Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not only does it not sting, it carries zero weight with the informed. WE see it for what it is. The uninformed that can vote (DANGER), will never investigate...and partially the reason WE are where we are.I use a very similar argument for why I think that the term 'racist' and 'homophobe' are meaningless in today's world. For those who have caught on to the tactic of using slurs as a means of scaring the other side no longer care, because the power of the word no longer stings.Indeed. BULLY tactics. I don't fall for it, rather confront it, and send them home with their tails between their legs to lick their wounds.So, you have failed to grasp the issue.
The issue is NOT about having to take flack for saying something that may or may not offend someone, but the fact that people (mostly the left) will use this not because they are offended, but because they want to put fear into their opponent.
'I better not say that, or I'll get called a racist"
Or...
You get called a racist without merit, but now have to spend time proving you are not a racist, all the while, knowing that if they said it, then others will believe it, no matter the amount of proof provided.
A prime example. George Zimmerman. He tutored black children and not once has he ever exhibited a racist tendency. The media used race by careful editing of the 911 call to make it look as if he was racist.
This is the use of PC (meaning words that a political ideology fine offensive) in this case was artful and for the purpose of intentional harm to reputation. Not out of some misguided notion of keeping conversation civil.
I personally applaud individuals who can maintain a civil discourse, and get get into a intense debate without resorting to using emotionally charged words as a means of ruining another persons reputation.
But that is a self imposed restraint, not one that should be forced upon others.
How hard is it to understand what I said?So, you have failed to grasp the issue.
The issue is NOT about having to take flack for saying something that may or may not offend someone, but the fact that people (mostly the left) will use this not because they are offended, but because they want to put fear into their opponent.
'I better not say that, or I'll get called a racist"
Or...
You get called a racist without merit, but now have to spend time proving you are not a racist, all the while, knowing that if they said it, then others will believe it, no matter the amount of proof provided.
A prime example. George Zimmerman. He tutored black children and not once has he ever exhibited a racist tendency. The media used race by careful editing of the 911 call to make it look as if he was racist.
This is the use of PC (meaning words that a political ideology fine offensive) in this case was artful and for the purpose of intentional harm to reputation. Not out of some misguided notion of keeping conversation civil.
How can you say that the issue is not taking flack for what you say and then turn around and say "I better not say that or I am going to be called a racist"? Are you confused or did you not read over what you wrote?
Just because someone calls you a racist that doesnt mean you have to spend time proving youre not. Who told you that? if you get busted expressing a racist sentiment of even calling someone a racist name you have a right to do that.
If I am debating you on the merits of an economic policy, I never mention the President's race, and I am winning the debate. You then just flat out say My position is racist because the President is black and that is why I am opposed to his policy. That is not Me taking flack for using uncivil language, nor is it all that uncommon.
That is you using an emotionally charged, Politically Correctness tactic, to silence Me.
This is what we are debating. The use of these kinds of tactics as they are related to PC terms like racist, bigot, homophobe. Or terms like, "The war on women".
Like I said before, if you go looking for it, you'll not like what you find.How hard is it to understand what I said?How can you say that the issue is not taking flack for what you say and then turn around and say "I better not say that or I am going to be called a racist"? Are you confused or did you not read over what you wrote?
Just because someone calls you a racist that doesnt mean you have to spend time proving youre not. Who told you that? if you get busted expressing a racist sentiment of even calling someone a racist name you have a right to do that.
If I am debating you on the merits of an economic policy, I never mention the President's race, and I am winning the debate. You then just flat out say My position is racist because the President is black and that is why I am opposed to his policy. That is not Me taking flack for using uncivil language, nor is it all that uncommon.
That is you using an emotionally charged, Politically Correctness tactic, to silence Me.
This is what we are debating. The use of these kinds of tactics as they are related to PC terms like racist, bigot, homophobe. Or terms like, "The war on women".
Who even does stuff like that? can you give me an example for a frame of reference?
I have to run, but I'll tell you what.How hard is it to understand what I said?How can you say that the issue is not taking flack for what you say and then turn around and say "I better not say that or I am going to be called a racist"? Are you confused or did you not read over what you wrote?
Just because someone calls you a racist that doesnt mean you have to spend time proving youre not. Who told you that? if you get busted expressing a racist sentiment of even calling someone a racist name you have a right to do that.
If I am debating you on the merits of an economic policy, I never mention the President's race, and I am winning the debate. You then just flat out say My position is racist because the President is black and that is why I am opposed to his policy. That is not Me taking flack for using uncivil language, nor is it all that uncommon.
That is you using an emotionally charged, Politically Correctness tactic, to silence Me.
This is what we are debating. The use of these kinds of tactics as they are related to PC terms like racist, bigot, homophobe. Or terms like, "The war on women".
Who even does stuff like that? can you give me an example for a frame of reference?
Like I said before, if you go looking for it, you'll not like what you find.How hard is it to understand what I said?
If I am debating you on the merits of an economic policy, I never mention the President's race, and I am winning the debate. You then just flat out say My position is racist because the President is black and that is why I am opposed to his policy. That is not Me taking flack for using uncivil language, nor is it all that uncommon.
That is you using an emotionally charged, Politically Correctness tactic, to silence Me.
This is what we are debating. The use of these kinds of tactics as they are related to PC terms like racist, bigot, homophobe. Or terms like, "The war on women".
Who even does stuff like that? can you give me an example for a frame of reference?
Start with ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, HLN, CNN, FoxNews, the New York Times.....
The times it occurs are to numerous to list here.
Are you really denying that this happens?
Because a persons reputation and livelihood can be impacted by that kind of evil vindictiveness.Like I said before, if you go looking for it, you'll not like what you find.Who even does stuff like that? can you give me an example for a frame of reference?
Start with ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, HLN, CNN, FoxNews, the New York Times.....
The times it occurs are to numerous to list here.
Are you really denying that this happens?
If I call you a racist because you tell me I should take out my garbage I would think you would have no need to defend yourself. If you said Mexican people never seem to take out garbage I would call you a racist and you would have to deal with the back lash. Does that make sense to you? Why would you worry about what someone called you when any adult and most kids understand in the first scenario you obviously are not being racist?
Because a persons reputation and livelihood can be impacted by that kind of evil vindictiveness.Like I said before, if you go looking for it, you'll not like what you find.
Start with ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, HLN, CNN, FoxNews, the New York Times.....
The times it occurs are to numerous to list here.
Are you really denying that this happens?
If I call you a racist because you tell me I should take out my garbage I would think you would have no need to defend yourself. If you said Mexican people never seem to take out garbage I would call you a racist and you would have to deal with the back lash. Does that make sense to you? Why would you worry about what someone called you when any adult and most kids understand in the first scenario you obviously are not being racist?
I wouldn't care what you called Me, but if I tell you that the city mayor's policies will bankrupt the city in five years and you want to benefit from that policy, you will tell Me I am a racist because the Mayor is Hispanic or Black....and not only to Me, but to those in the community, thereby damaging My reputation and possibly destroying chances at promotions, loans, etc..
This is NOT uncommon.
Now, I really do have to go.
.
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.
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.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.
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.
.
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?
.
.
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?
.
it is CENSORSHIP.
Again: I never mentioned anything about calling names.I didn't say anything about calling names, did I?Does it not give you any pause that someone would even have to tell you that calling them a name is offensive?
Hint: No.
And yet all the time we have white liberals deciding that innocuous words like "brown bag" and "citizen" are offensive to others.To me your assumption that a white liberal has to define what is offending to anyone is pretty silly.
Here are some other "offensive" words:
His and HerDo you find those offensive yourself? Or are you offended on someone else's part?
Peanut Butter Sandwich
Columbus
Normal
Pet Owner
Holding Down the Fort
Rule of Thumb
I said the name calling part.
Then there are a lot of lacking people in the world, aren't there?Goes along to me with racist or sexist remarks. Those words dont offend me and anyone that lets someone else define whats offensive to them is lacking.
How hard is it to understand what I said?How can you say that the issue is not taking flack for what you say and then turn around and say "I better not say that or I am going to be called a racist"? Are you confused or did you not read over what you wrote?
Just because someone calls you a racist that doesnt mean you have to spend time proving youre not. Who told you that? if you get busted expressing a racist sentiment of even calling someone a racist name you have a right to do that.
If I am debating you on the merits of an economic policy, I never mention the President's race, and I am winning the debate. You then just flat out say My position is racist because the President is black and that is why I am opposed to his policy. That is not Me taking flack for using uncivil language, nor is it all that uncommon.
That is you using an emotionally charged, Politically Correctness tactic, to silence Me.
This is what we are debating. The use of these kinds of tactics as they are related to PC terms like racist, bigot, homophobe. Or terms like, "The war on women".
Who even does stuff like that? can you give me an example for a frame of reference?
.
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?
.
.
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.
Finally someone with the intellectual integrity to actually take a stab at answering my questions.
Thank you.
So rather than trying to accomplish something it's a reaction. That would certainly make sense, more anger/frustration than anything else. Seems to me we're now at the "chicken or the egg" moment, where the righties can say they say shit because they're tired of being pushed around, and the lefties can say that what the righties are saying is racist.
Not so unlike Israel and Palestine, who did what first. Either way, it doesn't matter, since both ends of the argument have to be honest and stop pulling their shit before anything of substance can be accomplished.
The constant screaming of "racism" and the constant changing of words because they're not nice enough are certainly not healing anything. They're in fact exacerbating the problem. Someone has to be the adult in the room at some point and be the first to cut the crap.
Not holding my breath, of course.
.
Well said. It's similar to something I've been saying for years on message boards when people whine about what others say: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.
Finally someone with the intellectual integrity to actually take a stab at answering my questions.
Thank you.
So rather than trying to accomplish something it's a reaction. That would certainly make sense, more anger/frustration than anything else. Seems to me we're now at the "chicken or the egg" moment, where the righties can say they say shit because they're tired of being pushed around, and the lefties can say that what the righties are saying is racist.
Not so unlike Israel and Palestine, who did what first. Either way, it doesn't matter, since both ends of the argument have to be honest and stop pulling their shit before anything of substance can be accomplished.
The constant screaming of "racism" and the constant changing of words because they're not nice enough are certainly not healing anything. They're in fact exacerbating the problem. Someone has to be the adult in the room at some point and be the first to cut the crap.
Not holding my breath, of course.
.
Not trying to deflect from your questions but you touched on the heart of the matter when you said that you like to hear what others have to say. Those that don't are simply not worth your time and trouble. You are also correct that there are some who try to "control others" but the reality is that the only "control" they have over anyone else is the control you (3rd person) allow them to have. Unless you are willing to play their games they have no control at all.
So the answer is to ignore and not engage with those who don't know how to behave like adults in public. You would leave a restaurant where someone was yelling the kinds of imprecations that are flung around in these forums. You are free to leave a thread or simply ignore those where someone is behaving like a boor.
The control belongs to you and you alone. Use it to your own advantage. You don't have to respond or reply in kind no matter what insults are flung your way. You won't be a lessor person because you take the high road. That is my 2 cents worth.
