Politically correct

[Guest]

This morning on Morning Joe which airs on MSNBC, two authors of a book were interviewed and the subject matter seems a great fit for this forum and also life in general. The title of the book is "END OF DISCUSSION".

It speaks to the current and really new theme of what they call "Outrage Industry".

It was interesting to see both Liberal and Conservative members of the panel on the tv show agree wholeheartedly with what these authors have penned.

This is from Tucson newspaper discussing the book...

"Their new book, “End of Discussion,” is about the culture rather than the law of free speech. They take aim at what they call the “outrage industry,” which uses exaggerated claims of offense to shut down debate.

Many of the examples Ham and Benson cite are well-known: the defenestration of Brendan Eich as chief executive officer of Mozilla for refusing to profess support for same-sex marriage; the disinvitation of commencement speakers for violating arcane campus orthodoxies; the firing of liberal pundit Juan Williams from NPR for admitting while on Fox News that he “gets nervous” when he sees people “in Muslim garb.”

Other stories they recount didn’t make national news. They mention a disc jockey at a North Carolina bar who was told not to return to work after playing the song “Blurred Lines,” which a patron said might be a “trigger” for victims of sexual assault.

What typically gets forgotten in these incidents is a sense of proportion. Ham and Benson acknowledge that there’s a reasonable debate to be had about that song. What’s unreasonable is making someone lose his paycheck over playing it.

http://tucson.com/ap/commentary/outrage-industry-is-making-land-of-the-free-intolerant/article_865d5aa3-6372-50e5-8b48-f6d71b4a1189.html

From my own personal standpoint, I am sick and tired of being called a racist or a bigot which is AMAZINGLY so off it borders on the ridiculous. I, and others get that label every time we voice an opinion that actually has nothing to do with being a bigot or a racist. These are my examples and the book does not dwell on just one area.

Yesterday on this forum, the name of Jesus was brought up as if any of us could compare or be of character to even validate a comparison, but some did make comparison using His name. If you disagree, you will then be labeled as insensitive or some other name.

This is a link to AMAZON where you can read more.

http://www.amazon.com/End-Discussion-Outrage-Industry-Manipulates/dp/0553447750

[Guest]

We all must first be thruth full to ourselves. I was raised a country boy and very rasist. I have traveled, studied and associated with all races. My experiences have taught me not to act on my bias opinions as I know it is wrong and will be non benifit il to me or my country. We used to be able to here an opinion different than our oun an say, hum, that's interesting. Now we are becoming so cemented in our personal opinions that we will not even consider being wrong. That is a dangerous way to think. i.e. Partisan vs bi-partisan.

[Guest]

We all must first be thruth full to ourselves. I was raised a country boy and very rasist. I have traveled, studied and associated with all races. My experiences have taught me not to act on my bias opinions as I know it is wrong and will be non benifit il to me or my country. We used to be able to here an opinion different than our oun an say, hum, that's interesting. Now we are becoming so cemented in our personal opinions that we will not even consider being wrong. That is a dangerous way to think. i.e. Partisan vs bi-partisan.
Your last 3 sentences were outstanding and really nail what is happening to us as a society.

[Guest]

Your last 3 sentences were outstanding and really nail what is happening to us as a society.

Thank you Sir or Mam. But no fear, every thing cycles and we do have a bright future.

Grandfinch.

[Guest]

Speech needs to be completely free and unfettered. One precursor to tyranny is orthodoxy of speech accompanied by self censoring. Free speech in this case is like showing the cross to Dracula .... which is why the Left's objective is to suppress it fully.

When someone says they are offended, the time has come for the collective response to be "tough s*** ... deal with it"

[Guest]

Thank you Sir or Mam. But no fear, every thing cycles and we do have a bright future.

Grandfinch.

Would love to agree with you, but alas, anyone who is watching news and listening to the constant name calling, and name calling BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION....well, not sure about that bright future.

[Guest]

Speech needs to be completely free and unfettered. One precursor to tyranny is orthodoxy of speech accompanied by self censoring. Free speech in this case is like showing the cross to Dracula .... which is why the Left's objective is to suppress it fully.

When someone says they are offended, the time has come for the collective response to be "tough s*** ... deal with it"

Speech needs to be completely free and unfettered? Yelling FIRE!! in a crowded theater should not be a crime? Libel printed on a yard sign about the neighbor being a child pornographer (when he isn't) should be allowed?

There are restrictions to free speech.

[Guest]

Speech needs to be completely free and unfettered? Yelling FIRE!! in a crowded theater should not be a crime? Libel printed on a yard sign about the neighbor being a child pornographer (when he isn't) should be allowed?

There are restrictions to free speech.

Common sense neautralizes the need for some that are called restrictions.

[Guest]

Speech needs to be completely free and unfettered? Yelling FIRE!! in a crowded theater should not be a crime? Libel printed on a yard sign about the neighbor being a child pornographer (when he isn't) should be allowed?

There are restrictions to free speech.

We're talking about political speech being completely free and unfettered ... in the event that was not obvious. Suggest you read the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.

No one advocates being able to yell FIRE in the theater which is nothing more than a straw man in this instance. etc

[Guest]

We're talking about political speech being completely free and unfettered ... in the event that was not obvious. Suggest you read the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.

No one advocates being able to yell FIRE in the theater which is nothing more than a straw man in this instance. etc


Constitutional scholars have spent their entire careers on exactly what the First Amendment means. It can go from a clear and present danger to libel to expression of thought.

Very interesting and extremely complex topic.

[Guest]

Constitutional scholars have spent their entire careers on exactly what the First Amendment means. It can go from a clear and present danger to libel to expression of thought.

Very interesting and extremely complex topic.

Try not to overthink it and then apply some common sense ...

The gist of the point is ... we should NOT let Leftist PC inhibit our speech in any way period, including avoidance of self-censorship lest someone feel offended.

Are you offended by that?

[Guest]

Speech needs to be completely free and unfettered? Yelling FIRE!! in a crowded theater should not be a crime? Libel printed on a yard sign about the neighbor being a child pornographer (when he isn't) should be allowed?

There are restrictions to free speech.

Actually, yelling "fire"in a crowded theater is NOT a crime.

It used to be, until the Supreme Court ruled that it is only a crime if it causes someone to commit a crime as a result of the yelling. It was reinforced later in a race case before the Court. Incendiary speech is only a crime if it inspires an other to actually commit a crime. Not a lawyer, but think I am generally correct.

For me, incendiary talk covered by free speech is scary, but our Court feels this scary is not enough to restrict free speech.

The book that the thread is actually about concerns primarily those on the left leveling "racist", "bigot", "homophob" or simply being aggressive in talking to anyone who disagrees. I used the example of, for instance, aomeone who is a Villager and grew up believing and being taught that marriage was between a man and a woman.

That Villages couple saying that they oppose gay marriage (keep in mind that just a short 12 years ago, gay "activity" was illegal and still is in almost half the world). Then because they voiced that opinion, made to feel unAmerican, or morally corrupt or whatever because they have this views. Don't take those words I used as examples literally please...you know what I mean.

That is what the book is about, not just gay marriage, ....actually addresses how that kind of aggressive action stifles conversation totally. How many times have we seen posts on here saying how they respect everyone's personal choices, but do not want it thrown in their faces.

That is what the book, and thread is addressing, not the "legality" of free speech.