“Political Correctness is synonymous with respect”, and other fatuities.

a reply to: SisterDelirium

Of course people should do this. At the same time, trying to force them to is another matter entirely. Also, what is abusive to one mind may not be to another. Words don't interest me that much, but actions, that's different. Should we guard our words? YES Can we police the words of others? NOPE.

Words are everything - actions and thoughts encapsulated

Though there are those that would argue otherwise

Without words - we have no subject - and nothing to discuss it with :-)

Force is different from coercion - but coercion often depends on words. What we're being asked to do now is turn our backs on our philosophies by people that mean to decide for everyone which words are OK - and which kind of thinking is OK

You're right - we all see every bit of that differently

Did you think this came only from the left - or the right? It's an actual battle now

All too often I see people defending things they don't actually believe because it's not fashionable to call it out anymore. So - free speech?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have plenty to say. I just don't think you want to hear it.

I'm sure it's very important - and new

Anyhow - that's never stopped you before :-)

You're on a mission - I can see that. Funny - you have plenty to say - with words that aren't important - to people who have opinions that don't matter to you

Ha!

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You're on a mission - I can see that. Funny - you have plenty to say - with words that aren't important - to people who have opinions that don't matter to you

Ha!

Actually free speech is very dear to me, and does matter, as is evident by the inclusion of this principle in every declaration of human rights. Laugh all you want, but when it comes to human rights, it is no laughing matter.

Here's the plugin I mentioned in the OP. It might make the internet a nicer place for you:

This extension changes the text 'political correctness' to 'treating people with respect' on webpages, making the web a slightly better place. Latest update also changes 'politically correct' to 'respectful' and 'politically incorrect' to 'disrespectful'

PC2RESPECT

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not afraid of the internet Les. Not the same way you are

And I'm not afraid of direct confrontation - I won't hide behind a meme

When you want to have a genuine conversation - you let me know. Until then - you're just here to sell a bill of goods as far as I'm concerned

It's made from pure truthiness though - and it's selling like hotcakes. Gotta give you credit for that

Freedom of speech - give me a break

:-)

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

a reply to: SisterDelirium

As has been effectively argued for hundreds of years, freedom of speech is the basis of a free society. It is found in nearly every constitution of every democratic society, and every declaration of human rights for very good reasons.

No, freedom of speech is NOT the basis of a free society. No matter in how many constitutions it is written. The basis of a free society is the freedom from supression, corruption, disguised slavery, plain and downright robbery of tax money by the representatives of a capitalistic economical system, who pretend and propage that capitalism is a free market economy, which still needs to be proven as being the case.

Free speech does not exist in a capitalistic economy BECAUSE the biggest public media, universities, and companies are runned, ruled and owned by those who have very little interest in free speech other than merely talking about it.

And you and me, LesMis, we both know that. Do we?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I'm not afraid of the internet Les. Not the same way you are

And I'm not afraid of direct confrontation - I won't hide behind a meme

When you want to have a genuine conversation - you let me know. Until then - you're just here to sell a bill of goods as far as I'm concerned

It's made from pure truthiness though - and it's selling like hotcakes. Gotta give you credit for that

Freedom of speech - give me a break

:-)

So far your idea of a genuine conversation has been name-calling and finger-pointing. The amount of projection required to come to the conclusions you do regarding people who dissent from your conformism and groupthink is more of an admission of your own tendencies than anyone else's. Keep expressing yourself nonetheless.

I've tried to have genuine conversations with you many times since you seem to lap up these hotcakes i'm selling, but a species of fingers-in-ears playground politics is all I get in return. In other words, no I don't want to have a genuine conversation with you, because I already know what that entails.

a reply to: Willingly

No, freedom of speech is NOT the basis of a free society. No matter in how many constitutions it is written. The basis of a free society is the freedom from supression, corruption, disguised slavery, plain and downright robbery of tax money by the representatives of a capitalistic economical system, who pretend and propage that capitalism is a free market economy, which still needs to be proven as being the case.

