cardboard adolescent

because otherwise we've got widespread social conflicts
that's why these laws were passed in the first place

SATCHMO

The last i knew, militant political correctness is more-or-less a product of ultra-liberalism than conservatism Well it is your first amendment right to do so, as for the radio, that kinda' falls under the FCC's jurisdiction.

Yeah, that's discrimination. If you can't wrap your head around why that's wrong, then I don't know. People do it everyday, and in many ways its justified. I mean if you're a minority and you go to a job interview with an unproffessional appearance and attitude, and you don't get hired, you could speculate all day as to whether or not there were racial implications, but people "pre-judge" regardless, but making decisions strictly on the basis of superficial appearances is ignorance plain and simple. Not quite what I would call a liberal trait.

The Unfan

Democrats aren't liberal, they just claim it to have a market which opposes that of the republicans. However, both parties are pretty much conservative.

Why does the FCC even exist in the first place? They serve no practical function and actually limit freedoms which have no possible way of being percieved as harmful.


But it is only subjectively wrong, and not objectively wrong. We are individuals and as individuals it should be up to us to determine what we like and dislike and for what reasons. It is rather dangerous to say the government's role is to attack such a basic freedom.

Neither am I.

So? Conflict isn't always a bad thing. It is a means to progression. If people are going to naturally stop being racist than they'll naturally stop being racist, if not than they shouldn't be forced to be accepting of anything. As long as people aren't actually hurting non-consenting parties than it shouldn't matter. Violence and theft should be illegal, but acting upon your own beliefs shouldn't. If I believe having attribute A makes you socially undesirable why should I have to associate with you?

SATCHMO

I said nothing about democrats, and your right, democrates maintain a more liberal facade and tend to represent "liberal issues" for the sake of their electoral weight, but I am talking about liberalism being the mother of political correctness. the thing is, if we want freedom for ourselves individually, it doesn't work if we have no regard for the freedom of other people collectively, and America takes this concept to an extreme. It's a good thing, It just happens have some ridiculous by-products. Like I said, you have the 1st amendment right to say whatever you want to, but people will react in kind. Example, when Don Imus made that "racial slur" and got fired from whatever company. That company was just protecting their image by canning him. He was within his legal rights. the point is, say whatever you want about "so-and-so" being a "such-and-such", but be prepared for reaction.

[MERIT]

These are all valid points (for the most part), but they could be directed at ANYONE, not just conservatives, so I'm not quite sure why you're addressing it to them in particular.

Umm....I'm not sure how much you know about politics .... but this is incorrect.

.
This sounds like something Joseph Stalin might say..

TheBig3

This is short-sighted. If any group is suppressive of honesty and free speech its the liberals.

The PC armies are more overbearing than conservatives.

What are you refering to specificlly?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

TheBig3

Yikes. The democrats are conservative? You must be so far left that no country seems liberal. Exactly what aren't they Liberal on, going on the assumption that there are ideas that are in fact liberal. (which there aren't)

If the FCC limits freedom, then don't listen to traditional radio. But what can't you do because of the FCC?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Barnard17

A small footnote, as I'm not going to get into the debate fully, but just to point out that this is a result of the confused use of terms stemming from popular media throwing around "liberal" and "conservative" as if they have meaning to specific (but generally unstated) groups. To say that an "ultra-liberal" would promote militant political correctness is incorrect if we follow true definitions of the terms. It would be more correct (though still highly inaccurate) to reference according to position on the left-right spectrum, in which case those that promote political correctness tend to be confused fence sitters in the centre.

The Unfan

Political correctness and forced diversity. Neither of which can be considered liberal by non-mainstream standards. Faux-liberal and pseudo-liberal would be good descriptions, maybe even quasi-liberal.

Yes, I am that far to the political left.

It isn't what I can't do personally, it is that my tax payer dollars are being used to hush people who did nothing criminal. It shouldn't ever be the government's role to prevent free expression. If a radio station doesn't want "foul content" than the station won't have it. If you're offended than turn the channel to something you want to hear. No government interaction is necesary, and our tax money being used to support the FCC is both economically poor and restrictive of "traditional radio" liberties. It wrongs the people in two ways. Not to mention the FCC were put in place, we didn't even vote them in. It should be up to us what we hear, not the government. Let the people have their say and quit wasting our money.



I'd be inclined to agree with Stalin if he ever did say that. Protesting is a form of conflict yet it doesn't actually harm anyone, debate/argument is a form of conflict (depending on context) but it doesn't harm anyone. If you can make a convincing enough point someone might change their stance, maybe not.

I get offended whenever someone mentions abortion and stem cell research being bad things. Do I believe those people should be harmed or killed? Not at all. Do I believe confronting them with the positive points of both might be a good thing? Most certainly, and I'll address it. I'll engage in a discussion, which might evolve into debate where in which arguments are made, but it is all in non-violent protest against their stance. See? Non-violent conflict that may sway someone's stance with no government interaction what so ever. If we are to live in a free country it is requisite that we can freely express our opinions without the government shooting us down on it.

TheBig3

You're creating terms and its nothing new. Christians who kill people "aren't real christians" and Republicans who tax and spend are "real conservatives" but they are.

PCness is a trademark of the ultra-idiot left. Learn your political spectrum, and what the sides mean. If you're going to come in here and try and dodge a bunch of realities by saying "this isn't something leftists do" then why even argue. Just tell us your statements are empirically true and that we aren't allowed to argue with them but you can't change widely accepted terms.

What makes you left exactly? You're coming off like some half-wit libertarian who things all the answers are simple deregulation. But you're not very left if you're looking for less government interaction, and you arne't very left if you're supporting a supply/demand model as heavily as you are...unless of course thats not a "true rightist" statement either.

The French Revolution is the basis for what left and right means. Left = more progressive and the right = more stasis policies.

If you're redrawing the lines for what is a liberal, then why don't you tell us what a conservative is because we all seem to have the same, wrong idea.

__________________
I've moved to a new address