Welcome to Gaia! ::

Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Alright so we had a sort of debate think in a class of mine and my teacher didn't like my paper so maybe you guys would like it better. I'll readdress certain issues using a footnote style so that I can make some points more clearly felt with and more easily debatable. And yeah i know my subscripts look silly as s**t. For those of you who have any interest the topic question was "has political correctness gone to far?"



The Deal With Political Correctness


Before all else it should be mentioned that the specific topic of "socially acceptable behavior" is quite an opinionated and controversial field which is much more than likely completely fruitless to get into. In all actuality I've recently come to the opinion that social fluctuations of any sort should not at all be considered stigma but this whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support and stands agains most modern science regarding that field. What can be stated pretty easily are the basic rights attributed to certain organizations. For instance, I can hardly see an appropriate counter argument to my claiming that it is a negation of terms for a government which has its basis in tenants consisting of a first amendment right guaranteeing freedom of thought as well as a separation of church and state1 to firstly have a hand in an education system which is enforced and further to have power in both media2 and acceptability of opinions3. That said I find nothing wrong with the concept of a healthy and untouched political correctness and media should be able to base its opinions on any reason it so chooses as it has been given those rights of exersizing free thought and perspective as previously stated. Thusly, my conclusion is this: any form of opinion and acceptance thereof in accord to pure business or societal preference is lawfully acceptable as long as not forcibly mandated, yet any organization funded or directly subservient to Government established indoctrination or censoring is simply an act of treason and should be dealt with on legal punishment of firstly exile and secondly a certain debt of the people's choosing.

1 Firstly it must be clear that I am speaking on the behalf of the United States of America and am not attempting any further arguments on a universal scale- Europeans and stuff can GTFO. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - This is according to a website that is .Gov and i think it's pretty much right. If you believe this fact is irrelevant than i will also present this statement from the Declaration of Independence which established the legitimacy of the USA sovereignty- "....--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"..... That said, why would a government that has decided to ignore its tenants for existence be any more sovereign over a untied states citizen than the previous British government. Why should I pay attention to someone who doesn't even pay attention to their own laws?

2 I must admit I'm too lazy to do much research but I'm pretty sure this is true. Quickly look up the funding into our prominent news sources and i doubt (and kind of hope so i don't link like an idiot) that it will be too far away from federal funding. If I'm wrong you can disregard this happening currently but I believe the concept still holds. Oh and duh, public schools should be illegal as thats the dumbest form of media ever. Explain to me how public schooling can possibly be (or at least as it is currently) fit into freedom of thought.

3 I don't know if this is reliable at all but i think it justifies the concept that gov has some control on "acceptable opinions" if you really want to get on my case about this then you're just dumb because I'm obviously going to have legal issues if i say something quite rude about blacks or something of the matter. Who gets the right to control our moral acceptivness especially when church and state are supposed to be separated.




TLDR For all you punks who don't like reading, Should Political correctness monitored by the gov be considered an act of treason. Don't make an argument that is dumb though.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

False Dichotomy
Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.
Yea but I'm also arguing that forced public schooling and gov media funding should be considered treason.
It isn't a long paper. Perhaps this is why the teacher found it objectionable?
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

False Dichotomy
Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.
Also I'm pretty sure hate speech is illegal.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Fermionic
It isn't a long paper. Perhaps this is why the teacher found it objectionable?
I had about an hour to write it and my handwriting is big in pencil. He specifically asked me on the paper, why are opinions invalid and he said to stop with the rhetoric and get to the point.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Fermionic
It isn't a long paper. Perhaps this is why the teacher found it objectionable?
Also did you like it?
Avgvsto
Fermionic
It isn't a long paper. Perhaps this is why the teacher found it objectionable?
I had about an hour to write it and my handwriting is big in pencil. He specifically asked me on the paper, why are opinions invalid and he said to stop with the rhetoric and get to the point.

In pencil? Are you not allowed to write in pen?

Avgvsto
Also did you like it?

I have a similar sentiment to your teacher's final point, though not as strongly, I feel.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Fermionic
Avgvsto
Fermionic
It isn't a long paper. Perhaps this is why the teacher found it objectionable?
I had about an hour to write it and my handwriting is big in pencil. He specifically asked me on the paper, why are opinions invalid and he said to stop with the rhetoric and get to the point.

In pencil? Are you not allowed to write in pen?
Pen's are for fruits.

Fermionic
Avgvsto
Also did you like it?

I have a similar sentiment to your teacher's final point, though not as strongly, I feel.

Which point?
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Fermionic]
I have a similar sentiment to your teacher's final point, though not as strongly, I
l6zhfeyo:0="Fermionic]
I have a similar sentiment to your teacher's final point, though not as strongly, I feel.
Wait if you mean the actual final point, I thought i was pretty clear and i don't think desiring to charge someone with treason could be any more clear of a stance.
Avgvsto


My opinion is largely dependent upon the level you are at.

How old are you?
Weretindere's avatar

Kawaii Glitch

11,400 Points
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Invisibility 100
That sounded like watching a local government program or debate where the person gets asked a question, the person goes into numerous detail about it, provides a snide comment about how everyone else can't provide an argument, and then finishes with me having a headache and the host asking, "Could you provide a straight answer?"

You basically just threw together an entire argument that bounces around itself and makes the claim that half of what you're saying, if proved to be against the claim, should be punished, whereas the other half, if proved to be for the claim, should go unscathed. What is "healthy and untouched" political correctness and by whose definition other than yours? Furthermore, how can political correctness ever be seen as being "healthy" by anything other than a claim, made by yourself, that states, "the whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support." If it's difficult to support the claim, then why make a medieval claim that those under a certain case should be "exiled"?
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Avgvsto
False Dichotomy
Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.
Yea but I'm also arguing that forced public schooling and gov media funding should be considered treason.
You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Weretindere

What is "healthy and untouched" political correctness and by whose definition other than yours? Furthermore, how can political correctness ever be seen as being "healthy" by anything other than a claim, made by yourself, that states, "the whole argument will not be addressed as it is an incredibly difficult case to support." If it's difficult to support the claim, then why make a medieval claim that those under a certain case should be "exiled"?
Legally people can have biases, states can not, therefore claiming that a state should have a bias should be treason as it corrupts an end. I am not skirting around the question, to me, people have the authority to hold a bias and businesses can half that authority as well but if that business is funded by the sate it must have absolutely no room to call something "hate speech" because it does not have that that authority. People are allowed to have opinions and bias's or political correctness, businesses are not allowed to be legally reprimanded for it.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

Posties
Avgvsto
False Dichotomy
Abandoning political correctness is political suicide in polls, but I'm unaware of any actual laws in place that restrict individuals into such things.
Yea but I'm also arguing that forced public schooling and gov media funding should be considered treason.
You can take that off the argument, public schooling is an integrated part of democracy.
No it's not especially not forced public schooling. If democratic society wants original ideals and freedom of thought, they can't have credentials for "appropriate thought", especially enforced appropriate thought.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games