Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness

Er, if I may, just a small quibble...



Don't think I would've done so in 1920, either...

Well, have fun slamming the sensitive, y'all. I admit the straits are constraining, though not of course really constraining as I agree with free speech. Go ahead, I really don't care, mock everybody. I even agree that mockery is useful, especially to the mockee.

Wait until it is your mother who is out of her mind, or your brother with no limbs. Let them get a job and get off their duffs with their correctibilities. Gee, even wait until it is you, I presume you have all squirrelled your nuts away, which you had the good fortune to accumulate. Some of you/us have been able to climb out of quagmires and feel stronger for it, good for us then. Feel free.

Osso, I'm not advocating picking on the weak.
Women now out number men in college and universities pretty N.America wide. Why do we still feel victimized (by stupid jokes ect) when clearly this is not the case?

I am not Feeling Victimized. I was not able to get into med school at the time only 1% of those who were admitted were women. Women didn't get into law school in big numbers until several years after I went to school either. A bunch of us paved your way to easy feeling, Ceili. Not so much me, but many.

I am a feminist of sorts. I am not at all anti men, in fact I am still rather enthused. My point here is not to deride anybody for gender, race, or time of day, it makes the deriders fools from my pov.

You all need to do that for freedom of speech, you go on with it. Dumb though.


[size=7]edited for spelling[/size]

That's pretty much how I feel about it.

Gotta go, more later.

OK, now this thread, I believe, has now gone in the wrong direction, but I don't have easy feelings towards women rights. I believe strongly in equality and very much appreciate the work done by women to further the cause.
Regardless, I'm not interested in holding a grudge based on past ills either.
I don't understand why, after all we've gone through and all we have accomplished, we can't take a joke.
How exactly does calling a waitress a server further the progress of womens rights? How does whitewashing the cold hard truth in some cases help to further anyone rights, or self-esteem, or ............aauugghh

This is what bothers me about PC. If you fail to see the logic behind the doublespeak you're an uncaring cad or a "fool".

This thread has gone in the wrong direction because I spoke from the heart?

If I fail to understand the logic behind doublespeak I am an uncaring cad or fool?

You are not interested in carrying a grudge for past ills. Well, I take people for their actions myself. I am actually glad they are all so past for you.

I'm not a fool, Ceili.

Who cares if the thread goes in the wrong direction as long as it's educational?

Thanks for telling me Patiodog, I didn't mean to add a date though. I just meant that things are different from when we first wrote the bill of rights. The earliest example would probably be the sedition acts.

I think some of you misunderstood my post. My point wasn't that those remarks are acceptable.

My point was that those remarks are downright rude and meanspirited. I am amazed that some take it as a post that's supposed to support the position of it being ok to offend like that. It was not support for shortsighted and meanspirited insults just because one is too vapid to think beyond what makes them laugh.

Lapsus, my "have fun slamming the sensitive, y'all" wasn't directed at your post! I understood the satire.

I think that we as humans abhor the idea of absolute freedom of speech. That is why we have created or stick by a 'societal norm' of speech.

Osso, I didn't call you a fool, I was paraphrasing your earlier comment. But as with any speech...it can be taken several ways, and unforuntly feelings get hurt, when that was never my intention.
I'll quit while I'm ahead.

I know.

Welcome, Lapsus Manus. I loved your satire - it said everything I wanted to say, but was weary of saying - having said it so often here, but a great deal less eptly.

The intro to the thread discouraged me, too - it is a little hard to imagine a dispassionate discussion of the subject on a thread whose introduction includes the words:

"the ugly beast that is PC"

Conclusions seemed a litle foregone - I decided to save my pixels. You lured me out!

Wow, I thought I misunderstood it because everybody else thought you were saying that it was acceptable.

"In countries where 'free' speech is celebrated, have we made up for this liberty and lack of boundaries by becoming our own language police? Are the implications of absolute freedom too much for some, thusly creating the ugly beast that is PC?"

The answer is an absolute yes! We don't have laws to inhibit our free speech. We do it to ourselves by allowing a social culture to dominate. We don't tend to act. We react. People are so sick of PC and is is showing.

I got an example, The Jerry Springer Show. How much more un-PC can you get? If people weren't watching this, it would be axed by the network quickly. Everyone knows who Jerry Springer is around the nation. Why? Will anyone admit to cracking up laughing at this disaster while having a feeling of refreshment that the whole country isn't so PC after all?

What will you say to friends and co-workers about a show like this where the audience gets MartiGraw beads for showing their breasts even? You will say it is disgusting. It is, but hits on humor as well as a statement of being sick of PC. Are we telling the whole truth? Probably not or this show wouldn't be on year after year. If it doesn't make ratings, it doesn't make money. If it doesn't make money, if gets canceled. Obviously someone is watching this show. By the advertisement, it would seem that the uneducated, unemployed, and in serious debt are the target audience. I have to ask, how many of us really have that luxury of sitting around the house watching trash TV? Not too many these days.

I believe that we have replaced socialization with our TV and home computer. South Park is another example of a very un-PC show, but highly successful. We have two faces, one at home with our own thoughts and another for work and pleasing people around us.

Who can deny South Park is political in nature, but people love this show. The last episode I saw was because one of my kids like it. It was about a gay teacher trying to get fired by having another gay teacher aid where he used a tube to insert a gerbil rectally in front of the class as a science idea hoping to sue for being fired for being gay. The parents acted shocked at their kids intolerance for a sexual preference and sent to Tolerance Camp.

Ok, I might watch too much TV. I am a very recent cable subscriber and haven't seen, but heard of the popularity of certain shows. Here is my daughter cracking up at this episode where the gerbil has this journey of escape through the digestive system. Adults are laughing too. We don't admit it or be socially ousted.

You are correct. We have a self inflicted limitation on our freedom of speech. Are you brave enough to tell friends and co-workers that you got tickets to be in the audience of The Jerry Springer Show while visiting Chicago? I doubt it, but it would be pretty fun! Does anyone say anything beyond "South Park is funny."? No, that would lead to a conversation of why you think it is funny, because you may agree with the point they make or you think they are being so absurd. Who wants to discuss that? Not me! It equates to being on Leper Island and job loss if you are really honest about it.

Sigh, lemme do a real quickie.

1) Person A says X

2) Person B is offended that X was said and tells Person A about the offence taken.

Note: At this point it is censure. Not censorhip. If you do not know the difference between the two it is very adviseable to loook it up as this is a critical difference when you talk of "free speech".

3) Person A retorts by saying that person B is stifling "free speech", suggesting that this should not be done.

Note: This is reciprocal censure.

Now a little about "free speech". Free speech is a very misused concept.

It does not mean free from disagreement. Nowhere in the law or even in philosophical idea does "free speech" mean that your every expression is not to ever be met with disagreement.

Voicing disagreement is not censorship. It is censure. And complaining about "political correctness" is just as much censure as the very "evil" that "political correctness" is supposed to be.

Ultimately will people not get that such disagreements about precisely what is or is not funny is simply going to happen.

We are not robots, we will differ on many things.

We have different hot buttons.

We have different humor.

Everyone disagrees with some form of expression.

And sure, there are the real humorless sensitive people who take inordinate exception to everything. But all of this is just a difference in opinion.

Indeed, a Jew might not like a crack about the holocaust. A bald guy might not like your pet names for him. Personality and circumstance differ. A woman who was raped might not find jokes about rape to be funny.

This type of stuff happens. If humans are to get along they would do well not to make such a big bloody deal about a difference of opinion on what's tolerable.

All of this is "free speech". You are free to say what you want and anyone is free to disagree with you. If they find your humor tasteless they are free to do so.

If they find your attitudes on certain issues similar to that of a neandrathal this is their prerogative.

Heck you can even believe they will burn forever in hell if that's your fancy.

The complain against "political correctness" is exactly what it accuses PC to be. It's censure of what one disagrees with.

So, Ceili, I was speaking in my most heartfelt way yesterday, and didn't mean to shut your take down here. I admit much is silly in the effort within bureaucratic modes.

I personally have not a smidge of problem with waiter, waitress, or server. As in flight attendant, or worker, server seems to be inclusive.

The original trouble was that words like doctor... actually weren't at all inclusive. It was 1962's MCAT summary book that had probably even less women than I generalized as admitted to schools in the greater US.

Some of our communication trouble is that I think that was a few minutes ago and you think it is old history and can't you take a joke. A matter of perspective, and I know you react honestly.

I speak of this from my own microcosmal point of view. I apologize for the emotional stance I took - I prefer to not use that if I am not having the old glass of wine. I like you, Ceili, and didn't mean this to be a big deal between us.

From Ceili:
"Women now out number men in college and universities pretty N.America wide. Why do we still feel victimized (by stupid jokes ect) when clearly this is not the case?"

I agree... people normally don't take offense to slurs unless they're partially true, or true but over-exaggerated. Jokes are supposed to be so over-exaggerated so as to bear no resembelance to the truth by comparison. It's only when the jokes hit a little too close to home that they become offensive. For instance, there's a satire zine at my college that's always getting in **** for going too far in that way. They published a page entitled "celebrate diversity" or "getting to know each other" or something of the sort and them proceeded to list every typical racial/religious/classist slur they could think of. It was, of course, mocking the yuppie way of tolerating diversity ("you're not as good as me, and that's ok, I can tolerate that, I understand"). There was a huge outrage against this though. The students held this hearing where they all came to speak their minds to the zine staff. And when they came, it was mostly minority students, and they segregated themselves. The black people sat in one part of the room. The Indian people sat in another part. The Native Americans in another. The hispanics in another. When we get offended by this stuff. how much of that offense is because on some level we still believe the slur?

Gee! You were around in 1920? You must be a REALLY old geezer!

IMHO the part of PC that is out of hand is when it tosses common sense out the window.

Don't all of you think that as long as you use common sense and a decent amount of polite behaviour the whole PC thing isn't necessary?

What the Czech ministers failed to realize is their expressed opinion in the media reflects their opinion as elected officials. Certainly they are men too, and are entitled to a personal opinion, but when they are speaking as a member of government they should keep their non-official opinions out of it. Of course the upswing is, their crass comments should cost them a re-election.