What can replace Political Correctness, and is it actually possible?

Truth is singular, yet it’s a far more complicated concept than people usually care to admit... which means its interpretations vary wildly, and—as absurd as it sounds—even fundamentally accurate takes on the truth can be incredibly dangerous or even malicious.

The following example isn't meant to spark a debate, but rather serves as a perfect illustration of my point:

1. Is Islamic terrorism a threat to Europe? Yes.
2. Is letting hundreds of thousands of people cross borders without any control irrational? Yes.
3. Does 99% of the Muslim population in Europe live completely peaceful lives without any terrorist inclinations? Yes.

So, what do you get when you mix these truths together? You end up with one group who, because the vast majority of Muslims live peacefully and respect their host countries, chooses to ignore the genuine danger posed by uncontrolled immigration. Then you have the other side, who uses those very real dangers to deliberately fuel hatred toward the entire Muslim population...

Truth isn't some flat, simple sentence that stands alone. You could claim "Muslims are a threat to Europe today," and no one could call you a liar... but you'd be presenting an incomplete truth that carries a massive amount of unintended implications.

It works that way in just about every field. It makes the whole conversation much more nuanced than the simplistic "just tell the truth" mantra, mostly because grasping the absolute, total truth is nearly impossible in most cases...

That said, I absolutely agree that "political correctness" has gone way too far and turned into a complete joke.

So, I guess... is there actually any alternative to Political Correctness out there?

Chris Myers said:So, I guess... is there actually any alternative to Political Correctness out there?

Honestly, I don't think there's another way. It's more about finding that middle ground—tempering PC culture just like you'd have to temper the truth or tone down a lie when things get too extreme.

The real headache starts when people push things way too far. Once you hit that breaking point, how do you even pivot back? Because that’s exactly when the populists swoop in, grabbing onto those "hard truths" and using them to spin massive lies.

It’s tricky—though we definitely need some boundaries here—because the hard truth is exactly what silentviper19 pointed out... everyone wants "political correctness" to apply only when it benefits their own side.

It’s the same person who acts shocked and outraged that in civilized, developed nations, news outlets don't feel the need to broadcast the perpetrator's nationality or religion (and I'm not talking about terrorism where faith or origin is the literal motive)... they'd lose their minds if a reporter actually identified a killer as a veteran or, more specifically, a former gang member.

So, the underlying issue with this whole saga is that the "fight for truth" is usually just a "fight for my rules"... which would look identical if the roles were reversed and someone else was being protected while others were being exposed.

Personally, I have no problem with political correctness if its purpose is to stop people from fueling unnecessary hatred or fear by dragging in irrelevant details. If someone kills their wife in the apartment next door, I truly couldn't care less if they are a Mexican, a Muslim, Black, a veteran, or a MAGA supporter... mentioning those things isn't just useless, it's just fuel for animosity.

lonebadger6 said:Truth is singular, yet it’s a far more complicated concept than people usually care to admit... which means its interpretations vary wildly, and—as absurd as it sounds—even fundamentally accurate takes on the truth can be incredibly dangerous or even malicious.

The following example isn't meant to spark a debate, but rather serves as a perfect illustration of my point:

1. Is Islamic terrorism a threat to Europe? Yes.
2. Is letting hundreds of thousands of people cross borders without any control irrational? Yes.
3. Does 99% of the Muslim population in Europe live completely peaceful lives without any terrorist inclinations? Yes.

So, what do you get when you mix these truths together? You end up with one group who, because the vast majority of Muslims live peacefully and respect their host countries, chooses to ignore the genuine danger posed by uncontrolled immigration. Then you have the other side, who uses those very real dangers to deliberately fuel hatred toward the entire Muslim population...

Truth isn't some flat, simple sentence that stands alone. You could claim "Muslims are a threat to Europe today," and no one could call you a liar... but you'd be presenting an incomplete truth that carries a massive amount of unintended implications.

It works that way in just about every field. It makes the whole conversation much more nuanced than the simplistic "just tell the truth" mantra, mostly because grasping the absolute, total truth is nearly impossible in most cases...

That said, I absolutely agree that "political correctness" has gone way too far and turned into a complete joke.

Calling it a joke is being generous.
Most of this nonsense is happening at universities in the USA and places like Sweden or the United Kingdom, but honestly, some of it just doesn't make sense from a political standpoint...

Take how a ton of colleges have banned clapping. I mean, I really don't see which political party finds clapping offensive. And apparently, it's even hitting elementary schools now, where kids are being told they can't clap. 😵

Then there's the banning of national flags.
Look, Sweden didn't even get involved in WW2, and they definitely didn't have colonies in Africa. If you haven't committed mass atrocities under your flag in the last 200 years, what's the problem? Yet, the Swedish flag is banned in heaps of schools right there in Sweden because it supposedly "offends people's feelings." You go to Sweden, enjoy some of the best social benefits on the planet, and then the country's own flag is somehow an insult to you... 🤦

Even the flag of England itself—not the Union Jack, but the actual Saint George's Cross—is already traditionally banned in several major cities in England because it's labeled "offensive." It's bizarre and totally illogical, especially since the English haven't been out there conquering anything under that flag for centuries.

And don't even get me started on stuff like "Parent A and Parent B," or students getting suspended for using the word "salesman" instead of "salesperson" in their homework. That's just ridiculous.

Look, I'm all for stopping discrimination. We need to stop hate speech. Limiting things like threats or belittling people based on who they are is totally fine.

But I seriously don't see how the word "salesman" is going to hurt anyone...

Oh sure, those are some top-tier idiocies, I wouldn't have even dreamed of stepping foot in that water if I could help it...😁

Look, I truly believe that race, gender, and nationality shouldn't be targeted as such. To me, respecting those identities is basically civilization's number one rule.

But man, this whole PC movement when it comes to religion? It’s driving me absolutely up the wall. People pushing this stuff don't seem to grasp the fallout—and I’m not talking about your typical old-school believers here. Anyone with half a brain can see that using religion as a shield is just a massive setup for hatred and discrimination. It all stems from that sense of "spiritual victimhood" and playing the martyr, which is pretty much the foundation of every fascist movement we've ever seen.

I mean, seriously, how is it even possible in this crazy 21st century that someone thinks criticizing a religion is the same thing as hating the people who follow it?! Honestly, you can only get that far if your brain has been completely fried by political correctness to the point where you can't even see how extreme you've become.

lonebadger6 said:Truth is singular, yet it’s a far more complicated concept than people usually care to admit... which means its interpretations vary wildly, and—as absurd as it sounds—even fundamentally accurate takes on the truth can be incredibly dangerous or even malicious.

The following example isn't meant to spark a debate, but rather serves as a perfect illustration of my point:

1. Is Islamic terrorism a threat to Europe? Yes.
2. Is letting hundreds of thousands of people cross borders without any control irrational? Yes.
3. Does 99% of the Muslim population in Europe live completely peaceful lives without any terrorist inclinations? Yes.

So, what do you get when you mix these truths together? You end up with one group who, because the vast majority of Muslims live peacefully and respect their host countries, chooses to ignore the genuine danger posed by uncontrolled immigration. Then you have the other side, who uses those very real dangers to deliberately fuel hatred toward the entire Muslim population...

Truth isn't some flat, simple sentence that stands alone. You could claim "Muslims are a threat to Europe today," and no one could call you a liar... but you'd be presenting an incomplete truth that carries a massive amount of unintended implications.

It works that way in just about every field. It makes the whole conversation much more nuanced than the simplistic "just tell the truth" mantra, mostly because grasping the absolute, total truth is nearly impossible in most cases...

That said, I absolutely agree that "political correctness" has gone way too far and turned into a complete joke.

You actually reminded me of that old story where blind people try to describe an elephant.
The guy holding the leg said:
- An elephant is like a tree.
- No, an elephant is like a wall—said the guy leaning against its belly.
- An elephant is most like a rope—said the one holding onto the tail.
- I'd say it looks more like a giant snake—said the one holding the trunk.
- Actually, an elephant is most like a leaf—said the one holding the ear.
- To me, an elephant feels like a spear—said the one holding the tusk.

Everyone told PART of the truth, but nobody saw the WHOLE thing.

Regarding political correctness, the issue isn't someone stating a partial truth because they don't see the big picture; it's when someone has the "sick ambition" to present a PART as the WHOLE.

Truth is always ABSOLUTE; we just aren't always capable of perceiving all of it, so we call it RELATIVE.
I suppose one "thinking tool" should be the rule: "AS FAR AS I KNOW."

Cheers,
Frank Morgan2

Chris Myers said:Political Correctness

Merriam-Webster - definition - Politically Correct
- adhering to the idea that language and behaviors that might upset certain social sensitivities (specifically regarding race or gender) ought to be removed.

Wikipedia - The term political correctness - is used today to characterize various languages, rules, or actions meant to prevent offending or disadvantaging specific societal groups. Within standard political debate and the news, the phrase is typically thrown around as an insult, suggesting such measures have gone too far.

A lot of people resent PC, I suppose... but what do you all think about potential alternatives, and maybe whether there's even a real need for one?

If you're really that "into" it...Not exactly my finest moment." ( 😂 Look, you can always crawl back to racism, hate speech, misogyny, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, xenophobia, homophobia, chauvinism, militant anti-atheism, or religious fanaticism. You’ve got plenty of options to choose from. 😁

silentviper19 said:Look, I truly believe that race, gender, and nationality shouldn't be targeted as such. To me, respecting those identities is basically civilization's number one rule.

But man, this whole PC movement when it comes to religion? It’s driving me absolutely up the wall. People pushing this stuff don't seem to grasp the fallout—and I’m not talking about your typical old-school believers here. Anyone with half a brain can see that using religion as a shield is just a massive setup for hatred and discrimination. It all stems from that sense of "spiritual victimhood" and playing the martyr, which is pretty much the foundation of every fascist movement we've ever seen.

I mean, seriously, how is it even possible in this crazy 21st century that someone thinks criticizing a religion is the same thing as hating the people who follow it?! Honestly, you can only get that far if your brain has been completely fried by political correctness to the point where you can't even see how extreme you've become.

It really depends on where the criticism is headed. Personally, I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that in the 21st century, there are still people out there buying into the fairy tales and myths of any religion whatsoever. It might have something to do with that innate human urge to rationalize things we can't grasp—that need to believe in some higher power—but seeing someone claim to "believe in a religion" today is just baffling...

But then again, what's the actual problem? If someone wants to believe, let them. Who cares?

The real issue lies in the tangible problems caused by specific individuals whose actions are driven by their faith.

Frank Morgan2 said:You actually reminded me of that old story where blind people try to describe an elephant.
The guy holding the leg said:
- An elephant is like a tree.
- No, an elephant is like a wall—said the guy leaning against its belly.
- An elephant is most like a rope—said the one holding onto the tail.
- I'd say it looks more like a giant snake—said the one holding the trunk.
- Actually, an elephant is most like a leaf—said the one holding the ear.
- To me, an elephant feels like a spear—said the one holding the tusk.

Everyone told PART of the truth, but nobody saw the WHOLE thing.

Regarding political correctness, the issue isn't someone stating a partial truth because they don't see the big picture; it's when someone has the "sick ambition" to present a PART as the WHOLE.

Truth is always ABSOLUTE; we just aren't always capable of perceiving all of it, so we call it RELATIVE.
I suppose one "thinking tool" should be the rule: "AS FAR AS I KNOW."

Cheers,
Frank Morgan2

I agree, though usually, we end up dealing with the aftermath of those other types... the ones acting as spokespeople for that selective "truth" that happens to suit them perfectly.

Anthony Perez9 said:If you're really that "into" it...Not exactly my finest moment." ( 😂 Look, you can always crawl back to racism, hate speech, misogyny, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, xenophobia, homophobia, chauvinism, militant anti-atheism, or religious fanaticism. You’ve got plenty of options to choose from. 😁

Just because a lot of people might agree doesn't mean she's automatically targeting me, I guess.
Or maybe you just read whatever you want to read?

Political correctness is nothing more than a pathetic lie—something an honest man simply won't touch. Basic decency in our social interactions should be more than enough! For instance, you wouldn't tell a hunchback he has a stunning physique, nor would you feel the need to broadcast the blunt truth about their appearance to the world.

Amanda Allen4 said:Political correctness is nothing more than a pathetic lie—something an honest man simply won't touch. Basic decency in our social interactions should be more than enough! For instance, you wouldn't tell a hunchback he has a stunning physique, nor would you feel the need to broadcast the blunt truth about their appearance to the world.

Signature... 👍

The whole point of political correctness is trying to force social change by policing language, but let's be real—swapping out one word for another doesn't actually change what anyone thinks.
People still hold the same views; they just move them from public conversations to private ones.

Plus, PC is just a tool for political warfare—it's nothing more than a "cheap and dirty" weapon used in politics.

lonebadger6 said:It really depends on where the criticism is headed. Personally, I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that in the 21st century, there are still people out there buying into the fairy tales and myths of any religion whatsoever. It might have something to do with that innate human urge to rationalize things we can't grasp—that need to believe in some higher power—but seeing someone claim to "believe in a religion" today is just baffling...

But then again, what's the actual problem? If someone wants to believe, let them. Who cares?

The real issue lies in the tangible problems caused by specific individuals whose actions are driven by their faith.

I agree, though usually, we end up dealing with the aftermath of those other types... the ones acting as spokespeople for that selective "truth" that happens to suit them perfectly.

Personally, I don't give a damn. People can believe whatever they want behind closed doors at home, but once religion enters the public square—once it's being pushed out there—it should be treated like anything else in the public eye and open to the same scrutiny.
But the thing is, here—and honestly, in large parts of Europe and the USA—religion holds this special protected status, especially Islam.

Anything that's out in the open and being promoted needs to be handled equally. So, logically, if "Islamophobia" is a thing, then we should also have "Christianophobia," "Atheistophobia," "Buddhismophobia," "Communismophobia," "Fascismophobia"... I mean, tomorrow someone could walk up with a swastika tattooed on their arm and tell an anti-fascist they're being "Naziphobic" just because they're intentionally misinterpreting nationalist ideology to smear honest, family-oriented nationalists.

What I'm getting at is that Political Correctness has gone way too far regarding Islam. Now, conservatives and everyone else are using it as ammunition, basically saying: "Anyone can trash our Jesus, and anyone can talk smack about our people or our leaders, but the second we mention Islam, suddenly we're all fascists."

That's a huge reason why Trump won his election, and there's a good chance Le Pen will pull it off in France too.

I'm not bringing up the next example to start a debate about it, I'm just using it to illustrate my point:

1. Is Islamic terrorism a threat to Europe? Yes.
2. Is letting hundreds of thousands of people cross borders unchecked just plain irrational? Yes.
3. Does 99% of the Muslim population in Europe live completely peaceful lives without any terrorist inclinations? Also yes.

I'm quoting your previous post here because I wanted to build on it.

4.When those terrorists murdered the cartoonists from Charlie, 99% of Muslims in Europe and around the world said they didn't support the killing and condemned it, yet the cartoonists themselves were asking for that kind of reaction because, well, you shouldn't insult someone's prophet or their sacred beliefs.

The blame lies with Political Correctness regarding Islam, not the Muslims themselves. You can't blame them when that's how they practice their faith; instead, blame that silly liberal movement that has fetishized Islam to the point where "Islamophobia" became this massive, untouchable concept.
And they claim Political Correctness regarding Islam is all about helping Muslims integrate into European societies?? Honestly, you just want to grab your head and scream at how ridiculous and counterproductive that whole idea is.🤦

And that's exactly how we ended up with Trump and Le Pen, Orban... and as for our neck of the woods, there's not even any point in wasting words on it.

silentviper19 said:Everything boils down to who gets to be the one in charge of the Truth, and once you hand someone the keys to the Truth, you're right back in the middle of totalitarianism.

There isn't really any objective Truth, just a bunch of different opinions and viewpoints that we all eventually agree to call "Truth" just for the sake of the greater good.

For like 2,000 years, the "Truth" was basically that women were just naturally sinful and untrustworthy, and because everyone accepted that "Truth," they weren't treated as equals. But hey, if that was actually the real Truth, then we should probably force women back into that "true position," right? Hope you agree with me there!

Every bit of politeness is technically a lie, or just Political Correctness, but honestly, it’s necessary for our own survival. If everyone just blurted out exactly what they were thinking every single second, most of us would probably end up dead or in a hospital by now.

So, I think the whole point is about finding a balance and stopping the abuse of PC, rather than people trying to drag us all back to some supposed "Truth."

Truth emerges from free speech. It's the result of a clash of ideas where, eventually, the one that actually makes sense wins out over the one that doesn't. Once you assign a single entity to manage what is true, you're heading backward. That's essentially how civilization functioned until very recently. In that light, political correctness is really just the last lingering shadow of the dark ages.

Btw, that bolded part... where did you even get that from? Honestly, it sounds pretty indefensible to me.

And even that’s being generous with the simplification. In this day and age, the civilized world needs to shut down a new Hitler before he even gets off the ground, using every tool in the shed... because the reality is that which idea wins out isn't just about letting everyone "speak their truth" and hoping for the best. It's much more complicated than that.

Exactly, and finding where to draw that line is a massive headache. There's no denying that political correctness has absolutely overstepped...

lonebadger6 said:And even that’s being generous with the simplification. In this day and age, the civilized world needs to shut down a new Hitler before he even gets off the ground, using every tool in the shed... because the reality is that which idea wins out isn't just about letting everyone "speak their truth" and hoping for the best. It's much more complicated than that.

Exactly, and finding where to draw that line is a massive headache. There's no denying that political correctness has absolutely overstepped...

That was pretty much the dominant mindset throughout the second half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st.
It sounds noble on paper.

But it all ended up with someone being branded a new Hitler just for having the guts to tell a plus-sized woman she's actually overweight. ☕

I'm with you on that, which is why I added that second part to my comment.

But honestly, letting absolutely everything go unchecked isn't exactly a genius move either...

Then again, finding that sweet spot where you draw the line is always the hardest part.

Tomorrow’s topic covers political correctness during "cutting edge science" on CBS at 8:40 PM.

Lately, you can't go five minutes without hearing the phrase "political correctness." People are constantly arguing over what counts as being correct and what doesn't. Originally, the concept was straightforward: avoid gestures, behaviors, or language that might offend or belittle specific social groups or minorities. On paper, the goal was noble. However, the term has evolved. In its more cynical usage, it's viewed as an attempt to force an ideology onto society by sanitizing language or policing definitions—essentially a direct hit to free speech. So, which side of the coin is right? Or is it both, depending entirely on how much nuance you're willing to apply?

Morgan Cook10 said:Truth emerges from free speech. It's the result of a clash of ideas where, eventually, the one that actually makes sense wins out over the one that doesn't. Once you assign a single entity to manage what is true, you're heading backward. That's essentially how civilization functioned until very recently. In that light, political correctness is really just the last lingering shadow of the dark ages.

Btw, that bolded part... where did you even get that from? Honestly, it sounds pretty indefensible to me.

Well, look at it this way:

Free speech is such a fragile thing because it’s always at risk of flipping on its head. See, the person claiming the right to speak freely is often the same person trying to use that very freedom to shut everyone else up. So, the whole idea that "the truth will always win" doesn't really hold water. Logic and respect aren't guaranteed by free speech itself; they come from social consensus, which is a different beast entirely.

A classic example would be certain monotheistic religions. They demand the freedom to speak their mind and expect "due respect," yet they base their entire existence on denying that any other religion even exists.
It was the same deal 2,000 years ago in ancient Rome. You had early Christians rejecting all the Roman gods and the authority of the Empire, while simultaneously demanding freedom from that very same government and society, essentially playing the martyr card if they weren't allowed to hate and dismiss everything else.

As much as PC culture can be awful—and believe me, I get it—it's still better than the alternative. Because the other option is a path that leads straight to the total abolition of free speech. If you and others who just find PC annoying are actually freedom-loving people, you won't win this fight. In fact, you might accidentally be helping the fascists, because they also fight against PC culture and claim to stand for free speech (whenever it suits them). Basically, you end up on the same side as them just because you're both pushing back against the PC crowd.

So, I honestly think the old saying will ring true again: "The roads will be full of political correctors, but soon there won't be many left." Instead, it'll be the fascists who run out of steam after they try to force their version of "truth" on everyone using their "freedom" to hate and deny anything different.

Fascists and religious extremists don't really have a rational basis for why they're right. For them, it's either God or just pure narcissism telling them they're correct for no logical reason.
That's why they always need to be under fire. PC rules have to apply to them too, because otherwise, they'll just keep trying to play the victim. They use emotion instead of reason to seize control of society, and once they do that, we can kiss free speech goodbye forever. We'd just be stuck waiting for the next revolution or something similar.

And then, they establish their own "truth" and keep it alive through force and preaching, claiming that any kind of free speech is an attack on the "absolute truth" that supposedly exists on its own.