How to abolish political correctness?

originally posted by: okrian
The thing is that for the bulk of our country's history, certain groups (for the most part, anyone who wasn't white men) have been bullied, lynched, hunted down, tormented, denied rights, put into camps, executed, marginalized, slandered, etc.

Now we are finally at a time when the tide has shifted, and those people have a support system to stand up and call the perpetrators on their actions. So the perpetrators created this idea called "PC" in order to marginalize these groups again, and deflect. And hey look… it works, big surprise. A support system of denial works as well. And people love to hear from fellow racists (insert example) that they aren't racist.

Now, I can readily admit that the "PC" scene gets out of hand and there is a bit of collateral damage, but I'd rather be living in a country where people are finally standing up to the perpetrators and have some support, rather than one ruled by a select few that historically were the ones doing all the silencing. Remember that this is hundreds of years of silencing vs. a few years of speaking out. And now the silencers are crying? Jesus.

This. So many in America don't know or understand US history and what got us to the point we are.

a reply to: ketsuko

BBC journalists are prevented from using the word terrorists. The BBC says this is because the word terrorist infers a judgement call.

Bizarre. The definition of a terrorism is:

"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

a reply to: deliberator

Isn't the BBC owned by the British government and is therefore NOT free press?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Asking people to be more civil is fine... asking someone not to use inflammatory words is ok, shouting people down because of the words they use, and not paying attention to the content of what they say is dangerous in my opinion.

Last few years it seems to be sliding into the dangerous territory..

a reply to: Irishhaf

Shouting people down is a tactic used by both sides of ALL debates though. It isn't necessarily a sole characteristic of PC debate.

a reply to: ketsuko

Did you read the explanation of why the two terms are not synonymous?

I speak English

Like so many, you want to be able to control definitions so that you can make your arguments uninterrupted

As relabeling terrorism man-caused disaster

And, again... just how often does this get used for real? I had to go out and look it up because I'd never heard of it. Seems like maybe you've been discussing all this (ad nauseam no doubt) somewhere else - with your peers

And yes, the purpose is control. They don't want people to talk (or THINK) about things in ways they don't approve of.

Honestly Ketsuko - do you listen to what you're saying while you're saying it?

What do you think this whole argument is about? Hint: the control of language and casting aspersions - you want things to mean what you want them to mean, no different from the opposing team. You don't get to be the hero in all this - this is something we all have to work out together

Language isn't math - and very often the language gets rearranged for public consumption because some terms (that you insist on) are used pejoratively. This is what one group of people wants to make sure doesn't get messed with because they want those words to sting, to anger - to have some push

... I'm surprised you chide me rather than the truth that's in front of your face.

Your truth is not my truth my dear - we see the world very differently

I'm afraid I will have something to say about how you want to paint this world - it's not just up to you

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you look at this Wikipage it would suggest free speech and also attempts by the UK government to censor. The BBC claims impartiality but news reporting often shows otherwise.

BBC controversies

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you look at this Wikipage it would suggest free speech and also attempts by the UK government to censor. The BBC claims impartiality but news reporting often shows otherwise.

BBC controversies

Well that's what you get when you let the government control your main source of press, right? Luckily the UK allows other forms of media to penetrate their country so it's not like people in UK HAVE to go to the BBC for their news either. I guess it's up to the viewer to decide what to watch and what to believe in that sense.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And its wrong when the other side does it... If you cant debate the other sides point you shouldn't be debating .

They did it so we did to is a poor mans justification and you know it.

The catch to it is, the media is most solidly in the camp of PC.. (yea yea I know fox news... thats 1 network) So you have the media pushing 1 side of the argument, and even actively siding with the shout down anti PC people... that is whats making political correctness a major issue today.
In my opinion.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And its wrong when the other side does it... If you cant debate the other sides point you shouldn't be debating .

Agreed, but that doesn't stop a great many of people from doing it anyways.

They did it so we did to is a poor mans justification and you know it.

I agree, but such is the way humans work.

The catch to it is, the media is most solidly in the camp of PC.. (yea yea I know fox news... thats 1 network) So you have the media pushing 1 side of the argument, and even actively siding with the shout down anti PC people... that is whats making political correctness a major issue today.
In my opinion.

There is more than just fox news that would be considered anti-pc. I'd say the entire conservative blogosphere would be considered anti-pc. In fact, I'd say at this point in time that Fox News may be the most PC of the whole right wing media empire. Though they are still decidedly anti-pc as well.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I am only saying it isn't as prevalent and dangerous as certain people make it out to be. Hate crimes are rare and relatively harmless. Most of it is vandalism. Some are minor assaults.

Ask yourself this. When I hear a statement that could be construed as bigotry, is it aimed at any flesh and blood human beings, could I point them out, or do I have to refer to some abstract group of racially segregated people in my own head from which to derrive my offence?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's debatable...

But for the sake of argument ill agree that most of the blogosphere is Anti-PC... how many folks really visit those sites on a regular basis, versus having the news on TV all day etc..

I dont know and there is no real way to analyze it, I have an example... its just my personal experience and I know this doesnt represent everyone.

I have a wide variety of friends, conservative and liberal... more of my liberal friends listen to Rush, I am guessing so they can be insulted by something an entertainer says.

im 43... ive maybe spent an hour listening to rush... thought he was a bit to much of a blow hard to spend any more time on him.

I will admit to watching Glenn Beck on CNN years ago.. before he went off the rails..

Enough rambling, while the blogs are a growing area right now I would wager even money that the majority of americans listen/watch the major news channels... how many times have you walked into a doctors office with the news on the tv..heck every military squadron ive ever been in had either CNN or Fox on 24 hours a day.

Anyways thats enough on it for me, time to head out with the missus for another evening of spending to much money :p .

Krazyshot,

You're right to say most of the anti-PC rhetoric comes from the conservatives. They've been writing about it for years, and if you're able to stomach a conservative opinion, I suggest you read them (they're actually really good). But if the liberal outlook is more your liking, check out The Silencing by Kirsten Powers. I'm actually listening to it now (good audiobook for the commute) and it's packed full examples in the media and academe. Once you hear the evidence from the other side, it will be difficult to turn back.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's debatable...

But for the sake of argument ill agree that most of the blogosphere is Anti-PC... how many folks really visit those sites on a regular basis, versus having the news on TV all day etc..

I think it is common knowledge that news is consumed more online than on the television these days.

I dont know and there is no real way to analyze it, I have an example... its just my personal experience and I know this doesnt represent everyone.

I have a wide variety of friends, conservative and liberal... more of my liberal friends listen to Rush, I am guessing so they can be insulted by something an entertainer says.

im 43... ive maybe spent an hour listening to rush... thought he was a bit to much of a blow hard to spend any more time on him.

I will admit to watching Glenn Beck on CNN years ago.. before he went off the rails..

Enough rambling, while the blogs are a growing area right now I would wager even money that the majority of americans listen/watch the major news channels... how many times have you walked into a doctors office with the news on the tv..heck every military squadron ive ever been in had either CNN or Fox on 24 hours a day.

Anyways thats enough on it for me, time to head out with the missus for another evening of spending to much money :p .

State of the News Media 2015

How Americans get their news

Among all adult Americans, 56 percent reported using a cell phone and 29 percent reported using a tablet to access news in the last week. (That represents 78 percent of the 69 percent Americans who own a smartphone, and 73 percent of the 39 percent of Americans who own or use a tablet device).

Only 10 percent of Americans reported using an e-reader to get their news in the last week and 11 percent reported using a Smart TV to follow the news in the last week.

Traditional media remain important even for those Americans with the most gadgets. People who own and use more devices are no more or less likely to use print publications, television, or radio to access the news. For example, 62 percent of people who use only one internet enabled device say they used the print version of a publication to get news in the last week, as do 60 percent of those who use three or more mobile devices.

However, as the number of devices a person owns increases, they are more likely to report that they enjoy keeping up with the news and are more likely to say that it’s easier to keep up with the news today than it was five years ago.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Being for or against PC is one thing. I'm unlikely to change my position in that regard because I like PC, but the point is that anti-PC or pro-PC it's all 100% legal.

How does that work exactly? Again political correctness is an application of free speech, so other than giving a bunch of people who don't understand PC and the 1st amendment smug satisfaction that they can amuse themselves on the internet, anyone who knows how things really work would just laugh at how stupid that meme is.

How is it an "application of free speech"? Pretty sure it's the opposite...

It's literally an attempt to restrict language into a form that is acceptable to the government through the media. A form that has the added benefits of changing people's minds and ways of thinking.

For example, Illegal Aliens is a negative suggestion, the government realises many people are against illegal immigration, but want's a larger, cheaper work force. Government advises the media to start using the term "undocumented workers" which has much more positive connotations and makes you immediately think of a productive force of workers.

It's newspeak...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Being for or against PC is one thing. I'm unlikely to change my position in that regard because I like PC, but the point is that anti-PC or pro-PC it's all 100% legal.

So is hate speech, but that doesn't mean it is right or moral. The ethical considerations of Political Correctness are obscene. It is actually forcing moderates to self-censorship for fear of being ostracized, while the extreme, who simply do not care if you call them racists and bigots, get louder and louder. No amount of PC is going to stop them. In fact it will encourage them, while discouraging others.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
How is it an "application of free speech"? Pretty sure it's the opposite...

It's literally an attempt to restrict language into a form that is acceptable to the government through the media. A form that has the added benefits of changing people's minds and ways of thinking.

For example, Illegal Aliens is a negative suggestion, the government realises many people are against illegal immigration, but want's a larger, cheaper work force. Government advises the media to start using the term "undocumented workers" which has much more positive connotations and makes you immediately think of a productive force of workers.

It's newspeak...

Really? You think so? So you'd be willing to tell me all the laws that Congress has passed in reference to political correctness that make it illegal to say bigoted or racist things? Do you happen to know what the First Amendment actually says? The first words of it are, "Congress shall make no law...", so THAT'S why political correctness is a form of free speech. That is unless you are willing to actually point out all the laws that criminalize certain speech as it pertains to political correctness. And don't tell me about some business firing someone over something they said. A business isn't the government.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Being for or against PC is one thing. I'm unlikely to change my position in that regard because I like PC, but the point is that anti-PC or pro-PC it's all 100% legal.

So is hate speech, but that doesn't mean it is right or moral. The ethical considerations of Political Correctness are obscene. It is actually forcing moderates to self-censorship for fear of being ostracized, while the extreme, who simply do not care if you call them racists and bigots, get louder and louder. No amount of PC is going to stop them. In fact it will encourage them, while discouraging others.

Nothing is 100% effective. You can find flaws in any process that humans undertake. Also, this thread isn't a discussion about if PC is right or wrong. It's about how you plan to get rid of it. There are plenty of things that we consider to be "wrong" that are allowed under our freedoms. That's just how things are.

Nothing is 100% effective. You can find flaws in any process that humans undertake. Also, this thread isn't a discussion about if PC is right or wrong. It's about how you plan to get rid of it. There are plenty of things that we consider to be "wrong" that are allowed under our freedoms. That's just how things are.

It's also just the way things are that many instances of PC gone overboard are trampling on student rights at universities, according to the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (Cases). So no, many instances of PC are not allowed under our freedoms, given that many of them have been deemed unconstitutional.