• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Finally Standing Up to the PC Bullies

eohrnberger said:
No. Those are new ones on me.

Here's another one that's just ridiculous: Native Americans not Offended by "Redskins"

But that's kinda my point. Why are some wanting to reinvent or redefine parts of the language that's been in use for decades?
Why do those same people want to force what they think is 'right' on everyone else?
By what right do they think they can do this to the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Well it's basically just language control.
That's basically what this whole PC craze comes down to.

It's people saying that their sensibilities are the only valid sensibilities, and everybody else should have to conform their speech and language to those sensibilities, in order to not offend them.
 
It is a typical PC tactic of the Left to ONLY recognize the existence and representation of "White-Supremacy" Groups, and to completely ignore any White-Civil-Rights Groups, which clearly do NOT advocate any form of Racial Supremacy.

In the eyes of the Left, only White-Supremacy Groups exist, because it is all they allow themselves to SEE.

A group such as the American White Voters Solidarity Movement can exist, and have completely race-neutral principles and objectives, but the Left will not SEE it.

Furthermore, the Left typically uses the PC tactic of ignoring the Racial Supremacy elements of any "People-of-Color" Group, no matter how blatantly violent or smothered in racial supremacy beliefs.

And so, we're back to the Kurmugeon Corallary from Post #15.

To learn what group is truly discriminated against in a society, Learn which group is NOT Allowed to Politically Organize to advocate their completely equal treatment. - Kurmugeon
Click to expand...
-
 
Kurmugeon said:
It is a typical PC tactic of the Left to ONLY recognize the existence and representation of "White-Supremacy" Groups, and to completely ignore any White-Civil-Rights Groups, which clearly do NOT advocate any form of Racial Supremacy.

In the eyes of the Left, only White-Supremacy Groups exist, because it is all they allow themselves to SEE.

A group such as the American White Voters Solidarity Movement can exist, and have completely race-neutral principles and objectives, but the Left will not SEE it.

Furthermore, the Left typically uses the PC tactic of ignoring the Racial Supremacy elements of any "People-of-Color" Group, no matter how blatantly violent or smothered in racial supremacy beliefs.

And so, we're back to the Kurmugeon Corallary from Post #15.


-
Click to expand...

I hate to rain on parades, but post #15 was about as stupid a post as I've ever seen, and I've been on discussion groups since before the web existed.

I mean, that's some hair-on-fire, fork-in-the-toaster raw stupidity.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I disagree.

I am clearly on record in this forum as stating that my natural rights are not dependent on social approval. Only those civil/legal rights which are actually privileges granted by citizenship in a particular society.

P.C. is NOT respect. It is an attempt to force others to submit to the will of group-think. Not only is it a violation of any human's right to free expression, it is a forced fiction because not saying something does not mean a person does not think and feel it anyway.

I prefer people to have open access to free expression regardless of any possible offense.

Like when the Nazi's marched in Skokie; I supported this. Not because I agreed with them in any way, but rather because I want to SEE people expressing themselves openly so I can KNOW if there are issues of concern I need to remain aware of.

Rather that than have everyone speaking nicely until I get their daggers in my back.
Click to expand...

Your natural rights don't exist unless other people recognize and respect them and you theirs. They, we, me, all have the same natural rights as you.

In society, the words that you communicate with are subject to public opinion. I'd like to see you try and ignore public opinion...especially if it turns on you personally.
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
Well it's basically just language control.
That's basically what this whole PC craze comes down to.

It's people saying that their sensibilities are the only valid sensibilities, and everybody else should have to conform their speech and language to those sensibilities, in order to not offend them.
Click to expand...

Pretty arrogant of these people to believe they can make decisions based on their sensibilities and then turn around and then turn around to force them on everyone else.
Who the hell do they think they are?

If they want to guide their lives based on these sensibilities, I really don't care. I object to them forcing them on everyone else.
 
eohrnberger said:
Pretty arrogant of these people to believe they can make decisions based on their sensibilities and then turn around and then turn around to force them on everyone else.
Who the hell do they think they are?

If they want to guide their lives based on these sensibilities, I really don't care. I object to them forcing them on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't know why they want people to conform their language to their sensibilities. It's not like I want to anyone to conform to my own.

And sadly the PC craze is mainly coming from the liberal crowd, which is unfortunate for me because I identify as a liberal, and I thought that being a liberal-minded person meant to accept different and opposing points of view. But I guess not.
 
Moot said:
Your natural rights don't exist unless other people recognize and respect them...because they have the same natural rights as you.

In society, the words that you communicate with are subject to public opinion. I'd like to see you try and ignore public opinion...especially if turns on you personally.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Natural rights do not depend on other people's recognition, they are wholly self-enforceable.

But I am not going to follow that red herring and derail this thread. If you want those arguments feel free to check out the threads devoted to the position that there are no natural rights.

Now I am fully aware of "public opinion." I am also aware of the "court of public opinion." People running for office are subject to it, businesses are dependent upon it. It is as fickle as the members of the public who make it up.

