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

[Asclepias]

There is a line.
The problem is it's different places for different people.
So there can be no steadfast rule.

But I understand why people get tired of being told things are not PC because some of them are dumb.

Which is why PC is a good thing. Each individual person can during the course of the conversation say "dont call me a dodo head".

 

[Correll]

says who?

Intellect.

In my experience, I have constantly seen the "offenders" being willing and able to continue discussion the topic but unable to get the offended person to discuss it any more, as they are now focused on personally attacking the alleged offender.

That only occurs when the offender doesnt correct their mistake which shuts down communication.

Who says there was a mistake?

The claim of offense is a tactic, a way of shutting down a line of debate that is not going to the "offendees" way.

Your assumption that there is a real offense is unsupported.

And furthermore the idea itself is often considered the offense, so there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to continue to discuss the idea under the rules of Political Correctness.

one thing you should probably learn is that it's not for you to decide what should and should not offend others.

because really, no one cares if you think someone should be offended. but normal discourse, as you call it, does not include intentionally offending people and then saying "well, I don't care about political correctness".

what it really means is you're a bully without empathy. and childish, to boot, (which we knew from your psots) since only children don't respect social conventions.

Your scenario has little if anything to do with the way Political Correctness is used.


I am not asking that I have the right to decide what should and should not offend others.

I do not want productive discourse to be shut down because someone claims that they are offended and changes the topic to how bad the offendee" supposedly is,

nor do I want public policy crafted because we can have real debates on real issues.

ONly children don't respect social conventions? LOL! So much for the Free Thinking Left!

Ask me someday about the time my one friends dad got ridiculed for being in a Rock Band.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

LEtting your tender feelings get in the way is no way to win an argument

 

[Correll]

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.

Actually it is common sense to expect people to self censor if they want to be listened to. Where did you get this idea that it wasnt common sense?

Please as per your op, prove your claim that Self Censorship is Common sense using common sense.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

LEtting your tender feelings get in the way is no way to win an argument

No one wins an argument if both sides dont learn something useful about the others side.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

And you know as well as I do that one does not have to necessarily say something bigoted to be shouted down as a bigot by the PC crowd one merely has to say something the PC crowd disagrees with because they actually believe tolerance equals acceptance

 

[Correll]

open your eyes and recognize your own various contradictions, people...



"Sho"[6]

OP requested no links. Make you point in your own words.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And neither does yours

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

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

LEtting your tender feelings get in the way is no way to win an argument

No one wins an argument if both sides dont learn something useful about the others side.

And how do you learn anything about your opponent if you resort to calling him a racist etc because you don't like the way he said something?

 

[Valerie]

open your eyes and recognize your own various contradictions, people...



"Sho"[6]

OP requested no links. Make you point in your own words.

oh, is that the politically correct response to the op?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Actually it is common sense to expect people to self censor if they want to be listened to. Where did you get this idea that it wasnt common sense?

Please as per your op, prove your claim that Self Censorship is Common sense using common sense.

This shouldnt be difficult for you hopefully.

I want to communicate.
The person I want to communicate with says dont call me a dodo head.
I wont call that person a dodo head because I want to communicate with them.

 

[Ravi]

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.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

LEtting your tender feelings get in the way is no way to win an argument

Nor is being racist, bigoted, or intolerant.

What this really boils down to is that RWNJs want to call people names with impunity. Sorry, that's just not going to happen no matter how emotional you get about it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Actually it is common sense to expect people to self censor if they want to be listened to. Where did you get this idea that it wasnt common sense?

Please as per your op, prove your claim that Self Censorship is Common sense using common sense.

This shouldnt be difficult for you hopefully.

I want to communicate.
The person I want to communicate with says dont call me a dodo head.
I wont call that person a dodo head because I want to communicate with them.

Why would he say not to call him names if you didn;t first call him a dodo head

 

[Ravi]

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.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

And you know as well as I do that one does not have to necessarily say something bigoted to be shouted down as a bigot by the PC crowd one merely has to say something the PC crowd disagrees with because they actually believe tolerance equals acceptance

How about an example?

 

[Asclepias]

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

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

LEtting your tender feelings get in the way is no way to win an argument

No one wins an argument if both sides dont learn something useful about the others side.

And how do you learn anything about your opponent if you resort to calling him a racist etc because you don't like the way he said something?

Who said that your targets intent was to learn something about you? Concentrate on your part of the deal until its evident the person doesnt want to communicate.

 

[Bonzi]

There is a line.
The problem is it's different places for different people.
So there can be no steadfast rule.

But I understand why people get tired of being told things are not PC because some of them are dumb.

Which is why PC is a good thing. Each individual person can during the course of the conversation say "dont call me a dodo head".

Name calling should never be part of an intelligent discussion or debate.
Anything aimed directly at that person intentionally to be demeaning has no place in a civil conversation.

PC can be separate from that however.....

For example, I could say during a discussion "I felt I got gypped ...." which some may say is not PC toward Gypsies - but you know they did not mean it to be an insult to Gypsies

 

[Correll]

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.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

As the person losing the argument gets to define what is supposedly "racist, intolerant or bigoted" and then launch the hissy fit/personal attacks, it is impossibly hard.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Actually it is common sense to expect people to self censor if they want to be listened to. Where did you get this idea that it wasnt common sense?

Please as per your op, prove your claim that Self Censorship is Common sense using common sense.

This shouldnt be difficult for you hopefully.

I want to communicate.
The person I want to communicate with says dont call me a dodo head.
I wont call that person a dodo head because I want to communicate with them.

Why would he say not to call him names if you didn;t first call him a dodo head

Maybe you've called him dodo head before? Maybe someone with the same argument has called him dodo head before?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And neither does yours

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

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

LEtting your tender feelings get in the way is no way to win an argument

Nor is being racist, bigoted, or intolerant.

What this really boils down to is that RWNJs want to call people names with impunity. Sorry, that's just not going to happen no matter how emotional you get about it.

So who are the ones shouting bigot, racist, homophobe etc?

It's the oh so sensitive intolerant in the name of tolerance PC crowd

 

[Asclepias]

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.

The PC tactic of calling someone racist, intolerant or bigoted when that person says something to offend the tender sensibilities of the PC crowd is avoidance of the discussion

Then don't say something racist, intolerant or bigoted. How much easier can it get?

As the person losing the argument gets to define what is supposedly "racist, intolerant or bigoted" and then launch the hissy fit/personal attacks, it is impossibly hard.

Who told you they were losing the argument and what makes you think there should be a loser? Your mindset is actually revealing a lot about your character. Both people should win at the end of the conversation.

 

[Correll]

There is a line.
The problem is it's different places for different people.
So there can be no steadfast rule.

But I understand why people get tired of being told things are not PC because some of them are dumb.

Which is why PC is a good thing. Each individual person can during the course of the conversation say "dont call me a dodo head".

Name calling should never be part of an intelligent discussion or debate.
Anything aimed directly at that person intentionally to be demeaning has no place in a civil conversation.

PC can be separate from that however.....

For example, I could say during a discussion "I felt I got gypped ...." which some may say is not PC toward Gypsies - but you know they did not mean it to be an insult to Gypsies

But someone could decide that the topic now needs to be what a bad person you are and that you really need to "man up" and "own your bigotry", and nothing you can say or do is an answer, and they are happy to fill all bandwidth with how bad of a person Bonzi is.