Philosophy Now Forum

There are many examples that have proponents on both sides of the question that people have opinions along with the philosophy. Can we do better without PC? (major examples would be the renaming of the Redskins, PC at the job, PC at school to the point that what's allowed today may be disallowed tomorrow so what rules would you propose about PC and which philosophy would you apply?)

PhilX

I favour common decency, courtesy and respect for other people.

The rule, or philosophy to apply: How would you like that said about/ done to you?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:There are many examples that have proponents on both sides of the question that people have opinions along with the philosophy. Can we do better without PC? (major examples would be the renaming of the Redskins, PC at the job, PC at school to the point that what's allowed today may be disallowed tomorrow so what rules would you propose about PC and which philosophy would you apply?)

PhilX

I favor balance - as in between the courtesy of PC and being able to have freedom of speech no matter how controversial with PI.

Skip wrote:I favour common decency, courtesy and respect for other people.

The rule, or philosophy to apply: How would you like that said about/ done to you?

Is this a special branch of the golden rule?

PhilX

Nothing special about it. A society where people swear at, defame, insult and offend one another names is a dysfunctional society. *









*See USofA.
(or Philosophy Now forum... wherein this is probably my last post.)

'political correctness' is mostly a meaningless epithet these days, thrown at ideas the speaker does not like

it means about as much as 'grrr, me no like!

The world isn't as simple as that it could ever become a long-term question of whether we should have political correctness or not.

Some political correctness have important groundings, to avoid assault on peoples' person, or avoid introducing doubt into peoples' sense of security and actual security.

Some political correctness is nothing but a bad taste for a public hobby, and at times can totally be ignored without it making much difference to the well-being of the world, and may even work towards it.

What one should think of instead is the consequences of the individual unique action. Don't treat it as an absolutistic dilemma, that's poor judgement. Treat it as an individual case where you weigh the benefits versus the problems it would cause.

A rule of thumb, is that spiting people is destructive behaviour, and that if you gain nothing substantial ---> it's very likely not worth it.

'Political correctness' isn't as simple as differing viewpoints. It is mob mentality, with an individual's compulsion to conform to what the dominant mob deems to be the 'correct' point of view taking precedence over honesty and freedom of speech.
Why do we love stand-up comedians so much? Because the best ones say all the things we are really thinking, but are too afraid to say.