What I very firmly believe is that this is a cultural fight more than a legislative fight.
Sure. And if this had always REMAINED a cultural fight, there wouldn’t be such a groundswell of opposition that osmotes over to the legislative side.
But, we on the “not-so-PC” side (definition: people who believe that everyone should be nice to each other, but believe the right way to get there is evolutionary, rather than having activists shove it down everyone’s throat) saw qualified employees losing their jobs over nonPC views expressed in nonagressive and nonthreatening ways; we saw students being intimidated on campuses for the same; we saw taxpayer money being poured into positions and agencies designed to advance PC-ism which conflicts with religious freedom; and more.
If this is just a “cultural fight”, then no taxpayer funded job should have “diversity” in its title, since “diversity” is a defined PC objective not held by many taxpayers, and they reason they do NOT agree with it has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia.
There are certain situations where use of hate speech simply isn’t appropriate, isn’t covered by the 1st Amendment, and is active restricted (by corporate policy if nothing else). And there are certain things we aren’t allowed to say on television, and so on, and so forth. So I really think that the point is that it’s a grey area discussion.
Yes, but this is another noticeable behavior of the PCers on this; they become 1st Amendment literalists, meaning that they are quick to point out that the 1st Amendment free speech refers only to government reaction to speech in the public square.
WHILE THAT IS TRUE, the 1st Amendment has been a cultural virtue in the US since inception. And as a cultural virtue, it comes directly into conflict with PCism, since PCism is attempting to state that that centuries-old cultural virture is, at times, a vice.
Which explains much of the push-back.
We have apparently decided as a society that sometimes words are harm.
I haven’t decided that. My mother raised me with the “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me” value. And that mattered to me, because as the only non lily white kid in my school whose name was “Khadijah”, I had to take more than my share.
And that’s absolutely appropriate, from my point of view, because words tend to create and reinforce reality.
They do create and reinforce reality. But we’re back to hurt feelings again.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words get you to Kristallnacht.
Hyperbole. You are omitting several rather significant steps between words and Kristallnacht.
But that’s not to say we should sit back and let the bigots, haters, Nazis, Klan members, and so on have it all their way without challenge, which speaks to my call to action at the end of the article.
I have no quarrel with that. Fight words with words. Not laws.