Also, I’d like you to read up on people who were burnt at the stake for expressing unpopular opinions (say, advocating Catholicism in Henry’s England), and I’d like you to look at the diversity of opinion in those societies. Then I want you to look at our society, in which some of the most important political figures in the US talk blithely about how minority communities just have no work ethic. Then I want you to tell me with a straight face that “the manipulation of thought, speech and political boundaries are as oppressive as they were in much of authoritarian Europe.”
You’d think abortion would be a non-issue by now if anything would, and certainly it should be, but, trust me, that debate never gets shut down, at least not in the U.S.
I like political correctness because it punishes people like you for speaking your mind
It’s all relative if you view freedom of speech or opinion as important. I would of course be wrong to say there is no difference between physical punishment or imprisonment and being shouted down. I just thought the poster I was responding to was very flippant in his dismissal of todays political intolerance. This is especially the case if you fear the way in which this intolerance is heading. All too often it is used as a way of shutting down any serious debate. And this situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.
I cant get my head around some posters dismissal that politicians and power brokers have since time began tried to limit debate. Rarely for good reasons, mostly for bad.
I am not sure I’m comfortable with this statement either. Yes, people use all kinds of rhetorical tricks to try to avoid criticism. The problem is that fighting speech with speech doesn’t stifle speech because it’s just more speech. If you us speech and some other consequences, then I think that’s a different situation.
He pointed out that you really overstated the case.
If I try to limit debate by burning my opponents, that’s not just a difference of degree, that’s a difference of kind, from trying to limit debate by sick burns on my opponents. Opponents who are literally ashes have a harder time responding than opponents who just got insulted.
Back to the purse: can you address my question about it? Or can you explain why it’s an unfair question? I have my suspicions about how much money I’d need to offer for you to take the first choice, but I’d like to let you respond first.
I can mainly speak about the UK here. In the 1970’s our culture was full of nasty names for blacks and gays. Names that I wont repeat here. Political correctness did a lot to reduce such abuse and intolerance against minorities(I wont count physical abuseas that has always been punishable by law).
Examples of the closing down of debate: saying things like I dont really care about the plight of minorities any more than I have to. That im against positive discrimination; im against giving minorities or the poor a hand up. That im comfortable enough with child bearing aged women being discriminated against in terms of wages; that I believe Christianity is superior to Islam; that Western Civilization ought to be defended in Universities. All that kind of stuff. Far too often people espousing these attitudes are labelled racist or intolerant. That the politically correct lobby over-reach for political gain.
Post #19.
Not quite. For a century or two we in the UK barred Catholics from all sorts of political and educational offices and opportunities. For much of that time it was done without imprisoning Catholics or burning them at the stake. It was a public policy against giving equality to a certain group. Even though that group did have free speech. I think many unsavoury consequences are seen in the availability of public office for who have politically incorrect views today. Try getting a job in many government departments while openly saying you dont believe in wage equality for women, or politely but firmly believing that Christianity is superior to Islam. I think you’ll find your employment opportunities limited in many areas.
Perhaps another comparison would be with Victorian England. An England in which free speech was thought of as a right. Though now we look back on the era and we see all sorts of top down intolerance over speech on many, many issues.
You’re changing the subject somewhat, but that still wouldn’t be allowed today.
Again, you’re missing some important differences: punishing an entire group of people is not the same as responding to something an individual says or does. A statement is not the same thing as a religious belief. These details are crucial.
Fair enough, we are not going to agree.
Many of the people disagreeing with me on this thread would be the first to jump up and down if they were labelled as unpatriotic. If another wave of American nationalism pours over the US as it did post 9/11 I suspect you’d be complaining of such nationalism, and its way of stifling debate. Except that strength of nationalism is very temporary. I see longer term prospects for political correctness.
Actually, no, it’s something we use to overcome our intransigence.
Hell, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in America who hasn’t been labeled unpatriotic by someone.
Someone will tell you your destroying America by supporting SSM, some will tell you your eroding freedom by not supporting it.
Same with immigration reform, social programs, any damn discussion of taxes…
We tend not to get the vapors every time it happens.
Randomly spouting your political views is likely to hurt your chances of getting a job no matter what they are. “So, why you do want to work here?” “I am in favor of a mixed proportional representation electoral arrangement!”
Perhaps – unless they’re being silly of course, and their race, gender, religion or sexual preference certainly doesn’t deserve respect or to be shielded from ridicule.
According to Terry Jones of Monty Python, Life of Brian could not be made today on account of misplaced political correctness and respect for Christianity. If political correctness prevents a movie like that from being made then it’s rubbish.
Yes, it is. It is, in fact, such an important difference that it renders your entire comparison absurd. You want the right to be able to say that Christianity is more important than Islam. And you have that right. I want the right to say that people who think that are bigots. And I have that right, too. Complaints about political correctness amount to nothing more than special pleading from people whose ideologies could not compete in the marketplace of ideas.
I was one of those people who’s views in were termed unpatriotic in the aftermath of 9/11. I objected to it then as a slander and a craven attempt to duck substantive issues with our foreign policy. What I did not do was attempt an asinine posture of victimization, wherein I pretended that disagreement is the same as political oppression.
You have the right to speak your mind. I have the right to speak my mind. If you view me speaking my mind as a violation of your civil rights, then your commitment to free speech is not as deep as you’d like to claim.
Good thing no one told that to Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
I have no idea what prompted Jones to make this claim but I doubt that there is any truth to it. Does he (or anyone) have any examples of similar movies that have been struck down by the studios?
Itis not so important if you view State power as potentially dangerous. That time and again the State has acted to curtail the speech and freedom of its people. Certainly a part of society it disagrees with it has punished in one way or another, and that this curtailing of speech is not static. It can get worse. I dont think this is an unreasonable concern on my part. Note, I did not say Christianity is more important than Islam(did you deliberately try to misrepresent? if not, then fair enough) . I said it’s a reasonable to position to take that Christianity is superior. Or at least I believe its tolerance of pluralism is superior. And no, I dont think myself a bigot for believing so.
I dont understand your last point at all. I said I disagree with much of political correctness. Yet I also said it has had its benefits. Saying I disagree with it is not suggesting I want to ban it or claiming that it is violating my rights. I view it as *often *as the cheapest of cheap political shots.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/oct/10/life-of-brian-terry-jones
"Asked whether he would make a similarly satirical film about Muslims, he said: "Probably not – looking at Salman Rushdie [whose controversial book The Satanic Verses forced him into hiding for 10 years]…“I suppose people would be frightened. I think it’s whipped up by the arms industry.”
I don’t know if he has said anything else on the matter.But this is Terry Jones here, the most annoying and opinionated Python by far.