Intellectualism, PC speech (controversial, school, Ohio, murder)

[Frenchman]

PC speech is as hypocrite as preaching in a church, except preaching is positive for the majority, and PC involves protecting minorities.

So what's the best? Protecting the majority or minorities?

Sorry but in democracies, the majority must rule. It's fundamental.

Like it or not, the tyranny of the majority is more democratic than the tyranny of the minority.

The majority doesn't have to bow down to any minority.

The results of intellectualism are genocides, the destruction of the environment, and a pending nuclear catastrophe!

Not just Playstations and toothpaste.

[Bob The Builder]

Hey Frenchman

Are you equating PC Speech to Intellectualism?

Also, are you defining "minority" along racial lines?

[karfar]

Ok, I'm gonna say it, it needs to be said....your thought process is moronic.

[ogre]

I'm quite concerned about the more obvious result of extreme political correctness, namely, the denial of the right to fully free expression of ideas, but I think you might need to elaborate on what such pseudo-intellectualism (as opposed to genuine intellectualism) has to do with genocide, the destruction of the environment, and a possible nuclear catastrophe. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, just that such assertions need to be backed up with an explanation of how the proponents of political correctness might cause such destruction.

[zoomzoom3]

I'm not so much down with the PC thing, but intellectualism is a good thing.

Would you rather have a populace as depicted in the movie Idiocracy?

[skoro]

Exactly who (outside of public figures) has to be concerned about PC speech? I've never concerned myself over it. I certainly don't make any effort to be PC myself. And it's never caused me any problems.

On the other hand, anyone being intentionally provocative will probably end up getting a reaction from people. Maybe the one they want, maybe something unexpected.

[pshinspections]

Originally Posted by Frenchman

PC speech is as hypocrite as preaching in a church, except preaching is positive for the majority, and PC involves protecting minorities.

So what's the best? Protecting the majority or minorities?

Sorry but in democracies, the majority must rule. It's fundamental.

Like it or not, the tyranny of the majority is more democratic than the tyranny of the minority.

The majority doesn't have to bow down to any minority.

The results of intellectualism are genocides, the destruction of the environment, and a pending nuclear catastrophe!

Not just Playstations and toothpaste.

Of course you're wrong about preaching in churches, but I agree that PC speech is just one way of lying and smiling at the same time.

[macmeal]

PC is like any OTHER "fad". Its ancestor is George Orwell's "newspeak" which played a part in the nightmarish future dystopian novel "1984", written in the 30's. Modern PC began on the 60's, under noble intentions. It 'cleaned up' harsh language, served to 'humanize' certain victim groups, and was generally looked at as the mark of a cultured and thoughtful speaker.

It has now changed into a monstrous system of lies, and IMHO, has actually altered our ability to communicate, by 'neutering' the very language we use in public and in private,]
It was a fine, overdue change to get rid of the "N" word, and perhaps a few others. But today, we've gotten rid of nearly ALL controversial expresions to the point that we can no longer evaluate anything.."it's ALL GOOD", as they say.

When vicious, wife-beating brutes become "men with anger-management and control issues"....when those with a 'taste' for sex with 5 year olds have "problems with their self-image, and their ability for adult bonding".....when suicidal murderous thugs blow themselves, and 30 innocent school children into eternity, and we call them "martyrs"..or "zealots"...or "freedom fighters"....and when NOBODY ARGUES with these 'labels', for fear of 'offending' someone, then yes, I'd say PC has gon from being "chic' and 'spohisticated', to being harmful..harmful to the flow of ideas, and to our ability to separate good from evil.

When is the last time anyone ever heard of a "juvenile delinquent"....or a "primitive person"..or even a "bad person"...or a "useless lifestyle", or a person "living off charity"?...it's been YEARS, right? Does that mean these things no longer EXIST?....no, it simply means that PC has given these "persons" (or 'gentlemen', if you wish), a new 'respectability'......hmmmm

[OhioNative]

Originally Posted by Frenchman

PC speech is as hypocrite as preaching in a church, except preaching is positive for the majority, and PC involves protecting minorities.

So what's the best? Protecting the majority or minorities?

Sorry but in democracies, the majority must rule. It's fundamental.

Like it or not, the tyranny of the majority is more democratic than the tyranny of the minority.

The majority doesn't have to bow down to any minority.

We are not a direct democracy, we are a representative republic. Our system is based on the rule of law, not just the tyranny of the majority.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by OhioNative

We are not a direct democracy, we are a representative republic. Our system is based on the rule of law, not just the tyranny of the majority.

Thanks for pointing this out, it seems a lot of posters kind of missed this critical point in the OP.