The Plague of Politically (in)Correctness

originally posted by: Abysha
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?

On the surface, no--both display a lack of both maturity and intelligence. But one is age appropriate and normal, and the other is a conscious choice by an adult who should understand the consequences of such speech.

So, if you're being superficial about it, there's not much difference, but if you actually analyze it, the differences that do exist are important.

Why isn't it okay for me to say that it isn't right?

I'd never say it isn't okay for you to hold that opinion, but that's all that it is--an opinion. It's subjective, and based on your own ideologies and biases, as is the cause of my stance on it as well. But you are free to hold your opinion, just as adults are free to use whatever words they want, being fully aware of the consequences that can occur.

But, I don't think that trying to force or guilt adults into speaking only one way in order to appease those who are relatively easily offended is an appropriate approach to take. But, again...opinions.

I will say that I agree with Knowledgehunter when he says that nothing is black-and-white in the real world. Taking a hard-lined stance on either extreme is not generally a logical approach.

a reply to: Abysha

He's free to be a jerk and cut in line, just like somebody is free to physically throw him out.

Freedom doesn't mean free of consequences and I'm not trying to insinuate that either.

How is somebody being a jerk with their actions different than being a jerk with their words? 

Pretty sure actions speak much louder than words.

To expound on my "yeesh" to this: I find this quote particularly unhelpful, unenlightened, and a bit cynical.

Is there room to joke about skin color, cultural differences, sex, sexual orientation, etc. in the workplace or a multitude of other professional settings? No.

Is there room for it in comedy? Yes.

By the standard suggested in the quote above, people couldn't even joke about Trump's orange skin. There would be no Chapelle Show, no Comedy Roasts...no occasion to NOT take it seriously and make everyone fair game.

Eh, I think regulating comedy so that no one gets offended is pretty ridiculous. It's not supposed to be taken seriously and I respect others enough to give them credit for recognizing that, too.

***

(One exception....Is there room to joke about intellectual disabilities? No. That's about the only thing I would say is off-limits in comedy, because the butt of the joke may not have the capacity to recognize it as a joke.)

originally posted by: [post=22686677]
Pretty sure actions speak much louder than words.

Well, they should, anyway. But the easily offended of society have changed that.

originally posted by: olaru12

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....

C'mon olaru, you were the first to mention Trump. Maybe you want this to be about him so we can make it partisan?

I put this into chit-chat for a reason

a reply to: olaru12

And that is what you got out of it?

So easy to just label people and stop all thought process huh?

I see all of these issues as being interrelated and it appears that the majority of people fall on either one side or the other. On one side are those who want to control other people and force upon others their own ideology. The other side wants freedom and the ability to explore this reality.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think attacking anyone that is incapable of defending themselves is off limits.

Young children, disabled, etc.

Everyone else that is willing and able is fair game.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

He's free to be a jerk and cut in line, just like somebody is free to physically throw him out.

Freedom doesn't mean free of consequences and I'm not trying to insinuate that either.

How is somebody being a jerk with their actions different than being a jerk with their words? 

Pretty sure actions speak much louder than words.

Ok... I agree with some of that.

But don't you see that all this "douche behavior = the good fight" is wrapped up in a large quilt of hypocrisy? It's all based on outrage that somebody doesn't like what they say.

It's like the bully slapping around somebody finally getting punched back then saying "hey, why are you so violent"? It's all about playing dumb and innocent when it's convenient.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

originally posted by: olaru12

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....

C'mon olaru, you were the first to mention Trump. Maybe you want this to be about him so we can make it partisan?

I put this into chit-chat for a reason

Just callin it like I see it. No political correctness from me. It's a partisan subject and you know it...chit chatty or otherwise!

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Is there room to joke about skin color, cultural differences, sex, sexual orientation, etc. in the workplace or a multitude of other professional settings? No.

Yes there is. We trade jokes in my office all of the time. Hell, we all literally (within a day ago) had to take annual training, and one was a new video on how to "Avoid Unconscious Biases," which spoke about microagreesion and the like. It was so absolutely ridiculous that we all laughed at it and proceeded to continue on with the way that we do things.

But it's nice, because none of us in my section are overly sensitive about anything, so it's all fair game (even though, being intelligent adults, none of us ever take it too far).

Just because some sects of society thing that this type of behavior is not okay doesn't mean that other sects agree. And we are exactly split halfway in my office between men and women, and we are multi-cultural.

Hell, if what you claim above were true, the Army would have been soooooooo bland of an experience.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think attacking anyone that is incapable of defending themselves is off limits.

Young children, disabled, etc.

Everyone else that is willing and able is free game.

I was just about to edit my comment to add children. Now I don't have to.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Is there room to joke about skin color, cultural differences, sex, sexual orientation, etc. in the workplace or a multitude of other professional settings? No.

Yes there is. We trade jokes in my office all of the time. Hell, we all literally (within a day ago) had to take annual training, and one was a new video on how to "Avoid Unconscious Biases," which spoke about microagreesion and the like. It was so absolutely ridiculous that we all laughed at it and proceeded to continue on with the way that we do things.

But it's nice, because none of us in my section are overly sensitive about anything, so it's all fair game (even though, being intelligent adults, none of us ever take it too far).

Just because some sects of society thing that this type of behavior is not okay doesn't mean that other sects agree. And we are exactly split halfway in my office between men and women, and we are multi-cultural.

Hell, if what you claim above were true, the Army would have been soooooooo bland of an experience.

It's a liability for your employer. But if there is a culture of consensus where you work, then I suppose it's not much of an issue.

a reply to: Abysha

Again, I'm not advocating for douchery' or using them for some good fight. Me personally, I don't carry myself in such a deplorable manner, but I will never critisize someone else for it.

I'm just fighting for freedom and everything it encompasses. The good, the bad and the ugly.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

Again, I'm not advocating for douchery' or using them for some good fight. Me personally, I don't carry myself in such a deplorable manner, but I will never critisize someone else for it.

But you'll criticize those who criticize them? Why?

a reply to: Abysha

Just me exercising my freedoms and giving my opinions. You are free to critisize, just like I am.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's a tough balance to keep for employers--promoting a team feeling or a cohesive unit, but feeling a need to regulate what can and can't happen (often per federal laws).

The other side of the equation, though, is how much employers have to spend on training and implementation of said rules and guidelines. That in and of itself is a burden, but obviously probably cheaper than the concern of constant liability.

But I understand that a balance must exist between freedom to joke around and promoting a non-toxic work environment. I'm just glad that I work in an office that is both of those.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

Just me exercising my freedoms and giving my opinions. You are free to critisize, just like I am.

I agree. But why are you only criticizing those standing up to rudeness and disrespectfulness?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The other side of the equation, though, is how much employers have to spend on training and implementation of said rules and guidelines. That in and of itself is a burden, but obviously probably cheaper than the concern of constant liability.

Plus, your employer probably gets better rates from his/her liability insurer because of the training and policies. So, in the end, it's probably cheaper.

a reply to: Abysha

Because imo, PC is the antithesis to freedom. Don't take it the wrong way, if I saw somebody being rude or deplorable in public, I would step in and try to regulate them. I've done it before.

I'm not making excuses or advocating for that type of behavior. Like I said, nothing is as simple as black or white.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Abysha

Because imo, PC is the antithesis to freedom. Don't take it the wrong way, if I saw somebody being rude or deplorable in public, I would step in and try to regulate them. I've done it before.

I'm not making excuses or advocating for that type of behavior. Like I said, nothing is as simple as black or white.

But PC expression is also an expression of that same freedom. Why are you only defending one of those expressions?

The culture of disrespect is hinged upon this false idea that their freedom of speech is under attack. However, all they do is attack others for their speech when it criticizes their own.

If the government wanted to outlaw the word "retarded", they would have a fight worth fighting. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of sniveling potty-mouthed children crying "it's a free country" whenever somebody tells them to shut up.