Yeah I'm not American, so while I agree free speech is important I don't have the typical American view that it's the most important right. If it comes down to the right of one person to verbally harass someone vs. the right of the other person to live free of harassment I'll support the latter.
Do you think free speech is evil?
- Thread starter Alolan_Apples
- Start date
- Status
Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
I would still like an answer on why it?s morally wrong to oppose Obama or mourn Kate Steinle. Thanks for your opinions on if you think free speech is evil or not. Now I just need an answer on those two questions (or three if I talk about Halloween costumes).
The reason why I asked about Obama is because the people that condemned Trump supporters (or committed violent acts against them) - they were the same people that called you a racist if you sided with McCain or Romney when Obama was running for president (or even oppose the Obama administration). So what?s wrong with opposing Obama?
No, free speech is not evil. What is evil is the fight against free thinking, where you have to hate one group because you've aligned yourself with another. And people like to mask their evil intentions through political debates as well, like being against human rights but saying it's a monetary issue.
I'm not gonna comment on the Obama or Kate Steinle issues because I'm Canadian and relatively young and so I don't have a ton of in-depth knowledge about some of the American political issues you mentioned, but I will comment on the culturally appropriative Halloween costumes thing. It really depends on what you mean by "it's okay" to dress up as a culturally appropriative costumes for Halloween. Do you mean, "it's okay" as in "it's morally correct", or "it should be legal", or "it shouldn't be viewed as offensive", or something else? Because my answer depends heavily on exactly what you mean by that.
Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
I think I’m referring to “it shouldn’t be viewed as offensive”. The same applies to opposing Obama and mourning Kate Steinle (if anyone else wants to answer those questions).
Last edited:
apples get real, the amount of fringe right-wing violence has sky rocketed in recent years and it doesn't matter how many cherries you pick, violence perpetuated by left-wing activists will never come close to the number or severity of incidents perpetrated by white nationalists, neo-nazi rhetoric, unhinged libertarians and the president and his throng of anti-intellectual plutocrats; uneducated rural boneheads that have the power to wreak havoc on the electorate thanks to the seedy efforts of republicans to concentrate minority votes into new voting districts to neuter cities--you know--the places the majority of Americans live--places they haven't won in over 50 years--and the Supreme Court has decided to miraculously find the reforms in redistricting policies over the years to curtail gerrymandering unconstitutional; not to mention this fascist game they are flirting with where they are questioning the loyalty of natural born and naturalized citizens and labeling any institution not giving the right lip service as fake, indecent, socialist, traitorous, terrorism, and putting blind trust in a man who can just stand there for half a minute with a narcissistic smirk while people around him invoke Axis Powers circa 1940.
Do you know what "send them back" turned into then? something like internment of refugees or undesirable immigrants and people with the same ethnicity as your national enemy having their loyal put into question and throwing them in "just to be safe". and that wasn't just over there, it happened here and just like now, we swallowed it or played whataboutist games when "left radicals" questioned it. then it was "well what about the communists" or "we can't just let every person from eastern europe or japan flee here, better send them back. they aren't citizens they can't take up space there's a war on, besides, we don't really trust the ones born here, why fill up the internment camps." or "pfff there's socialist in the nazi name, coincidence, i think not." anybody that wasn't bleeding patriotism might as well have been a subversive.
now yeah, it's alarmist to call donald trump hitler or imply he is going to start a genocide. trump does not genuinely believe anything he says. someone who speaks with conviction doesn't flip flop 3+ times in a week or run to the political party that benefits his image 5+ times in the last 30 years. as a business man, he's just peddling something in demand to people that the republicans have never had the integrity to disavow and surprise, he profited.
what concerns me is his ability to blunder through and set dangerous precedents of presidential authority that someone younger and more intelligence taking these things he says while he's puffing his chest and actually apply it. maybe I don't know for sure whether donald trump is this or that, but there is a politician out there that is. and it's not just the left being contrary, the republican party is bleeding members by the day and more even condemning the president's actions. they have a guy who wants to somehow replace trump in the republican primary to in his words, save the soul of his party.
but what does all this have to do with your question? no, it's not immoral to not support former president obama. even during his presidency we called the man out on things we didn't like and there were reasons why people might not have voted for him a second time. it was just the things republicans cited were often distorted or bogus. and you did have some racist rhetoric in the fringe part of your base then, that is not debatable.
but this is what i do find morally questionable. supporting a man whose sole platform was to systematically dismantle president obama's every accomplishment, who questioned his loyalty and love for his nation, demanded he release more and more information like a birth certificate he never conceded that yeah he's an American and that maybe he shouldn't have continued to say "i don't KNOW if he's a radical islamic terrorist, but hmmm very very interesting question..." and continued to slander the man well after he left office and to this day links him to subversive elements in modern society as if obama ignited this hyper polarized himself, rather than the truth it was the efforts to resist progressive change that ramped up the vitriol. so you can say it started with obama if you want, but let's be real.
i find it morally questionable to lambast president obama while watching president trump assaulting media, attacking institutions he doesn't like and branding political enemies traitors or worse, nearly starting international incidents because he doesn't understand diplomacy--though he's happy to softball dictators and leaders who oversee nations full of human rights violations and blames our own on poor people and illegal immigrants and democrats and taking about poverty like it's an image problem and fails to divorce himself from violent elements of his base in any meaningful way... a man who thinks he can bully and bribe his way through checks and balances and use executive orders to do whatever he wants (even thinks he can repeal amendments with them) and has a twitter tantrum when he finds out he cannot, making my fiscally conservative friends disenfranchised and ashamed that despite their efforts to steer their party into some semblance of their roots, where they honestly believe their ideas can benefit someone, are near silenced by this unbelievable human lest they get lumped in with us commie traitors too.
i almost wish the state of the union really was just parties slinging mud, but when you have the staunchest right aligned media conglomerate fact-checking people in years past they had favorable views of, i don't care if donald trump was a socialist dreamboat instead, i don't think i have ever seen a transition of political power be that disrespectful, and president obama and bush and clinton absolutely did not treat their predecessors this way. can you see donald trump standing in solidarity with these men like they're all friends? no, you can't, because he has thrown all of them under the bus and they all have criticized him. relatives of deceased republican presidents criticize him. and the man said himself many of his friends have turned on him.
so i don't know, you tell me why supporting this president while finding nothing that made obama presidential looks bad?
Do you know what "send them back" turned into then? something like internment of refugees or undesirable immigrants and people with the same ethnicity as your national enemy having their loyal put into question and throwing them in "just to be safe". and that wasn't just over there, it happened here and just like now, we swallowed it or played whataboutist games when "left radicals" questioned it. then it was "well what about the communists" or "we can't just let every person from eastern europe or japan flee here, better send them back. they aren't citizens they can't take up space there's a war on, besides, we don't really trust the ones born here, why fill up the internment camps." or "pfff there's socialist in the nazi name, coincidence, i think not." anybody that wasn't bleeding patriotism might as well have been a subversive.
now yeah, it's alarmist to call donald trump hitler or imply he is going to start a genocide. trump does not genuinely believe anything he says. someone who speaks with conviction doesn't flip flop 3+ times in a week or run to the political party that benefits his image 5+ times in the last 30 years. as a business man, he's just peddling something in demand to people that the republicans have never had the integrity to disavow and surprise, he profited.
what concerns me is his ability to blunder through and set dangerous precedents of presidential authority that someone younger and more intelligence taking these things he says while he's puffing his chest and actually apply it. maybe I don't know for sure whether donald trump is this or that, but there is a politician out there that is. and it's not just the left being contrary, the republican party is bleeding members by the day and more even condemning the president's actions. they have a guy who wants to somehow replace trump in the republican primary to in his words, save the soul of his party.
but what does all this have to do with your question? no, it's not immoral to not support former president obama. even during his presidency we called the man out on things we didn't like and there were reasons why people might not have voted for him a second time. it was just the things republicans cited were often distorted or bogus. and you did have some racist rhetoric in the fringe part of your base then, that is not debatable.
but this is what i do find morally questionable. supporting a man whose sole platform was to systematically dismantle president obama's every accomplishment, who questioned his loyalty and love for his nation, demanded he release more and more information like a birth certificate he never conceded that yeah he's an American and that maybe he shouldn't have continued to say "i don't KNOW if he's a radical islamic terrorist, but hmmm very very interesting question..." and continued to slander the man well after he left office and to this day links him to subversive elements in modern society as if obama ignited this hyper polarized himself, rather than the truth it was the efforts to resist progressive change that ramped up the vitriol. so you can say it started with obama if you want, but let's be real.
i find it morally questionable to lambast president obama while watching president trump assaulting media, attacking institutions he doesn't like and branding political enemies traitors or worse, nearly starting international incidents because he doesn't understand diplomacy--though he's happy to softball dictators and leaders who oversee nations full of human rights violations and blames our own on poor people and illegal immigrants and democrats and taking about poverty like it's an image problem and fails to divorce himself from violent elements of his base in any meaningful way... a man who thinks he can bully and bribe his way through checks and balances and use executive orders to do whatever he wants (even thinks he can repeal amendments with them) and has a twitter tantrum when he finds out he cannot, making my fiscally conservative friends disenfranchised and ashamed that despite their efforts to steer their party into some semblance of their roots, where they honestly believe their ideas can benefit someone, are near silenced by this unbelievable human lest they get lumped in with us commie traitors too.
i almost wish the state of the union really was just parties slinging mud, but when you have the staunchest right aligned media conglomerate fact-checking people in years past they had favorable views of, i don't care if donald trump was a socialist dreamboat instead, i don't think i have ever seen a transition of political power be that disrespectful, and president obama and bush and clinton absolutely did not treat their predecessors this way. can you see donald trump standing in solidarity with these men like they're all friends? no, you can't, because he has thrown all of them under the bus and they all have criticized him. relatives of deceased republican presidents criticize him. and the man said himself many of his friends have turned on him.
so i don't know, you tell me why supporting this president while finding nothing that made obama presidential looks bad?
Last edited:
Party politics is a trap within itself. It segregates people, when in reality what politics should do is bring people together to solve problems that shouldn’t be shrouded in a reactionary sense of taboo to start with.
Free speech is not evil. But in saying that, evil doesn’t really exist. Merely, there’s an idea and then someone else’s idea.
Free speech is not evil. But in saying that, evil doesn’t really exist. Merely, there’s an idea and then someone else’s idea.
Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
I couldn’t quote the whole thing, but here’s my response:
If it’s morally wrong to oppose Obama because of what he did as president, then I can thank you for answering my question. I don’t care where Obama is born or what religion he follows. It’s his agenda and actions he did as president I oppose. In case if you’re wondering, my primary news source is Townhall.com, which I’ve been subscribing to even more after how bad Obama’s presidency was.
But if it’s morally wrong to oppose Obama because it would push you to supporting Trump, that’s not the case with me. Why? Because my initial choice for the 2016 Election is Ted Cruz (who isn’t offensive like Trump, but is more radical on fiscal issues and social issues), and even still I prefer Ted Cruz. I would also choose Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, or even a third George Bush term over Donald Trump. Even if their ideologies are more right-winged than some of Trump’s ideologies while more left-winged than Trump’s other ideologies, they are better personalty-wise and morally. However, there are a few Republicans I support Trump more then, such as Mitch McConnell, Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, and John Kaisch.
And yes, there are people I respect less than Obama. There are seven Democrats I have more respect for AOC than, fifteen I have more respect for Pelosi than, and several I have more respect for Obama than.
Last edited:
Freedom of speech has always been extremely important, as it branches off into other things. As the others have said, the question is an oxymoron because you have people protesting for the right to repress speech.
Also it has been mentioned that A) Certain websites/companies will have their own policies on what can and can't be said on their platform and that B) Certain types of speech (libel/slander/other defamation or promotion of illegal activity) are not protected. This is what a majority of concern for people in this thread has been, and it can be illegal in the United States to say certain provocative things. Now, there are certain controversial scenarios that could fall under defamation and are not illegal.
I don't think any person here would disagree that FoS is inherently a bad thing, nor would people agree that something someone else said and that I don't agree with should be illegal.
Also it has been mentioned that A) Certain websites/companies will have their own policies on what can and can't be said on their platform and that B) Certain types of speech (libel/slander/other defamation or promotion of illegal activity) are not protected. This is what a majority of concern for people in this thread has been, and it can be illegal in the United States to say certain provocative things. Now, there are certain controversial scenarios that could fall under defamation and are not illegal.
I don't think any person here would disagree that FoS is inherently a bad thing, nor would people agree that something someone else said and that I don't agree with should be illegal.
I mean, there are a lot of reasons people might be offended. In my personal case, as a mostly white person who doesn't have strong connections to the little bit of non-white heritage I do have, it's harder to give examples because I don't have as many lived experiences associated with cultural appropriation, and I find that it's easier to say ignorant things when you speak on topics you aren't an expert on, so I'm not going to give an in-depth explanation. That being said, there are plenty of videos out there on reasons cultural appropriation is wrong, and I'd recommend watching some of those if you don't get it.
I think the more worrying thing is that, in my opinion, telling people what emotional response they "should" or "shouldn't" have to something someone says is basically just as bad as telling people what they "should" or "shouldn't" say. If someone gets offended by something you say, why is that something that hurts you? Why do you want certain things to be off-limits to be offended by? In my opinion, trying to control peoples' emotional response to something is, at best, a fruitless effort, and at worst, kind of controlling. I think that, if someone wants to say something offensive, they should just accept that they are going to offend people. You can't say offensive things and expect no one to get offended, speech is a social action and you have to give people room to react how they genuinely feel if you want them to listen to how you genuinely feel, in my opinion. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't believe anyone should be physically attacked or arrested or anything for saying offensive things (unless they're threatening or harassing others), but verbally getting offended, or protesting any positions of power a person may have because of their statements, are both fair game IMO.
nintendofan85
Good grief.
I'd like to piggyback on what Ari said and also mention that never before has a president had so much anger for the other side, at least not in my lifetime. Granted, I wasn't even born until the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency (2000), so I really haven't lived through many presidents, but I will say that I don't remember Barack Obama talking about Republicans as much nor George W. Bush talking about Democrats as much as Donald Trump talks about Democrats, particularly on his Twitter account. I have also seen not just dislike (that would be a severe understatement), but pure hatred from his supporters (note that I did go to a Trump rally in 2017, even though I don't support him, I only went because I wanted to see my nation's president in person) for the Democratic Party. Once again, I don't remember Obama supporters from that administration nor Bush supporters for that era having that much hate for the opposing side. Chants like "Lock her up!" and "Send her back!" should be considered alarming. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if I get a lot of flack for this, but after I went to that Trump rally in September 2017 and I saw the way his supporters behaved, I really began to think Hillary Clinton was right when she called Trump supporters a basket of deplorables. I will admit that I don't find every Trump supporter deplorable, but many do have extremist views and that does indeed bother me.
I just want to end this post with me saying that I was personally raised in the South by very conservative parents who are Republicans and they do support President Trump. Initially, as a child and a teenager, I did inherit their conservative views, but I moved away from that during the 2016 election once it became clear that Donald Trump was the Republican Party's frontrunner and I saw what he was saying about Latinos, Muslims, and women. I also began learning more and more about the sexual assault allegations that he faced from many women-and they appeared to outnumber the amount Bill Clinton had when he first ran for president in 1992. That, I realized, was something I could never support, and I ultimately decided I'll likely never vote Republican in my lifetime due to the fact that the party had nominated a man like Donald Trump. And you bet that I won't be voting for the president in 2020.
Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
Normally, I would respect others that disagree with me on political issues (such as Obamacare, abortion, illegal immigration, gun control, and the impeachment of Donald Trump), but one issue I cannot stand or respect others on is political correctness. And the whole cultural appropriation arguments count as part of it. Granted, common sense and respect is important if you want to dress up like something else. I don?t want to see people dress up like celebrities or other cultures and invoke racial stereotypes or references to oppression. And dressing up like people of other religions may be a violation of your religious beliefs (if you?re the one doing it). But to regulate what costumes people can wear on Halloween goes against the point of the holiday. But then again, it?s not in tradition of Halloween if you dress up like a Disney princess or Marvel superhero since they aren?t ?horror-themed?. The whole cultural appropriation argument goes further than Halloween costumes (it also includes yoga, martial arts, and sometimes eating food from other cultures), so I can?t fully explain how ridiculous it is to invoke cultural appropriation when people do things of cultures that?s not theirs.
To everyone:
Anyway, of those points listed in the OP, I have understood why they could be offensive or even morally wrong (and why Antifa would resort to violence if they hear these arguments). Whatever has been bolded has been answered (or at least I had prior knowledge), but whatever has been italicized has not been answered. I?ll even list why they are considered morally wrong to some. So it?s not free speech that?s evil. It?s that there are some things that are offensive to some, but not to others. But to support free speech would also mean to support the right to do any of the following.
- Supporting Donald Trump - not only his agenda has caused havoc and that he did other things that were inappropriate or offensive (like sexual harassment, calling third-world nations an offensive name, and insulting John McCain), but a handful of his supporters are intolerant of others based on race, sex, or sexual orientation and are using his presidency to give them excuses for their offensive behavior. Even insulting people based on political ideologies makes you no different to a bigot.
- Supporting other Republicans or conservative politicians - although most of them are more sane than Trump, most of their agendas agree with his, including his handling of immigration. The worst offender is Mitch McConnell, who corrupted the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
- Supporting Tucker Carlson, Ben Sharpio, Jordan Peterson, or James Damore
- Mourning Kate Steinle
- Thinking that it?s okay to wear an American flag shirt on Cinco de Mayo - it?s a holiday for Mexico, not America.
- Thinking that it?s okay to dress up like anything for Halloween, including other cultures - whatever I was just talking about
- Supporting capitalism or opposing socialism
- Opposing political correctness - while it?s okay to oppose what?s ridiculous, some people are very passionate over social issues such as equality.
- Bible verses - not everybody is a Christian, and it may be insensitive to those who hate religion.
- Opposing Barack Obama - Obama has made many social progresses as president, and supporting their reversal (like when Trump rescinded DACA) sounds like you don?t care about the people he helped. Of course, Obama did some of the same things George Bush and Donald Trump did, and forgiving those two presidents but not Obama is hypocrisy itself.
- Opposing other Democrats or liberal politicians - not answered, but examples include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren.
Can I ask why it's more important for others to agree with you about political correctness than other issues, even such intense points of debate like immigration and gun control? Like, why that particular topic gets to you in that way?
Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
Because it?s a petty issue that can be in violation of human rights. Do you want to see people get fired over stuff that has nothing to do with the business they work for, like something they did over 20 years ago or something they did in private? That could upset the economy, and it?s all because of a stupid issue. Todd Snipes got fired for calling Trayvon Martin a ?thug? (which is actually true), and said it on Facebook. James Damore got fired from Google for denying gender discrimination as a reason why there aren?t many women working for Google. And I already mentioned that Cinco de Mayo thing in the OP. Whether some everyday words are offensive or not because of a minor context not everybody pays attention to or because it?s not inclusive enough is a petty issue that taking a big deal out of it is ridiculous, but it has gotten well out of control before Donald Trump announced his run. I understand why the left wing supports it, but I?m not going to support it or even be friends with people that support it when it?s a job killer, goes against the meaning of common activities and morals, and is a double standard.
i don't think you're going to find the echo chamber you're looking for. you're talking what i refer to as gobbledygook, meaning your argument doesn't have a lot of rational weight to it, so you're appealing to anything you can think of to bloat up the false equivalence you are making with the incidence of private business to exercise their right to fire an employee for any reason, especially conduct that poorly represents that business whether it is motivated by the PC boogeyman or not--and it's not, but social attitudes have changed and it's more profitable to look out for those consumers than the people upset society expects them to hold some measure of decorum and compassion and will punish them through their livelihood.
it also is no violation of human rights, and going by your posts i'm not exactly sure you know what they are, since you just let a lot of the thread go in and out of your ears because you still haven't gotten someone to justify this weird fixation on getting upset because people got upset. the only conclusion i can draw is that you have not come to terms with the fact people on the whole are taking your position seriously less and less, and it's not even a party issue, because while you have a cute name for positive language, "politcal correctness," the left is not the only entity who plays identity politics. why are you not just as worried the nationalist sentiment around the president in which republicans think they can police language and determine what constitutes a loyal citizen and target political enemies and legal immigrants? instead , you're more worried about the handful of times an indignant blowhard got fired and halloween costumes.
that makes utterly no sense. it's nonsense even. you are like a caricature. maybe it's your age coming into play, but i'm sure you can see the current climate goes far beyond "but antifa did some stuff!" yeah, they did. but anything not kosher we questioned, and that's something democrats have been able to do without having a meltdown. i'm sure my anarcho friends have acted inappropriately, but you know what? civil rights are not won by making people comfortable. sometimes you have to punch up and sometimes the big money takes their licks, and that's a far cry from the terror and death this country is under siege from, from children in camps with nothing (you want to talk human rights?), white supremacists and jilted alt-right manchildren suckered into this vitriol because no one has the funding or the time to help them learn to cope with the world shooting up any woman or minority that doesn't pat them on the back, police knocking the brains out of citizens in inner cities and abusing authority to feel up vulnerable women, to encouraging mobs of people to heckle and attack and defame political enemies.
trump supporters think they're storming the bastille, when really the ghost of the original KKK is leading them (originally they hated eastern europeans and moonlighted as the nativist movement who choked off immigration in the 1890s. they lost that battle so they grabbed up the racists into the fold and made black americans the next punching bag.) it's not just old farmers in robes, it's your neighbors, it's people you see every day. fascism never died, and it's arguably been brewing since john adams censored the jeffersonian democrats.
i mean wake up. can you honestly say with a straight face you are proud of your party right now? or have you just settled for the one thing chaining you to a broken machine because pride won't allow you to be anything but loyal despite the massive difference in violence between your political rivals and the party you jam with? be honest, you're just trying to throw some salt, right? you don't honestly believe political correctness is comparable to all that you have read in this thread.
i wouldn't be so critical of conservatives if they had a backbone. but they don't, and while i respect those republicans that haven't bitten the poison apple, it's not enough. if it's between a world where certain language is restricted for the benefit of everyone and one where it's okay to reject your fellow man and put kids in detainment and behave like rabid ideologues, i will choose being pc every time. why is it so important to have free speech to the point anything goes? i will never understand why your type draws the lines in the sand where you do.
but, i'm really just repeating myself. you do you buddy.
it also is no violation of human rights, and going by your posts i'm not exactly sure you know what they are, since you just let a lot of the thread go in and out of your ears because you still haven't gotten someone to justify this weird fixation on getting upset because people got upset. the only conclusion i can draw is that you have not come to terms with the fact people on the whole are taking your position seriously less and less, and it's not even a party issue, because while you have a cute name for positive language, "politcal correctness," the left is not the only entity who plays identity politics. why are you not just as worried the nationalist sentiment around the president in which republicans think they can police language and determine what constitutes a loyal citizen and target political enemies and legal immigrants? instead , you're more worried about the handful of times an indignant blowhard got fired and halloween costumes.
that makes utterly no sense. it's nonsense even. you are like a caricature. maybe it's your age coming into play, but i'm sure you can see the current climate goes far beyond "but antifa did some stuff!" yeah, they did. but anything not kosher we questioned, and that's something democrats have been able to do without having a meltdown. i'm sure my anarcho friends have acted inappropriately, but you know what? civil rights are not won by making people comfortable. sometimes you have to punch up and sometimes the big money takes their licks, and that's a far cry from the terror and death this country is under siege from, from children in camps with nothing (you want to talk human rights?), white supremacists and jilted alt-right manchildren suckered into this vitriol because no one has the funding or the time to help them learn to cope with the world shooting up any woman or minority that doesn't pat them on the back, police knocking the brains out of citizens in inner cities and abusing authority to feel up vulnerable women, to encouraging mobs of people to heckle and attack and defame political enemies.
trump supporters think they're storming the bastille, when really the ghost of the original KKK is leading them (originally they hated eastern europeans and moonlighted as the nativist movement who choked off immigration in the 1890s. they lost that battle so they grabbed up the racists into the fold and made black americans the next punching bag.) it's not just old farmers in robes, it's your neighbors, it's people you see every day. fascism never died, and it's arguably been brewing since john adams censored the jeffersonian democrats.
i mean wake up. can you honestly say with a straight face you are proud of your party right now? or have you just settled for the one thing chaining you to a broken machine because pride won't allow you to be anything but loyal despite the massive difference in violence between your political rivals and the party you jam with? be honest, you're just trying to throw some salt, right? you don't honestly believe political correctness is comparable to all that you have read in this thread.
i wouldn't be so critical of conservatives if they had a backbone. but they don't, and while i respect those republicans that haven't bitten the poison apple, it's not enough. if it's between a world where certain language is restricted for the benefit of everyone and one where it's okay to reject your fellow man and put kids in detainment and behave like rabid ideologues, i will choose being pc every time. why is it so important to have free speech to the point anything goes? i will never understand why your type draws the lines in the sand where you do.
but, i'm really just repeating myself. you do you buddy.
Reginald Fairfield
Senior Member
@Alolan_Apples
May I ask if this is what you wanted here?
Of course I am in favor of free speech, we are all using it. I think what you say should be thought out more. People here aren't going to acknowledge any of your valid points due to assumed vitriol.
May I ask if this is what you wanted here?
Of course I am in favor of free speech, we are all using it. I think what you say should be thought out more. People here aren't going to acknowledge any of your valid points due to assumed vitriol.
Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
I just want answers from many posters. But at least I understand what everybody says.
My primary source of political news is Townhall.com, which would give me answers. The problem is, it’s all right-wing bias. Even the Democrat columnists there are conservatives or Trump supporters. So it does not give me enough information on why the left wing opposes certain speech. If they do give a reasoning, they would belittle or demonize anyone with left-wing views as the reason why the left wing has these certain viewpoints. Therefore, I can’t give full credibility to that site. But at least it does give us how they feel about the Democrats and their direction towards socialism (which is exactly how some members on this forum feel about the Republicans for their support towards Donald Trump and their handling of the Supreme Court).
