Why I am against political correctness - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


Communities

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Why I am against political correctness

Debate Information

Here are my reasons why I am against political correctness:

  1. This is no more than a form of mechanical control that dictates how a person should behave in a decent way; this is disgusting! We do not need a government dictating to us how to behave like decent human beings. Political Correctness rests on nothing more than false pretenses, and this I hold the strongest reason as to why we should be against it. I am for human decency; a systematic form of control called 'political correctness' I am not!
  2. The terms 'political' and 'correct' are not analogous to one another, and nor does either need a modifier. 
  3. If not all, then most of the people that preach about 'political correctness' are not even the authority on what they preach; they just have the mere illusion of it. This is also the same for morality.
Zombieguy1987IANVSApplesauce






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3529 Pts   -  
    1. "Political correctness" refers to certain ethical norms in the society, not to something enforced by the government.
    2. "Correct" in this context can be understood as "decent". The question "What is the correct way to address your boss?" illustrates the meaning of "correct" here.
    3. Maybe, but hypocrisy of people in itself does nothing to the validity of their argument..

    "Political correctness" originally appeared as a concept in the context of international diplomatic relations: people wanted diplomacy to be conducted in a constructive, mutually respectful way. They wanted diplomats to get somewhere, rather than yell at each other endlessly. As such, it was deemed reasonable to expect diplomats to be polite, to respect each other's opinions, to not bring national distrust into the talks and so on.
    Later it was extended to politics in general: when two politicians discuss something, the voters want the discussion to be constructive, and cursing and yelling politicians, while fun to watch, would not be able to develop constructive policies easily.
    Finally, it "leaked" into social interaction as a whole: when you talk to someone, that someone does not want to hear what you think about their skin color, for example, and wants to hear what you think about their ideas instead. And if you think low of them, then the expectation is for you to express it in a calm and polite way, rather than curse at the person.

    At the same time, this concept, while reasonable in itself, has been expanded tremendously by certain social and political groups, which eventually led to its interpretation that advocated for censorship. That, obviously, is not reasonable. It is reasonable to expect, say, a Fascism advocate to be polite in expressing their opinion; it is not reasonable to silence them on the grounds of the opinion itself, however.
    This, in fact, contradicts the original idea of political correctness. Political correctness advocates aimed at facilitating controversial discussions, rather than silencing them. People wanted Hitler and Roosevelt to be able to talk about politics with smiles and handshakes; silencing such talks is the opposite of following that desire.

    I am not against political correctness, but I am against censorship, whether enforced by the state, or by free individuals themselves. As far as political correctness itself goes, I have no problem with it, but I also do not understand the extreme devotion to the idea some of its proponents demonstrate. If someone says something inappropriate, the world does not suddenly end. And, in fact, some level of inappropriation is healthy for debates, in my opinion. The world of politics would be much better off if people took the subjects a bit less seriously and introduced a certain amount of healthy humor and friendly mocking into it.
    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenAlofRIZeusAres42Applesauce
  • DeeDee 3338 Pts   -   edited April 2019

    P C here is a typical example of this nonsense ......B is for ‘born a man’ or ‘born a woman’

    Transgender campaigners condemn such phrases as inaccurate and offensive. Even ‘biologically male’ and ‘biologically female’ are deemed ‘problematic’ by the influential U.S. gay rights ‘media monitoring’ group GLAAD (which used to be called the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, because they ‘oversimplify’ the ‘complex subject’ of gender. We’re told the correct usage is to say an individual is ‘assigned’ or ‘designated’ male or female at birth.


    I’m an “assigned” man using this nonsensical reinterpretation of a biological fact 



    P C is a nonsense term what exactly does it mean?    Why is PC imposed on us if it’s about kindness and respect? We used to have a concept called manners , it worked from me and my family pretty well .I don’t need some deeply sensitive academic defining how I should address or interact with others and telling me how I should behave.

    Marc Jacobs got into a media scrap with these P C idiots because he gave white men dreadlocks as part of hairstyle demonstration /show the P C sensitive white people found this deeply offensive and racist , Jacobs parried by asking these finger wagging moralists “ what about black women who straighten their hair”?  the reply he got was “ that’s because of traditional racism and stereotyping by whites has made them attempt to fit in by adopting our styles “ 

    Its amusing these P C idiots attempt to say what’s correct and not and don’t find it deeply condescending and insulting to point out to the unenlightened populace what their latest P C buzz term is.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Applesauce

  • 1. "Political correctness" refers to certain ethical norms in the society, not to something enforced by the government.
    2. "Correct" in this context can be understood as "decent". The question "What is the correct way to address your boss?" illustrates the meaning of "correct" here.
    3. Maybe, but hypocrisy of people in itself does nothing to the validity of their argument..

    "Political correctness" originally appeared as a concept in the context of international diplomatic relations: people wanted diplomacy to be conducted in a constructive, mutually respectful way. They wanted diplomats to get somewhere, rather than yell at each other endlessly. As such, it was deemed reasonable to expect diplomats to be polite, to respect each other's opinions, to not bring national distrust into the talks and so on.
    Later it was extended to politics in general: when two politicians discuss something, the voters want the discussion to be constructive, and cursing and yelling politicians, while fun to watch, would not be able to develop constructive policies easily.
    Finally, it "leaked" into social interaction as a whole: when you talk to someone, that someone does not want to hear what you think about their skin color, for example, and wants to hear what you think about their ideas instead. And if you think low of them, then the expectation is for you to express it in a calm and polite way, rather than curse at the person.

    At the same time, this concept, while reasonable in itself, has been expanded tremendously by certain social and political groups, which eventually led to its interpretation that advocated for censorship. That, obviously, is not reasonable. It is reasonable to expect, say, a Fascism advocate to be polite in expressing their opinion; it is not reasonable to silence them on the grounds of the opinion itself, however.
    This, in fact, contradicts the original idea of political correctness. Political correctness advocates aimed at facilitating controversial discussions, rather than silencing them. People wanted Hitler and Roosevelt to be able to talk about politics with smiles and handshakes; silencing such talks is the opposite of following that desire.

    I am not against political correctness, but I am against censorship, whether enforced by the state, or by free individuals themselves. As far as political correctness itself goes, I have no problem with it, but I also do not understand the extreme devotion to the idea some of its proponents demonstrate. If someone says something inappropriate, the world does not suddenly end. And, in fact, some level of inappropriation is healthy for debates, in my opinion. The world of politics would be much better off if people took the subjects a bit less seriously and introduced a certain amount of healthy humor and friendly mocking into it.
    1. With regard to "Political correctness," there is actually a lot of subjectivity that surrounds it. What one person may think as being politically correct another may find as being politically incorrect. Anyway, regardless of the exact reference there are many examples of people that are decent and behave in decent ways because that is who they are; not through fear of sounding politically incorrect or upsetting someone.
    2. I do not think the terms "decent" and "correct" are synonymous to one another. "Decent" is more akin to emotive, ethical and moral terminology. Whereas "correct" is more akin to more objective and factual grounds. However, I do think we could get lost in semantics here. Personally, I just don't like thinking of "decent" and "correct" as the same thing.
    3. If the 3rd point you've made is in reference to my 3rd point then I'm not entirely sure I understand you. I'm not sure where the hypocrisy of the people came in my original post. What I said is "If not all, then most of the people that preach about 'political correctness' are not even the authority on what they preach; they just have the mere illusion of it. This is also the same for morality." Albeit this an opinion and probably a hasty generalization that I have to admit. Nonetheless, If someone has the illusion they are an expert of what they're talking about then that does indeed affect the validity of their argument as the person hasn't really got a clue what they're talking about.  
    Furthermore, one other thing I forgot to mention in my original post as to why I am against political correctness is due to the notion that the modern day definition of political correctness now means fairness and impartiality to all given parties and yet there are examples of fairness being applied to one party more so than the other; in this sense 'political correctness' is a contradiction in terms.  





  • IANVSIANVS 23 Pts   -  
    It’s useful to know how to act and how to speak in any given discourse community so as to not offend. You can always avoid those discourse communities if they bother you or if you’d rather just keep it real
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3529 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    1. Absolutely. That said, certain norms are fairly universal in a given society. For example, in the US you do not want to call black people "negros", as that term is perceived with extreme negativity. In Japan or South Korea, you do not want to talk to your elders without demonstrating excessive respect, because it is a part of their societal culture.
    I would not expect anyone to intentionally self-censor their speech in order to avoid accidentally saying something controversial, but there are some easy things we can do to make the discussion somewhat more civilised.

    2. I agree, and I personally am not a fan of this terminology either. But that is how language works: it does not always evolve according to the principles of logic and consistency. The word "school" has very different meanings in sentences "fish school" and "high school". The meaning of the word can change depending on the context, which is somewhat unfortunate in many cases.

    3. Fair enough. My point was that the argument must be judged based on its own merit, not based on who made it and why. A person that knows very little about the subject can accidentally make a very strong argument, while a person that knows a lot about it may accidentally make a serious mistake. 

    I do not think impartiality and fairness must be the necessary components of a civilised debate. Logic must, but not impartiality and fairness, because:
    a) I cannot be impartial when I support a certain position - I will necessarily be biased against other positions.
    b) It is very difficult to define what is "fair" in a discussion. Unless it is some sort of an organised debate event with predefined rules applied equally to all the participants, fairness is not something to be expected.
    When I argue with people, I do not pretend to be impartial or fair - but I do insist on applying the rules of logic. I can accept an argument I disagree with if it is logical, and I can even learn something from it and, possibly, have my own views evolved - but it is clear to me, at least, that my stance is not impartial in any way, and I do not see fairness as in any way meaningfully contributing to naturally occurring discussions.
  • BrandyKnightBrandyKnight 62 Pts   -  
     Political correctness was just invented as a cover for limiting free speech, open opinion and issue debate on the grounds that certain statements may hurt someone's feelings.  
    Dee
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2163 Pts   -  
    PC is in essence proto-Newspeak, it's so vague it can mean almost anything... So far though, it has not found its way into actual legislation, some groups do apply social pressure in hopes of enforcing it, the religious right uses it, the far left uses it, there are utterances that are not tolerated within certain circles, where one will be socially pressured out of the echo-chambers of those social circles... In that sense, it's fundamentally detrimental to social cohesion IMO, echo-chambers being philosophical asphyxiation devices... 
    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Is anyone for Political Correctness ?
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin


  • I do not think impartiality and fairness must be the necessary components of a civilised debate. Logic must, but not impartiality and fairness, because:
    a) I cannot be impartial when I support a certain position - I will necessarily be biased against other positions.
    b) It is very difficult to define what is "fair" in a discussion. Unless it is some sort of an organised debate event with predefined rules applied equally to all the participants, fairness is not something to be expected.
    When I argue with people, I do not pretend to be impartial or fair - but I do insist on applying the rules of logic. I can accept an argument I disagree with if it is logical, and I can even learn something from it and, possibly, have my own views evolved - but it is clear to me, at least, that my stance is not impartial in any way, and I do not see fairness as in any way meaningfully contributing to naturally occurring discussions.



    I agree with this but this debate is about political correctness; not about argumentation itself.




  • @MayCaesar ;
    I do not think impartiality and fairness must be the necessary components of a civilised debate. Logic must, but not impartiality and fairness, because:

    Impartiality is a specification of how to apply logic under a reparative condition by any number of people. 
    Basic principle a person holds themselves impartial by not placing their finger on a scale, and a person in basic principle must put their finger on a scale to be fare. which action does not require self-incrimination of the person overseeing a dispute?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch