And why in a culture that values free speech is some speech incorrect?
Even the pursuit of truth is stymied by the thought we should not say that, why?
I have no problem with people telling me my side of politics is on the nose.
But my questions about unnecessary waste, even payments that should not be paid in Social Welfare snag in the PC web.
Just what is PC?
Why is it good to hide truth, why indeed is PC good?

Belly, how sure are you that PC actually stops some of those debates?
You may need to be more specific as to where PC has stopped freedom of speech on that issue (or most).

There are certainly those who try to divert those discussions from the issues you are concerned about back to the bullet point stereotypes which help their agendas and which often looks like PC but without official backing its in my view a dirty tactic rather than PC.

There is also the difficulty in the line between fact and intepretation of "fact" when we get to debate. Often our facts are mixed up with a broader group of opinions and some confirmation bias, statements touted as fact may well be a bit of fact combined with generalisations which just dont apply in a lot of situations.

Those who are not closely impacted by one side of an issue may have little empathy for those on the downside of that issue but may have a lot of empathy for the other side especially if sterotypes are at play.

I'm not convinced that PC actually shuts down a lot of debate (especially on OLO) but there are a lot of factors which do make it hard to havea worthwhile discussion of some issues.

R0bert

Belly raises a very interesting question; the more so because there's no clear right or wrong answer.
Here's my take.
There are indeed some things that as a society we should require not be said. I think racist insults can be an example. Encouragement of violence, especially against the weak is another.
But should such strictures be enforced?
I believe, not by law. i say that because this is, in a sense, a moral issue, and society's efforts to legislate a moral position do not have a record of success, e.g, prohibition, drugs, etc.
So, if not by law, then how?
This, for me, is the crux of the matter.
I believe such goals should be met by us all as a society recognizing that freedom and responsibility are two words that mean the same thing.
So, if we are to be free as individuals to speak our minds, and I believe we should, then we must individually accept responsibility for the consequences of our words.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I'm right with you on this one Belly.

Robert it is some of the PC legislation under which Andrew Bolt was stopped from talking about the phenomena of white aboriginals.

This is a typical use of PC, & perhaps the most damaging legislation on the books. We can no longer live by that old ditty, "sticks & stones may brake my bones, but names will never heart me", thanks to PC legislation.

It is a very good way for the con men to make a quid, & prevent any public exposure of their rip off.

Exactly the same thing is going on in the "multicultural" communities, with many cons not investigated, for fear of getting caught by this bit of bleeding heart rubbish.

Belly and Hasbeen
I agree with you, take the illegal boat arrivals as another example. They are illegal and yet they are called differently to portray them as poor victims and get sympathy for them , when in fact they are liars, cheats and gate crashers who take advantage of us.

Then what about the non disclosure of ethnicity in relation to street crime and violence, How long did it take to reveal that the Indian students being bashed and robbed was being done by Lebs in sydney and Africans in Melbourne.

Politicians do not help with the ammount of spin and lies they tell. Only this week the PM and Treasurer were smearing Gina Rinehart by telling outright lies about what she said. Disgusting.

Banjo,
Now, here's an irony. Your post is a perfect example of why we need to take care with our use of language.
Your assertions are pejorative, demeaning, (not least of yourself), and, worst of all, just plain wrong.
To give one example of your error, refugees are not, both in law and by international convention, 'illegal'.
Ironic indeed.
Anthony
http://www.observationpiont.com.au