The Student Room Group

Political corectness of the anti political corectness crowd.

What's with all this new political correctness the anti PC crowd are attempting to force on us?

It's bizarre watching these people tell us what we can and can't say.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by hovado
What's with all this new political correctness the anti PC crowd are attempting to force on us?

It's bizarre watching these people tell us what we can and can't say.


In the main it's simply good manners

We as a country have always tried to behave this way
Reply 2
Original post by hovado
What's with all this new political correctness the anti PC crowd are attempting to force on us?

It's bizarre watching these people tell us what we can and can't say.


I'm curious as to what you mean. Could you provide some examples?
The only people forcing something on others are the "PC" crowd.

There should be absolutely ZERO restrictions on free speech, none at all. Popular speech does not need to be protected, but unpopular speech does.

There are universities in the US that are trying to force speech codes on students, and dictate the language they have to use on campus (Michigan State Uni, I might be wrong). And this is just one of far too many dangerous examples.

This is the start of Orwellian style "speak".
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 4
Original post by Shawman
I'm curious as to what you mean. Could you provide some examples?


Oh you know the stuff, can't call a racist a racist, a fascist a fascist, can't question the intelligence of a brexiteer, can't mention any negatives associated with brexit, can't express any worry about brexit, can't question what influences white terrorists, can't call them terrorists.......................
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 5
Original post by BaconandSauce
In the main it's simply good manners

We as a country have always tried to behave this way


Is this a new realisation? I always had you down as an anti-pc kinda guy.
Original post by hovado
Is this a new realisation? I always had you down as an anti-pc kinda guy.


There's a difference between criticism of an idea or parts of a culture for example and calling someone a ******.

There's also a time and a place

For example I wouldn't walk up to a random Muslim and call their prophet a pedophile camel thief However If in a discussion they tried to tell me about his morals as the best muslin I would point out the pedophile camel thievery.

What is 'PC gone mad' would be preventing me from expressing that he was a pedophile camel thief.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by BaconandSauce
There's a difference between criticism of an idea or parts of a culture for example and calling someone a ******.

There's also a time and a place

For example I wouldn't walk up to a random Muslim and call their prophet a pedophile camel thief However If in a discussion they tried to tell me about his morals as the best muslin I would point out the pedophile camel thievery.

What is 'PC gone mad' would be preventing me from having my opinion or expressing it that he was a pedophile camel thief.


How do you prevent someone having an opinion?
Reply 8
Original post by Galaxie501
There should be absolutely ZERO restrictions on free speech, none at all. Popular speech does not need to be protected, but unpopular speech does.


So if someone writes a letter threatening to burn a person's house down, according to you they should face no punishment?
Original post by hovado
How do you prevent someone having an opinion?


Yes sorry badly worded

'from expressing my opinion' would have done (and I've edited to correct)
Reply 10
[video="youtube;J2paiKp6_YU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2paiKp6_YU[/video]
Original post by Dez
So if someone writes a letter threatening to burn a person's house down, according to you they should face no punishment?


Threats are not protected under free speech law, not even in America so this is a total straw man. Another example would be two drug dealers talking about what they're selling, how much it costs getting busted by police. They can't claim that no transaction took place and that discussing criminal intentions is protected.
Reply 12
Original post by Gora The Xplorer
Threats are not protected under free speech law, not even in America so this is a total straw man. Another example would be two drug dealers talking about what they're selling, how much it costs getting busted by police. They can't claim that no transaction took place and that discussing criminal intentions is protected.


Hence why "zero restrictions on free speech" is an absurd idea.
Original post by Desi123
[video="youtube;J2paiKp6_YU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2paiKp6_YU[/video]


Nice one.

One of my posts got deleted in the past because I posted a YouTube video about how left wing regressives betrayed the LGBT community.



Original post by Dez
So if someone writes a letter threatening to burn a person's house down, according to you they should face no punishment?


Thats pretty much an appeal to extremes fallacy, but its not your fault considering my initial post about "zero limitations". When I talk about freedom of speech I mean the freedom to say anything you want to anyone you want without consequences. If people hold radical oppinions then its their absolute right to hold them. This does not include the freedom to threaten to burn down someones house or to threaten people elsewise!

I have not always had this stance by the way. During the last 5 years however I observed the rise of cultural marxism and the danger that it is to western society. Some would call it regressivism. For example words like "racist", "bigot", "homophobe" and "sexist" have been misused and taken out of context so much by the group of people I mentioned above that we are at a point in time where basically everyone is a racist according to those people. Dont forget that juicy white male privilige that we have in the west. Where can I pick up mine?

Point out crime rates in certain cultural groups = racist
Point out Females are generaly physically weaker than males = misogynist.
Point out the madness of modern gender identity politics = homophobe.

^ This is the problem we are facing ^
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Dez
Hence why "zero restrictions on free speech" is an absurd idea.


That doesn't come under the definition of free speech because it relates to physical action, which is the whole point.
Original post by Desi123
[video="youtube;J2paiKp6_YU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2paiKp6_YU[/video]


I don't understand how someone can hate their own race that much, it's mental illness and not even the sort which should be treated and show empathy, that guy literally disgusts me I want to vomit.
Reply 16
Original post by Gora The Xplorer
That doesn't come under the definition of free speech because it relates to physical action, which is the whole point.


So how about slander/libel and defamation law? Should those be abolished? Official Secrets Act too perhaps? NDA agreements?
Original post by Dez
So how about slander/libel and defamation law?


Civic rather than criminal matter.

Original post by Dez

Official Secrets Act


Those entrusted with state secrets should sign a non-disclosure contract.

Original post by Dez

NDA agreements?



Civic rather than criminal matter.
Reply 18
Original post by Gora The Xplorer
Civic rather than criminal matter.

Those entrusted with state secrets should sign a non-disclosure contract.

Civic rather than criminal matter.


You're splitting hairs now. Clearly we have restrictions on free speech that need to stay, unless we want society to fall apart. So the question simply becomes one of how much freedom of speech is best.
Original post by Dez
You're splitting hairs now. Clearly we have restrictions on free speech that need to stay, unless we want society to fall apart. So the question simply becomes one of how much freedom of speech is best.


I'm doing nothing of the sort. The only time it should be a criminal matter is if the person's privy to sensitive knowledge have already signed non-disclosure contracts in which case the criminal proceedings would move forward on the basis of breach of contract.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply