5 ms·

"Political correctness" is a phrase used by assholes who haven't figured out what free speech is. They think it means they can say whatever they like, without f

by Bud 11y ago

"Political correctness" is a phrase used by assholes who haven't figured out what free speech is. They think it means they can say whatever they like, without fear of repercussions or consequences. And they get very offended and hurt when they find out that isn't so.

funkyy 11y ago
And they have right to attack people that have different than mainstream media opinions.
zem 11y ago
you have to wonder why someone has gone through so much time and trouble to let people post things anonymously on social media, when they know their friends are likely to dislike said posts. seems like jerks all the way down.
- Propopulo 11y ago
  I posted my reasons in a comment above. I don't think I'm a jerk, just a quiet physicist. You should get to know me :-)
  - zem 11y ago
    i'm even more inclined to believe that as a physicist you're going to hide behind "i just provide a value-neutral tool; it's up to people how they use it.". can you think of many "politically incorrect" opinions that don't simply reinforce biases against an already marginalised group?
omonra 11y ago
You sound rather smug and happy that people who hold opinions differing from yours can not express them for fear of repercussions. That must feel great.
- Bud 11y ago
  Nice personal attack. :) But no, I'm afraid you are mistaken. What I am is dismayed that so many mistake fundamental free-speech rights for the right to be an offensive asshole and be tolerated.
  - omonra 11y ago
    But that's precisely what Freedom of Speech is for. Ie if you happen to disagree with someone's point of view, you are welcome to explain why they are wrong. In the process the better idea will prevail (assuming everyone is free to explain themselves). Under the guise of PC, some ideas can not be uttered. The simplest explanation is because there is no valid counterpoint - so it's much easier to just shut down the debate. PS This was not a personal attack at all - as I know nothing about you personally. I merely restated what you said in different words.
    - dang 11y ago
      "Merely restated" is a false description. What you said was a personal attack by the standard that applies here: your language was both hostile and personal. That's not allowed on HN, so please don't do it again. Bud also shouldn't have said "phrase used by assholes", something that was plainly false and guaranteed to provoke. But by attacking personally, what you did was worse.
  - vixen99 11y ago
    Everyone agrees that X is an offensive asshole? Is that the case? Exactly what do you 'tolerate' then? The word only has meaning to the extent that it is acceptance of speech that the tolerator finds offensive. Perhaps you'd be happy if we junked the concept?
philwelch 11y ago
Social taboos against unpopular opinions may not rise to the level of criminalization, but that doesn't mean they are all perfectly acceptable. The Hollywood blacklist wasn't a government action nor was it a violation of free speech in the legal sense, but that didn't make it a good or even an acceptable thing. Actually, we consider it a great scandal when screenwriters are blacklisted from their livelihood for expressing sympathies with Stalin, but we don't bat an eye when a tech executive is hounded out of his job because he backed the wrong California proposition a few years ago and refuses to comment on the issue today. One of these is called "McCarthyism" and the other is called "political correctness", and it's hard for me to see a world where one is okay and the other is not, unless of course we live in a world where denying legal marriage to same sex couples is worse than Stalinism.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The Hollywood blacklist wasn't a government action nor was it a violation of free speech in the legal sense, but that didn't make it a good or even an acceptable thing. Well, yeah, it was an combination in restraint of trade. Which is whole different category of wrong than a free speech violation.
  - philwelch 11y ago
    So we agree that hounding people out of their livelihoods over their expressed opinions is wrong, then.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Not sure how you inferred any comment on that subject from my simply pointing out that the Hollywood blacklist was a combination in restraint of trade. Which, incidentally, the complaints about Eich were not.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  If you actually knew anything about the blacklists of the 1950s (hint: it went far beyond Hollywood) you would realize how absurd it is to compare that to the man who gave us javascript.
khedoros 11y ago
And everything is much better when we've got the illusion of agreement, rather than knowing what the assholes actually think. It's much more important to provide consequences when we disagree.
dawnbreez 11y ago
I would reply to you, but [THIS PHRASE HAS BEEN REDACTED FOR BEING ANTAGONISTIC. WE APOLOGIZE IF YOU HAD ANY FEELINGS OF NOT BEING ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN ALL YOUR STATEMENTS.]
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  To make the sarcasm a bit more clear: The problem with legally enforcing a set of rules for speech is that he who makes the rules has all the power in the world. For an example of over-regulating speech, check the IRC for Minecraft Forge. The rules of the IRC begin with "Lex (the admin) is God. Respect him or else." You cannot trust anybody with that kind of control over what is said. At best, you will slowly ruin the community you're "protecting".
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11091365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11091365 and marked it off-topic.

by Bud 11y ago

funkyy 11y ago

And they have right to attack people that have different than mainstream media opinions.

zem 11y ago

you have to wonder why someone has gone through so much time and trouble to let people post things anonymously on social media, when they know their friends are likely to dislike said posts. seems like jerks all the way down.

Propopulo 11y ago
I posted my reasons in a comment above. I don't think I'm a jerk, just a quiet physicist. You should get to know me :-)
- zem 11y ago
  i'm even more inclined to believe that as a physicist you're going to hide behind "i just provide a value-neutral tool; it's up to people how they use it.". can you think of many "politically incorrect" opinions that don't simply reinforce biases against an already marginalised group?

omonra 11y ago

You sound rather smug and happy that people who hold opinions differing from yours can not express them for fear of repercussions. That must feel great.

Bud 11y ago
Nice personal attack. :) But no, I'm afraid you are mistaken. What I am is dismayed that so many mistake fundamental free-speech rights for the right to be an offensive asshole and be tolerated.
- omonra 11y ago
  But that's precisely what Freedom of Speech is for. Ie if you happen to disagree with someone's point of view, you are welcome to explain why they are wrong. In the process the better idea will prevail (assuming everyone is free to explain themselves). Under the guise of PC, some ideas can not be uttered. The simplest explanation is because there is no valid counterpoint - so it's much easier to just shut down the debate. PS This was not a personal attack at all - as I know nothing about you personally. I merely restated what you said in different words.
  - dang 11y ago
    "Merely restated" is a false description. What you said was a personal attack by the standard that applies here: your language was both hostile and personal. That's not allowed on HN, so please don't do it again. Bud also shouldn't have said "phrase used by assholes", something that was plainly false and guaranteed to provoke. But by attacking personally, what you did was worse.
- vixen99 11y ago
  Everyone agrees that X is an offensive asshole? Is that the case? Exactly what do you 'tolerate' then? The word only has meaning to the extent that it is acceptance of speech that the tolerator finds offensive. Perhaps you'd be happy if we junked the concept?

philwelch 11y ago

Social taboos against unpopular opinions may not rise to the level of criminalization, but that doesn't mean they are all perfectly acceptable. The Hollywood blacklist wasn't a government action nor was it a violation of free speech in the legal sense, but that didn't make it a good or even an acceptable thing. Actually, we consider it a great scandal when screenwriters are blacklisted from their livelihood for expressing sympathies with Stalin, but we don't bat an eye when a tech executive is hounded out of his job because he backed the wrong California proposition a few years ago and refuses to comment on the issue today. One of these is called "McCarthyism" and the other is called "political correctness", and it's hard for me to see a world where one is okay and the other is not, unless of course we live in a world where denying legal marriage to same sex couples is worse than Stalinism.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The Hollywood blacklist wasn't a government action nor was it a violation of free speech in the legal sense, but that didn't make it a good or even an acceptable thing. Well, yeah, it was an combination in restraint of trade. Which is whole different category of wrong than a free speech violation.
- philwelch 11y ago
  So we agree that hounding people out of their livelihoods over their expressed opinions is wrong, then.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Not sure how you inferred any comment on that subject from my simply pointing out that the Hollywood blacklist was a combination in restraint of trade. Which, incidentally, the complaints about Eich were not.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
If you actually knew anything about the blacklists of the 1950s (hint: it went far beyond Hollywood) you would realize how absurd it is to compare that to the man who gave us javascript.

khedoros 11y ago

And everything is much better when we've got the illusion of agreement, rather than knowing what the assholes actually think. It's much more important to provide consequences when we disagree.

dawnbreez 11y ago

I would reply to you, but [THIS PHRASE HAS BEEN REDACTED FOR BEING ANTAGONISTIC. WE APOLOGIZE IF YOU HAD ANY FEELINGS OF NOT BEING ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN ALL YOUR STATEMENTS.]

dawnbreez 11y ago
To make the sarcasm a bit more clear: The problem with legally enforcing a set of rules for speech is that he who makes the rules has all the power in the world. For an example of over-regulating speech, check the IRC for Minecraft Forge. The rules of the IRC begin with "Lex (the admin) is God. Respect him or else." You cannot trust anybody with that kind of control over what is said. At best, you will slowly ruin the community you're "protecting".

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11091365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11091365 and marked it off-topic.