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.

 

The PC/non-PC debate is pretty dumb

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Imagine if Trump started campaigning that Christians should require a background check before entering the country. Do you know how badly that would hurt his numbers? The "non-PC" crowd would lynch him in the streets for making comments like that. They would hate him for being exactly what they claim to support.

Let's face it, pandering and sympathizing to the Christian base in this country is PC, yet the "non-PC"ers would immediately criticize him for being non-PC.

My point is, whether you're PC or non-PC is totally based on the perception of the individual, so this talk about being PC or non-PC is pretty dumb because any person can make out anything they want to be PC or non-PC.

This argument was introduced to divide the country even further than it already was. Let's recognize it for what it is, a charade and con job on the psyche of the American public.
edit on 1/25/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
What I find amusing is the "anti-PC" people who get so upset at people. Aren't they being just as annoying as the "PC police" they complain about?

Dude, say what you want and stand by what you say. Who the hell cares if people condemn you?

If you run around worrying if what you say might be racist, hateful, bigoted or xenophobic -- maybe it is? And if a large portion of the population pushes back against you, maybe you need to examine your beliefs and find out why you're in the minority.

When you complain about people complaining, you're no better than those people.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
That's the thing about anything "political"...in the US, it's always partisan. So a partisan filter is always used to determine what is or is not "correct."

I find it to be a useless term as far as debate goes, too.



edit on 25-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'd say that anyone who buys into the whole PC/non-PC thing is hypocritical by default because what they find PC may be non-PC to someone else or vice versa.

It's a huge case of cognitive dissonance on both sides of the debate.
edit on 1/25/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The problem is that the non-PC business is rooted in Right-Wing propaganda. When we see the media and politicians talking about political correctness, it seems to trickle-down to the average people that expose themselves to such propaganda.

It's regurgitated ad naseum.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Imagine people were running around all over the world saying Jesus Christ is great before shooting people at Starbucks. Now your scenario makes sense.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You said dumb. That's...Racist? I don't know anymore.

Sure we need to be sensitive and tolerant but where is the line drawn in the sand? I Say and do stupid things all the time but should I be offended because of my own actions? everybody on this planet is capable of saying or doing stupid things and if stupidity was considered a culture then every week would be 'stupidity awareness week.'

Tolerance is the key. South Park cleverly pointed out that tolerance is not akin to acceptance-people can disagree but still respect others beliefs even if they don't like it. I Don't like a lot of things about certain religions but I won't stop anyone from showing their faith-that's what separates some countries from others.




edit on 25-1-2016 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DrakeINFERNO

The WBC says that God hates fags, the LRA commits terrorism in the name of Jesus, prosperity preachers con people out of money and make themselves rich. Maybe we should screen all Christians because of what those particular Christians believe or do?

Why is it considered PC to sympathize with average Muslims but not PC to sympathize with Christians? Both have their bad apples you know.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Doing background checks on Muslims is redundant anyways. You can just say you're an asylum seeker anyways or use fake documentation.

Now if you look up someones web history....

People are mostly just tired of people being offended constantly about every little thing. Everyones a victim and nobody takes accountability because they're this label or that label. I'm most tired of hypocrisy and double standards.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

One side of this did make up the term PC and use it as a blanket statement to condemn what makes them uncomfortable. I don;t see others saying "You are NOT PC. That is why you are wrong about X thing". Or "You know, the NON PC crowd is ruining the country" No one says that.

I have always thought it was just a made up term.


edit on 25-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




My point is, whether you're PC or non-PC is totally based on the perception of the individual, so this talk about being PC or non-PC is pretty dumb because any person can make out anything they want to be PC or non-PC.


No it isn't. "Anti-PC" is merely more PC language abuse for someone who is pro free speech. You're either for free speech, or you are not. It isn't a matter of perception at all—unless of course you're PC. Defending free speech is not "pretty dumb", in my opinion, given that it is the basis of all dissent.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Political Correctness isn't about doing or not doing background checks.

It is about so controlling the language we use when we talk about certain subjects that we can or cannot broach the subject in the first place.

Notice that we aren't upset about Trump airing the thought because it may or may not be a violation of rights, but because the thought is "offensive" to a certain group of people. In other words, we're more worried that hearing the very idea aired could hurt someone else's feeling than we are about the merits of the idea itself.

THAT is the issue with political correctness.
edit on 25-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
So signs from a small group in kansas and a rebel african league are your examples? Can't take you serious when you ou equalize
WBC and a random Ugandan army to Isis, al Qaida , al nursa, Hezbollah Hamas etc.

But watch out for a hate sign.
edit on 25-1-2016 by DrakeINFERNO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DrakeINFERNO

My point is every religion has its bad apples, so why are we painting an entire religion in the light of a few extremists and refusing to do the same with others? That's called a double standard and is not fair to Muslims just as it wouldn't be fair to Christians if people painted their religion in the light of Christian extremism.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

But if you pay attention to the actual debates, you'll notice that no one is saying it's all Muslims. What we're saying is that we want them screened to keep the bad apples out.

If there was a significant percentage of Christians who were prone to running around and randomly bombing vulnerable venues because they felt that your lifestyle didn't fit their views, and there was no obvious way to tell them apart from all the other Christians in the world, and worse another significant percentage of Christians, while not prone to acting out themselves sympathized with their aims enough to support them ... wouldn't you want to screen any new Christians coming to this country to screen out the bad apples?

And it wouldn't be just for yourself but also for the Christians already here who are living and enjoying the benefits of that lifestyle and also prone to be victimized by their coreligionists.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
In North Korea, speech is PC.

You are free to say whatever you want, you'll just be punished by the government for saying it.

In a country where free speech is paramount, having the freedom to say whatever you want without punishment by government is a gift we should not treat lightly.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I can understand your point, but the point I made was not in whether screening Muslims is a good or bad idea, it is about the non-PC crowd setting a double standard. The same goes for the PC crowd as well (I hate even using these terms btw).

The thread is not about screening Muslims, that was only one example among many, it is about the non-PC crowd seeing "non-PC" statements as ok until it involves their own beliefs. The Muslim/Christian thing is only to reinforce my point.

If Trump (for example) said that he planned on screening Christians based on the actions of the WBC, LRA, and prosperity preachers, the non-PC crowd would be fighting him tooth and nail for not being PC enough.
edit on 1/25/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No one is being thrown in jail for speaking their minds. If that were the case people like Trump, who speak their minds regardless of what others think, would be in jail.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

No one is being thrown in jail for speaking their minds. If that were the case people like Trump, who speak their minds regardless of what others think, would be in jail.


And how many on this site would applaud that?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The majority. Not many people in America are against free speech, if there are any it is the tiniest fraction. Do some not agree with something someone says? Of course. Does that mean they want them to be thrown in jail? I highly doubt it.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join