![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I should not be the most mature person in this conversation.
Friday, 20 September 2013 08:25 am"Let's not change X because that would be political correctness and ugh, why does everything have to be all politically correct all the time?"
If the person suggesting a change can come up with an actual reason for it, the very least you can do is put on your big boy pants and come up with an actual reason against it--and no, grumbling about political correctness does not count as an actual reason.
"What is this 'change' you're talking about, mokie?"
It's irrelevant here, mokie--I'm not writing up a persuasive essay on a hot topic, taking a side in a particular issue, or even waving the "Everybody get PC!" flag. I'm objecting to lazy-ass debaters, and this lazy-ass excuse for an argument that should have been put out of its misery when Married... with Children went off the air.
If you want to argue pro or con something, you need to bring some actual argument to the table. It's not difficult. For example, why should X not be changed? Because the change would be detrimental. Because the change would benefit no one. Because in terms of efforts v. results, it would not be worth the investment. Because there's history/culture/aesthetics/yaks to take into consideration. Because the change would require you to remember something new and you don't wanna.
Agree or disagree on a case-by-case basis, but note that these are all actual reasons.
Disagreeing with a change just because it would be PC is just a huffing and stomping. Disagreeing with a change that does not actively affect you and which would have gone completely unnoticed by you (and most everybody else) if nobody brought it up because it's PC is pure and simple assholery.
If the person suggesting a change can come up with an actual reason for it, the very least you can do is put on your big boy pants and come up with an actual reason against it--and no, grumbling about political correctness does not count as an actual reason.
"What is this 'change' you're talking about, mokie?"
It's irrelevant here, mokie--I'm not writing up a persuasive essay on a hot topic, taking a side in a particular issue, or even waving the "Everybody get PC!" flag. I'm objecting to lazy-ass debaters, and this lazy-ass excuse for an argument that should have been put out of its misery when Married... with Children went off the air.
If you want to argue pro or con something, you need to bring some actual argument to the table. It's not difficult. For example, why should X not be changed? Because the change would be detrimental. Because the change would benefit no one. Because in terms of efforts v. results, it would not be worth the investment. Because there's history/culture/aesthetics/yaks to take into consideration. Because the change would require you to remember something new and you don't wanna.
Agree or disagree on a case-by-case basis, but note that these are all actual reasons.
Disagreeing with a change just because it would be PC is just a huffing and stomping. Disagreeing with a change that does not actively affect you and which would have gone completely unnoticed by you (and most everybody else) if nobody brought it up because it's PC is pure and simple assholery.
