Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Idiocy of Rejecting Political Correctness

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For whatever reason, strictures on the fair use of language and phrasing in political discourse anger most conservatives. E.g. the people crossing our borders are not undocumented immigrants, they're illegal aliens, the events in Paris were not perpetrated by extremists but by Muslims,...the list goes on.

But I suspect their intention isn't to keep the discussion and phraseology accurate.
What they seek is to express base, lowly and exclusionary tendencies of thought rendered inexpressible by any PC reformulation of their speech. The emotional projection of hatred and exclusion that attends the use of illegal in place of undocumented is precisely what they desire to preserve in the discussion.

Opposition to PC language has no practically beneficial output for anyone. It doesn't make the conversation more specific, clearer or freer. It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.

I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.
"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
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 2:36:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.
You make an interesting topic and open it up by making it America-specific. Such a shame. :)

Political correctness sucks.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 2:43:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The attack was carried out by Muslims.

The attack was carried out by extremists.

---

Neither of these tell the full story.

You can call them Salafis, or Wahabbis. That would be better. Pseudo-Sunnis.

I might say radical Muslims, or whatever. But at the end of the day, political correctness is really only an issue if you're like "all Muslims are terrorists" or some batshit things like that.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 2:53:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think you're over-simplifying the *application* of political correctness and providing only exclusive examples and single-context scenarios.

Political correctness is something that is entirely extensive and wide-ranging, thus meaning *anything* that could potentially offend someone could be considered as non-PC.

If you're to apply fair use of the term, this would include insulting (or even outlining basic criticisms) those who identify as Conservative, and others' that generally challenge or oppose the idea of political correctness.

Another major aspect to your post is that you've strongly implied that all individuals that disagree with 'political correctness' are exclusively Conservatives, which again, is technically non-PC and thus shows your stance to be hypocritical and based wholly on political bias.

Refusing to recognize that people have differing opinions and undermining the legitimacy of viewpoints that they (may) have towards something, is, by default, NOT politically correct. You've more or less negated your own point.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:01:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:53:56 AM, Emilrose wrote:
I think you're over-simplifying the *application* of political correctness and providing only exclusive examples and single-context scenarios.

Political correctness is something that is entirely extensive and wide-ranging, thus meaning *anything* that could potentially offend someone could be considered as non-PC.

If you're to apply fair use of the term, this would include insulting (or even outlining basic criticisms) those who identify as Conservative, and others' that generally challenge or oppose the idea of political correctness.

Another major aspect to your post is that you've strongly implied that all individuals that disagree with 'political correctness' are exclusively Conservatives, which again, is technically non-PC and thus shows your stance to be hypocritical and based wholly on political bias.

Refusing to recognize that people have differing opinions and undermining the legitimacy of viewpoints that they (may) have towards something, is, by default, NOT politically correct. You've more or less negated your own point.

If that's the case, please apply the OP to the limited range of PC objections I've mentioned.

That is to say -- I'm identifying as idiotic all and only objections to PC speech of the following nature : alien vs. immigrant -- extremist vs. Muslim.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:25:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Calling them "undocumented" as opposed to "illegal" downplays the fact that they live here in violation of the law, and that they aren't just "missing some papers". Both sides of the immigration debate prefer the term that suits their stance...both are "getting" something out of it." Opposing immigration doesn't necessarily mean that you're racist. Of course it's "exclusionary" terminology. People who oppose immigration want to exclude immigrants from living here.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:28:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
For whatever reason, strictures on the fair use of language and phrasing in political discourse anger most conservatives. E.g. the people crossing our borders are not undocumented immigrants, they're illegal aliens, the events in Paris were not perpetrated by extremists but by Muslims,...the list goes on.

But I suspect their intention isn't to keep the discussion and phraseology accurate.
What they seek is to express base, lowly and exclusionary tendencies of thought rendered inexpressible by any PC reformulation of their speech. The emotional projection of hatred and exclusion that attends the use of illegal in place of undocumented is precisely what they desire to preserve in the discussion.

