Political Correctness is Going to Destroy US

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Permit? Did I threaten to shoot you in the head or something? I'm not important enough to permit anyone to do anything. I said part of PC TO ME... I said I would say... I didn't say YOU MUST SAY...

I just think it's ironic when people imply they should be able to say what they want, and then they get all offended when someone else does the same.

Personally, I like RETARD. For some people it's so apt.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I like the idea of people being taught to be more careful and precise with their words.

I love the idea of being precise with our words. Humanity depends on language for pretty much everything

I think what I'd love most is for people to be honest. For that to happen we have to have a free exchange of ideas - which means we all have to be free to say what we're thinking - and free to disagree

This war on political correctness is necessary. What isn't necessary (or honest even a little bit) is pretending that political correctness is something that is used as a tool by only one group of people

Attacking PC speech is just another way to control speech - and to use it as a weapon. It's another form of political correctness. Telling people what to think, how to think - and shaming them into silence is what this is all about

Shaming people is how civilization keeps itself in line. The civil rights movement depended on changing how people talk to each other. It's the first step towards changing how we actually treat each other

It should be a free for all - and mostly it is. We're lucky

Maybe I'm alone in preferring a future where we are more refined in our method of speech, rather than less so?

I love course language - artfully done or otherwise. I love to listen to how people talk. I miss the variety in language - and I love how it all blends together - the beautiful and the rough

originally posted by: reldra
PC may not be what most people think it is. It was given that name as a derisive, bad thing. Why? People who want to act less than human want something to blame. Something, anything. Even if 2 letters is it, they think 'Why not?" it will hide me from looking like a monster.

The problem is, you can't hide. People see you. They see your racism, bigotry, sterotyping, condemnation of entire ethnic groups. It is 2016, not 1942. You can't hide behind something so small.

What are you even talking about? On college campuses students are now required to fill out rediculious protection contracts to even hold hands with a girl/boy in fear of getting their lives ruined by some crazy person claiming they got raped whilst drunk, or something equally stupid.

Sorry, gal, but people's feelings need to be hurt. If someone is wrong and hide behind the PC curtain, or "Look at me trying to be such a good person, far better than you," they're part of the problem. Blacks have their own channel, yet if a white person does that they're called racist. You know what's racist? The fact that no one is talking about native Americans still on reservations, yet black people have it ohhh so bad.
It's a fact too inconvenient for people to accept.

Get a grip and look around. All this PC fad is is a way to shut intelligent people up that are questioning the loudest of us all, and to push ideals on people. It's literally Mind Control, blatant and ridiculous. If someone's a racist, they're protected by freedom of speech. People do not have to accept it, or agree, can even scream at them, but if they're not causing anyone physical harm, it's perfectly legal....for now.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

It's omitting that word some - right? What we say means something. How we say it - and why we say it

When people say Muslims did this, or black people do that, what we hear is - this is how all those people are

We're not allowed to point that out however. Policing language and apparently thinking seems to be the right of some - but not others

It seems to me that this is basically a PC attack tool to say " so you mean all xxx". The normal assumption would be a person doesn't mean all unless they say all. If we do not use the word "all" do we still need to say "some".

I would suggest that PC has won. Look at what we are doing in the US...letting refugees in KNOWING ISIS is among them and people WILL die. Apparently being PC is more important than citizen's lives. Look overseas...apparently PC is more important than assault and rape. Look at the USA and our military in the Middle-East...holding back, put on "stand down", etc. PC is bigger than the entire US military and apparently stronger than war. Russia knows how to fight...we used to.

No me...not here...not in my home. I fairly call them like they show themselves to be. If you're bad...I call you bad. If you're evil, I can go there to. I can also group people when the vast majority fit the bill...that is how it works. You get grouped when the majority can be categorized. I can also blame the group when they don't police themselves. No one has the balls to stand up and say "Hey...I'm bad" and the majority that do bad things always have someone else to blame for their actions.

Time for PC to be hung, shot, drawn and quartered.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It seems to me that this is basically a PC attack tool to say " so you mean all xxx". The normal assumption would be a person doesn't mean all unless they say all. If we do not use the word "all" do we still need to say "some".

Those attacks in Europe - was it all refugees that participated?

Have you read the news lately? Especially certain sources? We would be left believing that thousands of Muslim refugees were attacking women across Europe if we didn't stop to think about it. Language is what leads our thinking

If you have a problem with me wanting to use the word some - that's up to you

If you want to shut me up? You can GFY

originally posted by: 123143
Personally, I like RETARD. For some people it's so apt.

Anti-PC is now the politically correct way to say pro-free speech.

a reply to: kaylaluv

So you didn't appreciate my response to you. Heh.

Did I say it was about shooting someone in the head or did I say it was about cherry picking comments within an inch of their lives?

It has however put you on the defensive even though what I said was unwarranted. That was my point.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Well, you are right - I meant to include the word "some" in that statement and inadvertently left it out. Not all poor black youths are killing other black youths.

My only point here is that there are plenty of people out there who really do believe that all black youths are nothing but trouble. There are people who believe that all male Muslim immigrants are cold-blooded rapists and killers. There are people who believe that all women are gold diggers and all Christians are bigots. To deny that is insane.

So when someone says that there is a problem with black youths killing other black youths, it's kind of hard to tell what the real opinion is. Is the opinion that there is a general problem with youths who are black, or is the opinion that there is a problem with a specific group of black youths in a specific environment? That's why being more accurate is important (in my opinion), in order to avoid any misunderstanding. No gun to your head. Say whatever you want. I will permit it.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

Those attacks in Europe - was it all refugees that participated?

Not sure, but it is likely most were refugees or associated non-refugee Muslim men, but that is not saying all 10,000 refugees are attackers..

If you have a problem with me wanting to use the word some - that's up to you

I'm not saying you can't use it, I'm saying it is not required to assume you do not mean 1000s are raping. In the case where people seem to not use it the PC police instantly suggest the person means all. As you suggest, not using some instantly meant 1000s of Muslim men were rape pillaging and plundering across Europe. That is how PC works.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't know. Today it seems to be about descriptive adjectives. You use too many, you've made a faux pas, you use too few and you've done the same. I honestly do think many people are looking for a fight, or somehow trying to prove their moral superiority.

Makes my head spin sometimes.

If you are enjoying this thread, I highly recommend you read and participate in this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


It kinda proves my point.

Here we have a case in Germany where the government is actively using Political Correctness to stifle open debate and restrict free-speech

When discussing Free Speech in America, we used to often hear the phrase " I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it "

Sadly,now that PC is the norm forwarded by the social engineers, I don't hear that phrase as often anymore...

The New World Phrase has become..." I may not like what you say, so I'm going to shut you up, because it's ruining the Politically Correct Narrative I want everyone to believe "

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm not saying you can't use it, I'm saying it is not required to assume you do not mean 1000s are raping. In the case where people seem to not use it the PC police instantly suggest the person means all. As you suggest, not using some instantly meant 1000s of Muslim men were rape pillaging and plundering across Europe. That is how PC works.

From an earlier post of yours:

...what is driving the Muslim negativity today that really wasn't there in the past? What keeps the negative focus on blacks that is not seen towards other minorities such as Asians and even Latin Americans outside of illegal aliens? You do know that at one point Asians were considered lower than slaves and why they built the railroads since it was very dangerous and their lives were cheaper.

Go back a few decades and no one on earth really gave a second thought about Muslims anywhere outside of the Middle East, what has changed world opinion? I'm sure if little orange Buddhist monks acted the same there would be "bigotry" towards them too, so is it really bigotry when in the past there wasn't any, or other groups were able to overcome it?

________________________________________________

You use your language to say what you mean. If I want to emphasize the word some - I do it purposefully and with clear intentions

You're free to say things how you like - I'm not preventing you. But - I'm going to point out what it is I think you're really saying. Am I policing your language - or just disagreeing with what you're saying?

a reply to: Noobarino

Yes, I read the Breitbart article you linked, and I also read some of the comments under the article. Here were some very nice nuggets of "debate":

Why are the muslimes protected? They are the worst of all humanity left on earth,

(or am I wrong in assuming this person meant all "muslimes" instead of just the ones that caused any problems?)

Radical gays know better than to approach a Muslim baker for a gay wedding cake. They know the Muslim baker will sick ISIS on 'em.

(Am I wrong for assuming that this person meant ANY Muslim baker will sick ISIS on gays who come in for a wedding cake?)

Five million too many and for one very good reason. They are not here to assimilate, they are here to agitate. Their allegiance is to a Bedouin god that has turned the Middle East into a powder keg, and would love to do the same to America.

(Since this person is referring to the five million Muslims in America, I KNOW I'm not wrong in assuming he/she means that all Muslims are evil)

www.breitbart.com...

Should these people be allowed to say these things? In a public arena, sure. But I also have the right to call those statements bigoted. Should they be allowed to say those things on a website owned by a company that doesn't allow it? Their site, their rules.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
You use your language to say what you mean. If I want to emphasize the word some - I do it purposefully and with clear intentions

You're free to say things how you like - I'm not preventing you. But - I'm going to point out what it is I think you're really saying. Am I policing your language - or just disagreeing with what you're saying?

I have no clue why you are debating the use of the word "some"...So what am I really saying when I said "what is driving the Muslim negativity today that really wasn't there in the past?"

a reply to: Noobarino

Well said and needed to be said! Great post!

a reply to: reldra

-I had no idea women were letting themselves be assaulted for fear of being called racist.

-I wasn't aware of a multi-cultural utopia anywhere, where is it?

-There are sexual assaults happening, if the government were covering it up, you wouldn't know.

-You say 'PC' is destroying the US, yet you talk about Europe.

I don't see any of this as related to political or any correctness.

Do you read or travel much??? Seriously.

originally posted by: Noobarino
I used to think being " PC " was a good thing, that it was simply being considerate and respecting other people.

"political correctness" for the sake of "political correctness" is a reality fail IMO.

"political correctness" in the context of being aware how your language and opinions might be inaccurate and lazy, resting upon bigotry, racism or vast generalizations?...a good thing to be thinking, aware, considerate and respectful of other people.

If there was the slightest possibility that generalizing all Muslims or Immigrants or African-Americans etc. would somehow solve the problems in Europe or here..then it might make sense.

We have murderers and rapists and thieves in this world. Religion or skin color don't cause that.

The gangs in Cologne Germany ?

The suspects in the Cologne attack include an American, 2 Germans, 9 Algerians, 8 Moroccans, 5 Iranians, 4 Syrians, 1 Iraqi and 1 Serb.

Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

recent shooters in the USA...the Philadelphia Cop shooter claiming allegiance to ISIS?...American born and bred, San Bernardino? one of the shooters American born an bred.

We start focusing on Islam or some other generalization and we miss the target IMO...apart from PC or a moral rgument..it strategically fails.

We need to be fiercely hunting and combating terrorists and terrorist organizations, not entire religions or ethnicities. That just makes it easier for terrorists to recruit.

I mean hell...Based on the above some countries could start barring Americans from immigrating?