|
Posts: 7061
Location: so cal
Joined: September 24, 2003
|
In the context of an intellectual consideration of the aspects of a thought, boundaries are indeed a limitation , as would be true with most explorations.
However, to use this fact to justify saying whatever you feel like in normal social interaction, is rude, and won't allow you to converse constructively with adults.
Society has long ago set rules for politeness, for many good reasons, and the fact that you feel your personal grievances are more important than respecting the feelings of others, doesn't make you a big deal, outrage only sells in the media. In life, disrespecting others will only get you dismissed as incapable of validating your opinions with expressed thought , and in some circles , will get you a fight.
For instance, one of my sailor friends was telling me about how he and a shipmate walked into a bar in Africa that was filled with British workers. The shipmate, who he hardly knew, they just decided to travel from the ship to have some fun drinking ashore , called out to all in the bar, the very politically incorrect , F... the queen. British culture is very violent, much like American, so everybody started fighting.
It was fine with my buddy, he always said he likes a fighting crew. the guy that instigated the thing, was some old martial arts as a hobby guy, and was always trying to prove something, like whipping an entire bar of drunken and untrained fighters.
One might say one of the reviewers is fat, and the other guy is just a lightweight brought in for balance , to make the more intellectual considerations of the fat guy more palatable to a mass audience, but that wouldn't allow one to learn anything that these two might share for your benefit.
most of the people today who pretend outrage at political correctness, just don't care to be polite to others , as if it is their world exclusively, and you just happen to live in it, as another grievance.
If we all just stuck to our tribes, and never made any attempt to see the other guys point of view, which might lead to the dangers of cooperation if you are in the business of monetizing hate and fear, we would all still be in caves throwing rocks at each other. without cooperation, humankind would not advance.
funny thing is that what they, siscal and Ebert justifiably oppose in intellectual discussion as harmfully restrictive, calling it the fascism of the nineties, is now used today by those with fascist beliefs, to belittle those who want to continue a civility in society , conversational actions that used to be called polite consideration of the feelings of others . a unified society is not the divide and conqor approach needed for fasicm to flourish, divisions must be created.
with adults, the respect for others in the joint attempt to advance a mutual meeting in thoughtful conversation is required .
now some just ape the conflict sold as entertainment on hate TV and radio as the way to have a conversation among adults. such a conversation is only about winning a conflict. calling names, something perhaps that is rude, is defended because it is not, "socially correct" as if rudeness and blockheaded one sided arguments are an admirable goal to advance society, and a persons life, towards better results.
|
