Political correctness scares me .

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Syyth007
Strange you champion the religious freedom of the bakery, but deride subway for conforming their stores to religious neighborhoods. Is it not their religious freedom to do so? Why deride one business for their practice of religious freedom, while championing another? Could it be because those opinions/beliefs don't align with your own? Well, that would be a bit hypocritical.. And be the same thing you seem to be arguing against...

The "bakery issue" could have been easily avoided. All it took was "Sorry , we already have previous obligations" , or "Our schedule is kind of full at that time" . No PC incorrectness there.

Problem is that would be a lie. If this family is truly following their religious beliefs that would be as bad as making the cake.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Democracy in it's purest form can be defined as "Tyranny of the majority over the few". If in 1950 49% of people prefer green apples, and 51% of people prefer red, does that mean that inherently red apples are better and green apples should be ban

That's the point. Neither should be treated better everyone's rights should be respected . But that does not mean you have to impede the majorities rights in favor of the minority .

It would appear the goal posts have moved some in your argument, but I will address this evolving point you are making.

The Majorities rights have not been impeded when minorities rights are recognized. It is not unusual for the majority to see any reduction in their privileged or special status as an impediment. Gay marriage being a simple and direct example. In no way does two strangers of the same sex choosing to get married somehow lessen my legal or personal commitment to my wife. Permitting people who are very different from me in their sexual orientation to marry does not in any way shape or form degrade the "institution of marriage"...it actually strengthens it, by ensuring it is an institution not corrupted by concepts of discrimination, injustice, bigotry etc. My rights as a married heterosexual have not been "impeded" in the least and I would further argue if you judge the virtue and value of your union of marriage based on who is or who is not permitted to marry, if you think your marriage is weakened by the larger institution not being restricted to heterosexuals...or before that only same race..and before that same religion... then you have a weakness in the foundation of your view of personal union of marriage that bares examination. Marriage is as personal a commitment as can be made, government and institutions have no business legislating who can and cannot marry.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greathouse

You'll just get into trouble if you, "call a spade a spade

I call a spade a shovel. How dare you!

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Democracy in it's purest form can be defined as "Tyranny of the majority over the few". If in 1950 49% of people prefer green apples, and 51% of people prefer red, does that mean that inherently red apples are better and green apples should be ban

That's the point. Neither should be treated better everyone's rights should be respected . But that does not mean you have to impede the majorities rights in favor of the minority .

It would appear the goal posts have moved some in your argument, but I will address this evolving point you are making.

The Majorities rights have not been impeded when minorities rights are recognized. It is not unusual for the majority to see any reduction in their privileged or special status as an impediment. Gay marriage being a simple and direct example. In no way does two strangers of the same sex choosing to get married somehow lessen my legal or personal commitment to my wife. Permitting people who are very different from me in their sexual orientation to marry does not in any way shape or form degrade the "institution of marriage"...it actually strengthens it, by ensuring it is an institution not corrupted by concepts of discrimination, injustice, bigotry etc. My rights as a married heterosexual have not been "impeded" in the least and I would further argue if you judge the virtue and value of your union of marriage based on who is or who is not permitted to marry, if you think your marriage is weakened by the larger institution not being restricted to heterosexuals...or before that only same race..and before that same religion... then you have a weakness in the foundation of your view of personal union of marriage that bares examination. Marriage is as personal a commitment as can be made, government and institutions have no business legislating who can and cannot marry.

No goalpost have been moved. You are merely dipping in to someone else's conversation .


Christians are a majority and their religious beliefs as guaranteed under the Constitution are impeded. I gave the lesbian wedding cake as a reference .

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Democracy in it's purest form can be defined as "Tyranny of the majority over the few". If in 1950 49% of people prefer green apples, and 51% of people prefer red, does that mean that inherently red apples are better and green apples should be ban

That's the point. Neither should be treated better everyone's rights should be respected . But that does not mean you have to impede the majorities rights in favor of the minority .

It would appear the goal posts have moved some in your argument, but I will address this evolving point you are making.

The Majorities rights have not been impeded when minorities rights are recognized. It is not unusual for the majority to see any reduction in their privileged or special status as an impediment. Gay marriage being a simple and direct example. In no way does two strangers of the same sex choosing to get married somehow lessen my legal or personal commitment to my wife. Permitting people who are very different from me in their sexual orientation to marry does not in any way shape or form degrade the "institution of marriage"...it actually strengthens it, by ensuring it is an institution not corrupted by concepts of discrimination, injustice, bigotry etc. My rights as a married heterosexual have not been "impeded" in the least and I would further argue if you judge the virtue and value of your union of marriage based on who is or who is not permitted to marry, if you think your marriage is weakened by the larger institution not being restricted to heterosexuals...or before that only same race..and before that same religion... then you have a weakness in the foundation of your view of personal union of marriage that bares examination. Marriage is as personal a commitment as can be made, government and institutions have no business legislating who can and cannot marry.

No goalpost have been moved. You are merely dipping in to someone else's conversation .


Christians are a majority and their religious beliefs as guaranteed under the Constitution are impeded. I gave the lesbian wedding cake as a reference .

Christians religious beliefs have not been impeded in the slightest. The lesbian wedding cake example has to do with business practices and capitalism. Once we allow businesses to discriminate, charge different prices to different races or religions, or outright deny service, then equal rights have been impeded in a fundamental way. Being a business owner myself, it always surprises me that other business owners fail to understand the difference between church and their workplace. Hell...I will defend a clan members right to rally and say offensive crap until the cows come home, though I would disagree with them, it is their right. But if that clan member opens a "Whites Only" restaurant...or a "No Jews Allowed" restaurant...I have issue and everyone else should. The government protects everyone's religious beliefs, from Satanist to Christian...plus racists...they just don't allow people to run businesses that discriminate based on race or religion.

AGAIN...The Majority (Christians in your example) rights have only been impeded if you believe they have a right to discriminate against other people in their businesses...Race, Religion, Sex or Sexual Orientation..

I don't think that discriminating in a business or workplace based on those things is a "Right" to begin with...

No "Right" should be defined as the "Right" to deny others their rights...

that is silly and contradictory to EQUAL rights and the premise of equality.

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yeah like how you thought you were a victim because some old lady had her wheelchair cleaned and the Muslims only had to pass a metal detector do you hear yourself? You just displayed the same victim mentality

It's about context, the problem with the PC crowd is they have lost their ability to make contextual judgements. No sane person denies real racism exists, I've fought people over racism, I'm 100% against it, but I also love the comedy of people like Paul Mooney.

Colleges are discussing forbidden words as if educated adults are incapable of hearing them - in context - without having their self esteem collapse under pressure. We go to comedy clubs and act like comedians are world diplomats instead of hilarious trash talking assholes who are trying to challenge peoples comfort zones. It's laughable.

I love irony.

Here we have people being offended by people being offended. Is anti-PC the new PC?

ROTF

Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech and all that other social mayhem?

a reply to: masqua

I think it's becoming more and more evident we're not ready for it.

a reply to: yeahright

Is this purely an American movement?

Is there a reason why people are so outraged at outrage?

My head is spinning...

a reply to: masqua

Maybe not 'purely' American (since purity is a dangerous concept, anyway) but there's sure a focus on a victim mentality and ready to take offense at every innocuous comment intended slight or no. We have 'feelings' dammit and everyone who may have had their feelings bruised has been materially harmed, and must be compensated.

I blame The Dude.

I don't care for 'political correctness' - it's the worlds biggest oxymoron of all time (to date).

Politicians are hardly 'correct', much less truthful, honest or even do their job to the best of their ability, or even follow laws.

I feel it indeed is a form of censorship and people were far too eager to think the Gov't could solve personal problems...simply put, the Gov't can't. Granting it more power, limits people liberties and rights.....I'd encourage anyone who disagrees to give that some serious thought.

It *is* censorship and the Gov't is being blindly given more power daily, some of which it grants to itself....weren't they put in their roles to represent us, not rule us?

Think...

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Greathouse

I can say offensive things if I want to, like calling a person illegal instead of undocumented. I don't feel an entire person can be illegal I can make fun of handicapped people and call them retards, but I don't. At one time that would have been considered 'OK'.

How is calling an person illegal offensive?

Cuz people are not "illegal"?...

In the USA...whether it be a speeding ticket or grand-theft-auto, we don't refer to those people as "Illegal"..

From a semantics perspective it is a pointedly de-humanizing label that some have reserved for Latino's.

A person can not "be" illegal...they can have broken the law, but "they" are not "illegal".

Every bigotry needs it's veiled verbiage...

a reply to: yeahright

The Dude: Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not "Mr. Lebowski". You're Mr. Lebowski. I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yeah like how you thought you were a victim because some old lady had her wheelchair cleaned and the Muslims only had to pass a metal detector do you hear yourself? You just displayed the same victim mentality

It's about context, the problem with the PC crowd is they have lost their ability to make contextual judgements.

This assumes they ever had the ability to make contextual judgements...once upon a time it was PC to refer African Americans by the N-Word. then the "politics" of "political" correctness changed.

Point being...the idea that Political Correctness is some new invention or that it is bigger than it was is BS..

People are actually more free now than ever to say what they think in any manner to choose...A hundred years ago their was a world more societal and economic pressure to behave and speak a certain way.

What is debated here is the content of "political correctness"...the magnitude of political correctness? Same or less from a historical perspective.

I have a hard time weeping for anyone that gets their feelings hurt cuz their friends don't like the words they use or what they say.

Be yourself...live your life...don't complain if everyone doesn't love who you are...otherwise GROW UP.

A day in ancient history when the PC crowd won a major victory:

The trial and execution of Socrates took place in 399 BC. Socrates was tried on two charges: corrupting the youth and impiety (in Greek, asebeia). More specifically, Socrates' accusers cited two "impious" acts: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities". Socrates' death was the result of his asking philosophical questions. A majority of the dikasts(Athenian citizens chosen by lot to serve as jurors) voted to convict him. Consistent with common practice, the dikasts determined Socrates’ punishment with another vote. Socrates was ultimately sentenced to death by drinking a hemlock-based liquid.

en.wikipedia.org...

Poor old Sock. Done in by a bunch of outraged purists.

Will it never end?

I'm outraged at the outrage.

originally posted by: masqua
I love irony.

Here we have people being offended by people being offended. Is anti-PC the new PC?

ROTF

Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech and all that other social mayhem?

Freedom of speech is exactly what the "ironic" people are standing up for. I see no Irony in people who are tired of hyper sensitivity saying enough is enough. The expectation for nuance and freedom to joke isn't irony, it's consistency. I seek out disagreements. I defend the rights of horrible groups like westboro baptist church. They could say what they want, and I could say they are wrong. My freedom is more consistent than the activists who form professional outrage groups to silence peoples thoughts under the guise of empathy.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yeah like how you thought you were a victim because some old lady had her wheelchair cleaned and the Muslims only had to pass a metal detector do you hear yourself? You just displayed the same victim mentality

It's about context, the problem with the PC crowd is they have lost their ability to make contextual judgements.

This assumes they ever had the ability to make contextual judgements...once upon a time it was PC to refer African Americans by the N-Word. then the "politics" of "political" correctness changed.

Point being...the idea that Political Correctness is some new invention or that it is bigger than it was is BS..

People are actually more free now than ever to say what they think in any manner to choose...A hundred years ago their was a world more societal and economic pressure to behave and speak a certain way.

What is debated here is the content of "political correctness"...the magnitude of political correctness? Same or less from a historical perspective.

I have a hard time weeping for anyone that gets their feelings hurt cuz their friends don't like the words they use or what they say.

Be yourself...live your life...don't complain if everyone doesn't love who you are...otherwise GROW UP.

This argument is outdated and naive of the nature of social media. Richard Pyror offended people in the 60's, in the 80's Married With Children constantly joked about offended mom groups, but those mom groups never had the power of mass social shame. Those mom groups couldn't send out tweets to get people fired, or doxx them with hopes of an unstable person harming them. This is a new generation of outrage. There are sites that focus on the outrage and provide outrage bubbles free of challenge, complete with networked block lists. This is a different era of thought policing.

a reply to: mahatche

Professional Outrage.

LOL

I love it. It's a totally new concept to me and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I wonder... should the Suffragette Movement be viewed as 'Professional Outrage' now?

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: mahatche

Professional Outrage.

LOL

I love it. It's a totally new concept to me and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I wonder... should the Suffragette Movement be viewed as 'Professional Outrage' now?

It's called nuance. I can see real problems exist, while also being against horrible climates that promote self censorship and self pity. I don't think the current standard is healthy for society.

There are definitely professional victims outraging their way through life. Consider the team that landed the probe on the comet, the top scientist wore a shirt with a sci-fi woman on it. The professional outrage machine ranted and raved about "this is why women don't do science" while over looking the excellent opportunity to highlight the careers of the female scientists who works as part of that crew. The positive stories don't sell as much as the out rage machine.

a reply to: mahatche

So... basically what you're saying is that the media is the source of 'Professional Outrage'? I'd agree with that completely.

That's why we all need to stop watching the media that agrees with what we 'believe' and start checking out those media we disagree with as well.

It's the old notion of being spoon fed cold mush, told it's strawberry ice cream and trusting it to be true.