What's new
By:

Never Trump

And Joebag can take it too. [MENTION=639]Joe Bagadonuts[/MENTION]

See watch..

Hey Joe, you should change your name from Joe to douche.

Douchebagadonuts
 
Stoked said:
Points of disagreement. There is no consensus on what language is "acceptable" and what language isn't. There will never be as people are offended by different things. Nor is there consensus on how respect is shown. If some comes at me plain and honest, even if the opinion is ugly, that shows respect. They are treating me as an adult that can handle a tough opinion. Not with kid gloves by coddling their opinion. There is a gap there IMO. A rather large one.

Now obviously that doesn't cover being a jerk, racist...
Click to expand...

Agree with much of this.

BUT there are certain words that become unacceptable for various reasons. The "n-word" for one, ****** (might be bleeped, it's a derogatory term for a homosexual), the c-word for women, and retard/retarded are some examples. People who continue to use those terms when they know the effect they have, are, in my opinion, purposely using inflammatory language to create a specific reaction and I will lose respect for whatever they have to say if they keep using those words.

My main thesis is that people who get overly upset about political correctness (whether there's too much or not enough) and can't read or listen to a statement without jumping over its degree of "pc-ness" should try to get over it.
 
moevillini said:
Agree with much of this.

BUT there are certain words that become unacceptable for various reasons. The "n-word" for one, ****** (might be bleeped, it's a derogatory term for a homosexual), the c-word for women, and retard/retarded are some examples. People who continue to use those terms when they know the effect they have, are, in my opinion, purposely using inflammatory language to create a specific reaction and I will lose respect for whatever they have to say if they keep using those words.

My main thesis is that people who get overly upset about political correctness (whether there's too much or not enough) and can't read or listen to a statement without jumping over its degree of "pc-ness" should try to get over it.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. To me that is just being a jerk, racist...

I think it is done to a degree that is a problem. But overly upset? To the point of shutting down? I agree.
 
Dr. Jones said:
Of course not. That wasn't fair in the least... at least not for the majority.
I believe everyone should be able to express their point of view on any matter. Of course the line should be drawn at physical violence... As that's not "speech."
Click to expand...

Where am I wrong? What are the situations where people complain about PC? Gay rights. Women's rights. Civil rights. What do they all have in common? Who are the ones complaining?

I didn't mention anything about physical violence - that isn't part of the PC conversation. Of course that is not appropriate for anyone in most any situation.
 
moevillini said:
Agree with much of this.

BUT there are certain words that become unacceptable for various reasons. The "n-word" for one, ****** (might be bleeped, it's a derogatory term for a homosexual), the c-word for women, and retard/retarded are some examples. People who continue to use those terms when they know the effect they have, are, in my opinion, purposely using inflammatory language to create a specific reaction and I will lose respect for whatever they have to say if they keep using those words.

My main thesis is that people who get overly upset about political correctness (whether there's too much or not enough) and can't read or listen to a statement without jumping over its degree of "pc-ness" should try to get over it.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but to me if someone uses the n-word it tells me more about them than the person they're directing it at. The part of PC that bothers me is where it effects our ability to respond to a problem. The most obvious example is terrorism caused by Islamic extremists.

Take the Orlando shooting as an example. The shooter called 911 and pledged his support to the leader of ISIS. He referenced Allah mumerous times and made other claims that proved the reason he was carrying out the attack. But when our government released their initial transcript of the 911 call they scrubbed all of that out. They completely removed the sections where he made any sort of reference related to ISIS. They changed the word "Allah" to "God." In other words, they made a concerted effort for PC reasons to give the public false information about the event. I'd be very interested in hearing your defense of that aspect of political correctness (and I could give you many, many more examples of political correctness that falls into this category both about terrorists and about other issues).
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but to me if someone uses the n-word it tells me more about them than the person they're directing it at. The part of PC that bothers me is where it effects our ability to respond to a problem. The most obvious example is terrorism caused by Islamic extremists.

Take the Orlando shooting as an example. The shooter called 911 and pledged his support to the leader of ISIS. He referenced Allah mumerous times and made other claims that proved the reason he was carrying out the attack. But when our government released their initial transcript of the 911 call they scrubbed all of that out. They completely removed the sections where he made any sort of reference related to ISIS. They changed the word "Allah" to "God." In other words, they made a concerted effort for PC reasons to give the public false information about the event. I'd be very interested in hearing your defense of that aspect of political correctness (and I could give you many, many more examples of political correctness that falls into this category both about terrorists and about other issues).
Click to expand...
Interesting about the Orlando shooting transcript. I find the FBI explanation interesting, but not sure I agree. However, I suppose there is some validity to trying to defuse a situation and not create copycat scenarios, although I'm not sure that this method accomplishes that.

Here's the coverage I found:

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/nation-now/orlando-shooting/first-transcript-of-911-call-from-shooter-in-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-released/250370491

The released transcript is a 50-second conversation between the shooter and a 911 dispatcher. FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Ron Hopper, said that some of the transcript has been redacted, but after a large outcry from Federal and State officials, the full transcripts were released.

The FBI is not going to propagate hateful rhetoric that might inspire like-minded "cowards," like the Orlando shooter, to act similarly, Hopper said.

"He [the shooter] does not represent the religion of Islam, but a perverted view," said Hopper. He also stated that the shooter was "radicalized domestically."

. . .

Bentley came forward at the end of the press conference to assure the public that these redactions were lawful and not an effort from the FBI or assisting authority agencies to keep information from the public.
Click to expand...

I don't consider deception to be the same thing as PC, and I think this falls more into the deception/protection category.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but to me if someone uses the n-word it tells me more about them than the person they're directing it at. The part of PC that bothers me is where it effects our ability to respond to a problem. The most obvious example is terrorism caused by Islamic extremists.

Take the Orlando shooting as an example. The shooter called 911 and pledged his support to the leader of ISIS. He referenced Allah mumerous times and made other claims that proved the reason he was carrying out the attack. But when our government released their initial transcript of the 911 call they scrubbed all of that out. They completely removed the sections where he made any sort of reference related to ISIS. They changed the word "Allah" to "God." In other words, they made a concerted effort for PC reasons to give the public false information about the event. I'd be very interested in hearing your defense of that aspect of political correctness (and I could give you many, many more examples of political correctness that falls into this category both about terrorists and about other issues).
Click to expand...

But they also had strong reasons to doubt it really had any connection to radical Islam or ISIS and so in this specific instance I think they were correct in what they did.

Otherwise his homosexual/homophobic leanings - which were the stronger motivations for his action - probably would not have come to light because it would have been dismissed as motivated by radical Islam.

And major efforts would have been directed towards uncovering an ISIS cell in the Orlando area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top