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 is Going to Destroy US

page: 19
67
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We're talking about an issue formulated from society. The common perception is paramount. People view PC as originating from the left, so it is important to take that into account. As FCD is saying, it has become a weapon. A weapon indeed used by BOTH sides, but public opinion holds it as being mostly exclusive to the left. Thus, the right attacks it, like the left attacked the war. Ultimately, we still went to war. Ultimately, PC is still used in absurd fashion. Thus, the cycle continues.


I think it's all been blown WAY out of proportion and isn't as bad as people pretend it is.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The issue is with its potential, not its current form. It may not be the monster people imagine, but that is simply a monster it is yet to become.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Well I don't let paranoia and potential dictate my actions. If PC culture gets to the point where it actually IS threatening rights then I'll stand up and take notice, but as long as PC stays out of government laws then I could care less what people use it for. It's all free speech to me.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would rather take preventative care. By the time it is invading our laws, very serious things will need to take place to stop it.

Still, if someone like Sanders gets into the white house, it should be fine. The issue with PC is ultimately not its "Heart", it is its abuse.
edit on 15/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would rather take preventative care. By the time it is invading our laws, very serious things will need to take place to stop it.


Preventative care could too easily result in freedoms stripped in the name of battle against PC culture as well. Like I said, at the end of the day, PC is just applications of freedom of speech. It's really just best to leave it alone and let society work it out itself.


Still, if someone like Sanders gets into the white house, it should be fine. The issue with PC is ultimately not its "Heart", it is its abuse.


It's going to be fine regardless of who gets into the white house.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I don't let paranoia and potential dictate my actions. If PC culture gets to the point where it actually IS threatening rights then I'll stand up and take notice, but as long as PC stays out of government laws then I could care less what people use it for. It's all free speech to me.


Do you believe that government laws are the only type of rights that exist? What about rights like being allowed to say something without others using physical violence or venomous harassment in response to your words? Or saying something and being fired or verbally abused as a result?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
So, get this. There is a chance Europeans might start debating immigration and migrant crime. So Sweden has just decided not to tell anyone who is committing crimes.

www.breitbart.com...

New safety alert in Sweden..." attention citizens there is a dangerous rapist on the loose in the Lund area, the suspect is a tall, short, skinny, fat, black, white, yellowish man-ish person "
edit on 15-1-2016 by Noobarino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
So you believe people should not be faulted for assuming implications where none were intended? And you believe that when speaking, people should always be as specific as possible (to the point of tedium) in order to avoid accidentally making any 'implications?'

Yep, that about sums up PC. Well, one angle of it at least. Then you have the fascists who don't give a damn about feelings or implications. They only invoke PC when they need to silence the opposition.

I'll give you this much, kayla, I don't think you're a fascist.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I don't let paranoia and potential dictate my actions. If PC culture gets to the point where it actually IS threatening rights then I'll stand up and take notice, but as long as PC stays out of government laws then I could care less what people use it for. It's all free speech to me.


Do you believe that government laws are the only type of rights that exist? What about rights like being allowed to say something without others using physical violence or venomous harassment in response to your words? Or saying something and being fired or verbally abused as a result?


In the United States, Freedom of Speech refers to your rights with regard to interference from the government and has nothing at all to do with how others might react to what you say. If I choose to publicly speak out in support of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, do you believe the government should prevent a prospective of employer from passing me over for a job because they don't want to be known as an employer of anti-semites? That's a lot to ask. You're now asking the government to be an arbiter of taste in society.

You are protected from physical violence and to a degree, harassment. You could, for instance, write your own White Power manifesto and publish it under your name. If people made threats of violence against you, the government would be obligated to afford you the same protections as they might afford someone being threatened for their manifesto on how screw-threading ought to be reversed so that left tightens while right loosens.

That is not the same thing, however, as the right to avoid criticism or social consequence. You don't get to publish things under your name and then for certain special purposes claim that others who have dealings with you are obligated to pretend as though you did not. If you say Muslims ought to be rounded up and put in camps and your employer doesn't want to be associated with someone who might say such things, well, tough. That's at-will employment law for you. Just as you can choose not to work for your employer because you feel they are supportive of Muslim immigration which you staunchly oppose.
edit on 17-1-2016 by JohnnyElohim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
In the United States, Freedom of Speech refers to your rights with regard to interference from the government and has nothing at all to do with how others might react to what you say. If I choose to publicly speak out in support of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, do you believe the government should prevent a prospective of employer from passing me over for a job because they don't want to be known as an employer of anti-semites? That's a lot to ask. You're now asking the government to be an arbiter of taste in society.

You are protected from physical violence and to a degree, harassment. You could, for instance, write your own White Power manifesto and publish it under your name. If people made threats of violence against you, the government would be obligated to afford you the same protections as they might afford someone being threatened for their manifesto on how screw-threading ought to be reversed so that left tightens while right loosens.

That is not the same thing, however, as the right to avoid criticism or social consequence. You don't get to publish things under your name and then for certain special purposes claim that others who have dealings with you are obligated to pretend as though you did not. If you say Muslims ought to be rounded up and put in camps and your employer doesn't want to be associated with someone who might say such things, well, tough. That's at-will employment law for you. Just as you can choose not to work for your employer because you feel they are supportive of Muslim immigration which you staunchly oppose.

You make some valid points, but you and I both know that people get penalised for saying stuff much more tame than those extreme examples you mentioned. That is the problem — at which point something is considered offensive to somebody else.

Also remember that while this is a U.S.A. based website, not all of us who contribute on the site actually live in the U.S. — so the idea of the U.S.'s version of Freedom of Speech is not the only consideration.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

""" If you say Muslims ought to be rounded up and put in camps and your employer doesn't want to be associated with someone who might say such things, well, tough. That's at-will employment law for you. """"

I disagree, I don't think your personal beliefs should affect your employment. I don't think my opinion on immigration affects my ability to perform a task for my employer.

For example, what If I supported gays on Facebook, and my employer hated gay people and fired me. This wouldn't be fair.

Or what if I was against the Affordable Care Act and mentioned it online, and my employer was an Insurance company that stood to gain Billions from the ACA and fired me, that wouldn't be fair either.

edit on 17-1-2016 by Noobarino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
In the United States, Freedom of Speech refers to your rights with regard to interference from the government and has nothing at all to do with how others might react to what you say. If I choose to publicly speak out in support of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, do you believe the government should prevent a prospective of employer from passing me over for a job because they don't want to be known as an employer of anti-semites? That's a lot to ask. You're now asking the government to be an arbiter of taste in society.

You are protected from physical violence and to a degree, harassment. You could, for instance, write your own White Power manifesto and publish it under your name. If people made threats of violence against you, the government would be obligated to afford you the same protections as they might afford someone being threatened for their manifesto on how screw-threading ought to be reversed so that left tightens while right loosens.

That is not the same thing, however, as the right to avoid criticism or social consequence. You don't get to publish things under your name and then for certain special purposes claim that others who have dealings with you are obligated to pretend as though you did not. If you say Muslims ought to be rounded up and put in camps and your employer doesn't want to be associated with someone who might say such things, well, tough. That's at-will employment law for you. Just as you can choose not to work for your employer because you feel they are supportive of Muslim immigration which you staunchly oppose.

You make some valid points, but you and I both know that people get penalised for saying stuff much more tame than those extreme examples you mentioned. That is the problem — at which point something is considered offensive to somebody else.

Also remember that while this is a U.S.A. based website, not all of us who contribute on the site actually live in the U.S. — so the idea of the U.S.'s version of Freedom of Speech is not the only consideration.


To be honest, I'm not certain exactly which examples you're referring to, but I am curious. You certainly have a good point that there's variation in how the notion of Freedom of Speech is interpreted around the world. I'm definitely coming from a US-centric perspective on the subject of "Political Correctness".



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noobarino
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

""" If you say Muslims ought to be rounded up and put in camps and your employer doesn't want to be associated with someone who might say such things, well, tough. That's at-will employment law for you. """"

I disagree, I don't think your personal beliefs should affect your employment. I don't think my opinion on immigration affects my ability to perform a task for my employer.

For example, what If I supported gays on Facebook, and my employer hated gay people and fired me. This wouldn't be fair.

Or what if I was against the Affordable Care Act and mentioned it online, and my employer was an Insurance company that stood to gain Billions from the ACA and fired me, that wouldn't be fair either.


Your opinion does not. Speech is a type of action. There are many unfair outcomes to be had in the present legal paradigm. It's really got nothing to do with political correctness, though. As long as there has been at-will employment, employees have been exposed to dismissal if conduct attributable to them displeases their employer. That's an entirely different debate. It's an interesting one, though. If you find out that our boss holds views you find worthy of contempt, should you also be forbidden from leaving the job just as you'd propose they should be forbidden from letting you go? Maybe good thread material.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
To be honest, I'm not certain exactly which examples you're referring to, but I am curious. You certainly have a good point that there's variation in how the notion of Freedom of Speech is interpreted around the world. I'm definitely coming from a US-centric perspective on the subject of "Political Correctness".

