That’s a good point. We need to be careful to distinguish between the realm of desirable behavior and illegal behavior. It’s one thing to say that someone “should” do something idealistically, but another thing completely to legislate behavior, though or motive.

Is anyone completely none of the above? That’s my point exactly; when you draw the line so far towards perfect behavior, no one can meet the standard. Then you alienate enough people to lose the support needed to be effective.

I think the sort of PC the original poster was referring to is the type where someone objects to, say, a girl dressing up as Pocahontas for Halloween; there is nothing here to demean native Americans, Pocahontas is typically considered to be a positive if not entirely precise, portrait. But of course, there are always degrees of PC which raises the bar, so let's turn the burner up a bit more... the Atlanta Braves baseball team. Perhaps the fans should eliminate the tomahawk chanting, but the Braves nicknaming themselves that is not insulting to native Americans so far as I know. Then there's the Cleveland Indians with their Chief Yahoo logo which I would agree presses the line, and fortunately, they are eliminating this. Finally, there's the Washington Redskins, while not necessarily intended to be insulting, is nonetheless historically racistly rooted. I've felt they should go back to their original name of Braves back when they started up in Boston.

@godef

Why does anyone feel like they have the right to tell someone else how they feel? If someone finds something you say or do offensive, just apologize for offending them. Don't argue that they're wrong to be offended.

Also. it's not 'I'm sorry you're offended', but "I'm sorry I offended you."

@PhoebeCat I agree with the style of apology, and definitely be polity and constructive. Note that I continued raising the bar on the levels of "PC-ness"; I could have gone further and mentioned the Virginia demonstration (where Trump proclaimed there were good people on both sides). If someone's civil rights are being violated, it is no longer about being PC, and I would speak out. Otherwise, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we're never going to agree on everything.

Who defines the rules for this "enlightened society"?

and "head in the sands" know our claims have no relevance right ? NOT

I always remember my lawyer brother telling me:
“Laws are made by people”
The implication is that laws are fallible like people. They are a useful tool but don’t put them up in a pedestal or you will follow them even when they don’t benefit society

I would tend to adjust, as it's important to treat people with respect. That said, where is the line between someone wanting respect and someone being too touchy? How hard should I have to actively try not to offend? If I anticipate too much what others may find offensive, then I'm losing my honest genuine self for the sake of not saying something that may or may not offend. And then come across as disingenuous or standoffish, which could in itself be interpreted as some form of offense.

I think you should always actively try not to offend but in case you do an apology works just fine. Stop worrying, be yourself. and when you offend, apologize, then move on. Reasonable people will give you the benefit of the doubt and know your intention.

don't adjust the message

Thank you for sharing. I appreciate that you realize that some offenses felt are "on you". Shows a very reasonable expectation and self awareness on your part. Everyone gets upset sometimes when we have not reasonable cause to, that's normal. The ability to recognize that in ones self, is less common.

For one, having too strict an expectation for an individual's behavior. When people are demonized who are not particularly bad actors, it generates opposition, and loses support that we would otherwise have. If the goal is to get the most people aware of the most issues, pushing too hard too fast seems to hurt the long term goal, and only helps those who prosper from the conflict (i.e. media, politicians, etc.).

I also am puzzled sometimes by one's disdain for political correctness, and would also be interested in knowing the parts that are bothersome to people.

"a casual viewer of child pornography is not bad as a person who creates that pornography, which to me is obvious; while they both need to be reckoned with, these are not equal crimes. "

That is like saying...The purchaser of illegal firearms is not as bad as the seller of the illegal firearms.

Supply and demand, without the demand there is no reason to supply. The crime is the same.

@Betty I did say "casual" viewer, meaning someone who doesn't set the market, just peruses what's there. Let's try another analogy: elicit drugs: would you punish the user as severely as the pusher? The crime is not the same.

@godef the Effect, however, is exactly the same! I reject your apology for these users!

@AnneWimsey I am not apologizing for anyone. As I said in my first post, these people need to be reckoned with, aka prosecuted, they are sick people. All I'm saying is, the crime is not the same.

@godef

The difference with drugs is that the "user" is hurting themselves. With child pornography, the "user" casual or not is complicit in hurting a child.

The casual viewer may be titillated and their curiosity peaked resulting in a return visit.

@Betty so you think that children would continue to be abused in this horrible way if nobody was interested in child porn? REALLY?!?!

@AnneWimsey

What I am saying is the crime is the same. The viewers of child pornography promote the sexual abuse of children.

Abuse...sexual, psychological, emotional, and physical have been in our societies for hundreds of thousands of years. We won't be able to get rid of abuse but we certainly can reduce it.

@Betty "The casual viewer may be titillated and their curiosity peaked resulting in a return visit" Or he may not return, but you're already presuming he will, and you don't know that. This is why it's not the same crime. This is like prosecuting someone for using Heroin on the basis of catching them smoking pot and presuming it will lead them to worse drugs.

@godef

Okay, let's try this another way. Can we agree that children (infants to teen years) have no say or choice when being abused and the damage is lifelong?

Please set up the scenario for the casual user. (Defining casual)

Ca·su·al
?kaZHo?o?l/Submit

adjective

1. relaxed and unconcerned.
   "she regarded his affairs with a casual indulgence"
   synonyms: relaxed, friendly, informal, unceremonious, easygoing, free and easy; informal laid-back "the inn's casual atmosphere"
2. not regular or permanent, in particular.
   synonyms: temporary, part-time, freelance, impermanent, irregular, occasional
   "casual work"

noun

1. a person who does something irregularly.
   "a number of casuals became regular customers"
2. clothes or shoes suitable for everyday wear rather than formal occasions.

@Betty Please, I understand what the word casual means, and perhaps it wasn't the best selection of words. The point in my last post being, presuming said "casual" purviewer has been prosecuted, you are ready to throw him back in jail on the presumption that he could do it again; this would be more the tragic if he had managed to reform himself, though undoubtedly will remain on a sex predator list forever. Justice doesn't work that way in this country, at least it's not supposed to. By your thinking, we should just throw all men in jail so Me Too never has to happen again. An occasional or one time viewer of child porn is not the same crime as producing the material; they both need to be prosecuted for their crime, but no judge in his right mind would ever punish them to the same degree.

@godef

At what point in this conversation did I give you the impression that I wanted all men in jail or even mentioned the #MeToo movement?

These sites are set up to hook casual viewers in the hopes of making them permanent. The same as advertisers hoping to sell their product. (They know not everyone will buy their product but hope the casual viewer will be tempted to try it.) The casual viewer who may or may not return on a regular basis is complicit in helping the site in their continuing abuse of "children". The victims are the children.

If a person (male or female) happens on the site by accident and leaves without viewing the contents of the site then that's not casual.

"presuming said "casual" purviewer has been prosecuted, you are ready to throw him back in jail on the presumption that he could do it again"
People who assume they know what I'm thinking most often get it wrong. I made no presumptions of reoffending.

My point is...A casual viewer although irregular is complicit in the "abuse of the children" they are viewing. The "crime" is the abuse of the child. The child is harmed by the abuser and the viewer. The crime is the same because the child cannot give consent.

@Betty All I've said from the get go is that the crimes are not the same. If you want to keep twisting around different examples or analogies I try use to illustrate my point, then please, just agree to disagree.

@godef

Due to the fact that I have lived my life medication free, we'll agree to disagree.

What the hell with the snide remark? Are you a troll? I thought this site had people who are tolerant of opposing points of view, or at least that people have them, but apparently not, there always has to be a know-it-all who thinks they're always right and the other person's mind must be drug-addled to have such an opinion. Grow up.