Are you Politically Correct?

[NovaKart]

I can’t get behind using Latinx.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

To clarify, my issue wasn't with you not caring in general. That misunderstanding is on me.

The whole point was you tying this to "wokeness". Because of this sudden rise of negative stereotypes about white dudes. Negative stereotypes exist. Where they are stereotypes, they should be fought, but where they are real, they should not be excused. Which is what I saw your railing against "wokeness" to be. There are plenty of white dudes in positions of power to happen to be racist bigots. Structural racism is a documented and analysed thing. But to use the stereotype to dismiss the real examples of this is a dangerous correlation.

Besides, regardless of the Internet destroying empathy and meaning, I have little time for people who criticise implications in my sarcasm (true or otherwise) who rely on sarcastic exaggeration themselves. I can see where I've jumped the gun, but if you do come back to read this - do you see where you have?

 

[Commodore]

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

You say "edgy" where I would say "lazy".

 

[Commodore]

Why is that sad?

Because being solely motivated by pleasure seeking makes one no better than a wild animal.

 

[Tee Kay]

Because being solely motivated by pleasure seeking makes one no better than a wild animal.

I don't know that sounds pretty awesome

rawr owo

 

[AmazonQueen]

Because being solely motivated by pleasure seeking makes one no better than a wild animal.

Not really. Epicureanism believed pleasure was the greatest good, but the greatest pleasure was gained by enjoying things in moderation. Pleasure seeking doesn't need to be at the expense of others either.
People find pleasure in social activities and in doing things for others too.

 

[Commodore]

I don't know that sounds pretty awesome

rawr owo

Of course it sounds awesome, doesn't mean it is though. Eating nothing but ice cream and cake for the rest of your life sounds awesome too, but if you tried it you'd soon learn why it's a terrible idea. We didn't get to where we are as a species because we only did what feels good.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because being solely motivated by pleasure seeking makes one no better than a wild animal.

You say that as if it's self-evident that we should be better than wild animals. Also I wouldn't really agree that that's the only thing that motivates animals. I'd imagine their motivation is largely "don't get killed".

 

[AmazonQueen]

Of course it sounds awesome, doesn't mean it is though. Eating nothing but ice cream and cake for the rest of your life sounds awesome too, but if you tried it you'd soon learn why it's a terrible idea. We didn't get to where we are as a species because we only did what feels good.

An utter distortion of what philosophies such as epicureanism are about.
There are more sources of pleasure than just eating and drinking and of course theres nothing pleasurable about hangovers, ill-health etc. Pursuit of pleasure is not the same as unbridled hedonism.

 

[Commodore]

You say that as if it's self-evident that we should be better than wild animals. Also I wouldn't really agree that that's the only thing that motivates animals. I'd imagine their motivation is largely "don't get killed".

It is self-evident. The fact that you don't see too many people stripping down and living like a wild animal proves it. Even the people who live off the grid attempt to live some type of civilized life.

An utter distortion of what philosophies such as epicureanism are about.
There are more sources of pleasure than just eating and drinking and of course theres nothing pleasurable about hangovers, ill-health etc. Pursuit of pleasure is not the same as unbridled hedonism.

For someone attempting to have a philosophical discussion you sure are taking what I say quite literally. You have heard of an analogy right?

Anyway, I would say unbridled hedonism is the logical conclusion of the pursuit of pleasure though if that pursuit isn't tempered and limited by a strong emphasis on personal discipline and self-control.

Modern society has definitely drifted away from teaching personal discipline and putting a much greater emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure.

I would also argue that living a life of pleasure only will cheapen the pleasure one derives from that life. Struggle and suffering do have a way of making us really enjoy and appreciate those few moments of pleasure we do get. Take my deployment to Iraq as an example: That was nothing but suffering, pain, and struggle. But because of all that I went through, you cannot even imagine the feeling of joy and relief I felt when I came home, knowing I survived to see my family again.

Now I'm not saying everyone needs to go fight a war, but I do believe struggle and pain have their place in our society and we should not seek to totally eliminate them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is self-evident. The fact that you don't see too many people stripping down and living like a wild animal proves it. Even the people who live off the grid attempt to live some type of civilized life.

Well we certainly live differently to other animals yes. For the most part I wouldn't really say better though (in terms of our motivations and desires, not standard of living or freedom from danger).

 

[AmazonQueen]

For someone attempting to have a philosophical discussion you sure are taking what I say quite literally. You have heard of an analogy right?

Anyway, I would say unbridled hedonism is the logical conclusion of the pursuit of pleasure though if that pursuit isn't tempered and limited by a strong emphasis on personal discipline and self-control.

Which is why epicureanism taught that pleasurable things should be enjoyed in moderation. In the long run it leads to more pleasure.

Modern society has definitely drifted away from teaching personal discipline and putting a much greater emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure.

I would also argue that living a life of pleasure only will cheapen the pleasure one derives from that life. Struggle and suffering do have a way of making us really enjoy and appreciate those few moments of pleasure we do get. Take my deployment to Iraq as an example: That was nothing but suffering, pain, and struggle. But because of all that I went through, you cannot even imagine the feeling of joy and relief I felt when I came home, knowing I survived to see my family again.

Now I'm not saying everyone needs to go fight a war, but I do believe struggle and pain have their place in our society and we should not seek to totally eliminate them.

Modern society puts an emphasis on material things which are supposed to lead to pleasure but only lead to a desire for even more material things. We have a society orientated around economic activity as a good in itself, so consumerism is encouraged although it doesn't actually lead to more pleasure. I can see the value of struggle. People gain pleasure from sport, hiking etc because of the exertion and maybe even pain involved. OTOH I firmly believe I'd gain just as much pleasure from my children even if the pain of childbirth was eliminated entirely.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Oh you have the right to object, but I have the right not to care what you think. However, you will also notice that I try very hard not to use the term "you guys" on the forum, specifically because of my position on the forum and I know that it triggers you and Mary.

That much is appreciated.

For someone who is a self professed writer, your reading comprehension is quite low. Did you actually read what I wrote? No. Or at least you didn't understand it properly. I was complaining about THE DOUBLE STANDARD of why it's perfectly OK for women to say one thing, but men cannot. THAT is stupid. I get that some women don't like being referred to as a girl. Personally, I don't care if it is applied to me. It's just a word. But that's just me. I don't really care how anyone else feels about it. I don't have time to worry about someone else's feelings unless I'm dealing with friends, or I'm at work.

And... boom. Out come the insults, regular as clockwork.

Did I not say that I hadn't heard that men weren't allowed to say "girls' night out"? Yeah, I do recall posting that. So it's a double standard that doesn't mean anything to me (not having heard about it), and therefore that's not the focus of my reply to you.

Sorry. Not interested.

You were interested enough to complain about it in the first place, so why aren't you interested enough to attempt to be part of a solution? There are a couple of words that didn't used to be allowed on CFC that are allowed now, because I took the trouble to present a well-reasoned case to TPTB. Evidently they must have agreed that my reasons made sense, and voila! We can now discuss log cabin construction, armoring, and specific flora that grows near ponds.

With some I didn't start it.

Is that the sound of distant tap dancing I hear?

Nice little barb. Was that directed at me?

I believe I was addressing someone else. It's a general comment about many people I've encountered online, some here at CFC. If you want to think it was directed at you, be my guest. I don't control your thoughts.

Actually, I was recalling many such situations on several forums. There are a lot of people who are in positions of power who love throwing mud pies but seem flabbergasted when their targets start lobbing them back.

You lobbed one at me earlier, so here's the return. For a self-professed medical professional in the field of psychology, you have trouble understanding some pretty basic things about how people perceive being respected/disrespected.

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.

Tell that to women over 60, particularly those who either live in more conservative (small-c) areas or grew up in that sort of family or area. I once had to calm my mother down in the middle of a coffee shop because the waitress (in her late teens/early 20s) referred to us as "you guys". After my mother left, I gave the waitress a quick bit of advice on etiquette: When serving older women, it's best to be a bit more formal, and the word "ladies" is perfectly acceptable. Otherwise she would run the risk of irate customers like my mother, who would very definitely not be leaving a tip.

Please don't tell feminists what we should be embracing. There are many different types of feminists, who believe a variety of things concerning women's rights, equal rights, how men and women should interact, and so on. There are feminists who don't think I have the right to call myself one just because I say 'thank you' if a male opens a door for me (I especially make the effort if it's a teenager or child who holds the door, because what better way to teach manners than to be polite to the people you want to be polite back to you?), or if the situation warrants, I'll hold a door open for a male.

 

[Lexicus]

You say that as if it's self-evident that we should be better than wild animals.

Ahh, the next installment of "Moral Philosophy with Manfred"

 

[EgonSpengler]

For me I guess I'm too old to be. Bill Maher is always ranting that it's gone too far and sometimes the Dems don't do themselves any favors by over embracing it. I'm around Bill's age and I couldn't agree more. But let's have a little fun with it.
Have you ever encountered an issue that you just had to look up and go "REALLY".

Let's not judge people for what they think is too far. (yeah, I know it's going to happen anyway)

For me the one that had me shaking my head was when Major League Baseball decided that it was politically incorrect to use the term 'Disabled list/DL' and renamed it the the 'Injured list/IL"

dis·a·bled
/ˌdisˈāb(ə)ld/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. (of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities.

Having a physical injury that keeps them from playing baseball seems spot on.

Now granted, I'm not disabled but I do have quite a few disabled friends and co-workers and none of the even considered it until they changed it and basically laughed when they heard. I think this was really unnecessary.

Are there any instances where you think it's gone a bit far or am I the only one?

Feel free to deliver a snarky insult.

This is the first I'd heard about the change to baseball's "Disabled List." As with most of these labels, it doesn't apply to me, so I figure it's not up to me. It's kind of like having "standing" in civil law. If disabled people are irked and there's a handy alternative available, I don't really care what it's called, and I don't cling to things just because it's tradition. Anyway, lots of traditions are crap, so the fact that something is traditional isn't ever an argument for or against, to me.

One place where the fast-evolving language is getting away from me a little bit is "LGBTQ+." I think when they added the "+" is when I threw up my hands and decided to just use "queer" as my catch-all word for any time "people" is insufficient (which, to be honest, isn't all that often), and so far nobody has challenged me on it. That's not about political correctness, it's more about practicality and the language becoming unwieldy.

Another place I sometimes get a little itchy is in claims of "cultural appropriation." To me, pushing boundaries and exploring new things is one reason we have art in the first place. It's meant to be cutting edge, even at the risk of being uncomfortable, and blending existing styles is just part of that exploration. It is a tricky balance to strike, don't misunderstand me. Lots of artists and musicians have failed to get the money and credit they're due. As soon as art becomes profitable, the businessmen swoop in and gut everything they can lay their blood-soaked claws into. It happens all the time, and it's a story as old as mass media - D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks founded United Artists in 1919 because they were tired of getting screwed - and it happens a lot to ethnic minorities. So they're not wrong to have their radar up, and anyone who reflexively dismisses claims of cultural appropriation as "political correctness run amok" is just being a reactionary grouch. Once again, this isn't always or precisely about political correctness, sometimes it's about due credit and compensation. But if somebody's mad that an Afro-Caribbean chef in New York City is making French-Korean tacos, because she doesn't have a drop of French or Korean or Mexican in her, I don't know if I'll have a ton of sympathy (maybe if the tacos suck).

 

[Gori the Grey]

The one case that did grind my gears was a teacher who got in trouble for using the word "niggardly."

People's limited vocabularies shouldn't be grounds for P.C. grievance.

 

[AdamCrock]

I remember that in Scooby Doo cartoon they called themselves "guys" all the time, even though there were woman in the group, and so I've always thought it's a genderless term - much like a "team" . I'm no native english speaker so I didn't know - how to call a "team" of both man and women not using the word "team" ? Is there another politicaly correct word ?

Finish sentence : Listen up ...... ?

 

[Farm Boy]

Moderator Action: Redacted. Please do not evade the auto-censor. --LM

 

[Lexicus]

Listen up ...... ?

"people"

 

[Berzerker]

Chris Rock's taking heat for responding to El Paso and Dayton with an image of Betty White

Bet he White

Because being solely motivated by pleasure seeking makes one no better than a wild animal.

I've never thought of wild animals as solely motivated by a pursuit of pleasure, seems they spend most of their time looking for food, sleeping or running from other animals looking for food.