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.

 

Let's see just how "non-PC" you truly are

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I'm not a minority in any way, I'm white, straight heterosexual of medium height and build, I can't even remember the last time I felt insulted or offended. I also don't get offended on other peoples behalf. If someone can't help offending someone. I generally feel sympathy for them, that their lives are so crap, this is what they have to resort to in life




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yeah it seems that OP was suggesting if you don't let any a$$hole say whatever they want you're basically PC.



That's this thread distilled down to a single post.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


1. You walk into a store and ask for help, the employee looks you in the eye and says that he doesn't want to help someone like you, that you make him sick, etc. Would you agree with the employer to fire him, or would you defend his right to free speech and lobby for him to keep his job?

I would tell the manager/owner what the employee had told me, and then tell the manager that I will not shop at his establishment again. Ever. And then walk out. What the manager and the employee do at that point is between them. I can only control myself and my choices.

2. You are walking in the mall and notice someone walk up to an overweight person and start heckling them about their weight in front of hundreds of other people. Would you step in and defend the overweight person or would you defend the heckler because he has a right to say what he is saying and because he is being "non-PC"?

Not if the overweight person had friends/others defending them. But if one lone person is being bullied by anyone for any reason, yes, I would step in. (And I have. At the food court at a mall). But rather than defend the overweight person, I would simply tell the bully what a pathetic piece of crap coward they are...

3. Someone you know but do not like very much comes up to you and starts insulting you in front of your friends. Your friends step in and try to defend you, do you stop them and defend the person who is talking smack about you because what they are saying is "non-PC"?

I would not stop my friends from saying anything, but I probably wouldn't give them much of a chance to say anything either. I can speak quite well for myself.



I wouldn't consider any of these situations to be PC though. I just see a bunch of bullies. (And I hate bullies.) Let people say what they will... you... me... everyone... and then live with the consequences.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You wanted honest answers, you got honest answers.

You have the right to say whatever you want.....then we go to the ER to get my boot out of your ass. Attacking me personally is far different than the whiners who claim they are offended by pretty much anything that doesn't fit their little view of how the world should work. Those who are truly PC don't care about Freedom of Speech, they want to control how everyone expresses themselves and if it doesn't fit their idea of what's ok, they go nuts, calling people racist, bigots, etc.
And to answer your skewed questions :

#1 If you're stupid enough to treat a customer that way, why would I stand up for you?

#2 No, I would not interfere. But the over weight person is likely not to just stand and take it, so don't be surprised to see the mouthy person on the ground bleeding. I would applaud that.

#3 You're about to get hurt. You have the right to say what you want. I have the right to react.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

You don't think it's okay for people to call out racism and bigotry, et. al. when they see it?

Wow, your Freedom of Speech is kinda limited, ain't it?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Let people say what they will... you... me... everyone... and then live with the consequences.


So ... nothing at all wrong with organized groups calling publicly for the assassination, torture or abuse of some other group with whom they disagree? No issue at all with allowing such groups access to our media (internet, television, radio, etc.) to spread messages of hate and/or incitements to violence?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1) Punch him in the face
2) Punch...face
3) Face punch again



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Content deleted. Double post due to stupid phone😊




edit on 27-1-2016 by awhispersecho because: double post



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1. Since he is an employee and not the owner, he has taken a job that calls on him to help customers. I would support him being fired and if he was fired I would tear him down so much he would wish he was.

2. In most cases I would not get involved unless it was really out of control. But since your scenario is requiring my involvement I would very bluntly point out some truths to the heckler about themselves until they felt like a complete waste if life and turned away with their tail between their legs.

3. I would verbally tear them apart. Since I already don't like this person, I would go off on them until they felt like the most worthless piece of crap in the world and considered offing themselves. That's assuming I could refrain from beating the sh.. Out of them.

I have zero patience or respect for this PC crap. I'm a very easy going friendly person who enjoys joking, laughing and having fun with people. But not the PC crowd and not those that think they have a right that I don't. In addition, I firmly believe that people need to be put in their places and told about themselves at times. This applies to strangers, family, our spouses and yes, even myself




edit on 27-1-2016 by awhispersecho because: because



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1. I leave the store.
2. Depends of the reaction of the person to the excessive comment.
3. If it is someone I know, don't like and I'm with friends ... why would I defend him.

I can't help but I have the feeling that when it comes to define what is PC or not, there is much more tolerance for idiocy than arrogance.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1. Not a "free speech" issue to my mind as much as a public accommodation matter. I'd inform the manager and let company policies deal with an employee issue. If nothing happened to correct the employee, I'd take my patronage somewhere else.

