1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

What do you think about PC culture?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Sham, Aug 4, 2019.

  1. Power Up

    Power Up ...

    I’m pretty sure I said I wasn’t an advocate for speech that is violent, harassing, and/or anything of that manner.

    The Supreme Court also advanced landmark decisions when it came to Roe v Wade, the Civil Rights Act, women’s right to vote, protection of LGBTQ+, etc...

    Fortunately, this is an opinion that isn’t held by the will of the people and the courts
  2. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    So you aren't a free speech absolutist, you think that when it comes to Nazis and White Supremacists you think they should be banned from social media sites so they get less attention right?

    Also saying good decisions the court has done (Even though half of those are trying to be undone), just means that it's a system that shouldn't be the end all be all of decisions, it's a flawed human system that needs constant updating.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  3. Power Up

    Power Up ...

    I’m most certainly a free speech absolutist when it comes to the current laws and Supreme Court decisions already in place. However, in terms of social media and what I suggested in my original post? Currently, private companies and forums have the absolute right of firing or banning anyone they wish if they violate the rules they’ve set in place on a case by case basis and I’m fully supportive of that yes.

    Of course, this goes directly against what I originally postulated, but knowing when I’m wrong is important as well.
  4. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi.
    Jesness and BCVM22 like this.
  5. TheWanderingMist

    TheWanderingMist Samayo Kiri, Keeper of the Gates Ethereal

    To deny free speech is to deny the very core of democracy, that everyone's opinion can be heard, whether their opinions are embraced or rejected is irrelevant. Threats are objective, but hate is subjective. No one is trying to ban speech about hating Nazis, after all. And in a hypothetical scenario where they somehow seized power, they'd be able to throw your own words back in your face about hate speech and then proceed to define it as anything that went against their ideals.

    "I'll kill you" is a threat and can be acted upon.

    "You should die" is an opinion. Yes, a hateful one, but merely an opinion.
    Power Up likes this.
  6. Gamzee Makara

    Gamzee Makara Let people enjoy things...

    The "Slippery slope" is an opinion. Nice try.
    So if people finagle their word choice it's no longer a problem? Because that can and has been abused to avoid consequences.

    And free speech absolutists typically take the humanity out of the recipient of insulting, demeaning and hateful stinky onions, with a "suck it up, buttercup, this is freedom, deal with it" attitude.

    The government can't take away your onions from a platform. That's it.

    The "free market" and admins on a website CAN however, as they are NOT the government.

    No one is telling the government to take your onions away.

    But a private organization will often be asked to. Especially on the Internet.

    Do want the Internet to become a public space to spread your various onions at the cost of redefining a s**tton of laws for the sake of your onions, or do you want private internet where sites can chop your onions and screw with your data?

    And we're already at the government chopping up onions that give the leaders of many places bad gas in multiple countries by declaring them garlic, so even the free speech absolutists are at risk, but they tend to butter these leaders' onions, so they don't care about other's onions being chopped or being declared garlic.

    Freedom of speech has to be tempered on a personal level...don't be a dick and force your more rotten onions(ones that involve theoretical or execution of harm) onto another person's plate simply because you can under the law of a government. But many free speech absolutist onion slingers simply don't have a filter, demand non-freedom of speech absolutist onion slingers filter out what should be equally fresh or stinky onions by their own logic, and tend to drown those with different onions in a wave of threats prepared as onions in order to skirt rules and to demean and silence those who want their onions heard if those onions aren't the same.

    The free speech absolutist thing works in theory but not in practice, execution, or reality. Think about it.
  7. Sham

    Sham We were robbed

    So two things
    Democracy has always in a sense been corrupt in America especially in the first couple of centuries where it was being built and developed, so I don't understand the sudden need to protect it.
    Also freedom of speech is always limited in America; you can yell fire in a theater and cause a riot. The law holds you responsible for anything your "freedom of speech" causes that could lead to illegal activity.
  8. Auraninja

    Auraninja Gre-nin-ja!

    To me, social media should be a privilege, not a right.

    With that, I think Twitter and Facebook should take down harmful rhetoric and the like.
  9. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    Twitter is run by Neo-Nazis. They don't care.
  10. Deadeye

    Deadeye H(a)unting...

    I often avoid conversations where people demand others to be politically correct or on the contrary they take free speech to the point they dish out provocations or even insults if you don't agree with them. As much as I like deep conversations about serious issues in the world, they end up draining me more than provoking further thoughts... and I don't believe all those conversations online would end up making any difference. I'd rather focus on using social media for something else.
  11. TheWanderingMist

    TheWanderingMist Samayo Kiri, Keeper of the Gates Ethereal

    All forms of power are corrupt. Democracy spreads the corruption out among the most amount of people and causes the least harm. It does not "suddenly need to be protected". It has always needed protection from its inception, since, at its core, it is the weakest form of government, with power spread out among many individuals with wildly varying ideals.

    Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is inciting a panic, and you don't have the right to do that, unless the theater actually is on fire. It is objectively proveable whether or not there was a fire, therefore the law can hold you responsible for saying it and inciting said panic if there should happen not to have been one. A theater is also not public ground, but privately owned, so they have the right to remove you from their property for what you say.

    They're allowed to, seeing as they're companies and not the government. But if the company themselves agrees with the rhetoric, it's unlikely to go away.
  12. Sham

    Sham We were robbed

    I’m discussing the fact that not everyone even has a voice in democracy. To say to that protecting freedom of speech is protecting democracy is ignoring that not everyone even has the voice to be apart. Maybe the focus should be that everyone has a voice than protecting the very few who do have who want to use their freedom of speech for hate speech.
  13. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Freedom of speech has two end goals at its absolute, and one is a very technical definition and another is a moral one.

    1. Everyone has an equal voice regardless of things like race, gender, and hate speech and discriminatory speech should be able to be punished in some way

    2. Those who will use it to legally discriminate on other groups, most commonly those with power on those who don’t have it.

    When courts allow free speech in regards to one, it hurts the other, so we can’t truly have absolute free speech, just one that helps the most people while not rewarding the bad people.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
    Gamzee Makara likes this.
  14. PrinceOfFacade

    PrinceOfFacade Ghost-Type Master

    Political correctness is not the problem. It is the handling of political correctness that is the problem.

    We do need political correctness to maintain a modicum of decency among the general public. There are certain phrases that obviously shouldn't be taken lightly, such as death threats or harassing remarks, and certain words that are designed to be derogatory, such as racial slurs and connotative swears. Therefore, it is clear a limit is to be placed on what we can and cannot say. However, what matters most is how, when and where that limit is applied.
  15. Captain Jigglypuff

    Captain Jigglypuff Leader of Jigglypuff Army Staff Member Moderator

    I know this is more of a transgender rights topic but I think this applies to how being PC is truly becoming out of control. Always is now removing the female symbol from their products to be more “inclusive” towards people of all genders including men who identify as women and vice versa. I’m sorry but what the heck are you doing?! When is a man seriously going to use a sanitary pad? Transgender women born as males don’t have menstrual cycles no matter what. This is just insane now.
  16. Auraninja

    Auraninja Gre-nin-ja!

    Trans men might use pads because some might still have periods.

    Also, why is this of concern?
    Ignition, Dragalge and keepitsimple like this.
  17. Gamzee Makara

    Gamzee Makara Let people enjoy things...

    Are you TERFing it up here?

    It's madness! Human decency is MADNESS!

    Trans women are women. To say otherwise is being a TERF(Trans Exclusive Reactionary Feminist), or just transphobic.

    Trans men are men, too, and should be included in discussions about being a man.

    I'm surprised at you.
    Ignition, Dragalge and keepitsimple like this.
  18. does anyone actually have any argument as to why "political correctness" is supposedly so dangerous anyway? @Captain Jigglypuff you're yet to explain why a product being made more inclusive is something we should be concerned about. i don't exactly see how anything bad could result from that
  19. Dragalge

    Dragalge Constance Rookidee

    Or maybe it’s because Always just wanted to be more inclusive as @keepitsimple mentioned and has no relation to conforming to political correctness.

    I didn’t like saying those last two words by the way can we expunge it off this planet? =(
    keepitsimple likes this.
  20. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Because rich comedians getting paid 20 million dollars a special might get mad that one of their jokes wasn’t funny. Remember Jerry Seinfeld gave up because his joke of “young people today use their phones too much, they swipe at it like a gay French King” and when people didn’t laugh it’s because they got offended, not because it just wasn’t a good joke.

    he also dated a high schooler when he was 40
    Gamzee Makara likes this.

Share This Page