Didn’t you jump into the thread complaining about logical fallacy, and then used it in everyone of your posts since?
[/quote]
There’s a difference between using strawmen as evidence (I would have described that church-going woman as “my aunt, or someone like her”, but it’s easier for you to say I’d call her a bigot)[/quote]
From someone who came in here carrying the “white Christian men” bullshit rhetoric, you’re a big fan of making generalizations while trying to put down those generalizations you DON’T agree with.
Why are you so concerned with where people are “on the latter”? Why?
The difference being I’m not trying to silence, or control the speech of those who disagree with me.
[quote]
Then what the hell is the problem with PC? People are complaining that PC is “the death of truth” and a way of “warping” language. How? How is not calling someone a slur or using a more respectful term or generalizing races, religions, or ethnicity any of those things?
PC is a problem when it’s a threat to free speech. Free speech is stronger than it’s ever been. PC is not a problem. [/quote]
I’ve addressed all this. In the post you’re going to conveniently ignore because you can’t address the Clinton question at the end. [/quote]
Just because someone didn’t address a point you made doesn’t mean it was a good one.
[quote]
The issue comes to play when people don’t know they’ve won. And push, and push, and demand compliance. As to the later, mandated compliance isn’t victory, it is oppression. In the instance of the former, look no further than Friday’s ruling. “Love wins” is turning into “destroy religious people”. [/quote]
We haven’t “won”. And we’re demanding “compliance” by asking to be treated with the same respect as anyone else. Seriously, how hard is that to contemplate? “Be nice to these people” is not “oppression”. It’s basic fucking decency. It’s the Golden rule that so often gets ignored by its authors. A huge portion of the country is objecting to the ruling and demanding their right to discriminate, and you think we’ve “won”? That’s not even considering violence and suicide rate discrepancies between LGBT and straight people. PC is still important because minorities are still threatened. If you don’t agree with that sentence, we’re coming from places too different to reconcile.
And Clinton? He changed his mind, along with about 30% of the rest of the country in that time.
Didn’t you jump into the thread complaining about logical fallacy, and then used it in everyone of your posts since?
[/quote]
There’s a difference between using strawmen as evidence (I would have described that church-going woman as “my aunt, or someone like her”, but it’s easier for you to say I’d call her a bigot)[/quote]
From someone who came in here carrying the “white Christian men” bullshit rhetoric, you’re a big fan of making generalizations while trying to put down those generalizations you DON’T agree with.
Why are you so concerned with where people are “on the latter”? Why?
The difference being I’m not trying to silence, or control the speech of those who disagree with me.
[quote]
Then what the hell is the problem with PC? People are complaining that PC is “the death of truth” and a way of “warping” language. How? How is not calling someone a slur or using a more respectful term or generalizing races, religions, or ethnicity any of those things?
PC is a problem when it’s a threat to free speech. Free speech is stronger than it’s ever been. PC is not a problem. [/quote]
I’ve addressed all this. In the post you’re going to conveniently ignore because you can’t address the Clinton question at the end. [/quote]
Just because someone didn’t address a point you made doesn’t mean it was a good one.
[quote]
The issue comes to play when people don’t know they’ve won. And push, and push, and demand compliance. As to the later, mandated compliance isn’t victory, it is oppression. In the instance of the former, look no further than Friday’s ruling. “Love wins” is turning into “destroy religious people”. [/quote]
We haven’t “won”. And we’re demanding “compliance” by asking to be treated with the same respect as anyone else. Seriously, how hard is that to contemplate? “Be nice to these people” is not “oppression”. It’s basic fucking decency. It’s the Golden rule that so often gets ignored by its authors. A huge portion of the country is objecting to the ruling and demanding their right to discriminate, and you think we’ve “won”? That’s not even considering violence and suicide rate discrepancies between LGBT and straight people. PC is still important because minorities are still threatened. If you don’t agree with that sentence, we’re coming from places too different to reconcile.
And Clinton? He changed his mind, along with about 30% of the rest of the country in that time. [/quote]
Dude you’re the only one speaking discriminatory here.
The authors of the golden rule ignore it? I am thinking you meant to say something else.
