Two questions about Political Correctness

[LoneLaugher]

.

Since no one will answer, I'm more convinced than ever that this is about control and political advantage.

They can't tell me what they're trying to accomplish, they won't admit there's a downside to the approach.

So, I guess in a way they DID answer my questions, huh?

.

You got answers. Why lie?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Its about control. That is it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Control by whom of whom? How does this control manifest?

 

[Asclepias]

Did you read 1984? One of the essential points it made was the destruction of the language and how language could be used to control a population. It worked double plus good.

Seems as though the term PC has become a bad word somehow. Instead of thinking of it as political correctness how about calling it polite conversation? If you have a hang up about something that you yourself are not affected by disagree politely and then move on. No one really cares to hear you attempt to condemn and humiliate them.

I dont bother telling people to be politically correct.

Yes there is a downside because if they are too ignorant to understand being polite then most likely you just give them a reason to keep on believing that being an azzhole is justified.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you read 1984? One of the essential points it made was the destruction of the language and how language could be used to control a population. It worked double plus good.

Seems as though the term PC has become a bad word somehow. Instead of thinking of it as political correctness how about calling it polite conversation? If you have a hang up about something that you yourself are not affected by disagree politely and then move on. No one really cares to hear you attempt to condemn and humiliate them.

Yes, it's like Pimp my Nazism. Just throw a coat of paint on it and it's all cool

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Control by whom of whom? How does this control manifest?

Control by your employer, govt. Employees sometimes sign contracts, no compete clauses. Govt regularly imposes criminal or civil liabilities on someone who may leak classified information. I'm not saying that these two examples are always wrong or nefarious but they are ultimately about control.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Control by whom of whom? How does this control manifest?

Control by your employer, govt. Employees sometimes sign contracts, no compete clauses. Govt regularly imposes criminal or civil liabilities on someone who may leak classified information. I'm not saying that these two examples are always wrong or nefarious but they are ultimately about control.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. You are talking about security leaks and non-compete clauses. The OP is concerned with backlash from calling someone a ****** or a slut.

 

[Darkwind]

No force of law? Perhaps.

Consider this. If a person uses a racial slur, you say that they have that right, but if a crime happens and it is known that the slur has been used, then the forces of the charges and the severity of the punishment increases.

Additionally, the people who believe that there is no PC, are intentionally being obtuse or disingenuous.

Everyone who has a 5th grade education knows what the power of public opinion is. It is also why the Founding Fathers saw fit to include in the Constitution the notion of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". Because they knew that public opinion can sway and ruin an individual. Just look at the reputations ruined by the media for most Conservative women.

Who needs an actual law in the face of that power? PC is very much real, and very powerful and USED to silence debate when someone is losing a debate.

 

[Asclepias]

Who needs an actual law in the face of that power? PC is very much real, and very powerful and USED to silence debate when someone is losing a debate.

PC is not used to silence debate. Its used to let people know that the their words used in the debate should not be racists, sexist, etc. PC is for those that are too ignorant to be polite and actually start to sway opinion with their words. I can talk to someone about a totally opposite opinion without putting them down. That does more to sway opinion than any rant will ever do.

 

[NightFox]

.

Since no one will answer, I'm more convinced than ever that this is about control and political advantage.

They can't tell me what they're trying to accomplish, they won't admit there's a downside to the approach.

So, I guess in a way they DID answer my questions, huh?

.

Mac, the lack of a stampede to the front door isn't due to a lack of poignancy on your part, it's due to the fact that your asking the guilty to confess their crimes and the guilty in this case are exceptionally talented at lying to themselves about their guilt.

 

[Darkwind]

Who needs an actual law in the face of that power? PC is very much real, and very powerful and USED to silence debate when someone is losing a debate.

PC is not used to silence debate. Its used to let people know that the their words used in the debate should not be racists, sexist, etc. PC is for those that are too ignorant to be polite and actually start to sway opinion with their words. I can talk to someone about a totally opposite opinion without putting them down. That does more to sway opinion than any rant will ever do.

That is incorrect, and not in any experience I have ever witnessed or had. The PC notion is used as a cudgel to silence individuals who are winning a debate with logic.

For instance, whenever a discussion occurs in which the economic policy of the President (the current one) is question, inevitably, the person who provides information and analysis on the negative consequences of those policies is charged with disagreeing with the President because he is Black. It has been seen, time and again, that even if no mention of the Presidents race happens, they will be charged with being a racist.

That is political correctness as a means of silencing discussion. People have become so conditioned to the notion that if you disagree with a minority, you MUST be a racist, and cannot possibly have a legitimate concern with the policy.

That is but one example. Hundreds if not thousands exist if one has the inclination to search it out. But be careful. If you do, you may not like what you see.

PC is a scourge and should be eliminated from our lexicon. Let people argue and debate what they will without the fear that the language they use might offend someone. Adults should be able to get by that, and no one has the right to go through life un-offended.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who needs an actual law in the face of that power? PC is very much real, and very powerful and USED to silence debate when someone is losing a debate.

PC is not used to silence debate. Its used to let people know that the their words used in the debate should not be racists, sexist, etc. PC is for those that are too ignorant to be polite and actually start to sway opinion with their words. I can talk to someone about a totally opposite opinion without putting them down. That does more to sway opinion than any rant will ever do.

Nigga, Please!

 

[NightFox]

Who needs an actual law in the face of that power? PC is very much real, and very powerful and USED to silence debate when someone is losing a debate.

PC is not used to silence debate. Its used to let people know that the their words used in the debate should not be racists, sexist, etc. PC is for those that are too ignorant to be polite and actually start to sway opinion with their words. I can talk to someone about a totally opposite opinion without putting them down. That does more to sway opinion than any rant will ever do.

Nigga, Please!

LOL! thanks for the laugh

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

Since no one will answer, I'm more convinced than ever that this is about control and political advantage.

They can't tell me what they're trying to accomplish, they won't admit there's a downside to the approach.

So, I guess in a way they DID answer my questions, huh?

.

But there is nothing to ‘answer.’

You speak as if there is some sanctioned, authorized, official, coordinated unified, acknowledged, and actual organization in existence trying to ‘accomplish’ something.

There isn’t.

This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ it’s a partisan contrivance of the right, a myth, a fantasy, a specter of our political times.

You sound as ridiculous as Hillary and her nonsense about a ‘vast rightwing conspiracy.’

 

[mudwhistle]

Sorry, Mud. Don't know what you are talking about.

No?


Perhaps you remember this incident:

Greek athlete expelled from Olympics for racist tweet

By Chris Chase



By Chris Chase | Fourth-Place Medal – Thu, Jul 26, 2012 2:06 AM NZST

(GRN)Greece's triple-jump champion was expelled from the Olympics after posting a tasteless tweet about Africans and the West Nile virus.

Hellenic Olympic Committee officials announced Voula Papachristou wouldn't travel to London after she tweeted a joke about African immigrants.

On Monday, the track athlete posted a tweet reading, "with so many Africans in Greece, at least the West Nile mosquitos will be eating food from their own home." The comments created an uproar on Greek social media. Papachristou didn't address the criticism on Twitter for two days.

Greece later announced it would place Papchristou "outside the Olympic team for statements contrary to the values and ideas of the Olympic movement."​

Yahoo!

 

[Asclepias]

Who needs an actual law in the face of that power? PC is very much real, and very powerful and USED to silence debate when someone is losing a debate.

PC is not used to silence debate. Its used to let people know that the their words used in the debate should not be racists, sexist, etc. PC is for those that are too ignorant to be polite and actually start to sway opinion with their words. I can talk to someone about a totally opposite opinion without putting them down. That does more to sway opinion than any rant will ever do.

That is incorrect, and not in any experience I have ever witnessed or had. The PC notion is used as a cudgel to silence individuals who are winning a debate with logic.

PC is a scourge and should be eliminated from our lexicon. Let people argue and debate what they will without the fear that the language they use might offend someone. Adults should be able to get by that, and no one has the right to go through life un-offended.

I dont know what your definition of PC is but here is mine and Websters:

Definition of POLITICALLY CORRECT

: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

To me that means make your argument without offending people with racist or sexist remarks. Now if a person is too slow or ignorant to do that then I could see why being PC would make that person angry.

 

[Asclepias]

Who needs an actual law in the face of that power? PC is very much real, and very powerful and USED to silence debate when someone is losing a debate.

PC is not used to silence debate. Its used to let people know that the their words used in the debate should not be racists, sexist, etc. PC is for those that are too ignorant to be polite and actually start to sway opinion with their words. I can talk to someone about a totally opposite opinion without putting them down. That does more to sway opinion than any rant will ever do.

Nigga, Please!

That offended me!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Control by whom of whom? How does this control manifest?

Exactly.

What are the actual mechanics of ‘control’?

If one is fearful of losing his job or being ridiculed in public by expressing his racist ignorance and hate, that’s a consequence of society’s consensus, not some mythical political apparition trying to ‘accomplishing’ anything.

 

[Plasmaball]

.

First of all, as a First Amendment purist, I realize I'm definitely in the minority on this topic here. I want to hear what people are thinking and who agrees with them. So if they say something "offensive", that's fine with me, it tells me a lot about them.

Also, I'd rather change hearts & minds rather than intimidate people into silence by threatening their jobs or calling them names like "racist" or "homophobe" when they say something less than complimentary about someone.

So, with that said, I have two questions:

1. What is your goal by intimidating people into not saying what they're thinking? What's the big picture here?

2. Do you see any kind of downside to this approach?

.

these are reactions to what happened and not bullying. A private business has an image to uphold, and if you or I go and say something racist. They have the right to fire you. You still have your frist amendment right to still say what you want. They also have the right to not have you as an employee.

As for labeling someone a homophobe etc. These again are reactions to the term being used. Public humiliation is not forcing someone to change. You dont have to change, but other people dont have to accept you either.

I think a better argument would be when people have to issue apologies after saying something. That is more wrong than being fired.

 

[dilloduck]

Control by whom of whom? How does this control manifest?

Exactly.

What are the actual mechanics of ‘control’?

If one is fearful of losing his job or being ridiculed in public by expressing his racist ignorance and hate, that’s a consequence of society’s consensus, not some mythical political apparition trying to ‘accomplishing’ anything.

Slavery was condoned by a majority of society too.