Published: Saturday, June 14 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Political correctness started with the Right putting limits on language of which
they disapprove - words commonly referred to as swear words or curse words -
words usually related to body parts, body functions, or activities. It then expanded to the Left with objections to words that classify and
denigrate groups of people - usually based on an attribute or characteristic.
Those who object to political correctness usually don't object
to the limiting of curse words, but only to the limiting of words that denigrate
others. I wonder why that is?
Literally? Can you point to some examples?
If political correctness means you are not allowed to speak untruths, then I am
all for it. If it means social sanctions against a bigot, so be it. If it
means jail, not so much for it.Climate change deniers spread
untruth. Is it wrong to call them out? It is a verifiable fact. Gay marriage
will not cause heterosexual ones to fail. It is a fact. Is it wrong to call
out homophobes? Racism has scared this country for generations, yet is it wrong
to call out those who still use the "N" word, and make claims of racial
inferiority.Yet, has anyone been put in jail for being ignorant and
intolerant? Don't think so. What probably upsets those
against perceived political correctness is their inability to be socially
sanctioned for their prejudice and refusal to accept demonstrable fact.
I long for a nation of people with skin so thick that words and thoughts of
others cannot hurt.
Name one single example of someone who was arrested and charged for what they
There are many, the author probably included, who benefit from there being a
political correctness filter in place.
"It has infected us to the extent that real freedom of speech, religion and
press does not exist anymore. It has literally become a crime to say or print,
and almost to think, anything that might offend someone."========= Hyperbole of the Century! is all I can say.FYI -- As an American, and a Veteran --- This letter 100%, truly
"offended" me.Yet, here it is -- not only said, put
printed in MASS media. and published on the "WORLD Wide Web"!
Debate seems alive and well. Respect for the truth and the ability to find
common ground and sensible solutions? Not so much.
Political correctness is actually just courtesy. You stop calling people names
and start respecting their feelings. I don't understand why so many people
are upset about it.
The Lord gave us free agency...But that doesn't mean that
you're free from the consequences of what you say or do.
Frequently, those who complain the loudest about "political correctness"
are the ones who want to be free to denigrate, humiliate, and verbally abuse
members of one or more minority groups. Learning and using language that is
respectful to others is polite and part of civilized society. Those who claim it
infringes on their "First Amendment rights" frequently think the First
Amendment gives them carte blanche permission to act like jerks.Not
that long ago "Political Correct" was enforced with police dogs and fire
hoses. Black leaders started naming and shaming racism whenever it reared its
ugly head and started changing public opinion. Other groups have followed.
The range of human thought and speech is expansive. Some topics become socially
forbidden. We don't refer to women as property anymore, for example.In this process of sifting topics, objections arise about the process,
for good reason.This isn't limited to any political
orientation. Pro-gun activists have bullied two gun shop owners into not
offering Smart Guns, via death threats. Are death threats an
acceptable form of free speech? Do those railing against "political
correctness" also condemn this purification of thought on the Right?
A good example of how PC is affecting society could be illustrated by comparing
the freedoms of speech people felt that they had to comment on Tim Tebow vs. the
same freedoms they feel to comment on Michael Sam. Technically there should be
no difference. However, obviously there is.
Geez. Does it make you feel better to demonstrate bigotry with your speech or
are you a better man by treating others how you would like to be treated? As has
been so accurately stated in previous comments, no government agency has ever
knocked on your door because you used a racial epitaph but I'll bet even
the DNews would censor you if you used it here and I would expect others would
call you out if you feel the need to do so. It has been said "Privilege is
when you think something is not a problem because it's not a problem to you
If political correctness means you are not allowed to speak untruths, then I am
all for it. If it means social sanctions against a bigot, so be it. If it means
jail, not so much for it.Climate change alarmists spread untruth. Is
it wrong to call them out? It is a verifiable fact. Gay marriage will harm
society systemically. It is a fact. Is it wrong to call out promoters of gay
marriage? Anti-religious sentiment has scared this country for generations, yet
is it wrong to call out those who still denigrate Christians, and make claims of
intellectual inferiority.----See how easy that was? It
cuts both ways. It would be better if everyone stopped to trying to
"cut" others and worked toward finding common ground. That's a bit
harder, but worth the effort.
Everyone seems to get the part about the Constitutional protection to guarantee
your right to say what you will. What most miss is that I have the right to
disagree with you and bring social pressure to bear to force you to change your
mind. The best recent example is business related - Chick-fil-A. The owners have
certain beliefs about gay people and they expressed them publicly. Both people
who agreed and disagreed spoke up and affected the sales of their food.
Recently the owners of the business admitted that it was a mistake to involve
their business in what was really a matter of personal belief. They can say what
they want, but need to be prepared for some consumers to voice their opinion by
eating more burgers.
Missouri, Constitutional Freedom of Speech means there will be no
governmental reprisals for expressing opinions. Was someone arrested for
supporting Tim Tebow or Michael Sam? Was someone fined by the State for
expressing a personal opinion? I didn't think so.
@Missouri loves BYU 10:56 a.m. June 14, 2014 A good example of how
PC is affecting society could be illustrated by comparing the freedoms of speech
people felt that they had to comment on Tim Tebow vs. the same freedoms they
feel to comment on Michael Sam. Technically there should be no difference.
However, obviously there is.--------------------------In
fact there was no difference. People were perfectly able to speak about Tim
Tebow and they did. People were perfectly able to speak about Michael Sam and
they did. Nobody either personally or by governmental action tried to restrain
their right or ability to comment. In both cases people were free to respond
(both favorably and adversely) to the comments that were made and they did.
People were free to either support oppose those who commented and they did.People have every right to comment. They do not have the right to
control the response that is made to the comments. That is true in every case.
Freedom of speech and the right to speak is intact and has not been impaired.
LDS Liberal, great post, as usual.And always, thank you for your
actual service! Many Utahns talk about serving the country and support our
troops but never do! You actually did serve our country and protected my
freedom. Thank you
@ Furry...I don't recall any players being fined for making
adverse comments about Tim Tebow regarding either his football skills or his
personal life. The same does not hold true for players expressing views about
Michael Sam. Why would fines be levied in one situation and not the other?
What would create the difference?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments