Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What would a Europe without political correctness look like? Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    It'd be fantastic for the people that embraced it to be racist, sexist etc.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    In other words I'd know for certain who was an idiot that needed to be avoided.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Europe is fantastic. The EU is awful.

    So pretty good.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Freedom is valuable for the results it produces, it is not intrinsically valuable. I have no problem with holocaust denial being illegal in Germany (it isn't here in Britain).
    That makes no sense at all. 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? One might as well ban anything that isn't productive or insightful.

    And anyone who values liberty should have a problem with Holocaust denial being illegal.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    That makes no sense at all. 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? One might as well ban anything that isn't productive or insightful.

    And anyone who values liberty should have a problem with Holocaust denial being illegal.
    Reread my post. I'm not discussing the value of random, unspecified examples of free speech. I'm talking about freedom itself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ITT: People who think that not being Politically Correct means being racist.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Reread my post. I'm not discussing the value of random, unspecified examples of free speech. I'm talking about freedom itself.
    So what is your position - is free speech valuable or not? Bear in mind you can't now pick specific examples that aren't, as you would validate my initial statement.

    Looking at it in a purely results-based manner, its value lies in the alleviation of state sanctioned violence towards an individual who is merely exercising a human right. Individuals in society benefit by avoiding jail time or having their rights impeached at the cost of potentially being offended, which is a far better trade-off.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    KABOOM!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    #1 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid “any criticism of pedophilia” and to avoid criticizing “anything related to Islam”. The following is from a recent Judicial Watch article

    #2 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents.

    #8 The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) initiated an aggressive advertising campaign earlier this year that included online videos, billboards, and lectures that sought to raise awareness about “white privilege“.

    #9 At one high school down in California, five students were sent home from school for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag on the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

    #17 All over the country, the term “manhole” is being replaced with the terms “utility hole” or “maintenance hole”.

    #20 All over America, liberal commentators are now suggesting that football has become “too violent” and “too dangerous” and that it needs to be substantially toned down. In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that football should be banned for anyone under the age of 14.


    http://thetruthwins.com/archives/20-...g-over-america

    Definitely not an objective source, of course, but it shows how PC can definitely be an issue. Besides, it is all linked in the article.

    Likewise, I suggest you actually document yourself on what you're trying to defend. Try and have a look at the youtube channels Shoe0nHead and especially Thunderf00t and see there how PC can be poison.

    I'm all for politeness and the end of racism, but dismissing the current trend in PC, (the bad, more extreme sort especially; not just the use of 'african american' rather than 'black' but that where proper facts are being ignored due to them being considered racist, even if true) which is becoming ever more prevalent, is very foolish and speaks of a lack of knowledge in the area.

    If there still is relative poverty in the UK, for example, that doesn't mean the problem of racism should be ignored because relative poverty is subjectively more important. In the same way, even if PC might be of less importance to some than the diminishing of racism, it doesn't mean that PC should just be ignored. Although I'm sure we're on the same page with that.

    Political correctness can easily reach a point, and I think already has in many countries in many areas of debate, where it becomes proper censorship, which has the knock on effects of facts not being taken into consideration because they are considered racist, again, despite them being true or at the very least thoroughly researched.

    I think you don't exactly understand what people who are against PC think of when they say PC. You might have a different understanding of what PC is.
    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".
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    So what is your position - is free speech valuable or not? Bear in mind you can't now pick specific examples that aren't, as you would validate my initial statement.

    Looking at it in a purely results-based manner, its value lies in the alleviation of state sanctioned violence towards an individual who is merely exercising a human right. Individuals in society benefit by avoiding jail time or having their rights impeached at the cost of potentially being offended, which is a far better trade-off.
    Free speech is valuable for the results it produces. It is not intrinsically valuable.

    My point is that saying 'PC bad 'cos free speech' is not an argument. You need to demonstrate why you get better results from allowing people to spout nonsense about the deaths of millions of people using arguments that have been proved false overwhelmingly time and time again. Holocaust denial's only purpose is to further racism against Jews and to validate the opinion of the monstrously bigoted. Germany, given it's history, is right to draw the line there.

    Fyi, it's not illegal to stop some fragile flower getting 'offended' it's illegal to prevent Nazi-apologism allowing fascist, racist ideologies from gaining prominence once more. I consider preventing that to be the 'better result'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    I'm interested to hear your opinions, and arguments supporting them
    We would have a more cohesive society, more forward thinking as discourse without restrictions is allowed.

    The younger generations are so PC I worry what it will look like in 20 years.

    All snow flakes who can't take being offended or tackling taboo subjects


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Free speech is valuable for the results it produces. It is not intrinsically valuable.

    My point is that saying 'PC bad 'cos free speech' is not an argument. You need to demonstrate why you get better results from allowing people to spout nonsense about the deaths of millions of people using arguments that have been proved false overwhelmingly time and time again. Holocaust denial's only purpose is to further racism against Jews and to validate the opinion of the monstrously bigoted. Germany, given it's history, is right to draw the line there.

    Fyi, it's not illegal to stop some fragile flower getting 'offended' it's illegal to prevent Nazi-apologism allowing fascist, racist ideologies from gaining prominence once more. I consider preventing that to be the 'better result'.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Political leaders wouldn't have to sing the national anthem in case people got "offended" that they didn't.

    You could call people racist and they wouldn't whine about being called racist.

    Muslim teenagers could make posts on facebook hating the British army without being arrested.

    Refugees could give a bit of banter to women without being accused of sexual harassment.

    We wouldn't waste resources sending a student to prison for 16 months for climbing on the Cenotaph in a protest.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/la...months-tabloid
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    We would have a more cohesive society, more forward thinking as discourse without restrictions is allowed.

    The younger generations are so PC I worry what it will look like in 20 years.

    All snow flakes who can't take being offended or tackling taboo subjects
    (Original post by stefano865)
    Europe is fantastic. The EU is awful.

    So pretty good.

    What do you think politically correct is? It seems to mean a different thing to everyone on this read.

    To me it is just a form of polite self censorship. Everyone does this even Nigel Farage. It's called not being a ****.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Most people who complain about 'political correctness' just want to be openly bigoted without being judged. It's not a problem. There is still a rigorous and open exchange of ideas in Europe and the developed world. Real censorship and the effective abolition of opposing views can be found in China, to a lesser extent Russia and in parts of the less developed world.
    You dont think people are afraid of sharing their views for fear of repercussions losing their job by saying something political incorrect? There are numerous examples of people losing their jobs for doing so

    I would never post my personal views into the public sphere with my idenitity attatched
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    How exactly is political correctness pervasive in Europe?
    I mean, I can think of three topics which will be shut by political correctness, racial superiority and intelligence, the holocaust and women history and intelligence.
    If there was no political correctness, you'd be able to talk about those things on television without fear of being fired. However, if you think about it, talking about those three things is not going to lead to anything but explicit and astounding offence and harm to women, other races and Jews. So it's not really worth it. Even with PC, you can still discuss those issues in books or specialised places.

    Anything else is not really political correctness. Yea if you turn out to be homophobic people are likely to stay away from you, but that's because you hold a stupid opinion. Other than that, it's all "twitter wars", but who cares about people on twitter, or the professionally offended as I call them? Who cares what they think?
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...w-mary-collins
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone here wants to read a balanced view of political correctness ...


    https://www.insidehighered.com/views...Kdb0AI.twitter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    As I said, this instance lies within one of the three domains where political correctness is rife. It's awful that happened to him, the universities employing should have not succumbed to the idiocy of the masses, but anyway a man of his calibre and intelligence should have been more careful with his words.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    What do you think politically correct is? It seems to mean a different thing to everyone on this read.

    To me it is just a form of polite self censorship. Everyone does this even Nigel Farage. It's called not being a ****.
    Censorship.

    It stops people saying what they want and therefore harms discourse.

    End of story


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Censorship.

    It stops people saying what they want and therefore harms discourse.

    End of story


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So for you there is no need for censorship whatsoever in any scenario? Shouting bomb in an airport. An imam calling on gay people to be killed?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    So for you there is no need for censorship whatsoever in any scenario? Shouting bomb in an airport. An imam calling on gay people to be killed?
    Bomb in an airport isn't anything to do with being pc that is an immediate threat to life.

    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.

    Even so the examples you give are extreme.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.