It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Political correctness scares me .

page: 14
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Could you give us an example of a "PC" term that you dislike and wish to use the non "PC" term instead?

I'm just curious.




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: introvert

But what about the rights of the majority over the minority ?


The majority have no rights. The minority have no rights. In the US, the individual has rights.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

When you look at the persecution of the Jews it's always as a perceived result of corruption, of values, society and economy. Now they have a monopoly on what we hear, see and are told is true.

Manufactured outrage is there primary weapon, turn everything offensive for profit and loot everything that's left.

I don't blame them, its all of our fault for using terms like politically correct in the first place.

Politics are for liars and bull#ters and I don't want to speak there language.



edit on 9-7-2015 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

It's not that I disapprove of any one particular case. I disapprove of the entire concept .



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I understand your position now. You think that in a free society certain people's individual rights are allowed to be held over other people's individual rights.

Sorry that does not sound like a truly free society to me .
edit on 9-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
It's just a bunch of butt hurt people trying to get their agendas passed.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

That's not even close to what I said. I said that an individual's right trumps the will of the majority. Also, their right's end when it infringes on the rights of other's individual rights.

Do some reading on the constitution and it's design and you will see what I mean.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Also, their right's end when it infringes on the rights of other's individual rights.


You are saying it's all right to trample on another individuals rights if your rights are violated ? What you are failing to take into account in your statement is that both individuals have rights. Individual rights aren't exclusive to one side .
edit on 9-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse



You are saying it's all right to trample on another individuals rights if your rights are violated ?


I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read what I said. It's rather simple.



What you are failing to take into account in your statement is that both individuals have rights. Individual rights aren't exclusive to one side .


Exactly. That's why I said that an individual can freely exercise their rights without issue, unless they infringe on someone else's rights in the process.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: kruphix

It's not that I disapprove of any one particular case. I disapprove of the entire concept .


Well then, if your disapproval is so broad...surely one example should be easy to come up with.

Or are you telling me you disapprove without even knowing what you are disapproving of?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I perfectly understood everything you said.

You have not understood what I am saying .

What if the person who has a perceived infringement on the rights position ends up infringing on someone else's rights ?

If you are not taking both peoples rights into account you are only producing a oxymoron .



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

That's why you have courts and documents like the constitution to lay out those boundaries. It is a much better system than a majority-rules democracy.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Greathouse

That's why you have courts and documents like the constitution to lay out those boundaries. It is a much better system than a majority-rules democracy.



Which nicely brings me back to my original position about majority rules in a truly free society . All judges rule on the constitutionality of laws.

Fortunately there have been numerous rulings on the freedom of speech. But as is evident by your position in this thread .

ATS thread

You don't agree with the judges, laws or Constitution if you find the substance of a position personally distasteful . Your position is certainly different when someone is voicing an opinion opposite of yours . In this thread you were trampling on people's individual rights, why are you now supporting them ?

So which is it you just agree with the Constitution when it confirms your opinion or do you agree with it in its entirety ?


edit on 9-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I am baffled that this thread has made it 14 pages after being Godwinned on the 1st.

Regardless, I honestly understand where the OP is coming from. Words are words, that's all. However, I have been subjected to ridicule for what I have considered to be "brutal honesty". On reflection, I've decided that tact wins out over blunt.

Tact is simply how we state an idea. Perhaps a not so popular idea. In a real world example, I could tell another worker that they're wrong and stupid for doing something a certain way. It most certainly might be what I am thinking at the time, but I can tactfully approach them, explain why what they're doing isn't ideal, and/or (in certain situations) suggest an alternative approach.

Enforcing it really isn't up to the government - it is a societal thing and I feel it is wrong for the government to legislate thought or speech. I am an American, after all, and it goes against how I was raised and how I came to understand the notion of "free speech".

Free speech does not mean you will be free from ridicule from your peers, same goes for freedom of religion. You have the right to believe what you wish and the right to voice those beliefs, but you cannot be free from the potential of ridicule from others who do not agree with what you say or believe, just as religious beliefs cannot be legislated (in a perfect idea of the notion). No doubt, religious beliefs have been legislated, for example "sodomy" laws which were used to selectively target homosexuals and now have been, by and large, abandoned.

The federal government along with the states - ideally - cannot stop white supremacists from marching and voicing their beliefs, just as they cannot stop peace loving hippies of all races doing the same. And so, we have both of those examples taking place in our country on a regular basis - sometimes en masse.

There are some great examples in this thread of society taking the ridicule of politically incorrect speech to the next level. There are also some rather quizzical examples that have me scratching my head. The local government of Seattle banning certain words is very over the top but it does not ban the workers from voicing their opinions on their own time, only on work time. It's still idiotic, but you get the government you vote for, and it can be changed if enough people spoke up. If the northboro baptist church can spew their hatred and vitriol and be the ones to win lawsuits, I don't think newspeak is a reality for us at the moment.

Could newspeak be a reality? Maybe. But as of right now, no one is jailed or punished by the government for their speech unless it is a threat of direct violence. The punishment comes from society, largely, and if you're on T.V. (read: the public eye) you really need to watch how you say things so you are not made a target. It's an attitude from our society, not our government, that truly punishes people for their expression.
edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: clarity as usual

edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: Again, moar clarity



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

My position has not changed from that thread to this one. In that thread I specifically said that people have the right to do and say what they wish, but don't come crying to me or expect me to sympathize when you have to face the repercussions of what you did/said.



You don't agree with the judges, laws or Constitution if you find the substance of a position personally distasteful .


Just because you don't agree with someone's position and argue against it's validity, does not mean you are not in agreement with their right to do so.

The constitution does not say that one has to agree with someone's position for them to still retain their rights.

That's absurd and your example lacks merit.
edit on 9-7-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I'll let your words speak for themselves .



I don't think you are "getting it".

Both actions/choices are an affront to Islam, but Islamists are not actively killing homosexuals in America.

Why is that? It's a matter of one group PROVOKING Islamsists and the other is not.

But you know that and are purposefully obfuscating the issue for whatever purpose.


The premise of the thread anyone is free to read in its entirety . Is that Pam Geller was technically keyword technically right in using the first amendment to express her views . ( I didn't agree with her views either but I did not attempt to make them evil when I recognized her right )

As apparent by your statement above you didn't believe she was right because she was attacking Islam . The thing you don't understand about rights is that if you don't exercise both sides they disappear .


This is a quote from your second post on that thread .


I don't want to silence her in the slightest. She is well within her right to say and do as she pleases as long as she doesn't impede on someone else's rights.


Again that explains my position on political correctness that you have been debating against . PC manages to affectively silence positions/rights by vilifying them in the media.


And by coincidence that is all you attempted in that thread was vilifying the opposing position by calling it hate and provocation.


You did grant her the right but instead of recognizing the right as a whole. You attempted to obfuscate it in the shroud of villainy .


Yep that is political correctness and I'm nutshell .

edit on 9-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

It was hate and provocation. Is it politically incorrect of me to point that out, while still recognizing her right to free speech?

Both sides were able to exercise their right, but that does not mean I have to agree with what is said.



Again that explains my position on political correctness that you have been debating against


I haven't been debating against your position on political correctness. I disagreed with your comment about majority rules. As far as being PC, I said people need to "man-up" and move on.



PC manages to affectively silence positions/rights by vilifying them in the media.


Then don't pay attention to the media. I don't care what's PC and I surely couldn't care less what the media is vilifying.



And by coincidence that is all you attempted in that thread was vilifying the opposing position by calling it hate and provocation.


Yes, because they are morons. Do I not have the right to free speech? Is my position not PC enough for you?



You did grant her the right but instead of recognizing the right as a whole. You attempted to obfuscate it in the shroud of villainy .


I'm sorry that I did not approach the issue in a way that suited your sensibilities. Perhaps next time I will be more in-tune with the correct amount of PC you require to satisfy.



Yep that is political correctness and I'm nutshell .


No, that's my opinion and as this thread progresses it appears that your definition of PC ends and begins with speech that you agree with. Your post has proven that anything that is not approached or presented in a way that you like is considered PC.

I stand by what I have said in this thread and the other. I do not wish to conform to what you believe is the right way to address issues and I will not bow-down to your definition of PC.

Man-up.....and move along.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Indigo5


But it is my position that we don't actually live in a free society. If the government and the courts will back any issue in favor of a minority over a majority . Because in a truly free society the majority rules .


The precise opposite. A free society protects the rights of the minority, lest their be tyranny of the majority. Each one of us IS the minority in some way...in race, religion, political views etc.

A society that does not protect the minority denies the right of the minority to ever become the majority. That is oppression and Tyranny.

Democracy is NOT mob rule.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

OK I give up your right !



Potato


edit on 9-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Greathouse



You are saying it's all right to trample on another individuals rights if your rights are violated ?


I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read what I said. It's rather simple.



What you are failing to take into account in your statement is that both individuals have rights. Individual rights aren't exclusive to one side .


Exactly. That's why I said that an individual can freely exercise their rights without issue, unless they infringe on someone else's rights in the process.



Sorry no. It IS what you said.


That's not even close to what I said. I said that an individual's right trumps the will of the majority.


So the right of an individual trumps the will of the majority. We can look at the recent ruling on gay marriage here. Gays have the civil privilege of marriage now despite the once stated will of the majority.


Also, their right's end when it infringes on the rights of other's individual rights.


All right, so the gay has the civil privilege of marriage. But what happens when the gay's civil privilege runs afoul of the religious freedom of another? It seems right now that you are saying that the individual's right trumps the will of the majority meaning the gay would win even though it infringes on the rights of the other to not participate.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join