Opposition to PC language has no practically beneficial output for anyone. It doesn't make the conversation more specific, clearer or freer. It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.

I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.
PC police have a banned the words boy, girl, he, she, master, husband wife, thug, and criminal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:30:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
PC terminology is not nearly as significant PC ideas. There are arguments and ideas that you're just not allowed to present, even if they could be backed up with strong evidence, because they run against people's cherished beliefs and are therefore unacceptable.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:38:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 3:25:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Calling them "undocumented" as opposed to "illegal" downplays the fact that they live here in violation of the law, and that they aren't just "missing some papers". Both sides of the immigration debate prefer the term that suits their stance...both are "getting" something out of it." Opposing immigration doesn't necessarily mean that you're racist. Of course it's "exclusionary" terminology. People who oppose immigration want to exclude immigrants from living here.

That's an emotionally detached and simplified interpretation of the controversy that obviously isn't balancing the more complicated aspects of the issue. You realize there are people brought here as children who have lived here their whole lives and identify as Americans just as much as any one else. It isn't as though you have a population whose entire composition willfully transgressed the laws of the United States....it isn't as though you have a population whose entire composition has a foreign national identity and foreign national allegiance. There's no reason to berate and dehumanize them all with the terms "illegal" or "alien".....

The Liberal and conservative perspectives on this are not morally neutral or morally equivalent, with each just tailoring its language to its interest. One has the welfare of the migrants in mind, and the other doesn't give a crap. One is careful and responsible, the other is selfish and unnuanced.

-------

And this is an exceptional case though, since being legal or not inherently involves the question of inclusion. My point applies more broadly to cases where minorities are obviously Americans who are integral parts of our society but are nevertheless referred to with alienating, toxic language.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:48:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 3:38:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/16/2015 3:25:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Calling them "undocumented" as opposed to "illegal" downplays the fact that they live here in violation of the law, and that they aren't just "missing some papers". Both sides of the immigration debate prefer the term that suits their stance...both are "getting" something out of it." Opposing immigration doesn't necessarily mean that you're racist. Of course it's "exclusionary" terminology. People who oppose immigration want to exclude immigrants from living here.

That's an emotionally detached and simplified interpretation of the controversy that obviously isn't balancing the more complicated aspects of the issue. You realize there are people brought here as children who have lived here their whole lives and identify as Americans just as much as any one else. It isn't as though you have a population whose entire composition willfully transgressed the laws of the United States....it isn't as though you have a population whose entire composition has a foreign national identity and foreign national allegiance. There's no reason to berate and dehumanize them all with the terms "illegal" or "alien".....

I don't think it's meant to "dehumanize them". People who aren't American citizens are humans too. It's meant to emphasize the fact that undocumented immigrants, illegals, whatever you want to call them, are living in a country without obtaining its permission, and thus it's not "up to them" whether they get to stay.

The Liberal and conservative perspectives on this are not morally neutral or morally equivalent, with each just tailoring its language to its interest. One has the welfare of the migrants in mind, and the other doesn't give a crap. One is careful and responsible, the other is selfish and unnuanced.


Not implying they are. I was only arguing that if you're going to criticize conservatives for using loaded terms e.g. "illegal", then you should be criticizing liberals too, since everyone does it.

-------

And this is an exceptional case though, since being legal or not inherently involves the question of inclusion. My point applies more broadly to cases where minorities are obviously Americans who are integral parts of our society but are nevertheless referred to with alienating, toxic language.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 4:45:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Illegal immigrant" is an accurate term which shouldn't be controversial; their existence is not illegal but their residence in the United States is. Thus they are an immigrant illegally.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 4:47:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 4:45:49 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
"Illegal immigrant" is an accurate term which shouldn't be controversial; their existence is not illegal but their residence in the United States is. Thus they are an immigrant illegally.

The term doesn't even necessarily mean that what they're doing is wrong; it just means their actions are in violation of U.S. immigration laws as they exist today.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 5:13:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
My response to this thread is the bit of George Carlin on "euphemisms".
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 5:55:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 5:13:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
My response to this thread is the bit of George Carlin on "euphemisms".
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 6:06:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

You live in a bubble, and your complete lack of experience outside that bubble is the reason why you do not understand the problems with limiting language like you're suggesting.

Beyond that, you exist in an environment that is directly averse to descriptively accurate language.

Soft language is disingenuous, manipulative, constricting, and officious.
Tsar of DDO
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 10:01:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:43:35 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The attack was carried out by Muslims.

The attack was carried out by extremists.

The attack was carried out by theists.


---

Neither of these tell the full story.

You can call them Salafis, or Wahabbis. That would be better. Pseudo-Sunnis.

I might say radical Muslims, or whatever. But at the end of the day, political correctness is really only an issue if you're like "all Muslims are terrorists" or some batshit things like that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 4:55:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 3:38:28 AM, 000ike wrote:

That's an emotionally detached and simplified interpretation of the controversy that obviously isn't balancing the more complicated aspects of the issue. You realize there are people brought here as children who have lived here their whole lives and identify as Americans just as much as any one else. It isn't as though you have a population whose entire composition willfully transgressed the laws of the United States....it isn't as though you have a population whose entire composition has a foreign national identity and foreign national allegiance. There's no reason to berate and dehumanize them all with the terms "illegal" or "alien".....


Ridiculous. "illegal" is not dehumanizing. Only humans are described as "illegal immigrants". I have never heard of migrating birds being described that way.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 6:18:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
For whatever reason, strictures on the fair use of language and phrasing in political discourse anger most conservatives. E.g. the people crossing our borders are not undocumented immigrants, they're illegal aliens, the events in Paris were not perpetrated by extremists but by Muslims,...the list goes on.

But I suspect their intention isn't to keep the discussion and phraseology accurate.
What they seek is to express base, lowly and exclusionary tendencies of thought rendered inexpressible by any PC reformulation of their speech. The emotional projection of hatred and exclusion that attends the use of illegal in place of undocumented is precisely what they desire to preserve in the discussion.

Opposition to PC language has no practically beneficial output for anyone. It doesn't make the conversation more specific, clearer or freer. It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.

I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

Read 1984 (again). PC language is doublespeak and newspeak. It eliminates clear and meaningful words and replaces them with ambiguous manipulatable words. This is what liberals love to do in order to manipulate the populace.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 6:36:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Read 1984 (again). PC language is doublespeak and newspeak. It eliminates clear and meaningful words and replaces them with ambiguous manipulatable words. This is what liberals love to do in order to manipulate the populace.

The manipulation happens on both sides. This is not limited to one side of the political spectrum.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 9:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
For whatever reason, strictures on the fair use of language and phrasing in political discourse anger most conservatives. E.g. the people crossing our borders are not undocumented immigrants, they're illegal aliens, the events in Paris were not perpetrated by extremists but by Muslims,...the list goes on.

But I suspect their intention isn't to keep the discussion and phraseology accurate.
What they seek is to express base, lowly and exclusionary tendencies of thought rendered inexpressible by any PC reformulation of their speech. The emotional projection of hatred and exclusion that attends the use of illegal in place of undocumented is precisely what they desire to preserve in the discussion.

Opposition to PC language has no practically beneficial output for anyone. It doesn't make the conversation more specific, clearer or freer. It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.

I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

Or maybe we should elect you person of the year. We shall see.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 10:56:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
For whatever reason, strictures on the fair use of language and phrasing in political discourse anger most conservatives. E.g. the people crossing our borders are not undocumented immigrants, they're illegal aliens, the events in Paris were not perpetrated by extremists but by Muslims,...the list goes on.

But I suspect their intention isn't to keep the discussion and phraseology accurate.
What they seek is to express base, lowly and exclusionary tendencies of thought rendered inexpressible by any PC reformulation of their speech. The emotional projection of hatred and exclusion that attends the use of illegal in place of undocumented is precisely what they desire to preserve in the discussion.

Opposition to PC language has no practically beneficial output for anyone. It doesn't make the conversation more specific, clearer or freer. It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.

I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

http://www.debate.org...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 11:25:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 6:06:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

You live in a bubble, and your complete lack of experience outside that bubble is the reason why you do not understand the problems with limiting language like you're suggesting.

Beyond that, you exist in an environment that is directly averse to descriptively accurate language.



Soft language is disingenuous, manipulative, constricting, and officious.

Whether there have ever been unnecessary or unjustified reformulations of speech and terminology in the name of political correctness is a separate issue. I'm defending the theory and intention -- which is simply morally unassailable. The terms used to refer to classes of people have the capacity to affect their senses of peace and belonging. The imagery and history invoked by certain words and descriptions damage the peace and dignity of the people to whom they are directed. There is no competing legitimate interest in the maintenance of one term over another, especially when they both refer to the same object. So in such circumstances where our language can be shown as toxic and socially offensive, it behooves all of us to change it. Nothing is lost.

It's obvious you have strong opinions about what terms are more fitting...but if you think that arbitrary preference should take precedence over the concerns I've just mentioned, then there's something deeply wrong with you and the way you think (as it is with anyone else who would make such a selfish argument).

I'd also really prefer if you stopped making those nonsensical personal statements as responses to views you disagree with. I don't live in a bubble. You don't know anything about me or my experiences. And such statements have no bearing on the legitimacy of the argument I've posed.
"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
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 11:42:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
For whatever reason, strictures on the fair use of language and phrasing in political discourse anger most conservatives. E.g. the people crossing our borders are not undocumented immigrants, they're illegal aliens, the events in Paris were not perpetrated by extremists but by Muslims,...the list goes on.

But I suspect their intention isn't to keep the discussion and phraseology accurate.
What they seek is to express base, lowly and exclusionary tendencies of thought rendered inexpressible by any PC reformulation of their speech. The emotional projection of hatred and exclusion that attends the use of illegal in place of undocumented is precisely what they desire to preserve in the discussion.

Opposition to PC language has no practically beneficial output for anyone. It doesn't make the conversation more specific, clearer or freer. It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.

I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

While I am in agreement in principle, I differ with you in the examples of execution you give here. To me, the non-PC labels you demonstrate are what could be the PC labels of decades ago. Illegal alien/immigrant sounds hateful? Try criminal immigrant. Muslim extremist sounds bad? Try extremist sandni@@er. You get the idea.

One of the valid critiques of PC language is that the goalposts keep moving. Hence, whatever term that was actually PC 20 years ago is now seen as boorish (at least by the militant). But at one time, that term was not offensive. People have just arbitrarily decided to be offended by whatever term they arbitrarily deem to be out of date.

So, I am onboard with PC, but it just needs to be dialed back about 15 or 20 years. It is reaching self-caricature proportions currently.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 11:47:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
For whatever reason, strictures on the fair use of language and phrasing in political discourse anger most conservatives. E.g. the people crossing our borders are not undocumented immigrants, they're illegal aliens, the events in Paris were not perpetrated by extremists but by Muslims,...the list goes on.

But I suspect their intention isn't to keep the discussion and phraseology accurate.
What they seek is to express base, lowly and exclusionary tendencies of thought rendered inexpressible by any PC reformulation of their speech.

Wrong.

The emotional projection of hatred and exclusion that attends the use of illegal in place of undocumented is precisely what they desire to preserve in the discussion.

Wrong.


Opposition to PC language has no practically beneficial output for anyone. It doesn't make the conversation more specific, clearer or freer.

It does.

It just aims to open channels with which to insult the peace and sense of inclusion felt by minority Americans.

Wrong

I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.
YYW
Posts: 36,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 12:03:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 11:25:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/16/2015 6:06:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

You live in a bubble, and your complete lack of experience outside that bubble is the reason why you do not understand the problems with limiting language like you're suggesting.

Beyond that, you exist in an environment that is directly averse to descriptively accurate language.



Soft language is disingenuous, manipulative, constricting, and officious.

