Political Correctness

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

"Never said the NYPD was a trusted organization".. Yet, you source them? I guess you don't know how sourcing works.

"I trust the NYPD over you".. Then why do you believe black people are being targeted by the police? Cuz the NYPD will say it doesn't happen. And It's regular citizens who speak out against police brutality. So do you only believe the police are corrupt when it suits your needs?

I'll let you in on a little secret, the police, DA and the whole judicial system gets raises, promotions, bribes and political clout by making arrests. The more arrests the bigger the budget they get. So of course they're going to always claim crime is on the rise. To get more money and take away more rights. You can't trust those who are paid to keep you in chains, homie.

And your proof of increased hate crimes against muslims is a link to gay guys fighting with some weirdo on a moped. A link with no "conviction" at that? Lol what ever bro. And btw, you're making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Show me actual convictions of white people committing hate crimes against muslims. Maybe, the increase you speak of was those 4 black people who kidnapped and tortured that white handicapped Trump supporter? They were charged with hate crimes. Lolololol.

I came up with my idea of all the hoaxes being hoaxes after reading twenty articles about twenty hoaxes. If hoaxes weren't so prominent then why couldn't you post an actual hate crime against a Muslim? Nope, just gay guys.

I actually don't watch TV or rely on just websites or any of that. But when I do I listen to all stations, all experts, then follow the stories and leads myself. Ascertain to who's credible and who's not. If you're a far left weirdo or a neocon I definitely won't believe you easily. I read Breitbart, watch Stefan Molyneaux, James Corbett and many others but I also listen to and watch KNPR, CNN, MSNBC and a slew of liberal media. Not to mention, I've studied political science to a far greater degree than most.

"What's a black neighborhood"? LOLOLOL!! Are you serious? Semantics little bro!! You don't know what a black neighborhood is but have no problem identifying a white one. And see this is the problem with pc, you approach this with a smug attitude that you're morally superior to this white racist who's just too inferior to comprehend the reality of it all. When you just admitted black neighborhoods usually are more dangerous. I grew up in a mixed hood and believe me the area that was all black white boys didn't dare go alone lol.. Besides, fool, I've actually donated money time and have done tons of charity work! In these neighborhoods. From the poor to the sick. I've been there. And what, you have some moral high ground over me just cuz of the words you choose to use? Put your money where your mouth is and maybe I'll find you credible.

My hypothetical about black neighborhoods being dangerous has you all bent out of shape. Even though you admitted it yourself. Pc causes you to break with reality apparently.

And I'm not going to argue against classism as that's my dominion. You put all your chickens in the racism coupe.

The argument is about pc being good or not. Obviously, it's not good cuz this convo is not pc. You just make ad hominem attacks by making non pc akin to being racist or using racial slurs. Which it's not.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------



That's why we're talking about pc, as certain speech isn't protected so it's a moot point. We don't need any more laws against freedom of speech. It's only used to silent opposition. Quit the bullshit about racial slurs. That's not the same as not being pc.

You're right, ethnicity has nothing to do with political correctness. Even though it's in the definition, and everything.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

"Never said the NYPD was a trusted organization".. Yet, you source them? I guess you don't know how sourcing works.

"I trust the NYPD over you".. Then why do you believe black people are being targeted by the police? Cuz the NYPD will say it doesn't happen. And It's regular citizens who speak out against police brutality. So do you only believe the police are corrupt when it suits your needs?

I'll let you in on a little secret, the police, DA and the whole judicial system gets raises, promotions, bribes and political clout by making arrests. The more arrests the bigger the budget they get. So of course they're going to always claim crime is on the rise. To get more money and take away more rights. You can't trust those who are paid to keep you in chains, homie.

And your proof of increased hate crimes against muslims is a link to gay guys fighting with some weirdo on a moped. A link with no "conviction" at that? Lol what ever bro. And btw, you're making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Show me actual convictions of white people committing hate crimes against muslims. Maybe, the increase you speak of was those 4 black people who kidnapped and tortured that white handicapped Trump supporter? They were charged with hate crimes. Lolololol.

I came up with my idea of all the hoaxes being hoaxes after reading twenty articles about twenty hoaxes. If hoaxes weren't so prominent then why couldn't you post an actual hate crime against a Muslim? Nope, just gay guys.

I actually don't watch TV or rely on just websites or any of that. But when I do I listen to all stations, all experts, then follow the stories and leads myself. Ascertain to who's credible and who's not. If you're a far left weirdo or a neocon I definitely won't believe you easily. I read Breitbart, watch Stefan Molyneaux, James Corbett and many others but I also listen to and watch KNPR, CNN, MSNBC and a slew of liberal media. Not to mention, I've studied political science to a far greater degree than most.

"What's a black neighborhood"? LOLOLOL!! Are you serious? Semantics little bro!! You don't know what a black neighborhood is but have no problem identifying a white one. And see this is the problem with pc, you approach this with a smug attitude that you're morally superior to this white racist who's just too inferior to comprehend the reality of it all. When you just admitted black neighborhoods usually are more dangerous. I grew up in a mixed hood and believe me the area that was all black white boys didn't dare go alone lol.. Besides, fool, I've actually donated money time and have done tons of charity work! In these neighborhoods. From the poor to the sick. I've been there. And what, you have some moral high ground over me just cuz of the words you choose to use? Put your money where your mouth is and maybe I'll find you credible.

My hypothetical about black neighborhoods being dangerous has you all bent out of shape. Even though you admitted it yourself. Pc causes you to break with reality apparently.

And I'm not going to argue against classism as that's my dominion. You put all your chickens in the racism coupe.

The argument is about pc being good or not. Obviously, it's not good cuz this convo is not pc. You just make ad hominem attacks by making non pc akin to being racist or using racial slurs. Which it's not.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------



That's why we're talking about pc, as certain speech isn't protected so it's a moot point. We don't need any more laws against freedom of speech. It's only used to silent opposition. Quit the bullshit about racial slurs. That's not the same as not being pc.

You're right, ethnicity has nothing to do with political correctness. Even though it's in the definition, and everything.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Rant

You're right, ethnicity has nothing to do with political correctness. Even though it's in the definition, and everything.

Yet the pc definition doesn't say anything about racial slurs or racism. So what's your point? You don't have one. And pc is about one's perception of what's said. Meaning, not being pc doesn't mean you use slurs and are a racist but rather talk about controversial matters in a controversial way.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Rant

You're right, ethnicity has nothing to do with political correctness. Even though it's in the definition, and everything.

Yet the pc definition doesn't say anything about racial slurs or racism. So what's your point? You don't have one. And pc is about one's perception of what's said. Meaning, not being pc doesn't mean you use slurs and are a racist but rather talk about controversial matters in a controversial way.

Some degree of political correctness is necessary in order to maintain a prosperous social structure. But, it's difficult to walk the fine line between regulation, and censorship. On the smaller scale, I think disparaging remarks are less critical to a culture when made by the every day man, and as such it's hard to say explicitly that these people can't say this, or that. But, on a larger scale, these remarks have the potential to sway entire nations, and as such need to be regulated to some degree.

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 AM ----------

Side note, if I see "Freedom of speech" as a defense for bigotry one more time, I'll lose my fucking shit.

Some degree of political correctness is necessary in order to maintain a prosperous social structure. But, it's difficult to walk the fine line between regulation, and censorship. On the smaller scale, I think disparaging remarks are less critical to a culture when made by the every day man, and as such it's hard to say explicitly that these people can't say this, or that. But, on a larger scale, these remarks have the potential to sway entire nations, and as such need to be regulated to some degree.

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 AM ----------

Side note, if I see "Freedom of speech" as a defense for bigotry one more time, I'll lose my fucking shit.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by Rant

But, on a larger scale, these remarks have the potential to sway entire nations, and as such need to be regulated to some degree.

Are you actually saying that the government should limit speech? Oh, Rant no. No.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by Rant

But, on a larger scale, these remarks have the potential to sway entire nations, and as such need to be regulated to some degree.

Are you actually saying that the government should limit speech? Oh, Rant no. No.

Originally Posted by Mindless

Are you actually saying that the government should limit speech? Oh, Rant no. No.

Are you saying that the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want? It doesn't. There are caveats to the first amendment that deal with things like reputation. Racial slurs, and derogatory remarks have the capacity to weaken the reputation of entire subsects of society on a cultural level. Bigotry and dispiriting speech are not a constitutional right afforded to you by the bill of rights.

Originally Posted by Mindless

Are you actually saying that the government should limit speech? Oh, Rant no. No.

Are you saying that the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want? It doesn't. There are caveats to the first amendment that deal with things like reputation. Racial slurs, and derogatory remarks have the capacity to weaken the reputation of entire subsects of society on a cultural level. Bigotry and dispiriting speech are not a constitutional right afforded to you by the bill of rights.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by Rant

Are you saying that the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want? It doesn't.

As long as the words you're saying don't put people in harm's way it absolutely does. The right to free speech gives anyone the right to say anything that they want. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? No. That puts people into potential harm, but calling people names does them no physical damage and, as such, can not and should not be limited by the government.

Originally Posted by Rant

There are caveats to the first amendment that deal with things like reputation.

I'm not so sure unless you're talking about the ability to take a civil case against someone. In which case, it's not the government limiting the speech as much as it is giving a person who has been harmed by false statements an opportunity to recoup those damages financially. It's not the same thing at all though. A civil case is one citizen against another. You're talking about the government being able to charge people with a crime for speech and that is a dangerous road to take. Once that Pandora's box is open it can't be closed.

Originally Posted by Rant

Racial slurs, and derogatory remarks have the capacity to weaken the reputation of entire subsects of society on a cultural level.

I don't think so. You can make the argument that people calling blacks niggers or other slurs in the past is why their situation got so fucked up but I'm going to argue that you're wrong because it wasn't the words themselves that caused slavery, segregation, lynching etc. It was the ideas that lead to the use of those words and you don't need those words to spread those ideas. Look, at what Trump has done. He's not out there screaming "The sand niggers need to go" but he's done a REALLY good job of getting that same ignorant and despicable idea across with out it.

Originally Posted by Rant

Bigotry and dispiriting speech are not a constitutional right afforded to you by the bill of rights.

Yes they are. The bill of rights neither prohibits or protects you from assholes and idiots. People are allowed to be cunts, legally, as long as they aren't causing damage to persons or property. You can not like that. That's fine. However, you cannot assert that the Constitution doesn't protect fucking dickheads and speech you don't like because that's not the way it works.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by Rant

Are you saying that the freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want? It doesn't.

As long as the words you're saying don't put people in harm's way it absolutely does. The right to free speech gives anyone the right to say anything that they want. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? No. That puts people into potential harm, but calling people names does them no physical damage and, as such, can not and should not be limited by the government.

Originally Posted by Rant

There are caveats to the first amendment that deal with things like reputation.

I'm not so sure unless you're talking about the ability to take a civil case against someone. In which case, it's not the government limiting the speech as much as it is giving a person who has been harmed by false statements an opportunity to recoup those damages financially. It's not the same thing at all though. A civil case is one citizen against another. You're talking about the government being able to charge people with a crime for speech and that is a dangerous road to take. Once that Pandora's box is open it can't be closed.

Originally Posted by Rant

Racial slurs, and derogatory remarks have the capacity to weaken the reputation of entire subsects of society on a cultural level.

I don't think so. You can make the argument that people calling blacks niggers or other slurs in the past is why their situation got so fucked up but I'm going to argue that you're wrong because it wasn't the words themselves that caused slavery, segregation, lynching etc. It was the ideas that lead to the use of those words and you don't need those words to spread those ideas. Look, at what Trump has done. He's not out there screaming "The sand niggers need to go" but he's done a REALLY good job of getting that same ignorant and despicable idea across with out it.

Originally Posted by Rant

Bigotry and dispiriting speech are not a constitutional right afforded to you by the bill of rights.

Yes they are. The bill of rights neither prohibits or protects you from assholes and idiots. People are allowed to be cunts, legally, as long as they aren't causing damage to persons or property. You can not like that. That's fine. However, you cannot assert that the Constitution doesn't protect fucking dickheads and speech you don't like because that's not the way it works.

Your interpretation of the meaning of political correctness does not necessitate its semantic definition.

Your interpretation of the meaning of political correctness does not necessitate its semantic definition.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Rant

Your interpretation of the meaning of political correctness does not necessitate its semantic definition.

It's the definition. And who are you to complain about being non pc when you make fun of handicapped people? Just last night in chat. Besides, you pretended to be black. Painted your online face black, you of all people shouldn't have shit to say. :grass:

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Rant

Your interpretation of the meaning of political correctness does not necessitate its semantic definition.

It's the definition. And who are you to complain about being non pc when you make fun of handicapped people? Just last night in chat. Besides, you pretended to be black. Painted your online face black, you of all people shouldn't have shit to say. :grass:

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

It's the definition. And who are you to complain about being non pc when you make fun of handicapped people? Just last night in chat. Besides, you pretended to be black. Painted your online face black, you of all people shouldn't have shit to say. :grass:

Where did I complain?

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Mindless

As long as the words you're saying don't put people in harm's way it absolutely does. The right to free speech gives anyone the right to say anything that they want. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? No. That puts people into potential harm, but calling people names does them no physical damage and, as such, can not and should not be limited by the government.

Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.

I'm not so sure unless you're talking about the ability to take a civil case against someone. In which case, it's not the government limiting the speech as much as it is giving a person who has been harmed by false statements an opportunity to recoup those damages financially. It's not the same thing at all though. A civil case is one citizen against another. You're talking about the government being able to charge people with a crime for speech and that is a dangerous road to take. Once that Pandora's box is open it can't be closed.

There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.

I don't think so. You can make the argument that people calling blacks niggers or other slurs in the past is why their situation got so fucked up but I'm going to argue that you're wrong because it wasn't the words themselves that caused slavery, segregation, lynching etc. It was the ideas that lead to the use of those words and you don't need those words to spread those ideas. Look, at what Trump has done. He's not out there screaming "The sand niggers need to go" but he's done a REALLY good job of getting that same ignorant and despicable idea across with out it.

Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.

Yes they are. The bill of rights neither prohibits or protects you from assholes and idiots. People are allowed to be cunts, legally, as long as they aren't causing damage to persons or property. You can not like that. That's fine. However, you cannot assert that the Constitution doesn't protect fucking dickheads and speech you don't like because that's not the way it works.

The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

It's the definition. And who are you to complain about being non pc when you make fun of handicapped people? Just last night in chat. Besides, you pretended to be black. Painted your online face black, you of all people shouldn't have shit to say. :grass:

Where did I complain?

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Mindless

As long as the words you're saying don't put people in harm's way it absolutely does. The right to free speech gives anyone the right to say anything that they want. Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? No. That puts people into potential harm, but calling people names does them no physical damage and, as such, can not and should not be limited by the government.

Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.

I'm not so sure unless you're talking about the ability to take a civil case against someone. In which case, it's not the government limiting the speech as much as it is giving a person who has been harmed by false statements an opportunity to recoup those damages financially. It's not the same thing at all though. A civil case is one citizen against another. You're talking about the government being able to charge people with a crime for speech and that is a dangerous road to take. Once that Pandora's box is open it can't be closed.

There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.

I don't think so. You can make the argument that people calling blacks niggers or other slurs in the past is why their situation got so fucked up but I'm going to argue that you're wrong because it wasn't the words themselves that caused slavery, segregation, lynching etc. It was the ideas that lead to the use of those words and you don't need those words to spread those ideas. Look, at what Trump has done. He's not out there screaming "The sand niggers need to go" but he's done a REALLY good job of getting that same ignorant and despicable idea across with out it.

Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.

Yes they are. The bill of rights neither prohibits or protects you from assholes and idiots. People are allowed to be cunts, legally, as long as they aren't causing damage to persons or property. You can not like that. That's fine. However, you cannot assert that the Constitution doesn't protect fucking dickheads and speech you don't like because that's not the way it works.

The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by Rant

Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.

Not in America it isn't. It shouldn't be either for two reasons:
1. Allowing the government to limit speech opens the door for further limitation and the American government at this point can not and should not be trusted with that power. It wasn't that long ago that one of California's senators tried to say the government should be allowed to define who is and isn't a journalist so they could limit who could and couldn't act as one and report news. I think we can both agree something like that would be INCREDIBLY dangerous.

2. Prohibition has never stopped something from happening. People will still do something if it's illegal if they want to do it. Besides, look at Canada. They have hate speech legislation and they still treat their first nations people like absolute dog shit.

Originally Posted by Rant

There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.

I'm not sure I have the time or the energy to explain the difference between a civil and criminal cases but if you take the time to look it up I can assure you they are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by Rant

Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.

It's already happening and I'm not seeing most of the people following in the Commander in Cheeto's footsteps on this one. Most of the people agreeing with that shit seem like they would have agreed with it already and are just using him as confirmation of they already present bias.

Originally Posted by Rant

The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.

That might be your interpretation but thus far, no court or legislation has taken that position that I'm aware of. At this point the general interpretation seems to be that any speech that doesn't cause someone real harm is protected.

Look, I agree that being called a racial slur harms someone emotionally. I've had it happen to me on more than one occasion. Being called a kike right to my face is not an experience that I enjoy or want to have happen again. However, I understand that my feelings being hurt doesn't justify placing someone in a cage or forcing them to pay a fine to the government (In which case the victim would never see a penny of it unless they took up a separate civil suit.) when something as valuable as being able to criticize the government and its actors is at stake. When you open that door you give them the power to potentially punish for saying things like "pardon Snowden" or "Senator Feinstein is a stupid cunt for wanting to allow the government to say who is and isn't a journalist." and that's not a world I, or anyone else should want to live in. Without the ability to criticize government we have no redress for things the government does and no way to do anything about it.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by Rant

Hate speech is criminal speech, and as such cannot be considered free. And SHOULD not be considered free.

Not in America it isn't. It shouldn't be either for two reasons:
1. Allowing the government to limit speech opens the door for further limitation and the American government at this point can not and should not be trusted with that power. It wasn't that long ago that one of California's senators tried to say the government should be allowed to define who is and isn't a journalist so they could limit who could and couldn't act as one and report news. I think we can both agree something like that would be INCREDIBLY dangerous.

2. Prohibition has never stopped something from happening. People will still do something if it's illegal if they want to do it. Besides, look at Canada. They have hate speech legislation and they still treat their first nations people like absolute dog shit.

Originally Posted by Rant

There is no difference between a civil case in which a single party brings charges to another, and that in which a governmental body does so.

I'm not sure I have the time or the energy to explain the difference between a civil and criminal cases but if you take the time to look it up I can assure you they are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by Rant

Positions of power bring with them an inherent "stroke"(obligatory wrestling terminology.) And as such have the capacity to influence a large group of people with their words and actions. By many, hate speech can be seen as advocacy of hateful acts. If the president of a country were to condemn an entire sect of the populous a large percentage of people in the country would likely follow suit.

It's already happening and I'm not seeing most of the people following in the Commander in Cheeto's footsteps on this one. Most of the people agreeing with that shit seem like they would have agreed with it already and are just using him as confirmation of they already present bias.

Originally Posted by Rant

The bill of rights is not a pass to make defamatory remarks. Hate speech is obscene, and slanderous. As such, it can be considered as constituting the same legal restrictions as any other forms of these examples of behavior.

That might be your interpretation but thus far, no court or legislation has taken that position that I'm aware of. At this point the general interpretation seems to be that any speech that doesn't cause someone real harm is protected.

Look, I agree that being called a racial slur harms someone emotionally. I've had it happen to me on more than one occasion. Being called a kike right to my face is not an experience that I enjoy or want to have happen again. However, I understand that my feelings being hurt doesn't justify placing someone in a cage or forcing them to pay a fine to the government (In which case the victim would never see a penny of it unless they took up a separate civil suit.) when something as valuable as being able to criticize the government and its actors is at stake. When you open that door you give them the power to potentially punish for saying things like "pardon Snowden" or "Senator Feinstein is a stupid cunt for wanting to allow the government to say who is and isn't a journalist." and that's not a world I, or anyone else should want to live in. Without the ability to criticize government we have no redress for things the government does and no way to do anything about it.