Is Political Correctness a form of censorship?

Do you consider 'Political Correctness' to be akin to censorship; or at the very least strongly aligned with it?

Hell yeah.

Depends. A lot of people who think it is wants to use that as an excuse to say some foul shit.

Totally.

Chris wrote:Do you consider 'Political Correctness' to be akin to censorship; or at the very least strongly aligned with it?

No. Censorship is very different from political correctness because that is an outside force blocking the content of a message or idea that you wish to spread. Censorship is in direct conflict with freedom of speech. It is NOT akin to political correctness because you have no control over censorship. Political correctness can be a form of self-censorship, but nobody is actually making you be politically correct! That is ultimately your own choice! Whether or not you are censored is NOT your choice, it's someone elses choice (the government, the media, an outside agency, etc)

Political correctness is exactly what it sounds like. Being CORRECT in the eyes of and for the sake of government or social acceptance. And as much as people like to complain about it, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with political correctness when appropriate so long as its not "overdone" and clearly only motivated by a "saving face" effort. There are times when being politically correct is unnecessary and counterproductive and there are other times when it is required and common sense. All it takes is a little situational awareness and proper social skills for a person to be able to distinguish between the times when political correctness should be observed and when it shouldn't be.

Political correctness would be completely unnecessary if EVERYONE always observed proper respect for others and took other people's feelings into consideration. Alas, we don't live in such a utopia and for the most part people are inconsiderate assholes! The people who tend to complain about PC the most are the ones who are otherwise inconsiderate, generally lack respect for others and just want to say whatever the hell it is they want to say regardless of how someone else might perceive it.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are many times when political correctness goes overboard and when people are so FAKE in their application of it that it makes it pointless. But more often than not, I find people who complain about it are more numerous, just as annoying and more obnoxious than the ones they are complaining about (kind of like "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism" or "reverse ANYTHING"). Sometimes people who are not in the oppressed minority just need to take a hint and shut the f*#k up!

If you want people to shuck the **** up, there's always something else to listen to besides them. lol Like Jeanne Garofalo. I think she's a creep so I don't listen to her. lol

I think political correctness can become a form of censorship when it begins to be forced upon people. People start treating being politically incorrect as hate speech when it's really not. lol (Oh but they always got an excuse for why it is "hate speech." Anything that they don't like is always "hate speech.")But I guess it could be argued that political correctness is less a FORM of censorship and more an EXCUSE for it. Because when you try to marginalize somebody's viewpoint because you don't group them into a "repressed minority," you can justify, to yourself at least, silencing them.

Forgiveness Man wrote:If you want people to shuck the **** up, there's always something else to listen to besides them. lol Like Jeanne Garofalo. I think she's a creep so I don't listen to her. lol

I think political correctness can become a form of censorship when it begins to be forced upon people. People start treating being politically incorrect as hate speech when it's really not. lol (Oh but they always got an excuse for why it is "hate speech." Anything that they don't like is always "hate speech.")But I guess it could be argued that political correctness is less a FORM of censorship and more an EXCUSE for it. Because when you try to marginalize somebody's viewpoint because you don't group them into a "repressed minority," you can justify, to yourself at least, silencing them.

Your argument is flawed in oh-so-many ways. First of all, when is political correctness ever FORCED on anyone?

Secondly, while political correctness may not always be a form of "hate speech" in many other cases it IS because "hate speech" by definition is ALWAYS "politically incorrect". Furthermore, people don't always treat being politically incorrect as being "hate speech". Sometimes they just think it's being an asshole! So there is no basis for that comparrison (the way you are phrasing it) and there is really no logic to your argument unless you can demonstrate that most people consider the terms synonymous or that someone is forcing someone else to be politically correct.

Finally regarding your point of view being marginalized because you aren't an oppressed minority, NOBODY has actually done that. I'm simply making an analogy by saying that people usually don't take into consideration their social status before commenting on things that are "unfair" in life and that these same people who generally complain about that are typically the ones who complain about being FORCED to be "politically correct". In other words, you can't say that I'm marginalizing your point of view when you want to simultaneously marginalize being politically correct. If you want to complain about political correctness then you should have no reason whatsoever to complain about things like "reverse racism" or other social constructs that are linked to political correctness. If you don't care about politically correctness so long as it doesn't offend YOU, but the minute you can turn it around and perceive it as an attack on yourself you consider it "wrong" then it makes you a hypocrite! I'm not saying that YOU do that, but people that do often make try to make the argument that you are making now.

The bottom line is, a person shouldn't have a problem with political correctness in general so long as they are not forced to be politically correct. Censorship falls into a quite a different category.

captainbryce wrote: First of all, when is political correctness ever FORCED on anyone?

Actually, yes. It has been. Shale mentioned the word "niggardly". We all know what it sounds like but that's not what it means. A complaint was made against a white aid in the DC mayor's office for his use of the word in the context of the budget and resigned because someone was offended. Juilan Bond didn't have a problem with the man. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding", he said. "David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them." This isn't the only case either.

My argument's pretty sound, but thanks for the critique. (Your version of trash talk is funny. ) Hate Speech can easily become "politically correct" if those deciding on what is and isn't politically correct agree with it. Political correctness is forced on people; from message boards, to talk shows, to personal FB accounts, violate political correctness and often times, they call for your head. lol People are just so intolerant when they feel offended, ain't they? lol (BTW, I never whine about "reverse" anyway. If something is racist, I call it racist, no matter what race it's against. )

Most people don't really have a problem with unforced political correctness. The problem is that it IS forced, to varying degrees, upon people. And I think another problem is that political correctness is largely illusionary anyway. The notion of it is kind of laughably inconsistent. So people don't have a problem with people expressing beliefs that are viewed by some as "politically correct." It's the notion that you have to be "politically correct" that many people just roll their eyes and laugh at. Some people want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that political correctness is totally "optional" but those people aren't living in reality. (Not making any accusations, of course.)

Political Correctness has essentially become a feel-good term for the comfort zone of an intolerant society.

Alan Smithee wrote:
Actually, yes. It has been. Shale mentioned the word "niggardly". We all know what it sounds like but that's not what it means. A complaint was made against a white aid in the DC mayor's office for his use of the word in the context of the budget and resigned because someone was offended. Juilan Bond didn't have a problem with the man. "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding", he said. "David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them." This isn't the only case either.

I'm not familiar with this story and I don't know the outcome/result of it. So I can't really comment on the specifics without more detail. Was this guy actually fired because he used the term?

Forgiveness Man wrote:My argument's pretty sound, but thanks for the critique. (Your version of trash talk is funny. ) Hate Speech can easily become "politically correct" if those deciding on what is and isn't politically correct agree with it.

If by "sound" you mean convoluted, then I'd agree. How about giving us an example that demonstrates your point?

Forgiveness Man wrote:Political correctness is forced on people; from message boards, to talk shows, to personal FB accounts, violate political correctness and often times, they call for your head. lol People are just so intolerant when they feel offended, ain't they?

Okay, here's the problem with everything you just said. For one thing NONE of that demonstrates PC being "forced" on anyone. Message boards are run by administrators who decide what they will and will not allow (because it's their boards). I have a personal FB account and a blog in which I pretty much say whatever the hell I want to say. I am not particularly PC on my blog. As long as you aren't threatening anyone there is no censorship there. Talk shows that are broadcast on TV and radio are restricted by the FCC. They are CENSORED and everyone knows they are censored when they agree to go on it. But so long as you aren't going against the censorship rules you can say whatever you want. The talk show host can kick you off if he wants because you aren't being PC, but he has that right because IT'S HIS/HER SHOW! Nobody FORCED you to be on it. Essentially, they have every right to kick you off of THEIR SHOW for saying something that they don't want you to say. That is all up to their opinion. It's not anyone forcing you to be PC. You can be politically incorrect all you want to as long as you aren't broadcasting it on the airwaves of someone elses show.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Most people don't really have a problem with unforced political correctness. The problem is that it IS forced, to varying degrees, upon people. And I think another problem is that political correctness is largely illusionary anyway. The notion of it is kind of laughably inconsistent. So people don't have a problem with people expressing beliefs that are viewed by some as "politically correct." It's the notion that you have to be "politically correct" that many people just roll their eyes and laugh at. Some people want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that political correctness is totally "optional" but those people aren't living in reality. (Not making any accusations, of course.)

Well I am making an acccusation: I think YOU aren't living in reality. I think you live in your own reality where people force you to do things. Me, nobody forced me to be politically correct and I haven't seen you give one example of that in practice.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Political Correctness has essentially become a feel-good term for the comfort zone of an intolerant society.

Political correctness would be absolutely unnecessary if we actually lived in a tolorant society! We don't and that's why the term was invented and popularized.

The multi-quotes return! lol I knew they'd make an appearance sooner or later.

Which part you want an example to so we don't get our wires crossed? (Either way, I am sure you'll see it more as squashing "hate speech" as that is a default defense of PCism)

You can be picked on for broadcasting political incorrectness on your own show if you say the wrong thing. That teacher getting in hot water cause some didn't like what he posted on his personal FB is another incident. You can hide behind somebody being legally able to set restrictions but if their restrictions exclude anything that isn't PC, that's still forcing PC on people. (I suppose if we outlawed politically incorrect speech, we could argue that we're just implementing the law on people, not imposing political correctness. lol) While "force" is a tad strong of a word for it, there's at the very least, a strong coercion/brainwashing into the politically correct mindset.(Of course, political correctness itself is a hypocritical illusion)

Well good, point that index finger around. Have fun.

I agree, it wouldn't be necessary if we lived in a tolerant society. But since we DO live in an intolerant society, intolerant people propagate the idea of political correctness in an effort to control speech. The notions behind political correctness are illusionary concepts not actually put into practice. Behind political correctness is just more bigotry masquerading as tolerance. (Talk about a wolf in sheep
clothing.)

Forgiveness Man wrote:The multi-quotes return! lol I knew they'd make an appearance sooner or later.

Which part you want an example to so we don't get our wires crossed?

To the part that I responded to (hence the multi-quote).

Forgiveness Man wrote:(Either way, I am sure you'll see it more as squashing "hate speech" as that is a default defense of PCism)

I don't know what you're trying to say here. The only thing I can tell for sure is that you're definately making an assumption.

Forgiveness Man wrote:You can be picked on for broadcasting political incorrectness on your own show if you say the wrong thing.

Getting "picked on" isn't the same thing as someone "forcing you to do something". If you get picked on because other people think you're an asshole then you two options; either suck it up, or stop being an asshole!

Forgiveness Man wrote:That teacher getting in hot water cause some didn't like what he posted on his personal FB is another incident.

Does "that teacher" have a name that can be googled? What did "that teacher" supposedly do on FB and who allegedly put him in "hot water"? And how hot was the water? Otherwise, I can't comment on this example (or lackthereof)

Forgiveness Man wrote:You can hide behind somebody being legally able to set restrictions but if their restrictions exclude anything that isn't PC, that's still forcing PC on people. (I suppose if we outlawed politically incorrect speech, we could argue that we're just implementing the law on people, not imposing political correctness. lol) While "force" is a tad strong of a word for it, there's at the very least, a strong coercion/brainwashing into the politically correct mindset.(Of course, political correctness itself is a hypocritical illusion)

You just poked enough holes in your argument that I almost don't even have to do it myself anymore. The fact that you you admit that nobody is being FORCED is basically the point that I was trying to make to begin with.

Forgiveness Man wrote:I agree, it wouldn't be necessary if we lived in a tolerant society. But since we DO live in an intolerant society, intolerant people propagate the idea of political correctness in an effort to control speech.

And I would argue that it is in fact intolorant people themselves who argue most strongly against PC BECAUSE they are intolorant and don't want anything to limit or restrict their intolorance.

But you've never really had a good handle on the term "intolorance" to begin with. You only ever seem to consider things that impede your ability to be intolorant yourself as "intolorant". That's when it becomes "wrong" to you. Otherwise, you seem to belive that everything should be tolorated (even the intolorable).

Your view: It's okay to be intolorant. But if you one speaks out against intolorance, then they are intolorant themselves and therefore WRONG. Brilliant!

Yes, article made its rounds, twas even mentioned here on the Chamber. He made comments against gay marriage on his own private account and was suspended. (And he was an award winning veteran teacher too, not some noob) Think the name was Buell, not sure. Too lazy to Google it right now. (I fully expect your usual excused double standards. But hey, MAYBE you'll surprise me. )

"Force" isn't always at the barrel of a gun. Just because somebody isn't forced to at gunpoint doesn't mean there's no force at all. No holes at all (You wouldn't know my view if somebody repeated it constantly into your brain. lol I'd argue that I am much more tolerant than you. )

Most people who dont like PC ain't the intolerant ones. many intolerant people are those who cowardly hide behind being PC because they aren't honest enough to actually practice what they preach. So they hypocritically make excuses to silence their opponents by calling them intolerant, all to cover their own inability to tolerate. (Intolerance masquerading as tolerance. lol) But guess what? I'll gladly tolerate people like that, just to be a better example to them.

