Brexit leave voters vs. Trump supporters.

Multiple quotes can make more work, especially when you've had as many beers as I have. I generally prefer to respond to the gist of things with my own perspective, but I'll try. Forgive any digressions or not directly responding to the substance of your post as I like to use other people's thoughts more as a jumping point for my own rather free-flowing thoughts and thought association.

Dean wrote: Logan wrote: If this were Facebook, glad it's not, I'd "like" Andy's post (course we can use thanks). I don't believe that derogatory language is a good thing, and do think that freedom of speech must have its limits, but political correctness can not only limit ones choice of bad words and actions, but also render frank discussion about certain subjects seemingly taboo, and that can be dangerous. It's a   difficult line to draw. I think there's a place for ridicule in society even when it offends many people's deepest beliefs, and I tend not to take things as sacred (of course there are ways to express things in a more diplomatic and sympathetic manner). Having worked with people with cognitive disabilities I do feel rather offended when people bandy about unpleasant words about people's intelligence ("stop being such a "re****" for instance, so I understand the pro-PC stance. It's a balancing act. It's also one of those charged terms that can mean different things to different people, but one should never get too hung up on labeling (something far too many unPC people do as a matter of course). Society would be a much better place if we could all take the mickey out of ourselves, and I wish people didn't get so angry when they feel that their belief systems are being mocked or even scrutinized, far too much angry mob mentality -- my personal belief is that all ideas and beliefs should be up for scrutiny (mock my belief at your peril). ;) Political correctness [imagine a strike-through] Respecting other People and Freedom of Speech have nothing in common, avoiding the use of derogatory non-PC terminology does not limit discussion or satirical comment, nor does it create taboo topics that cannot be discussed. The purpose of non-PC terminology is to stigmatise, isolate and denigrate a minority group - there is no room for that in any discussion or diatribe (regardless of whether it is serious commentary or scrutiny, or satirical mockery).

Not sure that one should automatically respect people, but seeming to be respectful towards people can have a relation to freedom of speech. If laws regulate what one can say about another group under hate speech laws, and such hate speech is not deemed respectful, then freedom of speech is limited. Like I said, though, I think there should be limits on freedom of speech. Arguing semantics is a tedious exercise, but it needn't just be about derogatory terminology.

OED wrote: The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

Or Merriam-Webster:

agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people

In word and action being PC by avoiding risking offending any marginalised group (or any group at all as it sometimes means) is going to limit freedom of speech and freedom of action. It can be about more than just the choice of words, which is part of what I was trying to get at.

Dean wrote: No one ever said you can't talk about race, sexuality, gender, religion or beliefs (though there are people here who would rather we didn't). Those who make the most noise about "Political Correctness gone mad" are generally those who would (and do) complain the loudest when their own beliefs are being ridiculed or satirised so it isn't Political Correctness that is limiting or restricting mockery and scrutiny but narrow-mindedness.

You can talk about them here, but there can be very negative consequences depending upon how you talk about them. In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group". I think he may have called for wiping out transgenders mind you, and promoting genocide is rightfully illegal.

Up to you how relevant you think this is to the discussion, but many countries also have blasphemy laws. The following quotes courtesy of wikipedia:

In Canada it's a criminal blasphemy libel law which says: "Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years". A later subsection does say that "No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject".

"In Ireland, blasphemy is prohibited by the constitution and carries a maximum fine of €25,000. A controversial law was passed on 9 July 2009 and went into effect on 1 January 2010."

In Saudi Arabia, Egypt and in other countries blasphemy can result in the death penalty, and I'm not sure that they're very tolerant even if you try to be quite PC in the way they go about it.

So yes, you can talk about beliefs but sometimes only in a particular permitted manner (some countries have much more freedom than others in that regard). SOme of those examples aren't really relevant to PCness (you might say all, but it has relation to what I have been talking about) because being unPC generally refers to discriminating against marginalised people.

Dean wrote: ]If someone is unable to discuss race, creed or gender issues without using non-PC terminology then I'm pretty sure the only reason I would want to be involved in that conversation would be so I could politically correct their limited vocabulary. For example if someone finds it necessary to use the non-PC terms spaz, mong, tard or cretin regardless of context then that person is in dire need of some re-education.

I would rather people be polite in the way they discuss, draw cartoons or sing about it, but even in a polite way one risks offending groups of people which will be considered unPC by some. The fear of offending people can make people feel like the subjects are taboo. And instead of opening dialogue it can close it down. Incendiary, rude language closes down discussion as well.

Dean wrote: Logan wrote: Glad it sparked such discussion, as I used it as a segue before to link a discussion about Turkey and the more general discussion. For those that don't know about the Erdogan poetry competition: https://www.rt.com/uk/343531-boris-johnson-erdogan-offensive-poem/ Whether or not the German comedian was right to do such mockery, whether Angela Merkel should have "given a green light to the criminal prosecution of German comedian Jan Böhmermann for his 'defamatory poem' about Erdogan", whether provocateur Douglas Murray should have done the competition, and whether he should have given the prize to former the Spectator editor and Britain exit supporter as a political statement is probably a matter for another thread. A British statesman writing an offensive (would be satirical but frankly isn't anywhere clever enough to qualify) poem about the head of state of another country has bugger-all to do with Political Correctness. It's a sad reflection on how far a bumbling racist clown can go in the political system because he's "good telly" and makes people "larf". What I would question would be the logic of making that British statesman Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (aka British Foreign Secretary).

His poem is rude, but on the bigger issue, I too rather question the response of the German Government to the German comedian, and that rather smacks too much of limiting freedom of expression and speech to me, but it was libelous. It was parody gone too far. It's still rather interesting since Ergdoyan has long been criticised for silencing the media, and has majorly cracked down on the media after the coup attempt. I don't think many see him as a free speech advocate. Okay, it's more about libel laws than being PC, but I wouldn't call the poems PC (there were much better written ones than Johnson's, but his did make me chuckle in a school-boy humour sort of way). Agree with you, though, about Boris Johnson.

Dean wrote: Logan wrote: I rather like Foucault's (from 1968) usage of the words politically and correct "a political thought can be politically correct only if it is scientifically painstaking". Foucault (according to Wikipedia) is a dead philosopher - his opinion means little to me for that reason alone, however, he wasn't referring to "political correctness" in its modern (common) usage.

You come across as prejudiced against philosophers or should I say dead philosophers. ;) If I were talking about Léon Foucault instead of Michel you might well still consider it irrelevant, but I expect deep down you'd care a little more, or at least be a little more interested. If Socrates had said anything remotely relevant, I'd still care. Anyway, I like that way of thinking about political correctness as I do think the term in its common sense is overused and can be too open to interpreation, but then so is progressive rock.

Edited by Logan - July 29 2016 at 00:24

Where else are we supposed to get information from on these matters?

There is no such thing as impartial media.

It's easy to say these stories are over stated or made up or whatever but there is no real way of verifying anything one way or the other. You'd expect the Sun to overstate and the Guardian to understate or ignore. Stalemate.

^^ Fair points. I admit people should dig deeper to find the story behind the story on many issues.

Edited by Dean - July 30 2016 at 06:12

Michael678 wrote: CPicard wrote: Michael678 wrote: I'm probably the only anti-Trump person on here that would've voted to leave if I were a British citizen. Look, the immigration crisis is indeed a problem, as too many immigrants, regardless of what religion, race or gender they are, would have a negative impact on the economy. The migrants coming here probably don't care about the rules here, which is a shame really. I wouldn't go as far to say it's an "invasion" (mainly because if it were, then it's one of the worst I've ever seen LOL). It doesn't help much since they're Middle-Eastern Muslims (whose countries don't have a good track record in regards to human rights), and a majority of them aren't even from Syria (where we SHOULD get the refugees). Notice I'm talking about Muslim immigration, and Polish. I mean, seriously, since when did they get involved? How are they a problem, ffs? I'm not sure to really understand your argumentation: since Lebanon and Turkey "welcome" around 1 million Syrian refugees each, should these countries also leave UE because of the immigration Crisis? Not sure that the majority of those one million are actually refugees, per say. And also, are Turkey and Lebanon in the EU, exactly, because I don't think they'd really fit in there (especially the latter after the coup)? And also, what I mean about the "too many immigrants" is that there won't be enough supplies, food, and/or shelters, etc. available to the insane of number of any immigrants, whatsoever. Of course these policies should still be around, but we shouldn't be reckless and just let a REALLY vast amount of immigrants into the country, you know?

First: have you realised that my post was a joke made of something called "irony" and "sarcasm"?

Secondly: do you just know which countries are part of the EU, which countries could apply to enter and which countries are actually managing the refugees crisis?

Thirdly: do you really think that the Brexit was only motivated by this recent immigration crisis? Haven't you heard of euroskepticism in UK before the 2010's?

Logan wrote: CPicard, I was confused by your intent too. Later I thought you must have been joking in some way, but joking especially without facial expressions can be hard to appreciate. Anyway, I don't think it was ever intended to be a hahah belly laugh type joke. ;) I personally tend not to find sarcasm funny as it is mocking and contemptful, much like, segue time, not being PC....

Well, strangely, my sarcasms are often targeting so-called "non-PC" opinions.
I may sound "mocking and contemptful" using sarcasm to express my views, but keep in mind that I'm living in France, where the political debates are becoming more and more a competition of insults, lies, propagandas... coming especially from the right-wing and the extreme right-wing.
I'm somewhat disturbed by the news coming from UK concerning the attitudes of some people after the Brexit (anti-Polish xenophobia, for example) or the declarations of Trump, that could lead some people in France to talk or act in more extreme ways that they already are.
So, maybe sarcasm isn't funny, but I'm not sure the state of the world nowadays (and I'm also looking at India, Burma, China...) could inspire me better than that.

SteveG wrote: CPicard wrote: I may sound "mocking and contemptful" using sarcasm to express my views, but keep in mind that I'm living in France, where the political debates are becoming more and more a competition of insults, lies, propagandas... coming especially from the right-wing and the extreme right-wing. Hmm. How do you pronounce Trump in French?

With caution and far from the children's ears.