Political Correctness And The Death Of The Truth In Society

Nicely said David. If political correctness were not being enforced by the government then there would be no reason for the FCC am I right? There would be nothing called a fairness doctrine or other such controlling things. The truth in the matter is when people let them, the government likes to regulate. Government officials, in my opinion find some kind of "pleasure" in having power over people. I would do it myself if I had the power. Another thing is, psychologically, the whole controlling words to control the people thing is completely plausible. And how are we bigots folks? Just because we believe in a free society where the government doesn't intervene with our daily lives. It's simply not pleasant to have the government controlling ANYTHING. Government is not a business. And my soap box is quite nice actually. Our soul harvesting program is going quite well. Oh yeah and our slave division has raised its quota several times in the last month. Oh yeah one more thing, tomorrow we're going to start 5,000,000 more government programs to control things. Its going to raise taxes 135% so people don't have that much so we're just gonna have to kill them and harness the energy from their bodies in our happy energy camps. Don't say something about the government. We'll have to make a nasty government visit to your hut. Which we are about to repossess with the National Hut Relocation Doctrine. hmmmm.. now IM a bigot. Oh wait. All that stands against everything I believe hmm... maybe I'm not a bigot.

If political correctness were not being enforced by the government then there would be no reason for the FCC am I right?

There would be nothing called a fairness doctrine or other such controlling things.

I would do it myself if I had the power.

The Fairness Doctrine was a planned pursuit of the FCC so that all major media hosts had to mention both at negative and positive about someone i.e. Nancy Pelosi if they wanted to say anything at all.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced

The plan was shot down as it was unconstitutional.

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[8]

My post was not saying there was such a thing as the fairness doctrine. Moreover, I meant that there should not even be such a thing considered by the government.

With this very rough conversation I say that our right to free speech should not be curbed. If I want to say the f word on public television I very well should be able to.

If I wanted to run my telephone at 900 Ghz I should be able to.

I could get service in a CAVE. But the FCC feels otherwise. Instead they limit bandwidth and other things to a "standard". If they had any sense they'd let private entities manage everything and the government would just go back to making roads.

I mean really, who wants to pave their own roads. I don't mind paying a nominal tax for defense or roads; but national healthcare, FCC, many other controlling government entities, nah. I'll pass.

Ahhh. Within several hours you have made me reach my own personal revelations about myself. Let me end this sophomoric endeavor by saying that I agreed with you all along, and myself had researched the Fairness Doctrine. It is the kind of one-sided spitting and cussing conquests that many of us pursue and it's simply not right, and leads us to completely irrational ends. I am the founder of my school's local debate team chapter and I am used to sad liquidly destroyable defenses much like the ones I have projected in these posts. I find you to be well versed in your use of argument(although gruff it may be) and end this post with my submission and agreement with your preceding accusations of my fervent irrationality. As a student who has majored in economics and minor in political science and philosophy I find many things to be very wrong with government control of economic matters. I feel you wouldn't agree with me here and I don't believe any of us can actually be "right" as the universe is an ever evolving flux of ideas and matter. Who is to say that there may not be another awkwardly astounding philosophy that may completely elude our attempts at a perfect system of government in the future. Until then I feel compromise and respect are the ways of reaching a better world.

However, sometimes we just get so irritated that rationality and reason go out the window. We must all eventually cool our engines and develop relationships that will allow us to grow and understand each other and not continue with endless bickering like so many people tend to do.

Agreed. It's the sad truth that the world is not like that. However much I would like it to be, I don't feel it will ever be that way.

I think we agree there. I was stating that I believe that too many people are allowing the bickering to interfere with progress

A very angry post indeed

I think we agree there. I was stating that I believe that too many people are allowing the bickering to interfere with progress

Progress is the key word here. What is progress? For far to many progress is the furtherance of their agenda,
the proving of their ideas to be right, the proselytizing of their proclivities, appetites and world view.