Political Correctness
 

Do you feel the world has become too politically correct? Is political correctness sometimes justified?

I see more positives than negatives as long as you dont discount actual facts/statistics.

I feel like this has become a term people use when they get fed up of being called out on their prejudices. It's a way of avoiding the discussion entirely.

Is it a good thing. Yes (ish). Has it come too far. Yes.

Donald Trump is partially a result of when this shit gets out of hand. You come up with 40 gender pronouns and your beloved athletes slap on new vaginas and suddenly all the old conservatives start to really push back and the pendulum starts swinging until abortions are illegal again. There has to be some balance.

For the record, I don't give two shits if you feel you need an operation to feel normal. But Bruce Jenner had motivations other than that. He became a spectacle and did it on purpose. Fuck that anti gay marriage, used to pee standing up, hurdle jumping sonofabitch.

This is a good thing.

Illegal abortions?

That's sarcasm, yeah?

---------- Post added at 09:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------

Or just paradigm shifts?

---------- Post added at 09:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------

Caitlyn Jenner is no spokesperson for the LGBT world. That's one of the problems, the most famous trans person in the world happens to be a prick. Trans/Non-Binary people etc. etc. are all just that people. They're not batshit crazy, extreme left wing assholes that do it for a kick.

She's not left wing though. She's conservative, I believe. But who knows what her actual leanings are. Money and ratings motivate that beast.

Still curious about shodan and this abortion thing though.

Oh no, she's definitely right wing. I was just talking about the stereotype. I tend to ignore Shodan on political threads, I don't know if he's trolling or serious.

Abortion is murder as soon as the fetus has any awareness - not pain perception or highly developed mental processing, just basic consciousness - which is quite soon actually. No supernatural or paranormal belief in souls or "sanctity of life" is necessary to justify this fact. The only times when abortion is ethically acceptable, ever, are as follows:

- The fetus has some genetic defect which will drastically decrease its quality of life to the extent that it's more humane to prevent it from being born, such as Tay-Sachs disease or brain malformation

- The pregnancy, if not terminated, would endanger the mother's life

Other reasons, like conceptions from rape or the mother's economic inability to raise a child properly, are invalid. If this doesn't make sense to you, imagine a mother deciding to kill her seven-year-old child for one of these reasons... then having mass demonstrations and laws passed to justify her decision.

So you just think women should be forced to take rape babies to term?

I agree with this.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

How do you define awareness though? That seems to be a pretty broad term.

^This. Like, how aware is a fetus really. Is it cognizant of its own existence? I wouldn't think so. Or does @Shodan mean consciousness?

Yes. Re-read the last sentence of my previous post if you're having difficulty with this.

I know it when I see it.

Pc is for retards and those who hate freedom. It's just a tactic employed to stifle debate and allow idiots to live in echo chambers of self loathing hypocrisy.

---------- Post added at 08:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 AM ----------

Wow! Can you be any more fallacious with your argument? The discussion is about women just fucking who ever then killing the babies more than they swallow the sperm. Should women be able to have after birth abortions? Is that what you're saying?? No. So quit creating bogus arguments you can easily defeat and tell me when it's wrong to kill a baby?

---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 AM ----------

You seem like you've had way too much of a fat left education. Pc is what your professors came up with to avoid actual debate while brainwashing you. Cuz most of you first and second generation college students / grads believe they are much smarter than their elders or than they actually are. And place way too much faith in their liberal professors. Therefore, are easy targets for liberal indoctrination. Pc is only a tool to keep people unaware of any other source that conflicts with the far lefts view of the world.

Why do you say they hate freedom?

The fuck.

Because PC only stops a debate before it happens. And creates an environment that makes you afraid to speak your mind. It hinders freedom of speech. As well as implies that the correctness sought merits the morals professed. Meaning, that if you don't agree with what's being protected you are morally wrong.

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.

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?

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 ----------

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.

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.

"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 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 ----------

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

Pc definition: A human minority female fag shield used by communists and globalists. Often equipped by the white knight legion of marxists fart sniffers. It enables it's wearer the ability to call people, fascists, xenophobic and racists at will. As well, as blocks debate around the pussy. It's over 9000 penises strong.

By "blatantly wrong" I was referring to the opinion that Mexican immigrants are rapists and killers.

Anyway, fascism properly refers only to a certain authoritarian system of government. Hating everyone outside of your nation based on their nationality could result from that of course, but not necessarily - look at how Nazi Germany allied with other nations.

Is a newborn baby aware enough that killing it is wrong?

If so, then why assume that said awareness developed only after its birth? Isn't it more sensible to believe that said awareness developed gradually over time? There would be some exact point at which killing it becomes wrong, but that undoubtedly happens well before birth.

If there were some infallible test for determining whether or not a fetus is aware enough that killing it is wrong, then abortion should be legal provided that a negative result was returned. But to my knowledge, no such test exists, only guesswork based on fetal development - and not all fetuses develop at the same rate. I was born a month prematurely, so I should know.

:drizz:

Well, I guess that ends our conversation. If you're not capable of discussing a subject without this kind of post I'm not going to waste my time.

Oh OK, my mistake. Yeah, I agree of course that is wrong.

I understand what you're saying but I am going to call you a pedant as whilst a fascist regime might not inherently be tied to discrimination it is characteristic of those in recent history. Also, Nazi Germany seems like a bad example to use. It was a very racist regime as well as anti-semitic.

The major difference is one is about freedom of political views and the other is about physically harming someone. It's really not comparable. And saying let's kill someone isn't the same as saying enforce the laws or stating a factual statement people may not agree with. Some people might say black people are violent, should they be fired? What if it was pc to say that? Then in that case should a black person be fired for saying there's systemic racism? Slippery slope. *edit* and let's make it clear, there's a distinction between not being pc and using hate speech or being a racists. They're not synonymous with each other.

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 AM ----------

That's my 100% honest definition. It's bullshit. And a joke honestly. Btw you've said nothing in 6 comments we were done long ago homie.

Saying Donald Trump should be assassinated is also a political view on top of being about harming someone, and saying "black people are violent" could lead to harm on top of being a political view (refer to the example I gave about Donald Trump's statements about "Islamic radicalism" and spikes in hate crimes against people who "look Muslim"). "Should a black person be fired for saying there's systemic racism" is an interesting question, because recently, people have tried to link Black Lives Matter and people protesting against police racism---to incidents of cops getting killed. If the viewpoint that the two are related becomes popular enough, we may very well see black people getting fired in the future for making such claims about systemic racism which could be viewed as incendiary.

There hasn't been a rise in crime but a rise in reports of crimes against muslims but most are later proven to be hoaxes.

Second, not being politically correct means you don't adhere to what most deem to be acceptable terms and or definitions when speaking your points of view. It doesn't mean you're racist. Saying black neighborhoods are violent isn't politically correct and may be wrong but one could make that argument with the use of facts. And someone could opposingly argue it's a systemic problem causing the violence in the inner cities. But saying to kill someone is just inciting violence. Pc just paints one argument as being morally superior to the other. We could argue all day on which examples are better but nonetheless you will always try and start off with the moral high ground attached to your side. "You don't hate minorities and women right? Well then you must agree with me".

It works both ways. People get pissy 4 you having an opinion. While others cry pc when they get pulled for saying some outlandish shit . But it is swerving heavily in the PC favour. Can't say shit these days without someone getting out of shape about it, espcially the UK. Media doesn't help either, they're well in the badwaggon to clickbait for views and reads by pandering the pc brigade.

Here's the thing I live by:

Don't be an asshole. If you're going to be an asshole, be funny enough about it that everyone, including the target, can laugh.

I go by the rule that you're an asshole.