Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, I do not disagree entirely. Where I do disagree is during the part of the conversation where Chaz says "that's Mr. Bono, not Ms. Bono" and the person speaking to Chaz says "Sure... MIZZZ Bono.'
That's just a jerk move. Call people whatever they ask to be called and keep on trucking. If someone named Amy wants me to call them Armadillo? I'll do it.
Whatever they like. It's the same with nicknames. I know people who hate being called a shortened version of their name. I know people who love it.
I tend to assign my friends nicknames. But, if one tells me they don't like being called Meg instead of Megan, I will call that person Megan.
Political correctness is a form of extra-legal speech control, as non-politically correct speech is punished with social and other such consequences (ie: workplace).
Controls on speech have always been a tool of autocrats and otherwise oppressive societies. It is axiomatic that leaving the door open for speech control, legal or de facto as is the case with PC, is a bad idea that is inviting the type of governments and societies that the very concept of the USA was founded to end.
When it comes to Free Speech, the concept was meant to be absolute in order to be functional. Any give on the matter is an obvious slippery slope.
I do believe that one day PC will be reverted, by law, and all punitive consequences for Free Speech will be illegal: short of any speech that is incitement to harm and any type of harassment in the workplace.
That tends to be where I think most of the more vocal opponents of it stand, yes.
I do think that for some people, it has more to do with not wanting to feel anxious over what they say or feeling like they have to be really careful with their terminology because someone might become upset and create a scene or what have you. I don't assign ill intent to all of them.
That's may be true in some instances. Some may want to use words they are familiar with without someone looking at them like they are out of their minds.
For example, many people grew up calling others "Retards" without a thought to how hurtful it was. Call someone that now, and you could well get an explanation of how hurtful this term is, depending on the crowd.
I don't think anyone is going to create a scene over using the term stewardess instead of flight attendant, but call someone a pejorative term for homosexual and you will be lucky if all you get is the side eye.
Some believe they have a right to use the phrase "illegal aliens" instead of "undocumented immigrant" and are quite righteous about it. So be it.
But anyone saying fireman instead of fire fighter or mailman instead of mail carrier is unlikely to get a lecture.
Unless, of course, it's your kids. Then all bets are off.
One of the main reasons Trump is so popular is that he gives a big middle finger to political correctness. He intentionally spites demographics who aren't his base, be it racial minorities, LGBT, non-Christians, educated people, urban elites, etc. People love that and that is why no matter what Trump does, he continues to remain popular and his support shows no signs of eroding. It comes down to tribalism and Trump is really sticking it to the people that red state America have long considered "deplorable" and they love it. So the question is, why does political correctness bother people so bad? What is so bad about being empathetic to people who may be different from the norm?
I thought I was gong to play. turns out I cant because you premise is a lie
You said Trump is popular because he intentionally spites "demographics who aren't his base....
Donald Trump has NOT in any way denigrated racial minorities.
He has championed LGBT people more than any other republican ever. MR. Trump actually had an openly gay man speak at the Republican Party National Convention. He stated clearly as a candidate and as president that he supported SCOTUS ruling that allows gay marrage. YOU are lying when you say Trump has been spiteful toward these people.
It is a lie that he has been spiteful to non-Christians. He has defended Christians who have been under vicious attack by the left. Defending something is not attacking something else. He has been very strong in standing up to ISLAMISTS and insuring those people coming here from nations where a large portion of their population is islamist in nature aren't... ISLAMISTs. That is not being spiteful to Muslims.
The only people being spiteful are those of YOU on the left that call us "a basket of deplorables" because we refuse to accept your version of politics.
There is nothing bad about being empathetic to people who may be different. There is a vast problem with what the death dealing LEFT does when it seeks to destroy any voice that doesn't PARROT your stupid political fascism.
That tends to be where I think most of the more vocal opponents of it stand, yes.
I do think that for some people, it has more to do with not wanting to feel anxious over what they say or feeling like they have to be really careful with their terminology because someone might become upset and create a scene or what have you. I don't assign ill intent to all of them.
If you want to learn something, you'll stop trading "yeah I think so too" validations with people who already share your world view and will actually listen to what other people are telling you. Stop reading into it the message that you want to believe. Listen!
You're dead wrong that it's an issue of people feeling anxious over receiving an upset response from someone. I don't care a whit about an offended response from some hyper-sensitive person. Politeness is important but there are common sense limits to that. There are a lot of thin skinned easily damaged little flowers out there and I and many others on this side of the issue don't have time for the damage they might incur from hearing newly re-engineered words used in a way that isn't intended to hurt or insult. Get past that bogus idea.
What we object to is not the words, it's the bigger picture of what you're engaged in. You PC-ites are fundamentally NOT socially supportive of free expression and the scary part is that you don't see it. You've lost touch with the fundamental American value expressed by the quote - "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You guys don't feel that way anymore and you don't walk that walk anymore. Liberals routinely try to stifle topics of conversation that their rigid ideology says should be off the table and they do it under the guise that it's offensive or hateful or fill-in-the-blank insult. The left wing has become so Orwellian in this regard. Revising language, modifying the lexicon to exclude certain phrases and topics. The orthodoxy of thinking enforced by the linguistic and social restraints of political correctness ... this is thought control plain and simple. We see this as clear as day and you are either blind to it or you're being dishonest about it. I don't know which one is scarier. You're making the world a worse place under the guise of making it kinder and gentler.
I
Remind me again... what did Trump call human beings this morning? Oh, yeah... ANIMALS.
.
so Red,
what would you call a Vicious , dangerous, violent, animal like gang...like MS13
that is whom Trump called animals....and they are
these animals (yes I certainly will call them that) rape, pillage, torture, murder, human traffic, deal drugs..... they even skin people(humans) alive... that is VERY animalistic
I see nothing wrong with Trump...or even Obama calling an evil, vicious , dangerous, violent, animal like gang...like MS13..... animals
"Oriental" is not a country. "America" is a country.
Most people now prefer Latino/Latina/Latinx instead of Hispanic, though some do not care. Much like I'm sure some Asian people do not care re: Oriental.
Why's it so painful to call people what they prefer to be called?
I doubt if you were referring to something and said "Oriental" in everyday conversation, you'd be skewered for it. Corrected, maybe. In which case, a gracious person might say "oh, I was unaware of this, I'll use Asian in the future."
Then? You use "Asian" in the future.
See? That's not even hard to do.
European is not a country either. It is in reference to a continent and those that hail from it.
Here is what you said-
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Oriental, when referring to a person, is actually quite rude. It refers to objects and locations, not to living beings.
My comment to you was in direct response to your nonsensical attempt to define Oriental as something different than other similar names. My comment had nothing to do with what people would like to be called or how I would respond to such a request, so stop it with the "why is it so painful" BS. No one says it is painful to call someone how they request to be called. You are creating more of a situation than actually exists which is part of the reason people are tired of political correctness. You have been told umpteen times in this thread that it is not about being nice or being mean. It is about people dictating someone else's speech.
I also provided an article written by an ASIAN that chided Obama's attempt to dictate speech.
As you asked earlier, you do realize that not everyone thinks like you?
That's may be true in some instances. Some may want to use words they are familiar with without someone looking at them like they are out of their minds.
For example, many people grew up calling others "Retards" without a thought to how hurtful it was. Call someone that now, and you could well get an explanation of how hurtful this term is, depending on the crowd.
I don't think anyone is going to create a scene over using the term stewardess instead of flight attendant, but call someone a pejorative term for homosexual and you will be lucky if all you get is the side eye.
Some believe they have a right to use the phrase "illegal aliens" instead of "undocumented immigrant" and are quite righteous about it. So be it.
But anyone saying fireman instead of fire fighter or mailman instead of mail carrier is unlikely to get a lecture.
Unless, of course, it's your kids. Then all bets are off.
Do you truly believe there is an equivalency here?
Would the students at Liberty University riot and burn things as the students at Berkeley did?
I will preface this by saying I dont know anything about Liberty University, but somehow, I dont think they would. I think they would likely just not show up. That would be the normal thing to do.
As a general statement, I dont think conservatives fear speech as much as liberals do.
I think that there would not even be an option for a very liberal speaker to speak at Liberty, really.
And, if there was, you might get some peaceful protests, but there are probably tighter student conduct rules there than at Berkeley.
That said, I do believe that Berkeley went on record as saying that the window-breaking protesters were not students at Berkeley, so maybe the students there also elected to just not attend or to protest peacefully, but outsiders had other plans?
I don't think liberals fear speech any more than conservatives fear speech. I just think liberals are more prone to activism and protest.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
