Views: 58600

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's being misused to force people with differing opinions to stop voicing them or be called hateful or offensive.


Ronald Morgan said:

It's being misused to force people with differing opinions to stop voicing them or be called hateful or offensive.

I have to go along with Mr. Morgan on that.  That's precisely how it's being used.

I understand what you're saying, Detective 445, and it would be nice if everybody was nice and polite to each other.  But the fact of the matter is:  no-one has the right not to be offended.  That's why there are no laws making it a criminal offence to call someone an unpleasant name or to curse at him.  And it's why being insulted is not a legal justification for assault against the insulter.

And, to be fair, if political correctness was levied only at those who levied insults or curses, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  But the P.C.-police want to suppress everything that could possibly offensive to someone, somewhere, somehow. And that's just too wide a territory; it includes "offences" which lack the immediate, striking impact of a vile insult or curse.

If I wrote a post, with regard to this Presidential election year, and in it, I stated that the Democratic Party was the party of the hand-outs, and nearly all Democrats are those persons who want hand-outs from the government, no doubt quite a few people would be offended by it.  Should that be grounds for me not to express my opinion?  Which takes precedence---my freedom to express myself, or a prohibition against offending somebody, somewhere, somehow?

We know where the wielder of the sword of political correctness stands---and it's right in the place pointed out by Mr. Morgan.



Ronald Morgan said:

It's being misused to force people with differing opinions to stop voicing them or be called hateful or offensive.


I've seen no evidence of that. I think it's a general guideline to get people to stop voicing hateful and offensive opinions.

As far as I know there is no invisible power or police force that can suppress someone's ability to voice an opinion. But the general structure of political correctness allows those in less powerful positions to hold others accountable when they voice opinions that are racist, xenophobic, etc...

I have.

Define exactly what "offensive" means. You can't. What's offensive to one person isn't offensive to another. That was why animation studios had so much trouble with Standards and Practices, trying to figure out exactly what "nothing offensive is allowed in cartoons" meant. And it soon turned out that what was blocked on one occasion was allowed on another. So even the censors couldn't agree on whether something was offensive or not.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Detective 445 said:

But the general structure of political correctness allows those in less powerful positions to hold others accountable when they voice opinions that are racist, xenophobic, etc...

The old phrase "biting your tongue" meant to consider what you're about to say so as not to cause insult or unnecessary argument.

Today, the term "political correctness" has been hijacked by intolerant people. The meaning they imply is that their statements against whole groups of people are correct, but that political correctness demands that they not speak the truth.

Ronald Morgan said:

That was why animation studios had so much trouble with Standards and Practices, trying to figure out exactly what "nothing offensive is allowed in cartoons" meant. And it soon turned out that what was blocked on one occasion was allowed on another. So even the censors couldn't agree on whether something was offensive or not.

This is why the Comics Code and the old and current movie rating systems were all over the map. Interpretation of the rules by different people or by the same people on different days are not likely to be consistent.

George Orwell predicted this.

The best point that I can make is that when Donald Trump called Mexicans drug dealers and rapists, he was condemned and rightfully so.

But that doesn't negate the menace of the Mexican Drug Cartels that have cost thousands their lives and that they do cross (and recross) the border repeatedly.

So, because of "political correctness", no Mexican (as an example) should be stopped from crossing the border due to humanitarianism and should not be thought of as a potential drug smuggler.

Again as an example, the following statement should not be considered offensive: All Mexicans are not drug smugglers but that does not mean that No Mexicans are drug smugglers.
 
Detective 445 said:

During this political season a couple things have occured to me. It seems like the actual meaning of a couple of terms has been lost:

"Political correctness"

This used to be a term that indicated neutrality, civility or an attempt to be considerate or sensitive to the views of others. Now it seems to be used to indicate some unfair, oppresive rule of law that prevents us from being as vulgar or discriminatory as we want to be.

"Taken out of context"

This used to refer to an instance where someone's statement was removed from its surroundings in a way that changed the perceived meaning of the statement.  Now it seems to function as an excuse any time someone says something stupid and doesn't want to be held accountable for it.



Richard Willis said:

The old phrase "biting your tongue" meant to consider what you're about to say so as not to cause insult or unnecessary argument.

Today, the term "political correctness" has been hijacked by intolerant people. The meaning they imply is that their statements against whole groups of people are correct, but that political correctness demands that they not speak the truth.


Exactly! Just take a look at who is complaining about political correctness. It's no coincidence that 99% of them are members of the most powerful social class on earth.



Ronald Morgan said:

I have.

Define exactly what "offensive" means. You can't. What's offensive to one person isn't offensive to another. That was why animation studios had so much trouble with Standards and Practices, trying to figure out exactly what "nothing offensive is allowed in cartoons" meant. And it soon turned out that what was blocked on one occasion was allowed on another. So even the censors couldn't agree on whether something was offensive or not.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.


This misses the point. The idea of political correctness isn't to force anyone to do anything or stop them from voicing an opinion. It simply holds them accountable for what they say. Accountability is something that bigots and intolerant people are terrified of.

Yes, this can and does happen. I seem to encounter more instances, far more instances, going back to the early 1990s, where accusing someone of being politically correct was being used to silence that person's opinions. And while we don't have a right to not be offended, Sara Wong, among others, has correctly said that, more often than not, calls to "be politically correct" could be replaced with "be polite" and have pretty much the same meaning.  Not gratuitously offending people is good policy.


Ronald Morgan said:

It's being misused to force people with differing opinions to stop voicing them or be called hateful or offensive.

Pretty sure he was talking about the people entering illegally, not legal immigrants.


 
Philip Portelli said:

The best point that I can make is that when Donald Trump called Mexicans drug dealers and rapists, he was condemned and rightfully so.

But that doesn't negate the menace of the Mexican Drug Cartels that have cost thousands their lives and that they do cross (and recross) the border repeatedly.

So, because of "political correctness", no Mexican (as an example) should be stopped from crossing the border due to humanitarianism and should not be thought of as a potential drug smuggler.

Again as an example, the following statement should not be considered offensive: All Mexicans are not drug smugglers but that does not mean that No Mexicans are drug smugglers.
 
Detective 445 said:

During this political season a couple things have occured to me. It seems like the actual meaning of a couple of terms has been lost:

"Political correctness"

This used to be a term that indicated neutrality, civility or an attempt to be considerate or sensitive to the views of others. Now it seems to be used to indicate some unfair, oppresive rule of law that prevents us from being as vulgar or discriminatory as we want to be.

"Taken out of context"

This used to refer to an instance where someone's statement was removed from its surroundings in a way that changed the perceived meaning of the statement.  Now it seems to function as an excuse any time someone says something stupid and doesn't want to be held accountable for it.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Groups

Latest Activity

ClarkKent_DC replied to Cavaliere (moderator emeritus)'s discussion What are you watching right now?
"I've got George Carlin's Class Clown on vinyl. I used to play it incessantly. He actually…"
1 hour ago
ClarkKent_DC replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
"Yeah, but ... here on Earth-Prime, when they gave us the Smallville TV series, Ma and Pa Kent were…"
1 hour ago
ClarkKent_DC replied to ClarkKent_DC's discussion A Capitol Fourth -- Happy Independence Day!
"We ventured out yesterday for this year's rendition of A Capitol Fourth. This was the first…"
1 hour ago
Jeff of Earth-J replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Swamp Thing
"Thanks for the link! I forgot to mention that #78 was guest-written by Bissette (and…"
2 hours ago
Richard Willis posted a video

Paper Girls - Teaser Trailer | Prime Video

It's the day after Halloween in 1988 when four young friends accidentally stumble into an intense time war and find themselves inexplicably transported to th...
2 hours ago
Richard Willis replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Swamp Thing
"A new interview with Stephen Bissette about his career and new work: INTERVIEW: Stephen Bissette…"
2 hours ago
Steve W replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
"Enuf Supes - here's Archie."
2 hours ago
Richard Willis replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
"Steve W said: By 1967, DC had reached a continuity crisis. Supes had first hit the newsstands in…"
3 hours ago
Richard Willis replied to Cavaliere (moderator emeritus)'s discussion What are you watching right now?
"Another interesting thing is that the series is a period piece set in the 1970s. In the enormous…"
3 hours ago
Steve W replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
"By 1967, DC had reached a continuity crisis. Supes had first hit the newsstands in 1938, so when DC…"
3 hours ago
The Baron replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion A Smithsonian Book of Comic-Book Comics
"I was always astonished at how many Golden Age characters had comedy sidekicks foisted off on them,…"
3 hours ago
Richard Willis replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion A Smithsonian Book of Comic-Book Comics
"I like that he's "not a bad guy" after almost cutting off a man's arm."
4 hours ago

© 2022   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service