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.

 

How to abolish political correctness?

page: 16
15
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But that is just the way things are. People will use freedoms in ways that you don't approve of. That is just something you have to deal with. It is what it is.


Excepting that reality, do you not think it is detrimental to the social justice movement that some or many people are abusing social justice concepts? Even as a supporter? I strongly feel that way. Some of the excesses are the very reason that many people are becoming disenchanted with PC or social justice.

Obviously there is a whole other group that hates all of this simply because they are bigots or ignorant, but that is a different discussion.




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But that is just the way things are. People will use freedoms in ways that you don't approve of. That is just something you have to deal with. It is what it is.


Excepting that reality, do you not think it is detrimental to the social justice movement that some or many people are abusing social justice concepts? Even as a supporter? I strongly feel that way. Some of the excesses are the very reason that many people are becoming disenchanted with PC or social justice.


I feel that way about abuse of all forms.


Obviously there is a whole other group that hates all of this simply because they are bigots or ignorant, but that is a different discussion.


To be honest, most of the PC excess that people complain about is just conservative hyperbole. Most of the time, when you read deeply into the latest article designed to outrage anti-pc people you see that the details are more nuanced or the events didn't play out exactly as they are being described. In fact, I'd wager that a good 75%+ of anti-PC articles are just click bait garbage.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
"I dont like what youre saying, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it."

No speech should be criminalized.
Free speech is for the defense of unpopular speech, because popular speech needs no defense.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But that is just the way things are. People will use freedoms in ways that you don't approve of. That is just something you have to deal with. It is what it is.


Excepting that reality, do you not think it is detrimental to the social justice movement that some or many people are abusing social justice concepts? Even as a supporter? I strongly feel that way. Some of the excesses are the very reason that many people are becoming disenchanted with PC or social justice.


I feel that way about abuse of all forms.


Obviously there is a whole other group that hates all of this simply because they are bigots or ignorant, but that is a different discussion.


To be honest, most of the PC excess that people complain about is just conservative hyperbole. Most of the time, when you read deeply into the latest article designed to outrage anti-pc people you see that the details are more nuanced or the events didn't play out exactly as they are being described. In fact, I'd wager that a good 75%+ of anti-PC articles are just click bait garbage.


Yes, many of those articles and claims are hyperbole. MOST of the anti-pc or anti-social justice people fall into some kind of ignorant or bigoted classification, especially those that condemn social justice writ large, not just the excesses.

However, as a person deeply embedded in the social justice world, I've seen first hand many excesses. I've been in that world hard core, professionally, academically, and socially, for a good 12-13 years. Probably 90% of my contacts and friends are in that world.

The point is, even supporters need to call out their own and recognize when someone isn't themselves following the precepts of "pc" or social justice, as recognizing it in fact retains the credibility of the movement. Pretending that there are no excesses doesn't actually increase credibility or persuade people on the fence, but may push them away. It also can push away existing allies.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Naturally, and I'm not disagreeing with you there. I am not a fan of cheap arguing either. So if a case is actually presented to me on ATS that is actually REAL PC going rampant, I'll acknowledge it. I have no problem calling out my own for their mistakes. After all, we cannot improve if you are unwilling to recognize your own short failings. Believe it or not, I also take all criticism of my words seriously. If someone brings up a good point to counter something I'm saying, I may not immediately acknowledge it, but later on when I argue that topic again I will have altered the argument or even admit it altogether. Sometimes I've called out my own side for using an argument I've abandoned.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky


The BBC isn't perfect, but it's one of the most neutral media outlets on this planet.* No BS, when the BBC gets privatised, it'll be like the end of the free world to me.


NPR would be a close comparison over here - but it doesn't compare to the BBC in the same way. There's a lot of people here who have never listened to NPR - don't even know what it is. Everyone knows the BBC

I used to listen to the BBC on the radio at night before I went to bed. I had to stop because the coverage was so good I decided that the last thing I needed to know before I lay me down to rest was what was actually happening out there for reals

Our major news networks can't come close

Yeah - I know - bias is an interesting thing. It's hard to say news is ever neutral with a straight face - especially these days. So we do have to settle for most neutral. But there is still good journalism out there - straight up - no frills

:-)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

It's cool to have someone else on ATS appreciate them.


In the English-speaking world, BBC is a treasure we'll miss when it's gone. Media like the Mail, the Express and Murdoch businesses always attack the BBC because they can't control its content and it's an ad-free competitor. It's f****** ironic that our 'free press' are just lobbyists actingin their own interests and 'state owned' media is the most neutral.

I've listened to a few NPR podcasts over the years. They get ripped by some of the online comedian for being boring and nerdy. Now that, to me, is an indication that there's some good content on there.


Isn't Radiolab NPR? I've listened to every show they've done.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Wrong thread
edit on 17-12-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MayanBoricua
"I dont like what youre saying, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it."

No speech should be criminalized.
Free speech is for the defense of unpopular speech, because popular speech needs no defense.

So death threats & terrorist recruitment shouldn't be banned, censored, or criminalized either? And what about the legal categories of slander & libel? I know people love to say the phrase you quoted, but screw that. I'll never sacrifice my life so someone can keep their "right" to slander me or make death threats against my family. That doesn't even make sense.

Also, if no speech was ever criminalized, what happens to copyrights? I release all of my works into the public domain, so I don't care. Anyone can speak my words or spread my works as much as they want. But I know for a fact that most songwriters, writers, & poets want to keep copyrights, which are literally restrictions on free speech. One aspect of copyright law literally forbids anyone from reciting or playing your works in public without a license.

Also, what would that say about classified information, whistle blowers, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, and the such? In fact, what's insider trading? If you really believe no speech should be criminalized, insiders should be free to tell clients or friends about upcoming deals so they can profit from them. In fact, what's fraud? Should businesses and "con-men" be allowed to say whatever lies they want to a potential client w/no restrictions?

Not to rant at you but I reeeeally hate that quote. It's like people say it without regards for real life consequences.
edit on 17-12-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join