In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 24 2016 01:34 puerk wrote: the helpless/disenfrenchised minority can not be "tyrannical" in its protests.
They can stifle conversations though. From the groups I mentioned, the only people who have an actual grievance would be the black lives matter protesters. Yet even with legitimate things that should be discussed, it seems they are more intent on shouting people down and playing the blame game. I'll grant that the people we see on the news channels are probably the most vocal people in the movement and that for every one of those there are even more that don't act in such a manner. But then when any criticism of their behavior is brought up, people in this very thread have said things along the lines of "you don't get to tell them how they get to express their grievances". I posit that we do have a say in it, especially when people are more interested in shouting than actually discussing the issues. I have no issue with people who rationally discuss their ideas, grievances, beliefs, or what have you; the issue is with those who are only interested in whining in public and want to be sheltered from any opinions they themselves don't hold.
On April 23 2016 06:56 Mohdoo wrote: This is how you handle BLM. Beautifully done, based milo.
"You hate yourself! You hate yourself!"
...
"Thank you for that very intelligent question"
Haha, I love Milo.
What's sad is that people such as him (Milo), who have a very poor understanding of the world, who barely says anything intelligent nor interesting (watched some of his video, he is a caricature), are somewhat grandiose en eloquent thanks to the stupidity of two guys who cry and repeat insults such as "fuck fuck fuck". In the end, the debate never took place, and all sides are reassured in their stupidity. Ho how simple the world is when you can label anyone that disagree with you as someone racist, sexist, or mentally ill.
Milo serves his purpose well: he perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the modern PC left. The fact is that those idiots are completely out of control, have created a toxic environment for public discourse on important issues, and are the single largest impediment to improvement on the very issues that they claim to champion.
I understand the idea ; it's sure easy to be bored by the rhetoric of some people (a minority) that consider themselves as defendors of the "black lives matter" movement, but it is also sure easy to be bored by the arguments of people such as Milo. What you consider to be a waste disposer can easily be seen as a polluter with simply a different perspective. Think a little about what it means for public debate when someone like Milo is valued for his "purpose" ... The debate never took place, the exchanges are empty, everybody can turn back and feel safe knowing their beliefs are untouched and "truth" - the only thing that could reconcile people to a certain extent - is nowhere to be found.
Again, I think you're confusing Milo for being the cause rather than the effect. Milo (and other commentators like him) didn't pop out of thin air. Milo is the natural result of the years of tyranny that the illiberal left has exercised over public discourse on societal issues. Hell, I'd classify BLM (and groups like it) as a "result," too, rather than a cause, which is why I don't think that BLM is really Milo's target. His real target is the left wing academic intelligentsia that has made this mess possible.
EDIT: For context, BLM is just a collection of average idiots taking the regressive teachings of the left wing intelligentsia and misapplying them.
stifled conversations, the biggest peril of the wealthy white man lol. What a tyranny you have to live in if you have to endure young black civil rights activists.
On April 24 2016 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Every time the "oppression" of "PC culture" comes up, I'm reminded how little folks here know about being black. 200+ years of black people saying all of the worst ramifications of "PC culture" are being endured by them and it only takes ~generation of white people being ever so slightly restricted and it's "White Genocide" right around the corner.
There is real terror being inflicted on people, often by government officials, (see Flint, NYC, Ferguson, etc...).Anyone who thinks "PC culture" even approaches oppression, wouldn't last a week under the oppression millions in this country actually live under (and they likely ignore).
I think you're the first person to use the word "oppression" so I don't see how this isn't one big strawman (especially after how eager you were to connect opposition to political correctness to race relations). Something can be bad without it being oppression ("oppression" is much more the language of the left).
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
I think it's painfully naive to try reduce people who you don't like down to singular, petty memes.
No, you don't have the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion. Yes, things like racist slurs and rape jokes used in casual context is tactless at best.
But the repercussions for doing such things in the last several years has extended far beyond getting a meagre telling off, and easily escalates to thousands of people taking any recorded gaff you make and amplifying far beyond the impact of your initial statement. And because of the permanence of the internet for anything going even moderately viral, relatively minor issues can now harm people's futures severely.
Is it acceptable that people act like asses to others? No, not really. Should a teenager or young adult have anything they've said in private or non-mass communication spread across social media for all future employers to easily find when they inevitably search their name? Definitely not, either.
And as much as you'd like to mock the complaints that being "PC" is oppression, there is some legitimate concern in the sense of social mob justice that follows it very closely.
The whole context of the discussion is pretty absurd but I assure folks being "PC" isn't new, what's new (in the US anyway), is who/what it covers. Well into the 60's saying "black people should have the same rights as white people" wasn't just "not PC" it could get you locked up or beaten to death BY THE GOVERNMENT without redress for the person speaking.
Whatever it is people think they are experiencing, it's not new, it's "new to you!" The version/degree you're living through is in no way worse than what has always been here, you're (general uses btw) just experiencing the crappy side for the first time.
EDIT: Also there you have it being called "tyranny" and calling BLM a collection of "morons"
On April 24 2016 01:58 Nyxisto wrote: stifled conversations, the biggest peril of the wealthy white man lol. What a tyranny you have to live in if you have to endure young black civil rights activists.
Amusing how we are back to name calling instead of addressing things. But I guess you've done wonders in proving that the regressive left isn't primarily concerned with making useless quips in public. Congrats.
EDIT: Also amusing how you have my race, socioeconomic status, and presumably other things pegged. I must be some "cis white male" right? Because that invalidates anything I might say, correct?
This is the type of thing everyone is talking about.
On April 24 2016 01:58 Nyxisto wrote: stifled conversations, the biggest peril of the wealthy white man lol. What a tyranny you have to live in if you have to endure young black civil rights activists.
Amusing how we are back to name calling instead of addressing things. But I guess you've done wonders in proving that the regressive left isn't primarily concerned with making useless quips in public. Congrats.
EDIT: Also amusing how you have my race, socioeconomic status, and presumably other things pegged. I must be some "cis white male" right?
Am I assuming wrong? And no your personal status doesn't invalidate what you're saying. What invalidates what you're saying is the stuff itself. Do you honestly think actual tyranny is better than having to debate 'regressive leftists'?
On April 24 2016 01:58 Nyxisto wrote: stifled conversations, the biggest peril of the wealthy white man lol. What a tyranny you have to live in if you have to endure young black civil rights activists.
Amusing how we are back to name calling instead of addressing things. But I guess you've done wonders in proving that the regressive left isn't primarily concerned with making useless quips in public. Congrats.
EDIT: Also amusing how you have my race, socioeconomic status, and presumably other things pegged. I must be some "cis white male" right?
Am I assuming wrong? And no your personal status doesn't invalidate what you're saying. What invalidates what you're saying is the stuff itself. Do you honestly think actual tyranny is better than having to debate 'regressive leftists'?
In some respects you have assumed wrong. I am a homosexual and I suffer from chronic mental illnesses, among other things. I don't want to list off every aspect of my life that will prove that I am not some ultra privileged person, self pity is a loathsome quality to have. Don't see how any of that is at all relevant though, but since you were curious there you are.
To your point, I believe I stated quite clearly that I am against both things. I am against the tyranny you describe, while also not being particularly fond of the types of people I have outlined.
EDIT: And again, you moved from the name calling to now misrepresenting what I have said. All of a sudden I am a fan of tyranny when I've said no such thing, and in fact stated that I am against all forms of it. Two of the things I initially stated that I had a problem with (the name calling and categorizing instead of addressing the ideas, and misrepresenting what someone says and then attacking that misrepresentation), are two of the things you have retorted with. Again, I posit that this is exactly the type of thing that I and others are talking about when we say this is getting ridiculous.
On April 23 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote: The regressive PC left would exist whether or not Milo was a public figure who held talks for them to protest.
The right is much more regressive than the left, and "PC" is pure buzzword.
It means "stop liking what I don't like" and/or "stop being a decent human being". In my experience you hear it most from neo-reactionary types, white supremacists, MRAs and so on.
I think it's painfully naive to try reduce people who you don't like down to singular, petty memes.
No, you don't have the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion. Yes, things like racist slurs and rape jokes used in casual context is tactless at best.
But the repercussions for doing such things in the last several years has extended far beyond getting a meagre telling off, and easily escalates to thousands of people taking any recorded gaff you make and amplifying far beyond the impact of your initial statement. And because of the permanence of the internet for anything going even moderately viral, relatively minor issues can now harm people's futures severely.
Is it acceptable that people act like asses to others? No, not really. Should a teenager or young adult have anything they've said in private or non-mass communication spread across social media for all future employers to easily find when they inevitably search their name? Definitely not, either.
And as much as you'd like to mock the complaints that being "PC" is oppression, there is some legitimate concern in the sense of social mob justice that follows it very closely.
And so what? Wake up, you've never had the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion. Two centuries ago it was "PC" to say that Black were inferior to White, or that they weren't even human. One century ago it was "PC" to say that homosexuals were degenerates. Today, in a far-right family, it's "PC" to say that homosexuals should not have the right to marry, in the sense that hinting at the opposite in a family dinner will probably get you a bad reputation. At all times, in a given social frame, there are things that are OK to say and others that are not OK. Mob justice (there's no need for "social" in here, a mob is social anyway) has always been a thing too, and if you think it's more extreme and causes more damage today than in the past, I really suggest you study some history.
Additionally, blaming the "PC culture" or "SJWs" everytime someone hints that what you said should not have been said is counter-productive. Since you basically use it as an insult, everyone understands that you lost the argument, even though it's probably comfortable for your ego to do that. It'd be much more productive to put aside all these stupid words like "PC culture", "SJW" (and even "racist", "sexist", "islamophobic", etc when used in the wrong situation) ; and actually explain what you said.
And this is what I mean by reducing the opinions and view points down to memes and buzzwords. You're throwing out a lot of words here that I never used...in fact, the only term I put into scare quotes was "PC" because I think that term is just as bullshit as most of them. If you have to pull the lowest hanging fruits out of a hat to argue your point, then you aren't arguing it very well.
I don't think mob justice is new. I never even came close to implying such a thing. The difference has nothing to do with attitudes or behaviour of people, and everything to do with the capabilities of technology. If you got in a drunken binge and do something ridiculous 40 years ago, you get a reputation as a drunken idiot within your locale. If you do it now (and it's amusing enough), it gets posted on Youtube, shared among thousands to millions of people and has permanence.
And the ability for this to happen is entirely because of the ease of recording, the power of social media to mass communicate, and a social culture that pushes a desire to prop up your own sphere of influence and social standing - even at the expense of others.
And most of this is just me griping about how shallow social media is, and a gossip-mongering, paparazzi-esque attitude that everyday people have taken on. But I do have a serious issue with attitudes and actions that are, for all intents and purposes, mass bullying all with the justification that certain targets deserve it.
And none of this has anything to with some arbitrary "left" and "right" lines in the sand.
To what extent, in this internet age, are we seeing a shift into a public shaming society? I used to be more on board with the 'freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences' line, but I have become increasingly uncomfortable with just how wide ranging those consequences could be.
Because in a just society, there should also be protection from a great many consequences that are simply disproportionate to the action. Yet the singular problem with public shaming is that it is mob justice, which is nearly impossible to regulate to ensure that the consequences are proportionate. If enough in the mob decides you need to lose your job, you can lose your job. If enough in the mob decide you need to be doxed, then your personal information goes blasting off into cyberspace, and if the mob believes you deserve death threats, then you will get death threats in abundance. Whether it is left or right in it's origin, mob justice is notoriously bad at proportionality, and if we are moving more toward public shaming, then regardless of your political perspective, there is reason to be concerned.
On April 24 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote: The whole context of the discussion is pretty absurd but I assure folks being "PC" isn't new, what's new (in the US anyway), is who/what it covers. Well into the 60's saying "black people should have the same rights as white people" wasn't just "not PC" it could get you locked up or beaten to death BY THE GOVERNMENT without redress for the person speaking.
I think you've deliberately misunderstood the term and used scare quotes to excuse yourself from having to be accurate. Political correctness wasn't really a thing before the 90s. You're using it in some kind of weird way to refer to the zeitgeist, but that's not it. Overt racism and repression aren't "politically correct." For the easiest example, no, hating Jews in the Third Reich wouldn't be "politically correct" just because it was mainstream. It's not a synonym for "mainstream."
On April 24 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Whatever it is people think they are experiencing, it's not new, it's "new to you!" The version/degree you're living through is in no way worse than what has always been here, you're (general uses btw) just experiencing the crappy side for the first time.
Sure PC culture isn't new, but it's not static. It was on a downturn at the end of the 90s. It's been growing lately.
Regardless, if what you've written is your sincere belief, why would you want to perpetuate something bad.. just because you think it hurts the right people now?
On April 24 2016 02:20 Falling wrote: To what extent, in this internet age, are we seeing a shift into a public shaming society? I used to be more on board with the 'freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences' line, but I have become increasingly uncomfortable with just how wide ranging those consequences could be.
I think that's pretty spot on, it's about 'street democracy' and a might makes right attitude. People on the right side of the political spectrum have seen that they're losing in the institutions so they're trying to mobilize people under the guise of "free speech". The old term for "political correctness" was simply civility. Conservatives were a big fan of it when they were running the public discourse and politics
Being forced into pedantic discussions that inevitably end up mired in errors of identity theory is not "the crappy side" when "the crappy side" has been the side subjected to slavery, systemic discrimination, and the contemporary high odds dice roll that lands you in a house on a shitty street in a shitty neighborhood.
On April 24 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote: The whole context of the discussion is pretty absurd but I assure folks being "PC" isn't new, what's new (in the US anyway), is who/what it covers. Well into the 60's saying "black people should have the same rights as white people" wasn't just "not PC" it could get you locked up or beaten to death BY THE GOVERNMENT without redress for the person speaking.
I think you've deliberately misunderstood the term and used scare quotes to excuse yourself from having to be accurate. Political correctness wasn't really a thing before the 90s. You're using it in some kind of weird way to refer to the zeitgeist, but that's not it. Overt racism and repression aren't "politically correct." For the easiest example, no, hating Jews in the Third Reich wouldn't be "politically correct" just because it was mainstream. It's not a synonym for "mainstream."
On April 24 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Whatever it is people think they are experiencing, it's not new, it's "new to you!" The version/degree you're living through is in no way worse than what has always been here, you're (general uses btw) just experiencing the crappy side for the first time.
Sure PC culture isn't new, but it's not static. It was on a downturn at the end of the 90s. It's been growing lately.
Regardless, if what you've written is your sincere belief, why would you want to perpetuate something bad.. just because you think it hurts the right people now?
What you're referring to now being "PC culture" used to just be called "the culture" or "the zeitgeist" as you put it. But now that it's impacting different people in ways they aren't comfortable with it's uniquely worse in their view. To a degree they are right, in exchange for people being able to freely express their love or their desire for justice, their opponents now see the American culture no longer taking their side in the argument about what isn't an appropriate thing to say in public.
It fine for society and the government to put restrictions on speech (fire in a crowded theater, or not using racial epithets in polite company for example), what you're describing isn't some perpetuation of a "bad" thing, you're seeing a part of the human condition expressed in a way that is beginning to be less disproportionately abused.
Let's also remember Beyonce having in text "Stop shooting us", in her own music video, prompted a backlash from society, and the police going as far as saying they wouldn't work her concert as a result. People can just get over themselves if they want to whine about how they are experiencing just a shred of what the people they are ignoring/insulting have always lived with.
Aren't both things crappy? One more than the other sure, but aught we not avoid both? This is more of the "our way or no way", "if you don't like how we are doing it then tough shit" lines of reasoning. Surely for a fruitful discussion it would be best to get past this.
On April 24 2016 02:20 Falling wrote: To what extent, in this internet age, are we seeing a shift into a public shaming society? I used to be more on board with the 'freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences' line, but I have become increasingly uncomfortable with just how wide ranging those consequences could be.
I think that's pretty spot on, it's about 'street democracy' and a might makes right attitude. People on the right side of the political spectrum have seen that they're losing in the institutions so they're trying to mobilize people under the guise of "free speech". The old term for "political correctness" was simply civility. Conservatives were a big fan of it when they were running the public discourse and politics
Civility has little to nothing to do with political correctness. Civility is about how you express yourself and your opinions (whatever they might be). Political correctness is about (or rathrr has been perversed into) whether or not you are holding the "correct" opinion - and if you do not you should be shamed into silence and if that doesn't work, your life should be utterly destroyed. Regardless of how well you argue your point.
If that is the case, why are the "anti-PC" communities so incredibly thin-skinned and at the same time utterly convinced about their personal beliefs? It's absolutely about civility. The zealous Trump fans are the best example. There is no other group in politics that seems to be as intolerant towards other opinions than they are while at the same time shutting everybody out of the echo chamber that is not 100% in line. Trump himself literally has the most hostile attitude towards free speech on the internet, much more so than any "pc" candidate.
On April 24 2016 03:17 Kickstart wrote: Aren't both things crappy? One more than the other sure, but aught we not avoid both? This is more of the "our way or no way", "if you don't like how we are doing it then tough shit" lines of reasoning. Surely for a fruitful discussion it would be best to get past this.
I don't think you understand my point. When one side says "Stop shooting us" offends them to the point they can no longer engage, and the other side is saying "You shooting us offends us to the point we can no longer engage" and then people say "well they both need to calm down because PC culture is out of control" it's grossly distorting the reality of who's being silenced and how/why.
The fact of the matter is that taking either side of a hotly contested issue can cause social and legal ramifications, always has and always will. All we can do is influence what has consequences and what they are. That we are shifting away from things like "The negro people are an inferior race" or "Homosexuals should be burned at the stake" being acceptable and "I am a man" or "I deserve the same legal protections you do" being legitimate (in the eyes of popular culture) reasons to incarcerate, beat, or even kill someone for is not a bad thing imo.
That now someone may lose a job because they say something offensive that used to be alright when only white people were allowed to express controversial opinions, doesn't bother me in the slightest. All folks are experiencing now is that the playing field is just a hair closer to being remotely even when it comes to the consequences of rhetoric.
If any of my bosses would have heard me discussing politics (mind you they mentioned their opinions regularly) I would have been fired. That's the nature of the beast. Sure I'd like to remedy it, but one side took it for the team for a long time with little to no improvement, saying that side needs to be more restrained if they want progress is counterfactual.
On April 24 2016 03:13 farvacola wrote: Being forced into pedantic discussions that inevitably end up mired in errors of identity theory is not "the crappy side" when "the crappy side" has been the side subjected to slavery, systemic discrimination, and the contemporary high odds dice roll that lands you in a house on a shitty street in a shitty neighborhood.
On April 24 2016 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's also remember Beyonce having in text "Stop shooting us", in her own music video, prompted a backlash from society, and the police going as far as saying they wouldn't work her concert as a result. People can just get over themselves if they want to whine about how they are experiencing just a shred of what the people they are ignoring/insulting have always lived with.
Or how about just "abuse and bullying are bad"?
If your argument comes down to justifying the mistreatment of individuals because you're part of a group that has suffered worse mistreatment (or even if you personally have suffered worse mistreatment), then the argument falls flat very quickly.
On April 24 2016 03:13 farvacola wrote: Being forced into pedantic discussions that inevitably end up mired in errors of identity theory is not "the crappy side" when "the crappy side" has been the side subjected to slavery, systemic discrimination, and the contemporary high odds dice roll that lands you in a house on a shitty street in a shitty neighborhood.
On April 24 2016 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Let's also remember Beyonce having in text "Stop shooting us", in her own music video, prompted a backlash from society, and the police going as far as saying they wouldn't work her concert as a result. People can just get over themselves if they want to whine about how they are experiencing just a shred of what the people they are ignoring/insulting have always lived with.
Or how about just "abuse and bullying are bad"?
If your argument comes down to justifying the mistreatment of individuals because you're part of a group that has suffered worse mistreatment (or even if you personally have suffered worse mistreatment), then the argument falls flat very quickly.
Abuse/Bullying is bad and that is not my argument. That was easy enough.
For a little levity, our Supreme Court hard at work.
people whining about political correctness and the thought police are like PUA's whining about being assaulted in their manhood: a bunch of resentful pussies
EPT
