CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There was a time when "political correctness" was called being polite. I do not understand this recent trend of people considering that to be a negative thing. We could use more civilized discourse in this world.
its not just about being polite, its also about using the correct terminology, i.e a black person cant be called a brown person or a N...er, or many other thing, we had a ban on singing bar bar black sheep in school so as not to offend, PC was brought in to tackle people feeling offended but its gone to far now, its difficult to know what to say just in case someone somewhere might get offended, we need to learn to have thicker skin and laugh of anything that has the potential to offend you.
we need to learn to have thicker skin and laugh of anything that has the potential to offend you.
Out of curiosity, what ethnicity are you?
I will preface by saying that I am Caucasian, in a country of predominantly Caucasians, and it is therefore far easier for someone who is of the majority to say that "others" should have thicker skin. More often than not, it is minorities, be they racial, sexual, religious, etc who are the most affected by a lack of political correctness.
I see where your coming from but, Im not just referring to racial issues or minority issues, there seems to be a trend in being offended, im not a tall person and I have my height ridiculed all the time but I laugh it off and throw insults back in jest, I could quite easily say im offended please don't say that etc... but I believe we need to learn to just laugh and smile and brush off such remarks, of course there are some words that shouldn't be used in front of certain people but if your brought up in the right way you wont, there just seems to be to many words or phrases that offend it has become a minefield.
I agree, and I think we definitely need to work on society viewing words as being far less powerful than they are, but in the mean time, I see nothing wrong with employing political correctness (within reason of course) when it is in the form of simply trying to be polite and inoffensive.
I've finally found something I agree with you on! and its all about the individuals own personal interpretation and sensitivity, you should always choose your words wisely, as the old saying goes sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!
It depends on how they are ridiculed and how long they have been ridiculed and a host of other factors from their life. If they have more severe self esteem issues, then it is not as easy as saying "just brush it off".
Telling them to brush it off would only push them inwards further; not only does that not help, but it just makes the issue more difficult.
well if you don't learn to brush it off in life in general then life will always get you down, we live in a very opinionated world, look at the site were on! if you took everything to heart then you would struggle to get by in life! so learning to have strength of mind will only serve to benefit you.
Calling an anorexic or bulimic fat only compounds their issues. Just pushes them further into their disorders. "Brush it off" almost never works because you just don't know what kind of issues the other person might be dealing with.
so people with actual issues are mentally venerable I agree, but that doesn't stop them from forming a mental toughness, the world is full of opinionated people so at some stage in your life you will need to deal with an inappropriate person, having the mental toughness to brush it off will only benefit you, being wrapped in cotton wall and protected from any form of view or vocal response will not always benefit you and is impossible to achieve.
You are still missing the original comment by GenericName. Your ideas of "brush it off" do not apply to everyone else. Walk in someone else's shoes instead of applying your own experiences onto other people's problems.
well you can only apply your own application because its impossible to walk in someone else's shoe! that's a pretty stupid comment to make!! and im not missing the comment at all, im making a suggestion based upon my own experiences and what has worked for me and what I believe can work for others
its difficult to know what to say just in case someone somewhere might get offended
Contrary to popular belief, it's okay to not know you've said something offensive. You can say something offensive if you genuinely don't know you're being offensive and someone will probably tell you you've offended them. It happens to me all the time; if someone says something that offends me, I usually just tell them nice and calm not to say it again and you know what? More often than not, they never say it again.
Some things are just so offensive that they can't be laughed about, like using the N word to talk about black people.
It's really easy to say things like that when you're not part of a minority group and don't deal with offensive people. Some people are overly sensitive and find everything you say offensive- I'm not defending them. I'm defending everyday people who happen to be black, or gay, or female, and are affected by truly offensive language.
So you have to be in a minority to be offended?? that's very narrow minded! so short people cant be targeted? fat people? skinny people? people with glasses, disabled people? etc... that's a poor response MKIced!
No, it did not imply that at all, as has been explained to you. Saying something is not as easy if you do not belong to one group, is not the same as saying you are incapable of something unless you belong to one group.
That's not even what I said. I said it's easy to not understand what it's like to be offended when you're part of the majority. Not to mention all of the groups you mentioned are not the majority. If you are short and you are mocked for it, it's probably because you're not an average height like most people.
you said its easy to say if your not from a minority group??which suggest you need to be from a minority group?? im white average height a little on the short side, so im in the majority group if I put glasses on im in the majority group still, if I put on a bit of weight and specially in America im in the majority group still! your first argument was suggestive to only minority groups!
And how often do people say things that truly offend you? Do people really mock your slightly below average height to the point where you consider yourself less of a person? Do people threaten to beat you up because you wear glasses sometimes?
Because something is easy to say if you are part of the majority does not mean it's impossible to grasp the concept unless you are a minority. White people don't fully understand what it means to be black. Straight people don't fully understand what it means to be queer. People can learn and can sympathize.
I have my height ridiculed most days in jest, but its part of who I am! I could quite easily be offended by some of the things people say but I enjoy giving as good as I get and having a laugh about it! there's been many fights I've had because im the smallest guy in the group they tend to go for me first, but they change there minds pretty quick after that, black people don't fully understand what its like to be white, gays to be straight, a white man can go to a predominantly black country which then they become the minority, I totally grasp the concept but I view it form a different perspective to most,
You're kind of proving my point. People "ridicule" your height in "jest", or in good fun. People don't undermine you as a human being because you're not as tall as them. There's a huge difference between saying things in a funny or convivial way and saying something malicious to hurt someone. Just understand that it's not up to you to decide what offends someone else.
of courses there's a difference, but both forms can cause offense?? something in jest is less aggressive but some people can take the content more seriously, and of course I feel undermined! if I could take a pill tonight and make myself taller your dam right I would take that pill in a blink of an eye! I just feel your being very narrow minded because your viewing it solely from a minority perspective!
something in jest is less aggressive but some people can take the content more seriously, and of course I feel undermined!
Then say something about it!
Referring back to another argument I posted: "it's okay to not know you've said something offensive. You can say something offensive if you genuinely don't know you're being offensive and someone will probably tell you you've offended them. It happens to me all the time"
If people mock you for your height in jest and you laugh along, that's okay. If they mock you and it hurts your feelings, tell them. It's literally as simple as that.
what's the point in saying something, i am who i am, in my view im better to deal with it in the way I've always dealt with it and that's laugh about it and throw insults back, i have black friends who call me racist names and i do the same back, we have a common ground, I have fat friends who give as good as they get, we enjoy the banter between us all! but i totally understand your point of view when it comes to aggressive vocal responses and inappropriate language, but if in a group you can build in a sense a tolerance to this then that can only be a good thing?
of course i would never deliberate offended someone! I've never condoned that, I just believe we all need to be more stronger minded and less sensitive that's all.
That's not even what I said. I said it's easy to not understand what it's like to be offended when you're part of the majority. Not to mention all of the groups you mentioned are not the majority. If you are short and you are mocked for it, it's probably because you're not an average height like most people.
That was his response to you. How does that confirm it?
Because something is easy to say if you are part of the majority does not mean it's impossible to grasp the concept unless you are a minority. White people don't fully understand what it means to be black. Straight people don't fully understand what it means to be queer. People can learn and can sympathize.
Another response to you.
His replies to you do the exact opposite of confirming it.
White people don't fully understand what it means to be black. Straight people don't fully understand what it means to be queer. People can learn and can sympathize
I am confused by this response from you. Of course one race can't fully understand what it means to be black ,or one sexuality another, and of course people can and should learn to sympathize even if they can't fully empathize. What does that have to do with his previous comments?
what he is saying in an indirect way is only minority's can be offended because if your in the majority you don't have a true perception of inappropriate language, which in my view is very narrow minded.
Again, he did not say a "true perception". I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by changing what he actually said. He has claimed, multiple times, that if you are not in a minority, it is HARDER to have the same perspective. That is not an indirect way of saying that it is impossible to have the same perspective, that is not saying anything about a "true perspective". Why do you keep adding personal inference when his words have been repeated by him multiple times and remained consistent?
what on earth are you on about, im not changing what he said in the slightest, im telling you in my own words what he is saying??? and he is saying you need to be in a minority to truly understand political correctness, if your interpreting this differently then your on a different page??
That is the point: You are saying in YOUR words what he is saying, which means you ARE changing what he is saying.
I have given you multiple quotes from him that contradict what you are claiming. For the life of me, I do not understand why you are refusing to accept what he is actually saying.
are you getting frustrated?? im not going to repeat his words because what he is truly saying isn't fully there in his statements he just alludes to it, so I have to reword it in my own words to show you what he is actually saying regardless of reputation in his statements.
I've not proven your point at all, it was a necessary process for me to lay his true point of view out for you to understand, your not properly reading his statements and accepting them for what they truly are. you see when you have your own personal fixed perspective its sometimes hard to view things from a different vantage point.
it was a necessary process for me to lay his true point of view out for you to understand
Again, a "true point" that he has disagreed with you on and does not exist anywhere in his comments. Do I need to provide his comments for you again that include him disagreeing that he meant or indicated that what you are claiming? Because they very clearly indicate you are the one not "properly reading his statements and accepting them for what they trul are".
I would be happy to provide his comments for you to show you, very clearly, it is you that "you have your own personal fixed perspective".
If you read them just fine, how can you not realize that he pointed out to you time and time again that you were wrong? How can you justify being so presumptuous that you are telling him what he meant?
I wasn't telling him what he meant he just wasn't admitting it? not being presumptuous at all, we need a totally independent person to view these statements and im pretty confident they would come to the same assumption, i can see your getting worked up, are you tiered your usually so calm hahaha!!
I wasn't telling him what he meant he just wasn't admitting it? not being presumptuous at all, we need a totally independent person to view these statements and im pretty confident they would come to the same assumption, i can see your getting worked up, are you tiered your usually so calm hahaha!!
Indeed, this thread has managed to bother me more than most. I tend to become very annoyed by people who try to tell others what they are thinking, and I am simply baffled by this situation.
Out of curiosity, am I correct in assuming you also would not agree if he told you what he actually meant, if it included disagreeing with your inferences?
I would question it based on previous comments as I think he would be trying to cover his track, I personally feel he wasn't being truthful with what he really wanted to say, because if he did say what he truly meant he would be attacked by more members.
Just because you find something funny does not mean everyone else will find it funny. You can not really expect to criticize someone and that they should just laugh it off because you think it's no big deal. You don't know someones situation.
For example: Say someone smells unpleasant. You make a crack about how they should take a shower. That person you made fun of is homeless and can not. Is that really funny?
Making fun of people because of their insecurities and expecting them to be okay with it because they should already have thick skin is not in any way politically correct.
Honestly if I saw a politician who pulled something like that, I would NOT support them in any way.
How would you feel if you were in that situation? You should consider that before 'potentially offending' someone.
when have I said I deliberately make fun of people for my own pleasure???
I think you need to spend some time re reading the comments because you have gone way of course!! you clearly don't understand what I have written and my stance!
Yes, my examples may have been extreme but your stance is quite clear to me. I do not agree with it because of the outright inconsideration in your statement.
You spoke of peoples inability to 'laugh off' jokes and comments that may offend them. And before, you were discussing the fact that we cannot say the word nr or brown as to not offend someone. This makes me assume that you believe it is a okay to just say whatever you like to anyone and any emotional scarring or mental damage should just be laughed off.
As much as you've most likely heard it before, words hurt a lot. And to say people just shouldn't get offended by them is so ignorant to the feelings of others. That's basically like telling someone "don't feel", it's impossible and inconsiderate.
let me lay it out to you in simple terms what I think because your interpretation of my opinion is totally wrong!
All my opinion points to is that we need to try and be less sensitive, but also respectful while choosing our words wisely, we live in an opinionated world so at some point in life you will have to deal with someone who lacks the social discretion required and will offended you, so if you don't have the ability and the mental strength to brush off this type of person or persons comments then you will find life very difficult.
What would you know about what's politically correct and what's not? do you think you sit on some righteous throne where you know exactly what to say and will never offended someone?? and how on earth did you get on to political leaders conduct??
someone can be rude and right! and you don't have to be in politics to use political correctness.
and there you go in the first sentence you wrote, you don't know what is wrong or right so you don't know what will offend or what wont offended you can only make an educated guess which doesn't guarantee anything! we are all in this position so that's why I think its best to have the ability to brush off comments your not expecting!!
that's not what I said! I said someone can be rude and be right, example: I could call an overweight person a fat git, im right in the sense there fat and overweight but not right with regards to considering the feelings of that person.
anyway your points are getting shorter and shorter you clearly don't have much substance to this point!
The 'problem' if there is one with political correctness is the 'correctness' part.
Language exists to facilitate communication, and regardless of whether or not we personally approve of the negative connotations associated with non-PC terminology, those negative connotations are entirely valid, and politically correct terminology strips them of an important part of their meaning.
Hence my issue with the 'correctness' part of political correctness. If a person genuinely hates black people, for example, someone who suggests his choice of the N word is incorrect, and that he should use 'african american' or even just 'black' instead is wrong, as such terminology does not express what the bigot is trying to communicate.
Language is correct if and only if it is accurately communicating the concepts the speaker wishes to communicate. Sometimes those concepts are uncomfortable for some, or even many people. That does not make the language less correct, if it fits what the speaker is trying to communicate.
I am not endorsing bigotry, by any means- but 'political correctness' is entirely a misnomer- it would make more sense to refer to such speech as politically neutral speech rather than politically correct speech.
Look at the history of terminology we have used to describe those with certain mental handicaps. 'Idiot' was once the 'neutral' term used for such, and is no longer used in that manner due to colloquial usage of the term rendering it no longer neutral. Not even very specific terminology is safe from this- consider 'mentally retarded-' based on the latin word for slow, meant specifically to describe a state where an individual learns, develops, and thinks more slowly than is to be expected. Hard to get more specific and neutral than that- and yet that term has still been heavily colored by the negative connotation.
Politically neutral speech has it's place- for those who would speak about a phenomenon that frequently has a very negative (or at least controversial) connotation when they do not support the connotation in question and feel a need to distance themselves from said connotation as much as possible. And it's not a bad thing at all, from that perspective- but can we stop with the nonsense of calling it 'correct?'
Political correctness and its sibling call-out culture are more damaging than helpful in more ways than I count:
PC culture is steeped in academia and is generally inaccessible to many of the people it targets. Ironically, the very people who "call out" classism are enacting it more often than not in these exchanges.
PC culture is a divisive mechanism that establishes two parties as distinct, and one as fallible and lesser. This does not inspire people to "be better", but does encourage people to stay ignorant and/or intolerant instead.
PC culture also generally ignores intent and context, which are both hugely important.
PC culture teaches entitlement by telling the marginalized that they deserve to be treated and viewed a certain way by others. This is inconsistent with reality, and damaging because it tacitly implies that we should genuinely care what everyone thinks about us even when it otherwise would not affect us. This traps the marginalized in places of anger and cynicism which are unproductive individually and for organizing.
I could go on, but I suspect that is enough for now at least.
Conversations about PC happen within academia almost exclusively in my experience. I do not think this is owing entirely to coincidence, and to me PC and academia are so interconnected that I do not see any efficient or practical way of separating the two.
The divisiveness of PC is in its name: correctness inherently implies that there is someone acting "incorrectly", and asserts that this conduct must be corrected to the appropriate standard of behavior. There is no intention of reaching mutual understanding through dialogue.
The rigid inflexibility of PC exists because ambiguity is anathema to the concept of incorrect language. It is extremely uncommon in my experience for something to be PC in one context but not in another (e.g. it is still wrong to tell racist jokes even when you are only around close friends whom you know do not care). And although people understand language to mean different things due to their different backgrounds, there is also limited allowance for that in PC for the same reason: if there is ambiguity, PC loses its legitimacy.
PC hinges upon the idea that certain language is incorrect precisely because of its affects on other people. The fundamental premise is that there is a legitimate authority to be had in policing the language of one party in the interest of another. This teaches that we can and ought to expect people to accommodate us in their language, when in reality I contend that neither is practical.
There are plenty examples of not conforming to political correctness, other than using homophobic or racist abuse.
An example of the stupidity of political correctness is how in America with the kids program "Thomas the tank engine" they couldn't call the character the "fat controller" because it wasn't politically correct as it would offend a country full of fat people.
Another is being unable to criticize things that obviously are worthy of criticism, e.g. naming your kid something chavy or being unable to criticize Islam.
There are plenty examples of not conforming to political correctness, other than using homophobic or racist abuse.
So you are against political correctness, except in SOME circumstances.
An example of the stupidity of political correctness is how in America with the kids program "Thomas the tank engine" they couldn't call the character the "fat controller" because it wasn't politically correct as it would offend a country full of fat people.
Might as well just call him the obese controller. Means the same thing and it would be "politically correct".
Another is being unable to criticize things that obviously are worthy of criticism, e.g. naming your kid something chavy or being unable to criticize Islam.
It is actually quite easy to criticize Islam or criticizing strange names for children while remaining "politically correct".
Example: "Muslims are a bunch of violent barbarians" Politically incorrect.
"The Koran is a book that includes a rather staggering amount of violence and justifications for violence that some extremists have used" Politically correct.
Plenty of people would dub even that as politically incorrect.
Well I clearly can't speak to "plenty of people", but I have yet to meet a single individual, including hard-core left-wing apologists, who have dubbed that characterization "politically incorrect" or offensive.
Well it's not just the fact that being racist or homophobic could offend people, it is the fact that they're morally wrong. I could not care less if someone finds something offensive, only if what was said was unfair or immoral.
A lot of people would say how it is unfair to say that of the Quran as it was written in a different time and therefore literal interpretations of it are not fair judgments and that that it is offensive to criticize their religion.
Well it's not just the fact that being racist or homophobic could offend people, it is the fact that they're morally wrong. I could not care less if someone finds something offensive, only if what was said was unfair or immoral.
But your claim that they are immoral is a subjective one. While I happen to agree with you on that, not everyone shares that moral. Others hold morals that insulting or offending anyone unnecessarily is wrong.
A lot of people would say how it is unfair to say that of the Quran as it was written in a different time and therefore literal interpretations of it are not fair judgments and that that it is offensive to criticize their religion.
It was written in a different time, and literal interpretations are indeed nonsensical, which is why those who employ them are extremists. But again, I can not argue with "a lot of people". Political correctness when it comes to religion is an entirely different beast.
But your claim that they are immoral is a subjective one. While I happen to agree with you on that, not everyone shares that moral. Others hold morals that insulting or offending anyone unnecessarily is wrong.
Who cares if it is subjective or not? Only an arsehole would think being a bully is morally acceptable so their opinion is worth nothing.
literal interpretations are indeed nonsensical
How else can you interpret those lines in the Quran then? It clearly says to kill polytheists and to kill gays in the Quran, there is no ulterior, non-literal way of interpreting those lines.
Political correctness when it comes to religion is an entirely different beast.
So you admit there are some areas where it is wrong? I am going to have to admit there are some areas where it is right, although they are extremely few and far from in between.
Who cares if it is subjective or not? Only an arsehole would think being a bully is morally acceptable so their opinion is worth nothing.
But to people who support political correctness, those who oppose it are bullies. Does that mean that their opinions (yours included based on you stated opposition) are "worth nothing"?
How else can you interpret those lines in the Quran then? It clearly says to kill polytheists and to kill gays in the Quran, there is no ulterior, non-literal way of interpreting those lines.
There is no other way of interpreting the lines, one can simply ignore them, which all of the "enlightened" religions (see Judeo-Abrahamic religions) do, and for good reason.
So you admit there are some areas where it is wrong? I am going to have to admit there are some areas where it is right, although they are extremely few and far from in between.
It is difficult to say that it is "wrong" for religion, though I may be tempted to say yes. I think it is simply more difficult to apply the term to religion, since people receive criticism of a belief system different than they do inherent (or non-inherent) characteristics.
No because disagreeing with wrapping people people in cotton wool and sugar coating it for them is not bullying.
Clearly, Islam, which is an Abrahamic religion, doesn't ignore the bad lines.
But politically correct people often seem to view insulting Islam as insulting an inherent characteristic, even though it isn't. An ample amount of people scream "racist", "racist", "racist" when they hear Islam being criticized.
Clearly, Islam, which is an Abrahamic religion, doesn't ignore the bad lines.
Then why do American Muslims not stone people all the time? Or European Muslims for that matter. Or just the overwhelming majority of Muslims for that matter.
But politically correct people often seem to view insulting Islam as insulting an inherent characteristic, even though it isn't. An ample amount of people scream "racist", "racist", "racist" when they hear Islam being criticized.
Some do, some don't. I happen to disagree with those that do.
Well there are violent acts by Muslims on Western soil. It is not just actually carrying out the killing but agreeing with it. In Britain 1/3 of 16-24 year old Muslims agree with killing apostates and after the Charlie Hebdo killings 3,000+ Muslims took to the streets of London in protest, supporting the killings. Some where even flying Al Qaeda flags and some standing on the poppies that had been left on a war memorial.
No, but it shows that a lot of Muslims do not ignore the bad lines in the Quran. Further evidence for this is that in the UK over 60% of Muslims want sharia law. The global percentage of Muslims wanting sharia law would probably be even higher.
In Britain 1/3 of 16-24 year old Muslims agree with killing apostates and after the Charlie Hebdo killings 3,000+ Muslims took to the streets of London in protest, supporting the killings.
1000+ Muslims protest, peacefully, cartoons mocking their religion; much like how many Christians protest gay marriage. Considering the protesters specifically issued a message denouncing the killings, you can't exactly say they support the killings.
It is kind of funny how you don't see the similarity between your hate for Muslims, some Christian's hate for gay people, or some atheists (anti-theists) hate for theists.
I never said they weren't. I am saying there is a serious Islamophobia issue in the western world, specifically countries with non-Muslim majorities. UK happens to be one of them.
Before 9/11, westerns just looked down on Muslims, but now it has turned into hate. That used to be limited to Asian countries.
Have you ever thought maybe Muslims might be protesting because they have been receiving so much hate for the last decade+ for the actions of extremists?
Have you ever thought maybe Muslims might be protesting because they have been receiving so much hate for the last decade+ for the actions of extremists?
That is no excuse for their behavior. They are attacking memorials to war heroes. War heroes that allowed a free country where the Muslim immigrants could live. How abysmal. Flying Al Qaeda flags shows that they agree with the extremists and therefore are worthy of hatred.
I am sick to death of the left-wing making excuses for bad people.
One group's war hero is another group's mass murderer.
Perspective is important.
They have no reason to believe them to be mass murderers. Why would they believe that people who fought against Germany in ww1 and ww2 are murderers? Muslim people even fought with the British in both conflicts. Like I said they have reason to appreciate the war heroes as they allowed a free Britain to exist where migrants, particularly ones with such alien beliefs could exist.
A peaceful protest does not exactly require excuses.
It does when you are attacking war memorials, especially ones dedicated to those who stopped Hitler. Or when it is in favour of a terrorist organization.
Yes, so it's the people who fought against the vile Nazi Germans and Imperial Germans' fault that Muslims face discrimination?
I can understand no reason why they would feel animosity towards war heroes who they have to thank for having the freedom to stand in this country, let lone spread their evil hate in it. The reason they're like this isn't because the West hates them, it is because they hate the West. They hate the West because it is decadent and we do not conform to their way of life. That's why in Islamic schools kids are taught to hate the Western, non-Islamic way of life. They are like this because this what their religion is like. Muslims have been trying to control the way people live long before 9/11.
You trying to find excuses for flying Al Qaeda flags and attacking war memorials is disgusting. It is as simple as. If it were a group of Neo-Nazis behaving this way, would you be defending them?
As yogurt-knitting left-wing nutter you just love defending the indefensible don't you?
Seriously, stop standing up for them. You're disgusting for standing up to people who attack war memorials to people who everyone believes to be a hero as they stopped Hitler or Wilhelm achieving world domination and standing up for people who support Al Qaeda.
That's different. Western people had reason to hate Bin Laden but the Muslims have no reason to hate people who fought against Germany in the world wars. They were on the same side. They did nothing wrong to the Muslims.
I brought up the war hero point to show you perspective. There is no difference between a war hero and a mass murderer because there is always a winning side and a losing side in war.
In regards to people stepping on flowers, you are grossly exaggerating it. It was a couple of random guys. It was not like the protesters formed a line to step on the flowers. How was this an attack by protesters? Most of the video you cited shows the British First group trying to assault the peaceful Muslim protesters.
Oh wait, their scripture supports violence, so the peaceful protesters must be the violent ones?
They were flying the flags of a terrorist organization. They deserve to be assaulted. I don't give a shit whether they're peaceful or not. What they are condoning is not peaceful. These people where saying it's OK to kill people. Furthermore Muslims have burnt remembrance poppies in the past so it wasn't a one off occurrence.
The losing side in the war was a genocidal, totalitarian dictatorship which had murdered 11 million innocent people. Furthermore the memorial was of the women in world war two, who didn't even take part in the fighting but helped with the war effort on the home front. The Muslims weren't even the losing side so they have no reason to be upset by the war heroes/"mass murderers".
But it wasn't the American and Soviets that were having their war memorials being attacked! It was the British! What you have mentioned has nothing to do with the reasoning behind their actions.They have no respect for this country and they must be deported.
I am talking about the fact that a couple people out of 1000+ stepping on the flowers of war heroes/mass murderers or carrying terrorist logos is not a great reason to hate or deport 2.6 million people. This works for other similar situations too. Hint. Hint. Wink. Wink.
I'm going to have to admit that not all of them do deserve to be deported. But over 60% of UK Muslims want sharia law. That's over 60% of 2.6 million people who are enemies of the state who should be deported and hated by anyone that wants to live in a country that even vaguely resembles it as it is today.
Because he isn't standing up for them. He is pointing out other possible perspectives that you can use to look at the situation, but he really hasn't defended them, regardless of how many times you have claimed he is. I may not agree with all that he is saying, which is why I haven't up voted his comments, but I do disagree with how you are starting to go about that conversation.
He is tirelessly making excuses. Excuse after excuse after excuse, each time I refute one of them. To me if you make excuses for something you are standing up for them.
I will always shame enablers of radical Islam wherever I see them. He is a fool for making excuses for people who surely disparage him and his "decadent" way of life.
Have you ever thought maybe Muslims might be protesting because they have been receiving so much hate for the last decade+ for the actions of extremists?
He is giving this as an excuse for their abysmal behaviour
Also he's using this as an excuse:
The winning side of the war included the US and the USSR which were responsible for over 100 million dead innocent people over the next 40 years.
When the Muslims weren't even attacking American or Soviet memorials, they were attacking British.
Have you ever thought maybe Muslims might be protesting because they have been receiving so much hate for the last decade+ for the actions of extremists?
So he is giving you a perspective to think about that could explain their actions. I hardly see how, even if they were receiving so much hate, that would excuse their actions, even from his perspective.
The winning side of the war included the US and the USSR which were responsible for over 100 million dead innocent people over the next 40 years.
When the Muslims weren't even attacking American or Soviet memorials, they were attacking British.
He quite clearly was using that as an example of how the sides that we personally relate to as being the "good" side is not always considered so altruistic by others around the world. Again, that reads, to me, as an additional perspective to think about, not something meant to excuse the behavior in question.
Out of curiosity, if you don't view what he is saying as excuses, why would you think it is "BS"? Note I am not saying you have to necessarily agree with what he is saying.
I think it is BS because the perspectives he is offering aren't valid. I don't believe any Muslim was attacking the memorial to the women of world war two in the belief they were mass murderers. They were doing that to defy the Western World, which they hate.
Furthermore, Muslims aren't against us because people are prejudiced against them, it is the other way around. Muslims are intolerant to their own people so that shows that the idea that Islamic intolerance originates from Western ignorance towards them is false.
I am not interested in trying to understand Muslims, only to call them out on how awful they are.
Fair enough. I should point out that, while I happen to be what people refer to as "politically correct", I strongly oppose Islam (more strongly than the other religions of Abraham) and often criticize is.
From what I have heard, political correctness is indeed far more out of control in the U.K. than in the United States, despite what many conservatives in the U.S. may claim.
I warn you, you're only a step behind us. Soon you'll get to this awful point of political correctness gone mad. You'll find it limiting your vocabulary and not just of nasty words such as "fag" or "n_gger". I suggest you people rally against it before you reach this stage.
I think it is BS because the perspectives he is offering aren't valid. I don't believe any Muslim was attacking the memorial to the women of world war two in the belief they were mass murderers. They were doing that to defy the Western World, which they hate.
You almost got it right. I believe the simplest explanation for a couple of protesters out of 1000+ (less than 1%) stepping on some flowers was to show aggression and resentment towards the British First members who have been showing them aggression and resentment. People react to people.
Furthermore, Muslims aren't against us because people are prejudiced against them, it is the other way around.
I already cited several articles warning against the rise of Islamaphobia since 911 in many parts of the UK. How is it the other way around? You are still grouping extremists together with peaceful protesters.
Extremists hate westerners and should be dealt with extreme prejudice. Normal people have nothing to do with the extremists and should not be grouped with them. The more you alienate a group, the more likely they are to turn to extremism. By the way, it is more like 40%. I suggest you read the whole article.
Some truths are deemed politically incorrect, even if they aren't disrespectful. For example telling a child they're fat is not usually disrespectful but done out of concern for their well being, yet that is not politically correct.
I have to agree with GenericName. You can still tell the truth without offending people. Being politically correct just means choosing words carefully and being a polite person.
Telling your child they're fat, for example, is considered politically incorrect and there is no other way of saying that, apart from saying "you're overweight" or "obese" which are pretty much the same thing.
Telling your child they're fat, for example, is considered politically incorrect and there is no other way of saying that, apart from saying "you're overweight" or "obese" which are pretty much the same thing.
While I personally agree, political correctness is almost always more about tone than substance. It is about being disrespectful in the way you convey something. Saying someone is "fat" has a far more disrespectful connotation than saying they are obese or over weight.
Well I think telling them they're fat is better than just "overweight" as it is more likely to provoke a stronger emotional reaction leading them to do something about it. It is cruel to be kind.
Well I think telling them they're fat is better than just "overweight" as it is more likely to provoke a stronger emotional reaction leading them to do something about it. It is cruel to be kind.
More often than not, that sort of emotional reaction is not a positive or productive one, so what is the point? It is better to be productive than either of your options.
Studies generally show that what they do about it is engage in self destructive behavior, such as binge eating. You and I may find that absurd, but what good is a principled stance if it is counter productive?
Well then it's up to the parents to make sure that there isn't food for them to binge on. Get rid of your house's supply of crips (or chips as you in America know them), biscuits, sweets, cakes etc, put a lock on the fridge etc.
I certainly don't disagree with you there. The obesity epidemic is particularly deplorable here in the States when you see parents loading their children up with fatty foods.
Honestly there's a difference between flat out calling your child fat, or any other derivation of the term, and having a constructive conversation with your child about his or her weight.
You can indeed be polite and still offend someone, but that is because some people will be offended no matter what. One should still strive to be polite anyway.
Political correctness is nothing but a tool, used to control people. As long as I don't yell fire in a movie theater, or something else that's clearly illegal, I should be able to say whatever I want. to anyone who thinks they have the right to muzzle my free spech, I say go to hell!
Political Correctness has nothing to do with silencing free speech, so what is the point of that comment? You clearly have the right to say whatever you want, but what is the point of going around needlessly offending people?
Do you think the shirt controversy had a rational element at its core, but got out of hand (I purposefully refrain from most social media, so I have very little exposure to how prevalent/vitriolic the discussion was), or had no substance at its core?
Read Oleanna by David Mamet.. The young girl gets beaten viciously by the university professor, left weeping on the floor and never have I enjoyed such a spectacle more in my life :3
Since the 20th Century is now behind us, a new era of political correctness is in effect. It seems that all must strive today to be politically correct or suffer the wrath from the MSM.
