Political Correctness

[Way Lyve]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Turns out his forum posts are almost as nonsensical as his verses.



PC does stop a debate but not in the way you're saying. Let me give you an example. If you say "mexican immigrants are rapists and killers" and I call you a fascist based on that then you accuse me of being a PC "retard". Instead of arguing why your statement doesn't make you a fascist. Political Correctness is a term that's weaponised in a debate by the right, not the left.

Calling me a facist doesn't make sense. I never made any sort of comment that relates to fascism. You must be a commie. Or not know what a facist is.

Also, do you often have imaginary arguments with yourself?

The fact it's even called pc shows that it's inherent meaning is if you disagree with us you're morally wrong. Like saying "Mexican people commit crimes" is 'racist' now. Well, white people commit crimes too. Being politically correct means avoiding half of reality most times.

Now, go back with your bey blades and fight fascists in the dark.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

I get what you're saying. So political correctness is at odds with freedom of speech because political correctness restricts speech that may be deemed offensive to someone, when literally anything a person says is bound to offend someone. You could go around telling people "I love you" and someone is bound to get offended.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect and demand freedom of speech in modern society, but is it reasonable to expect and demand freedom from the consequences of one's speech? If I make a statement saying I'm going to blow Donald Trump's lid off with a Smith & Wesson XVR 460 Magnum, is it reasonable for me to expect and demand that the Secret Service not put me on their watch-list because I'm only practicing my free speech prerogative?

If you're actually asking people to kill someone or making threats you should be charged but I think there's already laws for that.

[Way Lyve]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Turns out his forum posts are almost as nonsensical as his verses.



PC does stop a debate but not in the way you're saying. Let me give you an example. If you say "mexican immigrants are rapists and killers" and I call you a fascist based on that then you accuse me of being a PC "retard". Instead of arguing why your statement doesn't make you a fascist. Political Correctness is a term that's weaponised in a debate by the right, not the left.

Calling me a facist doesn't make sense. I never made any sort of comment that relates to fascism. You must be a commie. Or not know what a facist is.

Also, do you often have imaginary arguments with yourself?

The fact it's even called pc shows that it's inherent meaning is if you disagree with us you're morally wrong. Like saying "Mexican people commit crimes" is 'racist' now. Well, white people commit crimes too. Being politically correct means avoiding half of reality most times.

Now, go back with your bey blades and fight fascists in the dark.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

I get what you're saying. So political correctness is at odds with freedom of speech because political correctness restricts speech that may be deemed offensive to someone, when literally anything a person says is bound to offend someone. You could go around telling people "I love you" and someone is bound to get offended.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect and demand freedom of speech in modern society, but is it reasonable to expect and demand freedom from the consequences of one's speech? If I make a statement saying I'm going to blow Donald Trump's lid off with a Smith & Wesson XVR 460 Magnum, is it reasonable for me to expect and demand that the Secret Service not put me on their watch-list because I'm only practicing my free speech prerogative?

If you're actually asking people to kill someone or making threats you should be charged but I think there's already laws for that.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

Calling me a facist doesn't make sense. I never made any sort of comment that relates to fascism. You must be a commie. Or not now what a facist is.

Also, do you often have imaginary arguments with yourself?

The fact it's even called pc shows that it's inherent meaning is if you disagree with us you're morally wrong. Like saying "Mexican people commit crimes" is 'racist' now. Well, white people commit crimes too. Being politically correct means avoiding half of reality most times.

Now, go back with your bey blades and fight fascists in the dark.

I didn't call you a fascist, I said "let me give you an example" and then gave you an example.

You also changed my example I said "mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers" that statement implies all mexican immigrants. The changed quote you wrote "mexican people commit crimes" is much more factual, we can both agree on that.

Again, if we're going to have a discussion it might be wise to refrain from childish insults. If you want to have a discussion on the points then lets do it.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

Calling me a facist doesn't make sense. I never made any sort of comment that relates to fascism. You must be a commie. Or not now what a facist is.

Also, do you often have imaginary arguments with yourself?

The fact it's even called pc shows that it's inherent meaning is if you disagree with us you're morally wrong. Like saying "Mexican people commit crimes" is 'racist' now. Well, white people commit crimes too. Being politically correct means avoiding half of reality most times.

Now, go back with your bey blades and fight fascists in the dark.

I didn't call you a fascist, I said "let me give you an example" and then gave you an example.

You also changed my example I said "mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers" that statement implies all mexican immigrants. The changed quote you wrote "mexican people commit crimes" is much more factual, we can both agree on that.

Again, if we're going to have a discussion it might be wise to refrain from childish insults. If you want to have a discussion on the points then lets do it.

[Babylon]

"Political correctness" is often nothing more but a way to pussyfoot around your beliefs and/or silence/deafen beliefs you disagree with. The moment you begin discrediting potentially valid worldviews for the sake of not offending people who are involved with another worldview, you INSTANTLY spark a degenerative slope of propagating echo-chambers of safespace in place of critical thinking & the BEAUTY of being offended and challenged.

A large extension of this ideology, I think, boils down to SJWs, shining leftists and snowflakes alike don't see the positivity in being proven wrong. You cannot be 100% correct on 100% of the things you believe in. Being challenged on those topics by another human who is just as passionate & critical about their worldviews as you are is one of the most healthy forms of communication we still have.

[Babylon]

"Political correctness" is often nothing more but a way to pussyfoot around your beliefs and/or silence/deafen beliefs you disagree with. The moment you begin discrediting potentially valid worldviews for the sake of not offending people who are involved with another worldview, you INSTANTLY spark a degenerative slope of propagating echo-chambers of safespace in place of critical thinking & the BEAUTY of being offended and challenged.

A large extension of this ideology, I think, boils down to SJWs, shining leftists and snowflakes alike don't see the positivity in being proven wrong. You cannot be 100% correct on 100% of the things you believe in. Being challenged on those topics by another human who is just as passionate & critical about their worldviews as you are is one of the most healthy forms of communication we still have.

I find it odd that there have been a few posts talking as if political correctness is a left-wing invention. I've always viewed it as a term used by the right to shut down the argument, not the other way around. I've never heard a left-wing commentator dismiss a right-wing person's views as politically correct rubbish? Quite the other way around.

How are we defining politically correct? Equal rights for all & the end of minority discrimination? We would all be for that would we not?

I find it odd that there have been a few posts talking as if political correctness is a left-wing invention. I've always viewed it as a term used by the right to shut down the argument, not the other way around. I've never heard a left-wing commentator dismiss a right-wing person's views as politically correct rubbish? Quite the other way around.

How are we defining politically correct? Equal rights for all & the end of minority discrimination? We would all be for that would we not?

[Way Lyve]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

I didn't call you a fascist, I said "let me give you an example" and then gave you an example.

You also changed my example I said "mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers" that statement implies all mexican immigrants. The changed quote you wrote "mexican people commit crimes" is much more factual, we can both agree on that.

Again, if we're going to have a discussion it might be wise to refrain from childish insults. If you want to have a discussion on the points then lets do it.

I already laid out what I thought but instead of sticking to the discussion you made up a what if scenario. You can scroll up and tell me my fault in logic.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Nicholas

How are we defining politically correct? Equal rights for all & the end of minority discrimination? We would all be for that would we not?

You define being politically correct that way. I define it as your definition being the shield you use to avoid actual debate. Your last 3 questions exemplifies the problem with pc.

[Way Lyve]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

I didn't call you a fascist, I said "let me give you an example" and then gave you an example.

You also changed my example I said "mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers" that statement implies all mexican immigrants. The changed quote you wrote "mexican people commit crimes" is much more factual, we can both agree on that.

Again, if we're going to have a discussion it might be wise to refrain from childish insults. If you want to have a discussion on the points then lets do it.

I already laid out what I thought but instead of sticking to the discussion you made up a what if scenario. You can scroll up and tell me my fault in logic.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Nicholas

How are we defining politically correct? Equal rights for all & the end of minority discrimination? We would all be for that would we not?

You define being politically correct that way. I define it as your definition being the shield you use to avoid actual debate. Your last 3 questions exemplifies the problem with pc.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

I find it odd that there have been a few posts talking as if political correctness is a left-wing invention. I've always viewed it as a term used by the right to shut down the argument, not the other way around. I've never heard a left-wing commentator dismiss a right-wing person's views as politically correct rubbish? Quite the other way around.

How are we defining politically correct? Equal rights for all & the end of minority discrimination? We would all be for that would we not?

Well anyone can be under the umbrella of political correctness despite what groups you fall into, but recently I've seen this "Political correctness" brigade being leaps more popular in the social justice warrior/millennial left movements, which led me to quote who I did in my original post. Though you are completely correct legitimately anyone can be a little pc bitch.

I'd also like to note that I think soft political correctness is alright, because at the same time I'm bashing these fucks I also stand for baseline equality.. especially within groups like gays or minority races. I just also understand that the inclusion of soft political correctness & the atmosphere we're in today just breeds the echochamber ideology. We've gotta take the good with the bad I suppose

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

I find it odd that there have been a few posts talking as if political correctness is a left-wing invention. I've always viewed it as a term used by the right to shut down the argument, not the other way around. I've never heard a left-wing commentator dismiss a right-wing person's views as politically correct rubbish? Quite the other way around.

How are we defining politically correct? Equal rights for all & the end of minority discrimination? We would all be for that would we not?

Well anyone can be under the umbrella of political correctness despite what groups you fall into, but recently I've seen this "Political correctness" brigade being leaps more popular in the social justice warrior/millennial left movements, which led me to quote who I did in my original post. Though you are completely correct legitimately anyone can be a little pc bitch.

I'd also like to note that I think soft political correctness is alright, because at the same time I'm bashing these fucks I also stand for baseline equality.. especially within groups like gays or minority races. I just also understand that the inclusion of soft political correctness & the atmosphere we're in today just breeds the echochamber ideology. We've gotta take the good with the bad I suppose

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

You define being politically correct that way. I define it as your definition being the shield you use to avoid actual debate. Your last 3 questions exemplifies the problem with pc.

You've lost me. How would you define it?

Originally Posted by babylon

Well anyone can be under the umbrella of political correctness despite what groups you fall into, but recently I've seen this "Political correctness" brigade being leaps more popular in the social justice warrior/millennial left movements, which led me to quote who I did in my original post. Though you are completely correct legitimately anyone can be a little pc bitch.

I'd also like to note that I think soft political correctness is alright, because at the same time I'm bashing these fucks I also stand for baseline equality.. especially within groups like gays or minority races. I just also understand that the inclusion of soft political correctness & the atmosphere we're in today just breeds the echochamber ideology. We've gotta take the good with the bad I suppose

This is why I don't like the term. It's way too vague hence my mentioning that we need to define it before we can even begin to debate it. Even then, what's the point? Wouldn't the time be better spent debating the social issues that it relates to in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

You define being politically correct that way. I define it as your definition being the shield you use to avoid actual debate. Your last 3 questions exemplifies the problem with pc.

You've lost me. How would you define it?

Originally Posted by babylon

Well anyone can be under the umbrella of political correctness despite what groups you fall into, but recently I've seen this "Political correctness" brigade being leaps more popular in the social justice warrior/millennial left movements, which led me to quote who I did in my original post. Though you are completely correct legitimately anyone can be a little pc bitch.

I'd also like to note that I think soft political correctness is alright, because at the same time I'm bashing these fucks I also stand for baseline equality.. especially within groups like gays or minority races. I just also understand that the inclusion of soft political correctness & the atmosphere we're in today just breeds the echochamber ideology. We've gotta take the good with the bad I suppose

This is why I don't like the term. It's way too vague hence my mentioning that we need to define it before we can even begin to debate it. Even then, what's the point? Wouldn't the time be better spent debating the social issues that it relates to in the first place.

[NOBLE]

The point I was trying to make is that it is no less unreasonable--- for one to expect to not face consequences such as being fired from their job or being called a racist/homophobe/bigot (etc.) if they (especially as a public figure) use racial slurs or make disparaging comments towards LGBTQ or other minorities by the "PC" people ---as it is for me to expect to not face the Secret Service or some other consequence if I use my free speech in a certain way toward the President of the United States.
What's a "threat" can be subjective, and some people in minority groups perceive certain disparaging or insensitive statements to be just as threatening when it comes from high-profile and influential people. For example, it can be statistically proven that there has been a spike in hate crimes against people of certain ethnic backgrounds since Donald Trump has made disparaging comments against Muslims. So is it unreasonable for them to be "PC" about Donald Trump's choice of words?

[NOBLE]

The point I was trying to make is that it is no less unreasonable--- for one to expect to not face consequences such as being fired from their job or being called a racist/homophobe/bigot (etc.) if they (especially as a public figure) use racial slurs or make disparaging comments towards LGBTQ or other minorities by the "PC" people ---as it is for me to expect to not face the Secret Service or some other consequence if I use my free speech in a certain way toward the President of the United States.
What's a "threat" can be subjective, and some people in minority groups perceive certain disparaging or insensitive statements to be just as threatening when it comes from high-profile and influential people. For example, it can be statistically proven that there has been a spike in hate crimes against people of certain ethnic backgrounds since Donald Trump has made disparaging comments against Muslims. So is it unreasonable for them to be "PC" about Donald Trump's choice of words?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

If you say "mexican immigrants are rapists and killers" and I call you a fascist based on that then you accuse me of being a PC "retard".

Call me a pedant, but that would make you an ethnicist, which does not necessarily make you a fascist. Of course, the opinion is still blatantly wrong, but misuse of terms like this annoys me.

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

What's a "threat" can be subjective, and some people in minority groups perceive certain disparaging or insensitive statements to be just as threatening when it comes from high-profile and influential people. For example, it can be statistically proven that there has been a spike in hate crimes against people of certain ethnic backgrounds since Donald Trump has made disparaging comments against Muslims. So is it unreasonable for them to be "PC" about Donald Trump's choice of words?

I get what you're saying, I think, but the problem is that banning disparaging comments has to be done consistently towards all groups or it doesn't make sense. And since literally everyone in the world belongs to some or another group, the only logical conclusion is to make it illegal to insult any group for any reason.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

If you say "mexican immigrants are rapists and killers" and I call you a fascist based on that then you accuse me of being a PC "retard".

Call me a pedant, but that would make you an ethnicist, which does not necessarily make you a fascist. Of course, the opinion is still blatantly wrong, but misuse of terms like this annoys me.

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

What's a "threat" can be subjective, and some people in minority groups perceive certain disparaging or insensitive statements to be just as threatening when it comes from high-profile and influential people. For example, it can be statistically proven that there has been a spike in hate crimes against people of certain ethnic backgrounds since Donald Trump has made disparaging comments against Muslims. So is it unreasonable for them to be "PC" about Donald Trump's choice of words?

I get what you're saying, I think, but the problem is that banning disparaging comments has to be done consistently towards all groups or it doesn't make sense. And since literally everyone in the world belongs to some or another group, the only logical conclusion is to make it illegal to insult any group for any reason.

Originally Posted by Shodan

Call me a pedant, but that would make you an ethnicist, which does not necessarily make you a fascist. Of course, the opinion is still blatantly wrong, but misuse of terms like this annoys me.

I don't see why the term fascist is not correct although the sentiment remains. Could you elaborate on why my opinion is blatantly wrong?

Originally Posted by Shodan

Call me a pedant, but that would make you an ethnicist, which does not necessarily make you a fascist. Of course, the opinion is still blatantly wrong, but misuse of terms like this annoys me.

I don't see why the term fascist is not correct although the sentiment remains. Could you elaborate on why my opinion is blatantly wrong?