01 Jul 11
3 edits
Originally posted by im backwoops.
People always say" I would like to see things go back the way they were." I assume these people are well off white folks becous the way things were was not as good for everyone else. In short, the good old days wern't good for everyone and they are a little more tollerable today becouse of things like political correctness and affimitive action. I would b ...[text shortened]... where Fox news commentaters could actually call our President the one word they really want.
01 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarIt's important for you to be able to externalise political correctness as a legal matter, probably because of the implications of the alternative, which are not good.
One of the biggest infringements on our personal liberty is political correctness. You can't have an opinion that goes against certain groups, otherwise you are going to suffer the consequences.
What's up with that?
Say that the president was being a tool and you get fired.
Crack jokes about the wrong group and you get pulled on the carpet and force ...[text shortened]... nd poltical corrrectness is not enforced by the courts, then why would any company care?
If you are in a shop and are frustrated at the person serving you, I doubt you would call them a [person who has carnal relations with their mother] or [a person who gives oral pleasure to men]. Actually, you are at liberty so to do, of course; but you wouldn't because you've successfully internalised the taboo as a social norm (or, indeed, vice versa). You're a better person than to knowingly and gratuitously offend someone like that.
But social norms only exist for so long as enough people follow them; then they tend to become the practice of smaller social groups. In the 'good old days', I expect anyone who called a shop worker one of those things would have faced more social ostracism than today. Sadly? Is it good for personal liberty - and therefore an ultimate good, it seems - that plenty of shop workers now have to face that sort of thing on a fairly regular basis? If they're also black, does it matter that as well as that they might get called you-know-what? Or homosexuals also get called faggots? Women dressed in a way that secretly titillates you also get called sluts?
Jews had to work hard, for a long time, to make the k-word socially unacceptable (amongst a whole load of other stuff that I bet you've internalised jut fine). Enough people, enough of the time think it's gratuitously offensive to Jewish people and that that is sufficient reason not only to not call Jews that deliberately insulting name themselves, but to socially ostracise those who do. If a new work colleage starting saying stuff about muddafudding kikes, would there be a social response? In what way is that a meaningful curtailment of personal liberty? Is anyone else exercising personal liberty?
But it's not the same? Says you - enough of the people enough of the time think calling a promiscuous woman a slut, a homosexual a faggot, a black man whatever is poor social behaviour and treat you accordingly.
Because what's happening here is that an aggregate of individuals are treating you in a similar way - by ostracising you, telling you to stop or whatever. They are exercising their personal liberty to treat you as they wish. Suck it up, Jesus-boy.
You are not the only subjective actor in the world. You want to call homosexuals faggots or whatever - go ahead, exercise your liberty. But don't come crying when other people exercise their liberty and call you a bigot.
So you need to come to terms with this external thing, social ostracisation, in some way. You could examine yourself for social inadequacy (meant in the most neutral way possible, of course) - a desire to be gratuitously rude to or about specific groups of people that others find unacceptable. Or you could take the blue pill, or is it the red pill, whatever - and you could set it all up as some sort of Matrix, or a conspiracy in a world secretly ruled by powerful liberals, or something almost [/i]legal[/i]. Yes, legal, good - if you can convince yourself that this is happening because of anonymous, inhuman laws, rather than just lots and lots of actual people, then you don't even need to think that you might have a problem.
01 Jul 11
Originally posted by DrKFHuh. Wow. I think you have the matter surrounded.
It's important for you to be able to externalise political correctness as a legal matter, probably because of the implications of the alternative, which are not good.
If you are in a shop and are frustrated at the person serving you, I doubt you would call them a [person who has carnal relations with their mother] or [a person who gives oral pleasure ...[text shortened]... of actual people, then you don't even need to think that you might have a problem.
01 Jul 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's valid observation. I suppose eladar was simply craving some attention in the end, given how he's gone all silent now and seems disinterested in elaborating on his disagreement with PC.
This whole "political correctness" thing reeks of teenage insecurity, really. More often than not, whining about "PC" is an excuse not to justify one's opinions.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I know this is going to be a mind blowing revelation to you, so get a firm grip on the top of your cranium, what goes on between my employer and me is my business, not yours. What goes on between you and your employer or employees is your business, not mine.
so you would do away with all employment laws?
Now keep holding on to the top of your head for a few moments while this sinks in.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by WajomaAh, the comforting certainties of a simplistic but despicable ideology.
I know this is going to be a mind blowing revelation to you, so get a firm grip on the top of your cranium, what goes on between my employer and me is my business, not yours. What goes on between you and your employer or employees is your business, not mine.
Now keep holding on to the top of your head for a few moments while this sinks in.
I suppose the vision of utopia, as envisaged in wajomaism, is that of an unbridled market where employers keep their workers in de facto slavery, with staggering inequalities all around, and consequently culminating in a broken and crime-ridden society.
That's hardly an appealing image.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by DrKFI do not suppose he would care 'two hoots' if called a 'bigot' by the likes of you. I ceratainly would not.
It's important for you to be able to externalise political correctness as a legal matter, probably because of the implications of the alternative, which are not good.
If you are in a shop and are frustrated at the person serving you, I doubt you would call them a [person who has carnal relations with their mother] or [a person who gives oral pleasure ...[text shortened]... of actual people, then you don't even need to think that you might have a problem.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by retiariusDing, ding ding. We have a winner.
I do not suppose he would care 'two hoots' if called a 'bigot' by the likes of you. I ceratainly would not.
The only thing I care about is the legal ramifications.
There's an old saying that we used to say back in kindergarten, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
That was a saying based on an old concept of freedom. Now people say that names do hurt you and that name calling must be regulated.
As for the word faggot, the last time I heard it used was by a neighbor and his lover who got into a fight in the middle of the night. It was quite a few years ago back when I was single and was trying to save money on my electric bill by leaving my windows open at night instead of running the window unit. They woke me up by yelling the word faggot at each other.
Poltical correctness is a direct result of trying to regulate right from wrong when it comes to speech. This is a result of the infringement to the right privacy that one is now forced to give up inorder to make a living.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarPull up a chair, little boy, have a lollipop, and tell us all about the traumatic time when you wanted to call someone a faggot but the Big Meanie Establishment crimped your style.
Ding, ding ding. We have a winner.
The only thing I care about is the legal ramifications.
There's an old saying that we used to say back in kindergarten, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
That was a saying based on an old concept of freedom. Now people say that names do hurt you and that name calling must be regul ...[text shortened]... e infringement to the right privacy that one is now forced to give up inorder to make a living.
03 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastIt's a dream, the dream of freedom. It is the dream of a country where the government exists to serve the people and allow people to live freely, instead of a country where the population exists to serve the government. I believe that a government that uses its power for Social engineering, uses its power to take away freedom.
Pull up a chair, little boy, have a lollipop, and tell us all about the traumatic time when you wanted to call someone a faggot but the Big Meanie Establishment crimped your style.
03 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarIf your idea of "freedom" is being able to bully and intimidate others with words then I pity you.
Ding, ding ding. We have a winner.
The only thing I care about is the legal ramifications.
There's an old saying that we used to say back in kindergarten, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
That was a saying based on an old concept of freedom. Now people say that names do hurt you and that name calling must be regul ...[text shortened]... e infringement to the right privacy that one is now forced to give up inorder to make a living.
03 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarIt isn't government you're up against. It's society. I suggest you move to a log cabin in Idaho, where you can name each tree on your property a different incendiary epithet and while away the days shooting cans off your fence that are labeled with the initials of various government agencies you find offensive.
It's a dream, the dream of freedom. It is the dream of a country where the government exists to serve the people and allow people to live freely, instead of a country where the population exists to serve the government. I believe that a government that uses its power for Social engineering, uses its power to take away freedom.
03 Jul 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59Bully and intimidate? I think that bringing the power of the government against other individuals simply based on what a person says is bullying and intimidating.
If your idea of "freedom" is being able to bully and intimidate others with words then I pity you.
It isn't that I wish to say anything offensive. It is the fact that I believe people should have the right to do it!
"I may disagree with what you say, but I'd give my life to give you the right to say it."
It is something that I've heard a guy in the military say and I thought it was very noble and correct.