Well, Im not sure why you are talking about “everything independently of mentality”, I may have missed parts(s) of the conversation I so rudely interjected myself into.
Anyway, you see an error or have disagreement...im just wondering why this particular error is strange to you? Why is it more weird than other errors you might take issue with?
Cuz its so obvious to you I take it? Its weird becuase its so simple to understand why its erroneous?

What's weird about it is that it's difficult to understand where anyone got the idea that there's something inherently inferior about mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

I think the idea is that mental phenomena are subject to bias and subjective limitations which weaken conclusions while if something can be confirmed seperate from those bias’s and subjective limitations then its a stronger conclusion.
Even if you disagree with that, is it really that strange?

I remmber that, pretty funny. If any white people were offended, then they are looking to be offended, they are acting like children. I dont see why it would be different for any other race.

I understand, but it still seems silly to me. Its ok to dress as Mr T, but not all the way? Gotta pretend Mr T wasnt black? What about an Asian guy, can HE wear blackface? What about dressing up as Bob Marley? Would someone be permitted to wear dreads, but no black face? This sounds like the concerns of someone who is looking to be offended. (Not meaning to imply you are that someone).
I get that there is a history there, but we do not judge people by the actions of long dead people/racists and historical events they had nothing to do with aside from an irrelevant commonality of skin color. The use of blackface by a person should be judged by their use of the blackface, not someone else's.
We do not treat someone as though they are racist based on the actions of completely unrelated and long dead racists. Or for the color of their skin. Can we agree on that?

Edited to clarify: “we SHOULD not treat someone...”. I understand some people do.

Its not ok to dress up as Mr T?

Thats a bit different. You play dress up, and dress up as different things at a costume party. Its ok for exemple, to dress up as Mr. T and to that end apply black face.
What kind of party would the use of “nigger” be used in a similar context? A racial slur party?

I dont see how he did anything wrong in the first place. Why should he be publicly embarrassed then? Why does something so insignificant that happened 35 years ago even matter to anything happening today?
I understand blackface is offensive to some, and some additional context in this case might change my view, but so is some art. With so many prople living together, your gonna be potentially offended. Probably alot.
I understand there is historical basis at work, but the only history that needs to be considered when judging a person is that persons. This guy is in no way responsible or held to account for the actions of other, long dead people of the same skin color or culture.

Thank you, and Ill try not to let it go to my head ;)

Well, your example isnt about speech, but rather action but I suppose it falls under the PC paradigm.
So he dressed up at a costume party as what? A black person, or black celebrity? I don’t know why he should be embarrassed by that and as far as voting for him...I think people should be able to vote for who they want.
His crime was...bad taste I guess? I think I agree with your assessment, excepting that I dont think his choice of costume in his youth at a costume party is news worthy, or pertinent to his ability to govern. This sort of thing only comes up because the PC machine is always searching for something to be offended about, so that they can use it as ammunition in their efforts to virtue signal, to perpetuate outrage culture and thereby force others to comply with their views.

To me it depends on in what way they are being held responsible. On the level of person to person I think its fine. Dont hang out with the offensive person, or say something to them or dont listen to the music, or comedy or whatever. I dont see a problem there, its YOUR choice effecting YOU. Thats not the level of PC. PC is about controlling OTHERS.

Because being able to declare something unpleasant or offensive is easy, it completly subjective, anyone can be offended by anything and if you allow people to make these declarations and those declarations justify punishment in the form of restricting other people or the use of violence as some here suggest then your propensity to be offended gives you power and control over other people that is dangerous...not because of people just wanting polite interaction but because of people who will abuse that power, who will not stop being offended, who will use that control to silence political opposition....all the worst tyranny always starts with the same mechanism, these days its called Politically Correct. The good intentions of people pushing for it are paving a road to hell.
Further, When you allow yourself to be offended by others peoples words you are giving them control over you as well.
I said it once and Ill say it again. We teach CHILDREN that “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me”. Surely grown adults can meet the same challenge we set for todflers?

You are making the most sense, but I suspect it doesnt matter.

You need to chill. For real. — NKBJ

Are you sure? Im pretty chill already...what is it about my post that was not “chill”?

Yes, not all. No need to point that out since A) I didnt claim it was all teachers and B) even if I had specifically mentioned teachers I wouldnt be talking about ALL teachers unless I actually said ALL.
Not even a majority of teachers teach that toxic ideology, but id be remiss if I didnt point out that the majority give their silent consent by not standing up to it.

Well said.

Agreed, unfortunatly that baloney is being taught in universities and schools, to the young minds that are shaping our world these days.

Why would we want any political correctness at all? Its very nature is about postering and perception, a framework for virtue signalling and social control. Why come up with new definitions when yiu can get rid of it together? There is nothing PC adds that isnt already covered elsewhere, PC is ONLY adding authoritarian social control and toxic virtue signalling.
We have politeness or courtesy already, we already have laws that protect minorities in the same way non-minorities are protected and laws for equal rights etc that PC people are worried certain words or phrasing might lead to. Its creating a hammer to smash something thats not even really there.
Basically, PC is complete bullshit and I dont see the point in salvaging it at all. It will ALWAYS grow into what is now no matter the well intentioned or humble beginnings.

Lol, you just cant help yourself can you? I am surprised that more discussion about humour hasnt been brought up. Comedy is one clear area where PC is focused on. What people are and are not allowed to be entertained by.

Not in any way that means it should be treated as indistinct from peoples actions, or in any way that is especially different than any other speech about anything else. We do not give people first place in a race for talking about getting first place in a race, nor a medical license for talking about saving people with medicine. You have to DO something to get those things, just like you actually have to DO something to be judged for your ACTIONS.

I do not agree. Its seems entirely possible to make that distinction, and dubious not to. They are different things and should be treated as such. Not doing so is a clear attempt to muscle in speech as something we already make heavy restrictions on, like murder or child abuse.
Id like to add that this is done by proponents of “PC” in order to abuse the authority that combating actions like murder or child abuse affords. Misapplying it imo, to force other people to talk the way they want just as ive already described.

You don't think I get it, but you are posing a specific example relating to my question: — Pattern-chaser

Yes, I was taking you up on your new question/discussion after making my points about the other part of the discussion. I thought you were posing a related query. Hence the seperate posts.
You go on to ignore the distinction between speech and actions that I made which addresses what you said. This sort of ignoring and conflating makes it difficult to communicate. I mean...all you did was repeat what you previously asserted and declare that you do in fact get it. Yes, I concede you know what YOU mean, YOUR view in the matter. What Im suggesting you dont fully understand is what IM saying, the point I am making. Further, you dont fully understand the issue with “PC”, as demonstrated by your doubling down of your position which Ive pointed out is in too narrow a scope.

Asking questions is exactly, precisely being open to a different perspective, which is what Sushi did.

So, what you really mean is you learned it is pointless to have discussions with people who not automatically see things the way you do. Brilliant. You should have taken the time to learn about double standards, hypocracy and projection. These seem more pertinent for you.

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? — Pattern-chaser

It depends on if you are talking about intolerant speech, or intolerant actions. Intolerant speech is an unfortunate by-product of free speech, and free speech is very, very important and very much worth the cost. Intolerant actions on the other hand have no such parallel. There is no good reason I can see to allow intolerant actions, such as not giving people jobs based on race or refusing them service at a restaurant based on political views.

I dont think your quite getting it. If the point at which you are on the issue is figuring out what “PC” means, you need to do more research. Take a look at the things that actually get done in the name of “PC”. It is in theory and in practice about some people forcing other people to talk in certain ways. Even if this is to enforce “polite” engagement, it is still forcing people...and its forcing one persons views upon another since not everyone agrees about the importance of being polite, the value of being polite, what is considered polite and what kinds of things are not polite by necessity.
I understand where your coming from, but I think you are perhaps missing the bigger picture. Its not just about people not being nice when talking to each other, and its not just about suggesting people do things in a nicer way.
I would politely invite you to look closer at this issue, and hopefully my previous posts will make more sense.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. “PC” are rules about what you can and cannot say. It is the attempt to force people to talk in a certain way.
If you have a dfferent way of defining “PC”, then you are free to commit to your idiosyncratic definition but I dont have to use it that way, I didnt mean it that way and I dont think anyone else does either. “Politically correct” is exactly about controlling language, which words can be used and in what places.

Not everyone holds PC/politeness in such high regard. For example I find it insincere, time wasting, obnoxious and often cowardly. (Cowardly becuase some types of people like to use it as cover to be the exact kind of prick they claim to be against). I much prefer being straightforward, honest and even confrontational (get everyones cards on the table and stop pussyfooting around so the issue gets sorted and we can move on).
You think your way is better, I think my way is better. We are free to discuss, debate, convince. What you are NOT allowed to do is force your way upon me and vice versa. That is what “PC” is, forcing people to do things a certain way. Free speech protects BOTH parties from that kind if authoritarianism, which is a very good thing.

Given that, I suppose the most sensible way to conduct the debate is to avoid "PC is good" vs "PC is bad" type positions and focus in on actual real-life examples and see what's going wrong (or right) with them, and why. — Baden

No, PC is merely the description of the divide in degrees. I wouldnt agree its ever good as it represents the opposing view. “PC” is the difference in degrees.

It seems to me that the disagreement (in general, not specific to you) isnt in the way things are defined, but rather in the way they are being measured. The degree of damage the speech does is different between the two views, the penalty for certain speech is on two ends of the scale and likewise for the restrictions on speech. Its not so much what the two sides believe, its to what degree.
I think alot of the conclusions and positions on both sides are informed by each sides idea of the degrees if the three things mentioned above. For example, the lower your tolerance for the degree of damage the higher your penalties and restrictions are going to be.

Your examples are not about free speech. The person who agreed to talk about Law, then turns out to know nothing about law has come under false pretences. His actual speech is not the issue.
Likewise with the repeating of “fish”. What he is saying is not the issue, its that he has agreed to a debate and is not debating.
If there are rules set forth, and they should be very specific, and someone doesnt follow them then they should be dealt with for not following the rules.
If a bunch of PC people wanna get together for a debate and have a big list of things you cant say, they are welcome to do so and to eject people not following the rules as they see fit. What they arent allowed to do, or shouldn't be allowed to do, is de-platform or impose those rules on other people who have not agreed to their rules. Whether this is via law or by taking direct action through violence or destruction of livelihood is regardless a dangerous and wrong thing to do.

Well said.

But the idea that words do not hurt is a myth. Legally it is within one's right for speech within the confines of the law, but there are limitations. It is not necessarily about hurt feelings, rather, in certain arenas should there be limiting factors of speech? For example could free speech in fact cause harm? Yes, see:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/massachusetts-high-court-upholds-michelle-carter-s-conviction-texts-encouraging-n968291

Can racial epithets formed from so-called free speech cause harm? Yes. — Anaxagoras

Harm, impact, yes. That must be weighed against the harm and impact of restricting speech. No contest. As the OP quoted, all your other freedoms come from your freedom to speak. Even the bad speech, because whatever harm that causes is a picnic compared to the alternative.

No. In American history words were used to enslave, maim, and kill other people. The residual pain over the generations is evident enough to know words do in fact have an impact on others. — Anaxagoras

Laughable nonsense Im sorry to say. Words cannot enslave, this requires physical force. Physical force is not words. Words cannot maim, this requires physicsl force, or physical injury/harm. Physical injury/harm is not words. Kill? You think you can kill someone with words?
These things; enslavement, maiming and killing, are actions. They require people to ACT THEM OUT. We stop people from acting badly, from DOING things not thinking them or talking about them.

We also taught children to use violence in retaliatory fashion. We also cite MLK's speech. We also do a lot of things in the United States and elsewhere touting democracy and yet in reality we do the complete opposite. — Anaxagoras

Retaliatory against other violence. Shoot if your shot at, hit when you are hit upon, yell when you are yelled at. Its pretty simple.

My argument here is not to restrict speech, but to also note that the consequences of freedom could result in violence. — Anaxagoras

I know you have an idea of what kinds of speech should be responded to with violence, but the problem is so does everyone else. If you grant people the right to commit violent acts in response to speech then violence will become normal. No one will be safe from violence because anyone can be offended by anything. To Terrapins point, you should be restricted to using your voice to fight back, not your fists unless you’ve been attacked with fists. This is why “speech is violence” is so important to your narrative here, its how you justify the unjustified.

Amen. You gotta love people arguing about free speech and not knowing what it is, or why its more important than protecting anyones feelings. Its for grown ups, not sensitive children who get hurt feelings and call it violence.
When the aliens come for us, they wont need rayguns or spaceships or mind powers...just a megaphone they can yell racial slurs and insults and then watch everyone wilt.
Whatever happened to “sticks and stones...”? We taught that to CHILDREN, because we wanted them to one day be ADULTS. Thats not even to mention the quote above that the poster doesnt even seem to know the meaning of.
If you restrict speech, you are eroding your access to your fundamental freedoms.
And yes, that includes the vulgar and hateful.

Lol, alright then.

...ok. So what is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking?

What is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking, in your opinion?

Lol, didnt see THAT coming.

Lol, sometimes thats what people need. Slap the PC right outta them.

I think they learn by observing thats how everything works. I think thats the basis of it. Its fundamental to reality and is observable.

I think etiquette is a safeguard against people who are too stupid to get along. Like how you are not supposed to talk about religion and politics. Its because people are too stupid to be trusted to have those conversations...even though they are two of the main things people SHOULD be talking about.

Im not sure, I hadnt widened the scope to include those sorts of things. Its an analogy right, so its meant only to illustrate a specific point rather than perfectly map or correlate.
A seperate matter I think, which I will give some thought to.