When Political Correctness gets stupid

[Mr. Daystar]

Wrong.

You are absolutely free to speak your mind. But if you go wild and call people ni55ers, coons, sluts, retards, and so on, you do not exersize your freedom of speech, you are doing it to just insult, because you prove right there:

You can't make your point by saying anything that maes sense.

Freedom gets defined by its limits. Yes, for people who are new to this, you are having trouble understanding this. Ask your old philosophy professor.

Actually the right to call people names should be considered free speech in my opinion, whether or not it makes you an asshole or not, you still should have that right, BUT, what you SHOULD NOT have the freedom to say, are things like screaming fire, in a crowded theater, or yelling for everyone to duck, as you falsely accuse another of having a ***. Things that cause, or pose a great danger to the public masses, I get...calling someone a derogatory name, should be protected. If you think calling someone names is wrong, then just don't do it, and teach your ******** not to...that's how you stop that behavior.

 

[enndaley]

I remember hearing that somebody had to apologize for missing the word "*****rdly" because it sounded too much like the racial epithet.

 

[enndaley]

I remember hearing that somebody had to apologize for missing the word "*****rdly" because it sounded too much like the racial epithet.

HA! That was automatically censored-this is great! It's not even ironic.

 

[Supafly]

Actually the right to call people names should be considered free speech in my opinion, whether or not it makes you an asshole or not, you still should have that right, BUT, what you SHOULD NOT have the freedom to say, are things like screaming fire, in a crowded theater, or yelling for everyone to duck, as you falsely accuse another of having a ***. Things that cause, or pose a great danger to the public masses, I get...calling someone a derogatory name, should be protected. If you think calling someone names is wrong, then just don't do it, and teach your ******** not to...that's how you stop that behavior.

I disagree, yet, with a twist.

You have to be able to call people out as what they are. Let's take the word "asshole". what do you actually mean? Selfish? Ignorant to other people's needs? You can say that. But THAT then means backing your words up. Using names means being ignorant.

Calling names can not be protected, sorry. You can do that in your local bar with the other drinkers, you can do that at home with your ******. No, among strangers and amongst other people, that's not a way that is acceptable.

This is about a society functioning with its citizens, and for everybody to get along to a degree, you have to set a catalogue of ground rules. Not being allowed to insult does absoluely NOT mean you cannot say what you consider others. It does simply mean you have to back it up with your view of facts that make you think that way. Names are for stupid or lazy people. Which in the case of calling others "Idiots" or "retards" is really ironic.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade

 

[Supafly]

Of course, Ace, you want to stay on the offence, yet, not give the answer to my questions.

You know, is everybody free to say everything in every situation to everybody? That is your freedom of speech?

You do not understand, that you must be free to say what you think. But if you do not really think, just curse, that is ******* that freedom. And that is something that can and shall be limited, not only for the sake of a society not sliding into being just stupidity, but also it makes you a better person, because you can say what you think, you just have to say it in a civilized manner. Call someone a retad? That's a no, but if you can say that by pointing out the mental shortcomings of the person, that would then stop being an insult, that would open a debate, in the best case.

Yet, how can I blame you? You think that somebody who gets a crash course of 4 months is an actual police officer. Make that a mall security guy, that's more like it. Police officers get trained for three years.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

It's simple. Either it's almost entirely free or almost entirely monitored and regulated. The only people who would agree with your viewpoint, Supa, are Diane Feinstein and other. lesser known fascists, like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Stalin (I would have thrown Uncle Adolph in there too, but that would have been too much). Feinstein, you see, Premium Link Upgrade and have government censor political blogs and uncredentialed news outlets and Premium Link Upgrade as a privilege, not a right. This is from a woman who belongs to a party that believed, during Bush 42's presidency that "dissent is the truest form of patriotism," but during the Stompy Foot presidency that dissent is treason or racism.

And if you think that freedom of speech as it applies to the media vs citizens are two different things you might want to see your proctologist about your head being shoved too far up your ass.

Whenever anyone in congress begins to suggest circumventing the constitution and the bill of rights it is time for them to go. Unless they're talking about the seventeenth amendment. I'm all for repealing that piece of **** and replacing it with a term limit for congress. And ending congressional pensions.

 

[Supafly]

At last you care to actually come up with actual arguments. Good job!

Yet you still do not seem able to readf and understand what I am writing. I repeatedly said:

Freedom of speech means you can absolutely speak your mind. It just means you are not 100% free to use stupid words that are just used by people who want to insult - or who aren't capable of thinking far enough.

Are you somehow mentally challenged? I muist assume that you are unable to grasp the meaning of what people say unless they are saying things that you want to understand. You seem to block out the actual meaning and only read what you can grasp.

So I will just assume you are an idiot, and let you ramble on.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

And you don't realize how stupid that sounds. Say it out loud and tell me you don't feel sheepish for saying it. The first amendment isn't there to make people feel happy. It's there to protect unpopular or offensive speech. That's it. You disagree with it. That's fine. That's what the first amendment allows you to do (if you were a goddamn American treasure). To snip away at the right by saying someone is offended by a word they use everyday among their peers is stupid and racist in and of itself. "That's OUR word. You can't use it." There. That's how stupid it is.

If someone uses offensive language in a public setting (or a private setting) there is usually someone who will ask that person or people to move along or risk being ticketed or arrested for trespassing. In *************** and private security I've had to deal with that more often than you'd think. ***** cowboys and ***** indians in downtown Vegas are legendary for their lack of an inner voice telling them to shut the fuck up. Sure, they're entitled to their opinion and prejudice; they're not always entitled to voice it in the manner in which they desire.

If anyone here hears someone saying something really bad at a restaurant, bar, library, whatever, ask to see a manager or security. Don't take it upon yourself to confront someone who doesn't have the common sense to know their surroundings and audience. Let the manager or functionaries deal with it.

And herein lies the rub. You're championing a futile argument. People will harbor whatever feelings they have no matter what some idiot in Washington tries to legislate. And even if a bill that stupid were to make it out of committee and get voted on, any president with common sense or a sense of self preservation would veto it without a second thought. Because enforcing this new and stupid law would require hours of investigation leading to arrest and prosecution for something that has been a right since 1788. And who would you task to enforce this new law?

Just no.