Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness

Hmmm - yes, but what is common sense?

A mere 200 years ago, it was common sense that no married woman be able to retain rights over her own property - that no woman was fit to vote - that it was perfectly normal to be able to own a black person - in Australia that the country was "empty' when whites invaded - that no woman was fit to enter a profession.


In the 1960s, in my country, it was common sense that no married woman be permitted to remain in a public sector job - that women ought to receive far less money than men for doing the same work - that black Australians ought to be protected from themselves by being forced to seek permission to move from one place to another and generally not to have the rights of full citizenship - that male homosexuality be against the law.....

But I think politeness and reasonable regard for others' feelings would go a long way.....and I think much of what is now commonly jeered at as "political correctness" - which is, as I say ad nauseum, the current political incorrectness - is pretty much that....

I might as well weigh in with my standard reply on political rectitude. In the late 1960's, those young men and women who had worked in the civil rights movement, in the "ban the bomb" movement, in the anit-war movement, for women's rights, for "native Americans"--had many of them become "radicalized," and "militant." They advocated unity to further the "revolution" to which so many looked hopefully. For some among the "New Left" (distinguishing the young radicals from the FDR progressives), the term revolution was relatively harmless, meaning simply a call for extreme change, usually in the form of a more open society. For others, however, the notion formed of actual violent revolution. They advocated the formation of radical groups such as the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. They advocated a coalition of all such groups to achieve better results through unity.

This had some unforeseen implications, however. You couldn't criticize the treatment of women by blacks and American Indians, for example, and maintain the solidarity (feminists and Black Panthers were, in my experience, always uncomfortable in one another's presence). So simple fictions began about "cultural differences," which it would be necessary to respect. The concept took on a life of its own, to the extent that it quickly lent itself to exploitation. Those calling for democracy in China for example, were told that this was not a part of the Chinese cultural heritage, and that the Chinese had always had and were comfortable with totalitarian regimes. (This is a self-justificatory warping of the historical record, and that is a prime example of the evil inherent in political rectitude.) Soon, one could not address alcoholism among American Indians, because it was an insensitivity not consonant with the "solidarity" of radical movements. One could not point out that many of the feminists sacred dicta about raising children did not simply attempt to give little girls a greater sense of self-worth, but might give little boys a false sense of guilt, might tear down their sense of self-worth. One could not point out that black criminals were among the biggest exploiters of blacks in poor neighborhoods, and that closing ranks against "the man," "the pigs," simply made it impossible for the police to remove the threat.

This spread to the political right, also. Soon, one could not be conservative without subscribing to the most extreme tenets of the gun lobby. One was obliged to deplore the depravity of society and the degredation of morals. Soon, it reached the point at which one was a "traitor" to criticize Democratic politicians, if a leftist; to criticize Republican politicians, if on the right.

What began as an informal attempt to find common ground, and be aware of the sensitivities of others deteriorated into a kind of thought police.

The Political Rectitude Gestapo, of the Right or the Left, have had a field day, with no end in sight.

LOL! Anything, from sensitivity to liking cheese, can become ridiculous......and in a way revolutions seem doomed to mimic the patterns they strove against - however, our recent "revolutions" have carried us a long way - with all the oddnesses they pick up on the way.

Don't get me wrong, Bunny--i wouldn't have it any other way. I compare social attitudes and intolerance of the 1950's to today, and am greatly relieved to see the progress. But you know, if you have to wade through the swamp to get to the promised land, there's nothing wrong with scraping the sh*t off your shoes after you get there.

LOL! One person's sh*t is another's fertilizer.....

To me (and certainly I've found myself in situations where I've been lambasted by both the "politically correct" and their opponents) the notion of being sensitive about language -- and this is a cliche, but, you know, can't always be a scion of originality -- is useful in that it encourages some reflection on where we as individuals inherited particular terminology and how loaded that terminology, and in turn to reflect on what sort of meaning a word or phrase might have for our audience.

What gets my goat is when people on both sides of the debate fail to do so, and use language simply because that is the language of their sociological caste, if you will. I don't care if you say homosexual or queer or gay or fag or whatever; what you mean by it is what I care about. At the same time, if I'm communicating in a forum where subtle shades of meaning aren't going to be apparent, whether because language is written or because the audience may not understand how I am couching a particular term, I'll go with the most bland term. Time and place...

I would like to say free speech is hindered by politically correct. Not that that is a bad thing and not that that is a good thing.

A2K is a perfect example of limiting free speech to not offend anyone. Because that would be oh so wrong. I am sorry, it is name calling that is a no no.

The Dixie Chicks get the shaft for being anti the war but that is how most of Americans feel. Then there is Toby Keith who makes people mad with his anger songs against the people who attacked American soil. Then there are the others who are offended by Janet Jackson's boob show.

Sometimes things go too far. It is true. But the best solution to such things, when they are in a very public forum, is to ignore them. Giving them light just makes it so everyone wants to know about it.

Blue Monkey,

Do you not see the paradox?

"Political correctness" is censure. Criticizing it is also censure.

Note that "censure" is different from "censor".

Criticizing "PC" is just as much a hinderance to "free speech" as "PC" is supposed to be.

"Free speech" does not mean everyone is supposed to agree with you. What you say might meet with the censure of others. Such is life.

As an aside, Able2Know censors. This is different from PC censure but still has nothing to do with "free speech".

But that is your opinion. It is a paradox which no one can talk themselves out of. Nice try though.

No it is not merely opinion.

Fact:

"Political correctness" is not an impediment to "free speech".

You confuse "free speech" with "never meeting disagreement and censure".

Define free speech. Not from your own mouth but from fact.

Seriously, you should do your own homework before making claims here.

If you do not know what free speech is, then you should look it up in the plethora of legal codes in which it is clearly codified.

I will summarize, if you want specifics for particular legal codes you can look it up yourself.

Freedom of speech is the ability to say something, not the ability to say it and not have it met with censure (disagreement).

Again, here is an example.

1) Person A says that he likes blacks and thinks that everyone should own one.

2) Person B says that the comment was ignorant and offensive.

3) Person A says that Person B is "politically correct" and is ridiculously overboard.

Now examine it BlueMonkey, this is a very elementary idea and should not be beyond your capacity.

Both of them have censured each other. No censorship has occured.

Freedom of speech covers the right to say offensive things just as well as the right to say that said things are offensive.

It also covers the right to denigrate those who find something offensive. And to disagree with those who....


Get it yet? No censorship is occuring. It's merely censure, which is disagreement. This is just as much a protected freedom of speech as the allegedly offensive statements are.

If it is involuntarily enforced then it is an impediment on free speech.

Just so you know, I already knew. My whole point in asking was to see what you would say. This is all old news. But thank you for thinking that I wasn't smart enough, it is apparent I am a good actor.

I know someone has free speech to say this and then the other person who it offends has the right to say it does and why. I knew that it is a lame circle. The kind that you use your index finger to make and then say the magical words of "Whoopdie doo"?

Yes, and that's a big if. Thing is, in America it is not.

BlueMonkey you are stating the obvious, your statement is the equivalent of saying that "if it were an impediment to free speech it would be an impediment to free speech".

Indeed, but that's a no-brainer that has nothing to do with reality.

You did not say that if it were an impediment to free speech it would be an impediment to free speech.

You said that it is. And you can't support that claim as it is simply absurd. Censure is free speech.

For the most part "political correctness" is just "free speech" as well. It's just censure.

BlueMonkey, acting skills have little to do with message boards. So "acting" ignorant when you claim you are not is no skill to be appreciated.



Um, whatever. <shrugs> (or that cool wooopdie doo thing ;-) )

So if you knew all these things why did you claim the absurdity that it is an impediment to free speech?

Was that just "acting"?

It isn't a big if. The way the Home Land Security is working and doing whatever they want. That "if" might become "is".

--and on a non serious note I like how your aviator works--

I do know, but sometimes I say things and then someone points out something I have forgoten and then I go "Oh that is so true." Such is now as a case in point.

Well, that would be an issue of big brother, and not really political correctness.

"Political correctness" is a term mainly used to disparage liberal ideology. And liberals tend to be against the privacy infringements.

There are plenty of restrictions to free speech in principle that already exist. But they aren't about political correctness.

For example, you can't yell fire...... well you know the example.

As to teh avatar, here it is: Random avatar script.




Happens to us all. I just got one of those by PM.