Indeed. Isn’t that what we have? The people who bitch about PC bullshit, IME, are the ones complaining about people being fired for speaking their minds. For the record, while I support Kaepernick, I also support that his protest was not done without risk to his job and that his employer was free to fire him. Why aren’t the “anti-PC police” bitching and complaining about that?
Bingo!
Remember the recent thread where people asked for actual examples of PC run amok and how it has impacted people’s lives?
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=863952&highlight=political+correct
Read through it and be prepared to go “meh”. Happy Holidays! 
Agreed. But this thread is about not being able to say it in the first place. Going back to the OP:
This is particularly an issue here in the UK with student unions and others no-platforming views with which they disagree or find offensive.
I’d love a cite that this is really an issue and not just, say, racists or white supremacists being dis-invited because, well, they are, well, racist, etc. If the cite to be, for example, the Beeb rather than the Daily Fail, I’d appreciate it.
Here in the US, I’d like a cite that the comedian’s speech was “banned”.
What you’re saying is you want to decide what you get to call other people. And if they’re offended by what you call them, that’s their problem and you won’t change.
And you think it’s okay because you’re don’t intend to offend people. You just don’t want to make an effort to learn the difference between what is and isn’t offensive.
You do you. But don’t be surprised when people do get offended by what you’re saying. Most people aren’t going to see a lot of difference between intentional offense and indifferent offense.
You never/rarely hear conservative anti-PCers condemning the president for talking about locking up journalists or threatening to take licenses away from networks like NBC. Trump has demonstrated the least regard for the first amendment than any other president, but conservatives are strangely silent on the this. Seriously, as long as this silence continues, I am going to continue to ignore all the shrieking over the “libruhls stealing muh freedum.”
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
So you are in favor of Kaepernick being blacklisted from the NFL?
I’m not monstro, but I find this to be a weird question. I think it’s too bad that he’s blacklisted, if that really is the case. I think he was doing a respectful protest that the PC crowd (heh) thought was insufficiently respectful to the troops or something because the PC crowd decided to become offended by his kneeling. I think the NFL is certainly well within their rights not to hire him for that reason or any other reason, as long as it doesn’t conflict with his contract and their union agreement with the players. I think he’s facing the consequences for his speech, and that’s how the world works.
However, I’m not in favor of him being blacklisted. I think he is respectfully protesting a legitimate issue and I’m sorry that the NFL owners are such cowards that they won’t hire him out of fear of offending the offenderati, especially the biggest offenderato, the President.
So, I’m not in favor of it, since I mostly agree with him, but I’m not about to ask for a ban for such actions by the NFL.
I agree with Kap’s message, so I am rooting for him.
I think it is dickish to blacklist the guy, but I think people have the right to be dicks as long as they aren’t breaking any laws. Because I can easily imagine a situation where the guy being blacklisted 100% deserves it. What seems dickish to some can seem righteous to others. If Kap was a rabid racist and anti-Semite, I would not be at all bothered by no one wanting to touch him with a 10 feet pole. But yes, I think it is dickish to blacklist him just because he shows reverence to the flag in a different manner than the booing sheeple in the stands do.
I think forcing an employer to tolerate an employee who threatens their bottom line through behavior they can easily control is no different than forcing an employer to hire someone who threatens their bottom line through behavior they can easily control. What do you think?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
I’ve got your stupid PC right here.
There is no Official Political Correctness Committee staffed by the wise. PC is crowdsourced, so any idiot can say “I’m offended!” and, especially if they’re an officially oppressed idiot, someone may even listen. As for the OP, “Portagee,” “Pake,” or “Buddha Head” are offensive if they offend many Portagees, Pakes, or Buddha Heads. No offense—no slur, no problem.
This will be something to actually think about the day time travel is invented.
I mentioned 4 examples of ways Kaepernick could express his public support for Black Lives Matter. I fully support his commitment to that cause.
I object to the National Anthem protest and that’s because it conflicts with his obligations to his employer. He’s a paid representative of the NFL. But, the NFL can’t tell him not to attend protests when he’s not working. There is a separation between his responsibilities at the game and his free time.
We should all be able to express our views. But there are some situations where it’s not appropriate. It’s not censorship if they are able to express those views in other ways.
Somewhere other than Texas, that’s for sure.
Apparently Texas’ version of PC demands fealty to Israel, and if you’re not willing to sign this pledge that you will not boycott Israel, you can be fired from your state or local government job.
Yeah, Texas makes you bend the knee to a foreign power. In addition to enforcing a particular (right-wing) standard of political correctness through legal sanction, that’s taking one hell of a giant piss on the Alamo.
Wait, didn’t you say:
Bolding mine. Which is it?
I have noticed that a lot of people assume offense has been taken when people are simply unamused or mildly annoyed. I am not offended by white folks who think darkening their skin is required when dressing up like characters who happen to be black. I might feel enough annoyance to roll my eyes, but I don’t care enough to actually feel anger. My WAG is that most people are like this. However, the anti-offenderati seem to equate any negative emotion with outrage.
Also, I think people who get fired for stupid Facebook posts aren’t fired neccessarily because of the offense they caused. They are fired because their actions strongly suggest they are the kind of person who could be a liability to their employer one day. Recently, it came out that an EMT in my state is a virulent racist who spews racist shit on his own podcast show. He was fired from his position. Was he fired because he offended people? Well, I am guessing only a handful of people listen to his show and all of them are racist, so no. I suspect he was fired principally because all it takes is one poor judgement call on his part with regard to the health of black patient and suddenly the county has horrible PR to deal with since it would have knowingly sicced a racist on vulnerable people. If an employer can prevent a situation like that by getting rid of risky individuals the moment they rear their head, then why the hell not?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Yep, that’s stupid. Will it ever have any impact on your life? Why don’t you be a guinea pig and try out a couple of those sayings and see if you are shouted down or threatened? My guess is you’ll be just fine. If you read the thread I linked to, it’s a bunch of examples like that. And the real examples were folks being assholes and people calling them on it, not being “PC”.
If I read your post correctly. One term changed one time in a 40 year period. If that target moved any slower, it might be mistaken for dead.
I’ve heard that argument before; it isn’t as though terms are changing all the time every other week. There are changes but they’re generally fairly slow and take place over decades if they gather any traction at all. And making a correction doesn’t seem like a onerous burden.
But to the OP, every place is a place for politically incorrect speech; no place is a place for judgement free speech. And yes, that judgement is sometimes going to be negative.
Both. I was referring to casual conversation at work, between co-workers. You should be able to express your views without worrying about a enforced speech code.
It’s different if you’re in a meeting in the conference room. You’re there to discuss whatever is on topic for the meeting.
There aren’t any specific rules when someone can openly express themselves. Every situation is unique. Most people understand what’s appropriate to say throughout the day at work.
Seriously - how could it move particularly fast? We’re talking about broad societal moves in how language is used. These things don’t happen overnight, because even when information moves quickly, people usually aren’t particularly quick to adopt them. Show me a word which is “no longer PC”, and I’ll show you a years-long run-up where it went from “perfectly normal” to “kind of anachronistic” to “kind of offensive”. I remember “retarded” being controversial back in the 90s, and to this day you’ll still find plenty of people who don’t get why people might be offended by it.
I assume the BBC are good enough. Here you go.
The best thing you can do to racists etc is to give them a platform where they debate against more sensible people and are shown to be utterly wrong. The classic example of this was when Nick Griffin, the leader of the racist BNP, appeared on Question Time and was utterly demolished by the other panelists from all parties. It was done in public and the BNP never recovered.