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.
I don't think it's inherently hypocritical, but in my experience the majority of those who freak out over political correctness are advocating their own form of it. It's like those people who go on a 5 paragraph tirade over "outrage culture" because someone didn't like their racist joke.
Sometimes political correctness isn't about criticizing someone for bad behavior, it is just complaining that people are offending you. In those cases the person isn't being hypocritical.
Sorry, my last statement was referring to the second person. If someone complains about being offended and claims political correctness it isn't hypocritical for someone to criticize that person for hijacking what political correctness is.
That is kinda what I assumed might be the case. You are talking about being a vocal opponent of a specific political correctness request. My intention with the debate is someone who criticizes political correctness itself.
Not as a whole it doesn't. If you think of PC as a sort of ideology (I wouldn't say it is, but for the sake of the conversation), then individuals who try to apply that ideology in a way that is not consistent with the core ideology are not infiltrating the message, they are altering it into something else.
I'd liken it to Communism being hijacked by folks like Lenin. What they were practicing really wasn't ideologically communist, at least at that time and in line with the writings they espoused. It was just a convenient message for them to coopt in order to push personal goals. That doesn't reflect communism and the ideology itself, it only reflects the intent and actions of those in question.
Same goes for PC and the people you are talking about. Just because some people get angry any time they see something they find objectionable, that doesn't mean that PC as a whole has been "infiltrated" or "tainted", it just means that some people use the message of PC as an excuse to further a personal goal.
Other way around. Marxist Communism is what Lenin preached, despite the fact that Marxist Communism requires an organic uprising of the proletariat. Lenin employed what's called vanugardism, an idea found in Leninist/Stalinist Communism that calls for an organized group of elite to lead the proletariat into the revolution. This of course fundamentally contradicts the organic nature of Marxism and leads to an elite ruling class, the exact type of thing Communism was supposed to prevent.
It's the other way around because you said Communism separated itself from what Lenin did, but Lenin separated himself from what Communism did. I suppose that Communism was "damaged" in terms of perception from what he did, but that doesn't change the original ideology itself.
I thought the discussion was about how someone can cause damage to an ideology by not following the ideology. I was saying that people associate communism with what the Russians did during that time and that's why they reject communism.
Political correctness is when someone says you shouldn't say something.
Well, so far so good. Almost. It's more accurate to say that political correctness is when someone claims that it is kinder and more fair to use words or phrases that do not insult or demean people. But I'll let you slide on this so far.
If you tell someone not to advocate political correctness, you are telling them they shouldn't say something...
Hmm..not really. For example, I am personally sick and tired of political correctness in this country, and feel it has gone too far and will end-up doing us a great disservice.
But when I tell somebody NOT to advocate PC, I am in reality advising them to DO something. And that is, to call a spade a spade and be blunt and concise.
See? By being PC all the time, it is those people (the PCers) who are NOT doing something. They're not cutting away all the euphenistic bullshit that tends to cloud the point.
It is us non-PCers who are in favor of TRUE freedom of speech. Consequences or the hurt feelings of wimps be damned.
And example of a great VERY non-PC joke I just heard.
The judge of the Special Olympics is handing the winner of the recent 100M run a gold medal for wining. He says to the kid............."I have good news and bad news little Johnny. The good news is: you just won this Gold Medal!
The bad news is......you're still retarded!"
LOL
That joke makes me literally laugh my ass of every time I hear it. Since one of the craziest PC things over the past couple decades has been how retards have gone from, well, retards, to "mentally handicapped" to "special needs." Robin Williams even made fun of that bullshit in a movie where he was a retard and he said...."I feel the same as I did 20 years ago but for some reason today people tell me I am not retarded anymore. Somewhere along the way I passed that and became somebody who just has special needs. But I still forget not to piss in the sink."
Ahh..but I digress.
Oh..another PC term that really pisses me off.
"Baby Daddy." AS in...."Oh...he is not my husband. Just one of my my baby daddies."
Really?
More accurate to say, "Oh, yeah, he is the father of one of my children, but I--being a lazy, welfare-abusing, tramp-stamped, minority slut--ain't married to him anymore and I actually have three ex-husbands who I have had kids by."
The purpose of Political Correctness is to avoid unnecessarily offending or disadvantaging people (though that definition tends to be predicated upon "Left-Wing" Political Correctness, and I'd argue that the right has its own form). If I simply told you that you shouldn't have asked that question, that wouldn't be a call for political correctness.
Isn't the person on the right (or other) basically saying that they (or others) feel oppressed, offended, disadvantaged, etc. by being told what they can't say?
Yes, and in that instance those opponents of political correctness are essentially being hypocrites. But not all opponents of political correctness feel personally targeted by it, but oppose it on philosophical/ideological grounds.
Hypocrisy is shown here and blatantly obvious to anyone but you Democrats. Democrat Elite burn fossil fuels and put their carbon foot print on the atmosphere and want to tell all of America how bad climate change is by burning fossil fuels. Pure Hypocrisy comes from Democrats and The Left !
More hypocrisy from the Democrats. Democrat Elite are protected by firearms but that Elite class has a problem with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens that want to protect themselves , their family and their property. Pure Hypocrisy coming from Democrats.
And they are not in place for other purchases. Why would you want easy methods for people to get guns without a background check - wouldn't that facilitate the purchases by criminals?
Here is the problem you Democrats have you believe that the Elite you support have the right to be protected by guns but the law abiding citizen of this country does not have that same right. Your thought process on that is incorrect. Criminals can get their hands on guns because that is what criminals do. Background checks in your mind make it okay for your Elite class to protect themselves but not the average man or woman in America. You have a serious disconnect that makes you unable to understand about guns. There are millions of guns in this country that have been passed down through families that your government can't track. Millions of people that were raised with guns know how to operate that weapon and a background check has nothing to do with it. Just say you don't like guns because you are scared of them.
Political correctness isn't just "you shouldn't say something", that's too broad a term. It's more of a stance that certain things, either said or done, can be offensive to some people and therefore shouldn't be done.
I don't hear of too many people telling others NOT to advocate political correctness, in most instances it is because some people are SO intent on removing all forms of anything that could be considered offensive that they don't care about the context of when or why it was written. Example: Removing certain words from books written when, at the time, it was considered an appropriate identifier.
certain things, either said or done, can be offensive to some people and therefore shouldn't be done
using your words, isn't the person that speaks against people being too PC still doing the same thing?
I don't hear of too many people telling others NOT to advocate political correctness
You must not have talked to a Republican lately or seen the debates on this site (search for "politically correct" or "political correct" with the quotes and you will see hundreds of pages of debates) - lucky you.
I think it applies more to a broad spectrum of people being offended over one thing vs. a single person being offended by one thing.
The term "politically correct" tends to be a bit...bastardized by certain groups who like to use those words indiscriminately. Much like the term racist, sexist and so on. When certain people on this site use the word as much as they breathe, I tend to roll my eyes and skim on through.
How does PC seek to dictate anything? The entirety of political correctness is seeking to avoid unnecessarily offending or disadvantaging people. Full stop.
There's no legal compulsion involved, no mandates, etc.
And what is wrong with that, exactly? The "All Lives Matter" movement is a childish, antagonistic non-movement that entirely misses the point and the implicit "Too" at the end of Black Lives Matter.
No. "Say African American or you are an asshole" is vastly different than "I am saying African American because I am opposed to other terms that are used."
"If you tell me to say African American instead of black you are an asshole."
and
"I am saying African American because I am opposed to other terms that are used."
would be more similar to:
"African American is the better term to use."
Maybe you are pointing out your perception of the prevalence of vitriol on one side or the other rather than whether the behavior is in intrinsically hypocritical.
"If you tell me to say African American instead of black you are an asshole."
That isn't what the anti PC crowd is saying.
"I am saying African American because I am opposed to other terms that are used."
would be more similar to:
"African American is the better term to use."
I don't care how you reword it, the PC crowd isn't saying that either way.
Maybe you are pointing out your perception of the prevalence of vitriol on one side or the other rather than whether the behavior is in intrinsically hypocritical.
I don't think that either side is intrinsically hypocritical.
There is no singular anti PC crowd, but the debate implies that there is for each side.
I agree, and I've criticized that implication as well.
Doesn't make anything I said any less true.
It most certainly does. You said "That isn't what the anti PC crowd is saying." phrased in multiple different ways. There are plenty of PC advocates that have been saying the exact things you claimed the "PC crowd" wasn't saying.
And it became the wrong direction for the wrong purposes.
Again, there is no singular direction. Some people have taken it in the wrong direction for the wrong purposes, some haven't.
I agree, and I've criticized that implication as well.
But, I wasn't addressing you with my comments.
You said "That isn't what the anti PC crowd is saying." phrased in multiple different ways. There are plenty of PC advocates that have been saying the exact things you claimed the "PC crowd" wasn't saying.
None of that has to do with having PC advocates.
Some people have taken it in the wrong direction for the wrong purposes, some haven't.
If we ignore the 5 or so people who aren't taking it in the wrong direction then the whole group is doing it.
The earlier ones no, but when telling you that there was no singular PC crowd, you responded by saying there was no anti-pc crowd in a comment that was addressed to me.
None of that has to do with having PC advocates.
It has to do with the idea that there is a singular group of PC advocates.
If we ignore the 5 or so people who aren't taking it in the wrong direction then the whole group is doing it.
Oh come now, I doubt even you believe that hyperbole. With this issue, as with most, the loudest voices in a given room are rarely the voices of reason or the voices of the majority. You rarely hear about the PC advocates that aren't doing stupid shit because why would you? What news outlet is going to run the story "Advocate says we shouldn't be rude to each other!"
No, it is about convincing others to impose it on themselves. It's a purely social construct and has no legal authority. There is no legitimate compulsion involved.
Using bullying as a way of convincing is not really about having someone self impose.
The fact that some misguided idiots use bullying as their method does not make it an inherent aspect of "PC". In fact, said bullying often ends up contradict and violating the very purpose those particular individuals espouse.
For now. Without the anti PC crowd it would be pushed to being legal.
That's an unverifiable claim, really. Without the United States constitution there might be laws about it, but so long as the First Amendment exists, "PC" will be an entirely social construct.
Tell that to the PC crowd.
Again, there is no singular PC crowd. Even the people you are talking about aren't using anything beyond social compulsion, which is itself a form of speech. Those people in question are using some truly idiotic methods that contradict their espoused goals, but that still does not make it anything close to legitimate compulsion, unless you use the definition that means to pressure someone, at which point the word pretty much loses it's significance.
In fact, said bullying often ends up contradict and violating the very purpose those particular individuals espouse.
Exactly why the anti PC crowd is allowed to criticize them.
That's an unverifiable claim, really.
And?
Without the United States constitution there might be laws about it, but so long as the First Amendment exists, "PC" will be an entirely social construct.
Anti harassment laws are a very real possibility.
Again, there is no singular PC crowd.
Then you have a lot of work to do.
Even the people you are talking about aren't using anything beyond social compulsion, which is itself a form of speech.
Woah woah woah. I thought there was no compulsion whatsoever.
Those people in question are using some truly idiotic methods that contradict their espoused goals, but that still does not make it anything close to legitimate compulsion, unless you use the definition that means to pressure someone, at which point the word pretty much loses it's significance.
Exactly why the anti PC crowd is allowed to criticize them.
I thought you said there was no singular anti-PC crowd? And people are justified in criticizing those people in question for what they are doing, not in criticizing the concept of PC as a whole because of what those individuals do.
Anti harassment laws are a very real possibility.
And the inevitable Supreme Court ruling striking them down is an even more real possibility (time continuity problems with that aside).
Then you have a lot of work to do.
Me? Nah, I'm off for the day, started real early.
Woah woah woah. I thought there was no compulsion whatsoever.
Social compulsion was supposed to be a bit of a joke, but I suppose I didn't exactly make that clear.
They try to get people fired for being offensive.
Okay? The company in question would fire them for being bad representatives of their company. That isn't a matter of "PC", that is just a company not wanting to be represented poorly. That's some pretty basic business sense.
Not only is your definition of "political correctness" woefully inadequate, but it also doesn't define what a "vocal opponent" of political correctness is.
I am against political correctness, and I'm not telling you NOT to say something, I'm telling you not to censor me. Like, for instance, I personally think that this argument is stupid, but I'm not responding because I wish you hadn't MADE the argument, I'm responding to tell you "I think this is a stupid argument", and progress the conversation.
The problem with political correctness is that it doesn't allow for open conversation, it censors certain kinds of conversation, it disallows for openness in certain forums. When you disagree with that, you are the one hoping to silence others.
Do some vocal opponents want to shut up the "political correctness police"? I'm sure some do; but this question tries to generalize all vocal opponents of political correctness as hypocritical, and by definition that is blatantly incorrect.
Not only is your definition of "political correctness" woefully inadequate
Feel free to suggest an improvement.
define what a "vocal opponent" of political correctness is
Anyone who conveys a message against political correctness in a manner similar to the way an advocate of political correctness would convey their message.
The reason I felt this was an essential element was that a person could be against political correctness, but keep it to themselves - and, in that case, they would not be a hypocrite.
I'm not telling you NOT to say something, I'm telling you not to censor me
Isn't telling someone not to censor you telling them not to say certain things?
