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

[Nosmo King]

Free Speech is FORBIDDEN under PC...simple as that.... YOU have the right to be outraged by what I say, as I do with what you say!

Free speech is not forbidden. Those who denigrate PC are angry because they no longer have the freedom to offend without consequence.

Political Correctness might well be defined as using simple human respect, decency and tolerance. Those who are off put by PC simply want to conduct themselves without that simple human respect and decency.

Should we eliminate PC? Should we eliminate civil discourse in favor of the coarsening of the culture? They seem to be the same question.

This pretense is part of the machinery of Political Correctness.

Pretense?!? Have we devolved so far as a society that basic human respect is a pretense?

Is the ability to easily offend, marginalize and demean something so noble it has to be defended?

Nosmo King where the insult and "pretense" comes in
is where the people preaching PC aren't following rules of civility themselves.
See response previously to Ravi, where this causes problems in practice.

I agree that respect is a two way street. But I cannot understand the nobility in someone calling someone else a name and then claiming that as a civil liberty and the right thing to do.

Why throw the baby out with the bath water? Conservatives see PC as a purely Liberal construct and therefore are happy to dismiss political correctness. But, as I have asserted, political correctness is both consequence for offense and simple respect and tolerance. Are Conservatives happily discarding respect, or does the idea of a Liberal notion all it takes for them to continue to be coarse and rude?

Kind of a 'chicken and the egg' proposition.

 

[Ravi]

I believe in the Contest of Ideas.

And they do not, because they are cowards.
.

Reported. That felt good.

 

[Nosmo King]

Free Speech is FORBIDDEN under PC...simple as that.... YOU have the right to be outraged by what I say, as I do with what you say!

Free speech is not forbidden. Those who denigrate PC are angry because they no longer have the freedom to offend without consequence.

Political Correctness might well be defined as using simple human respect, decency and tolerance. Those who are off put by PC simply want to conduct themselves without that simple human respect and decency.

Should we eliminate PC? Should we eliminate civil discourse in favor of the coarsening of the culture? They seem to be the same question.

This pretense is part of the machinery of Political Correctness.

Pretense?!? Have we devolved so far as a society that basic human respect is a pretense?

Is the ability to easily offend, marginalize and demean something so noble it has to be defended?

PC is not about basic human respect.

It is about the ability to shout down and marginalize people or ideas you don't like.

Which is why I am so strongly against it.

I believe in the Contest of Ideas.

The 'Contest of Ideas' is a noble pursuit. But lathering up with insulting, denigrating and offensive language and epithets dilutes that contest so it appears more like a pro wrestling match and less like William F. Buckley's Firing Line.

 

[Ravi]

How about an example?

Person 1: I don't believe in gay marriage
PC Person: Then you're a homophobe

Person 1 said nothing disparaging about gay people at all

Sounds PC person needs to be educated. At this point person 1 should either ask why they were a homophobe or cut to the chase and explain their reasons for not believing in gay marriage.

That could have been done without PC person calling Person 1 a name

It's the name calling that is meant to derail the argument

Thats true. However not all conversations go like that. From what I have observed something like this is more the norm.

Person 1. All faggots will die in hell and america will be destroyed if they are allowed to marry.

PC person. Then you're a homophobe

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

If you were a raging constitutionalist you'd have no problem with gay marriage at all. "Gay agenda" is yet another dog whistle term.

 

[Yarddog]

Person 1: I don't believe in gay marriage
PC Person: Then you're a homophobe

Person 1 said nothing disparaging about gay people at all

Sounds PC person needs to be educated. At this point person 1 should either ask why they were a homophobe or cut to the chase and explain their reasons for not believing in gay marriage.

That could have been done without PC person calling Person 1 a name

It's the name calling that is meant to derail the argument

Thats true. However not all conversations go like that. From what I have observed something like this is more the norm.

Person 1. All faggots will die in hell and america will be destroyed if they are allowed to marry.

PC person. Then you're a homophobe

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

 

[Asclepias]

Sounds PC person needs to be educated. At this point person 1 should either ask why they were a homophobe or cut to the chase and explain their reasons for not believing in gay marriage.

That could have been done without PC person calling Person 1 a name

It's the name calling that is meant to derail the argument

Thats true. However not all conversations go like that. From what I have observed something like this is more the norm.

Person 1. All faggots will die in hell and america will be destroyed if they are allowed to marry.

PC person. Then you're a homophobe

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

 

[Valerie]

Nosmo King where the insult and "pretense" comes in
is where the people preaching PC aren't following rules of civility themselves.
See response previously to Ravi, where this causes problems in practice.

hilarious how you hate the evil PC but your ilk just loves hiding in the CDZ for the civility standards.

are you being dishonest or are you just not smart enough to understand your own hypocrisy?

i guess one is not necessarily exclusive of the other, but i have to wonder...

no one is preaching, by the way.. it's all in your imagination.

 

[Yarddog]

That could have been done without PC person calling Person 1 a name

It's the name calling that is meant to derail the argument

Thats true. However not all conversations go like that. From what I have observed something like this is more the norm.

Person 1. All faggots will die in hell and america will be destroyed if they are allowed to marry.

PC person. Then you're a homophobe

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

Immigration/ illegal immigration or refugees. seems to be an issue these days but theres lots of others. Theres always race relations. I wonder also if the emmicons people use would also be considered non PC as well as posted images. I suppose so

 

[Asclepias]

Thats true. However not all conversations go like that. From what I have observed something like this is more the norm.

Person 1. All faggots will die in hell and america will be destroyed if they are allowed to marry.

PC person. Then you're a homophobe

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

Immigration/ illegal immigration or refugees. seems to be an issue these days but theres lots of others. Theres always race relations. I wonder also if the emmicons people use would also be considered non PC as well as posted images. I suppose so

So what are we doing exactly? Are we counting how many people from each side gets non PC?

 

[Nosmo King]

Sounds PC person needs to be educated. At this point person 1 should either ask why they were a homophobe or cut to the chase and explain their reasons for not believing in gay marriage.

That could have been done without PC person calling Person 1 a name

It's the name calling that is meant to derail the argument

Thats true. However not all conversations go like that. From what I have observed something like this is more the norm.

Person 1. All faggots will die in hell and america will be destroyed if they are allowed to marry.

PC person. Then you're a homophobe

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

There are, unfortunately, posters who revel in the rude and inflammatory. The concept of political correctness is anathema to them. Somehow those poster believe that the cruder the insult, the viler the language and the lower the standard of discourse adds credence to their argument. Such posters do not frequent the CDZ because of the higher level of civility. Those folks are usually found in the Flame Zone.

Fine. As LBJ said, 'when you wrestle a pig, both you and the pig end up dirty, you get annoyed and the pig loves every minute of it.' Those who wish not to wrestle pigs are better served in the CDZ.

 

[Yarddog]

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

Immigration/ illegal immigration or refugees. seems to be an issue these days but theres lots of others. Theres always race relations. I wonder also if the emmicons people use would also be considered non PC as well as posted images. I suppose so

So what are we doing exactly? Are we counting how many people from each side gets non PC?

Hmm, haven't thought it through enough. May be a good Idea to get some input from others to see if anyone would be up for that or if they have good ideas as well. It may be good at this point just to put that question out there

 

[Asclepias]

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

Immigration/ illegal immigration or refugees. seems to be an issue these days but theres lots of others. Theres always race relations. I wonder also if the emmicons people use would also be considered non PC as well as posted images. I suppose so

So what are we doing exactly? Are we counting how many people from each side gets non PC?

Hmm, haven't thought it through enough. May be a good Idea to get some input from others to see if anyone would be up for that or if they have good ideas as well. It may be good at this point just to put that question out there

One thing I am sure of is that it cant be me. LOL! I'm thinking we could use the Current Evnets forum. Maybe we can see who breaks PC rules first and note what caused them to break it Their stance on the issue would be something to note. The intensity of the attack as well?

 

[hortysir]

I've seen many times on this board the term "politically correct" being used in derogatory manner. It baffles me to be honest. What is it that would make being politically correct something to frown upon as opposed to a tool to further communication?

Rules:

1. No off topic comments. Please address the question.
2. Be able to prove your position using common sense. No links

Political Correctness tends to water down and lesson the meaning of the words they're meant to replace.
i.e., "Undocumented Worker" in lieu of "Illegal Immigrant"

I've noticed that those that promote such phrasing do not hesitate to label those with a differing view with _____-phobe

 

[emilynghiem]

Person 1: I don't believe in gay marriage
PC Person: Then you're a homophobe

Person 1 said nothing disparaging about gay people at all

Sounds PC person needs to be educated. At this point person 1 should either ask why they were a homophobe or cut to the chase and explain their reasons for not believing in gay marriage.

That could have been done without PC person calling Person 1 a name

It's the name calling that is meant to derail the argument

Thats true. However not all conversations go like that. From what I have observed something like this is more the norm.

Person 1. All faggots will die in hell and america will be destroyed if they are allowed to marry.

PC person. Then you're a homophobe

^ why isn't calling someone a homophobe or islamophobe
equally policed as politically incorrect? ^

what if someone is a raging Constitutionalist who doesn't like the gay agenda
maybe they are a liberal-phobic but not necessarily anti-gay per se

also if someone is not pro-gay that doesn't make them anti-gay or homophobic.
I believe in not pushing either progay or antigay agenda through govt,
but to write the laws neutrally where they don't trigger negative or "phobic" reactions from anyone.

It is politically incorrect language and usually shuts down any conversation.
However if you note, person #1 started the conversation which would make them the one that needed to have an audience and offered the first non PC comments. There is never a guarantee that the person that responds cares to have a conversation at all after the first person started off the conversation in a failed state.

Dear Asclepias
people talk to me and others with very UNPC language all the time.
As long as I can hear some of their points and try to engage with them anyway,
they tend to respond likewise and try to work with me to the same extent.
Our language may run all over the place, and we can still agree to work it out.

one side calling the other unPC
is already going to set people off before you even enter the conversation

I do not recommend going into it that way
If you already do not start your study at neutral
then you are going to get a biased result, sorry!

 

[Correll]

Free Speech is FORBIDDEN under PC...simple as that.... YOU have the right to be outraged by what I say, as I do with what you say!

Free speech is not forbidden. Those who denigrate PC are angry because they no longer have the freedom to offend without consequence.

Political Correctness might well be defined as using simple human respect, decency and tolerance. Those who are off put by PC simply want to conduct themselves without that simple human respect and decency.

Should we eliminate PC? Should we eliminate civil discourse in favor of the coarsening of the culture? They seem to be the same question.

This pretense is part of the machinery of Political Correctness.

Pretense?!? Have we devolved so far as a society that basic human respect is a pretense?

Is the ability to easily offend, marginalize and demean something so noble it has to be defended?

PC is not about basic human respect.

It is about the ability to shout down and marginalize people or ideas you don't like.

Which is why I am so strongly against it.

I believe in the Contest of Ideas.

The 'Contest of Ideas' is a noble pursuit. But lathering up with insulting, denigrating and offensive language and epithets dilutes that contest so it appears more like a pro wrestling match and less like William F. Buckley's Firing Line.

Not being Political Correct is not, as you are trying to claim, "lathering up with insulting, denigrating and offensive language and epithets ".


It takes one reference to an idea or a phrase that some one chooses to take offense at and drop the topic in favor of a new topic, ie what a bad person you are.

 

[Mac1958]

Free Speech is FORBIDDEN under PC...simple as that.... YOU have the right to be outraged by what I say, as I do with what you say!

Free speech is not forbidden. Those who denigrate PC are angry because they no longer have the freedom to offend without consequence.

Political Correctness might well be defined as using simple human respect, decency and tolerance. Those who are off put by PC simply want to conduct themselves without that simple human respect and decency.

Should we eliminate PC? Should we eliminate civil discourse in favor of the coarsening of the culture? They seem to be the same question.

This pretense is part of the machinery of Political Correctness.

Pretense?!? Have we devolved so far as a society that basic human respect is a pretense?

Is the ability to easily offend, marginalize and demean something so noble it has to be defended?

PC is not about basic human respect.

It is about the ability to shout down and marginalize people or ideas you don't like.

Which is why I am so strongly against it.

I believe in the Contest of Ideas.

The 'Contest of Ideas' is a noble pursuit. But lathering up with insulting, denigrating and offensive language and epithets dilutes that contest so it appears more like a pro wrestling match and less like William F. Buckley's Firing Line.

The weaponization and application of Political Correctness goes far, far beyond disliking it when someone says a nasty word. In fact, that would be among the very last issues I have with it.

What it actually involves is a segment of the population that uses "being offended" as a way to put their target on the defensive and thereby control the conversation. To wit:

Person 1: "I disagree with Obama on this issue, and here are three reasons why".

Person 2: "You're a racist".

Person 1: "Huh? I'm not a racist, I just disagree with Obama and explained precisely why".

