Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

[NorrinRadd]

Interesting that the author himself is an elitist liberal PC loon.

[oxmixmudd]

Some do. They're theocratic idiots.



Blasphemous speech should be permitted.




I haven't watched the Simpsons in at least ten years, except maybe the Family Guy and Futurama cross-over episodes. I do recall that both Ned Flanders and Reverend Lovejoy spoofed different flavors of Christianity. But despite the spoofing, they were both arguably more admirable characters than Bart and Homer. I always found that interesting.



I can't think of any such restriction that I would consider "reasonable."

Could you elaborate on why you would not consider any such restrictions reasonable?


Jim

[Cow Poke]

I'm ex-military, so, yeah...I get the truck driver analogy. Like you, I had/have my own (admittedly silly) way of corralling language. When people blaspheme Jesus or God in my presence I make a little joke about it. So people will say something like "Jesus Christ," and I'll humorlessly finish it with, "of latter-day saints." Or they'll say something like "GD it", and I'll teasingly correct them and say "gosh-darn it." I won't tell them to not use that language around me, but eventually they get the point that I'm not comfortable with that language in my own way. This works better than you'd think. I don't know how often my friends or co-workers find themselves either stopping half way, or quickly apologizing for their language. It's actually kinda cool. And if they don't get it, then I don't let myself get offended, and call them on it. I just know that's how people mindlessly talk. They don't usually know they might as well be dragging my mom's name through the mud when they use "Jesus Christ" as a swear word. They're just so culturally acclimated to it that it slips out of their mouths unthinkingly. And, honestly, I wouldn't want a government mandate that prevents people from talking that way (not that our modern secular government would ever institute such a thing).

You must be my brother from another mother. And, sometimes, when somebody cusses, then looks at me and says, "oh, sorry preacher" - I'll just point skyward and say "He's the one that matters, and He's listening all the time". Or something like that.

I posted elsewhere about a guy who came into my church office needing assistance, and a couple times he swore, and I told him "we don't do that here". He seemed incapable of talking without profanity, and I finally told him "OK, that's enough", and pointed to the door. He's the guy I had already decided to help with a tank of gas, but he managed to talk me out of any desire whatsoever to help him.

If it's in "my house" or a venue I control, I'm a little more direct with the "hints".

On Trump, yeah, I totally get your point there. I think he goes too far the other way though. The President of the United States calling people "loser" or other derogatory name on social media dirties the office that he holds. He ought to be above that, and not for any abstract or absurd reason, but because as Commander-in-Chief, tact and diplomacy should be guiding principles, and as the leader of America (and arguably the free world), he's a reflection of America and Western (and Christian) social mores as a whole. But that's how it goes with people. Whenever we see what we believe to be error, we seek to correct it, but we often go to the other extreme. It's hard for people to find the even-keeled middle. That's nothing new though. We see that going as far back as history records.

Agreed -- I think if Trump had just stuck to the attacks on PC, and not gone beyond that, his approval ratings would be higher.

[Cow Poke]

Yet Christian Conservatives, both in the US and in Denmark have done the same thing. Though they've used different words for it, but they've actively wanted television policed, as well as what sort of pictures can be shown in educational materials, what sort of things that can be discussed, tried to get art pieces removed from a museum, advocated for the return of blasphemy laws. And not just in the particular setting of a religious private school, but in public schools and in media outlets in general.

Same with blasphemous speech, like you and Cow Poke went off on a thick paragraph about. And here's there's a bit of an irresistable parallel to what you call the Politically Correct view. Because as far as I know there are no laws that prevent people from saying politically incorrect things, there's just them being shamed and criticized for it.

You have a point that people don't like that, and society will swing the other way. The Simpsons for instance was a response to that, showing a dysfunctional family, instead of the Brady Bunch, and people loved it because of that. Mostly I think because reality isn't so utterly sanitized as television had become at that point.

It's called "civility". There were days when men, for example, recognized it was impolite to use rough language around women and children.

[rogue06]

You must be my brother from another mother.

Does that mean I have a long lost brudder?

[Cow Poke]

Does that mean I have a long lost brudder?

We could be Tripplites!!!

[Adrift]

We could be Tripplites!!!

Or I could be the Cousin Oliver of this weird family.

[rogue06]

Or I could be the Cousin Oliver of this weird family.

I wouldn't wish that on anybody

[Mountain Man]

I haven't watched the Simpsons in at least ten years, except maybe the Family Guy and Futurama cross-over episodes. I do recall that both Ned Flanders and Reverend Lovejoy spoofed different flavors of Christianity. But despite the spoofing, they were both arguably more admirable characters than Bart and Homer. I always found that interesting.

I don't know about Lovejoy, but certainly Ned Flanders. He was never actually portrayed as wrong, just overly enthusiastic.

[NorrinRadd]

It's called "civility". There were days when men, for example, recognized it was impolite to use rough language around women and children.

Several of my female friends are even freer with the "rough language" than I am.

[Mountain Man]

It's called "civility". There were days when men, for example, recognized it was impolite to use rough language around women and children.

Now the women talk just as rough as the men.

[NorrinRadd]

Could you elaborate on why you would not consider any such restrictions reasonable?


Jim

For context, here is the relevant portion of Leonhard's post:

"In Denmark radical Muslim groups have gotten in trouble for some of the prayers that called for the eradication of Jews, even though technically that could fall under religious freedom. Legal repercussions were had against them. The US has similar reasonable restrictions about how far you can push religious freedom as an excuse to say whatever you want."

I can't think of any restrictions on any religious speech that I would consider "reasonable." I think anyone should be able to say or print pretty much any vile and horrendous thing they desire, and all the more so in the context of "religion," and also "anti-religion" (atheism).

But I see you asked "why" I believe this. Well, why not? Don't you consider freedom of expression a basic fundamental human right?

[Cow Poke]

Or I could be the Cousin Oliver of this weird family.

Whatever you say, Cuzz!

[Cow Poke]

Several of my female friends are even freer with the "rough language" than I am.

I did a stint working at a factory when I was a kid, and we would head to the payphones at break to check in on family, and yeah.... the WOMEN who worked at that plant.... The LANGUAGE!!!!

And, of course, when I would arrest a drunk female, I could always count on an education in the language arts.

[Mountain Man]

But I see you asked "why" I believe this. Well, why not? Don't you consider freedom of expression a basic fundamental human right?

Remember, once we allow that box to be opened, it ends with the Bible being banned as hate speech. It's guaranteed. To that end, I will defend the rights of others to say whatever vile thing they want in the interest of defending my right to preach the gospel.