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

[Correll]

You could say something totally PC to me and I could still get offended and it could change the conversation to something personal and confrontational....

I disagree. I might think its PC but if you get offended its obviously not PC. The offended person sets the rules on what is PC or not.

ie---the offended person determines if the conversation continues. The offended person demands control

Disagree. If I get offended and you apologize and correct your verbiage, tone, etc then you determined if the conversation continues. I do it with my kids all the time.

I am not a child

Legally? No. Emotionally? Absolutely.

That was uncalled for.

 

[Valerie]

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.

bingo. jerks are always hiding behind the skirt of this nebulous PC boogeyman but if you look around, there are no real life examples of anyone whose life has been utterly 'DESTROYED' by the natural consequences of common decency standards... it's a bunch of bologna that loser chumps love to pack in their lunch boxes cuz it gives them comfort... have some beef jerky and forget about 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 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

Saying "yes" doesnt make it any more factual. Its simply your opinion that they are looking to be offended. Another way of looking at is they are not going to allow you to offend them anymore.

 

[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?

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?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

 

[Asclepias]

I disagree. I might think its PC but if you get offended its obviously not PC. The offended person sets the rules on what is PC or not.

ie---the offended person determines if the conversation continues. The offended person demands control

Disagree. If I get offended and you apologize and correct your verbiage, tone, etc then you determined if the conversation continues. I do it with my kids all the time.

I am not a child

Legally? No. Emotionally? Absolutely.

That was uncalled for.

What was uncalled for?

 

[Correll]

Wrong on all counts.

1. It is not my job to find a way to communicate with them. If they are engaging is debate it is on them to be ready for normal discourse.

2. I am not refusing to find a way to communicate. I am constantly working to improve my communication skills. They are choosing to avoid the topic by launching a hissy fit/personal attacks.

3. Nothing I am doing is making them more of a problem. They are choosing to attack me instead of discussing the topic.

what is normal discourse? and should we call whatever that is, correll correctness??

You don't know what normal discourse is?

Use a dictionary, look up the words and then write down the meanings one after the other.

I will leave it up to you figure out which meaning to write down first.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Correll and Asclepias

It depends what level you are talking about

We self-censor all the time by not cussing in church,
not talking about peeing or farting or our sex lives in front of mixed company,
not speaking one language to someone who understands another, etc.

When we establish mutual respect first, these issues follow naturally.

the initial problem is if people approach each other as hostile,
then no amount of PC is going to fix that.

when someone is afraid I am imposing on them,
I tend to have to go 100% only speaking and talking from their viewpoint.
I cannot so much as mention mine if that's already considered hostile or imposing.
They may need to do all the talking and controlling the conversation first,
if they are already on the defensive from being attacked by others.

it may not become a mutual two sided conversation until
after they feel safe and have established their viewpoint as respected.

too often PC gets projected without first establishing a mutual relationship of respect.
self-correction by definition cannot be imposed externally from the outside
it must originate from within, so both sides are only responsible and focused on their own first
not trying to change or control the other person, much less larger groups collectively outside themselves

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong on all counts.

1. It is not my job to find a way to communicate with them. If they are engaging is debate it is on them to be ready for normal discourse.

2. I am not refusing to find a way to communicate. I am constantly working to improve my communication skills. They are choosing to avoid the topic by launching a hissy fit/personal attacks.

3. Nothing I am doing is making them more of a problem. They are choosing to attack me instead of discussing the topic.

what is normal discourse? and should we call whatever that is, correll correctness??

You don't know what normal discourse is?

Use a dictionary, look up the words and then write down the meanings one after the other.

I will leave it up to you figure out which meaning to write down first.

Normal is subjective. Charles Manson thought he was normal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

 

[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.

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?

No it does not.

The opposite of correct is not mind reading.

That was not common sense of you.

We all consider our opinions to be correct. Some of us are reasonable enough to distinguish between our judgements and verified facts.

 

[Valerie]

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

whiners offend you... so what? someone ought to write a law??

the internet has turned every nitwit into thinking their red cookie whining is relevant... wgaf?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Dear Correll and Asclepias

It depends what level you are talking about

We self-censor all the time by not cussing in church,
not talking about peeing or farting or our sex lives in front of mixed company,
not speaking one language to someone who understands another, etc.

When we establish mutual respect first, these issues follow naturally.

the initial problem is if people approach each other as hostile,
then no amount of PC is going to fix that.

when someone is afraid I am imposing on them,
I tend to have to go 100% only speaking and talking from their viewpoint.
I cannot so much as mention mine if that's already considered hostile or imposing.
They may need to do all the talking and controlling the conversation first,
if they are already on the defensive from being attacked by others.

it may not become a mutual two sided conversation until
after they feel safe and have established their viewpoint as respected.

too often PC gets projected without first establishing a mutual relationship of respect.
self-correction by definition cannot be imposed externally from the outside
it must originate from within, so both sides are only responsible and focused on their own first
not trying to change or control the other person, much less larger groups collectively outside themselves

The content of your view has nothing to do with PC. Its the language or specifically the offending language you use to get your point across. If someone gets upset at your viewpoint and doesnt point out the wrong in your viewpoint they are upset at you not being PC regardless if they use that term or not. For example if someone were to tell me Black people were dumb and I called them a cave chimp The person that called Black people dumb could now be sure I wasnt listening to them any longer due to their not being PC.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

No it does not.

The opposite of correct is not mind reading.

That was not common sense of you.

We all consider our opinions to be correct. Some of us are reasonable enough to distinguish between our judgements and verified facts.

There are no verified facts that people are using PC to deflect arguments. Hence why his and your opinions are incorrect.

 

[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.

Explain.

If I reference a PC taboo subject in the course of making a point, that is not bullying.

Some "offendee" who spends days viciously slandering someone because that person made a point the "offendee" could not answer honestly, is bullying.

 

[Valerie]

Wrong on all counts.

1. It is not my job to find a way to communicate with them. If they are engaging is debate it is on them to be ready for normal discourse.

2. I am not refusing to find a way to communicate. I am constantly working to improve my communication skills. They are choosing to avoid the topic by launching a hissy fit/personal attacks.

3. Nothing I am doing is making them more of a problem. They are choosing to attack me instead of discussing the topic.

what is normal discourse? and should we call whatever that is, correll correctness??

You don't know what normal discourse is?

Use a dictionary, look up the words and then write down the meanings one after the other.

I will leave it up to you figure out which meaning to write down first.

i was raising a point by asking you to reflect on your own terminology... "normal discourse"

but alas, double standards and deflection are your comfort zone...

 

[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.

If I reference a PC taboo subject in the course of making a point, that is not bullying.

Some "offendee" who spends days viciously slandering someone because that person made a point the "offendee" could not answer honestly, is bullying.

Please explain and make sense. I would suggest you look up bullying first.

 

[jillian]

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.

people can be as bigoted as they want (which is really what we're talking about) but there are ramifications to stupid. that's the part the bigots tend not to like.

realistically, it's just about not marginalizing people.

 

[Correll]

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?

No it does not.

The opposite of correct is not mind reading.

That was not common sense of you.

We all consider our opinions to be correct. Some of us are reasonable enough to distinguish between our judgements and verified facts.

There are no verified facts that people are using PC to deflect arguments. Hence why his and your opinions are incorrect.

The final statement was just a general statement regarding the difference between having an opinion you believe to be correct and presenting it as verified fact.

My point regarding the opposite of correct not being mind reading stands.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

What qualifies you to say whether I'm correct or not maybe you are reading minds and can tell people aren't looking for reasons to be offended which would mean that instead they are extremely thin skinned and intolerant

The dictionary. If you look up the difference between and opinion and a fact you will see your opinion requires no proof.

And neither does yours

Thats correct. My opinion is not fact just like the claim that people are using PC to avoid debate.