Person 2: "You just disagree with Obama because he's black. You're a racist. This conversation is over, and I'm gonna get you fired"

Person 1: "I'm not a racist, I just, oh, never mind."

Person 2 has leveraged PC to avoid the conversation by putting his target on the defensive.


What it also involves is enabling the bad behavior of a person or group by deflecting away from that behavior.

Person 1: "Something needs to be done about the incredibly high incidence of fatherless black children. Here are the stats."

Person 2: "You're a racist".

Person 1: "Hey, no, I'm just pointing out the facts".

Person 2: "I'm not gonna waste my time talking to a racist. This conversation is over, and I'm gonna get you fired"

Person 2 has leveraged PC to avoid the conversation by putting his target on the defensive.


And another example:

Person 1: "The murderer was a devout Muslim and told people he'd slaughter non-believers because his religion tells him to."

Person 2: "Christians killed all kinds people in the Crusades. I don't see you talking about them."

Person 1: "Uh, I'm talking about this specific case".

Person 2: "You think that all Muslims are terrorists. You're an anti-Islam bigot. Not all Muslims are terrorists. This conversation is over, and I'm gonna get you fired"

And the trend continues.

Of course, I could go on and on and on and on, with examples, but I know that you could just Google political correctness examples and come up with about another zillion that have nothing to do with just saying a bad word.
.

 

[Correll]

Free speech is not forbidden. Those who denigrate PC are angry because they no longer have the freedom to offend without consequence.

Political Correctness might well be defined as using simple human respect, decency and tolerance. Those who are off put by PC simply want to conduct themselves without that simple human respect and decency.

Should we eliminate PC? Should we eliminate civil discourse in favor of the coarsening of the culture? They seem to be the same question.

This pretense is part of the machinery of Political Correctness.

Pretense?!? Have we devolved so far as a society that basic human respect is a pretense?

Is the ability to easily offend, marginalize and demean something so noble it has to be defended?

PC is not about basic human respect.

It is about the ability to shout down and marginalize people or ideas you don't like.

Which is why I am so strongly against it.

I believe in the Contest of Ideas.

The 'Contest of Ideas' is a noble pursuit. But lathering up with insulting, denigrating and offensive language and epithets dilutes that contest so it appears more like a pro wrestling match and less like William F. Buckley's Firing Line.

The weaponization and application of Political Correctness goes far, far beyond disliking it when someone says a nasty word. In fact, that would be among the very last issues I have with it.

What it actually involves is a segment of the population that uses "being offended" as a way to put their target on the defensive and thereby control the conversation. To wit:

Person 1: "I disagree with Obama on this issue, and here are three reasons why".

Person 2: "You're a racist".

Person 1: "Huh? I'm not a racist, I just disagree with Obama and explained precisely why".

Person 2: "You just disagree with Obama because he's black. You're a racist. I'm gonna get you fired."

Person 1: "I'm not a racist, I just, oh, never mind."

Person 2 has leveraged PC to avoid the conversation by putting his target on the defensive.


What it also involves is enabling the bad behavior of a person or group by deflecting away from that behavior.

Person 1: "Something needs to be done about the incredibly high incidence of fatherless black children. Here are the stats."

Person 2: "You're a racist".

Person 1: "Hey, no, I'm just pointing out the facts".

Person 2: "I'm not gonna waste my time talking to the racist, and I'm gonna get you fired".

Person 2 has leveraged PC to avoid the conversation by putting his target on the defensive.


And another example:

Person 1: "The murderer was a devout Muslim and told people he'd slaughter non-believers because his religion tells him to."

Person 2: "Christians killed all kinds people in the Crusades. I don't see you talking about them."

Person 1: "Uh, I'm talking about this specific case".

Person 2: "You think that all Muslims are terrorists. You're an anti-Islam bigot. Not all Muslims are terrorists. I'm gonna get you fired"

And the trend continues.

Of course, I could go on and on and on and on, with examples, but I know that you could just Google political correctness examples and come up with about another zillion that have nothing to do with just saying a bad word.
.

Nicely said. Unfortunately I must go to work. I hope to rejoin in a few hours.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe we should do an experiment then. At the start of each thread, the OP will say whether the thread is a CIVIL/ PC language thread or an open thread, anything goes. Just see what happens and compare the results.

Sounds good. What kind of topic should we do and where should we post it? Matter of fact who should post it? To make it fair it would need to be someone that is not identified with one side or the other.

