Political Correctness

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

VCR Cat's "I dunno, you compared censorship to Hitler. You tell me." is not relevant at all because Winter didn't in fact compare censorship to Hitler. Similarly, nobody here said anything about wanting to be a jerk so any would-be reasoning to that end came from VCR Cat in the first place, which makes it all the more bewildering as to why he's apparently both apathetically and vehemently assailing it simultaneously (which is of course impossible). 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

VCR Cat's "I dunno, you compared censorship to Hitler. You tell me." is not relevant at all because Winter didn't in fact compare censorship to Hitler. Similarly, nobody here said anything about wanting to be a jerk so any would-be reasoning to that end came from VCR Cat in the first place, which makes it all the more bewildering as to why he's apparently both apathetically and vehemently assailing it simultaneously (which is of course impossible). 

I wasn't referring to that part. I liked that because it amused me, since it has happened before and it was relevant to Winter's question towards VCR, The Hitler stuff that VCR talked about was relevant, and the comparisons he did worked. That's why I liked that one.

 

And yes several people said they wanted to be able to say whatever they want, even if it was jabroni-ish...er...jabroni-y. idk. I'm not sure how you missed the main point that was made a few times through this thread. ^^;

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

And yes several people said they wanted to be able to say whatever they want, even if it was a******-ish...er...a******-y. idk. I'm not sure how you missed the main point that was made a few times through this thread. ^^;

 

Well, at least you're acknowledging that you don't know which non-existent word to put in the keystrokes of people who've never typed either. ^^;

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I wasn't referring to that part. I liked that because it amused me, since it has happened before and it was relevant to Winter's question towards VCR, The Hitler stuff that VCR talked about was relevant, and the comparisons he did worked. That's why I liked that one.

 

And yes several people said they wanted to be able to say whatever they want, even if it was a******-ish...er...a******-y. idk. I'm not sure how you missed the main point that was made a few times through this thread. ^^;

Winter and I didn't affirm this opinion until most of the opposing group started saying that was all we truly believed. We then backed down and said we DID believe in that concept, but we did not start it.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Well, at least you're acknowledging that you don't know which non-existent word to put in the keystrokes of people who've never typed either. 

See it's hard to have a discussion with you when half your posts seem to be spam or passive-aggressive insults and sarcasm.

 

Winter and I didn't affirm this opinion until most of the opposing group started saying that was all we truly believed. We then backed down and said we DID believe in that concept, but we did not start it.

So they correctly understood what you felt on the matter and yet it's bad that they said that's how they interpreted how you felt?

[Halubaris Maphotika]

See it's hard to have a discussion with you when half your posts seem to be spam or passive-aggressive insults and sarcasm.

 

So they correctly understood what you felt on the matter and yet it's bad that they said that's how they interpreted how you felt?

No, it wasn't correct to assume that was ALL we believed. That was only a part of it. It isn't bad but it was not our main point by no stretch of the imagination. That was your argument, but me and Winter were not using that one at the top.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

No, it wasn't correct to assume that was ALL we believed. That was only a part of it. It isn't bad but it was not our main point by no stretch of the imagination. That was your argument, but me and Winter were not using that one at the top.

I didn't think anyone was saying it was all you believed, it looked to me they were just saying that was part of it, and explaining why they disagree with that part. Which is generally how discussion goes. If you disagree with something you explain why you disagree with that something.

 

I'm not sure where this topic is going anymore, do we have a discussion point here or is it all said and done by now?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

See it's hard to have a discussion with you when half your posts seem to be spam or passive-aggressive insults and sarcasm.

 

So they correctly understood what you felt on the matter and yet it's bad that they said that's how they interpreted how you felt?

 

 

A number of the adjectives that comprise the abbreviation "spam" are in the eye of the beholder. I've seen "stupid" and "short" used interchangeably for the s, but "stupid" would make it even more redundant and if we're to assume "short", then certainly "short pointless annoying messages" are more merciful than "lpam" as it were. 

 

"Political correctness" has always existed in one form or another and it prompts "political incorrectness", which includes every uprising or rebellion ever, which, if successful, then goes on to either establish or be a part of a new "political correctness". The world keeps turning, we didn't start the fire, etc etc. 

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I didn't think anyone was saying it was all you believed, it looked to me they were just saying that was part of it, and explaining why they disagree with that part. Which is generally how discussion goes. If you disagree with something you explain why you disagree with that something.

 

I'm not sure where this topic is going anymore, do we have a discussion point here or is it all said and done by now?

I don't know why you are trying so hard to kill this topics credibility. The object of the topic has been clearly defined and defended, and all I keep hearing is "Where are we going with this?" or "This is pointless and over." And most of these posts have stated that "Bottom line: it's just so you can be rude without consequences." Which, again, was not our entire argument.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I don't know why you are trying so hard to kill this topics credibility. The object of the topic has been clearly defined and defended, and all I keep hearing is "Where are we going with this?" or "This is pointless and over." And most of these posts have stated that "Bottom line: it's just so you can be rude without consequences." Which, again, was not our entire argument.

I'm not trying to kill it, I am legitimately trying to figure out what the point is right now so I can discuss that.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I'm not trying to kill it, I am legitimately trying to figure out what the point is right now so I can discuss that.

Then I apologize because that is the vibe I am getting. I am guessing I was one of the few people who understood everything in this discussion.

[Dad]

What'd we have boys?

 

"Don't be a dick.  No one deserves that."

 

"You can be a dick, it's your right.  But you get what you ask for."  That one I could be misinterpreting.  Idk.  Either way, I'm indifferent.  You're rude to me, I'll be kind up until a point.  Generally I treat people kindly until they start attacking me.  Other than that, I don't give a sheet.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

See it's hard to have a discussion with you when half your posts seem to be spam or passive-aggressive insults and sarcasm.

 

So they correctly understood what you felt on the matter and yet it's bad that they said that's how they interpreted how you felt?

 

No, they did not correctly understand me, that IS the problem. My initial point was not at all about Hitler and more about dictators that would political dissenters silenced. AND AGAIN. I note. Goose had a point, that was too extreme of a comparison. Something closer to the Kremlin's current control over the media and stifling of much of Anti-Putin rhetoric would be a more apt comparison. I apologized before for that comparison, and I apologize and disavow it again.

 

May I ask you how what you're doing it any better than what you're accusing Polaris of? It seems like a fair bit of Pot accused Kettle. Black.

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.

Derailments?  Ok I will partially concede that you you, my explanation about religion could have been a lot shorter and sweeter to the point. And it didn't need to have the whole objectivity vs subjectivity debate with Tom. But the difference here was, the religion point circled back into the original debate, abate slower than ideal, gun control really hasn't circled around to anything but lets make a strawman distraction to try (poorly) to weaken winter's point.

 

 

Cat nailed what? Slander? Because his original post was a gross adulteration comparison with little to do with the FoS. His second was by the books, a definition of libel:

 

"a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation"

 

And his third was largely a firebrand retort with it's only merit being the number of likes is somehow garnered.

 

Speaking of which, let's dig right into the feline reply:

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.

How ironic is it that the call to respond civilly is primarily littered with uses of profanity? Fascinating. Never put a cat against a wall I guess.

 

I'm not sure how the idea got started that I think it's OK to be an jabroni to someone without any reproach. I'm more concerned about the non-exist boundary associated with the definition of political correctness (a point you did not address)

 

Take the highroad? You do realize how easy that is to say. When I have a primordial fear of death for me (me generally here) or the death of those I love, there is no high road I can take to not express my feeling,

 

When a movement I have been fighting with, and which I thought shared my desire for the equality of love, turns around and publicly shames many of their own using political correctness, I think there is a problem. 

 

Society will be it's own reproach. You should be allowed to say anything that does present a clear and present danger or is falsehood (L&S). If those are deemed unacceptable to society, society will force you out. 

 

And another point which you did not address, the belittlement of the KKK, PC would have aggressively gone after them and given them the ability to play victim, time puts a more permanent nail in their coffin and does not allow them to counter attack. Which is why I am say, our nation was built on free speech, and that free-speech is subject to natural selection. Let it takes its course.

 

Political Correctness is the Eugenics of human conversation, only it's idea of correct is the definition of variable.

 

What is Daesh's primary platform now? Living life of true Islam. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-defector-speaks-on-why-he-left-militant-group-after-six-months-fighting-in-syria-10038206.html

 

 

“A lot of people when they come, they have a lot of enthusiasm about what they've seen online or what they've seen on YouTube,” Mr Ibrahim said. “They see it as something that’s a lot grander than what the reality is.”

 

He admitted Isis’ brutal so-called justice system was “harsh” but views it as a faithful interpretation of Sharia law.

 

Daesh's primary allure as seen is their claims to living true Islam. When people realize the monstrosity hidden underneath that fat-suit, what do they do? Leave. Strip Daesh of that cover. It's not Correlation vs Causation. I'm not saying Islam correlate or causes Daesh, I'm saying much like with Hitler and Eugenics, it's a method they can hid against (another point you did not address). What this is, is fact vs opinion. It is a proven fact that showing Daesh for more than than the religion it is, gets people to leave it. It is an opinion that removing Religion will not cripple Daesh. Will they live? For a short time yes, but as a band of killers not as religious saviors.

 

The definition of Political Correctness calls for the removal of the First Amendment because there is LITERALLY NO BOUNDARIES. Hence my 1 person minority argument which you did not address again.

 

And FoS allows you to state that. The Freedom to be a "Dick" as you put it, is largely people's right to be honest to themselves. If it society deemed unpopular it will be purged out in time. Further more this attempt to define what FoS is, largely will be used to stifle debate in politics. Proof?

 

Take the House Republicans vs Trump. Tump did not call for the extermination of American Muslims, or anything at all with American Muslims, bur rather the cessation of immigration of refugee Muslims until there was a firm plan in place. House belittled him and drew up connections to Hitler using their definition of what political correctness is why is this Ironic? Was it a month ago that they passed a bill to make the refugee process so slow it was basically zero? PC is just the latest weapon of politicians to derail their opponents. Nothing more.

 

But what is there to choose? Did MLK run on the platform to silence the KKK or did he prove the mettle of the segregated Blacks through his strength and actions. Do not compare the PC movement to anything MLK did, you bring shame to everything that man fought for and belittle his great sacrifices. 

 

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 f***ing a******.

The problem is the definition of "as.shole" is so easy to twist around to each individual's personal tastes.

 

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.

May I ask what Relevance libel and exaggeration has to a discussion that was primarily about objectivity and facts? I'm missing something here.

 

I wasn't referring to that part. I liked that because it amused me, since it has happened before and it was relevant to Winter's question towards VCR, The Hitler stuff that VCR talked about was relevant, and the comparisons he did worked. That's why I liked that one.

 

And yes several people said they wanted to be able to say whatever they want, even if it was a******-ish...er...a******-y. idk. I'm not sure how you missed the main point that was made a few times through this thread. ^^;

So libel amuses you? Sounds like Prejudice. What question? "Did you just really compare the freedom of speech to the right to murder?" that was the first question I directed at VCR, and one that was notably after his attempt at libel. How did the comparison work, like I'm fairly certain at this point that you didn't even bother to read my reply to VCR before going keyboard on Polaris. If it work, and I am wrong on that suspicion, please explain in non-abstract terms and cut out the vague superlatives please.

 

And yes, that is within their right, are they correct for it? Maybe not depending on the standard of "jabroni" used in the situation and the content of their speech. If we were never allowed to say anything that might offend someone, then speech would largely not exist, and this nation would definitely not have risen to were it is now.