Why do you think it's important to be (or not to be) Politically Correct?

[All Mighty Janitor]

" When you start limiting other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it affects us all."

aka, "weaponized" 1st Amendment.

iow, I MUST be able to say, and I ought to say, the most damaging, hateful, denigrating, racist, bigoted I can think of because it's MY CONS UTIONAL RIGHT, which I MUST exercise, no matter what.

Again, it's not about the right to say harmful things. It's the reality of the situation. One person's belief is another person's hate speech. It doesn't matter what speech it is, there is gonna be disagreement on the merits of whatever said speech is. So how do you make laws to account for all the variable opinions. For instance, who decides what cons utes hate speech? PC people say criticism is hate speech. Do we treat that as true? Do we leave it up to the religions to be the arbiters of good and bad? How do you categorize what is hateful? Is it based on the words one says or intention of the person who said the words? Do you leave it up to the person the words were said to? Is it based on their political party? Can certain people not be hateful? Is indifference to issues hate or are we enforcing politeness? You're not going to have agreement on any of these things and anybody who doesn't agree with you can be called a bigot if criticism is hate. These aren't just hard questions; there is no answer to these questions that will satisfy everybody. If you think being PC is the solution to getting rid of hate speech then you must understand that the ideology of PC culture comes along with it and that is what most people disagree with. If you know of a way to make a laws against hate speech fairly I'd like to hear it. I can't think of anything, but maybe I'm missing something.

[rmt]

WH officials censor French President's "Islamic terrorism"

http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/white-h...rrorism-quote/

[boutons_deux]

Again, it's not about the right to say harmful things. It's the reality of the situation. One person's belief is another person's hate speech. It doesn't matter what speech it is, there is gonna be disagreement on the merits of whatever said speech is. So how do you make laws to account for all the variable opinions. For instance, who decides what cons utes hate speech? PC people say criticism is hate speech. Do we treat that as true? Do we leave it up to the religions to be the arbiters of good and bad? How do you categorize what is hateful? Is it based on the words one says or intention of the person who said the words? Do you leave it up to the person the words were said to? Is it based on their political party? Can certain people not be hateful? Is indifference to issues hate or are we enforcing politeness? You're not going to have agreement on any of these things and anybody who doesn't agree with you can be called a bigot if criticism is hate. These aren't just hard questions; there is no answer to these questions that will satisfy everybody. If you think being PC is the solution to getting rid of hate speech then you must understand that the ideology of PC culture comes along with it and that is what most people disagree with. If you know of a way to make a laws against hate speech fairly I'd like to hear it. I can't think of anything, but maybe I'm missing something.

laws, and police behind them, simply can't solve all problems. Culture, civilization, common decency, common interests, solidarity, humanity must play a role.

The Repugs/VRWC/1% have been fostering just the opposite for decades, dividing, polarizing, hating, denigrating. They absolutely don't want social cohesion, stuff like their much-hated "community organizers", unions, any social groupings, people working together for their common good. In the absence of "social power", and esp their relentless trashing and disabling of govt power, they are left with the only ones with real power to exploit, milk, extract wealth.

Hillary is one of them, Bernie is the polar opposite.

[Will Hunting]

I have noticed that only really applies to Hispanics and Blacks. Asians pretty much are the invisible minority that the PC police doesn't care about.

are you serious?

[russellgoat]

" When you start limiting other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it affects us all."

aka, "weaponized" 1st Amendment.

iow, I MUST be able to say, and I ought to say, the most damaging, hateful, denigrating, racist, bigoted I can think of because it's MY CONS UTIONAL RIGHT, which I MUST exercise, no matter what.

You don't think much about it when referring to Christians...

[boutons_deux]

You don't think much about it when referring to Christians...

I have no problem with Christians who give preference to the NT and keep their faith to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized Christian Taliban supremacists who give preference to the OT, to money-grubbing, who try aggressively to impose their Biblical fairy tales as unchallengeable cosmology, history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

[rmt]

I have no problem with Christians who give preference to the NT and keep their faith to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized Christian Taliban supremacists who give preference to the OT, to money-grubbing, who try aggressively to impose their Biblical fairy tales as unchallengeable cosmology, history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

boutons, I don't think there is ANY Christian who gives preference to the OT - that's the whole point - that a Christian sees Jesus (NT) as his Lord and Savior. If not, what's the difference between an OT Christian and a Jew?

[pgardn]

1. PC Can be used to automatically render an argument or observation morally corrupt.


2. Because the tactic can be and is overused, fire back at political correctness by labeling your unsound moral argument only failing in a PC world. This tactic has also become tiresome and worn.

[All Mighty Janitor]

laws, and police behind them, simply can't solve all problems. Culture, civilization, common decency, common interests, solidarity, humanity must play a role.

The Repugs/VRWC/1% have been fostering just the opposite for decades, dividing, polarizing, hating, denigrating. They absolutely don't want social cohesion, stuff like their much-hated "community organizers", unions, any social groupings, people working together for their common good. In the absence of "social power", and esp their relentless trashing and disabling of govt power, they are left with the only ones with real power to exploit, milk, extract wealth.

Hillary is one of them, Bernie is the polar opposite.

Even if all that is true, what makes Political Correctness the answer to those problems? Are those problems things that can be solved through talking or are we gonna need to use force? I ask because we've had moral police before and it just divides people by trying to force them to be the same. What makes this PC movement any better? We, as a society, have been agreeing to disagree on these issues and that's what allows us to be individuals. And when people become unable to hold unpopular opinions, whether through being stigmatized or silenced by force, sure, those people become fewer in number, but they also become more radical and prone to physical violence(and thus much more difficult to deal with.) That's why I think we should just leave things as they are and ignore the bigots ; you can't completely get rid of them, and when you try, their escalate behavior from hurtful words to hurtful wounds.

[All Mighty Janitor]

I have no problem with Christians who give preference to the NT and keep their faith to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized Christian Taliban supremacists who give preference to the OT, to money-grubbing, who try aggressively to impose their Biblical fairy tales as unchallengeable cosmology, history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

This could apply to PC as well:

I have no problem with PC people who give preference to minorities and keep their beliefs to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized PC police who give preference to minorities, who try aggressively to impose their ideology as unchallengeable history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

^that is part of what I am saying here in this thread.

[Blake]

This could apply to PC as well:

I have no problem with PC people who give preference to minorities and keep their beliefs to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized PC police who give preference to minorities, who try aggressively to impose their ideology as unchallengeable history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

^that is part of what I am saying here in this thread.

Give an example

[All Mighty Janitor]

Give an example

Progressive Stack for minority preference, Feminist Lens for ideological bias, the practices of No Platforming for imposing their beliefs on others, denying all Biological Determinism when considering male and female behavior, seemingly believing ALL white people and ONLY white people conquested, owned slaves, and in general, did bad all throughout history (which either falls under biased preference for minorities or changing history.)

[CosmicCowboy]

Give an example

Washington redskins

[Blake]

Washington redskins

Still the Redskins last I checked

[boutons_deux]

Washington redskins

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.

[Wild Cobra]

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.

Boo hoo...

[spankadelphia]

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.

I assume you are not white/of European origin.

Literally everything that makes your modern life what it is was created and given to you by people of ethnic European origin or Jews. Your computer, your speakers, the clothes you're wearing, the house you're living in, the power grid that feeds electricity into your computer and allows you to promote your ignorance in front of a wide audience, the plumbing you use to flush your excrement, literally ing everything. Your entire existence is culturally appropriated from Western Civilization.

Why don't you show a little appreciation for once?

[spankadelphia]

I'm glad you mentioned men's rights. Men as a whole have problems that need to be addressed. I wish it had more traction than it does, and I'm gettin tired of excuses like "women's issues are worse or more numerous so they deserve all the attention."

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned. Like so many other things, it's a biological construct that manifests itself into society. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare. Reproductive Scarcity. Biology 101.

This is why wanton death and destruction on the TV screen elicits a "meh" response, but see something violent happen to a woman on screen and it evokes a visceral response. Example: everyone in the theater gasped when the chick got eaten by the dinosaur in Jurassic World. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare.

If you have a village with 10,000 people, half men/half women, and a neighboring village tries to invade, you are going to allocate 2,500 men for defense. Say you save the village and lose all the fighters in the process - no big deal. 2,500 men can easily keep society going with 5,000 women. But sending 2,500 women into battle and losing them? Now you have halved your village's reproductive potential. Nevermind the fact that they are not built for combat.

TL;DR it's biology, be a man and know your role in nature. MRA's are basically male feminists.

[Wild Cobra]

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned. Like so many other things, it's a biological construct that manifests itself into society. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare. Reproductive Scarcity. Biology 101.

This is why wanton death and destruction on the TV screen elicits a "meh" response, but see something violent happen to a woman on screen and it evokes a visceral response. Example: everyone in the theater gasped when the chick got eaten by the dinosaur in Jurassic World. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare.

If you have a village with 10,000 people, half men/half women, and a neighboring village tries to invade, you are going to allocate 2,500 men for defense. Say you save the village and lose all the fighters in the process - no big deal. 2,500 men can easily keep society going with 5,000 women. But sending 2,500 women into battle and losing them? Now you have halved your village's reproductive potential. Nevermind the fact that they are not built for combat.

TL;DR it's biology, be a man and know your role in nature. MRA's are basically male feminists.

Maybe that's why man created war.

So men can have more than one woman!

[Winehole23]

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned.

read an interesting article about that today. may turn out it depends on the *cost of the male:

Men: if all they do is eat, without an ability to produce babies, what long term benefit are they to society?

Human males may beg to differ with such a bleak assessment, but for organisms with an option to procreate asexually (essentially females breeding females without mating), supporting 'non-reproductive' members of the population (males) becomes a matter of survival for the entire society.

Now a Kyoto University research team has shown that males can 'cost' less when there is a higher proportion of females, a result that may have broad implications for studies of the evolution and sustainability of sexual reproduction.

"It is typically known as the twofold cost of sex," explains team leader Kazuya Kobayashi, referring to the fact that populations of sexual organisms grow at only half the rate of asexual ones. "Purely in numerical terms, sexual reproduction presents a distinct disadvantage."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-04-veil-se...nsive.html#jCp

[All Mighty Janitor]

Men are disposable as far as the gene pool is concerned. Like so many other things, it's a biological construct that manifests itself into society. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare. Reproductive Scarcity. Biology 101.

This is why wanton death and destruction on the TV screen elicits a "meh" response, but see something violent happen to a woman on screen and it evokes a visceral response. Example: everyone in the theater gasped when the chick got eaten by the dinosaur in Jurassic World. Sperm is plentiful/eggs are rare.

If you have a village with 10,000 people, half men/half women, and a neighboring village tries to invade, you are going to allocate 2,500 men for defense. Say you save the village and lose all the fighters in the process - no big deal. 2,500 men can easily keep society going with 5,000 women. But sending 2,500 women into battle and losing them? Now you have halved your village's reproductive potential. Nevermind the fact that they are not built for combat.

TL;DR it's biology, be a man and know your role in nature. MRA's are basically male feminists.

Just because that's the way things were doesn't mean they have to stay that way. We, as society, don't have to treat men as disposable. In a crisis I would see things differently, but as of now, our population is more than big enough to not have to worry Reproductive Scarcity.

[All Mighty Janitor]

Euro-Americans have slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, cheated, defrauded, etc, etc for 100s of years and still don't give them a fair deal or make good on past betrayals, so whatever they want now, like removing a derogatory team name, or anything else, I'm for it.

What do you think can be done? Doing something relatively small like getting rid of team name, no matter how symbolic, should be done if it truly offends them (if saying the word prevents any kind of civil discourse). But how far are you willing to go in making good past wrongs?

[Wild Cobra]

Just because that's the way things were doesn't mean they have to stay that way. We, as society, don't have to treat men as disposable. In a crisis I would see things differently, but as of now, our population is more than big enough to not have to worry Reproductive Scarcity.

But at some point in our history, women will get the upper hand. the gene pool can still be very good if there is only 1 man for every 10 women. What do you think abortions will start to sway towards?

In a future world when women rule, men might become nothing but sex toys.

[Blake]

This could apply to PC as well:

I have no problem with PC people who give preference to minorities and keep their beliefs to themselves.

I have HUGE problem with the aggressive, politicized PC police who give preference to minorities, who try aggressively to impose their ideology as unchallengeable history, science, who try to impose their morals, ethics on everybody else.

^that is part of what I am saying here in this thread.

Give an example you're referring to

[All Mighty Janitor]

But at some point in our history, women will get the upper hand. the gene pool can still be very good if there is only 1 man for every 10 women. What do you think abortions will start to sway towards?

In a future world when women rule, men might become nothing but sex toys.

The only thing I will say about that is that is I highly doubt that will happen.