My View: PC Thought Control and it's I mpact

We have obligations every day with speech, And it is controlled. By oneself or enviroment.

This absolute free speech does not exist. Although it is a nice prospect.

 

The more controversial the speech is, the more important it be allowed freely.

 

Authoritarian control over thinking and speech should be repugnant to any people that claim to love freedom, regardless of which political ideology wrongly believes that it's somehow beneficial.

 

I agree.

 

Think about how speech is controlled on a daily basis.

That conversation with the Ex wife. Is it really a good idea to speak ones mind.

Work, that conversation with the boss. etc etc,....

 

Restraint is up to the individual, not political society.

 

Not really. It is the left that lusts for power and control of every individual. SWAT searching a dairy farm for milk, anyone. The real advantage, and purpose, of PC is to discourage people from talking to anyone different from them.

 

Words are important in real life, And can have real ramifications.

I do like this view of freedom, it is lovely. But when have you seen anyone truely speak their mind in every situation. Except for those deranged homeless people who talk to themselves outside pubs.

 

I think the salient point here is that since the very purpose of speech is to communicate with others, this makes it subject to the natural controls imposed by socialization. As GeneralZod has pointed out, we self-regulate our speech to fit the context of the situation. The ability to do so is vital to our success in working with others. People who can't, fail. Without self-regulation, people would be at each other's throats all the time; we would be living in a world where people cease to use speech for communication, and instead use it to hear themselves talk, as if expressing their opinion were the all-important thing.

Certainly you can push back against someone who wants to suppress your ability to express yourself. The flip side is that if no one wishes to hear what you're saying because of the way in which you're saying it (being combative, insulting, condescending, etc.), then you've failed to make an effective use of your freedom to speak. There may be no written rules to follow, but we all know they exist. We learn those rules from the very beginning of learning to speak. We learn to apply them in order to get what we want as children, and that's a skill we refine throughout life. Words are tools we employ, but like any tool, if we use them carelessly we can end up hurting others and ourselves.

As far as the guarantee to freedom of speech is concerned, the First Amendment is a limitation on the power of government. It is not a limitation on the power of other people to disagree with you or say things you might find offensive. Who gets the upper hand depends on who best knows their audience and how to communicate skillfully to persuade them to cooperate, or to persuade allies to join them against an uncooperative adversary.

It may all sound very abstract, but just try getting through the day without following those unwritten rules and see where it gets you.

 

It seems to me that the right-wingers are all about PC, they just call it something else (generally "patriotism" or something else that it isn't), and then call anyone who disagrees with them PC.

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin ... these are the primary users of political correctness.

 

Really? I change my position because of external forces all the time. You know, forces like facts, persuasively written arguments, personal experiences that provide insight... I guess I'm just a softy.

 

I always have to wonder about ranting against being "PC".

To me, politically correct seems to be nothing more than calling folks what they wish to be called and leaving them alone to live their lives as they please.. It is not skin off my, well, whatever, to me to call folks African American or gay instead of the uglier variants.

Furthermore, how people perceive themselves does not affect me in the least bit.

 

Working in a large corporation, I deal with PC on a regular basis. Often it's amazing how far people will go to make sure no one can possibly be offended. Nw when re tring to be creative, it can hamstring the results. The sad part is, everyone is trying to protect themselves from everyone else. Don't say, that, you might offend this person. Don't say that, this person over here could get offended. And you know what. Those people are rarely the ones offended. It's the people trying to make sure no one evr gets offended who are the problem. We're not talking offensive things either. It's like showing a photo with someone holding a bear. Can't show that!!!! That's offensive. It's a photo from a party where everyone was drinking, but we can't show someone with a drink....huh? Of course it makes perfect sense to your average PC numbskull. But for everyone else, they don't even think about how that could be offensive. Another example is mentioning the word family in a newsletter. Can't say that..it offends people without families....seriously? Yep. There have even ben times where the term husband or wife might've Ben switched for significant other because of the ramifications. Seriously, £&#8364;!><#% you if that offended you.

 

You are right. PC has gone a bit too far and rarely effective in doing what it was designed to do. However, some form of PC is needed. Consider what the whites did to the blacks and many blacks still wear scars (be it emotional or physical) from those years. When a person uses the word n*****, its a reminder to them of those years and how even now, there are many who consider them inferior and want to deny them equal rights. If a word has such destructive effect , why should anyone even use it? What harm will it do me to call that person a black or and African American instead of that dirty N word. Does not the Christian bible speak against hurting others and not speaking ill of others. Would Christ not have wanted his followers to not engage in such petty acts in the name of freedom. Is a freedom that violates the very tenets of Christianity really worth it?

 

More PC not less.

Hark back to the golden era of shakespeare, when a gentleman bowed to ladies. And every conversation was a pleasing display of joy.

I bid you good tidings, Sir. May the ground tremble as you walk.

Now what a society that would be. A retelling of the stories of old. A return to true civilization. Where hip hop and text messages cast to the oblivion, to spoil no more.

Come forthe, ride your steed to the PC world.

 

Or we could say: That those political views which those on the Left/Right deem appropriate (correct) surely vary.

That's reality.

 

Two things I'd like to see:

1. More civility.

2. Less pretending/lying.

 

True uuntil we get either legislation or regulation that further defines speech...then the 'persuasion' becomes coercion.

 

Without lawmakers who will defend it, the First Amendment becomes just words on a piece of paper. On the other hand, all rights need to be reasonably balanced against others, so none is absolute. That said, I can think of only a very few situations where it should be necessary to limit speech, and am not pleased myself with the direction that things tend now on that score.

 

This abstract view is perhaps the best explaination of the unwritten rules in society that limit speech. Which explains why 'free speech' will always be merely a dream.

A nice dream and a surreal crusade on internet forums but the unwritten rules we all know, we are all glued by and as much as many would like a more utopian view of speech. The reality constraints will far outweigh.

 

The John Rocker incident is a good example.

 

You are the first person in this forum that has a real grip on our Bill of Rights. These are not truley Rights as much as they are areas the government is NOT supposed to intrude upon. The Bill of Rights was designed to prohibit government intervention when it feels threatend or unloved. The framers of the Constitution left these areas unfettered so that it would allow access for all citizens of the US to freely interact with government. This is neccessary to maintain an Open Society. Free Speech is an avenue for Redress of Grievance against improper actions by the government against the citizens. Once that has become lost, there is no such path. The first step to remove that path is to make it soooooo expensive, the little guy, who needs the most protection cannot afford to follow that path. Nothing against the rich, believe me. But even they can no longer use this avenue of free speech as it was intended. Then along came PC talk, further hindering Free Speech by redesigning to it fit the promoters of propaganda. The powers that be, neither left or right, use these tools to further split America apart. We have come to the point were in-fighting and backbiting have integrated itself as the "right thing to do."
Instead of fighting with each other over a word, we really should look beyond that and determine who really wins when we have become so dis-unified.