Are you Politically Correct?

[Estebonrober]

If we can get a chain reaction of triggered guys being triggered by triggered guys, could that be the sustainable energy source everybody's looking for?

Considering both the right and the left are constantly being triggered my argument would be it is already the majority of the energy of both political movement.

Of course one side is trying to make the world a better place and the other wants a Wild West **** show but I digress.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Thin skin bleeds too much, so no.

 

[jarred!]

Political correctness isn't a competition, it's about being courteous. I like to try to make people feel welcome.

 

[Akka]

Sometimes, though, it's calling a spade a spade.

The very concept of PC that is annoying everybody IS to refuse to call a spade a spade, and I was precisely pointing that the (over)use of "bigot" and other terms were in this context unrelated to facts and instead used as shaming tactics.

I'm pretty aware of your argument, and the fact is, that people who tend to use PC are usually the ones it applies the most. That's the entire reason why I dislike them.

If people truly are concerned about hypocrisy, and being called names, and these names aren't actually bugging you because you're worried they might have basis, shrug them off.

I'm not bothered by being called whatever. I'm bothered by hypocrisy. That's what I was explicitely spelling out, but apparently that's still not enough.

It's not hypocrisy, because being called a bigot isn't the same as not respecting someone's pronouns. One is an active lifestyle choice relating to subconscious or conscious bias (racism, sexism, etc) that you can choose to unlearn (if it's an accurate label in the first place, just in case anybody tries the quote out of context game), the other is a part of who you are.

You miss the point. Also, the problem of your reasoning is that you use your conclusion as a postulate, which obviously automatically makes any other viewpoint "false" by definition.

 

[Phrossack]

Too many people seem unable to separate themselves from the things they say. I have at times taken great care to ensure that I call the things people say racist, rather than calling them racist (or homophobic or what have you) and most of the time I might as well not bother, because people mostly seem to hear "what you just said was racist" as "you are a racist."

If you want to talk about thin skin, that is a manifestation of it right there. The inability to consider that one might have said something wrong is a type of weakness, and people who cannot move past their learned prejudices are far weaker than all the "PC snowflakes" put together.

I have to admit, I'm of mixed minds about this.

On one hand, I think it's possible for good people to do and say bad things. But on the other, people are what they routinely do. If someone does a lot of kind things, we don't think of them as merely a person who does kind things, but as a kind person. If someone says bigoted things, we tend to call them a bigot.

So when a person hears someone tell them that they said something racist, for most people, it's just one tiny step away from being called a racist outright, if not perhaps the same thing. And there is a tendency for people to completely write off a person as irredeemable once their flaws come to light - just look at the routine headlines of people losing their jobs or celebrities losing gigs because of something they said. Combined, this means that a lot of people are told, "What you said is prejudiced," but hear, "You are a racist who should be ostracized."

I'm torn, because while I do believe it's possible and desirable to tell someone what they said is bad without calling them bad people, I can see why people would interpret that as a direct accusation and attack on their worth.

 

[Lexicus]

I have to admit, I'm of mixed minds about this.

On one hand, I think it's possible for good people to do and say bad things. But on the other, people are what they routinely do. If someone does a lot of kind things, we don't think of them as merely a person who does kind things, but as a kind person. If someone says bigoted things, we tend to call them a bigot.

So when a person hears someone tell them that they said something racist, for most people, it's just one tiny step away from being called a racist outright, if not perhaps the same thing. And there is a tendency for people to completely write off a person as irredeemable once their flaws come to light - just look at the routine headlines of people losing their jobs or celebrities losing gigs because of something they said. Combined, this means that a lot of people are told, "What you said is prejudiced," but hear, "You are a racist who should be ostracized."

I'm torn, because while I do believe it's possible and desirable to tell someone what they said is bad without calling them bad people, I can see why people would interpret that as a direct accusation and attack on their worth.

Believe me, it's not that I don't understand why anyone would react that way. But if we are what we do, then we have the power to change what we are by changing what we do.

 

[bernie14]

So if we are what we do, where does what we say come into the picture?

 

[Peuri]

So if we are what we do, where does what we say come into the picture?

Saying is a form of doing.

 

[bernie14]

That's way to general for me

EDIT. thinking is a form of doing

 

[Gorbles]

The very concept of PC that is annoying everybody IS to refuse to call a spade a spade, and I was precisely pointing that the (over)use of "bigot" and other terms were in this context unrelated to facts and instead used as shaming tactics.

I'm pretty aware of your argument, and the fact is, that people who tend to use PC are usually the ones it applies the most. That's the entire reason why I dislike them.

I'm not bothered by being called whatever. I'm bothered by hypocrisy. That's what I was explicitely spelling out, but apparently that's still not enough.

You miss the point. Also, the problem of your reasoning is that you use your conclusion as a postulate, which obviously automatically makes any other viewpoint "false" by definition.

I don't miss any point, I just don't think you like the conclusions I'm drawing. I mean, it's pretty silly to accuse me of postulating when you say, uncited, unsupported, unreasoned, that "the fact is people who are politically correct are the ones to which it applies the most". We all have motivators for our logic that we inherently believe to be true. Your claim is true to you, mine is to me. We're here to talk about them.

Mine is that racist folk often refuse to recognise their racism, and use "political correctness" as a scapegoat to continue avoiding that reality. I'm not saying you do, or I do, or whatever. I'm saying that's what happens, and there is enough factual evidence of people doing this.

I think the crux would be if this is more common than people calling people bigots without basis. That's what you believe the problem is, right? I don't want to misunderstand you, so if can clarify this either way I can either continue or see how I was wrong.

 

[Akka]

I don't miss any point, I just don't think you like the conclusions I'm drawing.

Yeah, yeah, I know the drill, it's either someone agrees with your viewpoint, or "he just doesn't like that he's wrong". So basically, you're always right.
=>
Also, the problem of your reasoning is that you use your conclusion as a postulate, which obviously automatically makes any other viewpoint "false" by definition.

I mean, it's pretty silly to accuse me of postulating when you say, uncited, unsupported, unreasoned, that "the fact is people who are politically correct are the ones to which it applies the most".

=>
The very concept of PC that is annoying everybody IS to refuse to call a spade a spade, and I was precisely pointing that the (over)use of "bigot" and other terms were in this context unrelated to facts and instead used as shaming tactics.

Here, you got your support, reason and argumentation. Maybe you just ignored it because, let me quote : I don't miss any point, I just don't think you like the conclusions I'm drawing. ?

We all have motivators for our logic that we inherently believe to be true. Your claim is true to you, mine is to me. We're here to talk about them.

I explicitely said what is mine in the very first post I made :
I like to get factual and dislike when feelings try to dictate facts, so most of political correctness really irks me.

I've yet to see you actually talk about THIS.

Mine is that racist folk often refuse to recognise their racism, and use "political correctness" as a scapegoat to continue avoiding that reality. I'm not saying you do, or I do, or whatever. I'm saying that's what happens, and there is enough factual evidence of people doing this.

I think the crux would be if this is more common than people calling people bigots without basis. That's what you believe the problem is, right? I don't want to misunderstand you, so if can clarify this either way I can either continue or see how I was wrong.

Again, my argument was pretty clear and already made :
I can't really respect hypocrites.
I'm not bothered by being called whatever. I'm bothered by hypocrisy. That's what I was explicitely spelling out, but apparently that's still not enough.

I really don't see how I can make it clearer or simpler.
PC speech is about being offended by the way people speak, and shaming them into altering their speech to conform with one's opinions and sensibilities. And it's done by abusing derogative words. Yeah, that's hypocrisy alright.
Just like you mock the idea of "growing a thicker skin" (which I also don't like, BTW), but then your main argument is "you should yourself grow a thicker skin". I mean, when it's used as a parody, I don't mind, but when it's ACTUALLY your argument, that's pretty baffling. And it really looks like it's your actual argument. So yeah.

 

[Peuri]

That's way to general form me

EDIT. thinking is a form of doing

Yes. Isn't the point of anti-racism to purge the thoughts also?

 

[bernie14]

Yes. Isn't the point of anti-racism to purge the thoughts also?

Purging thoughts?, why stop there. It seems it's the unconscious feelings that need purging.

 

[Peuri]

Purging thoughts?, why stop there. It seems it's the unconscious feelings that need purging.

Of course! That's literally what people like Robin D'Angelo are doing. To people like her racism, that is "white supremacy", is an all-pervasive aspect of white people's sayings, doings, thinkings and feelings that has to just be accepted as fact and constantly combatted. It doesn't matter anymore just what you do, but even what you might think, even unconsciously. It's Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28 on adultery: "you have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart", but this time it's racism or any set of -isms and -phobias.

But anyway, saying definately is doing. We create social reality through speech acts. J.L. Austin, the progenitor of the speech act theory, used the example of marriage. The act of the priest saying that "I pronounce you man and wife" creates the social reality of manness and wifeness in the participants of the marriage.

 

[red_elk]

We don't need no thought control.

 

[Peuri]

We don't need no thought control.

Why not? What if that thought control is the thing required to bring about a society where everyone feels accepted and embetters the psychological wellbeing of various minority groups?

 

[Lexicus]

Why not? What if that thought control is the thing required to bring about a society where everyone feels accepted and embetters the psychological wellbeing of various minority groups?

What if - and bear with me here - what if all societies require "thought control" in that society cannot function without some degree of agreement on values which needs to be enforced somehow?

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, yeah, I know the drill, it's either someone agrees with your viewpoint, or "he just doesn't like that he's wrong". So basically, you're always right.
=>
Also, the problem of your reasoning is that you use your conclusion as a postulate, which obviously automatically makes any other viewpoint "false" by definition.

And yet, you're approaching this with the same logic. I can't reason with this, or explore arguments. You have a preconceived notion of what you think I'm getting at, and you're hellbent on rather poor assumptions about a conservative catchphrase (this isn't me always being right, this is literally Google-able historical fact) that you believe is a real thing, and is more of a problem than the actual degradation of people that you're dismissing as "being offended by the way people speak".

It's funny. You're jumping to these conclusions, to these character judgements, because you don't want to interrogate this any deeper. To reduce my points to this shallow (forced) dichotomy you make any discussion pointless, and you get to continue on believing political correctness is real. Because otherwise you might have to consider that it's not. You do you

And to stave off the inevitable, yes, I have thought a lot about the notion of political correctness even if it weren't a made-up phrase to demonise liberals and more left-wing folk. I've even said how claims of bigotry can be weaponised. But you don't see that nuance, you don't respond to me when I talk about this in those shades of gray. You challenge me for not recognising you talking about facts and feelings, when that was the first thing I responded to you about.

You just see me undermining the apparent truth of political correctness, and you don't like that. You can't see past that.

 

[Narz]

Of course! That's literally what people like Robin D'Angelo are doing. To people like her racism, that is "white supremacy", is an all-pervasive aspect of white people's sayings, doings, thinkings and feelings that has to just be accepted as fact and constantly combatted. It doesn't matter anymore just what you do, but even what you might think, even unconsciously. It's Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28 on adultery: "you have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart", but this time it's racism or any set of -isms and -phobias.

But anyway, saying definately is doing. We create social reality through speech acts. J.L. Austin, the progenitor of the speech act theory, used the example of marriage. The act of the priest saying that "I pronounce you man and wife" creates the social reality of manness and wifeness in the participants of the marriage.

Yeah that's definitely offensive to me. What if I want to marry multiple wives? Stupid monogonormativeness!

 

[Peuri]

What if - and bear with me here - what if all societies require "thought control" in that society cannot function without some degree of agreement on values which needs to be enforced somehow?

Isn't that the core of the problem? Our individualistic cultures have been striving for deconstruction of these shared values to maximize personal liberty, leading to the destruction of a coherent narrative for people to hang on to. The point of life seems to be pleasure. What a sad view of life. God is dead, the nation is dead. Wokeness definately is a sort of nationalism or religion that tries to create a new cultural in-group. The adopted language is part of identifying the in-people. I'm at pains because I want that united humanity, but the position it has for people like me, pale males, is a rather bleak because of some guy who kinda looked like me did something somewhere sometime. And that's why I have to jump extra hoops to signal that I won't do bad things to you. I though that sort of generalizing thinking was haram. Now it's not anymore.