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

[Asclepias]

Thats inherently untrue. The person not being PC isnt listening to the offended person.

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.

The offended person said your actions were a mistake.

Thats a silly claim.

There is no assumption the offense is real. Undoubtedly it was offensive or the person wouldnt say it was.

 

[Asclepias]

The person being offended is the one that defines this of course. How can you offend yourself? For example. I say "hey woman this is the deal". The woman in turn asks me not to speak to her in that manner. Has nothing to do with the weight of the argument. Its only concerning the manner in which the information is exchanged. If I cant become PC and respect her wishes I just cut off communication. I may walk away feeling as if I "won" something but I have actually lost more. All I have really done is self validate my beliefs instead of learning something.

Dear Asclepias If the process of establishing neutral language is MUTUAL
as you describe above, where BOTH Sides are EQUALLY respected and free to address what offends them and what works,
then there is NO PROBLEM.

You seem to want it to be mutually open and want to hear all sides, whether you succeed at this or not.

However, what people are saying is it comes across as ONE SIDED
only ONE SIDE gets to say what is so offensive
but the other side gets struck down for doing the same.

I agree with you if the process were MUTUAL then it would be better received and practiced.

This wouldn't be called political correctness, but might be political inclusion or political sensitivity where both the right and left views are recognized as being excluded and offended by the language of the other.

None of that is true. If you and I are having a discussion and I dont want you to use certain words and you dont want me to use certain words then we have to work that out during the course of our discussion. There is no one side to this. Both parties get to have input on the language used. My back ground is in network engineering and we have these things called routing protocols. Basically the routing protocols talk to each other until they find a consensus on how they are going to communicate. Thats the only way they will be able to work. Humans are the same way and its not a one sided conversation.

Humans aren't machines and you understand the words that offend you. You simply refuse to listen.

I agree but the machines are modeled on human behavior.

There is only ONE side here that is refusing to listen

What makes you believe that?

 

[Asclepias]

Thats great. What does that have to do with the observation I just pointed out to you? You claimed that the person that was offended and wouldnt listen was the only person not listening.

OK---two people decide to have a conversation. Let's assume they both want to learn something from it. Are you suggesting that hand each other a list of words that offend them before it starts so they can find alternate words to use instead of the ones that they normally use in conversations ?

Yes if thats the way they want to do it. Normal people just do it during the course of the conservation. You call me a dodo head and I say dont do that. Works pretty good.

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

 

[dilloduck]

Dear Asclepias If the process of establishing neutral language is MUTUAL
as you describe above, where BOTH Sides are EQUALLY respected and free to address what offends them and what works,
then there is NO PROBLEM.

You seem to want it to be mutually open and want to hear all sides, whether you succeed at this or not.

However, what people are saying is it comes across as ONE SIDED
only ONE SIDE gets to say what is so offensive
but the other side gets struck down for doing the same.

I agree with you if the process were MUTUAL then it would be better received and practiced.

This wouldn't be called political correctness, but might be political inclusion or political sensitivity where both the right and left views are recognized as being excluded and offended by the language of the other.

None of that is true. If you and I are having a discussion and I dont want you to use certain words and you dont want me to use certain words then we have to work that out during the course of our discussion. There is no one side to this. Both parties get to have input on the language used. My back ground is in network engineering and we have these things called routing protocols. Basically the routing protocols talk to each other until they find a consensus on how they are going to communicate. Thats the only way they will be able to work. Humans are the same way and its not a one sided conversation.

Humans aren't machines and you understand the words that offend you. You simply refuse to listen.

I agree but the machines are modeled on human behavior.

There is only ONE side here that is refusing to listen

What makes you believe that?

Because I have no problem continuing to listen to you even if you use words that I don't like.

 

[Bonzi]

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

I think the issue comes where people want to be able to speak plainly as they ordinarily would and that some things the don't believe to be offensive, seems "over board" and "controlling" --- like you MUST phrase it a certain way - why? Not everything that is deemed a "politically correct" statement is necessarily offensive.

You can be quite offensive being politically correct as well. So you are not really cutting out offenses.
You are just masking them better.

In masking them better you are keeping the lines of communication open and able to delve into the issues.

More like, you can stab someone directly, or do it nicely and twist it.
Only someone ignorant would let it go - a smart person would recognize the offense and take just as much offense as if you said it in a non-politically correct way.

If the end game is to have constructive conversation, mature people should be able to see through politically incorrect expressions and get the gist of what they are saying. Ignorant people have a right to speak and sometimes have good ideas, they just are ignorant in how they talk.

Trying to come up with an example.....

 

[dilloduck]

OK---two people decide to have a conversation. Let's assume they both want to learn something from it. Are you suggesting that hand each other a list of words that offend them before it starts so they can find alternate words to use instead of the ones that they normally use in conversations ?

Yes if thats the way they want to do it. Normal people just do it during the course of the conservation. You call me a dodo head and I say dont do that. Works pretty good.

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

Why would I kiss your ass in order to tell you something ?

 

[Bonzi]

Examples are best to work with - like what is an example of something that would be said that is politically INCORRECT that would be a barrier to discussion?

 

[OldLady]

I tried to compose a response to your OP but couldn't because coming up with 'examples' would immediately put me in the politically incorrect category. Even saying PC has gone too far is condemned. It does hamper free self-expression at times, though if we've cut down on condoning intolerance by using PC, I guess it's better than the alternative.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes if thats the way they want to do it. Normal people just do it during the course of the conservation. You call me a dodo head and I say dont do that. Works pretty good.

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

Why would I kiss your ass in order to tell you something ?

Because you are trying to tell me something and you wouldnt want to waste your time. Or would you?

 

[dilloduck]

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

Why would I kiss your ass in order to tell you something ?

Because you are trying to tell me something and you wouldnt want to waste your time. Or would you?

That's what we are approaching. There is no point in me trying to tell you something if I have to kiss your ass in order to do so.

 

[Asclepias]

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

I think the issue comes where people want to be able to speak plainly as they ordinarily would and that some things the don't believe to be offensive, seems "over board" and "controlling" --- like you MUST phrase it a certain way - why? Not everything that is deemed a "politically correct" statement is necessarily offensive.

You can be quite offensive being politically correct as well. So you are not really cutting out offenses.
You are just masking them better.

In masking them better you are keeping the lines of communication open and able to delve into the issues.

More like, you can stab someone directly, or do it nicely and twist it.
Only someone ignorant would let it go - a smart person would recognize the offense and take just as much offense as if you said it in a non-politically correct way.

If the end game is to have constructive conversation, mature people should be able to see through politically incorrect expressions and get the gist of what they are saying. Ignorant people have a right to speak and sometimes have good ideas, they just are ignorant in how they talk.

Trying to come up with an example.....

Most people dont understand diplomacy. Not everyone is mature (or what you consider mature). If I refuse to let you define me as a dodo head does that make me immature? I submit the answer to that is no. Before we can have a conversation then you must acknowledge me as an equal. I believe too many people lack that basic leadership skill.

 

[Asclepias]

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

Why would I kiss your ass in order to tell you something ?

Because you are trying to tell me something and you wouldnt want to waste your time. Or would you?

That's what we are approaching. There is no point in me trying to tell you something if I have to kiss your ass in order to do so.

So you admit that you being able to talk at me is more important than me getting your point?

 

[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.

The offended person said your actions were a mistake.

Thats a silly claim.

There is no assumption the offense is real. Undoubtedly it was offensive or the person wouldnt say it was.

The person could be dishonest.

Or could be honestly offended and still purposefully using Political Correctness to suppress arguments they have no honest answer for.

 

[Asclepias]

I tried to compose a response to your OP but couldn't because coming up with 'examples' would immediately put me in the politically incorrect category. Even saying PC has gone too far is condemned. It does hamper free self-expression at times, though if we've cut down on condoning intolerance by using PC, I guess it's better than the alternative.

Saying PC has gone to far is not condemned. Its merely your opinion masquerading as a fact. I have no problem with someone saying that. What I am trying to figure out is how do you expect to communicate if you dont observe the rules and goals of communication?

 

[dilloduck]

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

Why would I kiss your ass in order to tell you something ?

Because you are trying to tell me something and you wouldnt want to waste your time. Or would you?

That's what we are approaching. There is no point in me trying to tell you something if I have to kiss your ass in order to do so.

So you admit that you being able to talk at me is more important than me getting your point?

No----I am saying that if you insist on me using YOUR vocabulary you will not hear from me. I don't require YOU to speak MY vocabulary. What is so special about you ?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

The offended person said your actions were a mistake.

Thats a silly claim.

There is no assumption the offense is real. Undoubtedly it was offensive or the person wouldnt say it was.

The person could be dishonest.

Or could be honestly offended and still purposefully using Political Correctness to suppress arguments they have no honest answer for.

If you think they are dishonest why are you talking to them then? That highly irrational.

 

[Correll]

I tried to compose a response to your OP but couldn't because coming up with 'examples' would immediately put me in the politically incorrect category. Even saying PC has gone too far is condemned. It does hamper free self-expression at times, though if we've cut down on condoning intolerance by using PC, I guess it's better than the alternative.

Except that that is not what PC does.

 

[dilloduck]

I tried to compose a response to your OP but couldn't because coming up with 'examples' would immediately put me in the politically incorrect category. Even saying PC has gone too far is condemned. It does hamper free self-expression at times, though if we've cut down on condoning intolerance by using PC, I guess it's better than the alternative.

Saying PC has gone to far is not condemned. Its merely your opinion masquerading as a fact. I have no problem with someone saying that. What I am trying to figure out is how do you expect to communicate if you dont observe the rules and goals of communication?

Because YOU are the one unilaterally changing the rules

 

[Correll]

But people DON"T want to do that. You don't want to use the words I tell you to and I don't want to use the words that you tell me to.

Only dumb people. If my aim is to actually communicate I want to keep the lines of communication open.

Cool---then never ask me to use PC words.

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

Why would I kiss your ass in order to tell you something ?

Because you are trying to tell me something and you wouldnt want to waste your time. Or would you?

If you need him to kiss your ass before your able or willing to listen, the problem is you.

 

[Asclepias]

Why would I want you to use words that create a barrier to communication?

Why would I kiss your ass in order to tell you something ?

Because you are trying to tell me something and you wouldnt want to waste your time. Or would you?

That's what we are approaching. There is no point in me trying to tell you something if I have to kiss your ass in order to do so.

So you admit that you being able to talk at me is more important than me getting your point?

No----I am saying that if you insist on me using YOUR vocabulary you will not hear from me. I don't require YOU to speak MY vocabulary. What is so special about you ?

So you are saying that you wont get your point across then? Yes you are requiring me to speak your vocabulary. Thats why I was offended in the first place. Your vocabulary offended me and instead of changing your vocabulary you decided youd rather not communicate right?