2. Honestly, I'd probably probably try to incite the heckler to attack me, so that I could make an appropriate response.

3. Again, not really a "free speech-PC" issue to me.

I wanted to respond honestly as I had commented in your thread. I think what you're trying to do here, in essence, is really important, i.e. to show that the same folks who continually rattle about "PC" are actually participating in the same behavior they claim to abhor (in many cases)>



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1. Depends on the store. If it's a small family owned business I wouldn't go back there again. If they really feel that way, and it's their business, why would I try to force them to serve me? If It's a big chain like Wal-Mart the cashiers are supposed to serve everyone (big name stores usually have policies about this) so I would complain to management.

2. Free speech covers everyone. It's perfectly within the right of a heckler to poke fun at people. However it's perfectly within the right of everyone else to poke fun at the heckler. I would probably let the heckler know they are being rude.

3. Why would it be PC for your friends to talk smack back to someone who's talking smack? Is talking smack non-PC only so long as your opponent doesn't talk smack back? I don't understand your logic here.

These are terrible examples and only make it seem like you are confusing PC speech with rude behavior. PC stands for "politically correct" and non-PC speech has to disagree with the current political climate in the country. None of your examples provide the necessary political stimulus, however I can change them so they do:

A. You are a homosexual walking into a family owned Christian cake shop and ask them to bake you a wedding cake for your gay wedding. The cake shop owner politely declines stating that it's against his beliefs to serve you. Do you defend his decision as protected by the first amendment, or do you sue the pants off of him for oppressing your perceived (not Constitutional) right to your gay wedding?

B.You walk into a mall and see a BLM protester shouting obscenities at white families for being racist bigots who enjoy their white privilege at the expense of the minorities who they step on to achieve success in life. The protester is getting up in the face of a middle-aged woman who is having a nervous meltdown and her young kids are crying because the protester is becoming more and more aggressive. Whose side do you take?

C. You are a female leaving a feminist studies class with your friends when an angry muslim comes over and start shouting obscenities at you and calling you infidels who will either be raped and serve a muslim husband or die and burn in hell. Your friends start arguing with him, telling him that he can't do those things in this country. Who is being politically incorrect?

Answers:

A. The Christian baker is politically incorrect. In the current political climate of our country Christian business owners do not have the right to refuse service to homosexuals.

B. Siding with the white woman is politically incorrect. In the current political climate of our country BLM is a force for positive social change.

C. Siding with your feminist friends is politically incorrect. In the current political climate of our country muslims can do no wrong, no matter what they say or do.

See? The situation needs to be politically charged to be PC or non-PC.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Aren't there, generally speaking, at least two "sides" to politically-charged issues?

How do you decide which "side" is PC and which isn't, given that both are embedded in Politics?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


So ... nothing at all wrong with organized groups calling publicly for the assassination, torture or abuse of some other group with whom they disagree?


Wrong? Of course it's "wrong." And actually doing any of those things is even worse. But that's not what the OP asked, and that's not what you're really asking, is it? The real question is what to do about it. Should someone saying you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny be subject to criminal charges and jail time? Should they be subject to the same criminal charges and jail time as someone who threatens your life? Obama thought it was a pretty good idea to tell his supporters to engage their opponents and "get in their faces"... is it just okay for some people to say what they will? Those you approve of?


No issue at all with allowing such groups access to our media (internet, television, radio, etc.) to spread messages of hate and/or incitements to violence?


Do you mean like the Bundys? Or the Bundy Haters??? All those folks wanting them killed in cold blood and drawn and quartered and dragged through the streets?

Or do you mean like the BLM? Or the BLM Haters??? All those folks wanting them killed in cold blood and drawn and quartered and dragged through the streets?

For me it doesn't matter. I don't like it either way. But I don't want any of them to be shut up. I prefer to know who people are -- especially if they are a threat. I understand the serious legitimate grievances of both groups, and I have the utmost respect for those who put themselves in harm's way for the greater good for everyone, and complete disgust for those who wish them harm.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think society, the media and current events have kind of decided what PC is for us at this point. And while the OP scenarios were not necessarily grounded in the PC area, it was cool to have them laid out to us for a response.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Should someone saying you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny be subject to criminal charges and jail time?


Nope. Not only that, but you know better. I've never said anything like that here or anywhere else.


originally posted by: Boadicea
Should they be subject to the same criminal charges and jail time as someone who threatens your life?


Nope. Ditto.


originally posted by: Boadicea

Obama thought it was a pretty good idea to tell his supporters to engage their opponents and "get in their faces"... is it just okay for some people to say what they will? Those you approve of?



Engaging the issues is not threatening assassination, torture or abuse, is it?. Reference my actual post rather than what you'd like to try to twist it into.



originally posted by: Boadicea
Do you mean like the Bundys? Or the Bundy Haters??? All those folks wanting them killed in cold blood and drawn and quartered and dragged through the streets?


Lord at the baseless hyperbole! LOL. I'd ask for evidence but why bother.

Public calls for the assassination, torture or abuse of anyone at any time is NOT a fair use of our First Amendment rights and is in fact probably a hate crime, which we have laws to deal with. You can do the math and apply that statement to BLM as well.


originally posted by: Boadicea

For me it doesn't matter. I don't like it either way. But I don't want any of them to be shut up. I prefer to know who people are -- especially if they are a threat. I understand the serious legitimate grievances of both groups, and I have the utmost respect for those who put themselves in harm's way for the greater good for everyone, and complete disgust for those who wish them harm.



Had to read all the way to the end, but we finally got to an actual, heart-felt answer to my question. For the record, I agree with this last paragraph completely. As Justice Scalia said, however, there are limits to every "right."

Thanks for your answers!



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: peskyhumans

Aren't there, generally speaking, at least two "sides" to politically-charged issues?

How do you decide which "side" is PC and which isn't, given that both are embedded in Politics?


It's defined by the media, government, and society as a whole.

Our media is overwhelmingly liberal, even Fox has a liberal slant at this point. Anything they report is seen through that lens and toes the liberal line.

Our government is overwhelmingly liberal. Even the conservative politicans are RINO's who cave in on liberal issues. Our last budget that was passed was a liberal budget filled with pork and socialist policies passed by a mostly conservative republican congress.

Western society is overwhelmingly liberal. Virtually every western country, the US included, are accepting huge numbers of refugees from muslim and socialist countries that don't want to adopt a Christian or Capitalist way of life.

As a result, anything that doesn't agree with the liberal agenda is "non-PC".



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: awhispersecho
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think society, the media and current events have kind of decided what PC is for us at this point. And while the OP scenarios were not necessarily grounded in the PC area, it was cool to have them laid out to us for a response.



If you're saying that almost all public (and at this point private) media is being utilized to mold and shape public opinions according to certain agendas that benefit only a privileged few and certainly not the American people (or humanity at large) in general, then I absolutely concur.

The matter of how Correct something is Politically depends on the Politics at hand.

Some folks try to imply that there's only one brand of PC ... which is absurd. The OP is pointing to that fact, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

Wow, you live in a totally different world than I do! I've actually seen the numbers of true liberals drop considerably in my life time (I'll be 50 in May).

Independents are the rising tide ... which is not a bad thing in my estimation.

However, if you believe what you're saying, why be coy? Why not just call it "liberal correctness"?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Nope. Not only that, but you know better. I've never said anything like that here or anywhere else.


You're right. I do know better. And I know you do too. I wasn't accusing... just fleshing it out... making my point...


Engaging the issues is not threatening assassination, torture or abuse, is it?. Reference my actual post rather than what you'd like to try to twist it into.


Again, agreed... and reading it again, I realize I should have worded that differently, or perhaps put it in different order.


Lord at the baseless hyperbole! LOL. I'd ask for evidence but why bother.

Public calls for the assassination, torture or abuse of anyone at any time is NOT a fair use of our First Amendment rights and is in fact probably a hate crime, which we have laws to deal with. You can do the math and apply that statement to BLM as well.


I wish it were hyperbole...

When I wrote that, it was mostly to make the point that plenty of people -- including here on ATS -- put their blood lust on display, especially when they're egging on the cops or other government officials to do the dirty work.

Since writing that, I have now read about the accusation that one of the Oregon protesters was killed in cold blood, while on his knees with his hands up. And while some will wait for some kind of evidence yay or nay, others are cheering. I'm not seeing it as hyperbole...


Had to read all the way to the end, but we finally got to an actual, heart-felt answer to my question. For the record, I agree with this last paragraph completely. As Justice Scalia said, however, there are limits to every "right."

Thanks for your answers!


You're welcome!

And to Justice Scalia, I would add that exercising rights come with consequences... and therefore responsibilities.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join