False. There is no intention to "make people equal". The intention is to be considerate of other perspectives - not a big deal.
You don't understand that words can be used in different ways? Wow. How do you function in society without being able to differentiate different meanings from the same word?
We're all so sorry that you cannot say or do things free from criticism. It must be horrible to be held accountable for your words and actions.
That's a depraved understanding of PC.
**** ALL THOSE THAT ARE SENSITVE LITTLE BITCHES that want to attack attack attack. It is total bull****.
Don't cry too much.
I am making fun of the real whiners... you definitely fall into that category. Why though? What is the disconnect?
I'm not whining. You, however, are cryin' up a storm.
You're such a victim. How will you ever endure?
I made a statement. You attacked it. THAT is the whining. I am not a victim. I am trying to get the victim junkies to realize that none of this is that big of a deal. If you see that as whining then you have problems. Sorry bro... just deal with it.
At this point, I don't even know what you're crying about. If anyone is claiming to be a victim, it's you.
The intention is conformity through obfuscation of the truth. When you attempt to change the word from what it actually was it changes the meaning too. In fact politically correct words are lies that distort the truth.False. There is no intention to "make people equal". The intention is to be considerate of other perspectives - not a big deal.
If one word can have exact opposite meanings depending on which race uses it then its pure hypocrisy and is in direct contravention to what political correctness is in the first place. Why create a rule when you make an exception to it for some people?ecofarm said:You don't understand that words can be used in different ways? Wow. How do you function in society without being able to differentiate different meanings from the same word?
No one is disputing that you cant criticize, what sensible people dispute is when you start exacting condoned monetary or even physical revenge against people who speak their minds. It in fact, rewards lying in public because if you lie you dont get penalized, only when telling the truth do you get punished.ecofarm said:We're all so sorry that you cannot say or do things free from criticism. It must be horrible to be held accountable for your words and actions.
ecofarm said:That's a depraved understanding of PC.
The intention is conformity through obfuscation of the truth. When you attempt to change the word from what it actually was it changes the meaning too. In fact politically correct words are lies that distort the truth.
If one word can have exact opposite meanings depending on which race uses it then its pure hypocrisy and is in direct contravention to what political correctness is in the first place. Why create a rule when you make an exception to it for some people?
No one is disputing that you cant criticize, what sensible people dispute is when you start exacting condoned monetary or even physical revenge against people who speak their minds. It in fact, rewards lying in public because if you lie you dont get penalized, only when telling the truth do you get punished.
PC = doublespeak, an Orwellian term.
"Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words."
Nope. Simply that everybody is different and people need to grow thicker skins. Altering words due to perceived sensitivity is the wrong approach.The truth being obfuscated is that women, gays and blacks are inferior, right?
Simply that everybody is different and people need to grow thicker skins.
I would fire somebody who broke the rules of my business or organization. That's what the NBA claims Sterling did and why he was being fired. Whether a private conversation unethically taped qualifies as breaking the rules is something for the NBA and Sterling and perhaps his lawyers to sort out and might need to be decided by a judge. While I do not condone racist speech by anybody, and while I don't know all the details of that particular issue, it does bother me that a PRIVATE conservation can break anybody's rules. Who among us has never expressed an opinion in private to somebody that would not look good if it was made public? And who among us will ever feel safe if all somebody has to do to destroy us is to get us to say something privately or intercept a conversation that would look really bad if made public? How can any one of us feel that there is liberty in such a system? How could any of us dare to be who and what we are ever again?
Just an observation from the Sterling fallout in the NBA, or CEO's resigning because they supported a political cause that was unpopular with the masses or the usual media fauxrage (Huffington Post headlines cough cough) that every time some politician (usually from the GOP) makes some sort of statement about gays or minorities or anything that the mainstream thinks is unacceptable and must be spread out across the internet so that outrage can pile on outrage. Is it getting out of hand or should it continue?
Vote and be heard.
How is calling your buddy retarded, who just did something dumb, something that deserves criticism? THAT is retarded. Or is it slow... or dim witted? Of is it mentally challenged? Or did you get off the short bus? The dumb part is getting defensive about terms. If I call my ex's new guy a midget because he is short that is an insult to him... not to midgets. All this defensive attack posture is what is making things worse. Worrying about offending people all the time makes matters worse.
I called a black guy an African American in an attempt to be PC. He called me a racist and that he was an American that was black. I later called another guy a black American and he heard about it and thought THAT was racist and he wanted to be called an African American.
**** ALL THOSE THAT ARE SENSITVE LITTLE BITCHES that want to attack attack attack. It is total bull****.
The problem is that it became public. No matter whose fault it is, you don't want to be the NBA and stand before black people defending a racist.
I understand what you're saying, but as far as the NBA's actions go it's completely understandable. They couldn't shove the toothpaste back in, it was out and all they could do was clean it up.
I know what PC is. And while I may have a thick skin many PC people do not and take offense at almost anything. And I also believe people should be allowed to express themselves freely- if some people call handicapped people cripples or utter racist words then its their right to do so.There's nothing politically incorrect in declaring everyone is different. Thicker skins is a fine idea as well. Neither of these things are in conflict with PC.
I don't think you understand what PC is at all. I think someone has fed you lies about PC and has intentionally distorted the intentions and meaning of PC.
I have several issues against Political Correctness. Im going to be blunt so Im prepared to be accused of all sorts of things but here goes:
Firstly, it presents a false illusion of reality by attempting to make everyone equal when it fact it can never happen. ie. a retard who is labeled "mentally challenged" doesnt make him any smarter. Or a dwarf who is labeled as "vertically challenged" doesnt make him any taller.
Secondly, it is hypocritical in that it can be abused by some segments of the population such as when black people call each other the N-word is acceptable but when any other race utters it is akin to a warcrime and be labeled as racist.
Thirdly, it forces people to hide their true feelings and covers the truth due to the fact that now when someone makes a statement that isnt in sync with popular thinking they are made to suffer civil penalties (the loss of one's job, massive fines, ejection from public gatherings, media harassment, etc.); how long till these civil penalties become criminal?
Political correctness covers up the truth and fights intolerance with intolerance.
I know what PC is. And while I may have a thick skin many PC people do not and take offense at almost anything. And I also believe people should be allowed to express themselves freely- if some people call handicapped people cripples or utter racist words then its their right to do so.
But the 'clean up' seems to be using a hazmat industrial clean up process for what should have been a quick swipe with the dish cloth and its done. Of course the NBA should not condone racist language, and certainly those representing the NBA should say so. But it would have been so simple for them to have condemned the language and attitude, but said that it was a private conversation never intended to be public and as such was outside the jurisdiction of the NBA--that there was no evidence that Sterling had utilized bigoted or racist policies within his organization. And, if the PC police had stayed out of then, it would have been a ripple in the media for a couple of days and it would be over. And chances are Sterling would have been more careful about how he phrased things in the future.
My point is, if all anybody--our competitors, our rivals, or whatever--have to do to destroy us is to catch us in making some politically incorrect statement or simply accusing us, then nobody is safe. Nobody will ever again be able to be who and what they are openly and without fear that some angry mob will descend on them and punish them for using an unacceptable phrase or word or for holding an unacceptable opinion about something.
If we all don't start pushing back on this, there will be no liberty in America.
What about the freedom of people to disagree? If you want to run around calling black folks "n*ggers," by all means do so. But the rest of us have the freedom to call you out. (I mean "you" in the general sense, not you personally)
I know what PC is.
I have zero problem with disagreeing with anybody about anything. I have no problem with anybody calling out anybody or condemning what they said about whatever. But if I call somebody a ******, you of course are just as entitled to object to that characterization and state that you consider it reprehensible. Nobody has a right to be complimented or praised or be immune to criticism or to not be offended in a way that does not violate his/her rights.
Where I draw the line on 'free speech' is in the malicious libel or slander that uses lies or untruths to call a persons character or reputation into question and thereby violates that person's rights. But there are laws against that, and legal recourse. And nobody should be allowed to exercise his/her right to free speech to the point that he disturbs the general peace and becomes a nuisance, but there are also sensible laws against that.
And I draw the line on physically and/or materially hurting people for no other reason than they hold an opinion with which we disagree.
In this context, I am campaigning for a change in the law, or at least our culture, to make it illegal or unacceptable for an angry mob or group to organize and intentionally try to harm or punish somebody, physically and/or materially, for no other offense than that person holds a politically incorrect view or says something 'offensive'. Yes, boycott or protest those who are violating the rights of others. But so long as he/she requires no contribution or participation by any other, every U.S. citizen should be free to be who and what they are and say what they think, believe, want, and hope for without fear that some angry group will descend on them and pummel them for that.
If we are not free to be who and what we are, so long as we do not violate anybody else's rights, we have no freedom at all. We are subject either to an overly authoritarian government or we are subject to mob rule.
Just an observation from the Sterling fallout in the NBA, or CEO's resigning because they supported a political cause that was unpopular with the masses or the usual media fauxrage (Huffington Post headlines cough cough) that every time some politician (usually from the GOP) makes some sort of statement about gays or minorities or anything that the mainstream thinks is unacceptable and must be spread out across the internet so that outrage can pile on outrage. Is it getting out of hand or should it continue?
Vote and be heard.
Yes, I am saying that protests and boycotts intended to hurt somebody physically and/or materially should be banned if that person is not guilty of infringing on anybody else's rights. This country was founded on a principle that we each have an unalienable right to be who or what we are so long as we require no participation or contribution by any other. Nobody should be pesonally threatened or violated for no other offense than they said something somebody else didn't like.
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?