The Instigator
AustinHowardDavid
Pro (for)
The Contender
TheUnexaminedLife
Con (against)

Potential dangers of a hypersensitive culture bred by social media and political correctness.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
AustinHowardDavid has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 931 times Debate No: 100068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

AustinHowardDavid

Pro

Serious arguments only.
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

I am loosely studying this topic in social philosophy right now, so will attempt to counteract or extend any arguments you propose as best as I can
PS (if you make them good enough, they're sure to be stolen to support my thesis) ;)
Debate Round No. 1
AustinHowardDavid

Pro

I have recently been discussing this topic with close friends over social media and my fellow classmates. It seems people can use the idea of PC culture as an excuse to say anything they want without repercussion. Freedom of speech/freedom from consequence. The real babies are the ones who talk sh*t about others and then can't handle it when they're dished it back with extra seasoning.
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

Well, yeah I see your point. But, you have to understand that PC culture is trying to set a generally accepted standard of what is tolerated in the media in order to consolidate and reassert certain social viewpoints. The real question is who benefits from these established viewpoints? People who say anything they want always face repercussions; for one, you seem to disapprove of them. Disapproval means collective apathy/a loss of popularity/ fallen power. I think the internet (particularly the trolls) show a great social disillusionment in all the rancorous comments they give (for pretty much anything) precisely because they want to, in some way punish and vent, those who do use their freedom of speech in a way they don't approve of and the screen proves a perfect, disassociative mask to do this through. Isn't this punishment enough?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ilovejews7 1 year ago
ilovejews7
It seems we differ. I think people have a right to express themselves freely without micromanagement from any superior moral source or one who is regards themselves as intellectually superior. Counter arguments, civil disobediance, factual information campaigns and tuning out, has always been successful. I, myself, will not be a hypocrite by being fascist, when i oppose a fascist. the fascist has the right to speak, even though, i may strongly disagree with their ideals. nobody is destined by god to be a hitler or mussolini
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Yeah, anti-Semitism and the policy of Germanisation existed prior to the rise of Hitler. And, yes, it would be better if such conditions never existed but everyday we are already faced with certain conditions and people trying to exploit them. We have to by rational popular opinion (an opinion too often warped my the media) to stop people exploiting them--including politicians. How Hitler rose to power was a particularly long and skillful process; I doubt that another could have made as much impact as him. It's like saying there could have been another MLK Jnr; there would have only been other freedom fighters probably less effective.

I get the WW1 Paradox, but the Hitler Paradox is actually an established idea
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by micromanagedbehavior 1 year ago
micromanagedbehavior
I personally think it should be 'the world war 1 paradox instead of the hitler paradox. It was the post war conditions that lead to the rise of fascism. If hitler was killed, somebody else would have used the versailes treaty to gain populist support
Posted by micromanagedbehavior 1 year ago
micromanagedbehavior
There were rumors post world war. Before the rise of hitler, that jews were behind the versailes treaty as well as reaponsible for germanys defeat. It was the social conditions, economic circumstances and political tensions that hitler took advantage of. People can disagree or counter fascist propaganda with their own campaign or if they are desperate, their owm propaganda. I assumed you were american
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
I'm English; aren't I allowed to be un-American?
Okay, yes, that would be ideal. But that isn't the Hitler Paradox. The choice is either let Hitler live or kill Hitler to prevent WW2. One or the other. We can't change past conditions; we can only (very slowly) change the future ones and react to the present. So, I'm saying when a leader comes along we don't agree with we either have to by political correction, or by not giving them attention, or counter-acting their beliefs with our own beliefs silence their influence. We have to ensure their opinions don't become the normal accepted opinions of the majority the next generation will be influenced by.

And, you still don't seem to get that your own opinions right now are micromanaged and controlled for reasons I've already explained.
Posted by ilovejews7 1 year ago
ilovejews7
You asked me, would i kill baby hitler to prevent him from speaking...I said no...i would prevent world war 1 from happening so hitler would be irrelevant because germany's conditions wouldnt be ecoomically dire...Napolean was the type of leader the french were looking for post revolution. Every leader or politician is a manipulator...just review the history of our presidents. I think it is wrong, and if you are an american, unconstitutional, to encroach or micromanage ones free speech or opinions. That is fascism, that is hitler-esque in my opinion.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Right so, that is sort of what I said. People become what the society around them makes them become. People aren't born evil; the environment makes them become what it deems as evil. And, as each environment is different and their value of what is 'evil' differs, it is up to the majority consensus to mute that which it deems 'evil' before it grows in order to maintain it's ideal of good. One way to do this would have been to mute Hitler's speeches before he rose to power. I also said previously that this could be used to silence Hitler supporters post 1933. But, before then, when he didn't have majority control over public opinion (in fear) the previous general consensus of what was 'good' and 'evil' could have acted.

And, you mention Napoleon, who was a master of manipulating what people thought was 'good' and 'evil' by mythologizing himself and imposing strict discipline in his military regime of government. (I would love to rant about the Battle of the Pyramids right now, but it isn't really relevant)
Posted by ilovejews7 1 year ago
ilovejews7
Free speech has been eroded by new legal loopholes that are meant to "protect us".

"and, because it is experience that makes people, stopping 'horrible people' having free speech and making horrible experiences in the world is a good thing; it stops more horrible people from developing. What is 'horrible' and whether we can learn from it, is a different question."

I disagree with your fascist idea. what people define as horrible can vary ,so it is not for us to decide, or to encroach on one's constitutional rights or for that matter development. People, such as adolf hitler, for example, took advantage of germany's post world war 1 conditions at the time. I doubt he would be successful if germany was economically prosperous as well if the first world war never occurred. People are not born horrible and can develop to change. It is like adolescent teen ager who is viewed as a devil, only to become a priest or doctor in middle age. Napoleon developed to be what he was and the conditions at the time were favorable for his type of leadership.

excuse my horrible unedited geammr and incomplete sentence structure
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
What would you define as 'the collective'? I would probably agree; it's just easier to my ideas assuming a multifarious group, holding so many interests and motives, as if it were a single entity.

I think 'horrible people' are micromanaged right from birth to become horrible. My issue is more with the idea of 'freedom'. I don't think we have free speech; I think our experience, family, society, date of birth, language and such other like factors determine what we say. And, because it is experience that makes people, stopping 'horrible people' having free speech and making horrible experiences in the world is a good thing; it stops more horrible people from developing. What is 'horrible' and whether we can learn from it, is a different question.
Posted by ilovejews7 1 year ago
ilovejews7
I think you make too many generalizations. I also think youre argument is too subjective. I think people, even horrible people , have the right to free speech without it being micromanaged or conditioned, as you define it. I thnk your are argument is too broad and your definition of the collective is too simple.

excuse my unedited grammar and sentence structure
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.