Free speech does not exist in a capitalistic economy BECAUSE the biggest public media, universities, and companies are runned, ruled and owned by those who have very little interest in free speech other than merely talking about it.

And you and me, LesMis, we both know that. Do we?

It is the basis of a free society. Without freedom for those who think and speak differently, there is no freedom. Without it truth can never prevail. Without it power can never be challenged.

a reply to: Willingly

Hmmm.

Would you mind telling me how you can be free of all those things you listed if we can't talk about the ideas related to avoiding those things?

Discussing ideas...good, bad, or otherwise...seems kind of invaluable if you want to be free to figure things out.

This response really doesn't make very much sense to me.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've tried to have genuine conversations with you many times since you seem to lap up these hotcakes i'm selling, but a species of fingers-in-ears playground politics is all I get in return. In other words, no I don't want to have a genuine conversation with you, because I already know what that entails.

No Les - you really haven't. We both know we have the written history here to prove it - if anyone wanted to go look

But here - how about I start the ball rolling? I'll ask you some questions - and you give me actual answers. Then you can ask me questions - and I'll give you a genuine reply

How do you feel about boycotts?

Is President Obama a secret Muslim?

If people criticize little Don Don - is that the same thing as interfering with his freedom of speech?

If people are free to say racist things - are other people free to criticize that?

See - simple? Let's see how this goes

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

How do you feel about boycotts?

I feel fine about boycotts.

Is President Obama a secret Muslim?

I always thought Obama was an admitted Christian. Has something happened that I am unaware of?

If people criticize little Don Don - is that the same thing as interfering with his freedom of speech?

Not at all.

If people are free to say racist things - are other people free to criticize that?

People are free to criticize whatever they want.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I feel fine about boycotts.

So, when the twitterverse goes mad and decides they don't like something that's happened, whatever that might be - is it wrong to express that en masse? If they're outraged enough that they call for someone to be fired - is that wrong? I'm not saying it's not nasty - but should we prevent this kind of behavior? If so - how? How is it different from a boycott?

If what you say is true, and words don't mean anything or have any power over us - if we should just ignore them and not let words affect our decisions or our feelings - then what's the problem here? If a company decides to fire somebody - is that the choice of the company or the crowd? Where does the responsibility lie?

I always thought Obama was an admitted Christian. Has something happened that I am unaware of?

An entire movement was dedicated to this - and all kinds of nasty accusations about him being a liar, a fraud, not a citizen ...a terrorist sympathizer. Is this slander? I know how you feel about slander, even though believing that words have power is nothing but superstition. For some reason you have spoken out against other people slandering Trump. I find your arguments to be fairly inconsistent - especially since Trump pretty much spearheaded this whole attack on Obama's character

Is it only slander when it comes from the left?

Not at all.

Good job - because, of course it's not. Anything any of us choose to say about Trump - up to and including nonviolent protest - is fair game

People are free to criticize whatever they want.

Whether it comes from love or hate - or even fake love and fake hate? From a previous post:

Sadly, we get this superstitious and emotionally-based treatment of words and speech, which turns into a specious excuse to act maliciously or even violently to those that speak it. It's hate disguised as love, and narcissism disguised as compassion.

Says you. Are you too superstitious to take your own advice?

For what it's worth - I agree with you about shirtgate - and Carlin is a favorite of mine. But the far right has been banging this anti-PC drum very loudly for a few years now, and the entire thing is so hypocritical I can't believe you actually support it

We can't tell people what to say or not say. We can of course - but we can't

You went way far out of your way to try and demonstrate that a certain part of society is hypocritical

It's kind of funny :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Is President Obama a secret Muslim?

Any leader can have any number of secret influences,

which cover any number of King maker ruinces.

Should be the gov is weak and small.

Or better yet, none at all.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Sorry for bowing in here but to answer your questions.

Your 1st point: People can be outraged all they want, and can call for any repercussion they want. But when they do not look into what they are talking about and are ignorant of facts, they only make themselves look bad.

Your 2nd point: Look up the definition of slander, and then look up the word libel. And then look back at my first point.

Your 3rd point: Your statement is true, as long as the act doesn't impede anyone else.

The rest of your post is directed to the person you are replying to, so I will withhold comment.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, when the twitterverse goes mad and decides they don't like something that's happened, whatever that might be - is it wrong to express that en masse? If they're outraged enough that they call for someone to be fired - is that wrong? I'm not saying it's not nasty - but should we prevent this kind of behavior? If so - how? How is it different from a boycott?

It’s not wrong to express one’s opinion nor should one fear expressing her opinion, but once it goes beyond expression into accusation and coercion without any sort of due process, we’re speaking about oppression.

Proof is the burden of the accuser, and the presumption of innocence is not a principle we want to forget.

If what you say is true, and words don't mean anything or have any power over us - if we should just ignore them and not let words affect our decisions or our feelings - then what's the problem here? If a company decides to fire somebody - is that the choice of the company or the crowd? Where does the responsibility lie?

For one, I never said words don’t mean anything. Two, I never said we should ignore them. I’ve only ever advocated that words are innocent. Let's be careful not to misrepresent each other's views.

The problem here is that someone could lose their livelihood and reputation due to false accusation. Obviously if a company decides to fire someone, it is their decision to do so. But they might do so due to pressure from the mob.

An entire movement was dedicated to this - and all kinds of nasty accusations about him being a liar, a fraud, not a citizen ...a terrorist sympathizer. Is this slander? I know how you feel about slander, even though believing that words have power is nothing but superstition. For some reason you have spoken out against other people slandering Trump. I find your arguments to be fairly inconsistent - especially since Trump pretty much spearheaded this whole attack on Obama's character

Is it only slander when it comes from the left?

It must be exhausting trying to remain so partisan. I’m not sure I’ve said anything about Obama. I only started commenting on political matters on this website in the fall of last year. Apologies for that.

Says you. Are you too superstitious to take your own advice?

I’ve never given advice. I enjoy leaving a little to interpretation, but such a misrepresentation of my views has me wondering if I should write about less complicated things.

For what it's worth - I agree with you about shirtgate - and Carlin is a favorite of mine. But the far right has been banging this anti-PC drum very loudly for a few years now, and the entire thing is so hypocritical I can't believe you actually support it

The truth doesn’t belong to one party or the other or one side of the political spectrum, and frankly I find that sort of tribalism to be a hinderance to civil society. There are actually studies that have proven the partisan brain will avoid scientific evidence if it conflicts with ideological persuasion.

Believe it.

Words are everything - actions and thoughts encapsulated Though there are those that would argue otherwise Without words - we have no subject - and nothing to discuss it with :-) Force is different from coercion - but coercion often depends on words. What we're being asked to do now is turn our backs on our philosophies by people that mean to decide for everyone which words are OK - and which kind of thinking is OK You're right - we all see every bit of that differently Did you think this came only from the left - or the right? It's an actual battle now All too often I see people defending things they don't actually believe because it's not fashionable to call it out anymore. So - free speech?

I wouldn't argue that words are entirely without power--or that people should not make an effort to use their words wisely. It just doesn't seem reasonable to police words through legal action, depriving people of work, etc. People should be sued, arrested or fired for more concrete things than words.

With the exception being, if their words are related to their job. If you're in the PR department for Coke and you publicly proclaim you think it tastes like pigswill, don't be surprised if Coke fires you.

On the other hand, if you're a machinist named Bob, and you're good at being a machinist, work well with your co-workers, but also happen to be an avid poster on Stormfront griping about minorities of one sort or another. Does the company really have cause to fire you for what you do in your off time--however odious it may be? If I were the boss, I wouldn't fire Bob. I'd privately think Bob was, perhaps, not the nicest person in the world, but I'd base my hiring/firing on the performance of the task/behavior while at work.

Thoughts lead to words and lead to actions, potentially. But, I stand by free speech. Even the worst of it. I'd rather people be free to be verbally ugly than live in a world of pretense.

As for coercion by people who want us to have "right" thinking, yes, there's plenty of that. There's a lot of "shouting down" by the frenzied, irrational mob. As someone who identifies as a Christian and will not adopt atheistic views or "embrace" LGBTQ ideals (not the same as treating people civilly, I might add), I'm certainly living it as a daily reality. And, I've been black-balled from certain arts communities for being a Christian. I was literally warned by another artist to not let X person catch on to my religious affiliation, or else.

I don't think this originated on right or left, although I think the psychological manipulation and divisiveness of our media outlets over the years has not helped.

It's almost the spirit of the age, I guess. There's this push to be "right" at the expense of others on all sides. And, of course, the side with the biggest popular following at a given moment stomps all over the other side with impunity.

But, I'll always argue for more freedom rather than less (barring physical harm to others).

I actually just read something about a mother who had a "viral" Facebook post regarding her children. Apparently her children didn't thank the woman who handed them an ice cream cone. So, she proudly ripped the cones out of their hands and tossed them in the garbage. Then posted an account of her actions on Facebook seeking approval and applause for her courageous actions.

The kids didn't say anything. In this case it was the NOT saying of something. Whatever happened to prompting your kid "don't forget to say thank you, Little Johnny"?

What this illustrates that EVERY word is now political and EVERY action, however small, is to be approved or disapproved by the mob.

It's crazy. It's the madness that's infected us as a society.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

But when they do not look into what they are talking about and are ignorant of facts, they only make themselves look bad.

Sometimes we look bad even when we have the facts

:-)

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It’s not wrong to express one’s opinion nor should one fear expressing her opinion, but once it goes beyond expression into accusation and coercion without any sort of due process, we’re speaking about oppression.

They're only words. Is it offensive speech? What power does it have over us? Enough power to force a company to fire someone? Again I ask - where does the responsibility lie - with the unruly mob - or the company that fires a person because of that mob?

Can we oppress - with only words?

It must be exhausting trying to remain so partisan.

You assume so much? You should go back and read all my posts Les - and not just my replies you

I’m not sure I’ve said anything about Obama. I only started commenting on political matters on this website in the fall of last year. Apologies for that.

Pretty sure Obama was still president then. It's not really about Obama - or Trump. They're only metaphors. Polarization is the name of the game - I always find it interesting when people choose to play just the one note. It's just a fascinating game of call and response here on the internet lately. No matter how many times I ask, I don't get an answer to my question. The non answer is answer enough though

I’ve never given advice. I enjoy leaving a little to interpretation, but such a misrepresentation of my views has me wondering if I should write about less complicated things.

Your topics are all simple enough. You have so obviously advised people (over and over) not to let words have an effect on them - that it's superstitious to do so. Was it only BS for effect? I'll go hunt for examples if you like - I've got plenty of time today :-)

The truth doesn’t belong to one party or the other or one side of the political spectrum, and frankly I find that sort of tribalism to be a hinderance to civil society. There are actually studies that have proven the partisan brain will avoid scientific evidence if it conflicts with ideological persuasion.

Too funny Les

You know who actually is funny? George Carlin

People love him for a reason. Integrity is a big part of that. He goes after everyone. We could all learn a little bit from that I think

a reply to: SisterDelirium

Does the company really have cause to fire you for what you do in your off time--however odious it may be? If I were the boss, I wouldn't fire Bob. I'd privately think Bob was, perhaps, not the nicest person in the world, but I'd base my hiring/firing on the performance of the task/behavior while at work.

I agree. That is up to the boss - right? How much power does language have over us?

As for coercion by people who want us to have "right" thinking, yes, there's plenty of that. There's a lot of "shouting down" by the frenzied, irrational mob. As someone who identifies as a Christian and will not adopt atheistic views or "embrace" LGBTQ ideals (not the same as treating people civilly, I might add), I'm certainly living it as a daily reality. And, I've been black-balled from certain arts communities for being a Christian. I was literally warned by another artist to not let X person catch on to my religious affiliation, or else.

This sort of thing is wrong no matter what direction it comes from. I'm sure you can see how your situation is not that different from that of members of the LGBT community, or atheists, or...it's quite a list actually

My sister lives in rural-ish Texas - she's an atheist. She has felt quite a bit of push from the religious right down there - and she's conservative

What this illustrates that EVERY word is now political and EVERY action, however small, is to be approved or disapproved by the mob.

It's crazy. It's the madness that's infected us as a society.

That mob leans in both directions. Do black lives matter?

It's always been with us - at one time people lost their jobs because they were communists, or because they might be communists. People were killed because they might be witches

The internet is still better than pillories, fire, stoning or nooses. Human nature - go figure

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

They're only words. Is it offensive speech? What power does it have over us? Enough power to force a company to fire someone? Again I ask - where does the responsibility lie - with the unruly mob - or the company that fires a person because of that mob?

Can we oppress - with only words?

We cannot oppress with only words. Here’s some advice: go try it out. Try it on a mouse or a butterfly or even a leaf and record what sort of oppression you can deliver to these much weaker things. I wager you come up with nothing. Threats towards human beings are different because intentions are being communicated to a listener, to someone who understands and processes the words. It is how he understands them that determines his next actions, whether to brush them off, whether to self-censor, or whether to submit to the demands. Sure it is communicated in words, but it is imposed by action and force.

Again I answer: the responsibility to fire someone is that of the company. They do so because they fear the force of the fickle crowd.

You assume so much? You should go back and read all my posts Les - and not just my replies you

I rather not. No offense meant.

Pretty sure Obama was still president then. It's not really about Obama - or Trump. They're only metaphors. Polarization is the name of the game - I always find it interesting when people choose to play just the one note. It's just a fascinating game of call and response here on the internet lately. No matter how many times I ask, I don't get an answer to my question. The non answer is answer enough though

Identity politics along the political spectrum does at least have a use insofar as one can point to the affiliations, biases and loyalties of those who place themselves along it. But we can only ever polarize ourselves. Throw me into whatever category you like. I prefer to place myself along the spectrum between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism when it comes to politics and religion, individualism and collectivism when it comes to society.

Orwell has written about this particular partisan tendency you speak of while at the same time epitomize:

“Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don’t criticise: or at least criticise “constructively”, which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.”

Maybe I am making things easier for your political opponents—and more difficult for you?—but by doing so I am not praising them, by any means.

A non-answer isn’t an answer, but I suppose it might be if someone listened only to their feelings.

Too funny Les

You know who actually is funny? George Carlin

People love him for a reason. Integrity is a big part of that. He goes after everyone. We could all learn a little bit from that I think

Many people love him because he is hilarious as well.

Hitler went after everyone. Even “integrity” couldn’t make us love him. But I suppose you mean Carlin had standards and tried to speak the truth. I agree.

Too funny.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You know, I'm OK with people wanting to believe "PC is synonymous with respect." Fact is, if something I say or do offends someone, then I likely lack respect for that person anyway. Hell, just the mere attitude of "Don't like it? Too damn bad." should be a perfect indicator of the lack of any respect flowing there anyhow. So yeah, I don't respect the special snowflakes of the world because they've done jack squat to earn my respect.

The whole PC horsecrap regarding people demanding respect is pretty much in lockstep with the same people's attitudes about income, taxation, and freebies. It's coming from a collective of buffoons who believe nothing should be merit based, and respect, needs, care, education, etc. should all be provided for people "because they exist." If these people are incapable of even believing wages and rewards should be earned, then obviously they lack the basic understanding of how to earn respect.