Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Political Correctness

Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 11:54:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Shut up about it. At this point, crying PC is just as annoying and fallacious as crying racism. And the people who do so look especially ridiculous because, when you stop and consider it, the worst thing that the menace of PC ever did was to try too hard to be nice and considerate.

It's especially annoying when used by racists to shield themselves from criticism. Suddenly rather than a curmudgeonly xenophobe they become a righteous crusader, simply because they claim to combating the big, looming entity of PC. The fact that PC is used expressly by conservatives and traditionalists who don't want to be called out on their hatefulness is pretty ironic since the very idea of political incorrectness was pioneered by liberal counterculture comedians.

The whole issue is just a useless distraction that shouldn't even have to be discussed. If it really irks you that much when somebody calls an Asian guy a Chinese American, or a Hispanic guy an Ecuadorian American, or calls you out when you call them a yellow man and a red man, then get the fvck over it. It's a part of progress, just like letting women vote and gays marry. You won't look any more righteous than those who opposed the last social change, so just stop trying so hard to look valiant and stop crying PC.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:01:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hate when people claim that PC restricts speech. No, it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to adhere to social standards. Arguing against PC amounts to attempt to suppress thought in the same manner that PC supposedly restricts speech.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:02:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:01:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hate when people claim that PC restricts speech. No, it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to adhere to social standards. Arguing against PC amounts to attempt to suppress thought in the same manner that PC supposedly restricts speech.

If anything, arguing against PC attempts to free thought since you aren't constrained to a pre-set vocabulary.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:02:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:01:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hate when people claim that PC restricts speech. No, it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to adhere to social standards. Arguing against PC amounts to attempt to suppress thought in the same manner that PC supposedly restricts speech.

If anything, arguing against PC attempts to free thought since you aren't constrained to a pre-set vocabulary.

You are free to violate PC at any time. They are also free to advocate respecting others. You are attempting destroy that thought.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:05:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.

But nobody is asking you to call homosexuals that! They're just asking you not to call them f@ggots. Same with retarded, although people generally prefer- mentally ill or mentally handicapped. You'd have to be pretty reactionary to get annoyed at these type of things (I also don't see how it distracts from the message, unless the message is intended to put down a certain group of people)
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:07:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:05:30 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:02:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:01:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hate when people claim that PC restricts speech. No, it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to adhere to social standards. Arguing against PC amounts to attempt to suppress thought in the same manner that PC supposedly restricts speech.

If anything, arguing against PC attempts to free thought since you aren't constrained to a pre-set vocabulary.

You are free to violate PC at any time. They are also free to advocate respecting others. You are attempting destroy that thought.

Circular logic much? The exact same can be said about the other side.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:09:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:05:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.

But nobody is asking you to call homosexuals that! They're just asking you not to call them f@ggots. Same with retarded, although people generally prefer- mentally ill or mentally handicapped. You'd have to be pretty reactionary to get annoyed at these type of things (I also don't see how it distracts from the message, unless the message is intended to put down a certain group of people)

Aside from the social stigma (which I don't care about), "homosexual" and "f@ggot" mean exactly the same thing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:10:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:05:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.

But nobody is asking you to call homosexuals that! They're just asking you not to call them f@ggots. Same with retarded, although people generally prefer- mentally ill or mentally handicapped. You'd have to be pretty reactionary to get annoyed at these type of things (I also don't see how it distracts from the message, unless the message is intended to put down a certain group of people)

Everyone should be forced to watch this.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:11:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:01:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hate when people claim that PC restricts speech. No, it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to adhere to social standards. Arguing against PC amounts to attempt to suppress thought in the same manner that PC supposedly restricts speech.:

If there are PC laws on the books then, yes, it absolutely does restrict speech. However, most political correctness is societies unwritten standard that others expect you to follow out of common courtesy.

I have no problem with self-censorship, I have a big problem with government sanctioned-censorship.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:17:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:07:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:05:30 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:02:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:01:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hate when people claim that PC restricts speech. No, it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to adhere to social standards. Arguing against PC amounts to attempt to suppress thought in the same manner that PC supposedly restricts speech.

If anything, arguing against PC attempts to free thought since you aren't constrained to a pre-set vocabulary.

You are free to violate PC at any time. They are also free to advocate respecting others. You are attempting destroy that thought.

Circular logic much? The exact same can be said about the other side.

How is this circular logic, lol?

I don't see any problem with social standards asking us to respect others.

The other side isn't restricting speech because it's just encouraging good behavior. We have every right to look down on you for being uncouth.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:24:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

Do you have being so dishonest all the time? Respectfulness has nothing to do with truth, and calling people by offensive racial epithets does nothing to help whatever argument you make.

The OP is right, people want something to feel defensive about,...and political correctness is it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:33:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.

And I suppose you'll call a black person nigger?

"Homosexual" is fine, but "retarded" has taken on bad connotations (you don't have anything against retards do you?) just call them mentally disabled.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:43:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:09:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Aside from the social stigma (which I don't care about), "homosexual" and "f@ggot" mean exactly the same thing.

Language is comprised of connotation and denotation, both of which can send an offensive message. When you use words with obvious negative connotations, despite their literal meanings, you still offend people. So, calling gay people "f@ggots" or mentally ill people "retarded" isn't something you can justify.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 12:46:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:10:26 PM, caveat wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:05:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.

But nobody is asking you to call homosexuals that! They're just asking you not to call them f@ggots. Same with retarded, although people generally prefer- mentally ill or mentally handicapped. You'd have to be pretty reactionary to get annoyed at these type of things (I also don't see how it distracts from the message, unless the message is intended to put down a certain group of people)

Everyone should be forced to watch this.



Totally agree!

Oh and was that supposed to unleash my PC rage? It doesn't work that way. There's a difference between being knowing belligerent in order to make people laugh and just being belligerent.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 1:13:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The term "Politically correct" is used by conservatives to justify being racist, sexist etc by calling out people who are respectful and considerate. A common example I can give from personal experience is people who talk about a person not based on their ethnicity but by the name of a country commonly associated with that ethnicity. For instance, I've seen people use "Mexican" as a synonym for Hispanic/Latino even if they were of South American origin. Let's consider an example of a Columbian born, US citizen called "Mexican." This is wrong for two reasons - If you are talking about nationality Hispanic/Latino person in the US is American, not Mexican. If you are talking about ethnicity, they are Columbian, not Mexican.

Another example, to describe the ethinicity of an Asian American whose parents were born in China, their ethnicity can be described as Asian-American, not "Chinese." American refers to nationality, not race. Asian refers to race. "Chinese" is not a race. It is a country.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 2:27:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:02:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:01:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I hate when people claim that PC restricts speech. No, it doesn't, because nobody is forcing you to adhere to social standards. Arguing against PC amounts to attempt to suppress thought in the same manner that PC supposedly restricts speech.

If anything, arguing against PC attempts to free thought since you aren't constrained to a pre-set vocabulary.

It could, or it could lead to the opposite, as Political Correctness encourages society to examine language, intention and implication.

Oh, and if we're throwing out awesomely relevant comedy videos (nice find Caveat), here ya'll go.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 5:43:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:09:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:05:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.

But nobody is asking you to call homosexuals that! They're just asking you not to call them f@ggots. Same with retarded, although people generally prefer- mentally ill or mentally handicapped. You'd have to be pretty reactionary to get annoyed at these type of things (I also don't see how it distracts from the message, unless the message is intended to put down a certain group of people)

Aside from the social stigma (which I don't care about), "homosexual" and "f@ggot" mean exactly the same thing.

So you don't recognize that there are such things as connotations, and that they shape the way that we speak?

By your logic I could call any black person I see a nigger but it's fine because I personally don't believe that words have non-literal meanings.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 5:58:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 12:33:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/20/2012 12:00:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:58:22 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:56:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
PC is annoying for those who attempt to speak the truth in public.

And what exactly is 'the truth'? This is the problem with PC, it's a catchall phrase that can be used to slander anything that you disagree with.

I'm going to call a gay person "homosexual," not "person attracted to the same sex." I'm going to call a retarded person "retarded," not "not fully mentally functional."

It distracts from the original message with dressing the words up with flowers and pink unicorns.

And I suppose you'll call a black person nigger?

"Homosexual" is fine, but "retarded" has taken on bad connotations (you don't have anything against retards do you?) just call them mentally disabled.

"You don't call retarded people retards. It's bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded" -Michael Scott
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 6:44:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: You should use publically, but one of the main problem here is what we mean by the concept "Offensive." I mean a Religious person may get offensice if you say in public not even to the person that God doesnt exist. They may take offense but they may call you sinners and that your going to Hell. for eternity.

But the problem comes from, when a spade is a spade. It limites our ability to also speak the truth some times.

Because it seems that what is offensive is anything that upsets somebody. But many times the truth is oppseting.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 7:55:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 11:54:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
Shut up about it. At this point, crying PC is just as annoying and fallacious as crying racism. And the people who do so look especially ridiculous because, when you stop and consider it, the worst thing that the menace of PC ever did was to try too hard to be nice and considerate.

It's especially annoying when used by racists to shield themselves from criticism. Suddenly rather than a curmudgeonly xenophobe they become a righteous crusader, simply because they claim to combating the big, looming entity of PC. The fact that PC is used expressly by conservatives and traditionalists who don't want to be called out on their hatefulness is pretty ironic since the very idea of political incorrectness was pioneered by liberal counterculture comedians.

The whole issue is just a useless distraction that shouldn't even have to be discussed. If it really irks you that much when somebody calls an Asian guy a Chinese American, or a Hispanic guy an Ecuadorian American, or calls you out when you call them a yellow man and a red man, then get the fvck over it. It's a part of progress, just like letting women vote and gays marry. You won't look any more righteous than those who opposed the last social change, so just stop trying so hard to look valiant and stop crying PC.

I agree and disagree. On the one hand, I see your point. On the other hand, I'm not going to put lipstick on a pig. If I'm talking about a black guy, I'm going to say he's black, not African American. People don't call white people European Americans do they? Personally, I see at as we are seperating Americans. I see every American as American, plain and simple. And I want to do so without being called racist. Same goes for gay people, I will say gay, or homosexual, or whatever. It means the same thing. Put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig. Call a black man black, or African American, or a gay person gay or a homo, it all means the same. Obviously I'm against the use of the words ngger and fggot, but that's a different story. That's bigotry. But I have seriously been called racist for using the word "black" to describe a black man. I get tired of both the ultra PC and ultra un PC. Their bickering gets in the way of a real discussion, just say what needs to be said. Don't put lipstick on a pig, and don't be vulgar. Pure and simple.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 8:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 6:44:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: You should use publically, but one of the main problem here is what we mean by the concept "Offensive." I mean a Religious person may get offensice if you say in public not even to the person that God doesnt exist. They may take offense but they may call you sinners and that your going to Hell. for eternity.

But the problem comes from, when a spade is a spade. It limites our ability to also speak the truth some times.

Because it seems that what is offensive is anything that upsets somebody. But many times the truth is oppseting.

The difference is, is the truth/opinion offensive, or the way it is presented? There is also the intent.

On the internet, we are all well aware that there are trolls that only exist to anger people. They are not trying to share ideas, or drive deep thought. They are only intending to anger people, and if that is their intent, they really don't need to be accommodated.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 8:35:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 8:05:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/20/2012 6:44:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: You should use publically, but one of the main problem here is what we mean by the concept "Offensive." I mean a Religious person may get offensice if you say in public not even to the person that God doesnt exist. They may take offense but they may call you sinners and that your going to Hell. for eternity.

But the problem comes from, when a spade is a spade. It limites our ability to also speak the truth some times.

Because it seems that what is offensive is anything that upsets somebody. But many times the truth is oppseting.

The difference is, is the truth/opinion offensive, or the way it is presented? There is also the intent.

The Fool: Which can be extremly suttled, and more so when someone who is being challenge on something in which they have made alot of emotional investment. The more investment the more they feel offended.

On the internet, we are all well aware that there are trolls that only exist to anger people. They are not trying to share ideas, or drive deep thought. They are only intending to anger people, and if that is their intent, they really don't need to be accommodated.

The Fool: If and only if that is there intent. For it is by nature a debate sight where views are intentional contrasted, so we should always expect, it often that offense will be taken and in the heat of an argument/debate there is usually a complex mixture of all types that make, it hard to judge. And we should expect that the most challanging will also have the most hostility towards them and claims of the opposite nature of others. Therefore evidence in context of a complete despute, is the most apropriate measure for such decision.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 10:37:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/20/2012 7:55:52 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 7/20/2012 11:54:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
Shut up about it. At this point, crying PC is just as annoying and fallacious as crying racism. And the people who do so look especially ridiculous because, when you stop and consider it, the worst thing that the menace of PC ever did was to try too hard to be nice and considerate.

It's especially annoying when used by racists to shield themselves from criticism. Suddenly rather than a curmudgeonly xenophobe they become a righteous crusader, simply because they claim to combating the big, looming entity of PC. The fact that PC is used expressly by conservatives and traditionalists who don't want to be called out on their hatefulness is pretty ironic since the very idea of political incorrectness was pioneered by liberal counterculture comedians.

The whole issue is just a useless distraction that shouldn't even have to be discussed. If it really irks you that much when somebody calls an Asian guy a Chinese American, or a Hispanic guy an Ecuadorian American, or calls you out when you call them a yellow man and a red man, then get the fvck over it. It's a part of progress, just like letting women vote and gays marry. You won't look any more righteous than those who opposed the last social change, so just stop trying so hard to look valiant and stop crying PC.

I agree and disagree. On the one hand, I see your point. On the other hand, I'm not going to put lipstick on a pig. If I'm talking about a black guy, I'm going to say he's black, not African American. People don't call white people European Americans do they? Personally, I see at as we are seperating Americans. I see every American as American, plain and simple. And I want to do so without being called racist. Same goes for gay people, I will say gay, or homosexual, or whatever. It means the same thing. Put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig. Call a black man black, or African American, or a gay person gay or a homo, it all means the same. Obviously I'm against the use of the words ngger and fggot, but that's a different story. That's bigotry. But I have seriously been called racist for using the word "black" to describe a black man. I get tired of both the ultra PC and ultra un PC. Their bickering gets in the way of a real discussion, just say what needs to be said. Don't put lipstick on a pig, and don't be vulgar. Pure and simple.

I agree. If you've noticed, I don't use 'African American' or any other such phrases in my posts anyway. I say black and white, because those are commonly used terms. Same with Indian and Native American. I certainly wouldn't call someone a racist for NOT saying African American.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 12:43:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone "black" is kind of a bad thing? I mean black tends to conjugate kind of bad images. Like "black" death.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 9:52:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 12:43:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone "black" is kind of a bad thing? I mean black tends to conjugate kind of bad images. Like "black" death.

Eh, I don't know. The reason why I don't feel obligated to say African American (however I have no problem with people who say that) is because white people are pretty much forever going to be called white, which is fine, but for the sake of continuity I'd rather just say black and white. I suppose that it would get incongruous when you start talking about other races, but the whole point here is that it doesn't have to be that way. Just be respectful, and what you say should follow.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 10:03:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 9:52:33 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 12:43:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone "black" is kind of a bad thing? I mean black tends to conjugate kind of bad images. Like "black" death.

Eh, I don't know. The reason why I don't feel obligated to say African American (however I have no problem with people who say that) is because white people are pretty much forever going to be called white, which is fine, but for the sake of continuity I'd rather just say black and white. I suppose that it would get incongruous when you start talking about other races, but the whole point here is that it doesn't have to be that way. Just be respectful, and what you say should follow.

Well I'm not going to call someone african american because that takes way too long to type or say, but prefer the term african. Because most people don't call people asian american, just asian. and second, not every1 is from america.

The language is now that you call it black, so one uses the term black. The previous words: colored or negro actually sound better because there's no negative connotations with it, while the term black tends to be assocaited with negative things.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 10:32:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 10:03:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/21/2012 9:52:33 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 12:43:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone "black" is kind of a bad thing? I mean black tends to conjugate kind of bad images. Like "black" death.

Eh, I don't know. The reason why I don't feel obligated to say African American (however I have no problem with people who say that) is because white people are pretty much forever going to be called white, which is fine, but for the sake of continuity I'd rather just say black and white. I suppose that it would get incongruous when you start talking about other races, but the whole point here is that it doesn't have to be that way. Just be respectful, and what you say should follow.

Well I'm not going to call someone african american because that takes way too long to type or say, but prefer the term african. Because most people don't call people asian american, just asian. and second, not every1 is from america.

The language is now that you call it black, so one uses the term black. The previous words: colored or negro actually sound better because there's no negative connotations with it, while the term black tends to be assocaited with negative things.

While the words colored and negro hold no negative meaning in and of themselves, they have PLENTY of negative connotations. People associate those words with Jim Crow and slavery, and thus we don't use them any more unless we want to be hurtful. Black makes me think of... well, nothing in particular. And I think that most people feel that way. But I see your point, and if you want to say African, then that's fine. I didn't call you a PC nazi, and you didn't call me a racit. See how easy it can be people!
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK