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 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.
Except that's the entirety of your previous post. You state something is bad, but say the "other side" is doing worse, and attempts to paint "your side" as doing bad things are just misdirection. You don't care what happens to an individual, because they are just experiencing the same thing you (and this one is a giant, sweeping, statistical "you") - and of course, they are the "other side".
Again, abuse and bullying are bad, and individuals are not statistics.
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.
PC culture is not synonymous with culture, either. It's not merely "culture" at a certain time in history. PC culture means things like purporting to cherish inclusiveness while inciting divisiveness. What's unusual about PC culture is it's a bad idea under the guise of good ideas. It means having to hush up about tough questions because they're controversial and the inevitable offense that an adult might suffer. I'm talking about people losing their livelihoods, businesses being destroyed, people being jailed (For tweets in the UK - the USA no longer has full custody of political correctness). And all the self-censorship (a nasty form of thought control) that follows from the very real threat of those things happening.
On April 24 2016 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote: 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.
Am I to take from this that you really see this as some kind of racial and not ideological divide, that you would be okay with because people are hurting each other more proportionately?
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.
Where can I sign up to live like Beyonce?
On April 24 2016 03:37 Nyxisto wrote: 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.
If they're thin-skinned, that's your personal judgment. They're probably, and I'm just spitballing here, convinced of their beliefs because that's what a belief is.
On April 24 2016 03:37 Nyxisto wrote: 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.
Would like to see a specific example to know what exactly you mean and see if it overlaps my experiences. Going "Trump fans" sounds more like scapegoating than an example. I have a hunch you're insinuating that Trump supporters invented commenting badly on Youtube, and political correctness (or the regressive left, too, although they're not the same concepts) existed before any specific election cycle.
If it's about civility, I would really like to see people no-platforming left wing speakers, pulling fire alarms, or protesting with the same behavior you see people protesting the right and to the same degree (using "left" and "right" loosely).
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.
Except that's the entirety of your previous post. You state something is bad, but say the "other side" is doing worse, and attempts to paint "your side" as doing bad things are just misdirection. You don't care what happens to an individual, because they are just experiencing the same thing you (and this one is a giant, sweeping, statistical "you") - and of course, they are the "other side".
Again, abuse and bullying are bad, and individuals are not statistics.
You're extracting more from my post than was intended. I was pointing out that people constantly make false equivalencies in these discussions. Not that there's no room for improvement. But I stand by the assertion that drawing attention away from why they are protesting to discuss how is a distraction, particularly when people defend it by making false equivalencies or using grossly misconstrued interpretations of history.
Take away the reasons to protest, and then there won't be protests that don't pass the bar of how to appropriately protest one's abuse..
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.
Except that's the entirety of your previous post. You state something is bad, but say the "other side" is doing worse, and attempts to paint "your side" as doing bad things are just misdirection. You don't care what happens to an individual, because they are just experiencing the same thing you (and this one is a giant, sweeping, statistical "you") - and of course, they are the "other side".
Again, abuse and bullying are bad, and individuals are not statistics.
You're extracting more from my post than was intended. I was pointing out that people constantly make false equivalencies in these discussions. Not that there's no room for improvement. But I stand by the assertion that drawing attention away from why they are protesting to discuss how is a distraction, particularly when people defend it by making false equivalencies or using grossly misconstrued interpretations of history.
Take away the reasons to protest, and then there won't be protests that don't pass the bar of how to appropriately protest one's abuse..
The point is that the protests are a discretion when they aren't trying to achieve anything nor even attempting to..Does BLM even think that its going to accomplish anything? Because the only thing they've done is to create a bunch of noise about a problem with no given solutions.
The notion that there should be an awareness about going to far with "PC" does have some merit. That being said, I think the perception that the adverse effects from "PC" is really common and widespread is exaggerated. Sure you can point to instances where social mob justice has made mistakes and people who shouldn't have been the target were inappropriately punished, or that there are individuals out there that are overbearing in their intolerance of anything controversial; but its the same with any "movement" these aren't collectives that move with one mind and there will be people who misuse the ideas, make mistakes executing their ideas, or even bad people using them for their own ends. This isn't something at all unique to PC/SJW or whatever you want to call it. Everything has these problems to deal with, no matter what line on the spectrum the ideas/movements come from.
Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word. 2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups. 3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation.
What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote: Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word. 2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups. 3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation.
Point 2 is also one I am quite concerned with. Take Islamophobia for example. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. I'm sure everyone has seen the Bill Maher - Harris, Affleck fiasco, but that is one example how some hollywood liberal comes in and throws around the word racist and completely shuts down legitimate conversation.
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.
That twitter led to the most amusing Supreme Court hearing I've read in while.
Donald Trump is leading by wide margins in California, according to a new Fox News poll released on Friday, raising the possibility of securing the nomination outright on June 7.
The billionaire front-runner from New York holds the support of 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters in the state, earning more support than the combined totals of his rivals, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Cruz received 22 percent in the poll and Kasich 20 percent.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have as large a lead over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in California. The former secretary of State, with 48 percent support among likely Democratic voters, leads Sanders by two points.
The poll was conducted April 18-21 among 1,206 likely primary voters in California, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
Recent polls have shown Trump maintaining a large lead in the state. Results from a Capitol Weekly/Sextant Strategies poll earlier this week showed Trump leading his rivals with 41 percent of the vote. That poll showed him winning in nearly every area of the state.
On April 24 2016 04:53 Kickstart wrote: What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
I'll start with a few (that have long been requested despite peoples ignorance of them). Every officer involved shooting (probably all complaints) should be investigated by an independent organization (not the same or a different police department), officers involved in uses of lethal force should not have protection from drug testing, should not have 48 hours to work on their story, etc... (there's several issues with police union contracts that need to be addressed), all forces with documented problems or especially high complaints/dismissals of complaints, should have mandatory body cameras with the details of which to be discussed among the police force reps, ACLU type groups, and communities.
That's just a handful, there are several places you can find specific requests from BLM supporters ranging on a variety of issues. The notion that this information isn't available is a combination of ignorance and the media preferring to show non-stop loops of crap, instead of actually digging into anything of substance.
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.
you've never had the right to say whatever you want without fear of social repercussion
Social repercussion is social, not made by some minority within the minority that terrorize everybody. You should be allowed to say whatever you please, as long as its not asking for people to be killed or attacked. Think about what it means for a teacher when you can't say some things, discuss some argument, because you fear that your students will badly respond to it...
Uh? It seems normal to me that a teacher, like anyone, should face consequences of their words. I mean, do you really expect to be able to say that Black men are stupid to a racially mixed class and to a 100% white, rich, far-right leaning class, and be seen in the same way? Do you really expect to be able to say that all pharmacists always seek to maximize their profits even if it means harming the patients to children of pharmacists (true story), and get away with it fine? Do you really expect to be able to insult a student based on his race (true story) and suffer no repercussion?
Saying something is an action like any other. If your freedom concerning usual actions is limited by the way people will react to it, why shouldn't your freedom of speech be limited too?
And yes, social repercussions are social. Social is not synonymous with society, however ; any social group, be it a family, a classroom, a syndicate/union, an association, whatever, can produce social repercussions.
So for you it's normal that teacher in philosophy can't present the argument that god does not exist, like many philosopher did... This idea that words are performative is galvauded (sure, Charlie Hebdo's caricature were on par with what the Kouachi brothers did right ?) : freedom is being able to say two plus two equal four, said Orwell. Whatever the feeling of others, it should be okay to tell the truth. If what you say is factually untrue, then you should be reprimanded for sure. People who feel "insulted" by a comment should first look at themselves and try to understand why they feel that way, they could gain a lot from it, in maturity and knowledge of themselves : that's how you grow.
And yes, social repercussions are social. Social is not synonymous with society, however ; any social group, be it a family, a classroom, a syndicate/union, an association, whatever, can produce social repercussions.
And the equality of mankind as a value is refuted by racist social groups. This does not mean that institutions, such as a university, should accept their reclamation and punish a teacher that argue that all men are equal ; repercussion are social which exactly mean that "the society" (which is an abstraction but whatever) make them. It is a collective process that goes from individuals and groups to institutions through negotiations and power play - it's problematic when a specific group have such an ascendant on institutions that they can enforce their own vision on every possible topic ; it create hatred and resentment.
Hmm, I think there are two different things in here. A teacher, as long as he presents the idea that god does not exist (or that god exists, or that it is useless to argue about whether god exists or not), should not be prevented (or, more exactly, feel prevented, because do we really have examples of teachers being fired or being beaten up/threatened by its students for presenting such an idea?) from doing so. However, a teacher stating this as a fact or stating their personal opinion on the matter should be ready to face the consequences. Just like, obviously, a history teacher is never going to be punished for explaining the tenants of Nazism, the good old Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fürher, to their students ; however, if he says that "it's a pretty cool concept, you know" or something like that, that'll obviously be perceived differently.
Words are very much performative. Which does not mean they equate to physical aggression, thank you for making me say what I never said. But implying that words have no consequences, thus that we should be free of any responsability when using them, is basically saying that words are meaningless ; and if words are meaningless, then language is meaningless, and then mankind is a failure from the very begining. As for Orwell's quote, yes it's very beautiful, much like any quote. Now, you're forgetting that a vast majority of what any individual says everyday is not truth but their own truth : a white supremacist who feels that Black people are animals very much thinks that he's in the truth, not that he's lying by thinking/saying that. I won't even comment the "grow some balls and brush it off" section : while it is obvious that that would be the ideal situation, it is just as obvious that humans, in general, do not seem to react that way.
And I agree with that part about power plays in institutions. What I was saying was that, if you offend a given group, you'll be facing repercussions from that group, that can range from simple loss of reputation to more serious stuff if, indeed, that group holds power.
You are conflating a true statement and a judgement of value. A true statement is true for everybody - it is by distinguishing what is true, untrue or interpretative that a discussion can occur.
Also xDaunt even if Milo is the result, he is an expression of our inhability to debate as, rather than carefully pointing out what is true, untrue or the result of an interpretation, he resort to mockery, caricature, labelling and spectacle. It's seductive but bland.
On April 24 2016 04:53 Kickstart wrote: What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
You don't seem to understand the issue: if a disenfrenchised minority could already solve their problems in society by perfectly structured policy adaptations they wouldn't be the disenfrenchised minority. Your whole argument leads to the failure that only humans with succesful representation get basic human rights (like not getting shot in the streets for having the wrong skin colour). We as a society should strive to include and not marginalize, empower and not discard.
On April 24 2016 04:53 Kickstart wrote: What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
I'll start with a few (that have long been requested despite peoples ignorance of them). Every officer involved shooting (probably all complaints) should be investigated by an independent organization (not the same or a different police department), officers involved in uses of lethal force should not have protection from drug testing, should not have 48 hours to work on their story, etc... (there's several issues with police union contracts that need to be addressed), all forces with documented problems or especially high complaints/dismissals of complaints, should have mandatory body cameras with the details of which to be discussed among the police force reps, ACLU type groups, and communities.
That's just a handful, there are several places you can find specific requests from BLM supporters ranging on a variety of issues. The notion that this information isn't available is a combination of ignorance and the media preferring to show non-stop loops of crap, instead of actually digging into anything of substance.
I've found this: http://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview, along with what I know. It seems to me there have been many conversations recently on many of these points, attempting to discuss them. I agree that these positions are valid and should seriously be discussed and addressed. Do you feel this is not happening? Do you feel that it is not happening quickly enough? Not in the way you would like it to happen?
But still, the message seems to be "unless you AGREE WITH US on these issues, and enact the policies in the way we deem appropriate, we won't be silenced". Discussing the problems is useful, but it seems that the conversations need to take place, and most of the conversation is being stifled. This isn't a problem that is entirely due to the BLM or the 'left actors', those on the right and conservatives are doing many of the same things to stifle the conversation. That doesn't make it useful for the other side to engage in the same nonsense.
On April 24 2016 04:53 Kickstart wrote: What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
You don't seem to understand the issue: if a disenfrenchised minority could already solve their problems in society by perfectly structured policy adaptations they wouldn't be the disenfrenchised minority. Your whole argument leads to the failure that only humans with succesful representation get basic human rights (like not getting shot in the streets for having the wrong skin colour). We as a society should strive to include and not marginalize, empower and not discard.
And your whole argument boils down to "nothing can be done this is just how it is". See both can do this. I ask for specifics and you come up with "its institutionalized". Yes, I, and most reasonable people will grant you that. The question is what to do about it. I don't particularly disagree with you on much to be honest, my main point is that both sides are boiling things down to identity politics and that it isn't helpful when either side does it.
I am asking for clarity and conversation, which to me is the most empowering and liberating thing of all. This particular group has a voice, people have heard them, and many of the policy positions they have put forth are being talked about. Be it the militarization issue, or the over policing of certain areas, the things are being discussed. This seems a good thing to me, yet the complaint seems to be that this isn't good enough. My question is simply well what is good enough, is it that everyone agrees with their position and we adopt every policy they put forth? Again, what needs to happen?
On April 24 2016 04:53 Kickstart wrote: What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
I'll start with a few (that have long been requested despite peoples ignorance of them). Every officer involved shooting (probably all complaints) should be investigated by an independent organization (not the same or a different police department), officers involved in uses of lethal force should not have protection from drug testing, should not have 48 hours to work on their story, etc... (there's several issues with police union contracts that need to be addressed), all forces with documented problems or especially high complaints/dismissals of complaints, should have mandatory body cameras with the details of which to be discussed among the police force reps, ACLU type groups, and communities.
That's just a handful, there are several places you can find specific requests from BLM supporters ranging on a variety of issues. The notion that this information isn't available is a combination of ignorance and the media preferring to show non-stop loops of crap, instead of actually digging into anything of substance.
I've found this: http://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview, along with what I know. It seems to me there have been many conversations recently on many of these points, attempting to discuss them. I agree that these positions are valid and should seriously be discussed and addressed. Do you feel this is not happening? Do you feel that it is not happening quickly enough? Not in the way you would like it to happen?
But still, the message seems to be "unless you AGREE WITH US on these issues, and enact the policies in the way we deem appropriate, we won't be silenced". Discussing the problems is useful, but it seems that the conversations need to take place, and most of the conversation is being stifled. This isn't a problem that is entirely due to the BLM or the 'left actors', those on the right and conservatives are doing many of the same things to stifle the conversation. That doesn't make it useful for the other side to engage in the same nonsense.
That it's "not happening" would probably be a stretch, but we've been bringing up these issues for decades with little or no progress. The stuff folks are seeing is a plea of desperation after decades of doing what people are saying they should do now not working. It would have never came to this point at all had the strategy folks are advocating worked like they suggest it would.
That being said all of those things are happening on BLM supporters side (keep in mind BLM is only a part of a much larger group), it's not our side that's refusing to even acknowledge that these issues are problems.
On April 24 2016 04:53 Kickstart wrote: What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
I'll start with a few (that have long been requested despite peoples ignorance of them). Every officer involved shooting (probably all complaints) should be investigated by an independent organization (not the same or a different police department), officers involved in uses of lethal force should not have protection from drug testing, should not have 48 hours to work on their story, etc... (there's several issues with police union contracts that need to be addressed), all forces with documented problems or especially high complaints/dismissals of complaints, should have mandatory body cameras with the details of which to be discussed among the police force reps, ACLU type groups, and communities.
That's just a handful, there are several places you can find specific requests from BLM supporters ranging on a variety of issues. The notion that this information isn't available is a combination of ignorance and the media preferring to show non-stop loops of crap, instead of actually digging into anything of substance.
I've found this: http://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview, along with what I know. It seems to me there have been many conversations recently on many of these points, attempting to discuss them. I agree that these positions are valid and should seriously be discussed and addressed. Do you feel this is not happening? Do you feel that it is not happening quickly enough? Not in the way you would like it to happen?
But still, the message seems to be "unless you AGREE WITH US on these issues, and enact the policies in the way we deem appropriate, we won't be silenced". Discussing the problems is useful, but it seems that the conversations need to take place, and most of the conversation is being stifled. This isn't a problem that is entirely due to the BLM or the 'left actors', those on the right and conservatives are doing many of the same things to stifle the conversation. That doesn't make it useful for the other side to engage in the same nonsense.
That it's "not happening" would probably be a stretch, but we've been bringing up these issues for decades with little or no progress. The stuff folks are seeing is a plea of desperation after decades of doing what people are saying they should do now not working. It would have never came to this point at all had the strategy folks are advocating worked like they suggest it would.
That being said all of those things are happening on BLM supporters side (keep in mind BLM is only a part of a much larger group), it's not our side that's refusing to even acknowledge that these issues are problems.
We agree. My issue with the right (as I have said earlier) is that I think they are wrong about nearly everything. I also dislike the types within their ranks that hold the views you are referring to.I live in the south, and have given a bit of my history before so I know a bit about what it feels like to be marginalized by society, though I grant that I have had the benefit (forgive me for using the term) of being white. But again my entire point from a couple pages back was that liberals shouldn't engage in the same type of nonsense, and my complaints have all been directed at the fact that they are doing so. The right wing extremists who deny that racism is a thing and so on will not be beaten by having equally dogmatic positions on the left, they will be beaten because their arguments are asinine and blatantly false.
On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote: Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word. 2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups. 3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation.
Point 2 is also one I am quite concerned with. Take Islamophobia for example. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. I'm sure everyone has seen the Bill Maher - Harris, Affleck fiasco, but that is one example how some hollywood liberal comes in and throws around the word racist and completely shuts down legitimate conversation.
Point (2) is a real mess. As evidence pours in point (2) can come under a lot of strain. I think it can become tenuous to maintain (see the Refugee criminality problems in Germany). But it still worth trying to hold up (2) for a while.
I am going to vainly apply my rubric to Trump. Using Trump as an example, I think when Trump says he isn't PC, I think he is a mix of point (2) and point (3). He is signaling he won't be shut down by liberal arguments that his Wall is stupid (3), and he will use group prejudice as a basis for anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim laws (2). But note that Trump is diligent in never violating (1), Trump never uses racial epithets.
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.
On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote: Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word. 2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups. 3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation.
Point 2 is also one I am quite concerned with. Take Islamophobia for example. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. I'm sure everyone has seen the Bill Maher - Harris, Affleck fiasco, but that is one example how some hollywood liberal comes in and throws around the word racist and completely shuts down legitimate conversation.
Point (2) is a real mess. As evidence pours in point (2) can come under a lot of strain. I think it can become tenuous to maintain (see the Refugee criminality problems in Germany). But it still worth trying to hold up (2) for a while.
I am going to vainly apply my rubric to Trump. Using Trump as an example, I think when Trump says he isn't PC, I think he is a mix of point (2) and point (3). He is signaling he won't be shut down by liberal arguments that his Wall is stupid (3), and he will use group prejudice as a basis for anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim laws (2). But note that Trump is diligent in never violating (1), Trump never uses racial epithets.
See this is problem of bringing down the level of the entire conversation though. Two things can be true at the same time. Trump can make retarded and clearly unconstitutional and bigoted comments about muslims, and at the same time Islam can be causing issues around the world. To pretend that issues aren't nuanced is doing no one any favors.
Though I do understand your sentiment. I live in the south, very conservative family, mostly what I consider to be 'evangelical right', some even fundamentalists (that's Kentucky for you I guess), and I get this strange feeling when a topic like Islam comes up. I happen to think Islam is an issue in the world today, but not for the reasons that they do; and it is a strange feeling when I'm not sure if I should share my views to an audience that will clearly view it in their own deranged and bigoted way. Describing the nuance to such people may prove futile in the end, but it must be done anyways.
EPT
