Politcal Correctness

[mican333]

I identify myself as a non-politically correct progressive. I am for gay rights, trans rights, social justice etc and am not politically correct. And is by no means a contradiction.

So let me start with the definition of political correctness which is the way the term has always been understood by me:

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ally%20correct

And I think both people on the right and left have misidentified what PC is

The right sometimes seems to consider anything that is social progressive as "politically correct" and therefore think that just supporting, say, gay rights or forwarding that gays should be respected is "politically correct". It's not
The left sometimes seems to think political correctness is the same as showing respect to others. It's not.

And I think a great example of a film that is both respectful to minorities and is also politically incorrect is the film Blazing Saddles (and I will assume that you all are familiar with it). It's politically incorrect due to its ample use of the N-word throughout. Political correctness would demand that the word never be used, particularly by white people, and therefore BS violates the tenets of political correctness. But the word is not used by the filmmakers to disparage blacks - it's never of the side of those using the word when they use it and all who do in the film are villains or ignorant folk. The black characters in the film are all smart, cool and never the target of ridicule from the filmmakers and the film is squarely on their side.

And if someone says "I'm uncomfortable with the content of the film and choose not to see it", fair enough. But the PC response would be "There is material in the film that may offend black people and therefore the film should not be seen by anyone" and they would likely seek to ban the film on certain college campuses if it were proposed that it be screened there.

So while there are some segments of the left who are politically correct, PC is not synonymous with leftism.

Again, I'm a non-PC progressive and I am fine with discussing, or even joking about, things that might make some uncomfortable. But I am not for intentional degredation of others so I'm not cool with a racist joke forwarded with the intent of putting down black people.

Anyway, for those who may want to discuss the issue, I've presented plenty to work with.

So have at it.

[Sigfried]

I think that is a pretty good breakdown.

I disagree a little in that I think PC is largely a left phenomenon. The right has some similar tropes but nothing quite the same.

I don't think the left exactly sees PC as equal to politeness. But, I would say that politeness is often mocked as being PC, when in fact, it's just being polite.

[Ibelsd]

I think that is a pretty good breakdown.

I disagree a little in that I think PC is largely a left phenomenon. The right has some similar tropes but nothing quite the same.

I don't think the left exactly sees PC as equal to politeness. But, I would say that politeness is often mocked as being PC, when in fact, it's just being polite.

I think modern PC is largely a left phenomenon. If we went back to the early 80's and prior, it was the right that was censoring books and limiting speech. The pendulum has certainly swung though. Certainly, some people conflate PC and politeness. I don't think that this is a right or left thing. It is just an a-hole thing. The concerning parts of PC are true attempts to limit free speech such as claiming that using certain words or phrases are hate crimes. This is, to me, scary ****.

"new survey has found that a whopping 41 percent of college students believe that hate speech should not be protected under the First Amendment, with only 58 percent saying that it should be."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...-theyre-wrong/

I think this is the logical conclusion of any PC movement, right or left. If the offending speech cannot be eradicated via social pressure, then it must be legislated out of existence. This was true in the days of Tipper Gore's PRMC and it is true of the progressive activists on college campuses and in social media today. I find it a bit strange that the OP defines himself as progressive but distances himself from the progressive movement as it relates to speech. I am guessing he believes they do not go hand-in-hand. I suppose the OP should define progressive. I'd certainly agree that being a liberal and PC do not go hand-in-hand. Progressive is a separate ideology from liberalism though. So, it'd be interesting to understand how the OP defines his version of progressive.

Pete Davidson of SNL recently said he was through with doing gigs on college campuses. This isn't because of the liberals or conservatives. It is squarely on the 'woke' progressives. I'd like to point out that Davidson is about as left as a you can go in the mainstream. I mean, he is a SNL player for goodness sakes. I don't think they have had an actual conservative on that show in 15 years. Probably since Norm McDonald left the show. So, it isn't like he is the enemy, so to speak. It is just an interesting time right now.

[mican333]

I find it a bit strange that the OP defines himself as progressive but distances himself from the progressive movement as it relates to speech.

I disagree that the progressive movement in general is for political correctness. Just because SOME people are for it does not mean that the movement as a whole embraces it or that it's an essential part of the movement.

Saying that EVERYONE within a group is for something or that it is part of the platform because SOME people within the group are for it is to engage in the hasty generalization fallacy.

I am guessing he believes they do not go hand-in-hand. I suppose the OP should define progressive. I'd certainly agree that being a liberal and PC do not go hand-in-hand. Progressive is a separate ideology from liberalism though. So, it'd be interesting to understand how the OP defines his version of progressive.

Well, if you want my progressive credentials, my debating on this site should give you plenty to work with. I mean we've been debating on various topics for a long time and I have consistently argued from a progressive viewpoint. I'm "socialist", I'm pro-trans rights, I'm pro-gay rights (and was long before the majority came around to that viewpoint). My current choice for President is Elizabeth Warren and I agree with pretty much all of her views. I also generally agree with AOC's and Sander's views. I find all of this pretty consistent with what is considered political progressivism is in our current political climate.

So based on that and much else, I think I qualify as a progressive.

And I see nothing about being progressive that means that I must agree with restricting speech of views that I think others might find uncomfortable. If certain other progressives think otherwise, then there is a disagreement amongst progressives on that particular issue. And neither side loses their "progressive card" because of this disagreement. So one can be a PC progressive or a non-PC progressive. I'm one of the latter.

Pete Davidson of SNL recently said he was through with doing gigs on college campuses. This isn't because of the liberals or conservatives. It is squarely on the 'woke' progressives. I'd like to point out that Davidson is about as left as a you can go in the mainstream. I mean, he is a SNL player for goodness sakes. I don't think they have had an actual conservative on that show in 15 years. Probably since Norm McDonald left the show. So, it isn't like he is the enemy, so to speak. It is just an interesting time right now.

And I would say that Pete Davidson is a non-PC progressive, like me.

[Ibelsd]

I disagree that the progressive movement in general is for political correctness. Just because SOME people are for it does not mean that the movement as a whole embraces it or that it's an essential part of the movement.

Saying that EVERYONE within a group is for something or that it is part of the platform because SOME people within the group are for it is to engage in the hasty generalization fallacy.




Well, if you want my progressive credentials, my debating on this site should give you plenty to work with. I mean we've been debating on various topics for a long time and I have consistently argued from a progressive viewpoint. I'm "socialist", I'm pro-trans rights, I'm pro-gay rights (and was long before the majority came around to that viewpoint). My current choice for President is Elizabeth Warren and I agree with pretty much all of her views. I also generally agree with AOC's and Sander's views. I find all of this pretty consistent with what is considered political progressivism is in our current political climate.

So based on that and much else, I think I qualify as a progressive.

And I see nothing about being progressive that means that I must agree with restricting speech of views that I think others might find uncomfortable. If certain other progressives think otherwise, then there is a disagreement amongst progressives on that particular issue. And neither side loses their "progressive card" because of this disagreement. So one can be a PC progressive or a non-PC progressive. I'm one of the latter.




And I would say that Pete Davidson is a non-PC progressive, like me.

But, how do you define progressive? A car has wheels and tires and seats and there's a steering wheel... those don't define what a car is. I cannot argue whether or not you are right about PC and progressive because I have no idea what you mean when you use the term other than it consists of a collection of thoughts and views. It is interesting, though, that you can define yourself as progressive because of what you believe it consists of, but when I mention PC being among that collection, you discount it as something not ALL progressives believe. Your entire 'definition' of progressive is based on the hasty generalization fallacy.

[mican333]

But, how do you define progressive? A car has wheels and tires and seats and there's a steering wheel... those don't define what a car is. I cannot argue whether or not you are right about PC and progressive because I have no idea what you mean when you use the term other than it consists of a collection of thoughts and views.

I am using the term as it is typically used in this society and I have mentioned SPECIFIC positions (like "socialism" and trans rights) and progressive politicians (like Bernie, Warren, and AOC) for reference.

So I have a hard time believing that you have no idea what I mean. How many more positions and politicians do I need to reference before you understand?

It is interesting, though, that you can define yourself as progressive because of what you believe it consists of, but when I mention PC being among that collection, you discount it as something not ALL progressives believe. Your entire 'definition' of progressive is based on the hasty generalization fallacy.

Not to those who understand the fallacy.

I did not say that ALL progressive aren't PC because I can point to some who aren't. I'm saying that because a person can be un-PC and progressive, being PC is not required for being progressive. That is solid logic, not a fallacy.

[Ibelsd]

How so?

I discount it as something that not all progressive believe because I know for a fact that they don't all believe in it. That's pure logic, not a logical fallacy.

And while I have not provided a definition of progressivism, I have supported that I qualify as a progressive by today's political standards of what qualifies as progressivism. To repeat:

Well, if you want my progressive credentials, my debating on this site should give you plenty to work with. I mean we've been debating on various topics for a long time and I have consistently argued from a progressive viewpoint. I'm "socialist", I'm pro-trans rights, I'm pro-gay rights (and was long before the majority came around to that viewpoint). My current choice for President is Elizabeth Warren and I agree with pretty much all of her views. I also generally agree with AOC's and Sander's views. I find all of this pretty consistent with what is considered political progressivism is in our current political climate.

THAT is support that I am a progressive (or at least justified in considering myself progressive).

And if you are so clueless on what progressivism is that you don't buy that I can legitimately call myself a progressive because of that (do you think that Warren, Bernie, and AOC aren't progressive?), then I would say that you have no idea what progressivism is and therefore have no basis to argue that anything, including political correctness, is part and parcel of progressivism.

Do all progressives believe in socialism? In trans-gender rights? How do you determine you are a progressive if you cannot define it? I have my opinion of what a progressive is, but clearly our definitions differ somehow. So, I am asking you to define what you mean when you use the term progressive. Maybe I am clueless. How would I know if you cannot or if you refuse to define it? While I agree that Sanders, Warren, and Occasional-Cortex are all progressives, they do not define the term so we may use it consistently in this discussion. And that's all I am seeking to do here. Let's agree on a meaning for a specific word so our discussion means something moving forward.

[mican333]

Do all progressives believe in socialism? In trans-gender rights? How do you determine you are a progressive if you cannot define it? I have my opinion of what a progressive is, but clearly our definitions differ somehow. So, I am asking you to define what you mean when you use the term progressive. Maybe I am clueless. How would I know if you cannot or if you refuse to define it? While I agree that Sanders, Warren, and Occasional-Cortex are all progressives, they do not define the term so we may use it consistently in this discussion. And that's all I am seeking to do here. Let's agree on a meaning for a specific word so our discussion means something moving forward.

Whether that is needed for the discussion to move forward depends on what the discussion is.

I don't really know what your point is and therefore I don't know how important it is that we nail down a definition for "progressive".

When I said I identify myself as a progressive, I was referring to a person who holds the general liberal/leftist viewpoint. So the exact definition of the word "progressive" as opposed to "liberal" or "leftist" isn't really relevant to any point I was making. So my point is while some leftist/progressive/liberal people are PC, others, like myself, are not PC.

I indicated a general agreement with the more progressive candidates of the Democrat party (Warren, etc.) and voiced agreement with certain policies that are championed by progressives. So I am referring to that kind of person, regardless of what particular word you want to use to define them.

So unless you have a point that is relevant to my argument and really needs a dictionary-type definition of "progressive", I don't see the need to nail down such a definition. And if you feel that such a definition is needed for you to make a point, then you should provide such a definition yourself.

[Sigfried]

Here is my take on Progressives using somewhat absolutist terms.

Progressives think that you can always do better, and you achieve that through coordinated action and cooperation. If you see a problem, there is a solution that involves sitting down, devising a strategy, then carrying it out with everyone's willing participation. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem and allowing a problem to continue is nearly as great a crime as causing it.

Opposed to progressive ideas are libertarian ones. The notion that the best action is often to do nothing and that individual motivations will create better solutions that fit the exact circumstances and that coordinated efforts are doomed to failure or worse, create systemic problems far worse that what the solutions were intending to fix. But even more than that, they feel forced cooperation is a moral crime in and of itself.


That said, the degree to which you subscribe to these ideas can varry and it can vary from one social subject to another. Some progressives on economic fronts are fairly libertarian on social fronts and vise Versa.

I think its fair to say that censorship is a progressive value when the speech is considered to be causing harm.

[Ibelsd]

Whether that is needed for the discussion to move forward depends on what the discussion is.

I don't really know what your point is and therefore I don't know how important it is that we nail down a definition for "progressive".

When I said I identify myself as a progressive, I was referring to a person who holds the general liberal/leftist viewpoint. So the exact definition of the word "progressive" as opposed to "liberal" or "leftist" isn't really relevant to any point I was making. So my point is while some leftist/progressive/liberal people are PC, others, like myself, are not PC.

I indicated a general agreement with the more progressive candidates of the Democrat party (Warren, etc.) and voiced agreement with certain policies that are championed by progressives. So I am referring to that kind of person, regardless of what particular word you want to use to define them.

So unless you have a point that is relevant to my argument and really needs a dictionary-type definition of "progressive", I don't see the need to nail down such a definition. And if you feel that such a definition is needed for you to make a point, then you should provide such a definition yourself.

In my opinion, it is progressives who are most forcefully pushing the current PC conversation. It is progressives who are generally pushing cancel culture onto people with thoughts and expressions that they do not like. It is progressives who are generally in favor of making unwanted speech a crime (i.e. hate speech). I don't see typical liberals such as Bill Mahr or Nancy Pelosi pushing these ideas. Since you mention Occasional-Cortex as a progressive example, she has been quite open about her desire to place limits on free speech. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has openly criticized limits to free speech. I do think Bernie would endorse a more ominous version of censorship, but I don't think it is PC related and not topical here. The issues of gay and trans rights also aren't universal among progressives. The tennis star Navratalova, and many LGBT activists don't share the same views of trans rights as you do. In fact, they sound much more like conservatives. Are these people not progressive? So, what I am trying to say here is that not all progressives share the same views as it relates to PC, but the current PC movement is generally a progressive one.

[mican333]

In my opinion, it is progressives who are most forcefully pushing the current PC conversation. It is progressives who are generally pushing cancel culture onto people with thoughts and expressions that they do not like. It is progressives who are generally in favor of making unwanted speech a crime (i.e. hate speech).

If you mean compared to other groups, yes. If you mean that they are generally for it (as opposed to a vocal minority), you are engaging in the hasty generalization fallacy until you can support that that is the case.

And the right has their own version of censorship that is more unique to them than to leftists.

I don't see typical liberals such as Bill Mahr or Nancy Pelosi pushing these ideas. Since you mention Occasional-Cortex as a progressive example, she has been quite open about her desire to place limits on free speech.

Support, please. I am unaware of her asking for limits on free speech and while I won't paint you with that brush, it does seem that many confuse advocating consequences for "bad speech" (such as getting fired) with infringing on the right to free speech. So again, you will need to provide a specific, supported example before I will take this seriously.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has openly criticized limits to free speech. I do think Bernie would endorse a more ominous version of censorship, but I don't think it is PC related and not topical here. The issues of gay and trans rights also aren't universal among progressives. The tennis star Navratalova, and many LGBT activists don't share the same views of trans rights as you do. In fact, they sound much more like conservatives. Are these people not progressive? So, what I am trying to say here is that not all progressives share the same views as it relates to PC, but the current PC movement is generally a progressive one.

That's kind of my point. Some progressives are PC and others are not.

[Ibelsd]

If you mean compared to other groups, yes. If you mean that they are generally for it (as opposed to a vocal minority), you are engaging in the hasty generalization fallacy until you can support that that is the case.

And the right has their own version of censorship that is more unique to them than to leftists.

More unique? I don't follow.

Support, please. I am unaware of her asking for limits on free speech and while I won't paint you with that brush, it does seem that many confuse advocating consequences for "bad speech" (such as getting fired) with infringing on the right to free speech. So again, you will need to provide a specific, supported example before I will take this seriously.




That's kind of my point. Some progressives are PC and others are not.

From Occasional-Cortex
https://twitter.com/aoc/status/11334...764992?lang=en
"For those who believe in “free speech”: whose free speech do you believe in?"

Who's free speech? She is saying that supporting 'racist' speech is a denial of free speech for others. What she isn't saying is that she believes in free speech for all. Your claim is that the current PC movement isn't driven by progressive ideology and that it is just something supported by a vocal minority of progressives. However, 41% of college students believe hate speech should be criminalized.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...-theyre-wrong/

As to your general claim, it is not supported by data.
"Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ctness/572581/

In other words, most progressives are supportive of PC-ness. Certainly, of all the groups polled, they are the least opposed to it. So, you claim that PC isn't supported by anyone but a small minority of progressives is simply not correct.

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/...erance-america
The research done here shows that as someone identifies as more liberal, they find PC is less of a problem to their own free speech.

44% of democrat running for office identified as progressive. Then, we kinda go back to where we started which is where I asked you to define progressive.

[CowboyX]

More unique? I don't follow.

Maybe like not being able to take a knee or mock the president with his severed head.

[mican333]

More unique? I don't follow.

As an example, book and record burning is more of a right-wing form of censorship. Seeking to ban books from public libraries and schools has likewise been more of a conservative thing.

From Occasional-Cortex
https://twitter.com/aoc/status/11334...764992?lang=en
[FONT="]"For those who believe in “free speech”: whose free speech do you believe in?"
[/FONT]
Who's free speech? She is saying that supporting 'racist' speech is a denial of free speech for others. What she isn't saying is that she believes in free speech for all.

And what she isn't saying is that people should no longer have the right to free speech. She is talking directly about when speech puts people in danger and that is a legitimate exception to first amendment. You don't have the right to incite violence against others with speech.

This is obviously a nuanced and complicated issue but to boil down her statement to "she wants to ban free speech" or whatever is to either really misunderstand what she is saying or twisting her words.

So if that's what you got for your claim that she is against free speech, you got nothing.

Your claim is that the current PC movement isn't driven by progressive ideology and that it is just something supported by a vocal minority of progressives. However, 41% of college students believe hate speech should be criminalized.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...-theyre-wrong/

And these people within the age range of 18 - 22 speak for all progressives?

As to your general claim, it is not supported by data.
"Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ctness/572581/

My general claim is that not all progressives are PC. If 30 percent see it as a problem, then it is indeed true that not all progressives are PC.

And the article you mentioned progressive activists. I'm progressive but not a "progressive activist" which would likewise lead to the conclusion that what activists think is not what all progressives think. The "activists" of a group are clearly the ones with the strongest and most extreme opinions and they do not speak for the more moderate progressives.

In other words, most progressives are supportive of PC-ness. Certainly, of all the groups polled, they are the least opposed to it. So, you claim that PC isn't supported by anyone but a small minority of progressives is simply not correct.

I made no such claim. And as I made clear earlier, I was using "progressive" in a general term and using it pretty much the same as "left" and "liberal".

To repeat from post 8:

"When I said I identify myself as a progressive, I was referring to a person who holds the general liberal/leftist viewpoint. So the exact definition of the word "progressive" as opposed to "liberal" or "leftist" isn't really relevant to any point I was making. So my point is while some leftist/progressive/liberal people are PC, others, like myself, are not PC."

Likewise in the OP, I also use the term "left". So I am not actually differentiating progressives from "the left" in general nor do I think splitting hairs in such a fashion really addresses any points in the OP.

That's not to say that YOU can't make an argument that differentiates progressives from leftists but you aren't necessarily tackling any points that I made in the OP by doing that.

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/...erance-america
The research done here shows that as someone identifies as more liberal, they find PC is less of a problem to their own free speech.

Sure. I don't contest that PC is more of a liberal thing than a conservative thing.

44% of democrat running for office identified as progressive. Then, we kinda go back to where we started which is where I asked you to define progressive.

And my response is the same as before. If you feel that it is important for an argument of yours to have "progressive" defined, then you should provide that definition yourself.

Again, the OP is not about progressives per se and I've made no argument that requires me to split them off from leftists in general. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't make an argument specifically about progressives in this thread but if you want to do that, I see no reason why I need to do any of your work for you by digging up a definition that you can use. If you need to define progressives for your argument, then go ahead and define them yourself.

[Ibelsd]

As an example, book and record burning is more of a right-wing form of censorship. Seeking to ban books from public libraries and schools has likewise been more of a conservative thing.




And what she isn't saying is that people should no longer have the right to free speech. She is talking directly about when speech puts people in danger and that is a legitimate exception to first amendment. You don't have the right to incite violence against others with speech.

This is obviously a nuanced and complicated issue but to boil down her statement to "she wants to ban free speech" or whatever is to either really misunderstand what she is saying or twisting her words.

So if that's what you got for your claim that she is against free speech, you got nothing.




And these people within the age range of 18 - 22 speak for all progressives?




My general claim is that not all progressives are PC. If 30 percent see it as a problem, then it is indeed true that not all progressives are PC.

And the article you mentioned progressive activists. I'm progressive but not a "progressive activist" which would likewise lead to the conclusion that what activists think is not what all progressives think. The "activists" of a group are clearly the ones with the strongest and most extreme opinions and they do not speak for the more moderate progressives.




I made no such claim. And as I made clear earlier, I was using "progressive" in a general term and using it pretty much the same as "left" and "liberal".

To repeat from post 8:

"When I said I identify myself as a progressive, I was referring to a person who holds the general liberal/leftist viewpoint. So the exact definition of the word "progressive" as opposed to "liberal" or "leftist" isn't really relevant to any point I was making. So my point is while some leftist/progressive/liberal people are PC, others, like myself, are not PC."

Likewise in the OP, I also use the term "left". So I am not actually differentiating progressives from "the left" in general nor do I think splitting hairs in such a fashion really addresses any points in the OP.

That's not to say that YOU can't make an argument that differentiates progressives from leftists but you aren't necessarily tackling any points that I made in the OP by doing that.





Sure. I don't contest that PC is more of a liberal thing than a conservative thing.




And my response is the same as before. If you feel that it is important for an argument of yours to have "progressive" defined, then you should provide that definition yourself.

Again, the OP is not about progressives per se and I've made no argument that requires me to split them off from leftists in general. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't make an argument specifically about progressives in this thread but if you want to do that, I see no reason why I need to do any of your work for you by digging up a definition that you can use. If you need to define progressives for your argument, then go ahead and define them yourself.

You've sort of tacked on progressive to liberal and defined them as roughly equivalent. However, you acknowledge that progressive activcists are more extreme than progressives, although, aren't all progressives merely liberals per your classification?

In terms Occasional-Cortex, you have added a bunch of ideas which she didn't state. She clearly intoned certain types of speech shouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment. If you believe she meant something else, then it is up to you to provide evidence of it. More than your mere interpretation of what you think she meant based on your own personal views.

If you aren't contesting that PC is a liberal thing more than a conservative thing, then we generally agree. And, in terms of conservative forms of censorship, we don't really disagree there either. I inferred this in my first post when I said back in the 80's, it was definitely conservatives who were more open to limiting 1st amendment rights. I also said the pendulum has swung. We don't hear too much about conservatives demanding the government to intervene to prevent speech today. I am sure it happens, but it isn't at the same level of the current PC movement nor at the level it was several decades ago. So, if we generally agree on all this, then there isn't much more to say, is there?

[mican333]

You've sort of tacked on progressive to liberal and defined them as roughly equivalent. However, you acknowledge that progressive activcists are more extreme than progressives, although, aren't all progressives merely liberals per your classification?

I am acknowledging YOUR argument regarding progressives when I refer to them as you have been referring to them. But again, MY argument does lump them together as generally "left". So while I have been addressing your argument, your argument does not really rebut my argument.

From the OP, which is my general position regarding this:

So while there are some segments of the left who are politically correct, PC is not synonymous with leftism.

In terms Occasional-Cortex, you have added a bunch of ideas which she didn't state.

As have you. For example:

She clearly intoned certain types of speech shouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment.

But she didn't state that certain types of speech shouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment. So that's an idea that you have added.

If you believe she meant something else, then it is up to you to provide evidence of it. More than your mere interpretation of what you think she meant based on your own personal views.

As do you. And since you provided the original argument on this issue, the burden is yours. I'm just stating that I hold a different interpretation and therefore reject your interpretation. When you support your interpretation, then I will concern myself with supporting my interpretation. So either support your interpretation or we can just agree to disagree and drop this point.

If you aren't contesting that PC is a liberal thing more than a conservative thing, then we generally agree. And, in terms of conservative forms of censorship, we don't really disagree there either. I inferred this in my first post when I said back in the 80's, it was definitely conservatives who were more open to limiting 1st amendment rights. I also said the pendulum has swung. We don't hear too much about conservatives demanding the government to intervene to prevent speech today. I am sure it happens, but it isn't at the same level of the current PC movement nor at the level it was several decades ago. So, if we generally agree on all this, then there isn't much more to say, is there?

I will say that I don't agree that censorship nowadays is more of a liberal thing than a conservative thing. I forward that we hear more about something when it's new and older forms of censorship (the conservative kind) are not heard about as much nowadays because they are "old news" but that doesn't mean that they decreased or disappeared.

And also PC isn't necessarily asking for legal intervention regarding "bad" speech but is more focused on societal sanctions - people looking down on "violators". That's not to say that that applies to all PC people but when it comes to creating some kind of "scorecard" for which side is more censoring, what kind of censorship (social sanctions or legal sanctions) is a factor. So I can't say that pure political bias is the primary factor in which side one thinks censorship is more of a problem. The right thinks the left is more into it and the left thinks the right is more into it and without some objective measure, that's kind of the way it's going to be.