Debate Now Why Is Being "Politically Correct" A Bad Thing To Some People?

[emilynghiem]

So far no one has explained why being PC is a bad thing when attempting to communicate with someone. Can someone address that and make sense?

What Asclepias? TNHarley and I both explained in multiple ways and examples
how PC fails when it is one sided and controlling someone else. That is how it is a bad thing!
We already answered that many times, in many different ways, all complaining about the same basic thing.

EX:
(1) by projecting and making telling or dictating to others how to say or think
(2) by collectively blaming whole groups which invokes rejection hostility defensiveness and the opposite
reaction of not only refusing but going on the counteroffensive and demanding the other side change their attitude first
(3) by not being mutual but hypocritical
enforcing PC only when it benefits that person or group agenda,
but refusing to include others or change when asked to be more sensitive in other areas

 

[Correll]

I just don't think it's possible to be "PC" at all times by definition.
It's too subject to opinion.

If you are winning a debate, all the loser of the debate has to do is claim offense and start calling you names.

Boom. The debate you were having is over, and the new debate is whether you are a bad person.

That is not a debate that you can win no matter what.

 

[Asclepias]

I just don't think it's possible to be "PC" at all times by definition.
It's too subject to opinion.

I kinda agree but the goal of communicating should make that something people should be striving for.

 

[Bonzi]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

 

[Asclepias]

So far no one has explained why being PC is a bad thing when attempting to communicate with someone. Can someone address that and make sense?

What Asclepias? TNHarley and I both explained in multiple ways and examples
how PC fails when it is one sided and controlling someone else. That is how it is a bad thing!
We already answered that many times, in many different ways, all complaining about the same basic thing.

EX:
(1) by projecting and making telling or dictating to others how to say or think
(2) by collectively blaming whole groups which invokes rejection hostility defensiveness and the opposite
reaction of not only refusing but going on the counteroffensive and demanding the other side change their attitude first
(3) by not being mutual but hypocritical
enforcing PC only when it benefits that person or group agenda,
but refusing to include others or change when asked to be more sensitive in other areas

I acknowledged when TN provided an example.

 

[Correll]

It is both politically incorrect and racist.

And your black thug is kind of racist as well as it implies that someone is a thug because he or she is black.

But there is the actual problem with slinging around the term PC police. It shuts down logical discussion.

Any kind of angry and personal insults (real or perceived) shuts down productive discussion.

NOt necessarily. There is no reason that productive discussion can't be heated and still contain valid points and counter points, along side of personal insults.

With Political Correctness though, the topic is ALWAYS shitcanned, while the offendee goes on the offensive against the alleged "offender".

It is both politically incorrect and racist.

And your black thug is kind of racist as well as it implies that someone is a thug because he or she is black.

But there is the actual problem with slinging around the term PC police. It shuts down logical discussion.

Any kind of angry and personal insults (real or perceived) shuts down productive discussion.

NOt necessarily. There is no reason that productive discussion can't be heated and still contain valid points and counter points, along side of personal insults.

With Political Correctness though, the topic is ALWAYS shitcanned, while the offendee goes on the offensive against the alleged "offender".

The inherent reason is that no one is listening when discussion is heated. Everyone is talking at each other and over each other instead of with each other. If talking was like chess then people would have time to think before responding. Unfortunately that breaks most of the protocols of conversing.

If the person "thinking" is purposefully using Political Correctness as a tactic to avoid the topic and launch personal attacks there will be no productive discussion regardless of how heated or not the discussion was.

Which is the goal.

Instead of admitting the other side has the point, the user of PC can claim victory because he/she defamed and demonized his opponent.

And it is true. Policies have been crafted and maintained in this fashion to the detriment of the society as a whole.

This is where you use your intellect. If a person is launching attacks they obviously are not trying to communicate. They are doing the same thing that people who refuse to be PC are doing.

No, they are not.

People who refuse to be PC are refusing to self censor.

