The Student Room Group

Political correctness gone mad is much better than no political correctness at all

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
Original post by Espada Zero
This website is a student forum and so in theory should have some of the most educated people in the country, yet the degree of racism, sexism, and hatred based on religion and sexuality on here is off the charts.

Obviously they are not as likely to express these opinions as freely without the veil of anonymity, but going based on what i've seen on here if this is what people really think then I'm glad we have OTT political correctness.

The world is better for it.

Posted from TSR Mobile


It depends on what one defines as political correctness. If it's just a social norm to try not to offend people and be mindful of what you're saying, then I agree, it is better than no political correctness at all. Steven Pinker, in his book The Better Angels of our Nature, considers political correctness to be a sign of the moral progress that we've made (although he's vociferously critical of it when it goes too far).

However, denying people freedom of expression and banning and silencing dissenting views should not be carried out.
More ethnicities and races into one country = more room for racist conflicts.

Religions too.

Lets just say you can't be a victim of racism of religious prejudice, when you're surrounded by your own people.



If we didn't have political correctness in the first place we wouldn't have all this hatred. You only have yourselves to blame.
Original post by Mathemagicien
Hmm...




uhm well that's just like your opinion, man
Original post by Mathemagicien
Its ironic how those wanting to shut up people they describe as 'bigots' (such as yourself) are actually bigots by that definition. Its also clearly not just my opinion, since I don't edit any dictionaries

Look in the mirror.
I see where you're coming from, but respectively I think you're wrong.

Political Correctness fundamentally represses unorthodox views. Now you're saying that this is good because it helps prevent (for lack of a better word) unpleasantness in the forms of sexism racism etc. So I completely understand your viewpoints, a seemingly pleasant society is ... well pleasant. Personally I think pleasantness is overrated and I think the freedom to speak candidly about difficult topics is more important.

As an example: Putting forward any view/argument etc. that questions the orthodox view towards the topic of transgender is branded un-PC and offensive. As far as I'm concerned, discussion about this topic is vital. It's vital because if the PC consensus with respect to the question of transgenderism is wrong then we might very well be hurting a great number of people by encouraging them to indulge in a delusion (might ... it's why the question and discussion of it is VITAL).

All of this is to say that constraining speech to a select few orthodox ideas is dangerous, fundamentally because on the ideas that are controversial pretty much universally they are controversial because there isn't an easy answer and so people find themselves in strong disagreement with one another. We need frank, free and open discussion of difficult and controversial topics because to prevent that is to stifle the discovery of truth. We're students, we're educated, as you rightly say, we shouldn't be expected to shy away from difficult ideas and topics. THAT is why political correctness needs to die.
"Off the charts"

Yeh, I reckon you should check out 4chan.
Original post by richpanda
I was attempting to use OP's extremely childish and flawed logic by making a similarly brash statement. I suspect they wouldn't have noticed the irony.


Then say what is wrong with his logic before accusing him of anything.
Yeah but even though they aren't saying these opinions in the real world doesn't hide the fact that these views exist. I think it would be good if people are able to express what views they have without any pc because that's their view- PC doesn't change the fact that their views exist. At least a lack of PC will allow people to know about these and challenge them, whereas with OTT PC these views are hidden and suppressed, which just oppressed people for disagreeing with a popular opinion.

Freedom of speech should never be suppressed, except when someone advocates violence against someone or makes threats. Whether you like a view or not, you can't stop someone from having that view and shouldn't stop them from expressing it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ivybridge
I agree.


Why? Why should people who hold unpopular views be silenced? The fact is that these views exist, so why shouldn't they be expressed?
Original post by Trapz99
Why? Why should people who hold unpopular views be silenced? The fact is that these views exist, so why shouldn't they be expressed?


Because offending groups is not part of free speech. People should learn this.

Unpopular views and offensive bigotry are not the same.
On here is tame compared to some places but in general I agree with the sentiment.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ivybridge
Because offending groups is not part of free speech. People should learn this.

Unpopular views and offensive bigotry are not the same.


Why shouldn't people be allowed to offend groups? As long as they aren't advocating violence or making threats, what is wrong with it? For example, if someone stated that being (insert issue here) was wrong, they should be allowed to say that, right? It's just an opinion- freedom of speech will also allow other people to criticise and question this view. PC just suppresses these views and attempts to mask the fact that they exist.
Original post by Trapz99
Why shouldn't people be allowed to offend groups? As long as they aren't advocating violence or making threats, what is wrong with it? For example, if someone stated that being (insert issue here) was wrong, they should be allowed to say that, right? It's just an opinion- freedom of speech will also allow other people to criticise and question this view. PC just suppresses these views and attempts to mask the fact that they exist.


Because it can have a very big impact on the individual, mate. People can have their opinions, its how they then convey those opinions that's an issue. Nobody condemns people for having controversial opinions, they condemn them for being loud about opinions that have the potential to do damage and rightly so. In my honest opinion, I don't think the average person realises the direct impact of language until they experience it and that isn't me making an excuse, that's just what I believe to be true.

For example, if somebody told me I'm wrong for being gay, I wouldn't really care. I would laugh and continue walking. However, sitting on TV and saying that, in an aggressive way or backed up with crass remarks - that can have a very big impact to people who are struggling with who they are, who think the world doesn't approve, or who thinks that they're not quite right. There's limits on everything. And it's okay saying "oh, yeah, free speech" but free speech has never meant you can just say what you want. Ever. The name 'free speech' is misleading.
Original post by ivybridge
Because offending groups is not part of free speech. People should learn this.

Unpopular views and offensive bigotry are not the same.


The freedom to be offensive is an essential part of free speech. Whether or not something is offensive is determined precisely by how any individual feels about what you have said. As far as I am concerned the limits of my speech should never be drawn by people's feelings, to do so is tyrannical.
Original post by limetang
The freedom to be offensive is an essential part of free speech. Whether or not something is offensive is determined precisely by how any individual feels about what you have said. As far as I am concerned the limits of my speech should never be drawn by people's feelings, to do so is tyrannical.


But it really isn't.
Original post by ivybridge
But it really isn't.


But it really is (gosh I can do this argument thing too)
Original post by limetang
But it really is (gosh I can do this argument thing too)


It isn't though? Free speech means you have the right to an opinion - presenting it in a harmful or offensive manner is not the same. It really is not that difficult to understand. It's easy to be that complacent about it when there's nothing about you people would be targeting.
Original post by ivybridge
It isn't though? Free speech means you have the right to an opinion - presenting it in a harmful or offensive manner is not the same. It really is not that difficult to understand. It's easy to be that complacent about it when there's nothing about you people would be targeting.


Again ... offensiveness is by its very nature subjective. Something is only 'offensive' if somebody gets offended by it. And people can and do get offended by anything and everything.

If speech is harassment or is endorsing violence against a person or a group then that is different, but offensiveness means absolutely nothing when it comes to free speech, because no fair society should have people's feelings be the benchmark of acceptable speech.

If offensiveness is a criminal offence, then I would be able to have you locked up. As I find anybody saying what you say about free speech to be offensive. Does that mean you should be prosecuted? I don't think so, but you certainly do.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by limetang
Again ... offensiveness is by its very nature subjective. Something is only 'offensive' if somebody gets offended by it. And people can and do get offended by anything and everything.

If speech is harassment or is endorsing violence against a person or a group then that is different, but offensiveness means absolutely nothing when it comes to free speech, because no fair society should have people's feelings be the benchmark of acceptable speech.


They can but that's why political correctness doesn't stop you having a controversial opinion? There are some things that are largely objectively offensive - we all know the difference between right and wrong. For example, walking out onto the street and shouting at the top of your voice: "All gays and black people should be ignored by the world and despised, filthy ****ing buggers" is not on. By any standards. And if you notice - that is neither harassment nor endorsing violence. It is simply a disgusting opinion that people will be offended by.
Original post by ivybridge
They can but that's why political correctness doesn't stop you having a controversial opinion? There are some things that are largely objectively offensive - we all know the difference between right and wrong. For example, walking out onto the street and shouting at the top of your voice: "All gays and black people should be ignored by the world and despised, filthy ****ing buggers" is not on. By any standards. And if you notice - that is neither harassment nor endorsing violence. It is simply a disgusting opinion that people will be offended by.


In which case there is no real reason for us to stop it. You may not like what they're saying but unless there is something going on there beyond them simply offending people I don't see why they should be prevented from speaking.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you