quote:

I take your point. But if his show and Clear Channel (I think that's right?) were swamped with expressions of disapproval, that would be censure. The demand that he be removed from the air, backed up by a threat to the revenues of his advertisers, is nothing more or less than attempt to accomplish by other means what it would be illegal for the government to do. If our government is a government of the people, and we have chosen for good reason not to allow it to do such things, who then are these people who think it's perfectly okay for them to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

yeah the dittoheads dangerous folk

What percentage of violent crime in the United States is committed by Rush Limbaugh listeners?

Or do you just consider anyone who disagrees with you to be "dangerous".

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
from websters : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Nope. That doesn't work as a definition because it's far too inclusive. The political sensibilities of the Right are frequently offended by the language and practices of the Left, but it's rare to hear the phrase invoked in those cases.

I'm sorry but can you give me some examples of non right wing people talking about political correctness? I pointed out the meaning because it is so maligned and misunderstood. I'm not exactly sure but I dont think you get to decide what a word means when you dont like the actual meaning. I believe the Websters dictionary is the best source on the english language. It would get confusing if we all decided to have out own definitions of words wouldnt it? People on the liberal side understand it to be basic civility. It doesnt mean they all proctice it but damn oppossing the concept seems to be a conservative core beleif

Now, if you take that definition, you have crossed the PC lines with your responses. You have implied a generality onto a large group (conservatives) that "could offend political sensibilities."

The problem with the definition, is that it's not very good. I'm not blaming Webster's or anyone else. It is a very subjective definition. If I get offended that you treat left-handed people as 2nd class humans, your beliefs and actions would not be PC. Now, if the next guy you run into decides that he agrees with you (you know, after he recovers from you running into him), your believes and actions would be considered PC.

It's not what is offensive or not. It's who gets to decide what is offensive or not.

I will tell you, it offends me when people get offended over stupid shit that should simply be ignored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
I consider people who make claims that are opposite of fact dangerous because they parrot talking points instead of find facts. Case in point the comments on capitalism and private sector jobs in the Romeny thread. The fact is businesses have had record profits, have record cash stockpile, stock have performed well, private sector job growth is superior to 2001-2004 and he was claiming capitalism was in danger when in fact there is less govermrnt if measured by public sector employment than there was 3 yrs ago and unlike any year to yr measure under Bush

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
I'll agree to disagree.. I am not anymore uncomftable with the thought of limiting the right to call for reparative rape as a cure for lesbianism than I am with limiting the use of the word Cunt on the public airwaves. I see your point on the immience. I dont see it as a slipperly slope to consider it a stretch the consider reparative rape obscene and obscene speech is not protected it's a case of what is obscene and I think reparative rape fits the bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's not what is offensive or not. It's who gets to decide what is offensive or not.

I will tell you, it offends me when people get offended over stupid shit that should simply be ignored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

There are several issues here that I think are not being properly clarified.


The first is censorship versus censure which I think people tend to confuse, especially if they are the one who feels they are being restricted. If someone on the radio says something that others don’t like (a certainty in a pluralistic society numbering over 330 million) and the government tries to stifle their speech and/or punish them in any way for it (note: there are exceptions as noted by Mupainurpleasure) – that is censorship. If someone says something that others don’t like and those people use their freedom of speech to denounce it and combine it with their freedom of choice to let employers and advertisers know how they feel about it – that is not censorship… it is censure. That is freedom and the marketplace of ideas at work. The person who made the remarks that upset so many is still free to make their views known, they are not free to spread them anywhere they please. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard.

Political Correctness is something of a loose, catchall term but abuse of authority to suppress political views judged undesirable is a very real thing. I tend to think of PC as the variety of political repression found in university campuses. It is predominant on the left but is by no means exclusive to the left. Visit the FIRE website to see many examples of PC run amok.

I have not heard an audio of the conversation between the DJ and the father and the tone of the conversation is relevant. Was the DJ being serious or was he clearly joking? Even if he was joking he is still (in my opinion) a shithead but that does not mean his statement rises to a legally actionable advocacy of criminal activity. People often exaggerate to vent their frustrations about things and, regardless of the justification or worth (or lack thereof) we grant to their views, it does not mean that they seriously advocate what they are saying. In Post 14 Philosophy seems to be advocating rape… should we believe that he is serious? What if someone out there reads Philosophy’s post and decides to take him up on that suggestion? Would that make Philosophy morally and/or legally culpable? There are those who have suggested that Sarah Palin, with her crosshairs ads, bears at least some responsibility for the assault on Congresswoman Giffords… what would the difference be? Shouldn't Philosophy have realized that some nutcase might read his post and take it literally?

Thanks to modern communication technology we have entered a new era regarding the limits of speech and our responsibility for it. Something we say that was meant for a limited number of people can now be transmitted to billions around the world. Because of this it is more important than ever to clearly define the lines of responsibility… and the bulk of that should fall upon actions, not speech. I do not believe we should restrict our speech because some nutcase may take literally what most of us recognize as sarcasm, parody, exaggeration, etc… even if we don’t like the person or philosophy being advocated. I don’t like Sarah Palin but I give her the benefit of the doubt that she did not intend or even desire that anyone be shot as a result of her ads. I’m also going to give Philosophy the benefit of the doubt and presume he is not seriously advocating rape as a legitimate form of punishment for those who say things he disagrees with. As for the DJ in question, well, I’d still like to hear an audio before I make up my mind as to whether he bears any legal culpability. As for his notion of humor, however, I will use my freedom of speech to once again declare him a shithead. Somebody really needs to smack him upside the head with a two by four… I don’t mean that literally, of course... in case there are any nutcase out there reading this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I take your point. But if his show and Clear Channel (I think that's right?) were swamped with expressions of disapproval, that would be censure. The demand that he be removed from the air, backed up by a threat to the revenues of his advertisers, is nothing more or less than attempt to accomplish by other means what it would be illegal for the government to do. If our government is a government of the people, and we have chosen for good reason not to allow it to do such things, who then are these people who think it's perfectly okay for them to?

The distinction is that it is not the government but private citizens. I am under no obligation to give my private business to anyone (well, that may change depending upon the Supreme Court's ruling on the Individual Mandate... but that is another issue). If I don't like the food at a particular restaurant I do not have to eat there. I am also perfectly free to let them know why I don't like their food ("crab salad my ass, I know that cheapo fake crab shit when I see it"). I if am the only one (or only one of a few) of that opinion, the restaurant's business will likely be unaffected. They can ignore me. If I am one of thousands, the restaurant has a problem on its hands and will need to make some changes or risk going out of business.

I see no difference when it is the radio business. If a radio station is not pleasing its listeners it not going to have many listeners. It is then up to the radio station to either change or go out of business. Do not confuse the demand that a DJ be removed from the air with the actual authority to carry it out. I can demand all day long, that doesn't mean I have the authority to carry it out. If the DJ in question is removed it will be his employers making the decision and exercising their authority... in response to the market place. The DJ will still be free to express his opinions on the proper corrective measures for potential teenage lesbians... he'll just have a smaller audience. Like wise, if the chef at the above mentioned restaurant is fired, he will still be free to make his crappy "crab" salad... he just wont be getting paid for it anymore.

There are social conventions that arise in any group. The questions is whether those conventions arise out of the interactions of individuals that comprise the group... or are imposed upon it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

I'm sorry but can you give me some examples of non right wing people talking about political correctness? I pointed out the meaning because it is so maligned and misunderstood. I'm not exactly sure but I dont think you get to decide what a word means when you dont like the actual meaning. I believe the Websters dictionary is the best source on the english language. It would get confusing if we all decided to have out own definitions of words wouldnt it? People on the liberal side understand it to be basic civility. It doesnt mean they all proctice it but damn oppossing the concept seems to be a conservative core beleif

quote:


LO fucking L! Brilliant...THIS!!! (but the abbreviated version )

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:


LO fucking L! Brilliant...THIS!!! (but the abbreviated version )

One of my pet peeves on any message board are people who take one thing you say, extrapolate it to absurd levels, and then go off on you over nonsense that has nothing to do with you or your views.

quote:

I understand that. But it's not a majority of private citizens, or a majority of their representatives. It's a minority trying to impose its views about what should be on the air. I don't like the Christian Right pulling that shit, and I don't like anybody else doing either. Birds of a feather, as far as I'm concerned. The only thing they differ on is what they want removed. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

I'm amazed that you guys seem to be making it about the right or left. I don't think either party is any more or less politically correct than the other. Nor does one or the other accuse the other of being so. Both bitch and complain about the other, blah blah blah. Some like using the phrase as a label, others don't.

I don't think the phrase is meant to be associated with one or the other party. Really, that is kinda absurd and shillish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

I'm amazed that you guys seem to be making it about the right or left. I don't think either party is any more or less politically correct than the other. Nor does one or the other accuse the other of being so. Both bitch and complain about the other, blah blah blah. Some like using the phrase as a label, others don't.

I don't think the phrase is meant to be associated with one or the other party. Really, that is kinda absurd and shillish.

I'm not sure what you think I'm making 'about the right or left'. But if it's the term 'political correctness', then, yes - that clearly does have a right/left angle to it. We might not want it that way, but that's how it's used, regardless.

BTW, the terms 'right' and 'left' don't have any necessary connection with political parties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
I should have been more clear. My post was about the phrase "political correctness", and my comments were directed at those who make it about the nebulous right v left, or repubs v dems. It was starting to sound like a shill party.

I don't understand where you're going with the right/left angles; seems that can only be half-baked in. The phrase has a definition outside of the right/left or political parties, so no amount of wrangling will change that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
I consider people who make claims that are opposite of fact dangerous because they parrot talking points instead of find facts. Case in point the comments on capitalism and private sector jobs in the Romeny thread. The fact is businesses have had record profits, have record cash stockpile, stock have performed well, private sector job growth is superior to 2001-2004 and he was claiming capitalism was in danger when in fact there is less govermrnt if measured by public sector employment than there was 3 yrs ago and unlike any year to yr measure under Bush

Lol. You are going to measure the influence of government by looking at public sector employment? Holy shit. That's a new line of crap. Very original. That's obviously true since government can't increase regulations without adding equal numbers of people.

And, before you parrot the public sector employment numbers, you had better look into them. The last time I checked (over 6 months ago, admittedly), the public sector was growing at the Federal level while the State and Local levels were dropping. I'll just assume you understand the implications. While the overall numbers of public sector employees was sliding, it was still increasing at the Federal level. That means that State and Local governments were losing people that much faster.

I'll do a check later and post the results.