The Instigator
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Is Political Correctness an example of Big Brother. If so. Who is Big Brother?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Thoht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 470 times Debate No: 120140
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Sonofcharl

Pro

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression have largely been suppressed by what is casually regarded as Political Correctness.

How long before technology is able to suppress freedom of thought too?

And does it really matter anyway?
If Freedoms are suppressed for the overall good of Society and the Planet. Why should we complain?

Though for example:
Can current politically correct views on gender and sexuality issues be proven to be beneficial to the whole of society? If not why should voicing opposition now be deemed to be unethical and antisocial?

And more importantly:
Who is making these decisions? From my viewpoint there certainly does not appear to be a consensus of opinion.
Thoht

Con

1. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression have not been "suppressed. " In order for them to be suppressed there would have to be legal consequences. The term you're looking for is "freedom from consequences. " We don't and have never had freedom from consequences. If you are a dick to people, They will not like you. You're free to speak and express whatever you'd like. The law hasn't changed recently in regards to these things. You're not free from the public's reaction. . . I. E. The consequences of your actions.

2. "Freedom of thought" in regards to technology is an extremely interesting topic but it is off-topic.

3. Your freedoms haven't been suppressed. Certain freedoms can be defended against "better for society" arguments because freedom is in a sense "better for society" than most of the alternatives.

4. You can call it political correctness if you'd like, But the reality is its just people asking you not to be a dick to other people. If you told me your name was James and I insisted on calling you Jessica, You'd probably think I was a dick. Gender and sexuality terms are no different, And only take a modicum of effort on your part to deal with. I'd be extremely interested to hear how referring to people with the nouns or pronouns that they prefer has distressed you or required extreme effort on your part.

5. No 'decision' has really been made that requires a consensus. If people see you being a dick, They probably won't want to associate with you. If 25% of the population thinks you're being a dick, That is the consequence of you exercising your freedom of expression/speech. If 75% of the population thinks so, It is just a bit worse for you. Those are just the dice you roll when you decide to go public with your opinions.

To conclude,

Big Brother is governments making sure you know that they are always watching as a preventative measure. There is slim at most government involvement with PC.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
Sonofcharl

Pro

I am a British citizen and certainly here in the U. K. The subtlety and furtiveness of this thing we regard as political correctness successfully enables discriminatory legislation to enter the statute book.

1) A Christian airline check in worker was prohibited by law from wearing a cross to work. In case it offended other religious groups. Fortunately we are still subject to European Law and this ruling was successfully overturned In the European Court of Human Rights. Nonetheless the initial ruling was a definite example of suppression of an individuals freedom of religious expression.
For the record I am atheist and therefore have no bias towards any religion.

2) Private Guesthouse owners were successfully taken to court after they declined to accept a gay couples into their home.
Once again a perfect example of suppression of freedom of expression.

3) What are loosely termed as hate speech laws also exist in several statutes. A clear example of both freedom of speech and freedom of expression being suppressed.
Once again for the record, I am apolitical and very moderate in my thinking and I definitely do not agree with extreme right wing rhetoric. Nonetheless I am a firm advocate of the notion that freedom of all speech is essential and the freedom to ignore is bliss.

All these laws result from the slow creep of political correctness. The supposed protection of one groups sensibilities from that of another, More often in favour of the minority over the majority. Of course the obvious contradiction is that in protecting one group you inevitably discriminate against another.

Governments are enablers of law and therefore complicit in political correctness, But the more important question should be: Who are the lobbyists? The hidden voices that the general public never gets to hear and the hidden voices that have such a strong but silent influence on social policy making.

All very conspiratorial perhaps. And me the ardent anti conspiracist.
Thoht

Con

Thoht forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Sonofcharl

Pro

Oh Thoht!
Thoht

Con

Thoht forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Thoht

Con

Srry just didn't have the time.

Big brother refers to something entirely different than what your main complaint is. That's all I can say. Feel free to take conduct points off from me.

Other than that, I will point out that you can't on one hand say the government is good for sticking up for a company's rights in one case and say they're bad for not sticking up for a company's rights in another case. Your positions on your examples are contradictory. You're saying a company is not allowed to persecute people for religious reasons and that is good, But they are allowed to persecute people for being gay, And that should be protected. It is entirely contradictory.

Apologies that the argument came in the conclusion. You wouldn't believe the week I've had.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Sorry got held up irl. Will still work on this debate in later rounds.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
SonofcharlThohtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The only main contention that I saw in the debate was whether PC was seen as enforceable by law. In this regard, Pro did bring up various sources to show cases in which political correctness was enforced. However, it's difficult to take that into account (even despite the fact that con forfeited two rounds) since there is no source link and the explanation is vague. Even if the sources Pro brought up were there to show the legal repercussions of PC, there is no evidence to back this up with no site links. Even things such as Christian airline example didn't entirely support Pro's own case, because despite the fact that he stated the man was compelled by law to take it off the decision was overturned in a higher court. Therefore it doesn't seem to me that PC is actually controlled by 'Big Brother'. Therefore, I feel that Con's argument still stand. But had Con elaborated a bit more on his sources it would've changed the winner.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.