Meshugger

Wait, so if someone is being racist for the sole purpose of angering people, it's not racist? Even though, logically, the people most likely to be angered by said display of racism are members of the race in question? That's some shaky logic there, methinks. Of course it's not racist. Otherwise all of rap music would racist/sexist/and so on. Without any context of it's use, then they are just words. ...You do realize that you're effectively saying "by displaying racist attitudes and causing measurable harm* to the very people being discriminated against, you are not being racist, because you set out to cause harm to other people, too". Deontological ethics is fine and good when kept in the courtrooms and academic discussions, but for establishing general rules of conduct? Hell no. You need consequentialism for that. *For a given value of harm. Let's assume the cardiovascular problems resulting from increased stress count as "harm". Whu? Racism as an ideology and acting racist based on those tenets is completely different from sociopaths trying to bully people with what happens to be the situational weakness. The same sociopaths could call people fat as well, are they fatist then? To go further, am i now a racist for calling George Carlin a honkey?

Define "political correctness". I have been asking this for the last two pages. Please define it yourself and we take it from there.

Wait, so if someone is being racist for the sole purpose of angering people, it's not racist? Even though, logically, the people most likely to be angered by said display of racism are members of the race in question? That's some shaky logic there, methinks. That sentance precludes that you can somehow know the exact intent of another person. Which is not really possible unless you are a mind-reader. I don't understand why you guys are fixated on intent in the first place. Context is important, intent is not. Racist things said by a comedian in a satirical commentary? Context informs how it should be perceived. Troll saying racist things? No context to inform how it should be perceived, just person saying racist things therefore being racist regardless of whether they identify as such. I'm surprised to see this kind of post-modern nonsense coming from you guys What is George Carlin in this context?

While i can understand how someone whishes to build a forum on the tenets of political correctness, whatever they may be, as it is within their right to handle their community as they wish, but should this be implemented through all of society? I mean, if the idea is so great in itself, then why not? Should society be politically correct? Why is that better than unregulated free speech? What is the end game? a SWOT analysis perhaps?

Wait, so if someone is being racist for the sole purpose of angering people, it's not racist? Even though, logically, the people most likely to be angered by said display of racism are members of the race in question? That's some shaky logic there, methinks. Of course it's not racist. Otherwise all of rap music would racist/sexist/and so on. Without any context of it's use, then they are just words. After all, all that it takes is one person not being offended for it to not being objectively offensive.

People generally have goals; let's assume in good faith that forum administrators have the goal of "make this forum a welcoming place for as large a number of people as possible". It's obviously an oversimplification (e.g. just because there's a large number of nazis on the internet, one doesn't necessarily want to make their forum nazi-friendly in order to welcome said large number of people), but as a model, it'll do for now. "Objectively harmful" in this case, obviously, means "counterproductive to the stated goal", because really, you can't define "harmful" in any other way than "destructive to some sort of goal you have" (generally self-preservation). Do note that I didn't say said opinions were objectively harmful; I just pointed out that if someone finds them to be such, they have a moral obligation to do something about it. I am confused. A board has a set of rules that you simply have to follow, whatever they happen to be. I really don't understand your reasoning of building communities with sets of goals, destructive opinions based on subjective experiences of the members, that in turn might be counterproductive in the eyes of the admin and/or the community? It just sounds like a overly complicated way to use "objectively harmful". Especially since we are talking about opinions here.

1) I see no reason why "try not to be a racist ****wad" would be incompatible with honesty, assertiveness, etc. 2) It does tend to encourage marginalized groups to actually speak up, so there's that. Wait, wait, wait. You didn't establish what political correctness is as a pretense before making those statements. But that was my fault as well for not typing it down in the first place. Because as it is for now, both your answers could equally be attributed to socialism, christian ethics and so on. Since "political correctness" is generally a phrase used when complaining about being called out on behaving like a racist/sexist/etc. ****wad, the "not behaving like a racist ****wad" part was pretty much me establishing what I mean by political correctness. Oh, come on. That can easily be applied to anything since we cannot even agree on what racist/sexist speech is to begin with, neither do we know the context. Trolls use it to rile people up and **** use it try to put people down, which is not for example racist/sexist/whatever in itself. So please, a formal proof or a more thought out logical reason answering the previous questions if you don't mind.

Then again, if those opinions are objectively harmful, isn't that certain someone morally obligated to lock the threads in question? ?? How do you measure opinions in terms of being harmful in an objective way?

1) I see no reason why "try not to be a racist ****wad" would be incompatible with honesty, assertiveness, etc. 2) It does tend to encourage marginalized groups to actually speak up, so there's that. Wait, wait, wait. You didn't establish what political correctness is as a pretense before making those statements. But that was my fault as well for not typing it down in the first place. Because as it is for now, both your answers could equally be attributed to socialism, christian ethics and so on.

Lets turn it around. I want proof, or a reasonable argument that political correctness is: 1) The best code of conduct compared to honesty, assertiveness, etc... 2) Enhances free speech and makes sure that unpopular opinion is not supressed compared to other systems

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/02/interview-afterlife-empire-and-creating-a-game-in-a-divisive-industry/ William Usher has an interview with Daniell Maiorino, developer of the game Afterlife Empire. The TFYC game that got funded by GamerGate.

I've agreed with the bolded a few years ago. But as the GG-controversy has shown, the crazies, the evil and the tyrannical ones simply do not dissappear if you ignore them. They have to be exposed, mocked and laughed at continously, all while trying to expose the real corruption that lies underneath. As for the response to the text formatted in red, and without pointing out that logical fallacy of bringing in bigger problems in a discussion, i can tell from personal experience it is of several reasons: People do not feel that they have any influence on 'big' questions that the statemen ultimately decide. Why? That i cannot point out just yet, but i think it is a combination of cynicism, lack social cohesion for larger groups to form due to the individualist mantra that is celebrated via not only the social media, but from regular media as well. Also, there is the growth of beaurocracy that makes it a structural problem since much of the decision making is a complicated process that ultimately ends up with critical decisions being decided by groups of people that are not accountable to the constituency. There is also the big difficulty with what constitutes as a society to begin with when people are getting mixed signals of what the purpose of the nation state really is? Nationalism is hamped down, but at the same time people are encouraged to take part in the decision making for the state as long as it is within the narrow definition of what is politically acceptable. Finally there is the part of virtue and sense of purpose. What virtues are expected by society to uphold as its dearest? It has been since forever established that people can kill anyone for no reason whatsoever, but there is little discussion on what ideals people are ready to die for. Is is family? The nature and the lands around you? For liberty? For your faith? When there's enough people without any sense of destiny and purpose in society where the basic needs for survival are catered, then of what interest is there for them to make a better society if they feel that they have no purpose to do so? Just my 2 cents though.

Before dwelving any further i do believe that there's no consensus on when biology ends and where cultural expression begins. Except for women being inheritly more valuable by just being, since they have a uterus. Men have to prove to women that they are something.

^This. Libertarians don't count as left-wing folks. Noam is such a douche on so many levels, but at least he wants to clear out the confusion about what political terms actually mean. Foucault-fan detected.

I thought I was being pretty transparent. I'll remain broad and brief. My "issue" with "Modern Feminism" is that it has been hijacked by neo-liberal ideology and morphed into a watered down movement that promotes a less offensive, individualist feminism focused on individual empowerment instead of mass liberation. Instead of seeking to dismantle and reconstruct existing oppressive systems they advocate "expressing agency" within these systems; one's culture, ideology, religion and beliefs are not to be critiqued but instead are "personal choices"; political praxis isn't about collective action or grassroots movements but instead limited to individual consumer choices (such as buying the next "Beyoncé" album or whatever millionaire is throwing around the feminist label this week); gender is not to abolished but "to be played with". A good look at these changes provided by Carol Hanisch: Thank you, much better. First question: What is the end game of feminism and what constitutes as an oppressive system and what should the oppressed do to not become the oppressors themselves according to Carol Hanish? ...and Cultist: Ben Garrison? Really?

^This. Libertarians don't count as left-wing folks.

The lazy version of saying "That's offensive". Nah, more a nicer way of saying "you guys are dumb". In short, from what I can gather this thread is made up of people who have not read any feminist texts; are ignorant of most if not all of the theoretical grounding; are unaware of the differences between the various schools of thought; are ignorant of the history of feminism; do not know which groups do and do not have significant influence and whose exposure to feminism is limited to some stupid posts made by 15 year olds on tumblr. And now with that lack of investigation into the topic they feel they're equipped to critique "feminism". Why hide behind false pleasantaries when you can say it in a direct langauge? Afraid of the sensibiities of anonymous people that you are most likely never going to meet? Pheh. Either say what you want to say or just shut the **** up. If you are expecting scholary discussion from laymen, then at least have the courtesy to point to some material that can be used as a framework or a template. Now that i got that out of my chest, please elaborate further. What's your opinion on Janice Fiamngo and Christina Hoff Summers? Are they the clowns of academic world? What should people read? Why is there a public misconception of feminism? Any opinion about the videos that i posted, just as an example?

Back in the day Penny-Arcade had this comic-strip about **** wolves: <snip> Which caused great controversy to such a ridicolous degree that people where talking about boycotting PAX because they couldn't feel safe due to the strip allegedly trivializing rape. Media made a case about it and they (PA) had to apologize. But somehow God ascended from the heavens and let a guy named **** WOLF do an episode of SVU that clearly showed how stupid this narrative is to begin with.

The lazy version of saying "That's offensive".

Trying to have a lecture with the wrong opinions about rape culture is not welcomed:

Because they are not visible in any way. Blame your own media for giving all the highlight to the genderfluid, racist, manhating "women" that scream and whine about mansplaining like Alex Jones screams about chem-trails and FEMA camps. Not only that, the universities are filled with them as well. I highly suggests watching the video i linked earlier. It clearly showes how Dr. Janice Fiamengo, a feminist like the ones you probably are talking about, is treated for having the "wrong" idea about gender.

This reminds me that while Ken Levine didn't criticise games journalists for the SVU thing he did have one of the better responses to it: (minor sexy lady warning on his link; would probably get a KaineParker thread shut down) Hohohoohooo

The very moment it became about "The Patriarchy" it became as credible as other tinfoil hat-conspiracies. Imagine Martin Luther King giving speeches about dismantling "White society" because that's pretty much how the message comes out at the moment.

It's time to sing along fellas!

feelsgoodman.jpg