In any event you are proving the very point many of us are trying to make. In the guise of PC, you hate and discriminate. Since it’s a group that’s not been historically discriminated against, you think it’s ok to take these pot shots.
If you believe in what your preaching, you gotta stop hating on the WASP. They are not your enemy or the problem.
Just because someone didn’t address a point you made doesn’t mean it was a good one. [/quote]
It means, as you’ve demonstrated, you can’t explain why. “He changed his mind”? lmao… Yeah about six months ago maybe. What world do you live in where giving that kind of pass to one and not even allowing the same “time to change minds” to others isn’t ridiculous.
Mitt Romney was the first governor in this country to ORDER the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples. Why is he not a lionized hero of the movement?
[quote]
[quote]
The issue comes to play when people don’t know they’ve won. And push, and push, and demand compliance. As to the later, mandated compliance isn’t victory, it is oppression. In the instance of the former, look no further than Friday’s ruling. “Love wins” is turning into “destroy religious people”. [/quote]
We haven’t “won”. [/quote]
Of course you have. Jesus fucking Christ. It’s now illegal for any governmental unit in the US to deny the recognition of a civil contract based on gender of those who willing choose to enter into that contract.
This isn’t only a win for LBGT people, but for all people who pine for liberty and freedom.
It’s one more aspect of life the government can’t dictate.
In what twisted, convoluted state of mind is that not winning?
You may be asking for common decency, which is what we have in MA. And no churches were forced to participate in anything they don’t wish to, nor are they picketing weddings they don’t approve. No one is trying in destroy them here, and they aren’t trying to destroy LGBT people…
However, you aren’t the only part of “we” here.
Apparently as hard as the concept of freedom means even people whom you don’t agree with are allowed to say “no thank you, I’d rather not.”
Article after article attacking religion liked on facebook, people dressing up like Jesus in Parades mocking, calls to end the exempt status, talk of forcing churches to perform ceremonies, lawsuits against churches who say no…
That isn’t “be nice” that is “here comes a whole lot of revenge for the sins of people who came before you.”
Let’s not get into a “but they are hypocrites” comparison. Every group has them.
You have won, because they can’t discriminate. As of right now, the only thing that can happen is a church can say “no thank you” to performing a same sex ceremony. Businesses can’t refuse to bake cakes or take pictures, Hotels and country clubs can’t say no based on gender of the participants. Little a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people can say, “I’d prefer not to be involved due to it violating my faith based on this book here I believe in.”
(I assume LBGT people will be addressing Mosques first, seeing as Muslims still like to hang and toss people off buildings for being gay, etc.)
Other than that, you have similar struggles to everyone else. Fringe assholes who say things you don’t like. LGBT people literally have every legal protection as anyone ever as now, secured by SCOTUS.
The rest is the same time you afforded Bill “I signed DADT and DOMA with a smile” Clinton to let people change their minds. Or is Bill the only one you’ll give that time to?
So why are they the only ones allowed time to change their minds? Why must people now be forced to comply?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
OK, I can use myself as an example. I am Jewish–so by strict definition, NOT white–and I am anti-PC. [/quote]
You also live in one of the most diverse area’s of the world in NYC.
Now my experiences there are very limited, and only to Manhattan as well, but as far as it seems to me, the average person on the street, and even people I’ve meet from the city, are pretty anti-PC as well. But at the same time, very tolerant, particularly compared to Boston. But again I don’t know NYC anywhere near as well as Boston.
I think living where you live sort of lends itself to being able to exist on a non-PC but still respectful level.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
OK, I can use myself as an example. I am Jewish–so by strict definition, NOT white–and I am anti-PC. [/quote]
You also live in one of the most diverse area’s of the world in NYC.
Now my experiences there are very limited, and only to Manhattan as well, but as far as it seems to me, the average person on the street, and even people I’ve meet from the city, are pretty anti-PC as well. But at the same time, very tolerant, particularly compared to Boston. But again I don’t know NYC anywhere near as well as Boston.