It is easy to shape simply by controlling the lines of information accessible to the members of the public. People in this forum are doing it by using terms like "misogynist, racist, homophobe," etc. to incite visceral reactions rather than rational thought.

Public opinion has created lynch mobs and elected dictators. I am aware that it is as often WRONG, as it is right.

However, each individual is only subject to what he allows to affect him.

If at any time I feel I cannot continue to live freely in any society because of "public opinion" I will happily leave for greener pastures.
 
TheGoverness said:
Exactly. I don't know why they want people to conform their language to their sensibilities. It's not like I want to anyone to conform to my own.

And sadly the PC craze is mainly coming from the liberal crowd, which is unfortunate for me because I identify as a liberal, and I thought that being a liberal-minded person meant to accept different and opposing points of view. But I guess not.
Click to expand...

I long for the days of the classic liberals who would fervently disagree with your position, but defend your right to hold that position. Quite noble that. Hold my respecct.

But somehow I really don't think that this would be the attitude of the now so-called liberals. So much so, it's as if the label liberal doesn't apply to them anymore.
 
eohrnberger said:
I long for the days of the classic liberals who would fervently disagree with your position, but defend your right to hold that position. Quite noble that. Hold my respect.

But somehow I really don't think that this would be the attitude of the now so-called liberals. So much so, it's as if the label liberal doesn't apply to them anymore.
Click to expand...

But thankfully, more and more liberals are beginning to stand up and oppose the SJW crowd. And I'm glad that liberals and conservatives can find a common ground and oppose the SJW's by standing together.

It's a beautiful thing really.
 
On the topic of the left imposing it's sensibilities on others by the force of the government gun . . . .
A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
. . . .
The bill is considered dead because the house-of-origin deadline is midnight Friday and the state Senate is not scheduled to meet again before that. Later this year, however, the same language could be reintroduced under a waiver of the rules or inserted into another bill as part of the gut-and-amend process.
. . . .
“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have you written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” Mr. Frank wrote in a May 31 post.

“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to S.B. 1161,” he wrote.
Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times
Click to expand...

At least this bill didn't make the floor. More worrisome is what form it's next iteration going to be.

I fail to understand how legislators good conscience can put forth such a bill.

What will be outlawed next? The mere thought of disagreeing with Anthropogenic global warming? California is sounding more and more like 1984 all the time.
 
TheGoverness said:
But thankfully, more and more liberals are beginning to stand up and oppose the SJW crowd. And I'm glad that liberals and conservatives can find a common ground and oppose the SJW's by standing together.

It's a beautiful thing really.
Click to expand...

One can only hope.

Should this come to pass, and it would be a good thing, the progress for the nation might just be what pulls it out of it's present nose dive.
 
TheGoverness said:
Exactly. I don't know why they want people to conform their language to their sensibilities. It's not like I want to anyone to conform to my own.

And sadly the PC craze is mainly coming from the liberal crowd, which is unfortunate for me because I identify as a liberal, and I thought that being a liberal-minded person meant to accept different and opposing points of view. But I guess not.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "accepting" opposing views? Does it mean that liberals stifle and stop opposing opinions so they can't be heard....or that liberals don't agree with the opposing view and express their own views, too? Surely, you're not suggesting that conservatives don't have a voice because meany weany liberals won't let them, are you? Because that would be absurd.

If conservatives say that liberals are supposed to be tolerant of everything no matter what it is....does that mean liberals are supposed to conform to their definition of what a liberal is supposed to be? No, would be my answer.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Political correctness:

Refraining from suggesting that a woman reporter is being pissy because she's on her period.
Refraining from calling your wife a "nice piece of ass."
Refraining from saying that Mexico is sending us its drug dealers and rapists.
Not claiming that all of the women on The View are flirting with him.
Refraining from publicly claiming to have a long schlong.
Not claiming that being greedy is good.
Refraining from intimating that you have something on your opponent's wife.

OMG! How could we be so PC as to avoid all of the above? Why, The Donald has shown us the way to freedom of speech! I think I'll go next door right now and tell my neighbor what an ugly wife he has. That's un PC, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Trump has broadened the definition of PC to include common decency.
 
Moot said:
What do you mean by "accepting" opposing views? Does it mean that liberals stifle and stop opposing opinions so they can't be heard....or that liberals don't agree with the opposing view and express their own views, too? Surely, you're not suggesting that conservatives don't have a voice because meany weany liberals won't let them, are you? Because that would be absurd.

If conservatives say that liberals are supposed to be tolerant of everything no matter what it is....does that mean liberals are supposed to conform to their definition of what a liberal is supposed to be? No, would be my answer.
Click to expand...

Well 'accepting' probably wasn't the best word to use. I should have said tolerating; that's probably a better word to use.

And I guess it really depends on what kind of platform we're talking about. The main place where I've seen liberals actively shut down conservative or opposing viewpoints and debate is at colleges, but in other places I'm not too sure how frequent that occurs.
 
SheWolf said:
The fact that the piece is titled "Trump is the response to a bullying culture" is ironic. I view Trump as an asshole bully.
Click to expand...

I think one of the many things which Trump does that makes Progressive-Fascist go into fits, is that his "Bullying" is giving the SJW Lefties a huge dose of their own Bully tactics.

 
Captain Adverse said:
Yes-sir, P.C. as in requiring one cease from expressing ANYTHING one might personally find offensive.

You have a right to feel offended. You do NOT have a right to be free from exposure to things you might find offensive.

In the second case you DO have the right to express yourself by ignoring it, responding in counter-point, or walking away.
Click to expand...

Which also means we have a right to be politically correct. So what is the problem?
 
Kurmugeon said:
It is a typical PC tactic of the Left to ONLY recognize the existence and representation of "White-Supremacy" Groups, and to completely ignore any White-Civil-Rights Groups, which clearly do NOT advocate any form of Racial Supremacy.

In the eyes of the Left, only White-Supremacy Groups exist, because it is all they allow themselves to SEE.

A group such as the American White Voters Solidarity Movement can exist, and have completely race-neutral principles and objectives, but the Left will not SEE it.

Furthermore, the Left typically uses the PC tactic of ignoring the Racial Supremacy elements of any "People-of-Color" Group, no matter how blatantly violent or smothered in racial supremacy beliefs.

And so, we're back to the Kurmugeon Corallary from Post #15.


-
Click to expand...

Your corollary is incorrect. Any group can form for any pupose it wants, unless it is criminal in nature.
 
eohrnberger said:
Pretty arrogant of these people to believe they can make decisions based on their sensibilities and then turn around and then turn around to force them on everyone else.
Who the hell do they think they are?

If they want to guide their lives based on these sensibilities, I really don't care. I object to them forcing them on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Yet no one is forcing them. They are not being enforced in any way by any law making authority.
 
TheGoverness said:
Exactly. I don't know why they want people to conform their language to their sensibilities. It's not like I want to anyone to conform to my own.
Click to expand...

Easy. It makes them comfortable and happy with their surroundings. Having to deal with people that disagree with you and won't talk in the way you find acceptable means you have to accept that other outlooks exist beyond the ones you find agreeable. Life is simply easier for them if they don't have to deal with anyone that uses disagreeable language.

And sadly the PC craze is mainly coming from the liberal crowd, which is unfortunate for me because I identify as a liberal, and I thought that being a liberal-minded person meant to accept different and opposing points of view. But I guess not.
Click to expand...

Both liberals and conservatives have social fascist tendencies. It was really only a matter of time until one side or the other fell off the edge into oppressive control. What you're really seeing is the fruits of a few generations of people that wanted to reshape social relations.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think here's a matter of degree in play here that no one seems to have addressed.

There's nothing wrong in being polite, nor is this what those that are chaffing against the PC are chaffing against, well, at least not me. I do believe in politeness, but I have no need or love lost for excessive PC.

I don't believe that it is incorrect to call illegal aliens exactly that, when that's what they are by legal language (it I'm not mistaken), when the excessive PC crowd wants to call them 'undocumented immigrants' or even worse 'irregular immigrants'. This is BS.

When the excessive PC crowd objects to the use of “juvenile delinquent” and wants you to use “justice-involved youth" I wonder who's lost their minds here?

Speaking of losing minds, here's what I'm talking about:
The University of New Hampshire has issued a Bias-Free Language Guide which identifies the word “American” as a “problematic” term which should not be used.

Other “problematic” words on the taxpayer-funded school’s lengthy list include “mothering,” “fathering,” “healthy,” “homosexual,” “rich,” “poor” and “senior citizen,” notes Campus Reform.

U. New Hampshire: 'American' 'PROBLEMATIC' | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

I mean WTF? “American” is “problematic”? This part of the PC crap that's being pushed is just total BS.

Being polite with others, more certainly isn't.
Click to expand...

A small problem - none of the links, Daily Caller or Campus Reform, to the "Bias-Free Language Guide" provide us with that page.

I did find the "Bias-Free Language Guide" by doing the Google, others can also find the Guide if they are familiar with googling.

One of the early paragraphs had the following words:
The views expressed in this guide are NOT the policy of the University of New
Hampshire. UNH supports free speech on all of our campuses.
Click to expand...

Once again as seems to be rather common by a certain demographic, the American quote is without context in the Daily Caller and Campus Reform pages. The following words provide an explanation for why the creator of the Guide sees American as problematic. Inhabitants of South American nations do object to the generic term American being used to refer only to citizens of the US - personal experience at a yacht club in Buenos Aires.
Preferred: U.S. citizen or Resident of the U.S.
Problematic: American
Note: North Americans often use “American” which usually, depending on the context, fails to recognize South America

Preferred: North American or South American
Problematic: American: assumes the U.S. is the only country inside these two continents.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Yes-sir, P.C. as in requiring one cease from expressing ANYTHING one might personally find offensive.

You have a right to feel offended. You do NOT have a right to be free from exposure to things you might find offensive.

In the second case you DO have the right to express yourself by ignoring it, responding in counter-point, or walking away.
Click to expand...

So when he offends an ally, you'll be OK with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom