The Big Picture: Correctitude

[the clockmaker]

Bob seems to be either incapable or unwilling to engage in an actual debate on this, or indeed any other subject. I see no difference between this video and the hundred os self assured posts that flow through this site every day, aside from the fact that no opportunity for a counterpoint is given.

Imagine for a moment that bob was not a contributor to this site, imagine that he had to make his views, specifically the views that he expressed today heard in spite of the background noise of everybody else shoutign their not so special oppinions. Imagine that instead of saying his piece and running off, he was actually acountable for what he said. How long would he be able to maintain his, frankly quite rabid, points of view.

What, in this video, is put forward that is any more insightful than half the content of the R&P forum? If we actually look at what this guy is saying, how high is the quality of this work. The tone is agressive, the conclusions are highly questionable and the only time any dissenting viewpoint is put forword, it is put forward in a manner that would make even a master of fallacies in debates (giggle) blush. To butcher ghostbusters, 'you are a poor debater dr. Venkman.'

If this was a post, and not a featured video, what are the chances that it would not attract mod attention. What are the chancest that this dismissive, agressive, frankly troll like attidtude would not garner at the very least a probation.

In the end, I don't think that I have ever found a show title as dishonest as this one, simply because noone so small minded could ever actually portray the big picture. The big picture includes honest differances in oppinion and the acceptance of such. The big picture is more than the rantings of one guy on the internet. If anything, this thread, with its clash of differant beliefs, with its compramises and recognitions, deserves the title of 'the big picture' and the video no grander name than 'the OP'.

Bob is not some white knight standing against the mindless hordes of right wing racists.

He's just an ARSEHOLE.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I really disagree with the Res 5 and Thor points. I do see why the Res 5 one could of been the way with the Tribal imagery but the complaint was more white dude kills black dudes. The thing that annoyed me about Thor was out of all the gods they picked the whitest of the white and made him black. That is the part that annoys me and it just seems like massive trollbait. They could of picked anyone else but they picked him.

Frankly, considering how often movie makers just fuck the source material so they can have their vaunted creative freedom. Bitching about them selecting a competent, Nay, good actor to play a character simply because he's a different ethnicity ; which I should point is a utterly trivial separation to begin with, is frankly asinine and really has no place in the discussion as far a me myself am concerned.

Well if you think that fair enough but it isn't like Kenneth Brannagh hasn't put different races in when they weren't in the source material before. When he did it in Hamlet it felt really artificial and jarring. I have no problem with a change if it feels natural and not just their to have the token "minority" to please people. As I already said my main problem here is not exactly just the race change but the fact they pick the god called the whitest of the white and made him black. They could of picked any other character. It just seems like they are asking for controversy to me and it has little to do with the actors skills which I never said he was unsuited. They could of made him any other character but you know I am not the director I am just hoping it won't be as jarring and pointless as the Voltemand/Cornelius thing out of Brannagh's Hamlet.

 

[VonBrewskie]

Agreed. Marketability is another phrase that gets tossed around a lot these days. The marketability of a product seems intrinsically tied to its Political Correctness. I have my doubts as to whether or not this is true. What I do not doubt is that every marketing firm in the United States, (and most of the Western World), subscribes to the idea that PC=higher sales.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Well, not bad, though I have to admit, this is the first time I've disagreed with moviebobber to the point of wondering about his opinions a bit.

I'm with him for the most part on the issue of 'political correctness', yep, many times it's just a shield allowing for jerks to be safely exclusivist and appear somehow morally superior. Then again, many instances of being... well, "PC" ... are simply just that, trying to be as least hurtful as possible to a given group by referring to them in the manner 'popular society' has agreed to be least offensive. (on a side note, I never found PCU very funny. It always felt like it was trying to be that generation's "Animal House" but it failed pretty miserably."

To continue, although Mencia has always just gotten a giggle or two out of me, I've fallen of the couch laughing at Jeff Dunham's routines. His last stand up I saw about his daughter's first attempt at gassing up her car was priceless. Though I'm sure Bobber was more referring to "Achmed" than anything. This is also a pretty funny character to me...

But the thing I'll never get is why so frakking many people blew up over RE5. Well, outside of it being a fairly dry over-the-shoulder action game, not 'survival horror' in the slightest, putting what I consider the final nail in Resident Evil's credibility coffin, I find it unfathomable that anyone would find it 'offensive'. Why? because the game has Aboriginal African peoples in it, from what I can gather. If this is it, I mean, REALLY the only thing, I'm more baffled by this than Kei$ha's popularity. Why be offended? They exist. There are such things, entire native cultures in Africa and South America, Asia, Australia, plenty of places on multiple continents, where there are indigenous people on a practically stone-age level of technology living in "the wild". Why is this so offensive to people? Because they're black? This somehow promotes a negative stereotype, even though it's simply portraying a group of people who really do exist in a ficticious story set in their approximate location? People didn't raise a stink about any of 50 Cent's endeavors, all of which paint a much more derogatory image of colored persons in our society, promoting the modern violent stereotypes. I just don't understand this.
Some people seem offended by the notion of Sheva in the little bikini number, marking this also as 'racist', but this is also beyond me. Why? An attractive woman can't wear a skimpy outfit? Would it be okay if she wasn't black to put her in a racy animal print bikini, ala Shanna the She-devil? Somehow because she's colored it becomes a racial issue, even though she's also dressed in several other male-fantasy skeezy outfits, (Little Red being my personal favorite) but people don't complain about these demeaning her strength as a female character, or reducing her to a sexual object.

Sorry, Bobber, but this time you an' me just ain't seeing I to eye.

 

[Slangeveld]

You spit the "that's the big picture" out with a vengeance! D:

 

[Therumancer]

When I told Bob to get stuffed, this is what I meant:

I really think The Escapist would be a much classier website without Bob.

I snipped the quoting spoiler from me.

I really don't have a problem with Bob, despite some of my comments on the new "Call Of Juarez" game and similar things I do not think free speech means only the freedom to say what I happen to agree with. The exceptions generally being from situations where the nation is in times of crisis or in cases of providing propaganda for criminal, anti-american (ie support of the agenda of terrorist organizations), or anti-societal (criminals, like gangs) elements. Bob really does none of these things, and while I might disagree with him frequently, he does have some interesting opinions on movies and such.

Generally speaking I think "The Escapist" should rather be using a somewhat tighter leash on some of their people, and putting politics in a "no-go" area for everyone, unless it's directly involving gaming itself, such as censorship attempts and the like, and even then it should remain on the subject.

I say this because as time goes on I feel that we're seeing less focus on gaming, and more people using "The Escapist" as a political platform with gaming as the launchpad. Bob's rants are absolutly fine for his own site, but when he uses "The Escapist" as a platform to pretty much spout off about how anyone who calls people with his views on "political correctness" or speaking about the "myth" of "equal time" mostly as a way of saying that those who don't agree with him aren't entitled to express their opinions equally and similar things, well I find this increasingly disturbing and think it reflects on the site itself as becoming a left wing rant-fest.

To be honest I think this has sunk into a few of the reviews and such that didn't involve Bob, like the review for "Just Cause 2" last year with comments about "how refreshing it is to see a non-white hero" and commenting on the speed of the supply drops by saying "well it isn't the white market".

I don't think anyone needs to be tossed from the site, or that removing Bob entirely would improve it (it wouldn't) simply that The Escapist itself needs to keep itself focused on fandom and forms of escapism... you know what I do to get AWAY from politics and stuff, not becoming an entertainment based political soapbox.

Overall, I'd say that at the worst "The Big Picture" as a feature should be booted if things continue or Bob doesn't want to reign in the politics. His movie reviews are fine, but it should be made clear it's not a propaganda channel for him. He's shown he can do episodes just fine without politics entering into it, so there shouldn't be a problem.

I also can't really feel guilty, or like I'm gagging the guy, because he's got his own site and does other features like "Game Overthinker" which aren't on sites like "The Escapist" that are supposed to be escapism focused, and not personal rant platforms.

For those who follow my posts, I will point out one other thing. You might notice I rarely if ever create threads. While I respond with some very political stuff, I'm pretty much reactive in response to what other people say here on the forums, this is intentional. I could create massive threads by starting political battles on what I think (with this crowd it would be easy) but I don't see that as being the point of the site. Also while I spend a lot of time reading and responding to messages here, political arguements aren't the purpose of my interest. I am hoping that the features aren't going to continue a trend where it seems like an attempt to goad political fights, because really I can't see any other point to this latest video Bob put up.

I'll also say that aside from other factors, like having a horrible voice, no skill making videos, and the influance of the things that rendered me disabled, not wanting to focus that much on political battles is exactly why I have not looked into starting my own site, or why I haven't been uploading stuff onto Youtube, or whatever (which people suggest). I don't have the prescence or skill to do that kind of thing without coming accross like a raving loon. Even when I disagree with them, I can respect guys like Bob, or Yahtzee for their delivery, that's not easy to do. Compare what they produce in terms of audio and delivery to some of the random rants on Youtube, the differant is quite obvious.

 

[John Poling II]

P.S: "Gringo" is not a racial slur on par with the N-Word: it just means "white person" while the other is a hateful, disgusting term. That is all.

Actually the N-word comes from the Latin word "niger" meaning black.... Your argument is silly.

It probably also comes from the Spanish word for black...Negro. But a little context: I made that case after certain pundits called gringo a racial slur [http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/search/1/j8i1OpdJMS0].

It is a description of someone based off race. It is a racial slur, the same as whitey. Slur is defined as, " To talk about disparagingly or insultingly. To pass over lightly or carelessly; treat without due consideration." Gringo does fall into that classification. Btw I love this game. ^.^

 

[John Poling II]

When I told Bob to get stuffed, this is what I meant:

I really think The Escapist would be a much classier website without Bob.

I snipped the quoting spoiler from me.

I really don't have a problem with Bob, despite some of my comments on the new "Call Of Juarez" game and similar things I do not think free speech means only the freedom to say what I happen to agree with. The exceptions generally being from situations where the nation is in times of crisis or in cases of providing propaganda for criminal, anti-american (ie support of the agenda of terrorist organizations), or anti-societal (criminals, like gangs) elements. Bob really does none of these things, and while I might disagree with him frequently, he does have some interesting opinions on movies and such.

Generally speaking I think "The Escapist" should rather be using a somewhat tighter leash on some of their people, and putting politics in a "no-go" area for everyone, unless it's directly involving gaming itself, such as censorship attempts and the like, and even then it should remain on the subject.

I say this because as time goes on I feel that we're seeing less focus on gaming, and more people using "The Escapist" as a political platform with gaming as the launchpad. Bob's rants are absolutly fine for his own site, but when he uses "The Escapist" as a platform to pretty much spout off about how anyone who calls people with his views on "political correctness" or speaking about the "myth" of "equal time" mostly as a way of saying that those who don't agree with him aren't entitled to express their opinions equally and similar things, well I find this increasingly disturbing and think it reflects on the site itself as becoming a left wing rant-fest.

To be honest I think this has sunk into a few of the reviews and such that didn't involve Bob, like the review for "Just Cause 2" last year with comments about "how refreshing it is to see a non-white hero" and commenting on the speed of the supply drops by saying "well it isn't the white market".

I don't think anyone needs to be tossed from the site, or that removing Bob entirely would improve it (it wouldn't) simply that The Escapist itself needs to keep itself focused on fandom and forms of escapism... you know what I do to get AWAY from politics and stuff, not becoming an entertainment based political soapbox.

Overall, I'd say that at the worst "The Big Picture" as a feature should be booted if things continue or Bob doesn't want to reign in the politics. His movie reviews are fine, but it should be made clear it's not a propaganda channel for him. He's shown he can do episodes just fine without politics entering into it, so there shouldn't be a problem.

I also can't really feel guilty, or like I'm gagging the guy, because he's got his own site and does other features like "Game Overthinker" which aren't on sites like "The Escapist" that are supposed to be escapism focused, and not personal rant platforms.

For those who follow my posts, I will point out one other thing. You might notice I rarely if ever create threads. While I respond with some very political stuff, I'm pretty much reactive in response to what other people say here on the forums, this is intentional. I could create massive threads by starting political battles on what I think (with this crowd it would be easy) but I don't see that as being the point of the site. Also while I spend a lot of time reading and responding to messages here, political arguements aren't the purpose of my interest. I am hoping that the features aren't going to continue a trend where it seems like an attempt to goad political fights, because really I can't see any other point to this latest video Bob put up.

I'll also say that aside from other factors, like having a horrible voice, no skill making videos, and the influance of the things that rendered me disabled, not wanting to focus that much on political battles is exactly why I have not looked into starting my own site, or why I haven't been uploading stuff onto Youtube, or whatever (which people suggest). I don't have the prescence or skill to do that kind of thing without coming accross like a raving loon. Even when I disagree with them, I can respect guys like Bob, or Yahtzee for their delivery, that's not easy to do. Compare what they produce in terms of audio and delivery to some of the random rants on Youtube, the differant is quite obvious.

I disagree with Bob a lot... but I feel he should be able to represent himself on his soapbox. From his intro video it appears they gave him open intellectual freedoms in his contract. But opinions are like anuses... anusi... whatever everyone has one.

 

[Nateman742]

It is a description of someone based off race. It is a racial slur, the same as whitey. Slur is defined as, " To talk about disparagingly or insultingly. To pass over lightly or carelessly; treat without due consideration." Gringo does fall into that classification. Btw I love this game. ^.^

I have a separate point, but I'll use your post to base it on.

Eh esse, you a gringo huh? I cut you pendejo! Give me your money!

Now who was I quoting? A typical Mexican thug? All Mexicans? No. I've met a few specific Mexican thugs. This is not a blanket statement, it is personal experience. Of course I don't think every man from Mexico talks or acts like this and nobody should expect that I do. That's the thing I hate, hate, about "political correctness." It's widely accepted that if you address any sort of negative aspects of a culture, you're addressing all people of that culture. Sure, people do that, but sometimes people don't.

 

[John Poling II]

It is a description of someone based off race. It is a racial slur, the same as whitey. Slur is defined as, " To talk about disparagingly or insultingly. To pass over lightly or carelessly; treat without due consideration." Gringo does fall into that classification. Btw I love this game. ^.^

I have a separate point, but I'll use your post to base it on.

Eh esse, you a gringo huh? I cut you pendejo! Give me your money!

Now who was I quoting? A typical Mexican thug? All Mexicans? No. I've met a few specific Mexican thugs. This is not a blanket statement, it is personal experience. Of course I don't think every man from Mexico talks or acts like this and nobody should expect that I do. That's the thing I hate, hate, about "political correctness." It's widely accepted that if you address any sort of negative aspects of a culture, you're addressing all people of that culture. Sure, people do that, but sometimes people don't.

I am mostly thought trolling. My actual view on the matter is that I don't care about being called white, ginger, or yankee; but society tells me that it is bad to call others by their colors. I feel that the only way a racial categorization is insulting is if the group feels it is. My question, why is being called white, black, Spanish, Mexican bad? Unless the person hates themselves or dislikes their own race there is no reason to be offended.

 

[Marudas]

This is the first time I've found myself in such disagreement with Moviebob.

In my narrow view, I see Political Correctness as a sort of cover for (Possibly) insensitive, yet true stereotypes. Now I'm not going to be so blind as to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are racist, jerks, or just plain ignorant, but its always irritating to me that we're not allowed to mention that certain people habitually act certain ways because its insensitive. And where this line starts and ends seems to be utterly arbitrary. For example, you mentioned its utterly inappropriate to mention the "Fried Chicken" stereotype, but another, more broad cultural stereotype is that Americans are ignorant to the rest of the world. I see this one fly all the time, and perhaps its more inappropriate to apply these as jokes and insults (such as applying the stereotype to a president). As another point, its perfectly okay to drag out White Males and say what you will about them (Yes, there were a lot of jerks that were white males in the past, why does this apply to this generation?). It seems like PC only applies when you're talking about a minority or a touchy subject (African Americans/Africans or, in the sense of Jeff Dunham to who you referred, Muslim.) Its okay to point out Factual (but hurtful) remarks about Americans and White Males, but not when referring to minority groups.

Really, all I'm trying to get at is this: I agree with your final point, Jerks are just Jerks. But jerks come in all shapes and sizes, and this shield applies in more ways than one. As far as I'm concerned, its not what you say, its what you mean by it. If you say something because your a jerk, spiteful, hateful, filled with malice, then you're just wrong and no social etiquette applies. But if you're saying something as a joke, or an observation, as comedians have done for years, I think we can all afford to take a step back and laugh at ourselves every now and again.

 

[Clonekiller]

Okay soooooo... Political correctness is a good thing? It seems to me that many movies and stories don't get shown or told because they are "not politically correct". You know, the same way that the "old" seasons of Sesame Street (old here meaning made sometime before 2005) come with a warning that says "some content may not be suitable for children". Why? Cause the Cookie Monster is unhealthy and Oscar is discriminated against. (He's a grouch you know.) Ever see the movie called Black Board Jungle or Citizen Kane? Movies like those are avoided or outright banned for being "discriminatory" or too politically incorrect. Heck, it's hard to be honest in a college writing discussion group (or a game / fandom topic) without being clobbered for being "hateful" and "discriminatory".

First of all those movies are not outright banned. Even if every TV station chooses not to air them they still haven't been banned. Second he did say that it can be taken to extremes, he used censorship of Huck Finn as an example (and they were censoring out the word ******) so I'm guessing he's not OK with messing with old movies. Not sure that Sesame Street thing qualifies as political correctness though.

All example nit-picking aside, the point I was trying to make was that Bob sounded very biased in this video. I rather like most everything Movie Bob does, but I have noticed that, when he talks about a "political" issues, he usually only argues one side while only giving passing mention to the problems the other side has. This doesn't jive with what Movie Bob usually does, since most of his movie reviews and other videos tend to be objective and all around fun, regardless of political ideology. However, videos like this give him the appearance to being a one-sided opinion show host, no different from Glenn Beck or Chris Mathews. (Just with the escapist instead of cable). Since I like Movie Bob, I don't want to classify his show like that. That's why I want him to avoid "bias" when ever it pops up, and why I dislike it so.

Anyhow, that's my 2 cents.

Out of curiosity have you seen his episode called "Fair Game"? If you haven't you should (I'm not saying I agree with all of it just that it's pretty relevant to what you're talking about).

Yes, point taken. I know this particular show is supposed to be all opinion based & be a kind of soap box for Movie Bob. I guess I was just hoping he would be different than the other opinion / soap box / rant shows that are out there on the internet. Guess I'll just have to look forward to the next non-political subject episode.

 

[Stephanos132]

So, simply, you don't like ignorant fools saying mean words and hiding behind a rhetoric that a lot of people don't really buy into anymore? Is there any sane or decent person who would? Moreover, is it something that's ever going to change? How would you enforce change without restricting your much beloved freedom of speech?

This is seeming less like 'the big picture' and more like the impotent ramblings of someone who just heard some idiot mouth off on the train. Maybe it's different in yankeeland though, I dunno.

Actually, this video sounds a lot like the kind of conversations you have when drunk with your mates.

 

[Joshua Tax]

Don't agree with you Bob, go back to just doing eSCAPE to the Movies. I don't understand why your segment is called the Big Picture when you widdle a topic down to the bare bones just to make your point. I don't get it, I've watched almost all of your videos trying to understand you, but your anger and predisposed view points never make it relate-able to me and I'm sure many others. What are you trying to prove? That every comic book hero and every social conjecture needs an angry nerd to stand behind it? I get enough of that when i visit Comic-Con and PAX. I just don't understand you Bob, and your videos don't make me want to. Seriously, you want to start covering "the big picture", call me. But until then, I'm out. PEACE!

 

[HyenaThePirate]

If you came out with "black Spiderman" I doubt most people (at least the ones not harboring inexplicable feelings of racism they've tried to ignore deep down inside) would balk at it. Heck, more than a few might actually enjoy it.

I would. Not because of racism but because it would be screwing with a character that means something to me. And for what? Accessibility? That Spider Man isn't good enough to stand on his own merits? That black people can only be expected to root for so many white superheroes? Isn't that a huge insult to both groups?

(FTR: I'm not a huge spiderman fan but that's how I'd react if they did it to ficitonal characters I do care about).

There's a couple of problems here.

First, I skipped the whole strawman nonsense since you pretty much admitted that you yourself built the only strawman and removed it.

Second, you say it would bother you if Spiderman was black, because it would be screwing with a character that means something to you, then at the end, you go "on the record" as saying you aren't a huge Spiderman fan. So at the risk of undermining your own statement, why would you care what the skin color of a fictional character you don't even really care about to begin with?

Thirdly, how exactly would changing the skin color of Spiderman NOT allow him to stand on his own merits? Wouldn't "standing on his own merits" mean that the CHARACTER and PERSONALITY of Peter Parker (I say Peter Parker, because honestly, Spiderman is a suit with a mask which could be anybody underneath) would remain the same no matter what his skin color is? If I went and colored in the Peter Parker in all of your issues of Spiderman, so that he was brown, how has it "changed" the character beyond the obvious new pigmentation?

Lastly, it might be an insult to white people who don't realize that they live in a world where everything is automatically, unconsciously geared toward THEIR favor. Honestly, I don't think that most white people are racist. I think they just don't realize that for people with the misfortune of not being born white don't see the world in the same way they do. You've probably never stopped to think about why it seems the vast MAJORITY of superheroes are white. Truth is, you probably never noticed it. But if you were black or latino, you'd realize it... practically right away. It's just human nature to notice how "different" we are from others.

Truth is, I don't think most white people would care if a white character was suddenly depicted as black. Look at Jim West from Wild Wild West. He was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie.
I think if we saw a black Superman and Spiderman, as long as the movies were well written and filmed, I don't think most people would care. Anyone else that would care, has their own issues to work out I suppose.

 

[0986875533423]

Then you aren't all for free speech. This is why I don't think free speech actually exists, if it did, people could say all the jerkwad/douchebag things they wanted, and not only would nobody complain, but nobody would ever get offended in the first place.

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Free Speech isn't about the right to be an asshole, and have your words not effect people. Free Speech only protects the speaker(s) from government censor. Naturally, that would only apply to the places that the gov't has control - as well as allows the concept of free speech to flourish.

This modern concept of Free Speech allowing people to run off at the mouth with no consequence is beyond stupid. Your right to free expression does not get to trample on another person's right to express themselves by telling you to piss off.

No, because freedom of speech also prevents you being forcibly censored by other, independent parties. Telling people to get lost is par for the course, but forcibly stopping them talking is a violation of a right. The government aren't the only ones with power, as we all know.

 

[Technicka]

This is the first time I've found myself in such disagreement with Moviebob.

In my narrow view, I see Political Correctness as a sort of cover for (Possibly) insensitive, yet true stereotypes. Now I'm not going to be so blind as to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are racist, jerks, or just plain ignorant, but its always irritating to me that we're not allowed to mention that certain people habitually act certain ways because its insensitive. And where this line starts and ends seems to be utterly arbitrary. For example, you mentioned its utterly inappropriate to mention the "Fried Chicken" stereotype, but another, more broad cultural stereotype is that Americans are ignorant to the rest of the world. I see this one fly all the time, and perhaps its more inappropriate to apply these as jokes and insults (such as applying the stereotype to a president). As another point, its perfectly okay to drag out White Males and say what you will about them (Yes, there were a lot of jerks that were white males in the past, why does this apply to this generation?). It seems like PC only applies when you're talking about a minority or a touchy subject (African Americans/Africans or, in the sense of Jeff Dunham to who you referred, Muslim.) Its okay to point out Factual (but hurtful) remarks about Americans and White Males, but not when referring to minority groups.

PC was created as a means to level the playing field of language for maligned groups in society. Guess which group doesn't fall under that umbrella? White males. So yes, a lot of the rules will not be very inclusive to your typical WASP-ish male. Because history has been oh-so kind to them.

There's a fallacy at work that a lot of the anti-PC crowd will invoke: That because minorities have legal protections, that everything can start at a level baseline. And that's just not true. Having women in office doesn't change that they're still disproportionately paid in the same jobs, overwhelming forced to endure abuse with little, to no, consequences towards their assailants. A black President doesn't negate the ingrained prejudice that is still at work in society to keep minorities poor and stupid. A popular character on TV being gay doesn't mean thousands of GLBT people are still targeted for violence. We aren't working on a level field - PC was an attempt to give minority groups a boost by not having to put up with degrading words all the time. "Reverse-racism" doesn't exist, it's a nifty term coined to make the group of power feel better about those uppity minorities flexing what few muscles they have.

As for the American thing, that's a global issue. PC is only a practice in the US (other countries might have similar unofficial policies, but PC is our baby). So the idea that some bloke over in New Zealand adhering to it, is silly.


You also have to be aware of your audience, it's amazing that this concept seems so foreign to people. Guess what? If you're the lone non-black in a crowd of black people, you don't get to drop the n-word the second you walk into the room. Boo hoo, right? There's an old saying that when you meet a stranger the 3 topics you shouldn't immediately jump to are sex, politics, and religion. And, of course, it goes both ways. If I'm a female that doesn't enjoy sexist talk/jokes, I'm not going to go and sit through an Andrew Dice Clay routine.

Responsibility, people. That's what PC asks of you. Be aware of your words, and use them wisely. Regardless of your view of the subject. It's just as un-PC of me to point to a conservative and call him/her an inbred cracker.

No, because freedom of speech also prevents you being forcibly censored by other, independent parties. Telling people to get lost is par for the course, but forcibly stopping them talking is a violation of a right. The government aren't the only ones with power, as we all know.

Again, it is a protection from government interference. If you say something on the forums here, and get banned permanently, they aren't violating your rights. Because you don't have that right on privately owned "property". Walmart can refuse to carry pro-gay books, and have a stockpile of homophobic ones in it's stead. Private entities have that right. Whether you agree, or not, is a non-issue. Because the laws say they can do that.

If you're in an argument with someone and they hit you because they want you to shut up, they aren't violating your free speech in the legal sense. They're flat out assaulting you.

 

[maturin]

Ha. So much awesomeness.

But he didn't touch on the most important issue. The idea of political correctness has gone full circle and made bigotry cool again for a generation of dumbass white boys who think they're being oppressed. I mean, the media is run by Jews and even the president's black.