The examples of publicly declaring support for Mein Kampf and the Protocols. Or publicly stating all Muslims should be rounded up and put in camps. Those are fairly extreme examples of expecting Freedom of Speech (FoS) to be upheld. I am more talking about saying "is there a problem with integration of immigrants coming from Middle Eastern regions in Europe?" or "is the official story of 9/11 accurate?" those sorts of questions stated in public context can get you fired and at the receiving ends of death threats.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I don't think the 9/11 one has anything to do with PC, but I digress.

The issue is that many people conflate anti-PC with people who just want to be assholes with no repercussions. (Look at Trump. He's not calmly talking about sensitive issues, he's just. Being. A prick.)

Try another question: "What are we going to do about all those rapist Muslims?"
Well, firstly, tacking on "Muslims" to the question is basically unnecessary. All rapists should be dealt with, correct?
"What are we going to do with all those rapists?" isn't specific enough, so...

"There seems to be a sexual assault epidemic afflicting our country as a direct result of our acceptance of refugees. This may come about as a clash of culture, or a misunderstanding as to what constitutes sexual assault here in America. Perhaps many of these people do not even realise what they are doing is wrong. We must educate them, and if they refuse to follow the law of the land after being given a chance to learn it, then these people are not refugees, they are invading bandits, and should be treated as such."

Is this PC, or Non-PC? The issue is a sensitive one. Does it ruffle too many feathers? Or is it better if I propose this?

"All this rape being imported in with the refugees has got to go. NO MORE! Muslim men and boys cannot assimilate with our culture, and we can no longer allow them into our country. Refugees? What refugees? All I see is an invading army of murderers and thieves."

This is most certainly Non-PC, but is its message actually more valid than the previous one?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You raise a valid point.

Maybe the key lies in a balance. Some PC advocates take things too far as well as some anti-PC individuals.

I think what I and many others are arguing is that the general balance has been upset by those taking it too far PC and it is threatening the concept of Free Speech the world over.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I don't let paranoia and potential dictate my actions. If PC culture gets to the point where it actually IS threatening rights then I'll stand up and take notice, but as long as PC stays out of government laws then I could care less what people use it for. It's all free speech to me.


Do you believe that government laws are the only type of rights that exist? What about rights like being allowed to say something without others using physical violence or venomous harassment in response to your words? Or saying something and being fired or verbally abused as a result?


Well your first question is covered in assault laws. Venomous harassment? You have no right to not having venomous harassment sent your way though. That's free speech.

Saying something and being fired for it is within your employers rights. I don't know what you mean by being verbally abused at work. Are you saying that employers can't yell at their employees or something?



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
To be honest, I'm not certain exactly which examples you're referring to, but I am curious. You certainly have a good point that there's variation in how the notion of Freedom of Speech is interpreted around the world. I'm definitely coming from a US-centric perspective on the subject of "Political Correctness".

The examples of publicly declaring support for Mein Kampf and the Protocols. Or publicly stating all Muslims should be rounded up and put in camps. Those are fairly extreme examples of expecting Freedom of Speech (FoS) to be upheld. I am more talking about saying "is there a problem with integration of immigrants coming from Middle Eastern regions in Europe?" or "is the official story of 9/11 accurate?" those sorts of questions stated in public context can get you fired and at the receiving ends of death threats.


Ah, I misread you as saying you were aware of specific examples of people getting into trouble for expressing those opinions publicly in an attributable fashion. Yes, my examples were extreme because the extremity creates a stark contrast. The bottom line is that your employer is simply not obligated to employ you, so you should take care what controversial opinions you express in the public domain in a way that's attributable to you. This is a large part of why there's a time-honored tradition of writing anonymously or pseudonymously and has nothing to do with "political correctness" nor Freedom of Speech. It has always been thus and arguably more drastically so in the past. There may be a better mode for society to operate in in this regard, but either way, it's not a liberal conspiracy to muzzle dissent, which I think is what this thread essentially posits.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

You raise a valid point.

Maybe the key lies in a balance. Some PC advocates take things too far as well as some anti-PC individuals.

I think what I and many others are arguing is that the general balance has been upset by those taking it too far PC and it is threatening the concept of Free Speech the world over.


I'd propose specific examples might be useful. I don't see the phenomenon of "political correctness" leading to the downfall of Western civilization or the end of free speech.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
hmm....I don't like being PC....but, being ignorant of the facts, and/or being rude, is far from being anti-PC....knowing the difference is what's crucial.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join