In the above video Jordan says:-
Free speech is a prerequisite to a civilised Society because freedom of speech means you can have combat with words, that what it means, it doesn't mean that people can happily and gently exchange opinions. It means we can engage in combat with words on the Battle Ground of ideas. That's the reason it's acceptable and that's why it's acceptable that people's feelings get hurt during that combat is that the combat of ideas is far preferable to actual combat and is also the only alternative because people have genuine disagreements and if you don't let them talk them out and reach some sort out consensus, some sort of negotiated settlements then they can either swallow their opinions and become enraged, or they can engage in actual combat. So I think that anything that threatens freedom of speech threatens the stability of society, and I think the PC excesses threaten freedom of speech and I think they threaten it quite severely...
I was reminded of this. I thought I'd share. It's easy to get hung up on the semantics, but instead of saying 'polictical correctness' you use the words 'treating each other with respect' then that sheds a whole different light on the matter. And that's how I use the term.
I think - in support of Bee - that you can be completely open about your feelings and be even more disrespectful. Consider the goose-stepping Nazi strutting up and down in front of a gaggle of Jews. Is this open contempt not a display of disrespect?
The real answer, I believe, is more nuanced. In essence, it depends on the circumstances. Moreover, it depends on the audience. If there were a group of Nazi's nearby, they might consider it disrespectful to not goose-step. Ultimately, you can't please everybody and it is difficult to predict who will feel disrespected all the time. I'm always saying things that are not PC, and accidentally making comments that are not intended to disrespect those in my vicinity. To me, I think it is the intent behind what you say, not the words themselves.
Or you could always take the Antifa view: "Words are violence." And then that gives you the right to be physically violent back, because you have justified it to yourself.
Unfortunately, too many people use a bit of mental gymnastics to contort their view of reality and from that twisted viewpoint, they can justify almost ANY bad act - verbal or otherwise. In the case of some of the shooters (USA and otherwise), they have twisted perception of one group into a threat, so they say they are merely defending themselves from a "greater threat." The New Zealand shooter and the Texas shooter both engaged in "hate crime" mentality - shooting at a particular ethnic group. The Las Vegas shooter, so far as we have been able to tell, was just a plain nut case.
(Not defending! Just drawing a distinction.)