Political Correctness

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

How would you define it

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.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

How would you define it

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.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Enfinite

^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?

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.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Enfinite

^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?

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.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

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.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

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.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Shodan

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 other people based on their nationality could result from that of course, but not necessarily - look at how Nazi Germany allied with other nations.

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.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Shodan

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 other people based on their nationality could result from that of course, but not necessarily - look at how Nazi Germany allied with other nations.

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.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

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?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Nicholas

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.

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.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

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?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Nicholas

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.

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.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

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.[COLOR="Silver"]

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.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

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.[COLOR="Silver"]

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.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

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".

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

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".

[J u s T C]

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.

[J u s T C]

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.

[Mindless]

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.

[Mindless]

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.

[J u s T C]

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

[J u s T C]

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