Clearing Up Political Correctness Myths

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Yes, a political correctness thread, I'm sorry but I've got to let off some steam about this subject.

What I want to do hear is to A) clear up some misconcpetions about political correctness and B) disspell the awful Daily Mail "Political Correctness Gawn Mad!" bullshit that gets hurled around about it.

So, without further ado, A)

First of all, I've seen many people on these forums say, "Political correctness is based on the idea that people have a right not to be offended." No, that's a massive over-simplification. First of all, even if we are in a very politically correct world, I could still walk up to someone I know and go, "You asshole!" because that is an insult that refers directly to them. I can't say, "You're an asshole fag (or other slur)" because that offends a whole group of people. Political correctness still lets you offend people.

But more importantly, Political Correctness is really the idea that people have a responsibility not to be offensive to large groups of society for reasons that aren't that groups fault. Really, polictical correctness is asking you to not be an asshole.

Second point, political correctness isn't (or at least shouldn't be) enforced by laws (unless you're inciting hate, Britain has laws about that), so it isn't limiting your freedom of speech. Yes, you can say these things, but what will happen is that people will frown on you, because it's offensive and generally not cool. Papers have freedom of the press, but people have the right to look down on ones that are crappily written.

And third point, don't give me bullshit about how people should "man up and get over it (or something to that effect)". It is perfectly reasonable for someone to take offence at someone saying something offensive. Words can hurt, walking down the street and hearing people casually slagging of you or your friends and families sex/ethnicity/sexuality ect. is upsetting.

Finally, yes, there are things wrong with political correctness. Calling black Americans African-Americans is offensive and silly, and this bad habit of calling an insult to someone who happens to be black, racist is worrying. But this doesn't show political correctness is wrong. To use an example most of you will agree with, democracy is generally pretty good, but yeah, it does have some problems. That doesn't mean it's all terrible. (If you don't like democracy, it's just an example, there are plenty of others)

So, I'm glad that's A) cleared up, if you have objections to political correctness other than these, do post them, I'll try and answer (or of course if you have questions/objections about my points).

Now for B) the easy part. I'm just gonna go through common PC GONE MAD arguments and demolish them.

First up, the big one: Changing Bah Bah Black Sheep to Bah Bah Rainbow Sheep. Now this started as a Daily Mail thing about political correctness gone mad, but here is the BBC's take on it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4782856.stm
Note how the people in charge of the nursery point out that they change the words, so that kids learn more words. They have bah bah happy sheep, and sad sheep and many others. It's not political correctness, it's a novel attempt at education people.

Secondly, it's Fox New's favourite, replacing Christmas with Winterval. In the 1990's Birmingham refurbished their town hall, and to attract people to it over ALL of winter (not just Christmas) they announced Winterval. Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterval

Thirldy, Chalkboards. This is the idea that blackboards were instead called chalkboards because black was meant to be offensive. This is again not true, chalkboard is used, because many boards aren't black, some are green, or brown. Some people also say that whiteboard is used instead. This is wrong, whiteboards are for pens, not chalk. Umm, no real link here, this is just common sense really.

And finally for today, brainstorm being changed to mindmap so as to not offend people with epilepsy. This is... true actually. Sort of. Some people suggested it, but a survey quickly showed that brainstorm offened pretty much no-one. So they kept it as brainstorm. Yeah, not much to say there, sometimes people do overreact, but people do notice, if it isn't offensive people won't change it.

So insulting one person is fine, but if you insult a group you can go to jail?
That's pretty fucked up!
If one person can deal with an insult why can't a group?
Just because something is upsetting is no reason for the State to interfere.
Many things that some people find find perfectly reasonable, other people find hugely upsetting.
Which group and why should we favor?
No one has RIGHT not to be offended, or do they??

I don't think the objection to "political correctness" is that it socially sanctions[1] offensive behaviour, but that the sanctions levied are disproportionate.

At least in the US, people seem to lose their standing and jobs over fairly innocent slip-ups, or at least due to speech that's founded more in a moment of irritation or anger than in any pervasive and actual malice towards the group they denounce. And real and physical sanctions for subjective and emotional offences is inherently disproportionate.

Additionally, such thin hide is likely to have quite a chilling effect on freedom of expression - particularly on the less eloquent who can't properly weigh and weave their words - and hence it is anathema for the free debate - where any and all views can be expressed, heard, and discussed - which is the foundation for democracy (and for keeping the conflicts verbal).

Then there's of course also the fact that only certain groups are given protection by it. This is truly a problem when it comes to legal regulation - the state being obligated to non-discriminatory regulation and giving equal protection of all its citizens - but it also ring quite hollow that society's acceptance is only granted to some of the groups within the scope of harmless plurality. "Worthless fag" and "worthless coprophiliac" should in all fairness evoke the exact same reaction, as they're both harmless endeavours (when taking place between consenting adults), but undoubtedly the denouncement of the former will be significantly stronger than for the latter; What then is their haste to protect only the groups they happen to like from offence worth, when they are themselves discriminators?

...and finally, people should simply man up, and fight their own verbal battles rather than cover behind the skirts of society; client are made that way, not citizens.

[1] Legally sanctioning derogatory, hateful, obscene, or unpopular expressions being an entirely different matter; as a very firm point of departure, such simply should not happen.

Stublore:
So insulting one person is fine, but if you insult a group you can go to jail?
That's pretty fucked up!
If one person can deal with an insult why can't a group?
Just because something is upsetting is no reason for the State to interfere.
Many things that some people find find perfectly reasonable, other people find hugely upsetting.
Which group and why should we favor?
No one has RIGHT not to be offended, or do they??

You can't go to jail. Freedom of speech and all that. OP did mention that.

The point was more "PC isn't as bad as people think it is." Or at least that's how I read it.

Political correctness doesn't exist. The only place you will ever hear the term used is in the right wing media. It's never the basis for decision making, it never appears in law. Nothing.

The only thing that does exist (although not in the US) is hatespeech legislation. I support hatespeech legislation and will happily argue in favour of it, but that's not the issue so moving swiftly on.

As for people complaining that they might get in trouble for using verbal anachronisms. Grow up. The meaning of language changes. If you got fired because you insistently referred to black people as 'negroes' then I have no sympathy. It was acceptable 50 years ago, now it isn't. If you came into work with your dick hanging out or called your boss a cunt then I'm pretty sure you could be fired too, because there are standards of appropriate behaviour which you're expected to adhere to. If you can't keep up with changes in the meaning of language, then maybe learn to keep your mouth shut in social situations.

Imperator_DK:
"Worthless fag" and "worthless coprophiliac" should in all fairness evoke the exact same reaction.

But they don't. For reasons which should be incredibly obvious even to you.

The law must function based on distinctions which exist socially. What you're asking people to do is to ignore those distinctions because you feel it's unfair. Oh dear, watch the tears stream from my eyes.

Follow your own advice, man up and stop being offended that society doesn't protect you from discrimination you don't suffer.

evilthecat:
...

But they don't. For reasons which should be incredibly obvious even to you.

Indeed.

But do enlighten me as to why that's fair?

The law must function based on distinctions which exist socially. What you're asking people to do is to ignore those distinctions because you feel it's unfair. Oh dear, watch the tears stream from my eyes.

There was a time - in many regions of the world the present - where the exact same thing would've been said about homosexuality, where that would've been considered disgusting, deviant, and a malignant mental disease by society at large, its practitioners unworthy of the slightest protection or respect.

Thankfully such times have largely passed in the civilized world (well, in Northern Europe at least). But I gather from your response that had they not, then the law would be quite justified in respecting society's judgement of it, and not offered it any protection? It'd be a societal distinction between what is good and proper, and what is gross and deviant, after all. What strange and self-destructive view; Justice is not what the ignorant masses happen to feel on stuff they know little of.

Follow your own advice, man up and stop being offended that society doesn't protect you from discrimination you don't suffer.

I'm not offended in the least, I'm simply arguing an ideological point of view.

"Political correctness" is a right-wing buzzword for social skills they would like to be able to get by without having. Oh, people are sad because society will disapprove when they say racist things in public?

image

Kahunaburger:
"Political correctness" is a right-wing buzzword for social skills they would like to be able to get by without having. Oh, people are sad because society will disapprove when they say racist things in public?

image

This. I find that the people who argue against it are more often than not the same people who would say very offensive things if they could without fear of reprisal.

Kahunaburger:
"Political correctness" is a right-wing buzzword for social skills they would like to be able to get by without having. Oh, people are sad because society will disapprove when they say racist things in public?

image

Exactly this. "Political correctness" is right-wingspeak for "I'm going to be the biggest racist asshole I can be, and if you don't like it, you're just being oversensitive."

Kahunaburger:
"Political correctness" is a right-wing buzzword for social skills they would like to be able to get by without having. Oh, people are sad because society will disapprove when they say racist things in public?

Very true. I only hear people talk about political correctness when it's preceded by them being called out for being an asshole... or if they're a politician... or affiliated with Fox News in some way.

Political correctness is a left wing speech code intended to advance a left wing agenda.

Not only does it encourage minorities to be oversensitive, it says that certain beliefs/ideas are off limits because the left doesn't like them. Things such as criticizing aspects of other cultures. This is irrational and can create conflicts within the left. One example of this is

1. Foreign cultures are better than our "evil selfish, polluting western capitalism". But there is a conflict between the promotion of women's rights and female genital mutilation and frequent wifebeating in some foreign cultures.

Devoted PC thugs resolve this dilemma by finding more reasons to hate The West/Christians/White People etc.... so they can cling to their belief that foreign cultures are superior.

If left unchecked political correctness enacted into law can be the foundation of the future thought police. I've noticed a trend among SOME far leftists, where they'd be happy to help rid society of bad ideas by using the "fairness doctrine" to shut down conservative radio. By calling speech they don't like "politcally incorrect" in more peoples minds it becomes unaccpetable. Then these ideas which are considered unacceptable become ripe for censorship. The more sensitive minorities become to any criticism, the threshold for "offensive speech" becomes lower and free speech becomes eroded.

JRslinger:
Political correctness is a left wing speech code intended to advance a left wing agenda.

Not only does it encourage minorities to be oversensitive, it says that certain beliefs/ideas are off limits because the left doesn't like them. Things such as criticizing aspects of other cultures. This is irrational and can create conflicts within the left. One example of this is

1. Foreign cultures are better than our "evil selfish, polluting western capitalism". But there is a conflict between the promotion of women's rights and female genital mutilation and frequent wifebeating in some foreign cultures.

Devoted PC thugs resolve this dilemma by finding more reasons to hate The West/Christians/White People etc.... so they can cling to their belief that foreign cultures are superior.

If left unchecked political correctness enacted into law can be the foundation of the future thought police. I've noticed a trend among SOME far leftists, where they'd be happy to help rid society of bad ideas by using the "fairness doctrine" to shut down conservative radio. By calling speech they don't like "politcally incorrect" in more peoples minds it becomes unaccpetable. Then these ideas which are considered unacceptable become ripe for censorship. The more sensitive minorities become to any criticism, the threshold for "offensive speech" becomes lower and free speech becomes eroded.

Woah. You just made a lot of very vague and very large claims. AFAIK, "political correctness" is a term almost always used by Conservatives. And I don't really see how "calling a person a fag is bad" goes to "foreign countries are better than ours" without enormous leaps of logic. Care to elaborate?

JRslinger:
Devoted PC thugs resolve this dilemma by finding more reasons to hate The West/Christians/White People etc.... so they can cling to their belief that foreign cultures are superior.

Except that most of the time, it's Christians using political correctness to shield their views and actions from criticism, often while forcing their ideas upon other people. Ever notice how much whining there is about alledged persecution of Christians while they as a group enjoy vast privileges above any other group in all western countries?

I remember some idiot preacher getting a lawsuit on him for ringing his clocks every bloody day at 7:00. If you or me turn on loud music at that time, pretty soon you'll be fined, punished in other ways if fines don't work, and eventually your sound system confiscated, like it should be.

The verdict on a lawsuit arrived after almost a year (!!!). The priest will have to pay a fine if he uses the clocks before 7:30, so basically they gave him carte blanche to continue being an anti-social douchebag, just because he does his douchbaggery from a religion.

JRslinger:
Political correctness is a left wing speech code intended to advance a left wing agenda.

Not only does it encourage minorities to be oversensitive, it says that certain beliefs/ideas are off limits because the left doesn't like them. Things such as criticizing aspects of other cultures. This is irrational and can create conflicts within the left. One example of this is

1. Foreign cultures are better than our "evil selfish, polluting western capitalism". But there is a conflict between the promotion of women's rights and female genital mutilation and frequent wifebeating in some foreign cultures.

Devoted PC thugs resolve this dilemma by finding more reasons to hate The West/Christians/White People etc.... so they can cling to their belief that foreign cultures are superior.

If left unchecked political correctness enacted into law can be the foundation of the future thought police. I've noticed a trend among SOME far leftists, where they'd be happy to help rid society of bad ideas by using the "fairness doctrine" to shut down conservative radio. By calling speech they don't like "politcally incorrect" in more peoples minds it becomes unaccpetable. Then these ideas which are considered unacceptable become ripe for censorship. The more sensitive minorities become to any criticism, the threshold for "offensive speech" becomes lower and free speech becomes eroded.

What a steaming crock of shit. This entire post is completely devoid of facts or merit.

finnugold:

Woah. You just made a lot of very vague and very large claims. AFAIK, "political correctness" is a term almost always used by Conservatives. And I don't really see how "calling a person a fag is bad" goes to "foreign countries are better than ours" without enormous leaps of logic. Care to elaborate?

Political correctness isn't simply about politeness, it's a way of thinking that leads to bad policies that damage society. Political Correctness helps promote groups of perpetual victims. By using the mantle of past injustices the PC promoters say that these "perpetual victims" need the government to protect them and bring them upwards. Example: African Americans are poor because of slavery and racism. Therefore giving them welfare and affirmitive action = good.

But decades of PC policies haven't brought the African Americans out of poverty.

image

Look at this chart. The only major change around 1968 in social policy was LBJ's war on poverty welfare state extravaganza. I don't see what else could explain black Americans poverty rate stagnation.

By creating perpetual victim groups you do two things. 1)Destroy personal reponsibility within the group. 2)Creates dependency on government. PC says that protected groups cannot be criticized at all. If you can't criticize someone then you can't hold them responsible for any bad thing they do. Any bad thing they do is instead blamed on someone else.

If I say that Blacks hurt themselves by dropping out of school too much. The standard PC answer is "Then we need more funding for education" It assumes that lack of money solely explains the drop out rate. Little effort is made to investigate the students beliefs about education. Maybe they have cultural reasons for not valuing education. Examples: Studying hard could be perceived as "acting white". Or social problems in their community such as lack of good role models and lack of stable families could be factors. Neither of which will be solved by giving schools more money.

If I say that members of the Gay subculture hurt themselves by having frequent unprotected sex and therefore get a high rate of AIDS. The standard PC answer is to call me a homophobe and/or alternatively demand more funding for AIDS research.

If I say that Women are less likely to be CEO's because they are naturally generally less aggressive. The PC answer is that I'm sexist.

If a child throws a tantrum and makes a mess. The conservative answer is to discipline the child. Hold him responsible for his actions so he learns to behave better. The PC answer is to spend more money on cleaning products.

Very little thought goes into this PC dogma. If a PC policy isn't working then the PC crowd demands more money be put into it without ever questioning the logic of the policy itself.

If we'd had political correctness 100 years ago then most of the Irish and Italians in America would likely be stuck in ghettos and dependent on welfare. A culture of hard work and personal responsibility helped these groups get out of poverty. Political Correctness aim to denies these to the groups it claims to protect.

JRslinger:
stuff

Are you drunk, or do you just watch a lot of Glenn Beck? Because your argument about political correctness seems to be blurring into a somewhat incoherent argument about social policy.

orangeban:

Second point, political correctness isn't (or at least shouldn't be) enforced by laws (unless you're inciting hate, Britain has laws about that), so it isn't limiting your freedom of speech.

Those hate speech laws are.

orangeban:
Papers have freedom of the press, but people have the right to look down on ones that are crappily written.

Well said.

orangeban:

And third point, don't give me bullshit about how people should "man up and get over it (or something to that effect)". It is perfectly reasonable for someone to take offence at someone saying something offensive.

We all get offended by stuff. It's not some special emotion few people experience that we have to protect them from.

orangeban:

Words can hurt, walking down the street and hearing people casually slagging of you or your friends and families sex/ethnicity/sexuality ect. is upsetting.

And you have the right to retaliate in kind. I like it that way.

orangeban:

Finally, yes, there are things wrong with political correctness. Calling black Americans African-Americans is offensive and silly,

The more I hear of this the more I think it's now become a straw man of PC haters.

I mean I've seen tons of people make fun of "you should say African American instead of black", but I've yet to see anyone who actually believes you should say African American instead of black.

orangeban:

and this bad habit of calling an insult to someone who happens to be black, racist is worrying.

Indeed. "He hates the way Obama's running government? He must be racist." (yes there are racist Obama haters but not all of them are).

JRslinger:
-snip-

The idea of "political correctness" didn't start until the early 90's. Take a look at your chart again. African American poverty ratings decreased in the early 90's.

No, I'm not saying that political correctness cause the poverty rate to decrease. I'm just saying that you're wrong.

Once again; political correctness has nothing to do with this

"PC" says nothing. "PC" isn't a policy. It isn't an ideal.

We still have free speech in this country. If you want to be a jerk and throw around racial slurs and whatnot you're not going to be fined or locked up for it. You might be disciplined by your company for giving them a bad image or you may lose the respect of society, but this has nothing to do with the government.

And I'm done with you. I have a feeling you're only going to listen to your internal monologue.

My main issue with "political correctness" is that it is just that. A strive to be viewed as a "good citizen" in the eyes of the media. There is no inherent tolerance of any group contained in it. The same masses of people who proclaim to be stalwart defenders of diversity and "tolerance" would be sending the same groups to the gas chambers if that was what a good citizen was supposed to be doing.

Because it isn't about minority rights and gay marriage and equal pay and all that. It's about middle class white guys wanting to look good in the eyes of other middle class white guys. And fuck any minority that isn't among the ones you are supposed to like. You're lucky if they even know you exist.

In fifty years there will be a different set of values that you are supposed to accept.

JRslinger:
But decades of PC policies haven't brought the African Americans out of poverty.

Since the United States lets a lot of the chances you get in life depend on where you are born, that can not be called a miracle. There's even plenty of mechanisms in place that make the situation worse. For instance being allowed to refuse people health insurance, meaning they'll be broke-for-life if anything ever happens to them. Or being forced to report being convicted in the past, meaning someone can't get a job, and will have to choose between starvation or falling back into crime. Or the phenomenon of redlining, where living in a certain area bars you from getting financial products, meaning those areas will become worse in terms of poverty.

The rest of your post is just incoherent. Sorry, but that's all I can make of it.

Imperator_DK:

evilthecat:
...

But they don't. For reasons which should be incredibly obvious even to you.

Indeed.

But do enlighten me as to why that's fair?

It isn't. That's why we need hatespeech laws to make it fair.

This whole argument revolves around "What can I say and where can I say it?" And for me, you can say the most vile, hate filled ignorant thing your little mind can think of as much as you like, but dont be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass. Example: A white man can stroll through the streets of Harlem (a predominantly black area of New York City) screaming "nigger" at the top of his lungs. But then all of the nearby black folk are going to kick his lily white ass. Action, meet consequence.

Hafrael:

Imperator_DK:

evilthecat:
...

But they don't. For reasons which should be incredibly obvious even to you.

Indeed.

But do enlighten me as to why that's fair?

It isn't. That's why we need hatespeech laws to make it fair.

...so we need further hatespeech laws to protect coprophiliacs?

Where would it end?

Really, polictical correctness is asking you to not be an asshole.

Well fuck that right in the cunt.

Imperator_DK:

Hafrael:

Imperator_DK:

Indeed.

But do enlighten me as to why that's fair?

It isn't. That's why we need hatespeech laws to make it fair.

...so we need further hatespeech laws to protect coprophiliacs?

Where would it end?

Calling someone a bigot or racist is pretty insulting. That should be called hate speech and legally sanctioned, I think. Especially in this day and age, being identified as a bigot or racist is one of the worst things possible in many social circles. Racists and bigots need protection from mean-spirited haters, just like any other group.

JRslinger:
Political correctness is a left wing speech code intended to advance a left wing agenda.

Not only does it encourage minorities to be oversensitive, it says that certain beliefs/ideas are off limits because the left doesn't like them. Things such as criticizing aspects of other cultures. This is irrational and can create conflicts within the left. One example of this is

1. Foreign cultures are better than our "evil selfish, polluting western capitalism". But there is a conflict between the promotion of women's rights and female genital mutilation and frequent wifebeating in some foreign cultures.

Devoted PC thugs resolve this dilemma by finding more reasons to hate The West/Christians/White People etc.... so they can cling to their belief that foreign cultures are superior.

If left unchecked political correctness enacted into law can be the foundation of the future thought police. I've noticed a trend among SOME far leftists, where they'd be happy to help rid society of bad ideas by using the "fairness doctrine" to shut down conservative radio. By calling speech they don't like "politcally incorrect" in more peoples minds it becomes unaccpetable. Then these ideas which are considered unacceptable become ripe for censorship. The more sensitive minorities become to any criticism, the threshold for "offensive speech" becomes lower and free speech becomes eroded.

You should take a look at Kahunaburger's post, as it managed to describe you perfectly before you even stepped foot in this thread.

Imperator_DK:

Hafrael:

Imperator_DK:

Indeed.

But do enlighten me as to why that's fair?

It isn't. That's why we need hatespeech laws to make it fair.

...so we need further hatespeech laws to protect coprophiliacs?

Where would it end?

You are not understanding me.

Hafrael:
...
You are not understanding me.

Well, the way I see it, gay people would (rightly) receive tons of societal support if attacked someone who found their sexuality repugnant; coprophiliacs far less so. Them being an even weaker minority in society, they thus deserve equal or greater legal protection than gay people do, and not giving it to them is unwarranted discrimination when it's given to some.

What's your rationale then?

Imperator_DK:

Hafrael:
...
You are not understanding me.

Well, the way I see it, gay people would (rightly) receive tons of societal support if attacked someone who found their sexuality repugnant; coprophiliacs far less so. Them being an even weaker minority in society, they thus deserve equal or greater legal protection than gay people do, and not giving it to them is unwarranted discrimination when it's given to some.

What's your rationale then?

They are not attacked as homosexuals have been, and are currently being, attacked.

There is a very obvious difference that you are ignoring.

Hafrael:
...

They are not attacked as homosexuals have been, and are currently being, attacked.

There is a very obvious difference that you are ignoring.

...don't you think that might be because they still have to hide their identity as such? You know, like gay people had to back when things were really bad for acceptance of their sexuality (and still have to in the uncivilized parts of the world)?

Or do you feel comfortable that if one go out and publicly identifying oneself as a coprophiliac, it would not elicit any negative reactions or persecution?

My problem with PC is that it, as you state, implies that I have some obligation not to speak my mind about a large group of people. I'm fully willing to accept the consiquences, but rather than throw up the "It's offensive" banner, it might be better to explain why what I said was wrong. Further, saying "It's offensive" to smaller actions makes the phrase less strong.

And really, just get over it if someone says something about a group you belong to. Words have no more bite against you then you allow you to have.

People have said some very nasty things about members of my race (For example, that we're all Nazis) or my faith, and I simply don't let it bother me. You might want to try it some time! Try not letting things bother you. Makes your life oh so much better.

Imperator_DK:

Hafrael:
...

They are not attacked as homosexuals have been, and are currently being, attacked.

There is a very obvious difference that you are ignoring.

...don't you think that might be because they still have to hide their identity as such? You know, like gay people had to back when things were really bad for acceptance of their sexuality (and still have to in the uncivilized parts of the world)?

Or do you feel comfortable that if one go out and publicly identifying oneself as a coprophiliac, it would not elicit any negative reactions or persecution?

As very few people would know what that means you're into, I'm sure you'd be fine.

At most you would get a few 'ews', not a 'ALL FAGS MUST DIE'-like response.

There is a very clear difference. I don't like it, but it is there. Stop ignoring it.

Hafrael:
...

As very few people would know what that means you're into, I'm sure you'd be fine.

Well, then explain it to them so they know to the same degree they know what homosexuality is and covers, so that they have laid bare their identity to an equal level.

At most you would get a few 'ews', not a 'ALL FAGS MUST DIE'-like response.

Your trust in the sexual liberalism of the world seem considerably more optimistic than mine.

There is a very clear difference. I don't like it, but it is there. Stop ignoring it.

Source?

Without any, exactly what difference there is to the societal reaction to homosexuality, versus the societal reaction to various niche sexual fetishes - and to hypothetical communities which were equally open about them - very much remains an object of speculation.

So I'll stop ignoring it once there is facts on the table to stop ignoring. Until then, I stand by my hypothesis that practitioners of some extreme sexual fetishes - which are nonetheless not inherently harmful - would receive equal or worse treatment to homosexuals were they to go public about their identity to the same degree. And that their claim to legal protection as a group from derogatory speech is hence equally (in)valid.

Imperator_DK:

Hafrael:
...

As very few people would know what that means you're into, I'm sure you'd be fine.

Well, then explain it to them so they know to the same degree they know what homosexuality is and covers, so that they have laid bare their identity to an equal level.

At most you would get a few 'ews', not a 'ALL FAGS MUST DIE'-like response.

Your trust in the sexual liberalism of the world seem considerably more optimistic than mine.

There is a very clear difference. I don't like it, but it is there. Stop ignoring it.

Source?

Without any, exactly what difference there is to the societal reaction to homosexuality, versus the societal reaction to various niche sexual fetishes - and to hypothetical communities which were equally open about them - very much remains an object of speculation.

So I'll stop ignoring it once there is facts on the table to stop ignoring. Until then, I stand by my hypothesis that practitioners of some extreme sexual fetishes - which are nonetheless not inherently harmful - would receive equal or worse treatment to homosexuals were they to go public about their identity to the same degree.

You are associating sexual fetishism with sexuality. Stop it.

You are also assuming that there is hostility toward fetishists, to the same degree there is hostility towards homosexuals. There might be, but there are not many attacks on fetishes to the same degree there are attacks on the LGBTQ community.

When there are, I am in full support of passing laws to protect them. Until then, it is a moot point.

Political correctness is an issue when it's an excuse to stop people from criticising something like religion or political ideology.

But senseless hate is silly.

That being said, the solution should be proper education. Don't openly teach kids to think one way or another, but give them the tools to reason for themselves and they should know not to hold irrational opinions.

Hafrael:

Imperator_DK:

Hafrael:
...

They are not attacked as homosexuals have been, and are currently being, attacked.

There is a very obvious difference that you are ignoring.

...don't you think that might be because they still have to hide their identity as such? You know, like gay people had to back when things were really bad for acceptance of their sexuality (and still have to in the uncivilized parts of the world)?

Or do you feel comfortable that if one go out and publicly identifying oneself as a coprophiliac, it would not elicit any negative reactions or persecution?

As very few people would know what that means you're into, I'm sure you'd be fine.

At most you would get a few 'ews', not a 'ALL FAGS MUST DIE'-like response.

There is a very clear difference. I don't like it, but it is there. Stop ignoring it.

Can we get hate-speech laws for furries then?

The collective hate against furries on the internet far surpasses gay hate and intolerance, if i was to dress up in a fursuit go out on the street with another furry and make out people would freak out man.

Yiff in hell furfags, and all that...

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked