Are you Politically Correct?

[rah]

But those realistic films or shorts have not had the same impact due to a lesser audience. Hollywood played a large roll in highlighting the persecution of the Gay community and promoting sympathy for them.

 

[Gorbles]

Fair enough, that's fair. I'm not entirely agreed but it'd definitely take a derail for me to explain my thoughts there.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes I know, but the idea that excessive hand-wringing out word use was responsible for stopping lynchings or extending the voting franchise is kind of silly and anachronistic.

Oddly enough the left doesn't have a group mind (yet).
We have debates and disagreements in between suppressing the right of people to be mean-spirited bigots.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes I know, but the idea that excessive hand-wringing out word use was responsible for stopping lynchings or extending the voting franchise is kind of silly and anachronistic.

You know Manfred, I actually agree with you on this one. The tactics of modern political correctness or whatever we want to call it would have been totally ineffective against, for example, the system of Jim Crow segregation in the United States.

 

[rah]

Fair enough, that's fair. I'm not entirely agreed but it'd definitely take a derail for me to explain my thoughts there.

And I do realize that it's never just one thing. But Hollywood does has a large impact on culture.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oddly enough the left doesn't have a group mind (yet).
We have debates and disagreements in between suppressing the right of people to be mean-spirited bigots.

Not sure what you're responding to here. I wasn't even talking about "the left".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And that there is the crux of the matter. You keep talking about empiricism, and things that are objectively incorrect. Your opinion, and ability to be convinced by data presented to you, is neither of those things.

Self-inconsistency *is* objectively incorrect. Saying "I like gardening but I also don't like gardening" is nonsense. Arranging preferences such that X > Y > Z > X is nonsense. This isn't a matter of opinion.

If someone says "I don't like the color blue because it lets me go faster than the speed of light" or "I like apples because Gorbles can bench press the moon while on Earth" their reasoning is wrong. It doesn't matter that liking blue is a subjective preference. It doesn't even matter that they actually like apples in this context.

"who is anyone to decide if misgendering is offensive", well, the default answer is the people being offended. But you, personally, don't want to recognise that. You then claim ad hominem, when you're literally debating peoples' lives as though it's some kind of neutral thing. You're denying them the basic validation that (as per the actual links I've provided) impact their mental health and wellbeing.

I'm not denying basic validation or well-being any more or less than those things are being denied to me.

"Ad hominem" is a refutation of argumentative reasoning, and valid given what I quoted.

And what's funnier is the use of ad hominem, here. Your entire point is being convinced of others' outrage, and how we can't really know if something is actually worthy of offense or not. Except when . . . . it's aimed at you?

It's not a matter of "outrage". Calling people names and trying to attack their character has no bearing on whether the arguments they are presenting are correct or not. This is the whole point of noting the "ad hominem" fallacy. I'm not "outraged", I'm pointing out why what I quoted is irrelevant/invalid.

Your opinion is a joke because you fail to realise that deadnaming and misgendering are weaponized against trans people as a way of bullying, harming and stigmatising them and then you have the gall to claim that somehow I shouldn't be offended by it or that my offense is unreasonable or unjustifiable

Still going with ad hominem, but also doing some strawman now.

Like I said, people can be offended over whatever. I asked for a basis for "offense", to convince me why people in general should care about some particular offenses more than others. Still we're just seeing it parroted/repeated that "it hurts people". Maybe it does, but that doesn't answer the question. What's the basis for offense? Differentiate offense over being "mis-gendered" from offense over "waifu wars". WHY does one "cause harm" and not the other? What properties are different between the two, specifically?

There are tangible harms done to the trans community. These harms are not a matter of being "politically correct" or not. They're actual harms. I am disputing that the "PC" aspect can/should be meaningful in its own right.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Not sure what you're responding to here. I wasn't even talking about "the left".

You replied to me but referred to something Cloudstrife had said. I was just pointing out that our views aren't identical.

 

[Synobun]

Listen, buddy, unless you can provide a page of citations and format your emotions so that they adhere to MLA, they just aren't worth a thing. I wear a mood ring every day so that I always have empirical evidence supporting an ever-present betrayal (that is, having emotions, those disgusting things, those horrifying machinations, those unending miseries) of my logic-powered brain. Unless you can academically back up a universal standard for every aspect of emotion, I'm not interested, pal!

 

[Gorbles]

Self-inconsistency *is* objectively incorrect. Saying "I like gardening but I also don't like gardening" is nonsense. Arranging preferences such that X > Y > Z > X is nonsense. This isn't a matter of opinion.

If someone says "I don't like the color blue because it lets me go faster than the speed of light" or "I like apples because Gorbles can bench press the moon while on Earth" their reasoning is wrong. It doesn't matter that liking blue is a subjective preference. It doesn't even matter that they actually like apples in this context.

I'm not denying basic validation or well-being any more or less than those things are being denied to me.

"Ad hominem" is a refutation of argumentative reasoning, and valid given what I quoted.

It's not a matter of "outrage". Calling people names and trying to attack their character has no bearing on whether the arguments they are presenting are correct or not. This is the whole point of noting the "ad hominem" fallacy. I'm not "outraged", I'm pointing out why what I quoted is irrelevant/invalid.

1. You cannot decide this for other people when you demonstrably don't understand the context involved. Further arguments to absurdity do not help your case, here.

2. You, presumably, are not trans, nor do you have pronouns that don't fall under what society expects. The comparison of "any more or less than is being denied to me" is fatally flawed. It's like claiming you're as hard done by as any other minority in a situation where they are, and you aren't. To take a historical example, it's like criticising women campaigning for the vote because they're not asking you nicely for it. Of course they're not. They're marginalised in a way you are not (I am safely, I think, assuming that you are a guy here. Happy to be corrected, believe or not I don't like relying on assumptions).

3. Invoking a fallacy to shut down someone's argument is, surprise surprise, the fallacy fallacy. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that because you responded to Cloud's points you weren't trending this way (and that you were actually upset, or annoyed in some manner), but you've just doubled down on it by claiming a strawman (in your reply to them) as well. Something doesn't automatically become wrong just because you're able to identify a fallacy in it, particularly because when discussing something that is more important to one person than another, it's very easy to get the more invested person to make "mistakes" (by basically, well, making them angry).

It's also incredibly obviously targeted, too, because I've been subject to all kinds of fun in this thread and I haven't seen you nobly intervene to point out said fallacies. Like I said - these kinds of things only seems to matter when you're affected, and your vision and understanding is similarly limited to that scope. You assume yourself to be a fair arbiter of consistency and coherence, but that's on you. Nobody is obliged to put faith in your statements in this vein. Indeed, a large part of this (part of the) discussion is because you don't feel obliged to put faith in other peoples' claims (r.e. deadnaming, misgendering, the impact thereof, their relation to violence, noting that violence extends beyond a physical aspect, and so on, and so forth). I don't understand why you expect it to be applied to your own claims around coherence and the like.

Similar to what I said earlier in the thread - if you and other posters had approached this discussion being that open to other peoples' experiences, you might find that people are more understanding of your worldview, also. Unfortunately it's just been a lot of "well I don't consider that to be a Real Problem, ergo it isn't".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You replied to me but referred to something Cloudstrife had said. I was just pointing out that our views aren't identical.

Yeah, but... I replied to you making a comment on my reply to Cloudstrife... so obviously I referred to that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. You cannot decide this for other people when you demonstrably don't understand the context involved. Further arguments to absurdity do not help your case, here.

There is no context that makes a preference ordering of X > Y > Z > X reasonable. Any self-inconsistent reasoning can and should be readily disregarded by people on average. There's no reason to elevate one such preference over a nearly infinite possible set of others.

2. You, presumably, are not trans, nor do you have pronouns that don't fall under what society expects. The comparison of "any more or less than is being denied to me" is fatally flawed. It's like claiming you're as hard done by as any other minority in a situation where they are, and you aren't. To take a historical example, it's like criticising women campaigning for the vote because they're not asking you nicely for it. Of course they're not. They're marginalised in a way you are not (I am safely, I think, assuming that you are a guy here. Happy to be corrected, believe or not I don't like relying on assumptions).

It's nice to avoid assumptions and all, but what I am or am not isn't relevant to the discussion about political correctness regardless.

To put it bluntly, asserting otherwise is bigoted.

3. Invoking a fallacy to shut down someone's argument is, surprise surprise, the fallacy fallacy.

Fallacies are called such for a reason. Quoted is a nonsensical refutation. Name-calling obviously has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do you deny this?

They hypocrisy of posts that spout trash like "your opinion is a joke" while complaining about being marginalized is amusing though. Fortunately, I see no reason this should inflict physical or mental harm on me. It mostly just serves as a demonstration that the poster making it can't make valid points.

It's also incredibly obviously targeted, too, because I've been subject to all kinds of fun in this thread and I haven't seen you nobly intervene to point out said fallacies.

Obviously I'm going to target fallacies insofar as it's relevant to discussion I'm actually engaging. I didn't come into this thread to protect other people. I came into it to discuss the topic.

Like I said - these kinds of things only seems to matter when you're affected, and your vision and understanding is similarly limited to that scope. You assume yourself to be a fair arbiter of consistency and coherence, but that's on you. Nobody is obliged to put faith in your statements in this vein. Indeed, a large part of this (part of the) discussion is because you don't feel obliged to put faith in other peoples' claims (r.e. deadnaming, misgendering, the impact thereof, their relation to violence, noting that violence extends beyond a physical aspect, and so on, and so forth). I don't understand why you expect it to be applied to your own claims around coherence and the like.

While less insulting, this is all also ad hominem. It's not relevant to the topic. You're attempting to weaken my credibility rather than addressing the points I've actually made. I get that you probably aren't capable of doing so, but that should perhaps prompt some exploration.

Similar to what I said earlier in the thread - if you and other posters had approached this discussion being that open to other peoples' experiences, you might find that people are more understanding of your worldview, also. Unfortunately it's just been a lot of "well I don't consider that to be a Real Problem, ergo it isn't".

I've been more open than most of the posts I've quoted by a wide margin. Rather than calling people's opinions jokes or repeatedly resorting to ad hominem, I've pointed out basic reasoning flaws and asked for clarification on what specifically separates one behavior from apparently similar behaviors such that people should be expected to react differently.

It's been numerous pages now with an apparent unwillingness or incapability to answer that. I have my suspicions for why that is, but it's still an offer for discussion that's on the table.

Listen, buddy, unless you can provide a page of citations and format your emotions so that they adhere to MLA, they just aren't worth a thing. I wear a mood ring every day so that I always have empirical evidence supporting an ever-present betrayal (that is, having emotions, those disgusting things, those horrifying machinations, those unending miseries) of my logic-powered brain. Unless you can academically back up a universal standard for every aspect of emotion, I'm not interested, pal!

I could post dishonestly and hand-wave too. Would that be a more credible approach, or would you violate your own standards and not accept such an "argument" if you happen not to agree with it ?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Oddly enough the left doesn't have a group mind (yet).

....Yet.
Resistance is Futile.

 

[Lexicus]

Fallacies are called such for a reason. Quoted is a nonsensical refutation. Name-calling obviously has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do you deny this?

The fallacy fallacy is the assumption that because an argument contains a fallacy, it is wrong. That is obviously not true. An argument can be fallacious and it's conclusion still correct.

They hypocrisy of posts that spout trash like "your opinion is a joke" while complaining about being marginalized is amusing though. Fortunately, I see no reason this should inflict physical or mental harm on me.

Part of the reason your opinion is a joke is that you actually do appear to believe it's just logic, and not your opinion at all.

 

[Akka]

The fallacy fallacy is the assumption that because an argument contains a fallacy, it is wrong. That is obviously not true. An argument can be fallacious and it's conclusion still correct.

The conclusion might be true, but the argument is still wrong. And when discussing the argument, obviously it being wrong is kinda a problem.
When asked "why should we do X ?", what is asked is a REASON WHY X is "good", not the answer "X is good".

