it up, and file it. Excellent!

I want to know what people are thinking and who agrees with them. Unlike the PC Police, I'm not afraid to have people who disagree with me have their opinions heard. I'm not going to do anything to intimidate someone from speaking their mind, and the PC crowd can't say that, no matter how much they try to spin it.

Oh, good. So that means you never neg rep...right?

Never. Not once. Never considered it.

And a question for you: Are you equating a "neg rep" on a website with intimidating people not to say words you don't like?

Really?

.

If I can intimidate someone over the internet they shouldn't be on the internet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not proving anybody 'right' or 'wrong', I am simply saying that free speech should be responsibly implemented; rather than society happily accepting anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of discrimination. Free speech should never justify hate speech, speech that encourages violence and intolerance should be guarded against.

The problem is that you can't see the pros and cons of free speech, and are narrowly focussed on the pros. A society should be free to say what they like to a point, or the wars, prejudices, and genocides of the past will simply be repeated again and again. There is nothing wrong with opposing the right of a radical islamist or a neo-nazi to speak, and no anti-discrimination law actually does 'remove the first amendment'.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "responsibly implemented" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "guarding against" means?

Precisely who has been given the responsibility and authority to decide what "to a point" means? Where, precisely, is that point?

Why does the answer to the above three questions almost always end up being the American Left when they have a chance to gain advantage?

How is screaming "racist" when some says the wrong thing justified? How is changing words and phrases you don't like into different words supposed to change the meaning of those words and phrases? Why in the world do we need to play such silly linguistic games? To what end?

Example: I hate the "N" word. I have never used it, nor will I ever. But if someone else wants to use it, that's up to them. And it helps me identify them and treat them accordingly (most likely by no longer being in their presence). I would also not be a client of theirs or a friend. But that's their call, and I strongly suspect that others would behave the same as I would. And, I'd also like to know who agrees with them.

I want to know who the crazies are, where the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (probably most importantly) who agrees with them. If you're afraid to know this critical information, then don't listen. If you think you can't defeat them in a contest of ideas, stay away, let someone else to it. But intimidating them from being public idiots isn't going to fix the core problem. It's nothing more than a temporary band-aid.

But I don't think PC is about responsibility or guarding against something or protecting someone's "feelings". It's about getting advantage.

Political Correctness: Strategic hypersensitivity deployed specifically to put your target on the defensive and control the conversation.

It's been very effective, but the hand has been over-played.

.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ and there is also no ‘strategy.’

You act as if there is some sort of officially designated ‘PC’ entity with leaders and members, following codified dogma.

There isn’t.

If someone has been put on the defensive and has lost control of the conversation, that’s his fault for not making a persuasive argument or engaging effective debating techniques.

Consider also the fact that if one is advocating a policy of racism, hate, and ignorance, devoid of fact or reasoning, he’s likely going to be put on the defensive, indeed losing control of the conversation, and justifiably so.

Consider it the proverbial free marketplace of ideas, the rough and tumble, bare knuckles brawl that is a free, democratic society.

Tell me something, genius, if there is no such thing as political correctness why did Bill Maher used to call his talk show Politically Incorrect before he said that the assholes who flew a plane into the WTC were brave?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

debating free speech on a non-free speech site.

You do have a point, but this is a private site so the owner can run it however he or she wants to.

You can declare that Libretardian fallacy, but that doesn't make it true. Once they open the site to the public, they loose Ownership Supremacy. You've got all the private powers backing you up on your declaration, including their controlled opposition. That's all you got, intimidation by loudness.

The fact that you are a blithering idiot does not mean that property rights cease to exist because the owners don't shoot you on sight.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, good. So that means you never neg rep...right?

Never. Not once. Never considered it.

And a question for you: Are you equating a "neg rep" on a website with intimidating people not to say words you don't like?

Really?

.

If I can intimidate someone over the internet they shouldn't be on the internet.

Hey, that's almost exactly right. Change "they" to "I" and you're there.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I want to know who the crazies are,

.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ and there is also no ‘strategy.’

You act as if there is some sort of officially designated ‘PC’ entity with leaders and members, following codified dogma.

There isn’t.

If someone has been put on the defensive and has lost control of the conversation, that’s his fault for not making a persuasive argument or engaging effective debating techniques.

Consider also the fact that if one is advocating a policy of racism, hate, and ignorance, devoid of fact or reasoning, he’s likely going to be put on the defensive, indeed losing control of the conversation, and justifiably so.

Consider it the proverbial free marketplace of ideas, the rough and tumble, bare knuckles brawl that is a free, democratic society.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we could clarify the terminology. You say there is no such thing as political correctness, yet the phrase and its meaning are commonplace in the American lexicon. So I think it would be helpful if I (a) provided specific examples of what I'm talking about, and (b) tied those examples to the phrase "political correctness" without any ambiguity so that you'll then understand without any doubt what the phrase means.

1. Screaming "racist" when someone disagrees with Obama about (for one example of many) Obamacare, and when there is absolutely no evidence that said person is, in fact, racist
2. Creating seemingly countless euphemisms such as "undocumented American" to replace "illegal immigrant", and then screaming "racist" when the term "illegal immigrant" is correctly used
3. Demanding that certain words and names are scrapped from usage, such as "Washington Redskins", when there is absolutely no evidence the word is meant to signify anything other than strong and brave.
4. Demanding that words are no longer used when someone says something that someone else claims has "offended" them.
5. Demanding that someone loses their job because they said a word or phrase that someone feels has hurt their feelings or offended them in some way.

Let's see, another one or two...

1. Not keeping score at kids' sporting events because losing might hurt someone's feelings.
2. Not reading test scores out in class because it may hurt someone's feelings.
3. Not allowing an American child at an American school to wear an article of clothing with an American flag on it.
4. Dividing Americans into little ethnic groups via the use of hyphenation
5. Demanding that traditional American words & phrases are changed to avoid hurting anyone's feelings - "Holiday tree" instead of "Christmas tree" pops to mind, and I'm an agnostic. And wasn't "Easter Bunny" changed into something else to avoid making anyone the slightest bit uncomfortable?

These are all just examples picked out my little brain on a moment's notice. I could, of course, go on and on, but I'm confident you are now seeing a trend.

These are all examples of what I would call "Political Correctness". Perhaps you have another word or phrase that describes this, I don't know. But now you know what I'm talking about when I use the phrase, and I'm sure you're intellectually honest enough to admit that these things actually happen.

No, there's no PC Police department. No, there are no badges, no meetings, no secret handshakes, no decoder rings. No one wears a Fez. But, as you have seen by the above examples, there are people who do things in specific situations that they feel will give them some advantage. That's a way to describe "strategy". And I'm confident that, now that I have provided specific examples and identified the use of the term "political correctness", you'll be very clear what it is as we go forward.

Here's a few examples from the web (I used "Google") that might provide some more assistance here. Even Merriam-Webster defines it, hopefully that will be enough evidence for you:

Politically correct - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
What are examples of political correctness
Fun:More insidious examples of political correctness - RationalWiki
Urban Dictionary: political correctness
11 Examples Of Political Correctness Gone Mad

I'm sure we're on the same page now. I'll bookmark my explanation in case you need clarification in the future.

.

Which once again brings up a little-discussed hypocritical example of people getting the message, but only as limited by the self-appointed authorities they blindly follow. If people followed through on their chanted opposition to "Leftist" PC Newspeak, they wouldn't use they to refer to the singular. In fact, supposedly anti-feminist opinionators go out of their way to follow this radical-feminist "grammar" and would have been intimidated and brainwashed into writing the previous sentence, "If someone followed through...they wouldn't..." He has always been used for the unnecessary and clumsy "he or she," because he originally meant "he or she" or "this person," just as the related word here means "this place."

First the screeching femininnies demanded that we use "he or she," but when that became too clumsy even for themselves, they demanded that we use the non-sexist they to refer to a singular. This disproved their basic point about the rationality of women, because they preferred us to use what they know is wrong, a plural referring to a singular, rather than what they only think is wrong, using the masculine to refer to a generic or common gender. So if any anti-Leftist uses that ignorant construction, "they" are not practicing what "they" preach. Besides, using penis-envy outrage against itself, males can't possibly say anything about women, so a male has to restrict himself (or "themself") to using he anyway.

I've even seen this brain-dead conformist speech with inanimate objects, as in "A planet has their moons at a limited distance." Or continuing the contagious idiocy to its mirror image, "All politicians are a liar."

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you are an American, this is one of the most valuable rights afforded to you a citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech. It has been throughout history tested and tried, but it stood the test of time. People say, "My government infringes on my right to freedom of speech!" well, I would count my blessings if I were you. China does not value that right, and will without hesitation take it from you. It is getting to that point here, with the NSA watching what you do on the internet and who you call on the phone. Our freedom of speech is now in danger, in China it's gone. A chilling reminder of our future if we allow it to happen.

BEIJING—A forceful campaign of intimidation against China's most influential Internet users has cast a chill over public debate in the country and called into question the long-term viability of its most vibrant social-media platform.

In an offensive that some critics have likened to the political purges of the Mao era, Beijing has recently detained or interrogated several high-profile social-media figures, issued warnings to others to watch what they say and expanded criminal laws to make it easier to prosecute people for their online activity—all part of what one top propaganda official described on Tuesday as "the purification of the online environment."

China Intensifies Social-Media Crackdown - WSJ.com

It’s more a chilling reminder of your ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence and the shameful propensity by you and others on the right to engage in demagoguery.

Our freedom of speech is in no way ‘in danger,’ and to compare the United States with China concerning free expression rights is ignorant idiocy.

Wanna bet?...Just what do you think all of this NSA spying on Americans( at the direct instructions from the White House) is for? So the government can figure out what we're doing to help companies promote their products?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who has had their freedom of speech infringed?

This is as whacky as the cries about all those freedoms we lost because of the Patriot Act

Some things deserve repeating..

...and I suggest this is one of them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If our freedom of speech is ever seriously threatened, you nutters need not worry. Your liberal countrymen will kill the threat. It is the sort of thing we do.

You will only seek to protect liberal points of view.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

Our Freedom of Speech rights are not in danger from the government, thankfully, so we're not going to lose that right in the forseeable future.

Unfortunately, intimidation does clearly exist within what remains of our culture in the form of Political Correctness, which intimidates people into not saying what they're thinking because they don't want to lose their job and/or they don't want to be branded with certain labels. The threat of those labels is used to take the conversation off it tracks and control it.

On the bright side, however, PC has been overplayed and is beginning to lose its effectiveness. People are finally telling these people to take their phony indignation, fold it up, and file it. Excellent!

I want to know what people are thinking and who agrees with them. Unlike the PC Police, I'm not afraid to have people who disagree with me have their opinions heard. I'm not going to do anything to intimidate someone from speaking their mind, and the PC crowd can't say that, no matter how much they try to spin it.

It's time to stick a dagger through the heart of political correctness.

 

[PrometheusBound]

You do have a point, but this is a private site so the owner can run it however he or she wants to.

You can declare that Libretardian fallacy, but that doesn't make it true. Once they open the site to the public, they loose Ownership Supremacy. You've got all the private powers backing you up on your declaration, including their controlled opposition. That's all you got, intimidation by loudness.

The fact that you are a blithering idiot does not mean that property rights cease to exist because the owners don't shoot you on sight.

I see that you are pretty sensitive about being exposed as an anal-retentive Bootlicking Boytoy of the Bosses. Worshipping rich trash won't make you rich, it will only make you trash. My karma ran over your Dogbert.