The Plague of Politically (in)Correctness

a reply to: Abysha

I disagree. Although you are free to call it politically incorrectness, it's not the opposite of politically correctness. Imo, incorrectness doesn't exist.

There's PC, which encompasses what you're "supposed" to say, then there's simply the rest.

I guess the rest would fall under "freedom"

a reply to: fiverx313

Of course you don't have to approve of it. You're free to feel as you wish. But when those sentiments are virtue signalled across society and people are taught to scrutinize anything other than PC. It can get ugly, hence what we see today.

a reply to: fiverx313

Maybe "true intent" would have been better.

I just don't concede that cherry picking a subjectively nicer synonym in a comment just to hopefully not commit an infraction against someone's feelings is not a worthy goal in the way that we are inundated with it in our current society.

I always think about Eric Cartman in "South Park," where he countered people calling him fat by saying, "I'm not fat I'm pleasantly plump," or, "...I'm big boned."

But in the same breath, I'm not saying that being polite needs to be thrown out the window, just the demand for over-politeness. There's nothing wrong with the definition of "illegal alien," for example--I shouldn't be guilted or shamed into using "undocumented worker" just because it seems nicer to some people's ears.

That's what I'm getting at.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

I disagree. Although you are free to call it politically incorrectness, it's not the opposite of politically correctness. Imo, incorrectness doesn't exist.

There's PC, which encompasses what you're "supposed" to say, then there's simply the rest.

I guess the rest would fall under "freedom"

or there's treating people with respect, and going out of your way to feign ignorance, treat other people as less than you, and be a smug jerk.

all in how you look at it i guess

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

I offer that you have it all wrong. "PiC" is nothing more or less than the outgrowth of natural instinctual abilities that allowed human and any animal to survive.

It is time to evolve beyond that state which produces disadvantageous behaviors across our entire race for many different reasons.

We have the minds, the thought processes,--if we will--to counteract those bad aspects. It comes down to whether we are true conscious beings or not. At present we are not.

The move is towards a purely or mostly conscious being that seeks only mind-to-mind recognition of another being without regard to the physicality of that being. And even then there are problems but considerable less so than when interacting with another on purely a physical basis.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: fiverx313

Maybe "true intent" would have been better.

I just don't concede that cherry picking a subjectively nicer synonym in a comment just to hopefully not commit an infraction against someone's feelings is not a worthy goal in the way that we are inundated with it in our current society.

I always think about Eric Cartman in "South Park," where he countered people calling him fat by saying, "I'm not fat I'm pleasantly plump," or, "...I'm big boned."

But in the same breath, I'm not saying that being polite needs to be thrown out the window, just the demand for over-politeness. There's nothing wrong with the definition of "illegal alien," for example--I shouldn't be guilted or shamed into using "undocumented worker" just because it seems nicer to some people's ears.

That's what I'm getting at.

i think it depends on whether you think our language affects the way we think, or you don't. i personally do. it doesn't cost me anything to treat people with dignity and call them as they wish to be called.

originally posted by: fiverx313

Yeesh.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

I disagree. Although you are free to call it politically incorrectness, it's not the opposite of politically correctness. Imo, incorrectness doesn't exist.

There's PC, which encompasses what you're "supposed" to say, then there's simply the rest.

I guess the rest would fall under "freedom"

What you are "supposed" to say are things that maintain civil discourse and that don't foment an ugly society "just cause". I will always believe there are things you should and shouldn't say.

Do you allow your five-year-old to drop f-bombs and call the nice old lady next door an old hag? Why not? Isn't that your child just practicing "free speech". Or... maybe it's your child acting like a little jack-ass.

I see no difference in the cause of a potty-mouthed child and an adult just trying to be a jerk. I was raised to respect others and now, as an adult, I extend that respect to people by default. I address them how they want to be addressed and don't call people names for no good reason.

There is a happy medium. Calling out white-owned taco trucks for cultural appropriation isn't that happy medium and calling people names and intentionally offending them also isn't in that happy medium.

Why is that so difficult to see?

a reply to: Abysha

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating for everyone to become assholes with complete disregard to peoples feelings.

The contrary actually. Just because someone is an asshole or blunt, doesn't mean he's a sociopath with no empathy, but that's the standard being set in society.

All the examples you mentioned are extreme and are universally agreed on, I would think.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha
Just because someone is an asshole or blunt, doesn't mean he's a sociopath with no empathy, but that's the standard being set in society.

And do you think that new standard being set is harmful or helpful to our society?

a reply to: fiverx313

And it doesn't cost me anything to be honest and direct with my comments, just as it doesn't cost anyone anything to accept the reality that, when they live in a society of other people, no interaction will be exactly as they want or hope.

Like I noted and you seem to have disregarded, "I'm not saying that being polite needs to be thrown out the window, just the demand for over-politeness."

Nowhere did I say my goal is to disregard people's dignity. But, if one's dignity is determined mostly on words used by others towards them, I'm willing to bet that their fragile dignity has deeper issues than the issue of me not calling them as they wish to be called.

Regardless, this isn't really worth following up on anymore--I've said my piece, and you disagree. That's okay.

Best regards.

a reply to: Abysha

Both. Nothing is either black or white. Can you say that it's ONLY helpful and not harmful?

PC needs to go. True respect for other people isn't accomplished by shame, it is accomplished by living life.

Who are we to deny someone else the life experience of learning? So instead of allowing a person to mature on their own, we will shout at them that they just need to change and get with the program. We force their thoughts to coincide with group think instead of being an individual.

Same for the person who gets offended at another person's speech. Why are we removing a chance for them to mature and realize that their reaction to the speech is all that matters, not the person speaking the words. We can't and we shouldn't try to control other people. Instead we should learn to control ourselves and our reactionary emotions.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

Both. Nothing is either black or white. Can you say that it's ONLY helpful and not harmful?

Yes I can. A new standard where being intentionally offensive is the norm is harmful to society. It is pretty black and white to me.

originally posted by: Abysha
What you are "supposed" to say are things that maintain civil discourse and that don't foment an ugly society "just cause".

Actually, in American society and per our constitution, there is nothing that I'm "supposed to say," even if it hurts other people's feelings, and even if it's 'just because.'

But in that same breath, I'm also not protected from negative backlash, and is something that I must be prepared for if I say something ugly and nasty to someone.

Honestly, there is no real difference between a potty-mouthed child and an assh*le adult, but there is a point worth noting: As an adult, you are responsible for your own actions; as a child, it is the responsibility of the parent to instill a sense of right and wrong as far as language goes. But there are plenty of potty-mouthed people who have the biggest hearts around, so words should really be looked at with a massively smaller amount of scrutiny compared to one's meaningful actions, or even just the intent of the words.

It's gotten to the point that intent doesn't matter, just the words, and that, quite honestly, is a crap approach to communicating.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Perception is everything and when television is putting preconceived notions into the weak minded.... it is a blatant attack on the population. In the real world people kill, hurt, steal from, and take advantage of the weak...very similar to what goes on in nature just on a much grander scale. The English language is being attacked from every direction because TPTB fear what people can do these days. We can all interact with people around the world from the comfort of our couches and that scares the pants right off of a small percentage of Earth's population. God forbid civilians get together and demand better living situations from the people that can make that happen. Just toe that line and mind your business!!!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Abysha
What you are "supposed" to say are things that maintain civil discourse and that don't foment an ugly society "just cause".

Actually, in American society and per our constitution, there is nothing that I'm "supposed to say," even if it hurts other people's feelings, and even if it's 'just because.'

But in that same breath, I'm also not protected from negative backlash, and is something that I must be prepared for if I say something ugly and nasty to someone.

Honestly, there is no real difference between a potty-mouthed child and an assh*le adult, but there is a point worth noting: As an adult, you are responsible for your own actions; as a child, it is the responsibility of the parent to instill a sense of right and wrong as far as language goes. But there are plenty of potty-mouthed people who have the biggest hearts around, so words should really be looked at with a massively smaller amount of scrutiny compared to one's meaningful actions, or even just the intent of the words.

It's gotten to the point that intent doesn't matter, just the words, and that, quite honestly, is a crap approach to communicating.

So you agree that there isn't much of a surface difference between an out-of-control five-year-old with a potty mouth and the typical rude adult who intentionally says offensive things just because they can?

So do you think that is right? Is it wrong of me to say that it is not right? Why isn't it okay for me to say that it isn't right?

a reply to: Abysha

Nothing in life is black and white, and for you to say that with such absoluteness shows me your lack of insight. Probably willfully.

Black and white is only for show. Reality resides in the grey, but you have to be willing to look there.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

Nothing in life is black and white, and for you to say that with such absoluteness shows me your lack of insight. Probably willfully.

Black and white is only for show. Reality resides in the grey, but you have to be willing to look there.

Is it okay for people to cut in line at the store? It's not illegal and it's just somebody acting like an entitled jerk.

Is there a grey area there? How is somebody being a jerk with their actions different than being a jerk with their words? Both are legal and both are expressions of self.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

Both. Nothing is either black or white. Can you say that it's ONLY helpful and not harmful?

Yes I can. A new standard where being intentionally offensive is the norm is harmful to society. It is pretty black and white to me.

I think we both know that this thread is....

Perhaps it's just me, but this thread feels like political apologetics for Trump and his supporters. speaking like white trash and making up BS cultural revisionistas to excuse it under the guise of "freedom of speech"...

Pretty transparent actually....