People who launch personal attacks are censoring others, by ending debates they were losing.

My intellect has nothing to do with this process.

 

[Asclepias]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

 

[Correll]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

It is seen as bad because it is bad.

It is a tool used by the intellectually dishonest to defend policies and positions they cannot defend honestly at the expense of poisoning the Society as a whole and being vile little shits.

 

[Asclepias]

Any kind of angry and personal insults (real or perceived) shuts down productive discussion.

NOt necessarily. There is no reason that productive discussion can't be heated and still contain valid points and counter points, along side of personal insults.

With Political Correctness though, the topic is ALWAYS shitcanned, while the offendee goes on the offensive against the alleged "offender".

Any kind of angry and personal insults (real or perceived) shuts down productive discussion.

NOt necessarily. There is no reason that productive discussion can't be heated and still contain valid points and counter points, along side of personal insults.

With Political Correctness though, the topic is ALWAYS shitcanned, while the offendee goes on the offensive against the alleged "offender".

The inherent reason is that no one is listening when discussion is heated. Everyone is talking at each other and over each other instead of with each other. If talking was like chess then people would have time to think before responding. Unfortunately that breaks most of the protocols of conversing.

If the person "thinking" is purposefully using Political Correctness as a tactic to avoid the topic and launch personal attacks there will be no productive discussion regardless of how heated or not the discussion was.

Which is the goal.

Instead of admitting the other side has the point, the user of PC can claim victory because he/she defamed and demonized his opponent.

And it is true. Policies have been crafted and maintained in this fashion to the detriment of the society as a whole.

This is where you use your intellect. If a person is launching attacks they obviously are not trying to communicate. They are doing the same thing that people who refuse to be PC are doing.

No, they are not.

People who refuse to be PC are refusing to self censor.

People who launch personal attacks are censoring others, by ending debates they were losing.

My intellect has nothing to do with this process.

Refusing to self censor is a failure. Specifically a failure to communicate because if you dont self censor no one is going to listen or be influenced by your opinion.

People who launch personal attacks are not censoring anyone. They are just launching personal attacks and yes ending conversation. If you want to debate then you have to follow the rules. If you want to keep talking you are free to do so hence you are not being censored. Its just that no one is listening to you.

 

[Correll]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

LOL. No.

 

[emilynghiem]

I just don't think it's possible to be "PC" at all times by definition.
It's too subject to opinion.

I just don't think it's possible to be "PC" at all times by definition.
It's too subject to opinion.

Dear Bonzi the key is focus and address one audience or context at a time. Address them all, so all are included,
but separately if they need separate language.

For example, if you address Christians it may be required to use Bible references.
But then to address Nontheists, secular terms and science have certain standards to meet to be verified as valid fact.

It's okay to translate the same concept and say it to different audiences using their own language.
I find that with very sensitive subjects, it's best to start one on one, and only add more people after
you have established a common language and context.

I just had an argument with my bf over the right to arms and the right to health care,
and we couldn't even agree on the contexts, so we could not communicate using the same terms in English.

Context and connotations make all the difference with sensitive issues of politics and religion,
that involve beliefs, so one on one is best to start with. Or else you are right, it's impossible
to form a consensus with a roomful of people if you can't even find two people who can agree one on one first.

 

[Asclepias]

So back to the original question as to why some perceive it as "bad" - probably because they view it as restricting their freedom of speech and even thought....

A way of "controlling" the population as it were - or forcing people to speak the way a certain group feels they should....

The may even feel it's a form of "bullying".....

Good. You used the word control. Everyone fights for control. If you are being non PC couldnt that be considered as bullying?

LOL. No.

Explain.

 

[Skull Pilot]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

The problem is people are too easily offended

People these days are just looking for every reason under the sun to be offended so they can whine about it

Case in point

People are whining that red frosting scarves on cookies looks like blood

We have devolved into a populace of blithering idiots

 

[emilynghiem]

So far no one has explained why being PC is a bad thing when attempting to communicate with someone. Can someone address that and make sense?

What Asclepias? TNHarley and I both explained in multiple ways and examples
how PC fails when it is one sided and controlling someone else. That is how it is a bad thing!
We already answered that many times, in many different ways, all complaining about the same basic thing.

EX:
(1) by projecting and making telling or dictating to others how to say or think
(2) by collectively blaming whole groups which invokes rejection hostility defensiveness and the opposite
reaction of not only refusing but going on the counteroffensive and demanding the other side change their attitude first
(3) by not being mutual but hypocritical
enforcing PC only when it benefits that person or group agenda,
but refusing to include others or change when asked to be more sensitive in other areas

I acknowledged when TN provided an example.

Great Asclepias
So how do we take that example and "spell out"
in the terms you need to see to verify the question was answered.

How do we take the concept expressed and put it in "correct terms" you recognize as on target.

Instead of accepting TNHarley's way of expressing that answer
with respect to that individual,
how do we force a political correct standard that satisfies your need,
onto the meaning that TNHarley conveyed,
where you don't blame or judge any of us for "not answering your question"
because our meaning did not fit your projected standards or expectations.

Can you please show us how to take what we said
and say it the way you need it said, so we can do that next time.
Instead of accusing us of not answering because we can't read
your mind and say it exactly as you need it spelled out to feel we answered it.

 

[Asclepias]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

The problem is people are too easily offended

People these days are just looking for every reason under the sun to be offended so they can whine about it

Case in point

People are whining that red frosting scarves on cookies looks like blood

We have devolved into a populace of blithering idiots

I think the problem is that people like you that make up claims implying you can read minds. Thats nonsense. Everyone knows you cant read someones mind so why would you think we would believe your assertion that people are looking to be offended?

 

[Correll]

NOt necessarily. There is no reason that productive discussion can't be heated and still contain valid points and counter points, along side of personal insults.

With Political Correctness though, the topic is ALWAYS shitcanned, while the offendee goes on the offensive against the alleged "offender".

NOt necessarily. There is no reason that productive discussion can't be heated and still contain valid points and counter points, along side of personal insults.

With Political Correctness though, the topic is ALWAYS shitcanned, while the offendee goes on the offensive against the alleged "offender".

The inherent reason is that no one is listening when discussion is heated. Everyone is talking at each other and over each other instead of with each other. If talking was like chess then people would have time to think before responding. Unfortunately that breaks most of the protocols of conversing.

If the person "thinking" is purposefully using Political Correctness as a tactic to avoid the topic and launch personal attacks there will be no productive discussion regardless of how heated or not the discussion was.

Which is the goal.

Instead of admitting the other side has the point, the user of PC can claim victory because he/she defamed and demonized his opponent.

And it is true. Policies have been crafted and maintained in this fashion to the detriment of the society as a whole.

This is where you use your intellect. If a person is launching attacks they obviously are not trying to communicate. They are doing the same thing that people who refuse to be PC are doing.

No, they are not.

People who refuse to be PC are refusing to self censor.

People who launch personal attacks are censoring others, by ending debates they were losing.

My intellect has nothing to do with this process.

Refusing to self censor is a failure. Specifically a failure to communicate because if you dont self censor no one is going to listen or be influenced by your opinion.

People who launch personal attacks are not censoring anyone. They are just launching personal attacks and yes ending conversation. If you want to debate then you have to follow the rules. If you want to keep talking you are free to do so hence you are not being censored. Its just that no one is listening to you.

It is not Common Sense to expect people to Self Censor.

I don't expect anyone else to Self Censor in order to talk to me.

Yes, people who shut down debates by launching personal attacks are censoring because they are preventing public speech they do not like.

There are no rules requiring Self Censorship. That is not a reasonable expectation.

It is telling that you want for "productive discussion" to involve those you disagree with to have to self Censor, and for youto be the Judge of when they fail to do so well enough.

 

[Correll]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

The problem is people are too easily offended

People these days are just looking for every reason under the sun to be offended so they can whine about it

Case in point

People are whining that red frosting scarves on cookies looks like blood

We have devolved into a populace of blithering idiots

I think the problem is that people like you that make up claims implying you can read minds. Thats nonsense. Everyone knows you cant read someones mind so would you think we would believe your assertion that people are looking to be offended?

He obviously was discussing his judgement of people based on his observations of their actions.

For you to conclude he was implying he could read minds was not Common Sense.

 

[Asclepias]

So far no one has explained why being PC is a bad thing when attempting to communicate with someone. Can someone address that and make sense?

What Asclepias? TNHarley and I both explained in multiple ways and examples
how PC fails when it is one sided and controlling someone else. That is how it is a bad thing!
We already answered that many times, in many different ways, all complaining about the same basic thing.

EX:
(1) by projecting and making telling or dictating to others how to say or think
(2) by collectively blaming whole groups which invokes rejection hostility defensiveness and the opposite
reaction of not only refusing but going on the counteroffensive and demanding the other side change their attitude first
(3) by not being mutual but hypocritical
enforcing PC only when it benefits that person or group agenda,
but refusing to include others or change when asked to be more sensitive in other areas

I acknowledged when TN provided an example.

Great Asclepias
So how do we take that example and "spell out"
in the terms you need to see to verify the question was answered.

How do we take the concept expressed and put it in "correct terms" you recognize as on target.

Instead of accepting TNHarley's way of expressing that answer
with respect to that individual,
how do we force a political correct standard that satisfies your need,
onto the meaning that TNHarley conveyed,
where you don't blame or judge any of us for "not answering your question"
because our meaning did not fit your projected standards or expectations.

Can you please show us how to take what we said
and say it the way you need it said, so we can do that next time.
Instead of accusing us of not answering because we can't read
your mind and say it exactly as you need it spelled out to feel we answered it.

Its pretty easy. You take the question I posed in the OP and tell me how being PC stops you from communicating.

 

[Skull Pilot]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

The problem is people are too easily offended

People these days are just looking for every reason under the sun to be offended so they can whine about it

Case in point

People are whining that red frosting scarves on cookies looks like blood

We have devolved into a populace of blithering idiots

I think the problem is that people like you that make up claims implying you can read minds. Thats nonsense. Everyone knows you cant read someones mind so would you think we would believe your assertion that people are looking to be offended?

People that are so intolerant that they are offended over slight differences in language then yes they are looking for a reason to be offended

Another current trend is intolerance in the name of tolerance which stems from equating tolerance with acceptance

 

[Asclepias]

People just don't like to be forced, per se. Social assassination falls in with that.
Mental conformity is the never the answer
If some jackass wants to be a dummy, let him. After all, its not hurting anyone. It only hurts someone if they let it. Build up your confidence and quit being a limp wrist.

Just in case you are not aware the bolded portion of my OP is the question that needs to be answered. I will state why I think its silly to view PC as a bad thing.

Communication happens when both parties are attempting to exchange ideas and learn. Communications is a connection between two entities. When one party gets offended that connection is broken. They are no longer listening and in many cases they are no longer willing to exchange anything with the offending party.

The problem is people are too easily offended

People these days are just looking for every reason under the sun to be offended so they can whine about it

Case in point

People are whining that red frosting scarves on cookies looks like blood

We have devolved into a populace of blithering idiots

I think the problem is that people like you that make up claims implying you can read minds. Thats nonsense. Everyone knows you cant read someones mind so would you think we would believe your assertion that people are looking to be offended?

He obviously was discussing his judgement of people based on his observations of their actions.

For you to conclude he was implying he could read minds was not Common Sense.

That would be assuming his observations and the opinion he formed after making those observations was correct. What makes him qualified to push his opinion as fact?