I'm pretty sure you are all able to notice this not-subtle distinction when it suits your narrative, and only become bone-headed when it doesn't.

Part of the reason your opinion is a joke is that you actually do appear to believe it's just logic, and not your opinion at all.

Considering who is telling that it's a joke, who always avoided actual logic and provided unsupported affirmations, I'd say you should avoid going there.

 

[Gorbles]

It's nice to avoid assumptions and all, but what I am or am not isn't relevant to the discussion about political correctness regardless.

To put it bluntly, asserting otherwise is bigoted.

And once again, we're back to the crux of this discussion, the point underpinning all of it and why we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. Who we are is of course relevant because this all started at people expressing confusion over why someone who isn't cis expressed offense at what people were talking about. You being cis, trans, queer or otherwise non-binary is of course relevant.

The fact that you don't think it does it what informs my assumptions, and I stand by them. It is not bigoted to assume from very obvious discussion that you don't seem to have a stake in it. You are debating in thread which is revolving around peoples' identities and how that impacts their lives (for the umpteenth time, for which links I have provided). If you actually understood the context, you wouldn't make such "both sides" claims, and assert some kind of bigotry levelled at you, of all people.

 

[Lexicus]

The conclusion might be true, but the argument is still wrong. And when discussing the argument, obviously it being wrong is kinda a problem.
When asked "why should we do X ?", what is asked is a REASON WHY X is "good", not the answer "X is good".

I'm pretty sure you are all able to notice this not-subtle distinction when it suits your narrative, and only become bone-headed when it doesn't.

At a certain level, as you must know, all moral philosophy, all normative claims, boil down to "it's axiomatic that X is good" or conversely "it's axiomatic that Y is bad."

 

[Akka]

At a certain level, as you must know, all moral philosophy, all normative claims, boil down to "it's axiomatic that X is good" or conversely "it's axiomatic that Y is bad."

Yeah, but such axiomatic basis tend to be universal and consistent, which are both features very much lacking in the argument at hand. I can't just say that whatever I like is good and whatever I don't is bad and expect it's going to stand up to scrutiny, which is exactly what's happening here.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, but such axiomatic basis tend to be universal and consistent, which are both features very much lacking in the argument at hand. I can't just say that whatever I like is good and whatever I don't is bad and expect it's going to stand up to scrutiny, which is exactly what's happening here.

No, there are no universally-held moral axioms and we know that. You want to talk logic, this is just a classic argumentum ad populum anyway. Even if there were universal moral axioms that does not mean those axioms are correct.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Part of the reason your opinion is a joke is that you actually do appear to believe it's just logic, and not your opinion at all.

There are pieces of my posts I do believe are objective. Usually, if I'm not explicitly saying something is objective/factual/etc it's because I don't consider what I'm typing to be so. It's a lot more practical than prefacing every since post with "in my opinion..." and then only removing that in instances where I consider the content to be factual/objective.

And once again, we're back to the crux of this discussion, the point underpinning all of it and why we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. Who we are is of course relevant because this all started at people expressing confusion over why someone who isn't cis expressed offense at what people were talking about. You being cis, trans, queer or otherwise non-binary is of course relevant.

Man, I even tried to give a way to retreat out of bigotry and prejudice, but you didn't want to take it .

Claiming only people with one set of preferences gets a voice is exactly the same kind of behavior the trans community rightfully complains about. Quoted is open hypocrisy. If something harms someone, pointing why it does stays true no matter who says it.

The fact that you don't think it does it what informs my assumptions, and I stand by them. It is not bigoted to assume from very obvious discussion that you don't seem to have a stake in it.

Everyone has a stake in it. You're making bigoted assertions that people should regulate their speech, at minimum with social pressure. I consider bigoted attempts to control speech destructive.

If you actually understood the context, you wouldn't make such "both sides" claims

This isn't a "both sides" issue. You're not even willing to engage in discussion to make your point or refute mine.

You are debating in thread which is revolving around peoples' identities and how that impacts their lives

Actually the topic of this thread is political correctness.