I think living where you live sort of lends itself to being able to exist on a non-PC but still respectful level. [/quote]
I live in the top five most diverse counties in the USA, and one of the most diverse in the world, probably: Queens, NY. That’s not an exaggeration. Name a nationality, race, or ethnicity, and I have experience with a person of it. And when I say I have experience, I mean up close experience on a daily basis, for DECADES. I went to racially diverse high school. For over the past decade I have worked in places where I am the minority; that is, one of the few “white” or fair-skinned people around. I say “white” because despite the white/European admixture that Jews have–hence the pale skin, and in some cases, like mine, blue eyes or light brown, blonde, or red hair–I am perceived as a white guy to those around me who have untrained eyes.
So of course with this experience, and because I am polite and sincere, quite a few people of ALL races have confided in me about one another, certainly not a PC thing to do. And they are not free of dislike, hate, racism, prejudice, personal preference, ethnocentrism, or whatever term one prefers.
And I always find it amusing that those who are so vocal about other races–what they are like, what’s good for them, and in many cases, what I feel to be false compassion–are those who have have minimal to no exposure to them on a daily or somewhat regular basis. They haven’t worked with them in large numbers, haven’t gone to their schools, and are not friends with them. And I mean REAL, close friends! Not the one back co-worker, not the Asian guy you play handball with on occasion or shared math class with, not the gay guy that some otherwise intolerant guy tolerates because he is not flamboyant, or one’s Jewish accountant, and so on, and so on. Truthfully, I don’t think most liberals have not had so much as ONE in-depth conversation on sensitive topics with non-whites or gay people lasting more than one hour at all, whereas I have, many, many times; and I mean, no-frills, no BS, sometimes self-deprecating, politically incorrect talk! So it is astonishing that many liberals feel they know what’s best for other people without even knowing them intimately at all!
Speaking of PC, and on the topic of race, I have literally had Jews, and–get this–non-Jews go into hysterics when I say we are not white, or in many cases, not fully white, even though there is anthropological evidence that we are not and that there is a great deal of racial diversity and ethnic diversity amongst us (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Bukharin, Oriental), and that this can be observed just by looking at us. I’ve gotten dumb shit thrown my way, that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, like, “What do you mean Jews are not white?! That’s what the Nazis thought!” Well, there were people long before the Nazis who considered and knew we are not fully white, and I don’t quite get why it is such a tragedy that we aren’t. And imagine non-Jews telling me about who my own people are!
PC talk can be quite entertaining some times.
Keep in mind I am not liberal or conservative at this point.
I’ll ask again: when has denouncing political correctness ever been anything but defending punching down? [/quote]
That small little world you live in, it’s called a bubble. Try even just reading outside yours once in awhile.
…well I guess I’ve been bested, then. Curse your superior intellect!!
You’re right, I’m letting my liberal sensitivities get the better of my judgement. We should all be allowed to say whatever we want, with no fear of consequence. I’m going to put that into use right now!
You see, I’m sick of listening to these Christians I work with talk about “going to church” and “worshiping God”. I mean, I don’t agree with that! I think it’s dumb! And here this whole “political correctness” nonsense has had me sitting respectfully, listening to their alternative lifestyle (which is stupid based on my beliefs!), and not saying anything that would upset them.
That ends today! I’m going to tell them that I think their religion is stupid. Every one of them! Every client I train that keeps trying to get me to come to their church is now going to get an earful! Every coworker who wears a cross necklace shall face my vengeance!
Ah, but what do you think will happen? I’ll probably get fired, or at the very least reprimanded with “sensitivity training”. I see it now: this is the problem with political correctness! I can’t be shitty to people I don’t agree with!
I guess I’ll have to continue treating these filthy Christians with respect and dignity until some brave, kind soul puts an end to this PC Reich! [/quote]
Your sarcasm is noted. The only problem is, you WON’T be put into sensitivity training for that. If, on the other hand, you talk that way about any minority…yes, you are correct.
The problem with political correctness is that it destroys any semblence of real conversation or discussion. The primary concern now becomes about HOW things are said not WHAT argument is made. This is a problem. It gives people the excuse–nay, the incentive–to indulge in identity politics and righteous indignation over whatever they want, because you can always be offended about something, instead of looking at the argument made in logical format.
This results in a breakdown of useful, productive discussion. To further make matters worse, these breakdowns happen on subjects over which productive discussion is MOST needed. To revisit your example about Trump: instead of addressing the logical argument he made about immigration and why or why not you think it is flawed, you and tens of thousands of other people latch on to the way he said it. Oh god! He used “illegal immigrants” instead of “undocumented workers”! What an insensitive ass!
Well, while Trump certainly is a blowhard he’s also accurate in his term. These are facts. They entered the country illegally. Period, end of story. He’s not going out of his way to insult them as someone would using the term “n**ger”.
This is a further problem with PC. It degrades discussion to a bureaucratic exchange where you can tag somebody for using a term “insensitively” whether offense was meant or not. It has no longer anything to do with bothering to try to understand the motivations behind what was said or the word choices used–which is an integral part of any real discussion or even debate–and instead devolves into “he/she said ****, therefore I can discount whatever they said as bigoted, racist” whatever. Perhaps, as some people mentioned in this thread some people are unaware that certain terms are derogatory and simply using them. Perhaps they, in terms like “illegal immigrant” are accurate–just not your preferred way of saying things.
I’m a scientist, I live in a world of facts. The facts are often uncomfortable and they usually don’t conform to what I would LIKE to see happen or my opinions of what SHOULD happen. However, we address things in blunt terms so as to make things as clear as possible.
It’s just another way to allow identity politics to obfuscate rational debate. The fact that political correct speaking does sometimes limit offense is a byproduct.
Nobody should be an asshole. That’s a given. But people ARE assholes. So you can either worry about the fact that they said something that sounded mean, even if unintentionally, or you can give their logic a test.
People can get offended about ANYTHING. I’ve been called a bigot recently because I didn’t agree with the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage…even though I have personally supported equal rights for gay couples for a long time. The reason is that I made someone uncomfortable thinking about the legal rationale for the decision, not the OUTCOME. Because I didn’t like the decision I must have hated the people who took it to court. Man are they kidding?? I don’t even know them!
So you (proverbial you) can either live your life trying to be all appropriate and face the fact that it will never happen and someone will get butthurt about SOMETHING…or you can face the fact that reality doesn’t give a flying fuck if you’re offended. The universe does not change. You aren’t granted any special rights on that ground. You don’t get a gold star. The fact you don’t like how somebody said something doesn’t make it any less true or more true. So you can either have an aneurysm about some symbolic word or flag, or address the HEART and substance of the matter.
I’ll ask again: when has denouncing political correctness ever been anything but defending punching down? [/quote]
That small little world you live in, it’s called a bubble. Try even just reading outside yours once in awhile.
…well I guess I’ve been bested, then. Curse your superior intellect!!
You’re right, I’m letting my liberal sensitivities get the better of my judgement. We should all be allowed to say whatever we want, with no fear of consequence. I’m going to put that into use right now!
You see, I’m sick of listening to these Christians I work with talk about “going to church” and “worshiping God”. I mean, I don’t agree with that! I think it’s dumb! And here this whole “political correctness” nonsense has had me sitting respectfully, listening to their alternative lifestyle (which is stupid based on my beliefs!), and not saying anything that would upset them.
That ends today! I’m going to tell them that I think their religion is stupid. Every one of them! Every client I train that keeps trying to get me to come to their church is now going to get an earful! Every coworker who wears a cross necklace shall face my vengeance!
Ah, but what do you think will happen? I’ll probably get fired, or at the very least reprimanded with “sensitivity training”. I see it now: this is the problem with political correctness! I can’t be shitty to people I don’t agree with!
I guess I’ll have to continue treating these filthy Christians with respect and dignity until some brave, kind soul puts an end to this PC Reich! [/quote]
Your sarcasm is noted. The only problem is, you WON’T be put into sensitivity training for that. If, on the other hand, you talk that way about any minority…yes, you are correct.
The problem with political correctness is that it destroys any semblence of real conversation or discussion. The primary concern now becomes about HOW things are said not WHAT argument is made. This is a problem. It gives people the excuse–nay, the incentive–to indulge in identity politics and righteous indignation over whatever they want, because you can always be offended about something, instead of looking at the argument made in logical format.
This results in a breakdown of useful, productive discussion. To further make matters worse, these breakdowns happen on subjects over which productive discussion is MOST needed. To revisit your example about Trump: instead of addressing the logical argument he made about immigration and why or why not you think it is flawed, you and tens of thousands of other people latch on to the way he said it. Oh god! He used “illegal immigrants” instead of “undocumented workers”! What an insensitive ass!
Well, while Trump certainly is a blowhard he’s also accurate in his term. These are facts. They entered the country illegally. Period, end of story. He’s not going out of his way to insult them as someone would using the term “n**ger”.
This is a further problem with PC. It degrades discussion to a bureaucratic exchange where you can tag somebody for using a term “insensitively” whether offense was meant or not. It has no longer anything to do with bothering to try to understand the motivations behind what was said or the word choices used–which is an integral part of any real discussion or even debate–and instead devolves into “he/she said ****, therefore I can discount whatever they said as bigoted, racist” whatever. Perhaps, as some people mentioned in this thread some people are unaware that certain terms are derogatory and simply using them. Perhaps they, in terms like “illegal immigrant” are accurate–just not your preferred way of saying things.
I’m a scientist, I live in a world of facts. The facts are often uncomfortable and they usually don’t conform to what I would LIKE to see happen or my opinions of what SHOULD happen. However, we address things in blunt terms so as to make things as clear as possible.
It’s just another way to allow identity politics to obfuscate rational debate. The fact that political correct speaking does sometimes limit offense is a byproduct.
Nobody should be an asshole. That’s a given. But people ARE assholes. So you can either worry about the fact that they said something that sounded mean, even if unintentionally, or you can give their logic a test.
People can get offended about ANYTHING. I’ve been called a bigot recently because I didn’t agree with the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage…even though I have personally supported equal rights for gay couples for a long time. The reason is that I made someone uncomfortable thinking about the legal rationale for the decision, not the OUTCOME. Because I didn’t like the decision I must have hated the people who took it to court. Man are they kidding?? I don’t even know them!
So you (proverbial you) can either live your life trying to be all appropriate and face the fact that it will never happen and someone will get butthurt about SOMETHING…or you can face the fact that reality doesn’t give a flying fuck if you’re offended. The universe does not change. You aren’t granted any special rights on that ground. You don’t get a gold star. The fact you don’t like how somebody said something doesn’t make it any less true or more true. So you can either have an aneurysm about some symbolic word or flag, or address the HEART and substance of the matter.[/quote]
Chait is thoroughly liberal, and he got dog-piled by the idiots for that one.
Of particular note is Chait’s ability – and it’s very rare – to use sarcasm with the correct amount of ironic understatement: “A white Toronto member, sensing the group had dramatically underreacted, moved to rectify the situation…”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No political correctness non-sense. None at all…
[/quote]
So, the protesters burning down buildings to protest police racism and brutality are “thugs”, and the protesters burning down buildings to protest the firing of a football coach complicit in the molestation of children are “angry students”.
I’m not saying the case is cut and dry, but I’m lending credence to the idea that the race of the protesters affects our opinion of them. [/quote]
Or, alternatively, race could have bloody nothing to do with it–the Penn State protest started on a college campus and it is a natural leap to say “student” because of the mental association with a campus and “students”. There were black students at Penn State riots you know. Likewise, the Baltimore riots started on inner city streets known for gang warfare. It doesn’t make a natural mental connection to say “students” when there’s no campus, no university in sight and a bunch of gangs with known connections are there. Further, how many hundreds of shirts and rap lyrics have you seen or heard saying or or rapping “thug lyfe”?? That label is at least partially of their own making–rap lyrics have glorified that for decades, and I’ve seen shirts at clubs where I used to bounce, shirts on Army bases, clothes and self-descriptors everywhere.
Both riots were wrong. Let’s get that out of the way.
Why the fuck is it always skin color? There were ghetto white people rioting in Baltimore too. Couldn’t it be proximity to known social structures–both buildings and societal?
Finally, since when was “thug” a racial term??? False: it’s a descriptor applied to a certain type of personality or behavior. It tends to have certain socio-economic classes associated with it as well, but it is NOT skin color oriented. It’s personality, behavior, even physical stature (large people on average are more likely to be called “thug” than smaller ones on an individual basis. To put it in iron parlance–large people are more likely to be called “meathead” than “fitness enthusiast” or “athlete”. Nothing to do with race.)
If you’re intellectually honest, you have to at least grant that my explanation above is plausible and may very well be the case for a LOT of people. Places and structures have associations with them. This is a well known and accepted fact of life and has an entire study of it in historical and language circles. It is NOT racial. Some douche uses it racially ok he’s a douche. But that should NOT be the default go-to argument.
Chait is thoroughly liberal, and he got dog-piled by the idiots for that one.
Of particular note is Chait’s ability – and it’s very rare – to use sarcasm with the correct amount of ironic understatement: “A white Toronto member, sensing the group had dramatically underreacted, moved to rectify the situation…”[/quote]
I propose an alternate mechanism to discussion: controlled and repeated exposure to opposing and distasteful ideas, without trigger warnings and without remorse, that the subject may use to gradually overcome their sensitivities to things they find distasteful. We shall call this thing “education” and it shall be the mark of a civilized man to be able to hold an opposing, offensive idea in his head and consider it on merits.
What? It’s already been tried you say? Roughly a thousand years you say? What the hell happened to it?!?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I propose an alternate mechanism to discussion: controlled and repeated exposure to opposing and distasteful ideas, without trigger warnings and without remorse, that the subject may use to gradually overcome their sensitivities to things they find distasteful. We shall call this thing “education” and it shall be the mark of a civilized man to be able to hold an opposing, offensive idea in his head and consider it on merits.
What? It’s already been tried you say? Roughly a thousand years you say? What the hell happened to it?!?[/quote]
Remember this exchange:
Now both these guys are to the left of stalin, but check out the tactic Affleck uses immediately without considering the arguments at all. He just shouts everybody down as a bigot.
And that’s a problem because this is one of those topics we have to be able to have an honest conversation about. Better understanding it is directly tied to lives. If Maher’s and Harris’s points are in fact valid and true, then we have a real problem. And just pretending that the world is just sugar canes and rainbows with just a ‘few’ bad apples gumming up the works can literally leave people to make bad decisions that may get them killed. I.E. vacationing in Tunisia? People of good conscious honestly thought it was safe. It got them killed because ISIS is there and they are not being controlled.
But you cannot have an honest discussion about it because if you say anything that can be construed as negative, your shouted down as a bigot, when it may just be a plain fact.
Chait is thoroughly liberal, and he got dog-piled by the idiots for that one.
Of particular note is Chait’s ability – and it’s very rare – to use sarcasm with the correct amount of ironic understatement: “A white Toronto member, sensing the group had dramatically underreacted, moved to rectify the situation…”[/quote]
Very good piece.
a tl/dr is the last paragraph. Which is what I’ve been trying to explain in this thread more or less.
[i]A culture without any rough parts, without any Proud Nails that won’t be pounded down, without any Strangeness that people just insist upon because it’s Their Culture, That’s Why, is not a culture at all.
It’s a fucking shopping mall. It’s a fucking Airport Neutral Palate Color Scheme. It’s the gray paste they feed to people in comas.
It’s nothing. Nothing.
A lot of people seem to dream of America as a great bland nothing.[/i]
Chait is thoroughly liberal, and he got dog-piled by the idiots for that one.
Of particular note is Chait’s ability – and it’s very rare – to use sarcasm with the correct amount of ironic understatement: “A white Toronto member, sensing the group had dramatically underreacted, moved to rectify the situation…”[/quote]
“The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalismâ??s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents â?? you know, the old line often misattributed to Voltaire, â??I disapprove of what you have to say, but Iâ??ll defend to the death your right to say itâ?? â?? as hopelessly naïve. If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place societyâ??s unequal power relations. Why respect the rights of the class whose power youâ??re trying to smash? And so, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.”
This is the first time someone has been able to help me understand the “logic” of the PC Left’s apparent hypocrisy.
