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

[Valerie]

I was just thinking I should alert you to this thread LOL

repetitive boogeyman alert...

 

[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?

 

[Valerie]

there is nothing wrong with being nice and hiding your true feelings(lol).

let it out...

 

[martybegan]

Then the offended party needs to learn how to overcome his issues so he is able to listen rationally.

Says who? What authority made this rule?

What authority made the rule that the level of discourse is set by the most easily offended person in the discussion?

Human nature. I'm amazed you dont understand that concept.

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

No. Its always been part of human nature. I dont like what you are saying and I cease to hear your point.

The classical liberal view of how to respond in a conversation about something you disagree with has been" I don't like what you are saying, and my view is thus."

The issue with PC is that it not only wants to cease hearing the point, it wants no one else to hear that point, ever.

 

[Asclepias]

Says who? What authority made this rule?

What authority made the rule that the level of discourse is set by the most easily offended person in the discussion?

Human nature. I'm amazed you dont understand that concept.

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

No. Its always been part of human nature. I dont like what you are saying and I cease to hear your point.

The classical liberal view of how to respond in a conversation about something you disagree with has been" I don't like what you are saying, and my view is thus."

The issue with PC is that it not only wants to cease hearing the point, it wants no one else to hear that point, ever.

Thats an assumption on your part but it doesnt address my question.

 

[martybegan]

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?

It has been explained plenty of times, by plenty of people, in multiple ways. May I suggest that you are simply not getting it?

 

[martybegan]

What authority made the rule that the level of discourse is set by the most easily offended person in the discussion?

Human nature. I'm amazed you dont understand that concept.

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

No. Its always been part of human nature. I dont like what you are saying and I cease to hear your point.

The classical liberal view of how to respond in a conversation about something you disagree with has been" I don't like what you are saying, and my view is thus."

The issue with PC is that it not only wants to cease hearing the point, it wants no one else to hear that point, ever.

Thats an assumption on your part but it doesnt address my question.

Actually it does.

 

[Valerie]

So basically the OP is just saying be nice. lol
I am sure we can ALL agree with that one. The problem enters when you have to re-define terms, not even talk about something, or hide your true emotions. Especially by way of legislation or having your life destroyed.

do you have an example of this PC legislation which destroys lives..?

 

[TNHarley]

So basically the OP is just saying be nice. lol
I am sure we can ALL agree with that one. The problem enters when you have to re-define terms, not even talk about something, or hide your true emotions. Especially by way of legislation or having your life destroyed.

Youre assuming your definition of the terms is correct and its the same definition of the person you are speaking to holds which is never the case.

there is nothing wrong with being nice and hiding your true feelings(lol).

let it out...

Care to 'blow us away' us with your brilliance on this subject?

 

[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?

It has been explained plenty of times, by plenty of people, in multiple ways. May I suggest that you are simply not getting it?

No one has addressed my question. Its pretty simple. You want to communicate with someone but they dont like the manner in which you are communicating. What do you do? Do you fail at your goal because you cant be bothered with being PC or do you become PC?

 

[TNHarley]

So basically the OP is just saying be nice. lol
I am sure we can ALL agree with that one. The problem enters when you have to re-define terms, not even talk about something, or hide your true emotions. Especially by way of legislation or having your life destroyed.

do you have an example of this PC legislation which destroys lives..?

Bakery getting shut down

 

[martybegan]

That is the facade of PC, and back in the 90's it was what was considered PC. It was the show you put on to imply you were "right thinking" on various topics, which again leads us down the path to the goal of PC, not the show of PC, the goal being avoiding discussion on topics you disagree with, not engaging in said discussion.

Today, the definition of what is offensive has been expanded so greatly that it exposes the true reason behind PC, which is Idea control, not Language control.

When every phrase, term or saying that explains a position you don't like is considered offensive, then again, the true reason behind the whole PC/SJW/Micro-agression thing becomes clear.

That doesnt make sense though. There is no limit to what offends someone. You cant tell someone something doesnt offend them. Youre not them.

It's not telling them "not to be offended", its not allowing them to define the conversation due to their preconceptions and inability to handle ideas they don't like.

That doesnt make sense either. You cant have communication if both parties dont have input on defining the conversation.

PC doesn't attempt to define the conversation, it seeks to control the conversation.

Saying it again doesnt make it true. I already gave you the definition of PC. Its controlling the method by which the conversation is conducted.

Yes, but since it has already decided which side the conversation is "right" it is not only a method of control, but a biased one at that.

 

[martybegan]

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?

It has been explained plenty of times, by plenty of people, in multiple ways. May I suggest that you are simply not getting it?

No one has addressed my question. Its pretty simple. You want to communicate with someone but they dont like the manner in which you are communication. What do you do? Do you fail at your goal because you cant be bothered with being PC or do you become PC?

They have answered your question, you just don't like the answer.

 

[Asclepias]

Human nature. I'm amazed you dont understand that concept.

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

No. Its always been part of human nature. I dont like what you are saying and I cease to hear your point.

The classical liberal view of how to respond in a conversation about something you disagree with has been" I don't like what you are saying, and my view is thus."

The issue with PC is that it not only wants to cease hearing the point, it wants no one else to hear that point, ever.

Thats an assumption on your part but it doesnt address my question.

Actually it does.

Has nothing to do with my question. Youre actually off topic.

 

[Asclepias]

That doesnt make sense though. There is no limit to what offends someone. You cant tell someone something doesnt offend them. Youre not them.

It's not telling them "not to be offended", its not allowing them to define the conversation due to their preconceptions and inability to handle ideas they don't like.

That doesnt make sense either. You cant have communication if both parties dont have input on defining the conversation.

PC doesn't attempt to define the conversation, it seeks to control the conversation.

Saying it again doesnt make it true. I already gave you the definition of PC. Its controlling the method by which the conversation is conducted.

Yes, but since it has already decided which side the conversation is "right" it is not only a method of control, but a biased one at that.

No its not decided. If it was decided you wouldnt be having the conversation.

 

[Correll]

Says who? What authority made this rule?

What authority made the rule that the level of discourse is set by the most easily offended person in the discussion?

Human nature. I'm amazed you dont understand that concept.

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

No. Its always been part of human nature. I dont like what you are saying and I cease to hear your point.

The classical liberal view of how to respond in a conversation about something you disagree with has been" I don't like what you are saying, and my view is thus."

The issue with PC is that it not only wants to cease hearing the point, it wants no one else to hear that point, ever.

THe MODERN liberal view of how to respond in a conversation about something you disagree with is "YOu are a bad person for saying that".

THAT is what Political Correctness is.

Communication is ended, because the topic has been dropped in favor of a personal attack.

 

[dilloduck]

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?

If the goal is just to have a light pleasant chit chat then PC is fine. If you want to have an honest and rational conversation and exchange of ideas then PC is counter productive.

 

[martybegan]

That has never been part of human nature until recently.

No. Its always been part of human nature. I dont like what you are saying and I cease to hear your point.

The classical liberal view of how to respond in a conversation about something you disagree with has been" I don't like what you are saying, and my view is thus."

The issue with PC is that it not only wants to cease hearing the point, it wants no one else to hear that point, ever.

Thats an assumption on your part but it doesnt address my question.

Actually it does.

Has nothing to do with my question. Youre actually off topic.

The go run to a moderator and get my posts on this topic deleted.

 

[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?

It has been explained plenty of times, by plenty of people, in multiple ways. May I suggest that you are simply not getting it?

No one has addressed my question. Its pretty simple. You want to communicate with someone but they dont like the manner in which you are communication. What do you do? Do you fail at your goal because you cant be bothered with being PC or do you become PC?

They have answered your question, you just don't like the answer.

No one has answered my question to this point. You have only talked around the question.

 

[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?

If the goal is just to have a light pleasant chit chat then PC is fine. If you want to have an honest and rational conversation and exchange of ideas then PC is counter productive.

Thank you. Ok now explain to me why you think its counter productive? Show me how keeping the lines of communication flowing is a bad thing.