I just want to chime in and say that giving people the right to not be offended is dangerous. Since whether someone is offended or not depends on a subjective opinion and not an objective definition, anyone can literally say they are offended by literally anything and be justified in doing so. If we start punishing people for being offensive, first they will lock up all the comedians, then since I'm offended that those people were offended enough to lock up all comedians, then it's those people's turns to get locked up. Then once they're locked up, they can claim offense at me. This will continue until we have a tyrant strong enough to avoid being charged for being offensive, and force other people to do what they want. It won't end up good for anybody. It's just a slightly more sophisticated version of the old 'eye for an eye' system of justice that we have long since evolved beyond.

It's just as bad as the idea that one can use language to literally change physical reality that I stated before, maybe even worse. We can encourage people to be more civil in their conversations, but we cannot allow being offensive to be a crime. It's a similar idea to some of the metoo problems, where some people think we should believe the alleged victim without evidence. To change the justice system to go from innocent until proven guilty, to guilty until proven innocent, is a monstrous idea and would be abused to no end to hurt innocent people.

Actually this is the best strategy for them to use. Let people talk themselves out and feel like they have been heard, eventually they will get tired and move on feeling happier than they were before. I'm already just about talked out now. The fact that the thread hasn't been locked in general is a good thing. I also expect it takes a lot of extra work to moderate when there are sensitive topics being discussed, so the extra effort and willingness to allow conversation is noted and welcome. For me gog is swinging back towards the positive.

I would like to make one correction. Everything that you discribe is already exists in Britain. And yes, there are already lot's of charges of "being offensive" (the most well known is the case of "nazi pug"), while some groups of people (muslims for example) became practically untouchable in terms of humor or critisizm.

Yes I think Britain is possibly already lost, it might not survive long term. I think Canada is heading strongly in that direction.

Pretending you dont understand what im talking about doesnt change much. Provided you with concrete real examples which you ignored.
Hiding behind the existence of different meanings of a term, doesnt excuse you from refusing to aknowledge the quite precise meaning i (and many other people) are giving this term.
What you call "the anti-p.c. army" consists of people from all walks of life and with different political views, thats why they dont "raise like one man", but what they have in common is the fact they are fed up with the subversive behaviour of p.c. millitants, who ironically DO so "raise like one man for this or that alleged abuse".
Also worth mentioning that the mainstream media offers blind unconditional and unquestioned support for those militants.

Personally i find it ironic (but not surprising) to see you talking about civility and sensibilities, because you dont seem to have any issues calling people neo-fascists and whatnot, based on the simple fact they mention being fed up with p.c.
Also, "the mini-chessboard with 2-3 coloured pawns that reflect my experience" ...ouch that hurt, you hit me over the head with more civility than i can shake a smile at.

Wendy's Twitter is just classic gold!

They tweeted:
Already know y'all about to ask for something free for #NationalFastFoodDay, so just download our app and get a free Junior Bacon Cheeseburger with any purchase. ez

Someone asked:
What if we dont have a phone?

Their response:
Then you won't be playing the new Diablo

This is awesome edgy PR!

Sorry. Still supposed to take you seriously ?

No matter how self-centered you are, you and those "many people" there were not the only ones polled, making your point pretty moot. As for concrete exemples, yeah, I saw many in this very thread. Precisely. Much more telling one than your refuge in anecdotical archetypes, which avoid defining categories ("does everyone agree that divorce is immoral ? hey of course, since people agree that serial killing is immoral").

I leave you with your loothunter logic, by which anyone and anything would automatically get 93% of the population's support as long as it claims to be victimized by "political correctness" - given that all agree on its meaning. Woot, science.

Have fun with your little world, and whichever youtubers legitimize your view comfortably enough.

Your civility is proportional to the logic of your arguments, but you still seem to be an endless source of ironies, as most of the "logic" you attributed to me, is actually yours.

My dear Telika, everything you've long-windedly said about "political correctness", also holds true for "legitimacy".

The real question, I think, is how do you manage to take *yourself* seriously. lol

I keep a calculator at hand to double check all my analyses.

For instance :

According to the report, 82% of americans think that hate speech is a problem. Some people think that Linko's tweets are hate speech. Therefore 82% of americans think Linko is a nazi. It's mathematical. Hey don't start nitpicking about subjective definitions please.

That doesn't make your bullshit less shittier than theirs -- objectively speaking -- so all you're demonstrating is that your issue is about "flavor", not substance.

Thats almost the very definition of "losing it", and you are losing it to your very own objective definitions and the complete and total failure to aknowledge the subjective street definitions, that while being subjective, are actually quite clearly defined, but you are unable to aknowledge and accept that, and therefore you are sinking down the rabbit hole of denial. Also you display a surprisingly lack of logic, surprisingly because you come across as an intelligent person.

According to your logic, these people dont have a clue what they are talking about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPEHbJgomgA&t=324s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAK0KXEpF8U

EDIT: are you by any chance still stuck at the insignificant subject of that poll?
To my knowledge we stopped talking about that many posts ago.
Polls are subjective, the methods used to analyse them are subjective.
Polls often are linked closely to statistics...and your often used % sign makes me think of the dreaded statistics.
Personally i stand in the camp of the guy who said that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Thought this clarification was necessary since you keep bringing up polls that nobody cares about and to my knowledge were not the main subject of our most recent posts.

Ever consider that the 80% of people who think political correctness is a problem are referring exactly to situations such as "Classic games #Wontbeerased" being called "hate speech".

It's funny. I do think "hate speech" is a problem. People like Louis Farrakhan is clearly anti-Semitic for example. But I'm also in the 80% that thinks all the people trying to call "everything" hate speech are going way too far. That one cannot criticise illegal immigration without it being called "hate speech" when one is talking about a real problem and casting no aspersions against any particular race at all.

To me, if the actual words used are not offensive in themselves, it's not "hate speech" and its not wrong.
A gif with "The Dude" pissing on games journalism, is not "hate speech" just because someone can come up with a 2 paragraph explanation tangentially linking it to something they deem hateful.

Advertising that "Here Classic Games #Wontbeerased" directed no offense to anyone. The argument against it is really a bunch of Whataboutism regarding diluting or distracting for another message. That statement made no judgment whatsoever about that other issue.

Now, as a side note, for everyone involved, consider this carefully...
Political correctness may have different meanings and interpretations in the U.S. and Canada than across the ocean. Europeans don't necessarily know about the growing trend of "participation trophies" and "no winners, everyone is a winner" that developed here, for example. That the specific problems we are seeing here, may not be present there. Even hotbed issues like immigration. I could be wrong, but illegal immigration isn't the problem being discussed most in Europe. While here, again, the vast majority supports legal immigration, it's illegal immigration that is at issue. Both are immigration issues, but the actual issues are different in different countries.

I don’t follow anything on twitter but from what I’ve heard Wendy’s is usually on point.

Good at sarcasm detection are you ?

Of course this syllogism is retarded. I must spell it out? It's indeed the same interpretation that has been done so far about "political correctness" but applied to another term. In the chance that, all of a sudden, their sophism gets visible to the "anything goes" crowd.

If that report had been misused the very same way, but for the opposite "cause", they would have noticed it faster. I dare hope, at least.

If you think it's a question of *where do you draw the line* then you're OK with "hate speech" laws as long as they don't infringe on anything *you* happen to care about, and that's a completely unprincipled position.

I know it was sarcasm. But I also know that you think the White Helmets are a legitimate humanitarian relief organization, which is bullshit.

And yeah, it truly is amazing how people block out the things that conflict with their preconceptions. It truly is. o.O