How can I stand too much and still be understood?

Funny is always better than clever.  That's a Stephen Sondheim quote.  His musicals are very clever.
 
(O gosh see what I done did there)

drewfx1
A recent thread - in which I thought an entirely civil, and IMO also friendly exchange of ideas - was locked recently.
 
Personally, I make a distinction between "politics" which is indeed toxic (and i agree needs to be banned) and "public policy" which is only vaguely related.
 
I would apologize to any who disagree on this characterization, but I like to believe people can have productive, non-toxic, respectful discussions on public policy. Yes, even where we disagree on things.
 
I also believe that the problem with problem with politics is that the exact sort of difficult questions we were discussing are ignored in place of superficial vitriol.
 
You are of course welcome to differ. 

I beleive that thread turned into something people are truly concerned about and wanted to discuss and found a way to do it in that thread. Everyone had a valid opinion and everyone respected each others and it seemed like we were all looking for answers and trying to make sense of it all. I know I learned a few things about the differences in healthcare systems here in the US and abroad. It was a healthy conversation.

Mosvalve
It was a healthy conversation.
 

Er, um, no, it was not entirely healthy. And there was truly offensive bigotry displayed at one point.

Interesting.  That comment made me remind myself of the definition of bigotry.  
 
 

The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.

 
I never realized that the word itself is much like the term "political correctness" a term that, itself, is derogatory negative.  It literally tells a minority who doesn't conform that THEY are the one with a problem.  Very ironic if you ask me when it's usually a majority that stubbornly clings to a concept that was given to them (usually by an entity that wishes power and control) and they now refuse to think or ask questions to see if the concept is really valid...  It's so much easier to say that others are wrong than to admit there just might be other answers.  Note that this can apply to all areas of life.
 
(No, I didn't read that other thread so I have no idea what part(s) were considered offensive, and I'm not directing anything at Outland, I just realized that I'd never really looked up the definition before and was a bit surprised.)

craigb
I never realized that the word itself is much like the term "political correctness" a term that, itself, is derogatory negative.  

FWIW, I try to keep all my derogatoriness positive.

craigb
Interesting.  That comment made me remind myself of the definition of bigotry.  
 
 

The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.

 
I never realized that the word itself is much like the term "political correctness" a term that, itself, is derogatory negative.  It literally tells a minority who doesn't conform that THEY are the one with a problem.  Very ironic if you ask me when it's usually a majority that stubbornly clings to a concept that was given to them (usually by an entity that wishes power and control) and they now refuse to think or ask questions to see if the concept is really valid...  It's so much easier to say that others are wrong than to admit there just might be other answers.  Note that this can apply to all areas of life.
 
(No, I didn't read that other thread so I have no idea what part(s) were considered offensive, and I'm not directing anything at Outland, I just realized that I'd never really looked up the definition before and was a bit surprised.)

I am struggling to see what your point is here. Are you defending bigotry as the fully acceptable expression of "cultural diversity?"  Are bigots the minority whose rights you are defending? If not then you need to put yourself in the position of someone who does not understand what you intend to say, and write more clearly. 
 
Bigot or bigotry, like crime or criminal are words that carry the pejorative connotation of behaviors that society as a whole find unacceptable.  In the South of my youth, the majority acceptance of the desirability of segregation and the view of the inferiority of minority races would have qualified many Southerners, perhaps a majority, as bigots under your dictionary definition, although most would probably have rejected the application of the word to themselves. So the pejorative connotation of bigot is not an indication of majority or minority opinion, it derives from a perspective of societal values as deriving from a society made up of our better selves; the people we would want to be rather than the people we are statistically. 
 
Bigotry is an internal mental activity, and, except in the realm of religion, not expected to be subject to societal control. Discrimination, which is not in most contexts a pejorative, when based on ethnic, religious or other outgroup membership is an outward manifestation of bigotry that can be prohibited and sanctioned under the law. 
 
Political correctness, is a term that has been handed down from the Russian Communist Party, where it actually had a discernable meaning. To be politically correct was to be in harmony with the party line, however that was perceived at the time. In modern America, it seems to indicate a forced adherence to a set of values that are not shared by all, and it is typically used by those who dissent from those values to indicate that they feel burdened and restrained by them. So when I say that "mentally ****ed" (this forum robot actually bowdlerized this word r..e.t. a r d ed) is a misnomer for persons who are not primarily slow to develop, but rather lack the ability to ever catch up to those of normal intelligence, and find that I am corrected by someone who says that the acceptable term is "exceptional" rather than ****ed, I am likely to say that I, or at least my terminology, have been judged not to be politically correct. If I were to call such exceptional people stupid, a term that actually describes their condition, I would likely be pilloried by my fellows. We all rankle over some of the more extreme examples of "political correctness," although we differ as to what those examples might be, dislike being accused of insensitivity, and find it burdensome to struggle to avoid giving offense where none is intended. 
 
That said, some societal values, even if not shared by all or even a majority, deserve to be respected. They may not be something we want to write laws to enforce, but they should not be violated without social consequence. I value free speech enough that I would not want to see a man imprisoned for calling someone a ni??er in public and meaning it in its most pejorative sense, but I would not want to be a friend to that person, or to hire him to work for me, or elect him to public office. I might not even want to invite him to speak at my college commencement, although I would not want to see him prevented from presenting his point of view in a debate. There seems to be an expanding conflation of the common discomfort with having to be "politically correct," the assertion of the right to free expression of ideas, and the excusing of malignant speech and behavior. Just because someone has the right to say anything, it does not follow that it is right for him to say it. 

The problem I see with political correctness is it is always changing and being compounded and expanded to allow for every little jot and tittle that some person in outer mongolia MIGHT find offensive. Like lawyers fighting over verbiage!
 
Take the term handicapped as an example. There is handicap parking, handicap accessible, handicap stalls but if I were to use handicap in reference to some person then I am the antichrist. Same way with another particular group, I can't keep up with all the freakin' acronyms being appended every few weeks. At one time, that same group chose a term for which they wished to be referenced but that is now another burn-at-the-stake offense. IMHO, it is just a powerplay to try to make people bend to their will. And the more people bend, the more some subcultures want to push. It is getting to the point that regardless of how a group or subculture is referenced, it is going to tick somebody off. While we are trying to be more tolerant by using their self-reference, they should be equally tolerant when no insult is meant.
 
There is also the issue of hypocrisy. Some groups scream when they don't like something but they will not apply the same respect to other groups. Attempting to be PC generally is too convoluted and arbitrary. No matter what, someone is going to be offended.
 
Now, I don't want to ever hear the word bald ever in my lifetime! Doesn't matter that I'm going bald, that word is offensive! I also don't like the terms truck driver, offshore and chartreuse.

Cool!  An intelligent reply (from an expected intelligent source, Slart! ).  Some very valid points there, but taken from a certain level of the onion as I like to say.  Probably the most profound thing I've learned over the last 20 years is just how much everything is defined by the opinions of others.  Ok, a lot of this actually started when I began learning NLP where one of the main tenets is that everything that happens is simply an event.  It's how we respond to that event that matters.
 
While the widely accepted opinion of bigotry definitely includes the examples you have noted, I couldn't help but notice that it can also reflect back on those that label some minority group as bigots.  To avoid any confusion with any actual cultural, religious or societal contrasts where there's already been a large amount of emotional investment and minds have been made up (the ironic part), I will posit my hypothesis from a more historical point of view.
 
Long before Bandler and Professor Grinder developed the human behavior models that became NLP, Shakesphere wrote in Hamlet "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."  Needless to say, this is the concept that I am alluding to.  Let's take the example from the Dark Ages.  The majority of the people living at the time either believed, or were told to believe, that the world was flat despite multiple ways known thousands of years previously to the contrary.  It would be very easy to assume that anyone who thought it was round could be chastised as a bigot per the definition of the word.  Here's that definition again:
 

The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.

 
The point here is that, in this case, it's actually the majority that were prejudiced and closed-minded, plus there was extreme intolerance and hostility (having a "the Earth is round" view could get you imprisoned, exiled or killed).  The prime backers of the flat Earth idea were the Church (which brings in the religious element) and it definitely caused separation in social groups (albeit without any racial implications that I know of).  In this particular example, the minority opinion turned out to be the correct one.  Obviously this isn't always the case, but my observation, especially of current events, is that the exact people calling others bigots (at least per the definition written above) could be just as guilty as those they accuse with the huge exception in that they happen to side with the prevailing social consensus of the moment and don't consider that the opposing views have merit. 
 
One final thing to note.  I'm NOT saying I don't agree with certain social points a view, I just happen to also see several that, from my long personal journeys and research (requiring a very open mind) are easily identified as a "provided belief" by those more interested in power and control, and not accurate in my opinion.  Just because society adds a social stigma and/or legal punishment to something certainly doesn't mean everyone has to believe in its purpose.
 
A while back I spent a lengthy amount of time contemplating what I would do if I had all the power I needed to enact any change I wanted (at either a world, national or local level - pick one, it doesn't really matter).  This grew out of the thought "Instead of complaining about how things are currently being handled, how about coming up with a productive alternate solution?"  I eventually realized that there are NO "right" answers, no magic formula and, mostly, there was no way to create and enforce any rules (even if they were "best for everyone") without creating new minorities, providing unearned benefits for some and undeservedly suppressing others.  Even worse, they usually ended with me becoming and performing exactly the same as those I would have to replace.  Then I grew a bit more.
 
Most of that pondering occurred at the same "level of the onion" as your rebuttal.  Afterwards is when it hit me how none of it really matters.  The next level up had me realize that not only is conflict inevitable, it's required because this reality was never meant to be "fair" it is merely a construct for personal learning.  Until you walk the path to this point (and I'm sure there are more), my current opinions put me squarely in the target of those who cling on to beliefs that were ingrained in them pretty much from birth.  My comment about the word bigotry has less to do with how society is currently using it and more an observation of how the definition is really an oxymoron since the implementation could easily swing 180 degrees depending on a majority of public opinion.

DrLumen
The problem I see with political correctness is it is always changing and being compounded and expanded to allow for every little jot and tittle that some person in outer mongolia MIGHT find offensive. Like lawyers fighting over verbiage!
 
Take the term handicapped as an example. There is handicap parking, handicap accessible, handicap stalls but if I were to use handicap in reference to some person then I am the antichrist. Same way with another particular group, I can't keep up with all the freakin' acronyms being appended every few weeks. At one time, that same group chose a term for which they wished to be referenced but that is now another burn-at-the-stake offense. IMHO, it is just a powerplay to try to make people bend to their will. And the more people bend, the more some subcultures want to push. It is getting to the point that regardless of how a group or subculture is referenced, it is going to tick somebody off. While we are trying to be more tolerant by using their self-reference, they should be equally tolerant when no insult is meant.
 
There is also the issue of hypocrisy. Some groups scream when they don't like something but they will not apply the same respect to other groups. Attempting to be PC generally is too convoluted and arbitrary. No matter what, someone is going to be offended.
 
Now, I don't want to ever hear the word bald ever in my lifetime! Doesn't matter that I'm going bald, that word is offensive! I also don't like the terms truck driver, offshore and chartreuse.

Bingo.