Are you Politically Correct?

[Lexicus]

I'm a bit short on time now, but I disagree with the premise of the article. Any writer that uses "virtue signalling" unironically is normally to entrenched in the notion of political correctness as a real, "harmful" thing to untangle that themselves. If you're interested, I can take this to PM as it's a bit of a tangent.

I don't think it's a tangent at all, but note that the author of that piece is no reactionary, and is broadly sympathetic to the "politically correct." "Virtue-signaling" is also clearly a legitimate concept with non-pejorative use. Also bear in mind that the headline was likely not written by the author of the actual piece.

 

[Peuri]

You're a "slave to your nature" if you do just about anything that involves continuing to exist. Unless you know something about human brain function for certain that the rest of us don't .

Optimizing for pleasure actually isn't trivial. You have both own and others' pleasure to consider, and both short and long term considerations. Even if I could guarantee the greatest pleasure imaginable for the next 5 minutes, I wouldn't trade the rest of my life for it. Unless I knew a nuke was flying towards my building or something I guess. These measures can get a little noisy.

Going off topic. But, well, yes. There is only my biological body, and all positive feelings have an evolutionary basis that helps me to choose actions my nature "thinks" will benefit my continued existence and the chance of procreation. Some of which obvioulsy are not suited to our changed environment, and some of which confuse the system. But if you only try to seek actions that increase your pleasure, that just seems so sad. All things you do end up becoming commodified, including other people, as sources of your pleasure. It doesn't leave much room for those silly things like sacrifice, duty and commitment that have benefits for other people than yourself.

 

[Narz]

You are a slave to your nature if you follow pleasure.

Regardless we are slaves to our nature.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

All things you do end up becoming commodified, including other people, as sources of your pleasure. It doesn't leave much room for those silly things like sacrifice, duty and commitment that have benefits for other people than yourself.

Only if you optimize solely for own pleasure, rather than pleasure in general. But most people aren't quite that selfish, and will feel bad if they do things that harm other people they care about and/or deny other people pleasure. So ignoring duty can and often does reduce pleasure.

*Actually* optimizing for pleasure should be the opposite of "sad". The main issue is how one derives pleasure. You do have the occasional psychopath who really does only care about own pleasure, and that can be a problem.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Going off topic. But, well, yes. There is only my biological body, and all positive feelings have an evolutionary basis that helps me to choose actions my nature "thinks" will benefit my continued existence and the chance of procreation. Some of which obvioulsy are not suited to our changed environment, and some of which confuse the system. But if you only try to seek actions that increase your pleasure, that just seems so sad. All things you do end up becoming commodified, including other people, as sources of your pleasure. It doesn't leave much room for those silly things like sacrifice, duty and commitment that have benefits for other people than yourself.

Shrug. For me, helping others and tending to my duties and social responsibilities is a great source of pleasure.

 

[Gorbles]

This message assumes that I didn't previously care about combatting negative stereotypes about, say the Roma, who have a bad reputation in my country. How did you divine this knowledge from my brain?

It's not just the Romani that suffer, most racial groups do, but you're the one tying wokeness to a negative in that upshot (downshot?) is that "pale males" like yourself are unduly affected. If you thought this principle affected the Roma people, or other minorities, that'd have probably been a good time to mention it

I don't think it's a tangent at all, but note that the author of that piece is no reactionary, and is broadly sympathetic to the "politically correct." "Virtue-signaling" is also clearly a legitimate concept with non-pejorative use. Also bear in mind that the headline was likely not written by the author of the actual piece.

Got a bit more time now!

Again, like "political correctness", "virtue-signalling" is something that's become a bit of a cliche. It has an academic meaning, and was also early-on adopted in online leftist spaces to call out bad faith actors in those spaces (literally, people abusing leftist principles to elevate themselves above others). Unfortunately the main case these days is calling anybody who expresses any form of virtue to be, well, trying it on. Doing it for attention, and not because it's actually something worth drawing attention to. The factor that it's apparently best-known in media for the Spectator (a British conservative outlet that has direct ties with the Tory party) popularising it says enough, to me.

That's not to say that proper discussion can't be had, but a piece that focuses on the rather popular conservative thinkpiece of "are college campuses liberal / crybabies / hypersensitive" doesn't get that feel, at least from my read of it. It buys uncritically into modern conservative talking points and doesn't offer much opposition or balance on these views (for example, Forbes is mostly centrist with a bit of right-leaning stuff, which makes sense because a lot of high-profile papers with an economic focus tend to trend that way, for better and for worse - and they gave this piece - https://www.forbes.com/sites/richar...-liberal-or-progressive-rhetoric-and-reality/).

I'm also not saying it's a bad article. I've read worse (far worse), but like I said it's far to uncritical of certain points its giving air to, and for every possible compliment and refusal to degrade third-wave feminists, it counters with a "but this isn't really working, in the long term" kind of phrase. It even trots out the line of how racism can't be that bad because certain groups of immigrants have managed to make something of themselves. Good to know! Not a definitive conclusion to that particular problem in the US, though. And of course, puts "safe spaces" (another good American conservative college-related myth) in quotes (to expound on that would definitely be another topic, but it relates heavily to trigger warnings, trauma, PTSD, and so on).

It gets increasingly incendiary towards the end (good writing technique on that, because most people phase out in the middle and / or review the start and end of an article to get an opener and summary) and really lets you know what the author thinks of progressives, modern feminism, activism and general and how useful it all is. Basically: not very. And for that reason alone I give the entire article another sideways glance. Anything I was mild on reading through, I look at it critically, as a way to draw readers in with some very fairly worded both-sides . . . ness. Whatever a good phrase is for that. Because the closing of it is anything but.

 

[brennan]

Hell no.

Incidentally 'guys' in the dictionary and in common usage these days is primarily a genderless term. Its usage as such actually demonstrates the breakdown in significance of gender divides. Avowed feminists should be embracing this usage.

 

[Peuri]

It's not just the Romani that suffer, most racial groups do, but you're the one tying wokeness to a negative in that upshot (downshot?) is that "pale males" like yourself are unduly affected. If you thought this principle affected the Roma people, or other minorities, that'd have probably been a good time to mention it

Eh. You assumed that I apparently thought that racism doesn't exist or something, and I used the Roma as a local example to dispel that notion, and the notion that I hadn't cared about such things effecting other people than now myself. Obviously I'm not such a "knuckle-dragger" as to think that only the Roma have negative stereotypes about them in the whole world? Who would think like that? The more interesting question is, why would you assume this of me? Because I'm a white male who doesn't want to participate in the new way to combat racism, perhaps? Could one say that there was prejudice involved?

 

[Lexicus]

Again, like "political correctness", "virtue-signalling" is something that's become a bit of a cliche. It has an academic meaning, and was also early-on adopted in online leftist spaces to call out bad faith actors in those spaces (literally, people abusing leftist principles to elevate themselves above others). Unfortunately the main case these days is calling anybody who expresses any form of virtue to be, well, trying it on. Doing it for attention, and not because it's actually something worth drawing attention to. The factor that it's apparently best-known in media for the Spectator (a British conservative outlet that has direct ties with the Tory party) popularising it says enough, to me.

That's not to say that proper discussion can't be had, but a piece that focuses on the rather popular conservative thinkpiece of "are college campuses liberal / crybabies / hypersensitive" doesn't get that feel, at least from my read of it. It buys uncritically into modern conservative talking points and doesn't offer much opposition or balance on these views (for example, Forbes is mostly centrist with a bit of right-leaning stuff, which makes sense because a lot of high-profile papers with an economic focus tend to trend that way, for better and for worse - and they gave this piece - https://www.forbes.com/sites/richar...-liberal-or-progressive-rhetoric-and-reality/).

I'm also not saying it's a bad article. I've read worse (far worse), but like I said it's far to uncritical of certain points its giving air to, and for every possible compliment and refusal to degrade third-wave feminists, it counters with a "but this isn't really working, in the long term" kind of phrase. It even trots out the line of how racism can't be that bad because certain groups of immigrants have managed to make something of themselves. Good to know! Not a definitive conclusion to that particular problem in the US, though. And of course, puts "safe spaces" (another good American conservative college-related myth) in quotes (to expound on that would definitely be another topic, but it relates heavily to trigger warnings, trauma, PTSD, and so on).

It gets increasingly incendiary towards the end (good writing technique on that, because most people phase out in the middle and / or review the start and end of an article to get an opener and summary) and really lets you know what the author thinks of progressives, modern feminism, activism and general and how useful it all is. Basically: not very. And for that reason alone I give the entire article another sideways glance. Anything I was mild on reading through, I look at it critically, as a way to draw readers in with some very fairly worded both-sides . . . ness. Whatever a good phrase is for that. Because the closing of it is anything but.

I mean I don't disagree with you on most of this. The point of linking to that article was basically that I thought the bits comparing the modern (modern in the sense of "since the French Revolution", not in the sense of "contemporary") "left" to a religion are quite accurate. Any student of the left's history ought to be able to recognize the similarities between the modern European-American left and Christianity in terms of moral certitude etc. Again, I don't think of the comparison as derogatory at all though undoubtedly most will interpret it that way. I think that all visionary social movements have something of the millenarian cult about them and that element is actually essential to transforming society for the better - basically for "progress" as I see it. That's basic dialectics - the people who refuse to accept the world as it is try to change things, and people who are content try to stop the changes, and so history moves on.

FWIW I disagree entirely with the author's premise that what he terms "folk politics" can legitimately be seen as the third phase of a struggle dating back to Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman.

Anyway, now that you've read the Atlantic piece, I am curious as to whether you have read Mark Fisher's Exiting the Vampire Castle and if so what your opinions are on that polemic essay.

 

[Zardnaar]

Guys isn't gender neutral IMHO but in the context of "hey guys" to ga mixedroup it mean y'all.

You would have to be fairly thin skinned to get upset over that.

If someone is deliberately calling you a guy one on one and you're not or don't identify that way yeah that's a problem.

 

[Gorbles]

Eh. You assumed that I apparently thought that racism doesn't exist or something, and I used the Roma as a local example to dispel that notion, and the notion that I hadn't cared about such things effecting other people than now myself. Obviously I'm not such a "knuckle-dragger" as to think that only the Roma have negative stereotypes about them in the whole world? Who would think like that? The more interesting question is, why would you assume this of me? Because I'm a white male who doesn't want to participate in the new way to combat racism, perhaps? Could one say that there was prejudice involved?

No, that's not what I assumed.

To your point about the Romani, it's because you raised them as justification to your original point, so I did fixate on them. That's my bad. However, the original point was where you were complaining about how "wokeness" treats white guys poorly. You keep dodging this association you made in the first place, and are making assumptions about me that are as uncharitable as the ones you think I'm making about you.

You don't have to participate in any way to combat racism, if you don't want. That's your choice, and peoples' opinions will be reflective of that. Maybe that's why you tie this "wokeness" (I keep putting it in quotes because there's a ton of baggage with it and it's often used as a perjorative, which I have no reason to engage with) to not being fair to white dudes, I don't know. Can't tell for sure, because of this weird trend to be non-commital about things. All those loaded questions that are phrased as answers in of themselves

I mean I don't disagree with you on most of this. The point of linking to that article was basically that I thought the bits comparing the modern (modern in the sense of "since the French Revolution", not in the sense of "contemporary") "left" to a religion are quite accurate. Any student of the left's history ought to be able to recognize the similarities between the modern European-American left and Christianity in terms of moral certitude etc. Again, I don't think of the comparison as derogatory at all though undoubtedly most will interpret it that way. I think that all visionary social movements have something of the millenarian cult about them and that element is actually essential to transforming society for the better - basically for "progress" as I see it. That's basic dialectics - the people who refuse to accept the world as it is try to change things, and people who are content try to stop the changes, and so history moves on.

FWIW I disagree entirely with the author's premise that what he terms "folk politics" can legitimately be seen as the third phase of a struggle dating back to Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman.

Anyway, now that you've read the Atlantic piece, I am curious as to whether you have read Mark Fisher's Exiting the Vampire Castle and if so what your opinions are on that polemic essay.

Yeah, atheist upbringing, all religious comparisons come off bad to me. Not because I myself am harsh on religion (I'm certainly not what you'd call a modern or New Atheist, where trashing any ideals of religion seems to be the popular hobby), but that's how I often see it used. That's on me, for sure.

As for other reading, I don't (not nearly as much as I should). I mostly read pieces online, and bookmark whatever I find useful or noteworthy for the future (though they're currently split across two browsers, and I'm too lazy to bring them together). I don't have time for books, mainly because of a toddler (most of my old books, mostly fiction, are up in the attic). I also don't have money to spend on copies anymore, hah. Definitely something I want to get back into, as and when I can. Maybe when I get to bring the kid to libraries, when he's a bit older.

 

[Birdjaguar]

... get triggered because....

This is the latest wasted use of language that shows one's inability to show restraint or preoccupation with themselves. Not you GS, but its frequent use everywhere.

 

[Lexicus]

As for other reading, I don't (not nearly as much as I should). I mostly read pieces online, and bookmark whatever I find useful or noteworthy for the future (though they're currently split across two browsers, and I'm too lazy to bring them together). I don't have time for books, mainly because of a toddler (most of my old books, mostly fiction, are up in the attic). I also don't have money to spend on copies anymore, hah. Definitely something I want to get back into, as and when I can. Maybe when I get to bring the kid to libraries, when he's a bit older.

Exiting the Campire Castle is a brief polemic essay available (and afaik only ever published) online, the mere mention of which will polarize most of today's left really hard between people who think Mark Fisher is right and people who think he's a class-reductionist hetero white male chauvinist.

 

[red_elk]

Shrug. For me, helping others and tending to my duties and social responsibilities is a great source of pleasure.

This behavior is also biological. Tending to your duties helps your community to survive, be it family, tribe or entire species.
In some animal species, most successful populations always contain certain percentage of altruistic specimen.

 

[Peuri]

No, that's not what I assumed.

To your point about the Romani, it's because you raised them as justification to your original point, so I did fixate on them. That's my bad. However, the original point was where you were complaining about how "wokeness" treats white guys poorly. You keep dodging this association you made in the first place, and are making assumptions about me that are as uncharitable as the ones you think I'm making about you.

You don't have to participate in any way to combat racism, if you don't want. That's your choice, and peoples' opinions will be reflective of that. Maybe that's why you tie this "wokeness" (I keep putting it in quotes because there's a ton of baggage with it and it's often used as a perjorative, which I have no reason to engage with) to not being fair to white dudes, I don't know. Can't tell for sure, because of this weird trend to be non-commital about things. All those loaded questions that are phrased as answers in of themselves

It was a rather charitable interpretation, I think, when I literally said that I thought generalizations (implied of ethnic groups) were bad in the original post you quoted. I didn't use the Roma to justify anything in my original post, I used them as an example to show that I did care about negative stereotypes before (of course you can only take this on faith, which is why I tried to draw it as close as possible to me), because you implied in your sardonic reply to my post that I'm now only suddenly interested, because of the negative stereotypes attached to white men now. Which is not true. I did care. I could also say that I cared more then that I do now, when the discourse has left the principles non-generalization that I supported.

I'm not dodging anything. After the rise of wokeness there inceasingly is an accepted negative stereotype about white men as racist bigots who have basically ruined the world from the matriarchal LGBT+ friendly multicultural paradise it apparently was before the age of sail.

Reflecting on this discussion and many more, I can see what Jaron Lanier says about the Internet destroying empathy and meaning. I think I'll take a break from here and other places. Goodbye.

 

[bernie14]

This behavior is also biological. Tending to your duties helps your community to survive, be it family, tribe or entire species.
In some animal species, most successful populations always contain certain percentage of altruistic specimen.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's just all class struggle.

 

[Old Hippy]

This behavior is also biological. Tending to your duties helps your community to survive, be it family, tribe or entire species.
In some animal species, most successful populations always contain certain percentage of altruistic specimen.

Apart from helping your community to survive ... a noble ambition I assume..being as I'm part of a community
Most people I do voluntary work with don't do it for altruistic reasons... they like myself do it for personal pleasure... or to broaden their social networking capabilities
I meet more interesting people from diverse backgrounds and get invites to more social events or get called upon to do interesting 'free' jobs for friends, non-profit NGOs and community groups
My extensive voluntary work its listed under hobbies on my CV... and yes I know I'm selfish it gives me a better quality of life...

 

[red_elk]

Most people I do voluntary work with don't do it for altruistic reasons... they like myself do it for personal pleasure... or to broaden their social networking capabilities

I understand that, I'm a human too
Altruism is not necessary self-sacrifice and it can be pleasurable. In broad sense it's just helping other people.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hell no.

Incidentally 'guys' in the dictionary and in common usage these days is primarily a genderless term. Its usage as such actually demonstrates the breakdown in significance of gender divides. Avowed feminists should be embracing this usage.

Or you could say it's another example of the male term being used as the default, which is typically the kind of thing they emphatically don't embrace.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No, I'm not politically correct. Nor do I make an effort to be.

You must admit it is pretty damn edgy to directly and concisely answer the thread title.