The right to disagree...?

Question

People talk about rights in this country at great lenght. I have come to realize that I take exception to the notion that everyone's rights are sovereign. And I do realize that there are times when the rights of the one, are outweighed by the rights of the whole. However, The right to disagree has been trampled upon at great lenght without so much as a whimper. Now I, as a Black Man in this society, have some perspective with regard to alternate points of view. I actually respect the right of 'certain members of society' to feel that I am 'less than an individual'.
Which brings me to my point. What is it about society that has brought about the notion that a persons right to disagree is only valid insofar as it doesn't conflict with the 'politically correct' view of the population at large? And also, why is it that a particular point of view is seen as 'politically correct' when it clearly does not reflect the views of the popular majority?

[To All hat] Then it's probably for the best.

I think people are misinterpreting my statements in this question. I only stated the race issue as a reference to my willingness to accept that people will not always see things in a similar fashion, and that I am willing to accept that fact.

[To Question This] I did not say that I agree with racism, I only agree that they have the right to believe it. The practice of racism and the philosophy of it are two different things. Just as I respect the right of Christians to believe what they wish, while I don't agree with it's practices.

[To Easy] I find your argument to be one of the most eloquent and poignant discussions of this topic. I must disagree with it's slightly utopian idea of personal rights and freedoms. While the sentiment of your argument is true, I don't think that it is realistic. Concessions have to be made in any society to accomodate the functioning of the population. To what extent those concessions reach is obviously where the debate enters the picture.

Answer 1

This is the general acceptance of utilitarianism in its popular form. That and the fact that the population at large cannot conceive of any form of rights other than mass rights: as long as we're in the same boat (they reason) it's okay.
Democracy has it's faults as much as it's virtues. I see it as something akin to the learned laughing at an unorthodox genius, until he's proved to be right.

Answer 2

Perspective is a good thing to have: I respect your respect. But I’m afraid I must exercise my right to disagree. I can’t tolerate racism, or any expression of self-righteousness. Is that hypocrisy--to hate Hatred? Hmm…apparently I’m a bigotrist.

Please don’t misunderstand. I absolutely do NOT want to regulate anyone’s Thoughts. I absolutely do NOT want to regulate anyone’s Words. Political correctness serves as further empowerment: tell the school children a word is “forbidden”, and it becomes the playground craze. And “Zero Tolerance”, as a policy, is appalling.

Having said that, I DO want to regulate Actions, and the *verbal* reduction of an Individual to something Sub-Human justifies all manner of *physical* atrocities. Obviously, we can’t shrug at rampant suicide-bombings, and call it free expression of religion. We have to draw some line.

Which brings me to your point: “It” in society is good intention (road to Hell—I know). So I can, beneath my annoyance with Media Censorship, and beneath my eye-rolling at people with sticks-in-uncomfortable-places, see the logic. There is a real, and justified, fear that hateful words lead to hateful actions. Words alone should not be punished, but we have no way of knowing when a situation will end with “words alone”. The speaker may elevate his verbal assault to a physical level, or the listener may react with violence. *You* are level-headed and enlightened. Not all people are the same. Short of passing a bill ordering every individual to “get over himself”, what action can be taken legislatively?

“All people are people” is a necessary absolute for a peaceful society. Political Correctness is a manifestation of our attempt to fight a seemingly unwinnable battle for peace. In short, I respect the right of a society to make (even misguided) attempts to protect its individuals. We’re solving injustice with injustice, and hoping to Zeus that we’ve chosen the lesser evil.

Answer 3

Our fundamental human rights could be said to be sovereign. In other words, we have equal fundamental human rights that are inalienable. But that doesn't mean we all have to be equal to have those rights. Big difference.

Social rights vary from time to place. A person who has a law degree and has passed the bar exam, has the social right to practice law. This social right is not given out to everyone, except those that have met certain qualifications. Same for practicing medicine and other professions.

Much of the feminism and socialism we see in society seems to want to try and make our social rights equal, when that is not achievable.

Answer 4

shhh be careful how loud you say such things… they’ll flag you as dangerous and cause you all kinds of problems because your way of thinking is dangerous to their power and they have worked so hard to secure their power. The minorities always have and always will be discriminated against… even if it is unintentional and off handed…

what do they say “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” meaning those who work at making their opinions the popular opinions have been successful to some extent in making them ‘politically correct’.

“the tyranny of the majority”

Answer 5

I wish you had not injected race into your question. I would have answered otherwise.

Answer 6

It is the political version of altruism. We are expected to go along with the thinking of the elite, which sometimes is the left, especially when the left controls the wheels of our universities.
If you don't acquiesce, you are considered selfish, or worse, dangerous.

Answer 7

If you sincerely believe that a democratic majority can overrule a person's right to pursue her own peaceful pastime or profession, yet can simultaneously pule about mistreatment of minorities: Hey, are you serious? Hello?

I love you, but I believe in individual rights.

If you can rail against entire categories of humanity, be they men, women, whites, blacks, capitalists, leftists, immigrants, or conservatives, and then snivel about intolerance, racism, homophobia, or religious prejudice: How about trying on a new perspective for size?

I love you, but people deserve to be seen as individuals, no matter how they may be classified.

If you believe in religious freedom for Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans and Atheists, but express that belief by undermining the religious freedom of Christians, or if the converse is true: What does it mean when you say you believe in equal rights?

I love you, but I protest, for the sake of liberty and conscience for all.

If you honestly feel that freedom of choice in deciding whether your offspring will live or die is a right, but would deny others the right to make their own choices about diet, smoking, gun ownership, seat belt or helmet use: With all due respect, perhaps a thinking cap and a quiet corner are in order.

I love you, but not your politically convenient idea of freedom.

If you contend that frank discussion of morality and ethics has no place in classrooms or courtrooms, and then insist that more government is needed because people are irresponsible and insensitive: Would you refuse ten simple commandments even cursory consideration, replace them with ten thousand volumes of legislation, and then wonder why people cease to live by the law when it wouldn't fit in an encyclopaedia?

I love you, but like love, the higher law dwells within man; the lower serves as a cage to confine him.

If you would disarm your neighbors and friends, but trust power-addled strangers with the common defense and the weapons of force, economic policy, foreign relations, and legislative privilege: Please look around at your neighbors and friends and ask yourself who is really the greatest threat to you.

I love you, but power over other people is anathema to decent folks; they don't want it.

If you support the right to keep and bear arms, but would approve of a military draft and begrudge others the right to keep life and limb out of a war they don't want: What do you suppose the second amendment was protecting in the first place?

I love you, but we have irreconcilable differences.

If you suppose that good intentions justify intruding on the lives and properties of your fellow citizens: Do you appreciate being the target of somebody else's good intentions, or haven't you had that particular dubious pleasure yet?

I love you, but we've reached a philosophical Great Divide.

If you propose that a governor or president, unencumbered by medical background, is competent to make medical decisions for you and an entire population, and espouse the idea that vitamins should be regulated at therapeutic doses: Please refrain from running for office, since the public health is at stake.

I love you, but you would give away what was never yours to give.

If you assume that social justice equals treating everyone specifically according to age, race, tax bracket, gender, sexual preference, and disability, and croon about having a level playing field, as if you hadn't already covered it with booby traps and dunghills: Ask yourself if it's a field you want to compete on.

I love you, but I opt out of your rigged game; human beings are not chess pieces.

If you believe you can make a crime of thought and prosecute the contents of the heart, but you don't see electrodes and truth serum or inquisitors and thumbscrews in your own crystal ball: Dust it off and look again, the life you save may be your own flesh and blood.

I love you, but enough is enough. Love may be blind, but it's not insensate