Study: Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

[Captain Davis]

That's what many of the PC left feel as well. You have the right to say racist/sexist/homophobic things but other people have the right to give you shit over it.

That’s fine, but creating laws such as “hate speech” is bullshit.

Also, disagreeing doesn’t mean rioting, destroying private property or physical violence.

I’m fine with verbal or written discourse, but destruction of property or violence is not acceptable.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I was mainly talking about a nationalist sentiment's ability to stifle conversation and political debate in the same way that PC word policing can.

I wasn't really impugning the merits of having a nation state, or trying to paint a picture that only Americans die or kill for their country.

Yeah, so I think the word you're looking might be patriotism, but nationalism will do as a synonym in a pinch. Outside of @Kafir-kun 's example of one girl being suspended for kneeling for the anthem, which I do not see as a standard of enforcement, exactly how do you see patriotic speech being enforced? It's quite legal to burn a US flag for instance. And plenty of professional athletes kneel for the anthem and get paid millions. No doubt a lot of people will argue with you, but you won't get kicked off of Twitter or Facebook or lose your show on TV for breaking any unwritten speech patriotic codes.

The problem with radical pc progressives, other than that they are so often wrong, is the extent to which they use selective hiring and enforcable rules and laws to make sure everyone complies with their opinions.

 

[Gunny]

What makes you say that?

 

[Islam Imamate]

That’s fine, but creating laws such as “hate speech” is bullshit.

Also, disagreeing doesn’t mean rioting, destroying private property or physical violence.

I’m fine with verbal or written discourse, but destruction of property or violence is not acceptable.

Verbal and written disagreement also includes petitioning one's employer to get the person fired though. Personally not a fan of that kind of thing myself but of course it remains legal and should.

Yeah, so I think the word you're looking might be patriotism, but nationalism will do as a synonym in a pinch. Outside of @Kafir-kun 's example of one girl being suspended for kneeling for the anthem, which I do not see as a standard of enforcement, exactly how do you see patriotic speech being enforced? It's quite legal to burn a US flag for instance. And plenty of professional athletes kneel for the anthem and get paid millions. No doubt a lot of people will argue with you, but you won't get kicked off of Twitter or Facebook or lose your show on TV for breaking any unwritten speech patriotic codes.

The problem with radical pc progressives, other than that they are so often wrong, is the extent to which they use selective hiring and enforcable rules and laws to make sure everyone complies with their opinions.

After 9/11 there was a huge upswing in patriotic fervor that most notably hurt the Dixie Chicks who were blacklisted and boycotted hard after criticizing the Iraq War.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Gonna explain yourself or what?

 

[curryjunkie]

Oh, so you're capable of discerning who is, and who is not a christian, are you? Pray tell my humility, for I be on a mission for God.

isnt he just adorable? only his own particular brand of jeebus is right, everyone else is wrong....

 

[franklinstower]

I think It would be more unkind to go along with the falsehoods of the transgender issue or the gay issue and never tell them the truth.

This has nothing to do with the more general question I asked.

 

[Ripskater]

This has nothing to do with the more general question I asked.

It's just one example of your general question

 

[franklinstower]

I don't understand your question in this context. I'm not arguing about what forms of kindness universities may or may not require, only that progressive pc has an insatiable appetite for making such requirements.

I am not looking for a way to disagree with you FYI.

I guess i am just wondering where and in what ways you draw the line with institutions being able to regulate conduct and speech.

If it's too vague no worries I am asking a pretty broad question.

 

[curryjunkie]

I am not looking for a way to disagree with you FYI.

I guess i am just wondering where and in what ways you draw the line with institutions being able to regulate conduct and speech.

If it's too vague no worries I am asking a pretty broad question.

hes fine as long as its his particular institution, otherwise....freedum!

 

[Ripskater]

I am not looking for a way to disagree with you FYI.

I guess i am just wondering where and in what ways you draw the line with institutions being able to regulate conduct and speech.

If it's too vague no worries I am asking a pretty broad question.

At universities, you'd at least like for it to be allowed to speak and learn truth. If you ban the truth, like my example of universities banning the truth about transgender, then why even have a university? It's just a place to indoctrinate kids with false ideas, and ban the speech of truth in some instances.

Jordan Peterson has been battling this in Canada. And he is a liberal.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Verbal and written disagreement also includes petitioning one's employer to get the person fired though. Personally not a fan of that kind of thing myself but of course it remains legal and should.

After 9/11 there was a huge upswing in patriotic fervor that most notably hurt the Dixie Chicks who were blacklisted and boycotted hard after criticizing the Iraq War.

Blacklisted? Lol? They've cut an album or two since the dust up in 2003 and have had at least three successful tours, including touring with the Eagles, easily one of the most popular bands in history.

I think Kaepernick has a much better claim on being blacklisted, because although he's been able to parlay the controversy surrounding himself into a lucrative Nike contract, it effectively ended his NFL career. Kap's days as a premiere QB were well behind him, but he'd have been able to ride the bench or bounce around teams like the Browns or Dolphins for several more years.

Also, when entertainers make controversial political stances part of their entertainment, it isn't abnormal for those views to then be judged by their audience. I think it would be a much greater problem if the Dixie Chicks were boycotted by a large part of their audience for political views they privately held, or publicly held in a context separate from their entertainment. In the same way, I'd b bothered if NFL fans punished Kap for his political views expressed on Twitter or wherever, but once he made his protest a part of the fans' game day experience he invited their opinion on those views. I think individual NFL teams rightly considered Kapernick's controversy to be not worth his diminishing skills, though if collusion could be shown in a group decision not to hire him, I think they should be forced to pay him damages.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

If Trump has done one thing right whether you support him or not (I do not), it's that he exposed the media.

The media basically cost Hillary the election because everyone thought she had a 99% chance of winning. Most people didn't even bother voting. Now, the media loves to focus on the most outrageous and loudest voices. You get celebrities and extremists on both sides screaming on social media about insane things and the media portrays it as if everyone feels that way.

I think in reality, mostly Americans are anti-PC and towards the center on most issues. It's just the most reasonable and rational point of view. You can be center-right or center-left depending on what part of the country you are from but I really don't think most people are on the extreme right or left as the media wants you to believe. The media is all about divide and conquer and every time you see "conservative " and "liberal" thrown around like slurs, it's because people think they are fighting against the extreme versions of both sides when I think if there was civil discourse, people would be shocked at how much they agree with each other.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I am not looking for a way to disagree with you FYI.

I guess i am just wondering where and in what ways you draw the line with institutions being able to regulate conduct and speech.

If it's too vague no worries I am asking a pretty broad question.

I think institutions should be allowed to regulate conduct and speech but only in limited contexts. I think a university should have every right to regulate conduct in the classroom, but policing speech outside of that is wrong imo. One of the reasons campus speech codes are so egregious is not only that they are so heavily politically biased but because almost every part of one's life for four years can be policed if you live on campus.

I think churches should be allowed to regulate speech during their church service. I think libraries should be allowed to ask people to be quiet within the library itself, but not in the parking lot. I think most jobs should not be allowed to punish employees for non-work related opinions expressed outside of work. So if you work for a guy who is a Trumpista, he shouldn't be able to fire you or punish you as an employee for having a Hillary bumper sticker.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Blacklisted? Lol? They've cut an album or two since the dust up in 2003 and have had at least three successful tours, including touring with the Eagles, easily one of the most popular bands in history.

I think Kaepernick has a much better claim on being blacklisted, because although he's been able to parlay the controversy surrounding himself into a lucrative Nike contract, it effectively ended his NFL career. Kap's days as a premiere QB were well behind him, but he'd have been able to ride the bench or bounce around teams like the Browns or Dolphins for several more years.

Also, when entertainers make controversial political stances part of their entertainment, it isn't abnormal for those views to then be judged by their audience. I think it would be a much greater problem if the Dixie Chicks were boycotted by a large part of their audience for political views they privately held, or publicly held in a context separate from their entertainment. In the same way, I'd b bothered if NFL fans punished Kap for his political views expressed on Twitter or wherever, but once he made his protest a part of the fans' game day experience he invited their opinion on those views. I think individual NFL teams rightly considered Kapernick's controversy to be not worth his diminishing skills, though if collusion could be shown in a group decision not to hire him, I think they should be forced to pay him damages.

Sure since 2003 they've been able to perform but that's also the case for people who got targeted by the PC mob. For instance, Louis CK may have lost his show but he did return to stand up.

 

[Gunny]

Gonna explain yourself or what?

TBH I was trying to decide if you were trolling me. This is such a softball that it seems like you were trying to make me waste a bunch of time typing a response on something I think everyone could/should understand. I’ll just share this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.va...nton-monica-lewinsky-cbs-interview-me-too/amp

And if that’s not enough I can spam you with dozens of columns from various media outlets that all get at why any earnestly strident #metoo progressive would have nothing to do with Hillary.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Sure since 2003 they've been able to perform but that's also the case for people who got targeted by the PC mob. For instance, Louis CK may have lost his show but he did return to stand up.

I'm not sure I see how Louis CK's situation is an analogue to the Dixie Chicks.

 

[franklinstower]

I think institutions should be allowed to regulate conduct and speech but only in limited contexts. I think a university should have every right to regulate conduct in the classroom, but policing speech outside of that is wrong imo. One of the reasons campus speech codes are so egregious is not only that they are so heavily politically biased but because almost every part of one's life for four years can be policed if you live on campus.

I think churches should be allowed to regulate speech during their church service. I think libraries should be allowed to ask people to be quiet within the library itself, but not in the parking lot. I think most jobs should not be allowed to punish employees for non-work related opinions expressed outside of work. So if you work for a guy who is a Trumpista, he shouldn't be able to fire you or punish you as an employee for having a Hillary bumper sticker.

Ok. That is exactly the info I was looking for. Thanks man.

 

[franklinstower]

At universities, you'd at least like for it to be allowed to speak and learn truth. If you ban the truth, like my example of universities banning the truth about transgender, then why even have a university? It's just a place to indoctrinate kids with false ideas, and ban the speech of truth in some instances.

Jordan Peterson has been battling this in Canada. And he is a liberal.

I understand you have a position on this particular point. I was looking for, and got, the more principled explanation from the other dude I asked the question of. My question was a little out of context with the discussion at hand so I can see why the confusion.

 

[evansusmc2]

The US is by far not divided on the PC culture BS. Its just that the small amount of crazies on the left that thump the PC narrative so loud, it makes it SEEM like there are so many.