What does almost everything mean though? Did you get input directly from HR or are you speculating?
HR? We don't have an HR. It means we have a small staff and that she made her comments publicly to everybody to hear and that the result is as I described.
Everything I am stating is merely a fact. Now, stick with that.
Look I'm just trying to have an exchange with you here and blindly buy into your outrage. You left a lot out. Excuse me for asking questions.
As hoped according to your agenda and I know very well what free speech is... You say making racist comments is bad and so you support Political Correctness that ruins free speech. Justification... that's all. Doesn't make a logical point either.
You aren't following. Free speech isn't a condition where decent people are forced into silence because speaking out against bigots and idiots would make the bigots and idiots feel ashamed... Exactly the opposite. Free speech is a condition where everybody is free to denounce those who they think are idiots and bigots as loud as they want. Free speech is a powerful tool for crushing things like racism. That's the whole point of it- to expose evil and stupid ideas and move society past them.
... Can't remember where we left it so I will pick up the debate from here. USA just beat Japan in Women's World Cup!!
USA
USA
USA
That's a very aggressive, pro-male, pro-violence attitude of force. I'm deeply offended, and I'm going to carry a mattress around until your place of business fires you and the news makes you unhireable. Your life deserves to be destroyed because of my feelings about this post.
Well, by all means, free speech gives you a right to do that. But, the beauty of free speech is that it gives others the choice whether they want to support your view or mine. If a lot of people do take your view, and few take mine, then your view will ultimately prevail and I will be publicly discredited and shamed. The hope behind free speech is that that process isn't random- good ideas tend to get more support and bad ideas tend to get less support. So, if your position is sound, you should come out on top in that exchange, but if it is not, you most likely won't.
The goal of free speech is not to protect the speakers of dumb ideas from criticism, it is to hone our society's position on issues.
Well, by all means, free speech gives you a right to do that. But, the beauty of free speech is that it gives others the choice whether they want to support your view or mine. If a lot of people do take your view, and few take mine, then your view will ultimately prevail and I will be publicly discredited and shamed
The hope behind free speech is that that process isn't random- good ideas tend to get more support and bad ideas tend to get less support.
So, if your position is sound, you should come out on top in that exchange, but if it is not, you most likely won't.
The goal of free speech is not to protect the speakers of dumb ideas from criticism, it is to hone our society's position on issues
PC is just a transitional phase until we get to Newspeak.
Its weakness and cowardice.
It's not, but it relies on that in the majority.
No, it relies on the weak and cowards to fold over to.
This whole Confederate Flag issue is about cowardice and weakness.
Of course its also about forgetting US history and forming it into something it is not.
Its weakness and cowardice.
This is unfortunately not true. If the people who take my view are louder and more willing to exert coercion to get their way in this argument, then my view will prevail and you will be publicly discredited and shamed. What we are discussing here isn't an electoral process, but rather the electronic version of whipped-up mobs.
Unfortunately this is also not necessarily true - people like bad ideas quite a lot, especially when they come hooked to emotion.
:lamo In a nation of Spocks', perhaps. In the United States, not so much.
The goal of free speech is to limit repression by limiting the ability of the majority to shut a minority up. It is hoped that a result can be to hone a society's position on issues, but in order for that to happen there has to be a reasoned, public debate. Using media (social and traditional) to whip up mobs to shut your opposition up doesn't hone anything.
The above just sounds like you don't have much faith in free speech. That's not totally unreasonable. Perhaps people do act more like mobs and act irrationally and all that. If so, then the right to free speech is not very important or useful.
The reasoned debate on questions like "is racism ok?" were resolved literally generations ago. The people advocating those positions have nothing to do with reason, they just have emotional problems that they're trying to vent by attacking minorities.
Free speech is not just useful for politely ironing out intellectual disagreements. It is also how we enforce moral norms, how we shame the vicious, how we enforce minimum standards, etc. Free speech is not the right to have one particular kind of speech in one kind of way. It is the idea that government should just stay out of the whole sphere of speech. It's the idea that if you just leave people to their own devices, they will work this stuff out between themselves better than government could.
I don't have much faith in people to wisely use free speech. I have even less faith in their ability to wisely repress free speech, regardless of whether they use the coercive measures of the state or the mob.
PC today ... is about ever-more-byzantine rules of seeking out and finding offense in the mundane. PC today is not about a wide majority opposing a vocal, angry, violent, and small minority, it is about punishing the 50% of our populace who dares to hold different beliefs when they prove willing to state or stand on them.
Secondly, PC =/= Free Speech. It is simply a non-state coercive means to reduce the exercise of free speech through the threat of the power of the mob. "Better than having the government do it" does not mean "well". Nor do I see anyone here arguing that what is needed is state repression of PC. What people are arguing is that PC has gotten stupidly out of hand, and needs to be dramatically restrained, in order to allow for actual reasoned public debate. Whipping up mobs to attack opponents and threaten the lives of their children for thought crimes is not that
You aren't following. Free speech isn't a condition where decent people are forced into silence because speaking out against bigots and idiots would make the bigots and idiots feel ashamed... Exactly the opposite. Free speech is a condition where everybody is free to denounce those who they think are idiots and bigots as loud as they want..
Free speech is a powerful tool for crushing things like racism.
That's the whole point of it- to expose evil and stupid ideas and move society past them
That sounds all flowerily and nice but it is just code for what you really deliver next:
That is the whole point of it... to "crush" what the "politically correct" tell society what is correct and what is undesirable.
Again... to expose "evil and stupid ideas". Subjective oppressive intolerance designed to "crush" dissenting views.
It has moved away from pointing out racists to making white people racist simply due to their colour.
If speech is as useless or even counter-productive as you say, why should we care what happens to it?
It isn't "ever-more-byzantine." It's really simple. Just don't attack a demographic group. Period. That's it. Just that one rule. Attack ideas all you want, attack political groups, etc., but don't attack a demographic group. If you can refrain from doing that one thing, you will never be on the wrong side of PC.
And, no, I don't think that is at all true that 50% of the population gets attacked by PC.
tuhaybey said:Most Republicans never get called racist or anything like that. It is a certain segment of the GOP that draws all the criticism.
Generally, they're white supremacists or anti-gay hatemongers or and-Muslim nuts or whatever.
But then, when they're attacked, they try to hide behind the GOP and the GOP gives them cover, so then other Republicans perceive it as if they have been attacked or accused or something.
I'm not really sure what your position is. Are you arguing that instead of free speech we should have some kind of rule where only speech you consider polite or non-accusatory or something is permitted? That would be a radically different right than we have now.
Because it is a Right. It's part of your self-ownership. That's the ideological reason.
The Utilitarian reason is because we have discovered that the only thing more likely to make stupid, irrational decisions than an individual is a group of individuals when that group of individuals is demonstrating groupthink (which is an important part of the PC culture, but can be found in any grouping of humans of sufficient ideological closeness). Close-mindedness can take even a powerful nation and lead it to intellectual repression, stultification, loss of innovation, and, ultimately, societal defeat (see: Ottoman Empire) because self-appointed mindguards are never quite so capable as they think themselves to be. Quite the opposite.
....have you been in a time capsule for the past decade or so?
How about "politely decline to participate in someone's wedding with your goods or services"? That's not an attack.
How about "believe that marriage is between a man and a woman"? that's not an attack.
How about "Thinking that when you put someone on trial for rape, the evidence should be controlling rather than the accusers' desire to be publicly vindicated"? That's not an attack.
How about stating that "America is the land of opportunity"
or "all lives matter"? Those aren't attacks
Statistically true information about immigration and rape culture is attacked for not being PC.
Of course not. Most folks don't end up a target and most folks learn to keep their heads down.
Yeah. The part that is publicly active. Speak up, as a Conservative, and you will be called a racist by Democrats and their supporters, regardless of the truth of the charge.
I would like to see your evidence that Scott Brown, Paul Ryan, the entire GOP, Anti-Obamacare Protesters, People who think that you ought to show an ID to vote, People who don't like President Obama, Joe Wilson, etc., so on, and so forth, ad nauseum. Did you know that the GOP wants to literally take us back to Jim Crow?
Democrats accuse Republicans of racism, or sexism, or some other form of bogeymanism whenever they lack good arguments. It's how they make up for the fact that many of their ideas haven't changed much since the 60s - you turn the opponent into an evil monster, and then make low-information voters afraid of him. Mean Old Republicans Are Gonna Put Ya'll Back In Chains... unless you just keep voting Democrat, now, Y'Hear?
:lamo What? The GOP is by far the quicker of the two parties to expel and pull away from someone who actually does something stupid or wrong. I dare you to find any example of GOP behavior when ti comes to protecting it's membership compared to (for example) Democrats covering for massive tax fraud by Charlie Rangel. When a Senate Majority Leader complimented an old man on his birthday he was g-o-n-e. When Harry Reid said that Obama was pretty clean for a black guy, and that wasn't it neat that he didn't speak like the other negroes, Obama went on TV and said "he knew Harry's heart" and all was fine. Obama can talk about "typical white people" all he likes, but let a Republican talk about "typical black people" and he's out. Instantly.
...so, maybe this is just a conservative, small-government, "thing", but most folks here on the right thing that it is possible for someone to abuse their freedoms by acting wrongly without creating a requirement for government to stop them from doing so. The PC culture is wrong. That doesn't mean that we should have some kind of state restrictions on them, simply that we should recognize that the mob is an unreasonable and abusive animal, not a picture of beautiful representative government, and that the PC mob is no better now than it was when it killed Socrates. The only restriction I'd make via the state is that I would strip the PC crowd's ability to bring the State coercive power to bear on the exercise of our first amendment freedoms that do not infringe on the rights of others.
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?