Philosophy Now Forum

mickthinks wrote:The politically correct are usually very one-sided and scream demands for 'tolerance,' but this tolerance only ever applies to one side.

Are you sure? I've never heard anyone asking for tolerance in a screaming voice*, though I have met many people who imagine they hear screaming when the message makes them panic.

Can you cite any actual examples?

It's hyperbole. You can't think of examples for yourself?
Put it this way, there is a fairly fine line between being liberal and being politically correct, and some people don't have the intelligence or imagination to draw it. This is probably why the word 'liberal' has been so mis-used in recent years. It has become interchangeable with PC.

It's hyperbole.
Ah, hyperbole is a cheap rhetorician's trick, best avoided if you want to engage on the philosophical level, I find.

'liberal' ... has become interchangeable with PC.
My point entirely, except that I'd add that you seem to me to be doing some of the interchanging.

mickthinks wrote:It's hyperbole.
Ah, hyperbole is a cheap rhetorician's trick, best avoided if you want to engage on the philosophical level, I find.

'liberal' ... has become interchangeable with PC.
My point entirely, except that I'd add that you seem to me to be doing some of the interchanging.

So is sarcasm. Now I remember why I stopped posting here. You are incredibly defensive btw. Does the truth hurt?

You are incredibly defensive btw.

You think so, veggie? Perhaps you also imagine I am screaming my disagreement at you?

Perhaps I just can't handle your philosophical brilliance.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Perhaps I just can't handle your philosophical brilliance.

WanderingLands: We are of sheep when we follow the leader without questioning their imposed validity of rule.
mickthinks: If you mean "questioning the validity of their imposed rule", then yes, I agree with you,
SpheresOfBalance: A matter of perspective, obviously; but as to freedom, or course!

WanderingLands: We are governed by fear of being ostracized
mickthinks: Are you? I'm not.
SpheresOfBalance: Fear, yes! But it differs from person to person.

WanderingLands: we all know this rulership is bogus, ...
mickthinks: Which rulers are you thinking of? Not all rulers are bogus.
SpheresOfBalance: I agree that additional info is required; define "this ruler-ship"

WanderingLands: ... we still follow it because we are forced to do so. [/color]
mickthinks: I agree that the power to govern rests ultimately on violence and because of that, we have no choice but to comply or be destroyed. This is true even for those of us who do question the validity.
SpheresOfBalance: Anyone can fight it. I would say "or fight" to be more correct, as there are many ways to do so.

WanderingLands: Nature is made of communities; not imposed rulership, or imposed government bureaucracies.
mickthinks: Nature is made of teeth and bloody claws. Bureaucracies are a mark of civilisation.
SpheresOfBalance: Do you mean ecosystems, which implies a top & bottom of a food chain, not necessarily teeth and claws; enter the tool makers.

WanderingLands: Political Correctness is an ideology of blindness and ignorance of the hard truth.
mickthinks: No it's not.
SpheresOfBalance: Actually, it's designed to reduce the pressure, of ignorance, fear and prejudice, though it can be carried too far.

Pat Condell explains it pretty well here. Liberals are for free speech. The PC are against it. Here, the politically correct are referred to as 'progressives', a term I'm not familiar with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Pat Condell explains it pretty well here. Liberals are for free speech. The PC are against it. Here, the politically correct are referred to as 'progressives', a term I'm not familiar with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

Most of what he spoke of was Europe, I'm in America, the US! Here I don't believe Political Correctness is mandated, except if you're a government employee, maybe. Though as I said, I have seen instances where it was taken too far. I think that over all it can be viewed as being considerate of anothers' feelings, if one's not ignorant, as to that, which would necessarily offend. And that's where the problem lies for me, as I was once called upon to apologize for something I had no idea would offend, at that time I was a government employee. I continued to refuse, and they continued to insist I be the bigger man. I finally yielded, but only with their acknowledgement that I did no intentional wrong. If I were ever accused as a civilian, I would never apologize if I were truly innocent of any intentional harm. I've heard those of law, say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, for breaking it, but I beg to differ. The only reason they say such is because they fear liars, and that's not my problem, it's theirs, as I am no liar!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Pat Condell explains it pretty well here. Liberals are for free speech. The PC are against it. Here, the politically correct are referred to as 'progressives', a term I'm not familiar with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

Most of what he spoke of was Europe, I'm in America, the US! Here I don't believe Political Correctness is mandated, except if you're a government employee, maybe. Though as I said, I have seen instances where it was taken too far. I think that over all it can be viewed as being considerate of anothers' feelings, if one's not ignorant, as to that, which would necessarily offend. And that's where the problem lies for me, as I was once called upon to apologize for something I had no idea would offend, at that time I was a government employee. I continued to refuse, and they continued to insist I be the bigger man. I finally yielded, but only with their acknowledgement that I did no intentional wrong. If I were ever accused as a civilian, I would never apologize if I were truly innocent of any intentional harm. I've heard those of law, say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, for breaking it, but I beg to differ. The only reason they say such is because they fear liars, and that's not my problem, it's theirs, as I am no liar!

Every country has it's own politically correct. In your country I believe they are referred to as 'liberals', which is totally wrong, as Pat Condell pointed out.
No one has suggested it's mandated. It's a social phenomenon that affects every one of us. It's almost like mob rule. Certain people aren't allowed to be 'offended'. I get offended by a lot of things. It's part of life. No one cares if I'm offended. Why should certain select groups be exempt from being offended?
That's the point of PCness. It's full of hypocrisy and double-standards.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Pat Condell explains it pretty well here. Liberals are for free speech. The PC are against it. Here, the politically correct are referred to as 'progressives', a term I'm not familiar with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

Most of what he spoke of was Europe, I'm in America, the US! Here I don't believe Political Correctness is mandated, except if you're a government employee, maybe. Though as I said, I have seen instances where it was taken too far. I think that over all it can be viewed as being considerate of anothers' feelings, if one's not ignorant, as to that, which would necessarily offend. And that's where the problem lies for me, as I was once called upon to apologize for something I had no idea would offend, at that time I was a government employee. I continued to refuse, and they continued to insist I be the bigger man. I finally yielded, but only with their acknowledgement that I did no intentional wrong. If I were ever accused as a civilian, I would never apologize if I were truly innocent of any intentional harm. I've heard those of law, say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, for breaking it, but I beg to differ. The only reason they say such is because they fear liars, and that's not my problem, it's theirs, as I am no liar!

Every country has it's own politically correct. In your country I believe they are referred to as 'liberals', which is totally wrong, as Pat Condell pointed out.
No one has suggested it's mandated. It's a social phenomenon that affects every one of us. It's almost like mob rule. Certain people aren't allowed to be 'offended'. I get offended by a lot of things. It's part of life. No one cares if I'm offended. Why should certain select groups be exempt from being offended?
That's the point of PCness. It's full of hypocrisy and double-standards.

It's full of hypocrisy and double-standards.

Yes, I'm definitely against that!

See what I mean?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Pat Condell explains it pretty well here. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

Pat Condell explains nothing in that video, in my view, unless you think ranting against ideas you don't agree with is 'explaining'.

Condell has a thing about how Islam is hateful (I presume that, like many, he makes the mistake of taking some Islamists to represent all Islamists) and he either doesn't know or doesn"t care about the truth behind the rape statistics he refers to and misinterprets.

He cites the fact that in Sweden more rapes are recorded than anywhere else in the world. This is true but, contrary to what Condell and many others believe, this doesn't mean Swedish women are raped in greater numbers than everywhere else.

"In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," she says. "So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record - one victim, one type of crime, one record."

and

"... in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before." The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they'd been recorded as another category of crime

I think Condell, an obviously intelligent man, will be well aware of these background facts, and by ignoring them he is being dishonest.

Very interesting to see how a thread goes from 'Insanity of a ruler' to a debate about 'political correctness'. Is political correctness the mainspring to the insanity of a ruler?

Being wrote:Very interesting to see how a thread goes from 'Insanity of a ruler' to a debate about 'political correctness'. Is political correctness the mainspring to the insanity of a ruler?

People just pick on one sensitive part of the entire thing and they run with it. It's all recurring here on this forum.