Spears Taken By Captain Cook At Botany...
News1 min ago
The Fear Of Giving Offence Is Killing Democracy And Stifles Truth
Isn't this what many of us have been saying for a long time?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, //"identity politics". This is, essentially, the entirely reasonable idea that who you are shouldn't be determined entirely or principally by how society sees you, but rather by how you see yourself.//
Jim, Entirely reasonable? That makes no sense. How on earth do you expect other people to determine your perception of yourself?
//People are still free to say what they wish to, perhaps even freer than before.//
People who baulk against political correctness aren’t. That’s what the article is about.
Jim, Entirely reasonable? That makes no sense. How on earth do you expect other people to determine your perception of yourself?
//People are still free to say what they wish to, perhaps even freer than before.//
People who baulk against political correctness aren’t. That’s what the article is about.
"How on earth do you expect other people to determine your perception of yourself?"
I suppose it depends on the part of the perception in question, but I don't want to go too far into it. Suffice it to say that for many people, for many reasons, it remains a problem that what society thinks they are overrides what *they* think they are. Even the perception that this might be a problem makes it so. Only time will begin to change that.
But anyway. I think people who baulk against PC are freer than they give themselves credit for. Guess it depends on how exactly they baulk against it. And even then, freedom to say or to do something doesn't mean freedom from consequence. That's another distinction people seem to overlook for some reason.
I suppose it depends on the part of the perception in question, but I don't want to go too far into it. Suffice it to say that for many people, for many reasons, it remains a problem that what society thinks they are overrides what *they* think they are. Even the perception that this might be a problem makes it so. Only time will begin to change that.
But anyway. I think people who baulk against PC are freer than they give themselves credit for. Guess it depends on how exactly they baulk against it. And even then, freedom to say or to do something doesn't mean freedom from consequence. That's another distinction people seem to overlook for some reason.
Apart from the Club or the Bar, were one still has to speak in hushed tones, along with a little head revolving, we do have sites such as this where we are relatively free to voice our opinions.
But if anyone dares to do the same via the media, they face not only criticism or humiliation but could see their careers put at jeopardy.
Even such TV shows as Gogglebox which is supposed to show real families watching TV and making comments on the programmes is slanted towards the left and strictly PC.
But if anyone dares to do the same via the media, they face not only criticism or humiliation but could see their careers put at jeopardy.
Even such TV shows as Gogglebox which is supposed to show real families watching TV and making comments on the programmes is slanted towards the left and strictly PC.
Jim, that doesn’t answer the question. People in all walks of live perceive themselves in a way that others don’t. You can’t expect society to get inside your head.
//freedom to say or to do something doesn't mean freedom from consequence.//
That’s obvious! Hence the accusations of racism, bigotry, etc., often the consequence of speaking the truth.
//freedom to say or to do something doesn't mean freedom from consequence.//
That’s obvious! Hence the accusations of racism, bigotry, etc., often the consequence of speaking the truth.
Yes, Naomi, it is exactly what many have been saying for a long time - and have been accused of all sorts of things for saying it. Even my own children say 'Mum, you can't say that!'- well, yes, I can and do, but these days you have to consider carefully before you speak. At this rate we'll have to re-write 'Othello'! well, black man kills innocent white wife.... tut! Stereotyping!
Some people are so determined to preserve their right to cause offence wherever possible that they forget about their responsibility not to.
But anyway. Even in terms of that last sentence it shouldn't be an "obligation" to be polite. People have to be free to be as rude as they like. I just wish they wouldn't be. But some people do forget that freedom to offend, if you will, is something worth preserving.
But anyway. Even in terms of that last sentence it shouldn't be an "obligation" to be polite. People have to be free to be as rude as they like. I just wish they wouldn't be. But some people do forget that freedom to offend, if you will, is something worth preserving.
I don't see how it's contradictory. It's the difference between, say, something being not allowed, and something being wrong. Some things that are wrong are still allowed; some things that aren't allowed aren't wrong.
People should have the freedom, then, to cause offence if they so choose. Ideally, they should choose not to. Which, I would have thought, we can all agree with. If I can be excused one more awful cliche, isn't it just nicer to be nice?
People should have the freedom, then, to cause offence if they so choose. Ideally, they should choose not to. Which, I would have thought, we can all agree with. If I can be excused one more awful cliche, isn't it just nicer to be nice?
Well, you can be excessively nice too, I suppose. In general I think "the truth" is more easily stifled by people being too unconcerned with giving offence, rather than the other way round.
For example, if people who baulk against PC are less free now to speak their mind, it's worth remembering that in the past such people had way too much freedom -- who could say, do and think whatever they liked and woe betide anyone who dared challenge the orthodoxy. There's maybe a "conservation of freedom" thing going on here, in that in the past fewer people were more free, whereas now more people have shared the freedom around. On balance, I prefer the latter, although neither is ideal.
For example, if people who baulk against PC are less free now to speak their mind, it's worth remembering that in the past such people had way too much freedom -- who could say, do and think whatever they liked and woe betide anyone who dared challenge the orthodoxy. There's maybe a "conservation of freedom" thing going on here, in that in the past fewer people were more free, whereas now more people have shared the freedom around. On balance, I prefer the latter, although neither is ideal.
//Personally I prefer people who speak their mind. At least I know where I stand with them. //
some years ago i worked with a US railroad employee who lived in montgomery alabama (where MLK had his first ministry, home of Rosa Parks, etc). it's important i mention he was black, because he said he preferred living in alabama rather than new york (where he previously lived), because at least he knew those who reacted to him as a person in the south were being more truthful than those in the so-called enlightened north.
some years ago i worked with a US railroad employee who lived in montgomery alabama (where MLK had his first ministry, home of Rosa Parks, etc). it's important i mention he was black, because he said he preferred living in alabama rather than new york (where he previously lived), because at least he knew those who reacted to him as a person in the south were being more truthful than those in the so-called enlightened north.
Mushroom, I can believe that. It’s a good example.
Jim, people who are disingenuous with their ‘niceness’ don’t necessarily care about the recipient of that ‘niceness’ – even though that’s the impression they give. Very often they only care about the recipient’s perception of them. People who are ‘too rude’ aren’t usually concerned about how they are perceived and therefore you are more likely to get the truth from them.
Got to go out now. Back later.
Jim, people who are disingenuous with their ‘niceness’ don’t necessarily care about the recipient of that ‘niceness’ – even though that’s the impression they give. Very often they only care about the recipient’s perception of them. People who are ‘too rude’ aren’t usually concerned about how they are perceived and therefore you are more likely to get the truth from them.
Got to go out now. Back later.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.