The article makes the common mistake with the implication that people who complain about political correctness just want to be able to express racist attitudes. Nope. Things change, and political correctness is now about more than if you call someone black instead of the n word.
It encompasses various things and can depend on the person. For some, even facts can be politically incorrect. I remember a police officer being scolded by others(not cops or his boss) because there had been a big increase in car theft in the area and he said it was committed mostly by young blacks, which was the truth. I remember people on the left wondering why acts of radical Islamic terrorism needed to be labeled as such, etc.
My true problem with the PC culture is when it shifted from using "polite" words to ideas and facts and when being upset over those things became a valid thing to seek a safe space over.
IMO the same goes for stuff like racism, sexism, bigotry, fascism, etc. All those things this day and age are misused a lot more often. They are used as excuses to shut down another person. This does damage because if you hear "so and so is such a racist" you have to wonder, are they? Or did they say something this person disagrees with? The current climate has skewed everything.
Originally posted by Surtur
The article makes the common mistake with the implication that people who complain about political correctness just want to be able to express racist attitudes. Nope. Things change, and political correctness is now about more than if you call someone black instead of the n word.It encompasses various things and can depend on the person. For some, even facts can be politically incorrect. I remember a police officer being scolded by others(not cops or his boss) because there had been a big increase in car theft in the area and he said it was committed mostly by young blacks, which was the truth. I remember people on the left wondering why acts of radical Islamic terrorism needed to be labeled as such, etc.
My true problem with the PC culture is when it shifted from using "polite" words to ideas and facts and when being upset over those things became a valid thing to seek a safe space over.
IMO the same goes for stuff like racism, sexism, bigotry, fascism, etc. All those things this day and age are misused a lot more often. They are used as excuses to shut down another person. This does damage because if you hear "so and so is such a racist" you have to wonder, are they? Or did they say something this person disagrees with? The current climate has skewed everything.
Well, the author does differentiate quite explicitly between those annoyed at being called out for not using PC language - who aren't actually expressing or repressing any prejudice - and those who complain about PC culture who really just want to be able to express their racist/prejudiced beliefs. So I think she understands the distinction you're talking about, and in fact goes out of her way to define those two types of response to political correctness. She's clearly focusing on the more racist of those responses; she's less concerned with those to whom being PC is simply a hurdle to communication.
Because I don't think you're saying anything disagreeable about your problems with PC culture. I'd agree with much of it, tbh, and you use a couple good examples about facts being non-PC, which is clearly taking things too far. But if our worst problem is oversensitivity, sign me the f*** up. It's annoying, sure, but a bit of a red herring imo. The article's focus, however, is on deeper-seeded racism and its manifestations in our culture. Which is why I like it. If we fixed all the issues like the cop/car theft example you mentioned, it would help, but very little true progress would be made. Most of our discussion toward these matters is far too surface-level in that regard.
Originally posted by Sable
There isn't democratic voter than can give any examples of what the democrat party has done for them. The will say "welfare" but then when they found out, Clinton ended welfare, they clam up.
Interesting you mention this. I'm of the mind that a lot of what we'd consider progress takes place outside of government. Take the LGBT movement, and many of the laws we've seen passed extending their rights. That wasn't Obama. It was grassroots and/or state-level. The White House just didn't get in the way, and oftentimes this is all I'm looking for. Same with foreign policy, where I think our capacity to be our own worst enemy is far greater than it is to be some moral savior.
If I saw more evidence of Republicans actually being serious about "small government" I'd probably like them in this regard.
It does seem like you want to veer the topic into more contentious, and frankly off-topic, points, though, which is a shame.
Im fine with staying on this. You are right. Republicans do expand the goverment as much as the dems. Maybe even more so at times. Which is why I despise both parties and people who cling to them. Ideologies are trash. People need to become independent instead of waiting for a "party" to save them. Cause its a party in the party while they take away our money and rights. But its not a party for anyone else.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so the opinion of movie star "destroys" opposing arguments?is that all movie stars or just the black ones who agree with your line of argument?
*Racist Comment*
**Probably drug fuel'ed rant as well**
Originally posted by Robtard
Haven't read the whole thing, will later when I have time to really focus on it,seems like a decent read. But I found this part interesting:"For her, and others like her, being "politically correct" means that somehow they have been forced to suppress their racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, and xenophobic feelings." -snip
I saw quit a bit of that after the election, that one of the biggest gripes of having Obama (ie a Black president) for 8 years was that bigots felt that they couldn't be themselves and that they didn't like being called out on their bigotry.
Yet being UNINFORMED doesn't stop you from commenting on it....Huh!
Re: The Multi-Headed Hydra of Prejudice
Originally posted by DigiThe only problem/limitation I see with the article is it would give the impression that prejudice is something that only manifests in the form of a dominant group subordinating a less powerful group.
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/multi-headed-hydra-of-prejudice/I usually shy away from politics online these days; not that it isn't important, and not because there aren't legitimate causes for outrage and action. But I often worry what the more macro effects are of vitriol - however justified - on certain topics and toward certain groups. Which is why I enjoyed the linked article, which takes the topic of prejudice that's been in so many recent, negative events, and looks toward its root rather than the often more polarizing symptoms (racism, hatred, etc.) that those roots create. It's a "political" article, make no mistake, and holds certain opinions. But, to my reading, it also doesn't value "being right" about those opinions above trying to examine them.
It also doesn't offer concrete answers, and contains more questions than answers. Which is ok. Claiming concrete solutions to muddy (at best) problems is often laughable at best, damaging at worst. It's a start to the conversation; a better one than many, at least, imo, and a beginning to understanding. However, the only possible solution offered - "making connections" near the end - does seem to match with many of the "feel-good" stories of actual progress I've seen to this end (e.g. KKK members renouncing their beliefs after a black person befriends them and convinces them simply through their humanity), and my more holistic opinion that education - either institutionalized or on a more personal level like the above example - is the only true lasting solution. It's also a hard solution to implement online...another reason I'm becoming more convinced that - despite the internet's amazing power - it's usually not the proper forum for partisan discourse.
Maybe this is all a touch naive, and maybe I'm insulated enough in my life that I can afford to avoid more aggressive responses to problems like active protesting and other displays of public outrage...which I don't disagree with universally; everything's contextual, and there are times that more vocal responses can be beneficial to bring awareness and create change, but many others where they only polarize, and few that fix systemic issues. But it's also why I've happily supported causes that work to fight injustice in ways that match that opinion, but cringe at the shouting matches or insular back-patting - both online and irl - that I've seen too often in our national and local discourse.
Thoughts? Is this on the right track to tackling the discussion raised by so many recent events? Or is it too circumspect and nebulous in its conclusions and advice?
This is sort of similar to the idea that racism is necessarily the systematic oppression of a race by another race. Meaning racism towards whites isn't racism. nor is racism between minority groups.
I don't say that the article says this outright, but by trying to offer an "explanation" for why prejudice exists and only focusing on that one dynamic, that is the impression it gives me.
I think Jordan Peterson simplifies the issue in the most concise and thorough way: Humans evolved in the context of a tribe, and so there is an inherent cost/risk analysis which goes into dealing with someone from another tribe. Such a person inherently offers something of potential value, such as someone to trade with, as well as an inherent probability of posing a risk to the tribe. The risk can come in many forms, most typically either to introduce a new disease or to become an enemy due to conflicting tribal loyalties.