Immigration/ illegal immigration or refugees. seems to be an issue these days but theres lots of others. Theres always race relations. I wonder also if the emmicons people use would also be considered non PC as well as posted images. I suppose so

So what are we doing exactly? Are we counting how many people from each side gets non PC?

Hmm, haven't thought it through enough. May be a good Idea to get some input from others to see if anyone would be up for that or if they have good ideas as well. It may be good at this point just to put that question out there

One thing I am sure of is that it cant be me. LOL! I'm thinking we could use the Current Evnets forum. Maybe we can see who breaks PC rules first and note what caused them to break it Their stance on the issue would be something to note. The intensity of the attack as well?

Dear Asclepias if you already approaching the situation
as a contest to see who can prove the other person is biased first,
that's already a bias of "you vs. them"

I try very hard not to do that though I and all of us are going to come across that way online.

I try to make it clear I see this as a WE situation
and try to work with everyone, faults biases and beliefs as is,
to deal with the material we bring to the table equally to start with.

None of us is going to have perfect language.
it's not a contest to see who can prove the other wrong,
but how can we both give and take, correct points equally on all sides,
and make things right TOGETHER where everyone has points to make.
We all have to get used to ways to say things that work better
for one person but fail with another. And just watch which context or audience we are addressing.

 

[emilynghiem]

So people need to read your mind and figure out what is going to offend you before they speak. ? Are you unable to comprehend words that offend you. Are you victimized by them ?

Nope. You call me a dodo head. I say dont call me that. You call me by my name. Conversation continues. You claim all men are wife beaters. I say thats ridiculous and offensive because you dont know all men. You say ok some men. Its a give and take.

Yes if you use a word that offends me I literally cannot understand it. Yes it victimizes the person because now they cant understand what you are talking about.

That is a lie------you understand non PC words perfectly well...... I KNEW we were going to have to deal with you as a victim again.

Here is a good example right here. Youre telling me what I understand as if you can read my mind which is of course pure nonsense.

A good example of what ?

An example of nonsense and terrible communications skills. Instead of assisting communication you have moved to an area where your comments are counter productive and discredits anything that may have made sense earlier.

Another example of why the PC approach fails Asclepias
If it puts you in the position of trying to judge the other person
instead of solving the issues so you CAN communicate.

If your point is to make the person FAIL the standards, then it fails.
If your point is to make sure BOTH people MEET their mutually agreed standards, that might work,
but that's a two way street, not a onesided checklist to try to snag the other person and blame them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nosmo King where the insult and "pretense" comes in
is where the people preaching PC aren't following rules of civility themselves.
See response previously to Ravi, where this causes problems in practice.

hilarious how you hate the evil PC but your ilk just loves hiding in the CDZ for the civility standards.

are you being dishonest or are you just not smart enough to understand your own hypocrisy?

i guess one is not necessarily exclusive of the other, but i have to wonder...

no one is preaching, by the way.. it's all in your imagination.

Hi Valerie and thanks for posting something concrete and not vague that I can respond to specifically.
If we keep focusing point by point, this is what Asclepias wants, and we can succeed to answer his points.
Thank you for that.

To answer to your post
* "how you hate the evil PC but your ilk loves hiding in the CDZ for the civility standards"

Where did I say that I "hate the evil PC"

I said it causes its own problems and invokes its own hatred/anger against it
when it comes across as some outside person or group
trying to tell other people, or the collective public, how to say or do things.

Where does that say "hatred" coming from me???
And I put a condition on it, that WHEN this backfires because of hypocrisy and projection
that is why it fails.

Asclepias asked for the points that make PC a bad thing, so I listed them.
I can love cars but list the points that make cars dangerous and kill people.
That doesn't mean I hate cars!!!

(As for your point about the CDZ, if you notice, I tend to talk to people in all zones
in an INCLUSIVE manner, even the flame and taunt zones, even when I tease people
I do so as someone I include as a friend I want to maintain relations with, not sever them!
I do this in ALL zones, even though some zones invite slamming which is a different language.

As for the CDZ I tend to avoid this when I want to speak and share freely.
I tend to post more in threads that don't have restrictions.
I don't "love" the CDZ section. I try to be civil in all sections, even when I slam people I try to make it clear the humor is good natured, and I consider that person my peer I am trying to punch a point across to, not hurt them, but make them laugh despite themselves, while making a point.