What is PC. Actually lets just talk about it

[Not_Now.Soon]

In a recent discussion I disagreed with a person. But when I voiced my thoughts, it was counted as PC. My trying to restrict his voice.

That's the complaint of PC, isn't it? That it says what you can or can not say? Then what is PC? Not why is it talked against, but what actually is it. We know it's talked against because it is about restricting a person's voice. Or at least that's what I've gathered here in this website from many people airing their complaints about PC. Is PC censorship of what you say, think, act? Is it more specifically outside censorship. Someone else censoring your voice? Or is it in a more general sense the phenomon of being disagreed with? Is voicing disagreement an act of PC, or an act of freedom of speech?

Think about any time you or another have complained about a specific case of PC. What makes it PC? Now think about the response to the case, bold in the air against the spread of PC. Is that response just as much PC being a restricting what the other says, as they complained about? Or is one complaint more justified then the next on no more merrit then just who calls the other one out first on being a censor, a critic, or in disagreement with the other person and therefore calls the other on being PC?

If this is what PC is here, what it's complaint against it is. Then count me out of those who complain. It sounds too simular to the argument that a person isn't open minded if they disagree with you. Doesn't matter what you or the other person disagree about. If they don't agree with your open views then they aren't open minded. In the same sense, if a person voices argument against something you've said, then it must be that they are pushing the agenda of PC. In my opinion these are the same arguments voiced differently. And both are the worst reasoning to any discussion. They act as a distraction from what ever was actually being talked about, and instead of addressing the issues directly they focus on the topic of being "PC" or of being "open minded." Put someone on the defense and in their own right do the opposite of what the person claiming the critism wants.

The person criticizing another of being PC, they are in fact trying to critize and censor the other person by voicing that it is PC. The person critizing another of not being open minded, they are doing the same, not being open to the other but instead of voicing why they critize the first person for not being open minded to then, regardless if they are open minded back.

Anyone reading this rant of mine, take the challenge and defend the critism against PC. Make it worth the effort that is given in these threads and comments that spill a disdaste towards PC. Defend your distaste, or leave it entirely be.

 

[Willie T]

Its very name, "Politically Correct", says what it is. It is whatever the current political atmosphere deems acceptable....... and, usually, ONLY that.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

It's very name, "Politically Correct", says what it is. It is whatever the current political atmosphere deems acceptable....... and, usually, ONLY that.

Fair enough, that's what it means. But when it's used as a critism, it doesn't fit that discription. At least not in my experience. The critism against PC is almost always a critism against another's perspective or their disagreement of your own, but the critism is put in a way to avoid the topic altogether. The fight against political correctness, sidestepping whatever was being talked about in the first place. If the fight against PC turns into it's own culture of what is politically correct, then what is it, what has it done? In my opinion the focus on PC is more often a sham or a con. But it's done so much no one even knows they're doing it. I say remove the term entirely. It's not worth any merrit to focus on.

 

[Willie T]

Fair enough, that's what it means. But when it's used as a critism, it doesn't fit that discription. At least not in my experience. The critism against PC is almost always a critism against another's perspective or their disagreement of your own, but the critism is put in a way to avoid the topic altogether. The fight against political correctness, sidestepping whatever was being talked about in the first place. If the fight against PC turns into it's own culture of what is politically correct, then what is it, what has it done? In my opinion the focus on PC is more often a sham or a con. But it's done so much no one even knows they're doing it. I say remove the term entirely. It's not worth any merrit to focus on.

That's exactly it. PC is....... "We are in control." "What we say is right, and the rest of you have to shut up, or, if possible, we will bring the strength of our present political and legal power to bear in order to keep you quiet."

"PC" cannot exist without power behind it that you cannot win against.

 

[smaller]

PC is the latest form of fascism.

 

[smaller]

I about fell over laughing recently when listening to a blogcast on "DoNotComply.com."

There was a "pretend" feminist who wanted equality with men, and started off with equal pay in the workforce demand then followed by demand of an equal amount of women killed on the job, at which point the feminist speaker would be immediately interrupted by the PC moderator as not being something PC is really after.

It went on for quite awhile with other supposedly legit claims followed by a biting truth that was NOT allowed under the PC flag. Hilarious. Pointed out the frailties of one sided demands posturing as whole cloth.

 

[Corn Pop]

Its the biggest violation of free speech and personal opinion. Thats what it is.

People think its for good, but they dont realise they are only silencing themselves.

The only one thing I believe to be offensive in this world is personal threats.

 

[Corn Pop]

I am a very PC person. I dont even like to call people white or black, they are all just racially challenged.

 

[smaller]

IF it wasn't for the religious protections of the Constitution, most forms of christianity would be branded as "hate crime" and outlawed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the government comes around for us as "hate crimer's" someday under the anti-bias/discrimination laws. Currently the law is only against such hate crime involved with "bodily injury" but it won't take long to turn this into "you didn't hire them because you hated them on the basis of not believing like you" and therefore caused them irreparable harm or "witnessing" Christ is perceived as CYBERBULLYING.

We really are just a jot and a tittle away from totalitarianism and "thought crime" punishments.

People are and have been prosecuted for simply posting their opinions online. Cyberbullying has been prosecuted under currently written laws. It's so close.

"What are the Penalties for Cyberbullying?

The penalties for cyberbullying are as wide-ranging as the laws discussed above. Depending on the state and applicable laws, sanctions could range anywhere from civil penalties, such as school intervention via suspensions and/or expulsions, to jail time for criminal misdemeanors and even felonies."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/cyber-bullying.html

 

[Christ_empowered]

PC is just...the parameters of what is and isn't speak-able in public or in casual conversation. Both the people who rail against PC and the people who are PC and try to create and then enforce the ever changing boundaries have power issues, obviously.

 

[jasonc]

Its the biggest violation of free speech and personal opinion. Thats what it is.

People think its for good, but they dont realise they are only silencing themselves.

The only one thing I believe to be offensive in this world is personal threats.

Curious,so if I have a coworker who is vulgar,ie curses,talks about his or hers sexual exploits .I take offense ,I tell him as I don't want to hear it.yet he continues. It's at work do I just suck it up.what if he mocks God?

 

[Corn Pop]

Curious,so if I have a coworker who is vulgar,ie curses,talks about his or hers sexual exploits .I take offense ,I tell him as I don't want to hear it.yet he continues. It's at work do I just suck it up.what if he mocks God?

I would question the boss as to why he employed such an idiot.

Then everytime they opened there mouth you put your headphones on and start singing as loud as you can "What if God was one of us, just a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way hoooome".But you would have to make sure your really out of tune.

 

[jasonc]

I would question the boss as to why he employed such an idiot.

Then everytime they opened there mouth you put your headphones on and start singing as loud as you can "What if God was one of us, just a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way hoooome".But you would have to make sure your really out of tune.

So freedom of speech has limits.it's a write up where I work for that,I work for a government.

 

[Corn Pop]

So freedom of speech has limits.it's a write up where I work for that,I work for a government.

I agree it has limits to the point of threatning behaviour or harrasment towards another person. But not generalisations and opinions what people like or dislike. People make mistakes in ignorance and ignorance wont let it go either.

If someone says something to you and you find it offence you say please dont say that to me again, if they do it again then its crossed the line and is harrasment. But it does not seem to work that way, one comment is automatically classed as hate speech

 

[jasonc]

I agree it has limits to the point of threatning behaviour or harrasment towards another person. But not generalisations and opinions what people like or dislike. People make mistakes in ignorance and ignorance wont let it go either.

I can't use haji in some places.I wouldNT use it in front of the muslim at work.but these rules allow for some leeway.a bunch of atheist may not take offense to mockING God.its subject to the person hearing much like pc