What if liberal commentators had referred to him in such a manner, never using his name to refer to him?

 

Not at all.

The issue I have is that there seems to be some who feel there is no line between a little fun and malice.

 

We have at least one poster here who refuses to use Obama's name. We have at least one who refuses to acknowledge that Obama is the President of ALL the citizens of the United States, not just those who voted for him.

 

A disrespectful nickname, as you say, can be a little fun. I feel it's intentional disrespect, and therefore, malicious, when it becomes the only way in which one will refer to the President.

 

There is such a thing, as cch says, as manners. Good, old fashioned manners. I find many who cry about political correctness, to most often be lacking in manners. There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable. That has nothing to do with censorship, it's tact, diplomacy, and (again) manners.

 

:thumb:

 

I agree with that.

 

One of the things that "turns me off" regarding politics is how manners are thrown out in favor of agendas, profits, personal motives, etc.

What if liberal commentators had referred to him in such a manner, never using his name to refer to him?

 

You mean they didn't?

What throws me off are those that treat those with a different opinion with disdain or disrespect. Particularly those that, at the same time, want to proclaim that they are Christian, yet treat people less than Christ-like.

 

Someone I greatly admire says it best: "Just because you CAN say whatever you like, doesn't mean that you should."

Boy, I sure didn't phrase my query well. I should have completely refrained from mention of the present president. I'll try again.

 

We all know what is meant by and practiced as political correctness. As it is used in our everyday life, is it, in reality, a form of censorship?

Boy, I sure didn't phrase my query well. I should have completely refrained from mention of the present president. I'll try again.

 

We all know what is meant by and practiced as political correctness. As it is used in our everyday life, is it, in reality, a form of censorship?

 

 

Again, I answer no.

I think there is a necessary distinction of possible definitions that may fall under "political correctness" that need to be fleshed out here. If we mean by politically correct the adherence to respect among discussants, then I support it. If we mean by politically correct the stigmatization of a particular opinion to the point of its silencing, then I do not support it. I have found that the vocalization of even the most base and detestable opinions are often the best arguments against them. In this case, neither definition constitutes the suppression of First Amendment rights so long as the government does not prosecute it.

 

For instance, on this forum there are several posters whom I refuse to engage with (this thread's author among them). Certainly, that has nothing to do with opinion as I welcome dissent and actively seek debate, but it has everything to do with the dense inability to produce an intelligent argument and the reliance on sub-sophomoric rhetoric to fill in that vacuum.

Edited April 19, 200917 yr by Habib

Boy, I sure didn't phrase my query well. I should have completely refrained from mention of the present president. I'll try again.

 

We all know what is meant by and practiced as political correctness. As it is used in our everyday life, is it, in reality, a form of censorship?

 

I think one of the challenges is that there are so many definitions of political correctness.

 

Give us some examples. That should help the debate.

I think there is a necessary distinction of possible definitions that may fall under "political correctness" that need to be fleshed out here. If we mean by politically correct the adherence to respect among discussants, then I support it. If we mean by politically correct the stigmatization of a particular opinion to the point of its silencing, then I do not support it. I have found that the vocalization of even the most base and detestable opinions are often the best arguments against them. In this case, neither definition constitutes the suppression of First Amendment rights so long as the government does not prosecute it.

 

For instance, on this forum there are several posters whom I refuse to engage with (this thread's author among them). Certainly, that has nothing to do with opinion as I welcome dissent and actively seek debate, but it has everything to do with the dense inability to produce an intelligent argument and the reliance on sub-sophomoric rhetoric to fill in that vacuum.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I must submit that your knowledge of the US Constitution is rather lacking.

 

You seem hung up on government prosecutions. Actually, most violations of the First Amendment deal with civil offenses involving private legal parties. But, then, I'm sure you really knew that, didn't you?:thumb:

Again, I answer no.

 

Fair enough. Can I assume that you apply your conclusion to all situations?

I think one of the challenges is that there are so many definitions of political correctness.

 

Give us some examples. That should help the debate.

 

So many definitions? Really? Would you enlighten us with some of them?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I must submit that your knowledge of the US Constitution is rather lacking.

 

You seem hung up on government prosecutions. Actually, most violations of the First Amendment deal with civil offenses involving private legal parties. But, then, I'm sure you really knew that, didn't you?:thumb:

 

:lol: I'll take Habib's knowledge of the constitution over most others any day.

The issue I have is that there seems to be some who feel there is no line between a little fun and malice.

 

We have at least one poster here who refuses to use Obama's name. We have at least one who refuses to acknowledge that Obama is the President of ALL the citizens of the United States, not just those who voted for him.

 

A disrespectful nickname, as you say, can be a little fun. I feel it's intentional disrespect, and therefore, malicious, when it becomes the only way in which one will refer to the President.

 

There is such a thing, as cch says, as manners. Good, old fashioned manners. I find many who cry about political correctness, to most often be lacking in manners. There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable. That has nothing to do with censorship, it's tact, diplomacy, and (again) manners.

 

None of this is new, it's just that the offendors and offended have just switched places.

:lol: I'll take Habib's knowledge of the constitution over most others any day.

 

As will I.

:lol: I'll take Habib's knowledge of the constitution over most others any day.

 

That wouildn't be your first mistake.