Is society 'too' politically correct?

[Quasar]

I made a similar topic on the BK forums and I want to know everyone's opinions.

 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Quasar

[Captain_Vietnam]

you mean they say we cant do stuff as racist???

 

 

of course it is liberalism is a virus

[Spite]

Your options are biased. Because the question is "is society too politically correct"

 

Politically correct is itself a negative term used for non-discrimination, and the question is already loaded in favour of "yes". So your options are:

 

1. Yes it is too politically correct (but this is good) - this makes no sense

2. Yes it is and it's going to get worse - scaremongering

3. No and it never can be - again loaded, because by ticking this box you basically give carte blanche for anything

 

In essence, your question is loaded and the only option which is even logically consistent is option 2.

[Fox Fire]

I don't really give a !@#$. People have opinions. Let them.

[Quasar]

Your options are biased. Because the question is "is society too politically correct"

 

Politically correct is itself a negative term used for non-discrimination, and the question is already loaded in favour of "yes". So your options are:

 

1. Yes it is too politically correct (but this is good) - this makes no sense

2. Yes it is and it's going to get worse - scaremongering

3. No and it never can be - again loaded, because by ticking this box you basically give carte blanche for anything

 

In essence, your question is loaded and the only option which is even logically consistent is option 2.

I modified it to make it less biased (it will still be biased though) that's not what I was intending in the original poll. Sorry for that.

The question will still be biased.

[The Governor]

Yes, society is too PC. Unfortunately around 40% of Millennials are in favor of censorship and actually want to ban "Offensive Speech."

Edited December 1, 2015 by The Governor

[Buorhann]

Muh feelings.

[Doktor Avalanche]

When we created Safe Zones is when society fell to utter shit. Other factors like PC talkese came into play which led to the creation of Safe Zones and the whole concept that we need to be coddled from reality is ridiculous.

[Solomon]

I made a similar topic on the BK forums and I want to know everyone's opinions.

 

When you look at the details of PC, you can see things that are ridiculous and things that make good sense. That's true of most social movements.

 

What I find fascinating is how the topic fascinates people.

[Doktor Avalanche]

When you look at the details of PC, you can see things that are ridiculous and things that make good sense.

Could you specify on what makes sense in the PC movement?

[Fox Fire]

Yes, society is too PC. Unfortunately around 40% of Millennials are in favor of censorship and actually want to ban "Offensive Speech."

According to something you read on the internet, I assume?

[Saruman]

!@#$ you I'm a dragon and this is triggering.

Shut the hell up John...Just...Just shut it

Edited December 2, 2015 by Saruman

[Saruman]

Anywho, in all seriousness, political correctness is not a matter of speaking your opinion, it is really a matter of common manners. Especially people like Donald Trump clearly don't understand what political correctness is. They claim that saluting the troops or saying God Bless America is politically incorrect. This is not even close to the real definition. The real problem is when Trump and other Trump-like idiots just go into interviews in front of audiences that include young children, and then cuss up a storm. I mean come on, Republicans claim to be the dignified party. We don't need to be teaching young kids how to swear. Although, one issue that is being discussed is made up of mainly politically incorrect statements. This issue is the issue of creating a national registry for Muslims. To be frank, this issue is just the dumbest/scariest issue brought up in a long time. It's like Hitler and the Jews. 

[Comic Sans]

Speech should never be restricted, but infringing upon the rights of others with it should. John Stuart Mill essentially promoted this in the 19th century, but it seems people like going to extremes sometimes and the point becomes lost.

 

Why should it be unrestricted? Inherently, there is absolutely no reason for it to be besides basic human empathy, which is in itself also absurd when taken beyond the necessities of survival.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Comic Sans

[Fox Fire]

Speech should never be restricted, but infringing upon the rights of others with it should. John Stuart Mill essentially promoted this in the 19th century, but it seems people like going to extremes sometimes and the point becomes lost.

 

Why should it be unrestricted? Inherently, there is absolutely no reason for it to be besides basic human empathy, which is in itself also absurd when taken beyond the necessities of survival.

And I would argue that people will do whatever they want regardless of what anyone anywhere thinks. Of course, this leads to the line of thinking; "killing is banned, but people will still kill".

To which I respond: "Exactly. However, it's not murder so long as the government says it's OK".

Ex: Warfare.

 

So in the end, this is 100% subjective. 

 

We will continue to kill each other over ideas. That will never change regardless of how much anyone anywhere ever complains about it. 

 

"War... War never changes".

Edited December 2, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Comic Sans]

[...]

"War... War never changes".

 

Yes! Many people will take a very Cartesian or Socratic view of controversies and assume that any set of two differing views will have a rational, dialectic solution. However, it can usually be seen that, by what I would only call "hardheadedness", people with views onto which they hold adamantly will not want to find a solution. Perhaps it's simply neurological that the view an individual is most "used to" will be the one he will subscribe to, with rationality only going so far.

 

That goes without mentioning that beyond relativism, linguistics is a useful tool to give the impression of a single opinion being more widespread. Things aren't relative, things are narrative. It's all the same BS story, it simply changes depending on the context and whom you're speaking to.

 

For some, killing is defense, or madness, or a duty. For others it is a crime. In all cases, a human being is murdered, but with a different spin on it every time.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Comic Sans

[Fox Fire]

Yes! Many people will take a very Cartesian or Socratic view of controversies and assume that any set of two differing views will have a rational, dialectic solution. However, it can usually be seen that, by what I would only call "hardheadedness", people with views onto which they hold adamantly will not want to find a solution. Perhaps it's simply neurological that the view an individual is most "used to" will be the one he will subscribe to, with rationality only going so far.

 

That goes without mentioning that beyond relativism, linguistics is a useful tool to give the impression of a single opinion being more widespread. Things aren't relative, things are narrative. It's all the same BS story, it simply changes depending on the context and whom you're speaking to.

 

For some, killing is defense, or madness, or a duty. For others it is a crime. In all cases, a human being is murdered, but with a different spin on it every time.

All things are relative. Our own ego is the only thing differing perceptions. 

(Also, murder and killing are two entirely different things). 

[Comic Sans]

All things are relative. Our own ego is the only thing differing perceptions. 

(Also, murder and killing are two entirely different things). 

 

Essentially, yes, all things are relative, but there are factual things in existence. However, from a purely material perspective, past traumas and deterministic factors that make people more affine to a certain thing rather than another create a sort of "narrative" depending on the context in which information is given to the listener. For example, if you look at neurological literature, (Link) it is possible to convince an individual of an event they know to be false under the right social and psychological pressures adapted to the person.

 

The narrative makes an individual generate a context that may or may not be true. Some means of information are more trustworthy, but there is always an uncertainty, like in measurements, and that is only augmented by the right rhetoric.

 

I maybe be mixing two distinct concepts, but I feel both are rather closely tied.

 

Also, you're right, murder was not the word I was intending. "Killed at the hands of another human" is more just, because murder connotes intent.

 

Edit: when I said "Yes!" up there, I was agreeing with you, in case it didn't seem so.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Comic Sans

[The Governor]

According to something you read on the internet, I assume?

Yes actually: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

 

I would also like to say that I find it hilarious that people use that "Oh, you just read that on the internet so it doesn't count" argument when it's something you don't agree with. But when it comes to something that benefits your personal point of views or bias, then it's perfectly legit.

[Fox Fire]

Yes actually: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

 

I would also like to say that I find it hilarious that people use that "Oh, you just read that on the internet so it doesn't count" argument when it's something you don't agree with. But when it comes to something that benefits your personal point of views or bias, then it's perfectly legit.

Oh boy. I used to work for a place exactly like that. I wouldn't exactly call the results reliable. Not completely wrong, but not what I call reliable either. This is what I'm talking about:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/survey_bias_how_can_we_trust_opinion_polls_when_so_few_people_respond_.html

In my own experience in that field, it's extremely difficult to get responses from younger people to the point that half your night is spent only trying to get responses from younger people and turning down older people, because you've already filled the quota for older people. 

Considering the extreme majority of people would never partake in these things, I can't say it's what I'd call representative of the population.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Doktor Avalanche]

Pew Research Center is a pretty reliable source for gathering information, even globally.

Unlike a lot of fly-by-night call center shops which contain contributions and backers, Pew is a non-profit 501c3.

[Fox Fire]

Pew Research Center is a pretty reliable source for gathering information, even globally.

Unlike a lot of fly-by-night call center shops which contain contributions and backers, Pew is a non-profit 501c3.

Bias wasn't the point, though.

[Spite]

With this, as with every social movement, the vocal minority becomes the poster child for what is a broad and mostly moderate movement.

 

For example, most people think it is not right to make jokes about n******, to call gay people !@#$, to be xenophobic or racist or whatever. Especially in a work or school environment.

 

This politically correct thing started being used as a term by people who were essentially old and/or stupid bigots who thought that humour based on racial stereotyping was fine and that people who complained about it were just whining or whatever.

 

The fact there are a small amount of people who take this to extremes shouldn't negatively cover everyone or damage the credibility of the whole movement.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

ARE YOU A DRAGOPHOBE?

I hear being a Dogeophobe is great.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Francisco Franco Bah

[Tomasious Rubinlord]

"With excessive freedom comes excessive discourtesy" is a principle of mine. Limitation may be vital and a virtue as long as it ensures social order and mutal respect as a civillized society. For some reason these values are commonly forgotten in the name of freedom of expression and rugged individualism.