Thread: Dangers of Political Correctness

Is excessive political correctness dangerous for a society? If you give in to every group that comes to you saying something is racist or against their cult etc., wouldn't you end up with no identity, or very little? Kind of like a fahrenheit 451 world?

Also, the decline of winners also worries me. Sports teams get consolation prizes too much, the shame of losing isn't as important as it was, teachers soften up bad scores etc.

Will the continuation of these end up creating a identity-less world. Do you disagree with the basic premises?

Yes. It incurs limitations on behavior. I don’t have much experience of Political correctness going to far, but I do think forced PC only expounds the problems of racism.

A perfect society in my opinion should be secular at its core. Outside of that all Cults should be afforded the freedom to practice their culture (from vegetarianism and praying to drug taking, sex making, suicide) behind closed doors and not impose on the neutral secular/public zone. Neutral zones should be representative of the whole society proportionately/democratically, only there should people have to abide by a common law. There seems to be an obsession with democratic governments in creating homogenized society, where all citizens are constrained to laws that best suit the lowest common denominator of person.

I don’t have much experience of losers being consoled any more than winners are celebrated.

The continuation of these behaviors would lean towards less varied identities. Many cultures have lost traditions in recent history for the want of American movies and coca cola etc.

Will the continuation of these end up creating a identity-less world. Do you disagree with the basic premises?

I don`t think that political correctness is a something that could exist for a long time.Rather it will lead to replacment of one cultures with another more aggressive.Then aggressive cultures will take over and political correctness will end.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I don`t think that political correctness is a something that could exist for a long time.Rather it will lead to replacment of one cultures with another more aggressive.Then aggressive cultures will take over and political correctness will end.

What you have failed to recognise is that Political Correctness is an inherently aggressive, dictatorial, narrowly constrianed, micro-managed philosophy. It would be difficutl to come up with something more aggressive, because it robs power from those with it and places it in the hands of those who will only use it in predefined ways. Brilliant strategy - bullshit result.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

A perfect society in my opinion should be secular at its core. Outside of that all Cults should be afforded the freedom to practice their culture (from vegetarianism and praying to drug taking, sex making, suicide) behind closed doors and not impose on the neutral secular/public zone.

What if their culture is racist toward the dominant culture, and what they do behind those closed doors is conspire to commit crimes against the hegemonic culture, up the point of doing like in Ukraine, where they kidnap women from the hegemonic culture, and then take advantage of all of that privacy they're being given to hide them and move them out of the country before selling them to someone?

In ancient Europe, thugs used castles as unassailable fortresses from which they could pillage and plunder whoever they wanted. In modern Europe, they use ghettos. You get these ethnic groups gathered together into tight lipped communities. If the police try to go in there, they know they're wasting their time. A whole network of spotters will track their movements everywhere they go. The criminals in question will be able to move any incriminating evidence outside of view, or at least make themselves scarce so it doesn't tie back to them. (Which in a human trafficking situation can mean the police arrive to find corpses.) And of course, .... no matter who the police ask about whatever happened, nobody saw anything.

I'm not sure there is clarity in this discussion about what is meant by "political correctness." Can someone please provide the standard against which comments should be made? Is it not calling a kid in a wheelchair a cripple, or a person with down's syndrome a retard, or something more (I ask because those previous two are just basic human decency and respect for the dignity of the individual).

Originally Posted by inow

Is it not calling a kid in a wheelchair a cripple, or a person with down's syndrome a retard, or something more (I ask because those previous two are just basic human decency and respect for the dignity of the individual).

I read PC as not even being allowed to use the word cripple in a conversation where you are speaking against its inappropriate use. On that basis your post would have been non-PC.

PC is a linguistic tool of self discipline. Of course any linguistic tool is dangerous in the mouth of someone who doesn't understand context.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

A perfect society in my opinion should be secular at its core. Outside of that all Cults should be afforded the freedom to practice their culture (from vegetarianism and praying to drug taking, sex making, suicide) behind closed doors and not impose on the neutral secular/public zone. Neutral zones should be representative of the whole society proportionately/democratically, only there should people have to abide by a common law.

Are you really saying that vegetarianism and praying should only happen behind closed doors?

PC is a complete bag of bs (sorry, a systemic misdirected approach), agree 100% with Ophiolite. It is the art of using ugly completly stupid and incorrect metaphor for concepts we have words for. It is the art of imposing ridiculous behaviour to people. How should I avoid taking the lift with female colleagues in Houston ? Why should I not look at a woman wearing a sexy dress ?

Afro-american for example: how can people say a black person is african ? The average black guy in the US doesn't have any clues about Africa apart from what he read in "Roots", on Internet and saw at CNN.
In the 40s and 50s, Aime Cesaire and Leopold Sedhar Sengor brought the concept of "Negritude", where you recognize being a 'nigger' and being proud of it. Why not being proud of what you are now rather than inventing yourself a mythical origin of kings and other fables ?

Another example, my company brought a lady from USA, some years ago, to make an awareness training, all over Africa, on sexual harassement (Or rather what is perceived as so in the US). She made her speech with nice presentation... At the end, there was an open table for every one to discuss. One guy raised the hand: "Madam, one question: if a female colleague is wearing a very short skirt, should we consider it as sexual harassement ?". Then follow a protest of the ladies who said that, if it is like this, they will not be able to find husband anymore...
Basically, the trainer was lagged. She could not understand that ivorian culture, african and influenced by french, is totally light years away from anglo-saxon culture especially in term of sex relations.

When PC is going inside science, especially "soft sciences" (high uncertainties knowledge disciplines) like psychology, sociology, anthropology, history etc..., it becomes a weapon of mass stupidity (corruption of good sense)

EDIT: And to answer to Harold, YES for the Christians, this is clear:
Matthew 6-5:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Sometimes, it's good to remember the Bible. :P

Originally Posted by Makandal

EDIT: And to answer to Harold, YES for the Christians, this is clear:
Matthew 6-5:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Sometimes, it's good to remember the Bible. :P

So you would be in favor of passing a law to keep people from praying in the streets like hypocrites or pagans?

Did I say that ?
This part of the Gospel is pretty sweet because it should be the foundation of Christian faith (it is the same where our Father prayer is set) but it has so often been forgotten.
It is describing what political correctness is: a social show of hypocrisy. There was a time where political correctness was to go to church or synagogs.
I might have quoted Matthew 6 from beginning:
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Jesus teaching was very secular... Still in Matthew (22-15):
(Pharises are trying to set up a trap to the guy...)
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?
Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius,
and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Knowing there was no coin with any image of God, the answer is pretty clear.

To come back to PC, I think this has to do a lot with a utopia to make this world "a better place". It is a Newspeak and a "Newbehave".

I though it was like Inow suggest. It that way it maintains constructive dialogs and helps to eliminate derogatory terms.

Will the continuation of these end up creating a identity-less world.

I don't see how it does that all all. If anything it allows a wider variety because it removes the discriminatory vocabulary directed towards those seen as "different."

I was talking to my dad on day, having a discussion about this topic. One of the things he said was that it can be dangerous to fire a minority worker because they can come back at you with a racism lawsuit. Some people will take advantage of the fact that political correctness is so prevalent.

Originally Posted by kojax

What if their culture is racist toward the dominant culture, and what they do behind those closed doors is conspire to commit crimes against the hegemonic culture,

what if? such is life. there will always be crime. The most heinous crimes should be captured under an absolute law, a set of basic standards generally regarding offences against state and other persons.

An Absolute law dictated to all people of all cultures.
A common law for neutral zones agreed democratically.
Also there should be areas with more or less liberties and/or laws.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Are you really saying that vegetarianism and praying should only happen behind closed doors?

If they are deemed to be offensive to a large enough minority then, yes they should be forbidden in the neutral zones.


I think it would overall be fairer and more conducive to preserving traditional cultures and encouraging the development of new ones.
Albeit more difficult to organise hense for the sake of easy governing, personal liberties are lost
etc.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Are you really saying that vegetarianism and praying should only happen behind closed doors?

If they are deemed to be offensive to a large enough minority then, yes they should be forbidden in the neutral zones.

You are offensive and should be forbidden from the neutral zone.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Are you really saying that vegetarianism and praying should only happen behind closed doors?

If they are deemed to be offensive to a large enough minority then, yes they should be forbidden in the neutral zones.

You are offensive and should be forbidden from the neutral zone.

I'm surprised at being called offensive. I'm trying to illustrate a rough sketch of a fairer society. One where people are offered the facility to exercise their idea of liberty, without being wholely dictated to by a Culture with opposing elements.

I always feel a little insane when I say this, but I agree with Harold.

Your notion of liberty is nonsensical, and really far more oppressive than you make it out to be. A true free society allows individual liberty particularly in the public sphere.

Now at its minimum your idea is nothing more than an obtuse description of the society we have now, at its extremes it is far more oppressive. As it stands there are already things we can do in our homes that are not acceptable in public. I.e. I can't put on rubber gloves and fist male prostitutes in front of a daycare. We agree to limit certain behaviors that can arguably cause much public discord if allowed, but do not cause much discord if done behind closed doors.

Your proposed "neutral zone" is nothing more than an Orwellian name for a system of ideological control, what is permitted in public tacitly becomes what is condoned and approved by the state. If your private life differs not from the "neutral," then really you are in the position of power in society as apparently you conform to the dominant notions of what is acceptable. If one does not conform to the neutral, then one must be singled out for restriction whenever one ventures out of their home, or lord forbid their designated cultural ghetto. The state has no business telling me what I can't do when I am not harming others. Within reasonable bounds, I do not have a right to not be offended, just as others do not have a right to not be offended by me. And what progress in increasing acceptance and tolerance of others can be made by enforcing a cultural apartheid.

How can liberty be liberty if you are only permitted to practice it in the confines of your home?

Originally Posted by pedronaut

I'm surprised at being called offensive. I'm trying to illustrate a rough sketch of a fairer society. One where people are offered the facility to exercise their idea of liberty, without being wholely dictated to by a Culture with opposing elements.

Except, this is a misrepresentation. In the name of protecting liberty, you are directly removing it. You are saying roughly, "People will be more free if we make them less free in these specific ways."

I don't feel bad agreeing with Harold. It happens often, especially when his point is a good one. This is another one of those cases. Your intentions I believe are sincere and good, but the unintentional consequences of what you propose are profound and detrimental.

I'd like to be the third member of "The Left Wing Bleeding Heart Liberals Agree With Harold" movement.

Pedronaut, I am surprised that you cannot see that calling you offensive was a rhetorical device to demonstrate the consequences of your proposal. Anyone's behaviour, good or bad, can be labelled offensive, and if enough people agree then you are on this restricted freedoms list. Yes, you can watch re-runs of Two and a Half Men, but only if you do so in a darkened room with the sound turned down.

I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy with all the people agreeing with me.

Pedronaut, I didn't mean to insult you, but that's really a bad idea you had, which really goes against the principles of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Your notion of liberty is nonsensical, and really far more oppressive than you make it out to be. A true free society allows individual liberty particularly in the public sphere.

It is impossible to allow individual liberty to all. As some cultures have directly conflicting ideas. Take the wearing of the Muslim headscarf in public (see France).

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

As it stands there are already things we can do in our homes that are not acceptable in public.

Sure. However i'm considering activities which commit no direct assault on other persons or state yet are totally illegal thus unjustly making criminals out of consenting adults.
Behaviour such as watching/reading offensive/subversive censored material,
or smoking marajuana,
or paying for sex,
or committing euthanaisa etc.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

what is permitted in public tacitly becomes what is condoned and approved by the state.

That is an excellent point. I'm willing to lean a little toward my sword.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

And what progress in increasing acceptance and tolerance of others can be made by enforcing a cultural apartheid.

How can liberty be liberty if you are only permitted to practice it in the confines of your home?

Aspects of different cultures can be totally at conflict and mutually offensive. The 'apartheid' is not a fullscale social division. It is a compromise where for example homosexuals can live in peace with homophobic drug users, in a neutral zone. The former group agree to limiting the homosexual activity to certain areas and the homophobic drug users agree to limiting their drug use to certain areas. Secondary issues such as anti social behaviour by drug addicts, is just that, a secondary issue, to be policed accordingly. In the Primary, liberated people should be free to abuse drugs.

Originally Posted by inow

In the name of protecting liberty, you are directly removing it. You are saying roughly, "People will be more free if we make them less free in these specific ways."

I think it's the only way to facilitate all cultures and tastes.
People will be more free. because this would facilitate their behavioural desires, at a cost; the facilitation of conflicting cultures' behavioural desires.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Anyone's behaviour, good or bad, can be labelled offensive

Yes this is a true fact of life. To cure it requires the brainwashing of people to change their attitude and deny their culture.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

and if enough people agree then you are on this restricted freedoms list. Yes, you can watch re-runs of Two and a Half Men, but only if you do so in a darkened room with the sound turned down.

I would not choose to call it a restricted freedoms list. Preferably a eg. sector 7G behaviour.
At least this way nobody would be denied their 2 and a half men.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

It is impossible to allow individual liberty to all. As some cultures have directly conflicting ideas. Take the wearing of the Muslim headscarf in public (see France).

No, that is France abusing the concept of individual liberties. Directly conflicting ideas don't matter, the minimum standard is that you have no right to harm others or cause public discord.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Sure. However i'm considering activities which commit no direct assault on other persons or state yet are totally illegal thus unjustly making criminals out of consenting adults.
Behaviour such as watching/reading offensive/subversive censored material,
or smoking marajuana,
or paying for sex,
or committing euthanaisa etc.

No, that is not what you said, you included praying and vegetarianism. People can already do these things in many liberal societies without trouble. THe legality of paying for sex comes into some trouble because it does not necessarily not harm others, and euthanasia is also problematic. I think prostitution and euthenasia should be legal, but they also have to be in a public space and regulated to prevent abuse. I don't think any liberal society should have censored or subversive reading material, and I don't care if people smoke marijuana. However, the production of drugs needs to be taken out of criminal hands.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Aspects of different cultures can be totally at conflict and mutually offensive. The 'apartheid' is not a fullscale social division. It is a compromise where for example homosexuals can live in peace with homophobic drug users, in a neutral zone. The former group agree to limiting the homosexual activity to certain areas and the homophobic drug users agree to limiting their drug use to certain areas. Secondary issues such as anti social behaviour by drug addicts, is just that, a secondary issue, to be policed accordingly. In the Primary, liberated people should be free to abuse drugs.

Uh, how exactly do homosexuals not already keep homosexual activity in their homes? Or are you proposing that we ban mentioning what you are in a public space, or just limiting PDA? In which case we better be like the Foot Loose town and be banning dancing and fraternizing of all kinds. Gays are already used to having to hide who they are in public places because of fear of reprisal, instituting such a thing at the state level is a horrifying idea. How do you avoid ever mentioning a partner? Should they be worrying about their clothes, speech, or mannerisms giving them away?

Originally Posted by pedronaut

I think it's the only way to facilitate all cultures and tastes.
People will be more free. because this would facilitate their behavioural desires, at a cost; the facilitation of conflicting cultures' behavioural desires.

Getting the state involved in these things does nothing to facilitate anyone's desires. We facilitate all desires merely by having a blanket standard for everyone, which is that anything that does not interfere with others is fair game. Mill had it right 200 years ago when he wrote On Liberty.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Yes this is a true fact of life. To cure it requires the brainwashing of people to change their attitude and deny their culture.

No, the problem is you think there is something to be cured. The opposite is that we tolerate, we debate, we discuss, and we keep the state the fuck out of people's personal business when it doesn't affect others.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

No, that is France abusing the concept of individual liberties. Directly conflicting ideas don't matter, the minimum standard is that you have no right to harm others or cause public discord.

Who's individual liberties are being abused. The one who wants to wear a headscarf or the one who doesn't want to share a subway train with someone wearing a headscarf?
I believe there is a better way to govern than with blanket rulings. I think there should be areas (ghettos if you like, to connote negatively) where group A are happy and where group B are happy. Freedom of movement exists, the only condition being you abide by local law.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

No, that is not what you said, you included praying and vegetarianism. People can already do these things in many liberal societies without trouble.

Great! So if we took a vote tomorrow on what should be allowed in the neutral zone, talking to Jesus and eating vegtables will still be allowed. No drastic changes there.
(BTW When i first cited Vegatarianism and praying, it was in the context illustrating the entire spectrum of human behaviour. I have no personal issue with most human activities)

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

THe legality of paying for sex comes into some trouble because it does not necessarily not harm others, and euthanasia is also problematic. I think prostitution and euthenasia should be legal, but they also have to be in a public space and regulated to prevent abuse.

Yes I totally agree. It seems i have been unclear. I would totally expect activity such as prostitution and euthanaisa to be regulated. But if legalised people should also be able to live in an area where no Brothel or Euthanasia clinc would ever be allowed to open or advertise on Billboards etc.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Aspects of different cultures can be totally at conflict and mutually offensive. The 'apartheid' is not a fullscale social division. It is a compromise where for example homosexuals can live in peace with homophobic drug users, in a neutral zone. The former group agree to limiting the homosexual activity to certain areas and the homophobic drug users agree to limiting their drug use to certain areas. Secondary issues such as anti social behaviour by drug addicts, is just that, a secondary issue, to be policed accordingly. In the Primary, liberated people should be free to abuse drugs.

Uh, how exactly do homosexuals not already keep homosexual activity in their homes? Or are you proposing that we ban mentioning what you are in a public space, or just limiting PDA? In which case we better be like the Foot Loose town and be banning dancing and fraternizing of all kinds. Gays are already used to having to hide who they are in public places because of fear of reprisal, instituting such a thing at the state level is a horrifying idea. How do you avoid ever mentioning a partner? Should they be worrying about their clothes, speech, or mannerisms giving them away?

Nothing is being institutiuonalised, just organised.
One doesn't have to avoid coming out, only not commit any activity that is not allowed in areas where it is not allowed.
No, they should not be afraid of being Outed, because there is nothing to be ashamed about. and the society should be more understanding and aware of just how different people are and how their tastes etc. vary.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Getting the state involved in these things does nothing to facilitate anyone's desires. We facilitate all desires merely by having a blanket standard for everyone, which is that anything that does not interfere with others is fair game.

We Do Not Facilitate all Desires, with the current system. We make little effort to facilitate desires of many minority groups. Many activities which do not interfere with others are not far game.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Yes this is a true fact of life. To cure it requires the brainwashing of people to change their attitude and deny their culture.

No, the problem is you think there is something to be cured. The opposite is that we tolerate, we debate, we discuss, and we keep the state the fuck out of people's personal business when it doesn't affect others.

I have been misuderstood here. I absolutely don't think there is anything to be cured, nurished if anything. Our present system tries to Cure people from offending others or from perceiving offence. This is cultural suicide.
Tolerate, Debate, Discuss -YES. But don't ever let anyone tell you you shouldn't be Offended.

I also wish the state would stay out of people's personal business, but it doesn't, it makes blanket bans and legislates with the Lowest Common Denominator of person in mind.
If the state must get involved, which it does, It should do its job and organise society, facilite every 'weird' desire.


Obviously I am seeing this idea through my own rose tinted glasses. My intentions are to be Utopian for all.
Thank you for referencing Mill, I will look him/her up.
And maybe work on defining this 'Utopia' a little better.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I'd like to be the third member of "The Left Wing Bleeding Heart Liberals Agree With Harold" movement.

Where do I sign up?

Does it strike anybody else that pedronaut's arguments are increasingly sounding like apartheid, or pre-1960s segragation in the American south?

basically I am not looking to remove any freedoms, only grant more freedom.
As society is, there are many activities which decent people like to do and do, but are in effect behaving crimminally.
It seems to me there is little done to facilitate people who'd like to legally explore their desires, however wild they may seem.

I just think we should be free, and that has to include, many of the activities often termed as vices and activities which some well established religions term as wrong/evil.

I think the best way to satisfy the demands of all people is to restrict some behaviour to certain areas only.
The people who want Blanket Bans for themselves and everyone else, should just stay in their nice area with their religious neighbours and worry about the plank of wood in their own eyes only.

If that sounds like segregation or apartheid then my communication skills are far worse than i feared.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

If that sounds like segregation or apartheid then my communication skills are far worse than i feared.

Lets consider a specific example. Should the KKK be allowed to hold public marches? This right has been defended by the ACLU.
http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html

Personally i think the KKK should be listed as a banned organisation

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Personally i think the KKK should be listed as a banned organisation

Listen. I'm no fan of the KKK, but how can you not see that what you've just said here is in DIRECT contradiction to your OWN words in the very last post?