Whether there have ever been unnecessary or unjustified reformulations of speech and terminology in the name of political correctness is a separate issue. I'm defending the theory and intention -- which is simply morally unassailable. The terms used to refer to classes of people have the capacity to affect their senses of peace and belonging. The imagery and history invoked by certain words and descriptions damage the peace and dignity of the people to whom they are directed. There is no competing legitimate interest in the maintenance of one term over another, especially when they both refer to the same object. So in such circumstances where our language can be shown as toxic and socially offensive, it behooves all of us to change it. Nothing is lost.

It's obvious you have strong opinions about what terms are more fitting...but if you think that arbitrary preference should take precedence over the concerns I've just mentioned, then there's something deeply wrong with you and the way you think (as it is with anyone else who would make such a selfish argument).

I'd also really prefer if you stopped making those nonsensical personal statements as responses to views you disagree with. I don't live in a bubble. You don't know anything about me or my experiences. And such statements have no bearing on the legitimacy of the argument I've posed.

We'll have a discussion about that as soon as I'm off my phone. It's very clear that I'm not going to change your mind, but I'm reasonably confident that the extreme level of conviction you've demonstrated in your OP and in response to what I wrote will not last when we are done.

It is of course highly ironic that you're so sure of yourself, when it is precisely that way of speaking that you so oft attempt to criticize me for. Pot, meet kettle.... But of course that doesn't matter.

What matters is the way you understand those who disagree with you. You, like Bsh1 and others generally regard your views with respect to this topic not only as morally unassailable, but regard others views as morally bankrupt to the extent that they disagree with you. This is due to the fact that both of you imagine anyone who does not abide by your specific standards of political correctness to be bigots, or racists, or whatever other negative thing you conjure up.

Those views are not only inaccurate, but they represent an incredibly shallow understanding of political speech generally, and rhetoric specifically. This is due in large part to the fact that neither of you understand what impact policing language actually has on political discourse. We will discuss that impact at some length at a later date.

And yes, I know a tremendous amount of information about you. Simply from they way you hold yourself out to the world, anyone can more or less figure out who you are. This is not unique to you either, although you are more of an open book than some. As is always the case whenever I tell people what I can figure out about them just from talking to them, they are blown away... Because they had no idea that they revealed so much. Not your name or anything like that. That doesn't matter. But who you are, what matters to you, what values you hold, and the like. That kind of thing you wear on your sleeve, largely because at your age you have not had occasion to conceal those values from those around you.

But, just as I did, that will change. So too will your values change, as the environment around you changes. It happens to everyone, and you will be no ecception. Having known dozens exactly like you before... I'm also pretty confident I know where you will be in ten years as well. That... That's the scary part. But it's beyond the scope of your OP so it's not a discussion for this thread.

Pm me if you want to test me, though.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 12:25:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 12:03:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/16/2015 11:25:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/16/2015 6:06:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/16/2015 2:19:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
I can't imagine a more vile and pathetic reason to be enraged at Liberals.

You live in a bubble, and your complete lack of experience outside that bubble is the reason why you do not understand the problems with limiting language like you're suggesting.

Beyond that, you exist in an environment that is directly averse to descriptively accurate language.



Soft language is disingenuous, manipulative, constricting, and officious.

Whether there have ever been unnecessary or unjustified reformulations of speech and terminology in the name of political correctness is a separate issue. I'm defending the theory and intention -- which is simply morally unassailable. The terms used to refer to classes of people have the capacity to affect their senses of peace and belonging. The imagery and history invoked by certain words and descriptions damage the peace and dignity of the people to whom they are directed. There is no competing legitimate interest in the maintenance of one term over another, especially when they both refer to the same object. So in such circumstances where our language can be shown as toxic and socially offensive, it behooves all of us to change it. Nothing is lost.

It's obvious you have strong opinions about what terms are more fitting...but if you think that arbitrary preference should take precedence over the concerns I've just mentioned, then there's something deeply wrong with you and the way you think (as it is with anyone else who would make such a selfish argument).

I'd also really prefer if you stopped making those nonsensical personal statements as responses to views you disagree with. I don't live in a bubble. You don't know anything about me or my experiences. And such statements have no bearing on the legitimacy of the argument I've posed.

We'll have a discussion about that as soon as I'm off my phone. It's very clear that I'm not going to change your mind, but I'm reasonably confident that the extreme level of conviction you've demonstrated in your OP and in response to what I wrote will not last when we are done.

It is of course highly ironic that you're so sure of yourself, when it is precisely that way of speaking that you so oft attempt to criticize me for. Pot, meet kettle.... But of course that doesn't matter.

What matters is the way you understand those who disagree with you. You, like Bsh1 and others generally regard your views with respect to this topic not only as morally unassailable, but regard others views as morally bankrupt to the extent that they disagree with you. This is due to the fact that both of you imagine anyone who does not abide by your specific standards of political correctness to be bigots, or racists, or whatever other negative thing you conjure up.

Those views are not only inaccurate, but they represent an incredibly shallow understanding of political speech generally, and rhetoric specifically. This is due in large part to the fact that neither of you understand what impact policing language actually has on political discourse. We will discuss that impact at some length at a later date.

And yes, I know a tremendous amount of information about you. Simply from they way you hold yourself out to the world, anyone can more or less figure out who you are. This is not unique to you either, although you are more of an open book than some. As is always the case whenever I tell people what I can figure out about them just from talking to them, they are blown away... Because they had no idea that they revealed so much. Not your name or anything like that. That doesn't matter. But who you are, what matters to you, what values you hold, and the like. That kind of thing you wear on your sleeve, largely because at your age you have not had occasion to conceal those values from those around you.

But, just as I did, that will change. So too will your values change, as the environment around you changes. It happens to everyone, and you will be no ecception. Having known dozens exactly like you before... I'm also pretty confident I know where you will be in ten years as well. That... That's the scary part. But it's beyond the scope of your OP so it's not a discussion for this thread.

Pm me if you want to test me, though.

Your estimation of your own perspicacity is so dramatically overblown, that I don't know whether to call it a deliberate lie or helpless confabulation. Let me emphasize it again. You know absolutely nothing.

On the one hand you're incredibly unreceptive and your views are unusually calcified for a person of your age. On the other you actually harbor the delusion that you can conduct accurate behind-the-screen psychoanalysis, and use that to inform your acceptance or rejection of the views proposed. What self-delusion --- What a disturbing marriage of flaws.

You've offered me no content to respond to, so do consider this the extent of my response.
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 12:26:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 12:25:30 AM, 000ike wrote:
Your estimation of your own perspicacity is so dramatically overblown, that I don't know whether to call it a deliberate lie or helpless confabulation. Let me emphasize it again. You know absolutely nothing.

Would you like to test that theory?
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 12:30:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 4:45:49 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
"Illegal immigrant" is an accurate term which shouldn't be controversial; their existence is not illegal but their residence in the United States is. Thus they are an immigrant illegally.

Is "Illegal Invader" too PC?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 12:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 12:30:23 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2015 4:45:49 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
"Illegal immigrant" is an accurate term which shouldn't be controversial; their existence is not illegal but their residence in the United States is. Thus they are an immigrant illegally.

Is "Illegal Invader" too PC?

"Invader" doesn't really have any proper place in the illegal immigration debate. "Invasion" isn't necessarily accurate and it's way too charged a term.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 12:33:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 12:31:59 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/17/2015 12:30:23 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2015 4:45:49 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
"Illegal immigrant" is an accurate term which shouldn't be controversial; their existence is not illegal but their residence in the United States is. Thus they are an immigrant illegally.

Is "Illegal Invader" too PC?

"Invader" doesn't really have any proper place in the illegal immigration debate. "Invasion" isn't necessarily accurate and it's way too charged a term.

Well if many of the undocumented workers don't wish to become a permanent citizen, then the dictionary term immigrant would be far less accurate than invader, especially if they receive unearned benefits like health and education.