View Single Post
Old 03-11-2009, 07:06 PM   #77
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
What are you talking about? I don't see how this relates to Yar-El's (flawed and erroneous) point that political correctness = limiting freedom of speech.
Well maybe it doesn't connect. Not sure how applicable this is to today...I guess this is recollection of history, then. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with free speech on some level or another, though. How it could be limited by authority in some sense.

If I'm not mistaken, the way it (PC) was first implemented was as policy to prevent getting too specific about anyone or anything because it might be distasteful and offensive. I.E. about an idividual, to that individual or a certain group thereof (be it associated or NOT with individual in question). This got Stalin some major favor and thumbs up on his way into office as it expedited debate in a seemingly formal manner...

Soon enough though, people got the idea that certain distasteful/offensive things said equal hate speech, even if under specific examination it wasn't.
Or perhaps if you just speak out of turn and "offend" someone.
Maybe it isn't to that point yet, but, if (well intentioned) rules came down because of this in a much more intrusive way, it might.
Put another way, it can be the building blocks for dictatorship. "No speaking out of turn" as it were.

Whether or not we are in jeopardy of that happening today with the government, I would have to examine closer on all levels of free speech in order to say for sure. I guess it would help to imagine something general in modern times as indicators.
Bullying in the workplace for example:

BECAUSE I SAID SO: discouraging clarification when you ask why-- Pretty self evident I'd think. Not just a bad parenting tactic either. Usually followed up with threats or what have you. You aren't stopped from asking, however you are discouraged from it for fear of retribution by authorities applicable.

Y'all shut up now (for lack of better term): perhaps you witnessed an injustice to a coworker. Caught up in the blame game, he/she is about to get the grill, and you wish to tell the higher-ups the truth to avoid further miscarriage. (perhaps your immediate boss again, though not always mind you) In order to do that, though, you must speak out of turn and make yourself look bad on the formality side of things. The formality is where PC comes in. Especially if whatever establishment you work for is total formality nazi-ville. In some cases the higher-ups catch on and want to hear you out. Unfortunately, most of the time, higher-ups are inclined to *not* believe you since either
a>You have "offended" them. You are out of order. How dare you?! and/or
b>they have known your boss longer.
The establishment can now (albeit, bloatedly) claim you are insubordinate and willfully disruptive to the work environment. Your coworker still gets punished or canned, and you now have painted a target on your head. You weren't stopped from it, just punished for it.

Just some examples of how speech *could* be limited. I know this is only workplace. Still, I have a hard time believing such venom can't seep elsewhere. After all it is dealing with people. So it does need to be watched carefully.

The case (I think) that is trying to be made here:
--we ought to examine what hate speech is a bit closer,
--we need to be wary of controls to specific outlets of free speech even if those outlets are something we disagree on or dislike immensely as such rulings can backfire drastically
--if severe rulings are made against people just for something they said, it ought to raise eyebrows

No, you won't because this is neither the topic nor the forum to do it in.
Okay, then I won't. My bad.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: