DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Time to end political correctness

[quote=PerfectSpiral]I'm glad we have the social media to expose people for what they really are. Yes the good ole days of hiding after being a total a-hole are long gone... thank god.

The same thing is happening with religion, where people have this mistaken idea that the Constitution calls for freedom from things they don't like ..... like religious expression, speech, and so on .... rather than protecting those very expressions as necessary to the growth and freedom of our society.

Too many people seem to think that the Constitution protects us from things ..... whereas it really protects our rights to do things.

Guaranteeing freedom FROM religion is exactly what it does and that freedom does not in any way imaginable attack religions.

People rightfully speak out against any so called religion that demands laws to conform to their beliefs.

The consistent whine about religious persecution is a lie and a different tactic to achieve the goal of control.

It should stop.

I was talking to pit not you 40

What if it's not what they really are? What if it's taken completely out of context? What if it's manipulated to make a point? What if they were just having a bad day or were having an extremely emotional moment or a momentary lack of discretion?

Do you have an example of somebody that this happened to?

That is absolutely incorrect.

Do you know why that particular ideal made it into the Bill of Rights? Because the founders came from England, where all religious expression except that by the Church of England was oppressed. Many, if not most of the people who came to the colonies from England did so because they wanted to be able to freely pursue their religious beliefs, and to be free to express those beliefs publicly, not to escape the religious expressions of others.

As far as people "rightly speak out against any so called religion that demands laws to conform to their beliefs", that is bunk too.

We have laws against theft, murder, libel, slander, and lying about a person under oath that are directly reflective of Christian beliefs. I suppose that if we did not have such laws, and a Christian proposed them, that you would oppose them because of their "religious connections"? If a Christian lawmaker had said "We need this law against murder, because it is the plan of our God, Lord, and maker that we not murder one another for no reason.", would you then have stood in opposition to such a law?

How many of our laws have you researched to find their beginnings? How many had a religious aspect and/or connection somewhere in their backgrounds?

You seem to think that the religious should have to leave their religious beliefs at the curb before they enter into any "polite" public conversation, but that is not what the founders wanted.

I find it ironic that people seem to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" was to protect government from religion, when, in fact, it was to protect religion from government. The Baptists to whom he wrote didn't want to be prohibited from expressing their religious beliefs publicly ...... they wanted to be protected from oppression of those rights. Basically, they wanted to be protected from being legislated into obscurity. (which seems to be the very thing that many people want to do to religions today) Jefferson assured them that this would not be the case, because, "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts" could not restrict their right to religious expression.

You also said this: "People rightfully speak out against any so called religion that demands laws to conform to their beliefs." What is the difference between my beliefs, which have a religious basis, and your beliefs which do not? Are you saying that your non-religious beliefs are the only ones that can be considered for laws and public policies? What an "open minded" view .... where only your ideals can be considered for public consumption. I suppose that would make it far easier to establish your particular ideals as matters of national and local law, while at the same time, barring anyone who uses any religious foundation for their arguments for or against a law. That is really convenient.

We all have the rights to our beliefs and morals. I have the right to speak as to the moral expressions of the country today, and to use my religion as a foundation or background for my statements, because the Constitution allows me to do so. I also have the right to do so, Constitutionally, because you do not have the right to, in any legislative way, restrict the free expression of my religious beliefs. As far as I know, Jefferson never once said, in any of his writings, that public officials must not express their religious beliefs publicly. He never once said that public officials must not use their religious beliefs in creating laws. He merely said that we must not use our religion as a "master religion", and restrict the rights of others as a result. We all have the right to pursue laws that reflect our beliefs, and we do not have to filter out those which are somehow based on a religious belief. If you have such a writing or matter of law that Jefferson championed that says otherwise, please post it.

I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree with it.

I have no problem being a rude jack ass. I just know the difference between that and political correctness.

Anybody can be what they want to be. They should just have the guts to call it what it is.

Is that more your speed?

jc

Do you have an example of somebody that this happened to?

We have laws against theft, murder, libel, slander, and lying about a person under oath that are directly reflective of Christian beliefs. I suppose that if we did not have such laws, and a Christian proposed them, that you would oppose them because of their "religious connections"? If a Christian lawmaker had said "We need this law against murder, because it is the plan of our God, Lord, and maker that we not murder one another for no reason.", would you then have stood in opposition to such a law?

No, because those laws make sense even if you strip the faith-based equation of the argument away. I can make a completely logical and secular argument for why those things should be illegal. But when it comes to things like homosexual marriage or rights, if you strip away the faith-based part of the equation, there is no argument to be made. I think there's nothing wrong at all with someone saying "my faith informs my opinion, and my faith dicates "...". But once you say "the law should be this, because my faith says so", then you're treading dangerous waters.

Could someone explain to me how "Trigger Warnings" are tools against free speech?

r u telling me that if god didn't tell us murder was wrong then it would still be wrong?

Do you have an example of somebody that this happened to?

I'm on a Cleveland Browns message board where someone is defending One Direction...

Not that my comment is actually defending One Direction, more this guys innocuous off-the-cuff comment being called homophobic.... however, I have nothing against One Direction... in fact their song "What Makes You Beautiful" is on my phone, right between Pink and P. Diddy.

Not that my comment is actually defending One Direction, more this guys innocuous off-the-cuff comment being called homophobic.... however, I have nothing against One Direction... in fact their song "What Makes You Beautiful" is on my phone, right between Pink and P. Diddy.

I'm sure his 15 million pound net worth was really affected because a few people called out his comments on twitter. lmao

In the normal way I don't think they are against free speech, because you aren't preventing someone from reading something, you are putting a disclaimer at the top. And it's *intention* is that if someone had say, an experience with rape, that you would warn them and they wouldn't have a negative response to your subject matter. Where it fails is that trigger warnings TRIGGER ANYWAY. If I put at the top of my paper "Trigger Warning: Graphic depictions of rape", then I already triggered the negative emotional response. I just denied you the ability to get upset at me for it. It's purely a CYA mechanism.

Now verbal trigger warnings do silence debate and are tools against polite discourse. I had a discussion with someone over healthy eating, and they brought up that there is no link to how much a person eats and their weight. That it's all genetics or outside factors that determine if someone is overweight, not eating 2000kCal vs 10000kCal. I said this was not only a ludicrous idea denied by scores of scientific studies, but also damaging to individuals who believe this and shorten their lives. No sooner than I said that, this person yelled "TRIGGER WARNING!" because I said something that ran counter to their beliefs. It was a tool to silence debate, and it worked. Rather than continue the discussion I left and decided not to talk to that person anymore

Technically these university trigger warnings don't restrict free speech, because free speech is granted by the state. Where it does get muddy though, is that many of these universities are publicly funded. Should they hold to state regulations and encourage freedom of speech? Secondly, many of these students will become our future leaders. Is it wise to raise them in an environment that teaches it is better to not be offended than it is to have vigorous debate and discourse? Sometimes the byproduct of debate is negative emotional responses. Does that mean we should not debate?

that was meant for pit sorry erik I hit wrongone

that was meant for pit sorry erik I hit wrongone

I just think it's a silly example.

Perhaps but it's the first one that came to mind of what I've read recently. It also caused me to pause and wonder if I really wanted a poster of a potential homophobe on my wall.

I really don't know what you mean. I've never experienced your second situation, but I do attend a college and all of my classes have some sort of trigger warning (English/Law classes) and I've still never heard of the second.

I've had a few folks (mostly on reddit) claim I'm triggering them, to try and make me look like a jerk. The real life one was a "Healthy at every size" advocate who concerned me because that belief can be damaging to others looking for validation to being overweight or obese. Just because I think that eating 10000kCal a day is bad for your health doesn't mean I'm fat shaming.

I think it's important we aren't jerks to people. If someone says they are being affected by rape scenes or violent subject matter I think we should listen to them. But some are now using it to mean "If you don't agree with me, that's triggering me, and you have to stop." This goes against the idea of the trigger warning in the first place.

Oh, yeah, well... I've never experienced that problem because reddit. But, I'm pretty much this blunt on the internet flat out. But if someone were to say I was triggering them by providing facts, then I would probably become more hostile. Anyway, that's funny. Fat shaming should also be a thing for like morbidly obese people and obese people. As well as good, real-love and support.

gage, have you read Caitlin Flanagan's piece on "P.C." in The Atlantic or seen her on the talk show circuit? She refers to "micro-aggressions", and what you're saying sounds somewhat similar to that notion. She takes it further than its initial definition, essentially arguing that the more accepting or tolerant we become, the more people seek out ways to be offended.

My understanding of micro-aggressions is when people make offhanded stereotypes or comments that reinforce a stereotype. The most common encounter is white people vs people of color. Saying things like "what do you mean you don't play basketball?" to a black person, or asking an asian person to help you with your math homework because "they are good at that."