Political Correctness

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well tbh I find you more ill-informed and hasty to react than cold.

It's about effectiveness, seemingly lacking a heart makes you harder to be heard, I guess I'd rather be perceived as ignorant instead of cold. My only concern is efficiency, and that perception detracts from mine similar to how the things I outlined in the OP detract from humanity's progress

 

@Black. Smart. Stay out of this one

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It's about effectiveness, seemingly lacking a heart makes you harder to be heard, I guess I'd rather be perceived as ignorant instead of cold. My only concern is efficiency, and that perception detracts from mine similar to how the things I outlined in the OP detract from humanity's progress

 

@Black. Smart. Stay out of this one

Because this is efficient.

 

Really, I see no reason why people shouldn't be polite. Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but shouldn't we monster ourselves on a personal level?

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Because this is efficient.

 

Really, I see no reason why people shouldn't be polite. Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but shouldn't we monster ourselves on a personal level?

Socrates was practically a founder of sarcasm.

Thomas Edison was a known troll who f*cked around with his coworkers all the time.

Galileo was horribly blunt and never cared when he p*ssed off people.

Aristotle was a Grade-A *sshole to everyone around him.

Cicero was commonly associated with his bitter attitude and blunt arguments.

 

See a pattern?

 

Here's the reality. Being nice never really gets things done. Debates in all of history were never places where people were "Civil", they were jungles full of yelling and screaming. Our entire way of thinking was shaped by people who were known to be rude, obnoxious, or just plain jerks. They didn't have time to be nice and didn't have time to be sensitive.

[Tentacruel]

You can be politically incorrect all you want, but that doesn't mean you aren't a massive wanker.

 

 (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, just speaking generally.)

 

But on the topic of religion and lack of PC, I'm kind of tired of atheism.  Can everyone shut the funk up and come to church? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Bottom line you cannot be civil in an uncivil time and hope to achieve 

[epicmemesbro]

Here's the thing though, the issue doesn't arise from those who are more sensible and don't want to face conflict, its all good there. But those that deem themselves activists, that's where the issue arises. Sooner or later they realized that in order to have whatever reforms or progress they want made they'll have to face an opposition of sorts. You can't just get your way without conflict. You'll have to hear from a side who does not agree with you and does not want your goals met. Maybe this generation has had everything given to them too easily perhaps?

[VCR_CAT]

Guys why does murder have to be illegal; why doesn't the government give me the freedom to kill people if I want to with no federal consequence? I mean, not that I would, but it's about rights, you know? I just really want to be comfortable knowing that I can just off someone if I want to.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Guys why does murder have to be illegal; why doesn't the government give me the freedom to kill people if I want to with no federal consequence? I mean, not that I would, but it's about rights, you know? I just really want to be comfortable knowing that I can just off someone if I want to.

Did you just really compare the freedom of speech to the right to murder? Like one of these is a right our country was build on, the other is ..I don't even know...let me exercise my FoS...stop being retarded

 

But ok, I'm game for that, in a purge like state, idiots like you will be the first to go, so w/e

[ihop]

Your country is also built on the right to own people like property and carry lethal weapons capable of killing dozens of people at a time, I wouldn't be too eager to dismiss VCR's comment.

[VCR_CAT]

Did you just really compare the freedom of speech to the right to murder? Like one of these is a right our country was build on, the other is ..I don't even know...let me exercise my FoS...stop being retarded

 

I dunno, you compared censorship to Hitler. You tell me.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I dunno, you compared censorship to Hitler. You tell me.

1) Quote please, I don't believe I even mention him, or are you pulling things out of your ass?

2) I also redacted the closest statement to that as possible for being overly dramatic, and apologized for it a long time ago, but hmm, that's not convenient for you is it?

 

 

Your country is also built on the right to own people like property and carry lethal weapons capable of killing dozens of people at a time, I wouldn't be too eager to dismiss VCR's comment.

 

Um

 

1) He didn't mention guns

2) We're not talking about the 2nd amendment so please stop derailing

3) Most of us with guns aren't looking to gun down civilians, so thank you, but please stop portraying us all as bloodthirsty killers

[epicmemesbro]

Being polite is more of a commodity. Its there and I suppose somewhat expected but it isn't necessary. What would be uncalled for is jumping to illegalizing rudeness based on a goal that one would have on banning offensive speech. There is a difference between some guy holding an anti minority rally and someone who wants people to enter the country legally. Banning one may result in banning a another unless people realize the difference between the two which does not seem to be the case.

 

And to those with snide comments: at least we don't have our borders open for anyone to waltz in. :V

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

3) Most of us with guns aren't looking to gun down civilians, so thank you, but please stop portraying us all as bloodthirsty killers

Alot of us do the darndest things when pushed far enough. Also I'm gonna throw this in here since evidently you didnt think we'd notice this edit

 

Did you just really compare the freedom of speech to the right to murder? Like one of these is a right our country was build on, the other is ..I don't even know...let me exercise my FoS...stop being retarded

 

But ok, I'm game for that, in a purge like state, idiots like you will be the first to go, so w/e

Evidently you are a-ok with gunning down civilians if you think you can get away with it

 

Now, I'm gonna go, as I refuse to be dragged into this, and honestly view it pointless to argue with a good number of the people here

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Alot of us do the darndest things when pushed far enough. Also I'm gonna throw this in here since evidently you didnt think we'd notice this edit

 

 

Evidently you are a-ok with gunning down civilians if you think you can get away with it

 

Now, I'm gonna go, as I refuse to be dragged into this, and honestly view it pointless to argue with a good number of the people here

1) Still confused with what the 2nd Am has to do with this topic?

2) No, that's barbaric, I don't believe life should be taken unless absolutely needed

3) I'm not trying to hide any edit :)

4) But you keep coming back for more.

 

Now in an attempt to get this topic back on track, I am only saying the Political Correct Culture is incorrect, I'm not at all defending any physical action, so pretty sure VCR's pt is invalid

 

Edit: Oh, I was humoring his suggestion, but yeah I'll be willing to admit it was in poor taste

[VCR_CAT]

Yes it is, but if the leftist had their way you'd be lynched for daring to compare some bored 19 year old's rant to a deadly illness

 

This post stood in particular; but honestly, quoting practically everything you said to point a heavily implicit comparison would take up too much space. But anyways, gonna lay down some crap, because it honestly feels like a lot of people in this thread have been maybe a little too gentle.

 

- You don't understand what Political Correctness is, and it's clear from every one of your posts that this thread is less about equal representation and more about you wanting to rant off about your own prejudices that have not been challenged in any significant way so you believe them to be true.

 

- Your entire argument is one giant slippery slope. What started as "Don't be a dick to people mmkay?" turned to "MAH FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" It's almost hilarious to think that you don't even believe there's rational, respectful, and mature ways to criticize actions that deserve to be criticized, or that you believe rationality and maturity has no place in accomplishing societal goals. Honestly, even IF verbal harassment was to become outlawed, that's about as much a Freedom of Speech issue as it is a Freedom of Murder issue. Society has no need or place for verbal harassment, and any and all messages that a person wishes to convey, even if against a group such as LGBT, can be conveyed in ways that don't involve degrading other human beings or verbally harassing them. Of course, any messages that worth conveying in the first place.

 

- Your arguments that "Religion causes horrible things" are HILARIOUSLY bad and baseless. You've basically fallen in the trap of Correlation vs. Causation, and because you decided to be sucked into your own black hole that is your worldview, you've never even stopped once at all to see if you're wrong about this. Basically, you have no proof that Religion, as a system, has caused horrible actions, or if it's just people in positions of power using Religion as a tool to justify said actions. You basically have no way of proving to me that, without religion, these people would never have found other means of justifying said actions. In fact, I can EASILY show you that such a thing has more to do with PEOPLE than the system they're using to justify their actions, and you really only need to look in the past 100 years with Hitler and Stalin. Hitler, in particular, justified his actions with a utilitarian ethical model as well as beliefs in genetics and evolution to justify killing off what he called a "Non-Race". Now, do you want to say that what Hitler believed caused his actions and that an abstract idea is responsible for the deaths of over 6 million people, or that one man used ideas and beliefs to try and justify the deaths of over 6 million people; because the former sounds absolutely pants-on-head-retarded when you think about it.

 

- It's honestly just appalling how stupid this thread is. If you disagree with a particular group's actions and have good reason to disagree with such, there are good ways to address these issues and come to solutions that benefit everyone. Guess what, none of these options involve slandering people or cutting down other people. If you've got a prejudice against a particular group or people for admittedly trivial and/or irrational reasons and all you want to do is cut them down, then you honestly can stfu; because nothing you want to say or do with that mindset will benefit anyone in any way and you're better off staying silent for everyone's benefit, including your own.

 

You don't need the freedom to be an jabroni to people, NOBODY needs freedom to be an jabroni. It's a stupid thing to want, and benefits nobody. Your arguments are honestly extremely flawed, your points asinine, and your conclusions ridiculous. I posted what I posted because I'm parroting what you're saying and put a deontological (deontology, as in taking an ethical framework and scaling it up to larger proportions to see how valid it is) spin on it, and that's

 

"Guys, just let me do something really bad. Come on, I just want the right to do something horrible with no significant consequence, is that so bad?"

 

No. Really no. Honestly, you're better off closing down this thread, because it's clear that you're screaming at the wrong choir and have nothing useful to contribute.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This post stood in particular; but honestly, quoting practically everything you said to point a heavily implicit comparison would take up too much space. But anyways, gonna lay down some crap, because it honestly feels like a lot of people in this thread have been maybe a little too gentle.

 

- You don't understand what Political Correctness is, and it's clear from every one of your posts that this thread is less about equal representation and more about you wanting to rant off about your own prejudices that have not been challenged in any significant way so you believe them to be true.

 

- Your entire argument is one giant slippery slope. What started as "Don't be a dick to people mmkay?" turned to "MAH FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" It's almost hilarious to think that you don't even believe there's rational, respectful, and mature ways to criticize actions that deserve to be criticized, or that you believe rationality and maturity has no place in accomplishing societal goals. Honestly, even IF verbal harassment was to become outlawed, that's about as much a Freedom of Speech issue as it is a Freedom of Murder issue. Society has no need or place for verbal harassment, and any and all messages that a person wishes to convey, even if against a group such as LGBT, can be conveyed in ways that don't involve degrading other human beings or verbally harassing them. Of course, any messages that worth conveying in the first place.

 

- Your arguments that "Religion causes horrible things" are HILARIOUSLY bad and baseless. You've basically fallen in the trap of Correlation vs. Causation, and because you decided to be sucked into your own black hole that is your worldview, you've never even stopped once at all to see if you're wrong about this. Basically, you have no proof that Religion, as a system, has caused horrible actions, or if it's just people in positions of power using Religion as a tool to justify said actions. You basically have no way of proving to me that, without religion, these people would never have found other means of justifying said actions. In fact, I can EASILY show you that such a thing has more to do with PEOPLE than the system they're using to justify their actions, and you really only need to look in the past 100 years with Hitler and Stalin. Hitler, in particular, justified his actions with a utilitarian ethical model as well as beliefs in genetics and evolution to justify killing off what he called a "Non-Race". Now, do you want to say that what Hitler believed caused his actions and that an abstract idea is responsible for the deaths of over 6 million people, or that one man used ideas and beliefs to try and justify the deaths of over 6 million people; because the former sounds absolutely pants-on-head-retarded when you think about it.

 

- It's honestly just appalling how stupid this thread is. If you disagree with a particular group's actions and have good reason to disagree with such, there are good ways to address these issues and come to solutions that benefit everyone. Guess what, none of these options involve slandering people or cutting down other people. If you've got a prejudice against a particular group or people for admittedly trivial and/or irrational reasons and all you want to do is cut them down, then you honestly can stfu; because nothing you want to say or do with that mindset will benefit anyone in any way and you're better off staying silent for everyone's benefit, including your own.

 

You don't need the freedom to be an a****** to people, NOBODY needs freedom to be an a******. It's a stupid thing to want, and benefits nobody. Your arguments are honestly extremely flawed, your points asinine, and your conclusions ridiculous. I posted what I posted because I'm parroting what you're saying and put a deontological (deontology, as in taking an ethical framework and scaling it up to larger proportions to see how valid it is) spin on it, and that's

 

"Guys, just let me do something really bad. Come on, I just want the right to do something horrible with no significant consequence, is that so bad?"

 

No. Really no. Honestly, you're better off closing down this thread, because it's clear that you're screaming at the wrong choir and have nothing useful to contribute.

 

I'll do this bit by bit if you don't mind :)

 

This post stood in particular; but honestly, quoting practically everything you said to point a heavily implicit comparison would take up too much space. But anyways, gonna lay down some crap, because it honestly feels like a lot of people in this thread have been maybe a little too gentle.

 

That post stood out? Over my awful comparison of a dictatorship's silencing and censoring? Well..OK, guess we'll start here. Off all the posts I've made this has got to be the least controversial. The secondary definition of cancer is "a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate"

 

This isn't even in the realm of PC, it's perfectly viable English Usage. IF you're ignorant of the second definition of cancer that's hardly my fault. Would it be kinda a dick move to throw this around a chemo patient or someone who lost a loved one to Cancer. Yes of course. In that case, you can in the same token, politely request that the person using the term stop, instead of keyboard warrior accusing them of insensitivity.

 

And no, if they don't stop, you can't do a damn thing about it, because 1) It's within the bounds of the 1st Commandment and secondly its not even wrong otherwise.

 

Also easy? Did you miss Tom's pitch to get me banned for this thread? :O

 

- You don't understand what Political Correctness is, and it's clear from every one of your posts that this thread is less about equal representation and more about you wanting to rant off about your own prejudices that have not been challenged in any significant way so you believe them to be true.

 

"the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against"

 

I think you're the one who doesn't understand PC (that wasn't an attempt to degrade your intelligence, so please, no Micro aggression intended). The definition of Political Correctness has questionable interpretation. Who's perception? Mine? Yours? So am I not allowed to say anything anymore because one person somewhere might perceive it to be insulting? By definitive, 1 would be the smallest minority you could form. If we truly embrace PC, you created your own slippery slope right there.

 

You're correct, this thread is not about "equal representation," I don't believe I ever claimed it was. It's an attempt to enlighten people to the degradation of the foundation of our nation, the first amendment, over a leftist weapon that already has shaky grounds on it's application.

 

Damn, and immediately you're mess up your streak of correctness. How can you possibly know that I have not been challenge? Hell, just look at this thread and see how much I have been challenge. Anyway since you're so eager to make assumptions about me, I might as well debunk this one. My family has largely disavowed me because I fervently disagree with both their right-wing economic and political polices as well as their sad loyalist dedication to the two thousand year old misogyny poster child known as Hinduism. So no, I have been challenged in my views by pretty much everyone, from people like you to those who should in theory be closest to me. Then again, maybe financially cutting me off isn't a strong enough challenge? Maybe, if that's you opinion, I will respect it even if I personally disagree.

 

- Your entire argument is one giant slippery slope. What started as "Don't be a dick to people mmkay?" turned to "MAH FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" It's almost hilarious to think that you don't even believe there's rational, respectful, and mature ways to criticize actions that deserve to be criticized, or that you believe rationality and maturity has no place in accomplishing societal goals. Honestly, even IF verbal harassment was to become outlawed, that's about as much a Freedom of Speech issue as it is a Freedom of Murder issue. Society has no need or place for verbal harassment, and any and all messages that a person wishes to convey, even if against a group such as LGBT, can be conveyed in ways that don't involve degrading other human beings or verbally harassing them. Of course, any messages that worth conveying in the first place.

You need two points to make a slope thought. I started the thread with my defense of the first amendment, I disagree that PC is, how did you phrase it, "Don't be a dick to people mmkay?" but rather as the 21'st century's take on silence of dissent.

 

But I'll bite, so we should be sensitive to people? Premise taken. Should the media not expose the politicians of having affairs then? It's insensitive to their family is it not? That aside, there is NOT rational way to put a critique, because the definition of PC so fluid, it doesn't have a bottom level of what would be correct. Example. Say I feel threatened by recent Islamic Terror attacks, and I either rightly or wrongly (we'll get to that later) say I'm nervous about having my family be surrounded by people from the exact same place Daesh is operating out of. How am I a "bigot" Having seen how seductive Daesh has proven to be, both with Paris and California, is it wrong for me to fear for my family? Can you bring my family back if they are killed by extremist? Can you bring ANYONE's family back? I didn't think so.

 

I can be as polite about it as I want, PC, would make me incapable of expressing my concern for my family. Hang me, my concern for my family is greater than my concern for refugees of some other country. But, no I am not allowed to say that without being black-sheeped as a bigot.

 

You accuse me of callousness, or atleast Dae did in one of these threads, but with that same regard you turn around and will not allow me to feel protective of my family? What kind of hypocritical bollock is that?

 

Again, it's not even about Verbal Embarrassment, the definition of Political correctness is so robust, you (as in an individual, not you personally) can claim just about anything is PIC.

 

So now I'm criticizing LGBT? Well lets ignore the fact that I have always been openly bisexual, I never suggested we promote hate towards any of the LGBT community. Never. I said, and this is based of real life occurrences to an individual I know, who after the 6/26 ruling suggested that instead of relying on flamboyance which antagonized much of the remaining Straight community who disliked us, we should instead behave according to society's standards. Our love had won, there was no reason to parade our victory over those who wanted to stop it again and again. Peaceful integration without Drama was in his opinion a more successful methodology to get society to accept us. How was this received? Most members of the LGBT community shunned him, a good portion publicly harassed him of "going back in the closet"

 

Political correctness it the slippery slope, because by definition it has no floor, and therefore you can keep decrease the level of what is "correct," hence the term, "slippery slope"

 

It's really amusing to me, that the same people championing Political Correctness are without mercy using it to tear down their "opponents," is ruining their lives for expressing an opinion not politically incorrect? Would Racist KKK members not be in a minority technically? What's stopping them from using PC as a critique of the far left?

 

The bottom line is PC is an unstable construct that will only serve to dumb down society and stifle debate

- Your arguments that "Religion causes horrible things" are HILARIOUSLY bad and baseless. You've basically fallen in the trap of Correlation vs. Causation, and because you decided to be sucked into your own black hole that is your worldview, you've never even stopped once at all to see if you're wrong about this. Basically, you have no proof that Religion, as a system, has caused horrible actions, or if it's just people in positions of power using Religion as a tool to justify said actions. You basically have no way of proving to me that, without religion, these people would never have found other means of justifying said actions. In fact, I can EASILY show you that such a thing has more to do with PEOPLE than the system they're using to justify their actions, and you really only need to look in the past 100 years with Hitler and Stalin. Hitler, in particular, justified his actions with a utilitarian ethical model as well as beliefs in genetics and evolution to justify killing off what he called a "Non-Race". Now, do you want to say that what Hitler believed caused his actions and that an abstract idea is responsible for the deaths of over 6 million people, or that one man used ideas and beliefs to try and justify the deaths of over 6 million people; because the former sounds absolutely pants-on-head-retarded when you think about it.

Well done, you have successfully falsely painted me as a bigot. Well then, let me dig into this juicy piece of meat.

 

I have repeatedly stated in this thread that religion has been used as a justification for terrible crimes. Hitler used eugenics as a reason to exterminate the Jewish. Woah, shocker, eugenics has been basically eradicated from the civilized world. You could argue that it's hard to prove that a superior race doesn't exist and therefore we should punish the Nazi's and not eugenics as a idea. Funny, that didn't happen did it. Religion is the prime poster-child of MULTIPLE massacres and brutalities. Daesh only being the most recent. And under the cover of religion, people are less reluctant to question or act against said actions. I'm saying pull the costume off, and reveal, Daesh, reveal the Crusades, reveal the Tigers for what they are. Terrorist. You are clinging to a thousand year old set of faiths that are being disprove by the day even at the cost of realizing that removing it will weaken the monster's using it as a cover. THAT is what I cannot tolerate.

 

My personal gripe against religion? Well that has less to do with Islam (although I despise Sharia) and more with Hinduism's fairly blatant misogynistic tendencies and built in racism in the form of the caste system. I like think objectively, since I have found thinking with my emotions often leads me to flawed choices. In that, I see no reason to follow a religion that so openly discriminates against half our specie, with the only recourse being that some "divine entity(s)" willed it so. I have seen no objective proof for said entity, and even if they existed, I would still not so openly follow such teaching.

 

BUT, THAT IS NOT WHY I AM CRITICIZING RELIGION I am because it has, is and will continue to be a terror in the hands of extremist. I don't mean to trivialize this discussion, but there is a YGO example that might work here. Future Fusion(religion). We could have banned FDH, and put down the main offender Dragons (Daesh), but in due time another will rise and just abuse it once again. 

 

In that line, remove Religion, give ISIS nothing to hide behind and reveal them for the monsters they are.

 

What amuses me most, is I was merely asking what I could not say the above without being criticized for being a bigot. If you want to believe in Allah or Jesus rising from the dead, that's your choice, but when people are using those figures as a smokescreen for their crimes, your ideals take a backseat to loss of human lives.

 

- It's honestly just appalling how stupid this thread is. If you disagree with a particular group's actions and have good reason to disagree with such, there are good ways to address these issues and come to solutions that benefit everyone. Guess what, none of these options involve slandering people or cutting down other people. If you've got a prejudice against a particular group or people for admittedly trivial and/or irrational reasons and all you want to do is cut them down, then you honestly can stfu; because nothing you want to say or do with that mindset will benefit anyone in any way and you're better off staying silent for everyone's benefit, including your own.

I don't really consider anything of what I said above to be slanderous. If it is, please enlighten me. But by golly 90% of it is politically incorrect. See the problem? Note: I said slanderous, not unpopular.

 

There is a difference. I have a prejudice against people with a wanton disregard for human life. I would hope you would too.

 

I will not close this thread, because I do not give into pressure like that, if the mods feel something I have said here is incorrect then they will. Please stop masterbranding anything against your personal likes as "stupid"

 

But thank you for largely being civil in your post and not resorting to too much Ad Hom, I really appreciate it

 

 

If I could like this ten times over, I would

 

[Halubaris Maphotika]

F*ck this constitution crap and F*ck the first amendment. If you feel taking free speech away is a good idea, then I disagree. I am sick of bringing this argument through the lens of the first amendment. Freedom of Speech should be defined by common sense, not by a document.

 

I should be given the right to insult whoever the f*ck I want without physical repercussions. Verbal? Well that's fair game.

[.Rai]

Jesus Christ, this thread is a disaster without every fourth post being spam. I've done some periodic hiding of spam posts just for clarity of reading. Don't spam from here on out.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Socrates was practically a founder of sarcasm.

Thomas Edison was a known troll who f*cked around with his coworkers all the time.

Galileo was horribly blunt and never cared when he p*ssed off people.

Aristotle was a Grade-A *sshole to everyone around him.

Cicero was commonly associated with his bitter attitude and blunt arguments.

 

See a pattern?

 

Here's the reality. Being nice never really gets things done. Debates in all of history were never places where people were "Civil", they were jungles full of yelling and screaming. Our entire way of thinking was shaped by people who were known to be rude, obnoxious, or just plain jerks. They didn't have time to be nice and didn't have time to be sensitive.

Some of those people are writers/philosophers. I'm a writer. I wouldn't call us people who "get things done". At least to the extent you're implying. Being an jabroni doesn't have anything to do with how successful you are and naming a few big names isn't going to change that.

 

 

2) We're not talking about the 2nd amendment so please stop derailing

I would like to point out that your topic is about Political Correctness in general (hehe General) it's kinda been derailed like several times by you alone so please don't tell people not to derail when the topic is fairly open-ended and you're more guilty of it than them, just doesn't sit well with me.

 

 

But yeah Cat nailed it imo. It feels more about one side wanting to say what they want, and trying to say it's logical. When really rudeness is more often than not an illogical and unhelpful way to go about things.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Some of those people are writers/philosophers. I'm a writer. I wouldn't call us people who "get things done". At least to the extent you're implying. Being an a****** doesn't have anything to do with how successful you are and naming a few big names isn't going to change that.

 

 

I would like to point out that your topic is about Political Correctness in general (hehe General) it's kinda been derailed like several times by you alone so please don't tell people not to derail when the topic is fairly open-ended and you're more guilty of it than them, just doesn't sit well with me.

 

 

But yeah Cat nailed it imo. It feels more about one side wanting to say what they want, and trying to say it's logical. When really rudeness is more often than not an illogical and unhelpful way to go about things.

All of the people I mentioned influenced human thought in some way/shape/form, I call that getting things done.

 

Also, I don't think this debate is going to get anywhere. I personally want to say whatever I want without threat of physical punishment or government interference. That includes being a jerk, because sometimes I can when people are being ridiculous sometimes. That and I don't see a point in sugarcoating anything and my humor is pretty dark.

[VCR_CAT]

I honestly -do not care- if you WANT to be a jerk, because that shouldn't be allowed and there should be consequences for it. I believe that any and all situations can be handled in mature and rational manners that do not require anything hurtful to be slung at someone. Even if you think the person is ridiculous, that doesn't justify being an jabroni to them to me. Show you're a mature human being and take the highroad and let it be; don't be a jerk. Heck, in those situations, being a jerk NEVER makes it better, it hardly ever makes ANYTHING better. I don't care if you want the right to be an jabroni with no real consequence; that's a right nobody deserves. If you're an jabroni, then you take the consequences and you deal with them.

 

And honestly, regarding ISIS specifically, I don't believe that removing religion as a factor would prevent that from happening. Again, correlation vs. causation. It takes many assumptions on what kind of people those are and whether or not they wouldn't find another reason to justify their actions and continue to do what they do. It's not as simple as "Remove factor A and it's all better." 

 

Anyways, speaking of "Slippery slope" (Which, btw, I know the technicality is that you need more premises, but overall it just feels like a lot of this just skipped the middle ones and jumped straight to the extreme conclusion), nobody here's asking for the removal of the first amendment  (that was a big gun to jump, Jack.)

 

Also, I feel I need to say, Freedom of Speech is something much bigger than "Freedom to be a dick". One is valuable for people to voice proper opinions for societal progress (such as Martin Luther King Jr.) and the other benefits absolutely nobody and makes life harder for those involved. Take your pick.

[Goose]

I fully agree you should be free to say whatever you want without government interference or threat of physical violence. That said, you should also not be a funking jabroni.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I honestly -do not care- if you WANT to be a jerk, because that shouldn't be allowed and there should be consequences for it. I believe that any and all situations can be handled in mature and rational manners that do not require anything hurtful to be slung at someone. Even if you think the person is ridiculous, that doesn't justify being an a****** to them to me. Show you're a mature human being and take the highroad and let it be; don't be a jerk. Heck, in those situations, being a jerk NEVER makes it better, it hardly ever makes ANYTHING better. I don't care if you want the right to be an a****** with no real consequence; that's a right nobody deserves. If you're an a******, then you take the consequences and you deal with them.

 

And honestly, regarding ISIS specifically, I don't believe that removing religion as a factor would prevent that from happening. Again, correlation vs. causation. It takes many assumptions on what kind of people those are and whether or not they wouldn't find another reason to justify their actions and continue to do what they do. It's not as simple as "Remove factor A and it's all better." 

 

Anyways, speaking of "Slippery slope" (Which, btw, I know the technicality is that you need more premises, but overall it just feels like a lot of this just skipped the middle ones and jumped straight to the extreme conclusion), nobody here's asking for the removal of the first amendment  (that was a big gun to jump, Jack.)

 

Also, I feel I need to say, Freedom of Speech is something much bigger than "Freedom to be a dick". One is valuable for people to voice proper opinions for societal progress (such as Martin Luther King Jr.) and the other benefits absolutely nobody and makes life harder for those involved. Take your pick.

You misinterpret what I said. I said the thing about the First Amendment because I am sick of us using the justification of Freedom of Speech using the document when I feel we should be talking about it in a general sense. I don't care what the Constitution says about it anymore, I only know my viewpoints on how I feel it should be.

 

The only thing I meant with the ISIS post was that the argument of "They're a minority" was an overused and disproven excuse.

 

Also, I don't care how many people agree with you, because your view of who is being an *sshole and what is rude and obnoxious, is still subjective, and will never not stop being subjective. Nobody is asking for no real consequences, we're asking for no government interference, and no physical repercussions.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I dunno, you compared censorship to Hitler. You tell me.

 

It's telling that you got three likes for this post when Winter hadn't brought Hitler up at all, then you proceeded to play the Hitler card yourself and got likes again from the same people (phil, Lord CowCow, and Lazaruz).  

 

Amazing how prejudice impairs critical thinking. 

 

I honestly -do not care- if you WANT to be a jerk, because that shouldn't be allowed and there should be consequences for it. I believe that any and all situations can be handled in mature and rational manners that do not require anything hurtful to be slung at someone. Even if you think the person is ridiculous, that doesn't justify being an a****** to them to me. Show you're a mature human being and take the highroad and let it be; don't be a jerk. Heck, in those situations, being a jerk NEVER makes it better, it hardly ever makes ANYTHING better. I don't care if you want the right to be an a****** with no real consequence; that's a right nobody deserves. If you're an a******, then you take the consequences and you deal with them.

 

"In fact I care so little I'll write a moralistic curse-laden paragraph about it." 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ, this thread is a disaster without every fourth post being spam. I've done some periodic hiding of spam posts just for clarity of reading. Don't spam from here on out.

 

This thread is actually great. Threads like this are what keep YCM General alive.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It's telling that you got three likes for this post when Winter hadn't brought Hitler up at all, then you proceeded to play the Hitler card yourself and got likes again from the same people (phil, Lord CowCow, and Lazaruz).  

 

Amazing how prejudice impairs critical thinking. 

 

 

"In fact I care so little I'll write a moralistic curse-laden paragraph about it." 

 

 

 

This thread is actually great. Threads like this are what keep YCM General alive.

No not prejudice. Relevance. That's the real difference. Of course, your prejudice is possibly a part of your reaction here but I'm not sure.

 

You seemed to have not understood what he was saying he wasn't caring about. He doesn't care that they want to be a jerk because that reasoning is bad. That's what he's saying. Not that he doesn't care about people being a jerk. Just wanting to get that out of the way quickly.