The debate "Political correctness is so controversial because we aren't even talking about the same thing" was started by
January 4, 2017, 12:45 pm.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual, redeemed, shuhel_2005, dapollman, LeftoverEye70, dj41523 and 13 visitors agree.
emshanley and 3 visitors disagree.
vulgar speak may be against company policy, therefore firing may be justified no?
can you provide actual evidence of private citizens persecuted for discussions held in private? cause I think all your doing is spreading the Kool aid.
Oh yes im drinking the kool aid. People go on witch hunts in order to persecute people who talk in private. People actively pursue firings and other nasty things.
the entire purpose of argument is to show that NO ONE IS LYNCHING ANYONE OVER SPEECH.
any action by "PC police" who are often nobodies to begin with, is nowhere near lynching. it's about the same as the reaction you would get urinating in public: disgust and revulsion, which is entirely appropriate.
your claim is in line with right wing propaganda meant to demonize any attempt at making other races, religions, and people's from feeling comfortable in our society (and then blasting them for failing to assimilate)
Yes people may be against it, but this lynching society over speech is borderline silly.
no u should be able to criticize that person. but don't complain when retribution happens.haha
so the right of people to criticize a person (speech) is wrong?
I agree banning a word legally is wrong, but social pressure is speech and well within people's rights. unless things get violent it seems to be a conversation between A and B, the government should stay out no?
the majority will play nice up front. then talk behind ur back.
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with that. I just dont think people should be persecuted for what they say. The intention behind a word may be, but the idea of socially banned word is silly.
That Sounds Like a tourism slogan. Do you Speak for everyone? I'm going to call bull.
not really. but no one is an outsider here.(until u dig a bit deeper)
it may be a term of endearment within a community, but if an outsider called a redneck a redneck, it may not end pretty.
idk on ur first three but redneck isn't usually a bad name. I know many people who call themselves that and have no problem with it. ironically I have seen more black people call themselves that than white people.
what is the reason/intention of ethnic slurs, like nigger, spic, kike, of redneck?
and I agree with you, I don't shy away from vulgarity. they do an excellent job of emphasizing and driving home a point. I am not suggesting banning any of them in general.
...I was preparing to challenge you on whether vuglarities should be banned in shared work spaces or should people be forced to put up with vuglarities 40 hours a week for the rest of their lives, but I foresaw your counter of people can just quit and go to a nonvulgar business, thus resolving the problem through competition.
but that is already what is happening. there is no law against vulgarity, it is simply company policy, completely in line with what I presume will be your competition solution. thus despite your complaint, you are perfectly fine with the system as is, except perhaps your desire to silence the free speech of so called SJWs because you disagree with them.
Frankly, I believe that the english language is a very particular thing, and every word is chosen for a particular reason and intention.
I agree that people shouldn't use vulgarity, but it isnt my place to forbid it.
what rogue American and me are talking about is the left wing definition of the word. however many on the right have a different complaint about political correctness, the silencing of debate. like claiming any discussion of affirmative action is racist.
on the one hand I would argue to dismiss those people as I've heard few actually involved liberals use that to demonize their opponents. this tactic is mostly used by weekend activists yelling in a bar or kids on a campus.
on the overhand, despite it bring used primarily by nobodies who don't actually matter in enforcement or lawmaking, it's a sizeable group, and this needs to be addressed.
this second definition IS NOT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. it is a problem but political correctness is about speech (and is in no war legally enforced in public areas). you correct the person's word choice, not changing the overall point or silencing it all together. you can say whatever you want about women. just replace bitch with another word, your point will stay the same.
mostly the right rebels against this second form of political correctness, few pursue the route rogue American chose to go, but they rebel by violating the second, false definition, and sometimes come across as bigoted when they are just being rebellious (with a few bigots sprinkled in, drawn to the rebellion's word choice)
also there is a difference between generic vulgar speech like cussing, or profane slang, and targeted ethnic slurs.
many people would object to having to work in a vulgar environment where people are cussing, but ethnic slurs can make a work environment extremely uncomfortable, or even fearful.
perhaps, but if you feel you have the right to offend people with your speech, why must others bite their tongue when they want to voice their opinion on your speech in a public area?
your complaining about social ostracizing as if it was legal law. free speech works both ways.
I believe offensive speech os a very valuable thing.