A point of interest to all those "anti-PC" believers: While one can say whatever one wants, another one can correct them if they feel it is warranted. If you find being corrected offensive, well, by your own logic: suck it up, chuck.
Ok, you can correct me, and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I do understand the point you are making. It is sad that manners go away so quickly when people don't agree. I'd debate much more often if I knew a personal attack wasn't looming. That's just not worth my time.
Two gals at school got into it Saturday morning over a racist comment that one had made. Black gal was talking on the phone (on the salon floor where clients could hear) to her mom and said she hated all white people. The white gal told her she shouldn't say those things in front of clients. Black gal got mad. They got into a shouting match that almost turned physical. Students & instructors had to hold them back. Black gal took her arm & knocked stuff off a counter, made threats, etc. The cops were called. Both students were forced to leave.
I'm fine with people saying what they want. The gal shouldn't have even been on the phone on the salon floor in the first place. It's unprofessional. The whole situation probably wouldn't have happened.
Imagine how differently that would've played out if the White girl said she hated all Black people.
Probably the same way. Everyone (black gals included) said the gal shouldn't have made the statement and they don't blame the white girl for saying something to her about it.
It's not being "corrected," it's being contradicted. I was correct to begin with. Politically "Correct" is usually factually incorrect.
I'm anti-PC because I think anyone should be able to express their ideas regardless of what said ideas are. I think that the PC crowd should be able to express their ideas as openly as everyone else, even though they seek to censor everyone they don't like/anything they deem offensive or 'triggering'. Hopefully they don't succeed in the great marketplace of ideas, but they certainly have a right to bash their opponents just as we have a right to bash them.
Essentially, I'm a free speech nut.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
(I think the whole "triggering" thing is absurd. We cannot all walk on eggshells all the time because one or even several people who we do not know and have never heard of, might have an anxiety attack over it. GET SOME THERAPY, people!)
Of course, but I don't see how this devalues the "anti-PC" belief. Obviously if someone says something, they can be corrected (or someone can attempt to correct them). And?
My point is that people are free to say what they want. And others are free to challenge what was said. The poll was directed at attitudes, more than actual "PC/notPC" positions.
Fair enough. I agree with that sentiment.
Fuck you I'll say whatever I want, if you feel the need to censor me the you can kindly fuck off. Don't even try saying that youre using free speech to limit my free speech.
Aren't you a bit touchy there? Suck it up like a grown up.
Why don't you "suck it up" and not feel the need to correct me.
what are you, 12? Seriously dude, I am not going to get into a grade school argument about your insecurities vis-à-vis things you say. Don't like my reaction then Change your tactic, because you cannot bully me into "listening" to your rants.
It's a legitimate argument. If you don't like the way people say things that's a you problem. But don't tell someone to "suck it up" when you don't like the way they say things.
Being anti pc means you're more likely to be attacked for holding eccentric or possibly offensive views (offensive to the majority). I think you should suck it up. Your views aren't being corrected, just disputed, and why not?
I disagree. Being anti-PC seems to be expressing those differing views as offensively as possible, calling those who disagree names & deriding them for disagreeing. I must also add that a number of those in the antiPC camp get defensive if others point out when their position fits the dictionary definition of bigotry:
"obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards (speaks of) or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
They also very often say things and then offer up "I am not PC" as an excuse or justification. It is neither.
I am happy to have discussions with people of different opinions. I often learn something that I had not considered or been aware of & incorporate into my own understanding. BUT When that differing opinion is offered up in a tone that allows no disagreement, no nuance, & no opportunity for defense I have no desire to listen.
I will say this: It is becoming more and more apparent to me that this country has done itself a tremendous disservice. Frank discussions have been quashed in the name of being inoffensive. When people cannot express their ideas openly, the ideas fester, they go unchecked, and people cannot learn from each other. Just assuming that the opposition must be blind or backwoods or whatever gets us nowhere and minds cannot be changed if dialogue does not happen.
People need to be and feel HEARD. That happens not just when someone says "I am listening". Actions must follow because there is almost always a legitimate concern -even a kernel of truth - somewhere in what they are saying, no matter which side they are on
No, I don't think that's it
People who claim to be anti-PC use their own type of "correctness." They're the same type of people to insist on using pronouns based on someone's chromosomes, not what they prefer to be called. They insist one has to say "all lives matter." They suggest anyone who finds any issue with the country is "unpatriotic" or should move out.
The assertion of your opinion after mine is NOT a "correction" of your opinion. We used to cal this dialogue, but now from within our safe-space echo chambers, dialogue and discourse, an exchange of ideas is a "violence of micro-aggression."
I can agree that there should be opportunity for a free exchange of ideas.
Have you read the book "End of Discussion"?
lol yes! it's kind of hilarious to watch the hypocritical battle between the two. Anti-PC thinks their freedom of speech is being limited by Internet people comments and wants them to stop "attacking" them, thereby wanting to limit the PC freedom of speech lol it's funny