- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
d
How can PC be agreed if many people ( like myself) don't agree on or believe in PC BS.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2
Yes, but political correctness refers more to social convention than 1st Amendment rights than legal limits on free speech.
Political Correctness to some has morphed into this lalaland belief that they can abuse anyone for disagreeing with them with impunity...
Because it is still a dominant social convention as few people wish to bear the stigma of using words or phrases deemed bad by our culture, even if they personally disagree. Its the same as people disliking others using words like **** or ****. Many people use it quite frequency in their personal lives or peer groups, but tend to shy away from saying it to general audiences.
I never get offended by someones speech or beliefs until they bring it to me on a personal level....Im for this...Your not...does that mean we call each other names and degrade each other all day long in the HOPES that one side will gave in and say OK OK UNCLE im for whatever you want me to be for..
lol...what planet did they come from lol
Yep, that's covered in free speech. What's your point?Free speech means to some they can abuse you and call you names if you disagree with them..
Media personalities have come to believe that they say anything that they want without consequence.
Media personalities have come to believe that they say anything that they want without consequence. They have the power to smear and degrade anybody who they disagree with for any reason. It could be a person's politics, religion, etc... or could be that they just don't like the way a person looks or acts. Those who are on the bunt end of that have virtually no rebuttle power.
Media personalities clearly know that they can easily get away with making opinions sound as though they are facts...and if they are caught and called on their ploys to do so....they simply scream...YOU IDIOT, you should check out my comments and believe what you want to believe.
Well, the damage is done and media personalities know that.
If I walk up to you and call you a son-of-a-bitch low life and then smile and nonchalantly say: "I was just kidding." That person still got to say what was on his or her mind and let little recourse to call them on it because they "CLAIM" they were kidding.
Radio and TV pundits know how to be dishonest and for the most part get away with it. And they leave plenty of victims laid out in the wreckage of the media person's comments.
Personally, I like it when people have a thick skin. So many of today's social ills would be far better if people simply ignored them and the idiots did not get the attention they crave.
Boycotts only work to make people responsible for their speech/actions. You absolutely have the right to free speech.....what you don't have is the right to live free of its repercussions
Boycotts only work to make people responsible for their speech/actions. You absolutely have the right to free speech.....what you don't have is the right to live free of its repercussions
Nope, that's pure BS. Boycotts have jack to do with the 1st Amendment.
Also, I do not consider political donations to be speech, and view the disclosure of campaign donations and finances to simply be a matter of transparency.
Except repercussions from the government.
Starting with the Rush Limbaugh thing and also continuing with some of the comments I see about the idea of disclosure of political donations. There seems to be an idea that speech is not free if people react negatively to what someone says.
For example, there was a claim made by some that Rush Limbaugh was losing his free speech rights because people boycotted his advertisers and there seems to be similar fears about disclosure of PAC or campaign contributions.
So my question is this, is the first amendment harmed if the citizenry refuses to associate with or purchase from someone because they dislike their speech? Similarly, is this impugned if people threaten to do the same if someone decides to make such a statement in the future? (example, don't talk bad about puppies or I will never buy from your store again and I will write a letter to your job's complaint department.)
absolutely not. that is why, for example, universities should have the right to disassociate themselves from lunatic professors who go off spouting on little eichmans' and the like.
Your answer is convoluted.
not at all. freedom of speech includes freedom of association, which presumes as well freedom of disassociation.
What professors do you have in mind? Your reply was out of context and therefore convoluted.
It isn't convoluted in the slightest...
Show that.
Show that it wasn't convoluted? Are you serious? :roll:
Why don't you... the one that thinks it is convoluted, explain why instead. Thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?