I guess I'm wondering what your definition of political correctness is? I would personally consider myself in favour of political correctness most of the time, but all that means is that I think that it's the morally responsible thing to do to avoid language that dehumanizes marginalized groups. But I don't always think people should be fired over "un-PC language", it depends on the application. If someone who is a relatively anonymous member of a company says something controversial on the internet, that probably doesn't warrant being fired, but I do think that if someone is a very public figure and represents their company, it should be taken more seriously. An example is that, I recently heard a story about a police officer who stated that he thinks gay people don't deserve to live, in a public setting. I feel like a police officer stating that he doesn't think certain members of the community should even be alive will make civilians feel unsafe, knowing that there is an armed homophobe in a position of power, and the whole point of police officers, whether or not they do a good job of it, is to try to make the community safer. Or in the case of someone like Roseanne Barr, who got kicked off of a show she was in over some racist Tweets, her entire career was based around being liked. Being a celebrity is about being liked. If you do something that makes you unlikable, that will inevitably impact your career, if the whole point of your career is that people like you. It's important to remember that, when you work with or for a company as a public figure, you represent that company, and are associated with that company, and if you do something that makes you look bad, it makes the company look bad, so I believe companies should be allowed to fire people that do and say things that make them look bad. I also think it's important to note that political correctness is not the only thing responsible for people losing jobs. Bigotry makes people lose jobs too, and a society that is overly-lenient on letting bigots get a free pass to say whatever they want with 0 social repercussions results in people losing jobs, too. Bigoted employers turning down employees based on their skin colour, or places where people are legally allowed to fire employees for being gay. Political correctness is not the only thing that gets people fired over personal things unrelated to their employment, bigotry does that too, and while it may not always be perfect, political correctness mostly exists because people want to fight against bigotry being considered okay and normal.
Personally, when I say I'm pro-political correctness, I don't mean that I think everyone should be fired if they say something messed up- I really do believe that the only times when you should be fired for saying "un-PC things" is when either 1. Your job is being a public figure and intrinsically linked to people liking and trusting you or 2. You are making the people in your workplace or community feel unsafe. But what I do believe is that we should live in a culture where people actually have conversations about words that hurt people and that saying "hey, this word hurts people" or "hey, this thing that happens a lot in society might hurt people" shouldn't just be met with "oh my gosh, shut up, cringy SJW!!", it should actually be given the respect of a discussion. Most of my "pro-political correctness" is not related to the law, it's related to people evolving how we talk to each other, to not think words have 0 meaning and that you can say whatever you want without it having any weight. There are even some cases where people have said extremely "un-PC" things but I still stand with them because I think the punishment they received was too harsh, like for example, Tyler, The Creator, is a rapper who said a lot of really, REALLY messed up stuff on his earlier albums, stuff that I find kind of sickening- but I don't think he should be banned from entering Australia over rap lyrics.
Basically, I guess I agree with you that political correctness isn't good when it gets to the point that non-violent language is met with a violent response, or when people have their rights stripped away over one offhand comment or something, but I also believe that we shouldn't pretend that words can't hurt people and should be allowed to have nuanced conversations about that without being put down as "SJWs", and I also believe public figures have the responsibility of maintaining their public image if they want to keep their status as a public figure. I don't necessarily believe people should make someone get arrested over an off-colour comment or whatever, but the right to be angry in response to ignorant remarks shouldn't be made to look like a crime either.
As a side note, I don't know every individual instance you are bringing up, but I looked up the Todd Snipes thing, and it appears he was a Beach officer, a type of law enforcement. In my opinion, law enforcement is absolutely one of those jobs where your public image is important. If your job is to make the community feel safer, then your image should reflect that. Making a disgusting comment about an 17-year-old black kid getting shot is, in my opinion, something that could make members of the community feel unsafe. If law enforcement or another authority figure makes their community feel unsafe, that should be grounds for firing IMO, even if it is "just their opinion" or "just their free speech", ESPECIALLY (but not limited to) if they make it public- social media is public. Saying something on social media is not equivalent to saying something privately, behind closed doors. "Thug" may technically be defined in a dictionary as a violent person, but in society at large, it is getting increasingly more racially coded. Even if the word "thug" didn't have racist connotations, in general, making a joke about a minor getting shot is something that I don't think most people feel comfortable hearing from someone whose job is related to public safety.
Lol its not but yanno whats more evil?
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Every_Villain_Is_Lemons
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Every_Villain_Is_Lemons
- Status
Similar threads