Originally Posted by pedronaut

I just think we should be free, and that has to include, many of the activities often termed as vices and activities which some well established religions term as wrong/evil.

Because when i said activities,
I should have said activities that do not cause harm to other persons or the state,

That has been my main focus,
I have no interest in the struggles of racist groups

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Because when i said activities,
I should have said activities that do not cause harm to other persons or the state,

That has been my main focus,
I have no interest in the struggles of racist groups

Okay. I see. Freedom and equality for all, unless (of course) you personally disagree with them. Yep. Sure sounds like most versions of utopia I've seen.

And, please do clarify for us how a public march causes "harm to other persons or the state."


I really dislike you right now for being so ignorant as to make me personally have to sit here and defend the KKK. Jackass.

Originally Posted by inow

I really dislike you right now for being so ignorant as to make me personally have to sit here and defend the KKK.

Why do all the right wing groups get to wear the interesting uniforms? It doesn't seem fair.

The KKK are a Hate group. therefore their marching is an assault on other people. Very simple.

It is not just me personally who disagrees with this contraversial group.
I would like to think that in a democratic society they would never be afforded a space to express themselves other than alone in their houses where they don't harm anyone.
Or maybe on a little island called KKK land where they can get all incestuous and breed the Superman.

If i made you sit there defending something you didn't want to defend, that would be pretty manipulative of me, hardly ignorant.
Anyway don't worry i am not under any illusion that you are defending the KKK. You are wrong if yiou think you are defending the KKK.

Thank's for calling me Jack Ass
while we're at it,
-I admit i haven't been clear and shouldn't be arguing/defending an idea i haven't thought about much, but anyway if i you require any further info about my vision of Utopia-
then go suck a fart out of my ...

Don't worry pedronaut that's Inow's way of making friends.

Personally I'd have to agree with I_F_T_Sleepy, government has no business legislating rights and feedoms. After all wasn't that the idea behind the pilgrim's exodus from England to start a new society in America.
The KKK, distasteful as they may be, should be allowed to march with their views and allowed their opinions, as a matter of fact everyone should be allowed opinions. The only defense against distasteful or hateful opinions and ideas should be education.

That being said we do live in a society which does legislate rights and freedoms, and as has been mentioned there are quite a few things which are suppressed or made illegal even though they hurt no-one and, although not an ideal situation , no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater, our society seems to be working much better than others. The only real issue I would have is the censoring or suppression of thoughts and ideas as I believe that is the only absolute freedom we possess.

Don't worry pedronaut that's Inow's way of making friends.

Personally I'd have to agree with I_F_T_Sleepy, government has no business legislating rights and feedoms. After all wasn't that the idea behind the pilgrim's exodus from England to start a new society in America.
The KKK, distasteful as they may be, should be allowed to march with their views and allowed their opinions, as a matter of fact everyone should be allowed opinions. The only defense against distasteful or hateful opinions and ideas should be education.

That being said we do live in a society which does legislate rights and freedoms, and as has been mentioned there are quite a few things which are suppressed or made illegal even though they hurt no-one and, although not an ideal situation , no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater, our society seems to be working much better than others. The only real issue I would have is the censoring or suppression of thoughts and ideas as I believe that is the only absolute freedom we possess.

Originally Posted by MigL

Don't worry pedronaut that's Inow's way of making friends.

Personally I'd have to agree with I_F_T_Sleepy, government has no business legislating rights and feedoms. After all wasn't that the idea behind the pilgrim's exodus from England to start a new society in America.

(And think you meant "legislating against.")


No not really. They were escaping a specific government not exhibiting the broad view you suggest. Furthermore the society they created was just as oppressive as the one they escaped from.

The KKK, distasteful as they may be, should be allowed to march with their views and allowed their opinions, as a matter of fact everyone should be allowed opinions.

I agree.
It also avoids the government trying to figure out who qualifies as a "hate group" and who doesn't.

--

The only real issue I would have is the censoring or suppression of thoughts and ideas as I believe that is the only absolute freedom we possess.

Allowing the KKK a voice-
(Given their history they should at least change their name first)

It seems like this thread has returned to the OPs initial question

Is excessive political correctness dangerous for a society?

Originally Posted by pedronaut

It is not just me personally who disagrees with this contraversial group.
I would like to think that in a democratic society they would never be afforded a space to express themselves other than alone in their houses where they don't harm anyone.
Or maybe on a little island called KKK land where they can get all incestuous and breed the Superman....

There was a minority group in Germany in the 1930s. They held that the Jews were not responsible for the social and economic troubles experienced by Germany. This minority group was suppressed, because after all it was a minority. So, there was nothing wrong with that, was there? After all this minority group, that was either evil or gullible, denied the underlying plots by the Jews to corrupt Aryan society. Really quite a nasty lot. Weren't the Germans lucky to have Hitler save them from that nasty minority?

So, rhetorically, you make the point that Minority groups should be afforded a voice.

With hindsight it is easy to see the Jews were wronged by Hitler. Looking back, it's a damm shame that Jewish Apologists were supressed in 1930's Germany.

Today it is easy to view the KKK as a hate group.
Personally, i would rather them silenced.
Political correctness-ly, Yes they should have a voice.

I would suggest the strength of their voice be limited democratically.
Like, if they want to march in an area. The length of their march(time and distance) should be directly proportional to the size of their membership in said Area.
The quantity of registered opponents to a group should also have some negative bearing on the length of a group's march.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

Political correctness-ly, Yes they should have a voice.

I would suggest the strength of their voice be limited democratically.

I don't know if you are American. But your opinion is in direct opposition to the entire point of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the hallmark of the enlightenment, which secured basic freedoms to express oneself without oppression by a tyranny of the majority.

no i'm irish
yeah, i guess my opinion above is in direct opposition..

but that's me i hate hate groups

Actually, I changed my mind,
I prefer to think of my opinion as a method of fair facilitation in a democratic sense, rather than oppression.

Originally Posted by pedronaut

I would suggest the strength of their voice be limited democratically.
Like, if they want to march in an area. The length of their march(time and distance) should be directly proportional to the size of their membership in said Area.
The quantity of registered opponents to a group should also have some negative bearing on the length of a group's march.

Your opinion seems to be unpopular on this particular forum. However the length of your posts should not be limited in any way.

Yeah, I have no business here, my theory is not well thought out.
However, whatever about the enlightenment's infallibility;
Restrictions on self expression and group expression are par for the course in any democracy. Call this Oppression if you must.
Certainly now i agree my meagre attempt at theorising a fair method of restriction sounds like something beginning with O

Originally Posted by pedronaut

I would suggest the strength of their voice be limited democratically..

And that can be done by the majority actively ignoring them. If they have a march either encourage people to be nowhere near it, or to turn up and turn there backs on the marchers aas they walk past. Let them understand their view is unpopular. But let them express that view.

Wow...

Already 4 pages. Not going to bother reading it all. Just my viewpoint.

I think political correctness is flat out wrong. It forces people to restrain their freedom of speech. When enforced by any means, it is an authoritarian oppression. When put into law, it becomes a form of fascism.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Already 4 pages. Not going to bother reading it all. Just my viewpoint.

Has anyone else ever noticed that all of the very best replies to all forum discussions always start out with this comment?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think political correctness is flat out wrong.

And how are you defining political correctness?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It forces people to restrain their freedom of speech.

Only if it's codified in a way which "forces people" to do stuff. Usually, it manifests as a social pressure to avoid things like calling people nigger, cunt, or retard.

Again, though... It depends on how one defines it, which is why I asked my first question.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

When enforced by any means, it is an authoritarian oppression. When put into law, it becomes a form of fascism.

Even if it's "enforced" by preventing you from getting cotton candy or from having extra pie? That falls well within the domain of "any means."


We'd probably all be better off if hyperbole and melodrama hadn't become so politically correct in online discussions.

The true definition of fascism is the combination of state and corporate power structure.

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini

From; http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...mussolini.html
For some reason (Hmmm...) this particular definition has been scrubbed from the Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

And no, PC should not be a legal edict. But as a social tendency it can have tremendous potential for positive change.
What if, in 1930's Germany, it would have been as socially rude to go about openly saying "kike", as it is to go about openly saying "nigger" in America today?

P.S. Crossposted with inow. How's it going dude!