And cue the annoying multi-quotes that generally make me stop reading.

Not if it isn't enforced.

Forgiveness Man wrote:
Yes, article made its rounds, twas even mentioned here on the Chamber. He made comments against gay marriage on his own private account and was suspended. (And he was an award winning veteran teacher too, not some noob) Think the name was Buell, not sure. Too lazy to Google it right now.

Well forgive me for having a life outside of theconversationchamber! I assume you are referring to Jerry Buell. So lets review the facts of the case for a moment (since you've convienently distored them).

1) What he said: "I said that it (gay marraige) made me sick", "If people don't believe in the Bible, it's why we have problems," and he called gay marriage a "cesspool".

2) Who he said it to: The comments were made on his facebook page, on his own time, on his own computer, at home during the summer. One of his more than 700 Facebook friends saw it and complained to the district. The district is now investigating Buell for this incident and to see if he let his religion affect how he taught.

2) He wasn't SUSPENDED. He remains on the payroll in an adminstrative position where he does not have contact with students pending an investigation as to whether or not his biased, pro-religion, anti-gay views have influenced his ability to teach "social studies" from a non-biased perspective.

My feelings on the matter: Teachers are in public service and have the responsibility of molding future generations. Last I heard teachers were supposed to be "role models" for impressionable children. I'm sure that many of his "friends" on facebook were either current or former students. Do we really want bigots as role models? Well, YOU probably do but most reasonable people do not. Facebook is not "private" unless you set it up specifically to be private. And anyone in public service, who has 700 "friends" on facebook, then rants about how god hates fags can't fall behind the whole "privacy" defense. He posted that message specifically so that others would see it! Now that they have and have been offended by his bigotry, he decides to fall back on the "privacy" defense? An investigation as to whether or not his religion has influenced his ability to teach objectively is certainly in order. Not only does he have a problem with gays, but apparently anyone who doesn't read the bible is also "wrong". I don't necessarily think the guy should be fired simply for being a bigot, but I also don't think that he should freely express his bigotry in a way that potentially influences students or affects his ability to teach objectively. If you found out someone was a Klan member on the side, would you also be okay with them being a public school teacher? Okay, you might be, but a reasonable person would not. This isn't a matter of "political correctness". Clearly he isn't politically correct in any way, shape or form. This is much worse than a simple matter of PC. This is a case of a douchebag bigot (who you think deserves some kind of praise because he's won awards), expressing his bigotry PUBLICALY, while in a public service to CHILDREN. Now, you might feel compelled to defend this guy all day long (and that's your perogative) but don't pretend this has something to do with PC being forced on anyone because it doesn't.

Forgiveness Man wrote:"Force" isn't always at the barrel of a gun. Just because somebody isn't forced to at gunpoint doesn't mean there's no force at all.

The point is you haven't demonstrated ANY KIND of force.

Forgiveness Man wrote:No holes at all (You wouldn't know my view if somebody repeated it constantly into your brain. lol I'd argue that I am much more tolerant than you. )

I'm aware that you'd argue ANYTHING, but in this case you'd also lose! The only people you seem to tolorate are intolorant bigots. Anyone that calls them out, you can't seem to tolorate. So if anything the evidence shows not that you are more tolorant than I am, but someone who doesn't know what the word actually means.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Most people who dont like PC ain't the intolerant ones. many intolerant people are those who cowardly hide behind being PC because they aren't honest enough to actually practice what they preach. So they hypocritically make excuses to silence their opponents by calling them intolerant, all to cover their own inability to tolerate. (Intolerance masquerading as tolerance. lol) But guess what? I'll gladly tolerate people like that, just to be a better example to them.

Unfortunately, you don't do yourself any favors when you spend most of your time defending bigots then trying to call other people out for being "intolorant". At the end of the day YOU end up looking the hypocrite!

Forgiveness Man wrote:And cue the annoying multi-quotes that generally make me stop reading.

Cue the annoying, no-substance complaining that generally indicates a losing argument!

No, it's not the same thing. If only because it isn't enforceable. Its not a formal thing, its more of an informal censure, and it's really just public opinion. Political correctness is nothing more than an advanced, hyper-sensitive form of politeness. Much like the way some people complain if you sneeze in their direction without covering your mouth, or talk about mature subject matters in front of children. Complaining about someone else's free speech isn't really censorship at all, in fact its a form of free speech in itself.