What would a Europe without political correctness look like?

I appreciate your use of examples/evidence.

#1 The handbook you seem to have a problem with asks soldiers not to criticise Islam etc. when they're in Afghanistan. That's got nothing to do with 'political correctness'. That's about not getting killed in a time when the local people are growingly resentful of foreign soldiers in their land.

#2 Although the politically biased blog you've chosen to use as a source is not completely factually inaccurate - again it isn't an issue of political correctness. US gov agencies have only been prohibited from suggesting that Muslims, by being Muslim, support terror. A ridiculous notion that's wholly unhelpful in the war on terror. It also doesn't constitute some abstract violation of free speech that most seems to bother people about 'PC-culture'. Government agencies aren't individuals with personal opinions etc.

#3 Though your link doesn't appear to work I looked it up and it appears the University have called off their campaign after immense public pressure. So in a strange way that may have been 'political correctness' at work.

#4 Fox News. Lol. It's worth noting that the kids were also wearing bandanas which are, according to the article, against the dress code and not just for wearing shirts.

#5 I have never heard of any movement or attempt to replace the word 'manhole' from everyday parlance. There certainly isn't a majority consensus that we should do so an political correctness is usually criticised for having gripped society.

#6 Saying football is violent has nothing to do with political correctness.

I'm afraid I can't be bothered to go through all 20 from that article, which as you yourself say, looks like it's from an awful source.

It's also interested that you've decided to go exclusively for sources relating to America when the OP is discussing political correctness in Europe. I myself am in England though I presume you're in the US?

I don't see why the existence of arses on youtube in anyway undermines my argument.

The first two examples you mentioned, to me, "speaks of a lack of knowledge in the area".

A Europe without political correctness would be one with a greater use of derogatory language and terminology and as such a probably less tolerant society overall, but by how much I don't know.

But now you're picking and choosing specific instances of speech and arguing that, because they don't produce better results, it's not worth protecting. That was my original complaint against you. Again, why not ban every instance of 'nonesense' without percieved value, then, hmm? What even gives you the right?

It does not matter if certain speech is (or appears to be) offensive nonsense devoid of any value; what matters is that people have the right to say it. This is the meaning and principle of freedom. They should be just as free to spout what you consider to be offensive nonsense as you should be free to spout what they consider to be offensive nonsense. Fair is fair. There isn't even necessarily a clear, objective line between 'offensive' and 'inoffensive' speech in the first place, for example.

Holocaust denial is easily rebutted and hasn't exactly led to the rise to widespread anti-Semitism in free societies that allow it. It's mocked (quite rightly), and naturally fails to gain much popular ground, even in places where it's legally permitted. I haven't exactly seen much Neo-Nazism in Toronto recently. And if someone published an article challenging the historical truth of the Holocaust, several articles would be published the next day kicking the intellectual crap out of it, exposing its flaws for all to see.

Which brings me to my next point: an important aspect of free speech is maintaining an open market place of ideas. Good ideas will always eventually win out against bad ideas, provided the exchange is kept free. No censorship required, no rights suppressed. This is how philosophy progresses and how society learns. This is valuable. And sometimes the 'offensive' speakers spouting 'nonesense' turn out to be right in the end. And if they aren't, prison isn't where they belong. We just ignore them or mock them.

For these reasons, PC authoritarianism is bad. Limiting people's rights and personal freedoms because you and politically like-minded individuals happen to agree with each other and not them does not give you the right to shut them up. At that moment you become a hypocrite and a bully; you have put your freedom and your speech before somebody else's and acted upon them with force.

A Europe without political correctness would be one with a greater use of derogatory language and terminology and as such a probably less tolerant society overall, but by how much I don't know.

1) I'm quite alright with the idea of more cultural sensitivity when it comes to troops stationed abroad, of course. I'm relatively certain that some more cultural sensitivity could help lower the strain in between the troops and the occupied, although at the same time I'd say that turning a blind eye to pedophilia and sex slaves might not be the right way to go.

Not opposing religious teachings for the sake of cultural sensitivity can be a good thing, but not when it involves ignoring slavery and other internationally denounced issues.

If you would have looked at Sweden you would have seen many, many findings of the detriments of some Muslim immigrants/refugees to society due to political correctness. There is serious self hatred in terms of the Swedish ethnicity in Sweden, amongst the politicians at least, while there is an absolute phobia of mentioning anything that would put the Muslim faith in a bad light. Just look at all of the research denouncing the large numbers of Muslim refugees/immigrants that had been repressed. Again, I'm talking about the bad kind of Political Correctness; I'm not against being sensitive and not calling people out as sub-human for following one religion or another, etc.

2) They were forbidden from saying that Islam is connected to Terrorism. I thought you were actually willing to have some sort of reasonable discussion before reading this argument of yours. Of course that saying someone is a terrorist just because he/she is a Muslim is utter imbecility, but ignoring the fact that a religion such as Islam could cause people to be more likely to be terrorists or be the reason they became terrorists in the first place (or how they were manipulated into becoming terrorists) is quite the imbecility as well.

3) That was just one instance. If you would take a more serious interest in feminism and political correctness you'd understand the bad sort of political correctness I'm talking about

4) Even if so, they gave as the main reason the fact that they wore the American flag T-shirts. I share your disdain for fox news, however.

5) I don't think I'm coming off as a person hateful of politeness, do I? I think that the two of us continue to have a different definition of political correctness.

6) It shows what direction society is taking, together with the bad (my) sort of political correctness.

You are right, it does seem like an awful website so I couldn't blame you.

You are also right that I mostly focused on political correctness in the US; that's what I know the most about. I am not from the US nor do I live there, but I've also taken an interest in Swedish political correctness and a bit in the Danish political correctness, which are in Europe. I can't say I know as much about the UK, to be honest.

Speaking of lack of knowledge in the area, dismissing bastions of anti-political correctness (youtube channels) with plenty of recognition and great argumentation is very much not a respectable thing. Or perhaps the apparent lack of knowledge of the situation of political correctness in Sweden, especially from a year ago. Another suggested source of information: AngryForeigner on YouTube.

I feel as though I have to reiterate: I think, because of your understanding of 'political correctness' simply talk of the possible dangers of too much censorship, including self-censorship, from an overwhelming general opinion of having to accept anyone in any way, which is the position of many Swedish politicians. Maybe not using the term political correctness would allow us to get something out of our argument?

I think the opposite, it's like when you go to counselling you have to open up to how you truly feel for things to be resolved and challenged.

Do you describe political correctness as politeness and the lack of being a bigotted prick, or as something that may lead to censorship and self censorship even when stating facts, thus leading to a society so willing to accept everything and everyone that very bad things begin to happen (because of the separation of logic and policy making because of fear of not being 'politically correct'.

An imam calling for gay people to be killed is fine. It allows for him to be seen for what he is and for discourse to challenge his followers.
Posted from TSR Mobile

Depends on whether it's opinion or direct incitement.

For example, writing in an online blog "I think the law should be changed so as to punish homosexuality by the death penalty" is an opinion. Gathering a rabidly and ruthlessly homophobic gay crowd armed with knives and guns and instructing them to find the gay people they know in the area and kill them themselves is incitement.

OK, that's an extreme example, but there are shades of grey.

I wouldn't know about that, this doesn't make difference to what I had said.

I'm thinking specifically about the terms which are not acceptable to use. For example the word ''Paki'' isn't often used to describe someone from Pakistan as it has become a racial slur. As much as it may be 'correct' it isn't used due to the offence it can cause.

There are various implications of political correctness. The above is one of them.

Of course I'm picking and choosing - that's the basis of my argument - that free speech all the time isn't always the best thing. It is not intrinsically valuable (he said again) but valuable for the often positive results it produces. There isn't a logical progression from that simple idea to 'ban every statement that isn't valuable'. Also, as I am not in charge of Germany, I have no right whatsoever to determine whether or not people should be allowed to espouse rubbish about the holocaust not occurring. I do however have the right to openly support that law - something to do with free speech.

Freedom of speech began to be thought of as 'intrinsically valuable' at a time when there was mass censorship and widespread ignorance in the most liberal arenas. We don't live in such times anymore. Freedom of speech was defended as being untouchable because to treat it with any less reverence would risk it never becoming a major freedom of the populous. In the modern age we can look intelligently at when, why and how much of it we need.

It's not about 'not having value' it's about being actively detrimental. Also this thread is about political correctness not state censorship. In most countries holocaust denial isn't illegal but it is taboo - i.e. 'political correctness' suppresses those ideas. This, apparently, you have a problem with? There is also the point that Germany isn't quite like other countries.

"Good ideas will always win out against bad" - there isn't actually any reason to believe that unless you're defining 'good ideas' as 'the ones that win out in the end' - which is just a tautology.

It doesn't make me a hypocrite. My philosophy is a simple one and easy to follow. The reality of the holocaust isn't a political issue. To say that people should be allowed to promote the idea is to entertain, even for a moment, that deniers could be right (something you did by saying "sometimes the 'offensive' speakers spouting 'nonesense' turn out to be right in the end"). That is reprehensible.

The concept of a 'market place for ideas' is an interesting one. Markets are regulated.

It shouldn't be a crime to offend someone this is a modern disease people have....

Ooo that offends me....

So what? Challenge me on it, open up to me about your thoughts....

That's why my last comment is relevant

I'd say a crime hasn't been committed until some action is being taken.

When you start drawing lines of what's ok then someone has to draw those lines

Who does that? Where does it stop?

My former statement was: "Freedom of speech is a principal that remains necessary regardless of the 'value' of what's said. Even something has no value at all, so what?"

To which you replied: "I'm not discussing the value of random, unspecified examples of free speech..."

We are talking about free speech. You are implying that if it has no 'value' it is not worth protecting, i.e. censoring/banning it is a-OK. Also, you are entirely free to support German speech policies. However, while you are supporting this through your own free speech, the German government is suppressing the free speech of others with whom you disagree. You just happen to agree with this because you dislike Holocaust denial and it suits you. This is where we differ - I don't support Holocaust denial, either, but I would protect people's right to openly deny the Holocaust even though I find their opinions moronic and reprehensible.

And the value doesn't necessary lie in the speech itself; the value lies in people's freedom to have free speech, to speak their minds and express themselves freely without persecution from those in power. The speech is less important than the right to that speech.

This thread is about political correctness creating censorship (which is indeed what it does). People choosing not to say something because it is merely taboo is not the same as being stopped from saying it by an authority or the threat of legal repercussions.

Ideas with merit, more evidence, etc., eventually supersede those that are lacking. It's a logical progression.

Except I'm not saying we have to entertain the idea that Holocaust deniers might be right. We know they're wrong. What I'm saying is that they should still be allowed to speak their opinions as free human beings, as we should be allowed to mock and deride them where necessary.

However, some ideas we have found offensive in the past (eg. mankind evolving from other species) turn out to have merit. Your 19th century equivalent would likely be making the same argument about Darwin talking offensive nonsense and his speech having no value. The notion that humans were descended from apes and not created by God in the Garden of Eden was far from politically correct at the time. It was seen as an affront to Christian beliefs and values. Imagine if the British government threatened to arrest 'Adam and Eve deniers'. 19th century RayApparently would be just fine with that, it seems.

Again, however, the possibility of being right is not the only reason for free speech having value and needing to be protected (all of it - it's a package deal, I'm afriad). All human beings should be free to pursue and share their opinions without being locked up. Do I have to repeat the old saying: "I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

All free speech may not be equal in your eyes, but it is all equally speech. Picking and choosing what isn't appropriate because you and like-minded supporters of the status quo don't believe it has value takes one down a dark, dangerous, and tricky road.

And don't take the market analogy too literally. A government regulating its economy is not the same as it selectively regulating people's right to speak their minds.

I'm interested to hear your opinions, and arguments supporting them