The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Has Political Correctness gone too far?in Politics

Zombieguy1987

I think it has

anonymousdebater

Thesaurus:*

Political Correctness
Synonym- Censorship
Antonym- Free Speech

*Not an actual thesaurus

Oppolzer

Absolutely. It’s developed into this level of seriousness in which mere curiosity, proper utilization of language, and stating facts are regarded as offensive and derogatory. Political correctness has especially gone too far in matters of race.

For example, some news stations will intentionally avoid reporting the race of a suspected criminal if that person is anything other than white. Also, often headlines on T.V. will include the race and gender of someone who is in danger if they’re white. Although, if they’re not white, they’ll only state their gender.

The race of a suspect is vital when it comes to prosecution. Describing a suspect without their race is like describing someone without stating their gender. Both are significant pieces of information. Therefore, when the media leaves that information out, it shows how far they’re willing to go regarding political correctness. 

John_C_87

@Zombieguy1987 ;

Political correctness, do you mean has the movement way from united state constitutional principle for the common defense of the general welfare gone past a point of legal impartiality?

John_C_87

@anonymousdebater ;


Much of the language used is not a Free-speech issue as the freedom of speech is often used as a short explanation for a First Amendment quotation. The use of many slang words becomes a method to how grievance is filed.

MayCaesar

I see it as simply having changed its target. In the past political correctness mostly applied to various traditional values, such as criticism of religion or government. Nowadays on the West it applies rather to people's sensitivities and insecurities: rather than "You are a blasphemer/traitor!", it is now "You have offended someone!" The essence - people's desire to control what others do and say - is still the same.

I prefer it this way, however. It is better when I can speak my mind and only be verbally attacked in response - than prosecuted, as it was in the past, and as it still is in the vast majority of countries. In China criticism of communism will get you imprisoned for a very long time; in the US, offending someone based on race, at worst, will initiate a public hate campaign against you. Some Western countries do punish people for being overly politically incorrect, but in the majority of them it is merely individual excesses of the system of justice, rather than a systematic effect.

At its origin, political correctness arose as a way to promote a productive dialogue despite possible disagreements between the parties. For example, the US government and the Chinese government are at an impasse - and political correctness is tasked to assure that they can still perform civilized negotiations, rather than bark at each other and wage wars. A good concept in itself, it can be easily twisted by those using it to cover for their individual shortcomings into an abomination which we see everywhere.

Civilized discussion in the face of strong disagreements is important. Censorship is malicious. Political correctness tries to act as the middle ground - but, in all fairness, there can be no middle ground. Either speech is censored (whether by law, or by public pressure), or it is not. There is no in between.

YeshuaRedeemed

And both parties are guilty in some way.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar ;

Neither political correctness, nor justice is a united state in a general welfare by definition of truth, and whole truth. In an example of axiom created by use of problem creation, or its resolution by principle to problem solving as a basic understanding. Censorship can only be performed when any claim of amendment to a United State Constitution separation never takes place to begin with, is not upheld, or the separation is taken out of context by the union to be held by both parties agreed upon by constitutional united state. The agreement made prior is censorships happens and the burden is then shared as a general welfare to the public.

United state, we hold these truths to be self-evident, the truth is self-evident to be connected to the whole truth by explanation made, axiom. Be it rational, or irrational. The argument of Freedom of Speech is bound by the meaning of the word free which is set to have. One: no self-value, Two: no applied cost. Otherwise the topic is then grievance and not free in any way which is described in an official order of separation to be followed in writing.

Censorship  –  Versus -  Due process of constitutional separation. A choice to place oneself inside a direction of judicial separation in resolution of public grievance mandates the censorship as part of the process as a whole truth, the truth to protect the general welfare. If it is not self-imposed it can be done by actions of governing legislation as oversight regulation to independence.

Sounds complex but is much easier to perform.

SilverishGoldNova

Ha. Ha. Ha, Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha