Teaching people how not to be offended is a much better path for us, change my mind.
"Offended" and "PC" are just terms that have replaced the basic notion of dealing with other people for centuries (millenia?) - respecting others.
Having said that, and having gone through years of trying to be non-offensive I have decided that being PC or non-offensive is mentally impossible.
Heh... arguments like this always make me chuckle. Respecting other people is not a simple one-liner than can be applied to all people and all situations.
Different people, and different situations, deserve different levels of respect. We all make the decisions we want about how much we should be respecting others.
If you want to respect another person - you should make attempts to learn what they might find offensive and try to avoid such things. If you don't want to respect another person - who cares? No need to be politically correct.
Of course, if you go around never respecting anyone you communicate with - don't be surprised if the people you communicate with think you're an asshole. It's quite arrogant and off-putting to run around talking about what you want to talk about all the time without ever respecting anyone else's time or priorities.
I think that all people are equal, and on that level - all people deserve a certain level of respect. All people deserve a certain level of my attempts to "not offend them." Whether it's me being PC or being polite or shutting my mouth.
Certain people deserve higher levels. Others deserve less.
We all make our decisions and we should all continue to do so - if we want to live in a respectful society.
I think we would be better well served as a society to teach people how "not to be offended"
I think we would be better well served as a society to teach people how to be respectful.
I agree that there are certain topcis that when someone gets offended - who cares? They don't deserve such respect on such a topic - so screw being PC for them. Such things perhaps need to be discussed and brought-to-light.
Of course, there are also certain topics that many people think they should be able to talk about all the time when they're just making a fool of themselves. Such people would do much better off just being quiet instead of confirming how much of an asshole they are to others.
And, of course, the question of the day is: Which topics are which?
The thing is - it's different for everyone. We all get to figure out who we want to spend time trying to figure such things out for - who we want to be respectful towards.
Some people can be respectful to too many. Some people can be respectful to more people than others and it's not much effort for them - empathy comes naturally and easily. Some people can hardly be respectful of anyone - and such people are rightly labelled as "assholes" by most others.
We all decide how respectful we will attempt to be to other people. And all other people get to decide how much of "an asshole" resides in each of us.
I don't have a problem with the system. It's been the same system for centuries - just under different names. I think the "present day situation" of the system hasn't changed at all from any previous time, and works just fine.
Respect for others needed no new form, certainly not the tyrannical oppressive form of PC. And that is what it is. It comes out of Cultural Marxism's Victim Politics or Identity Politics, and it is a tool for destroying personal freedoms, controlling people Soviet style -- just as the Russian comedian says in the video clip in the OP -- enforcing conformity.
Is this in another part of the world? I'm not huge on world news, I'm mostly in North America. Or are you saying this is happening in North America? I haven't seen it. Not in the news or in life.
If you'd like to look at specifics, perhaps you can provide an example we can discuss?
It is astonishing to me how all of us on the Right experience this a hundred times a day but those on the Left don't know it exists. This political/philosophical chasm is beyond anything that could be illustrated with an example or two.
1. I'm not on the Left. Nor am I on the Right. Especially as you view them. I don't even think they really exist the way you seem to view them.
2. I'm not saying you are limited to one and only one example. I'm saying pick your best example - the one that shows your idea so well that anyone who looks at it honestly must see exactly what you see. I will assume that you have thousands.. millions more examples and data. But we just don't have the time, so it's easiest to only go through one. Might as well be your best one.
3. If you cannot formulate a single, obvious example - perhaps it's because your view of there being "so much" of it is a little different from what actually exists in reality.
Any example would be fine, whatever you think is best. Just describe the situation. And label who you think is being offensive and who's being offended and how it's being tyrannically oppressive one way or the other.
Trump wants to build a wall on our southern border.
And his supporters are beaten up in the streets for wearing a MAGA hat, and while attending right wing events, as racists and xenophobes for simply being his supporters.
This thread is about doing things because they are PC or not.
Are they beaten up because they are PC or not? Or are they beaten up for "simply being his supporters?"
I agree that beating up people for any reason is wrong. But I asked you for a PC example, and I think you got confused and just grabbed any example that has any notion of PC connected to it in anyway.
And of course there's the case of Christian businesses being asked to provide special services for a gay wedding, which Christians cannot do because gay marriage is a violation of God's law. When they say, extremely politely, that they cannot do that but the customer is welcome to anything else they provide, they get sued as homophobes and violators of civil rights, fined huge fines or driven completely out of business.
This is much closer.
I don't see an issue here.
First - who was ever sued as a homophobe? Is that even against the law?
They were, and rightly so, sued for violating civil rights. The times when the Christian business was doing what you described here - they won in court as they were not violating civil rights. The times when the Christian business was doing worse than you described here - discriminating - they lost in court as they were violating civil rights.
Seems to be the law working as it should - treating everyone equally as it should be. If you're trying to say that Christians should be exempt from being sued for violating civil rights - that seems incredibly unreasonable.
Where's the tyranny? Are all Christians out of business or something and I didn't notice? I get the feeling you're greatly exaggerating things.
The point was that merely wanting a wall along our southern border got Trump and his supporters called PC names like racist and xenophobic...
Oh my dear Lord. Not being called names!!
Whatever shall we do???
Are you seriously attempting to call this a "tyrannical PC problem?"
...plus the punishment of being beaten up.
Again, you said they were beaten up for "simply being Trump's supporters."
Were the attackers yelling out "this is for not being PC!!" while beating their victims? Or, perhaps, was the attack carried out for other reasons and some PC terms were randomly additionally tossed around here and there?
I think it's highly likely the second is closer to the truth. People have been beating others over political issues for as long as politics has existed. It's always wrong. And I've never heard of it being done according to some tyrannical PC stance.
Not being willing to make a cake to celebrate a gay wedding implies the PC epithet homophobic...
It's possible, yes. If it fits, then it's correct. If it doesn't fit, then it's wrong.
I hardly see any tyranny here either, though.
...plus the punishment of a fine or being forced out of business.
Again, this part is just the law doing the law.
If they violated civil liberties then they should be fined or forced out of business. If they did not, then they shouldn't be.
And the law seems to be figuring itself out fairly well along those lines.
I didn't say that PC didn't exist. I said that it's no different from the idea of "treating others with respect" that's existed as long as "others" have existed.
No one has made an attempt to change my mind really. Oh well.
Why are you even expecting such a thing?
Your stance seems to be "we should teach people how not to be offended."
That seems like a very reasonable idea that's already been going on in basic education everywhere for as long as I can remember. Why would anyone want to change it?
Have you never heard?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me."
It was true ages ago when the saying was created and it's still true today. Of course, like any one-liner, it's only useful in certain situations when the context applies.
There are always times when we should be taught not to be offended. And other times when we should be taught to stand up for what's right.
No one should go around always "not being offended." There are situations where people should be offended. Like when police shoot and kill too eagerly.
No one should go around always "being offended." There are situations where people should not be offended. Like when Muslims pray towards Mecca. (I think? I'm not very well versed in Muslim traditions.)
Always doing one or the other is bad for anyone because different situations occur every day. Different tactics will apply to different situations.
We all need to judge for ourselves when we should be doing either. And we all get to judge everyone else for being "correct" or "too offended" or "not offended enough."
My personal line for when to be offended is linked with hurting other people.
Does your statement or action hurt others? If so - then I take offense according to how much hurt you're causing.
Does your statement or action describe something or only provide information? If so - then I do not take offense.
And, of course, every individual has their own definition of "hurting others" vs. "providing information." And we all get to judge who's reasonable vs. who's loony.
It's the same respect system for dealing with other people that's always existed. And it still works just fine.
You're basically running around the forum calling out "I think we should teach personal responsibility! Why is no one able to change my mind??!!"
Edited by Stile, : Clarifying for... wait for it... ... clarity.
God's love isn't a fuzzy warm blanket, it's an amazing transforming power. It's not wimp stuff, it's reality. Your church/theology trivializes God, trivializes God's love, trivializes sin and our great need of salvation, and trivializes the amazing glories that He is offering us. Selling our souls for a mess of psychobabble.
Just FYI - herebedragon's description of God's love seems a lot more powerful than the one you propose.
Anyone who has to go on-and-on-and-on about the "power" of their God is the one that sounds wimpy. Like a young lad whining about how his Dad can beat up your Dad. It impresses no one, and everyone sees right through it. If it's so powerful - why do you have to say so? Why not let it speak for itself like the power of love?
That "fuzzy blanket" you seem to think is wimpy? No one else sees love like that. Everyone else knows the power that is contained in love over the wimpiness of "glories." The power of love is proven to everyone in their everyday life. Every time a firefighter saves another. Every time a child is born. Every time families come together and promote community. That's the power of love. Call it wimpy all you like - everyone knows it's stronger than anything anyone else has ever attempted to describe. And of course it's biggest strength - it's real.
What are you talking about? Of course it applies to everyone.
Again, if you think Trump getting called a few names is "tyranny" by all means let's see your example. Without an example that makes any sense... your bluster falls flat.
In Europe you can be arrested for that, and there are people here who want the same. Do you even think before you type?
Of course there are people here who want the same. There are people who who want textbooks to say the world is flat.
The natural result of having free speech is that (with a large enough population) you will have some people who want/say pretty much anything.
Why are you trying to stifle it? Are you offended? Maybe you should teach yourself not to be offended so easily...
The point isn't that "there are people here who want the same." Who cares about a few loons? The point is that "there is no progress here being made in that direction." And if you think there is, well, again... without you showing an actual example with some meat on it... your bluster falls flat.
But we aren't teaching that anymore. That's the point.
This is taught in every school, every family, every location I know. Throughout Canada and the US.
Where is it not being taught? Show your work. Give an example. Don't you have anything to back up your claims? Or are you just attempting to fear-monger because you know you don't actually have any substance to discuss?
His point is that the political correctness crowd is making it a crime, to be blunt and bigoted.
... attempting to legislate morality and create a leader that fills these expectations. Or something like that.
Yes, I agree this is the idea he's attempting to convey.
My response is, in the words of the Mighty Thor: "Is it, though?"
Is legislation being introduced? If so, is it restricted into reasonable, specific areas or is it a wide ridiculous arc?
Hence my questioning for an example.
Let's see the meat behind this. Is there anything real to worried about? Or is riVeRraT himself simply being offended by a few loony comments and he just needs to learn to toughen up and deal with such minor inconveniences like everyone else does?
You and I don't care (much) about the flat-earthers attempting to re-write text-books, right?
It's not because they don't exist. They certainly do. It's because we understand their attempts are fruitless... they are simply too wrong in order to make any progress through a reasonable system.
Is this claim about PC-legislation on the same level of flat-earther attempts? Or is it something more serious?
We can't further this discussion unless riVeRraT provides something more than his claims. It's 150 posts in and he's provided nothing so far. Is this because he has nothing? Or is this just because he's busy or hadn't had time yet, or doesn't understand that others can't read his mind and need him to explain himself instead of expecting everyone to agree with his "so obvious facts?"
The problem if you call people names (with no factual foundation) and expect not to be called names, you are a hypocrit.
And I think it's pretty clear everyone agrees with you about this. What's the problem?
It's not just a few loons. It is a narrative pushed by the main stream media. If you have been watching the news, lots of people have lost their jobs over things they said.
Any example we can look at to see if it has factual foundation or not?
All of Trump supporters are hated over things Trump said (and subsequently taken out of context).
Any example we can look at to see if it has factual foundation or not?
For God's sake people are getting their heads smashed in.
Any example we can look at to see if it has factual foundation or not?
Are you being willfully ignorant on this subject?
On the contrary. I've been begging you to provide information so I can learn.
You seem more inclined to make broad claims than to actually talk about any issue.
If it's so much it's just overwhelming for you... just pick one. Whichever one you think is biggest or the worst or "shows what riVeRraT is trying to talk about in regards to people needing to not-be-offended over PC language" the most.
The only legislation I'm aware of is the "legislation" forced on us not by the legislating body but by the Supreme Court that extended marriage to gays. And that has had the repercussion of persecuting Christians asked to provide services for a gay wedding and refuse to do so.
A valid point.
Of course, the rebuttal is that "treating all people equally" is of greater value than "allowing Christians to treat some people as less-than-equal."
Here, I fully support any and all PC forcing or legislature or whatever else anyone would like to call it. It seems like the right thing to do.
I would still denounce any violence (tyrannical or not) towards Christians (or anyone else) over such ideas.
But beyond legislation there is social persecution too. Tucker Carlson's talk show has been dropped by many advertisers because he said that illegal aliens are making the country "poorer and dirtier."
I don't see an issue with such things. Are you saying that private businesses should be strictly controlled on where they can and cannot advertise? Who would control such a thing? What would the strict rules be?
Advertising is not selling a product... it's advertising to sell a product. It seems to me that any business should be allowed to not advertise their product anywhere they wish.
If you do not agree with the businesses that dropped Tucker Carlson's talk show - feel free to boycot them. If you make an impact, they will change their advertising preferences. If you don't, well... they probably won't do anything.
It's very real to conservatives and Christians...
I'm not seeing anything to be concerned about, yet.
Feel free to lable me and lump me in with "the Left" if you prefer. It would be wrong. But I won't be offended.
So much for freedom of speech, so much for the American Constitution, so much for the free society. It's the truth that suffers too in this zeal to call everything racist. Do go listen to that video in the OP. That Russian guy knows what oppression is. We're getting there and your comment is evidence. Right, Tucker Carlson must be punished for saying something absolutely true that is NOT racist because of the Thought Police. This evil is going to bring down the whole nation.
What would you do otherwise?
Force advertisers to remain in support of something they don't support? How does that add up to a free society?
Force everyone to give Tucker Carlson money to make up for the lost advertising revenue? How is that not against the American Constitution?
This evil is going to bring down the whole nation.
Is it evil to stop advertising somewhere you don't think you should be advertising? Or is it evil to force people to provide money somewhere they don't want to?
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE IDEOLOGY THAT HAS THEM IN THRALL ALONG WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.
The ideology that all people should be treated with respect?
IT'S INSANE AND IT'S EVIL AND IT'S DESTROYING ALL FREEDOMS AND EVERYTHING GOOD IN THIS WORLD.
That doesn't seem right. I would suspect that treating all people with respect would actually be a good thing for the world - which we actually see in the growth and prosperity the world has enjoyed as we've started treating all people with respect.
Again, if you're talking about another idea, please specify it.
Why do you and riVeRraT keep speaking so generally and broad that no one can understand what you're talking about?
I'm starting to think it's because you don't even know what you're talking about. You seem to be just frantically reacting to some feeling in your head instead of an actual aspect of reality.
It may be time to take a step back and do some personal reflection. Just think about the things you're saying and the things we're saying. Not the ideas you think we're trying to convey... the actual words. See where those words lead. Perhaps you're confused over the idea we're actually trying to convey. Perhaps you're confused over the issue you're actually frantic about.
Personal reflection over such things really helps in clearing up an idea. I highly recommend taking a few moments to sit down and go over it. Hope things calm down in the future, good luck.