Jump to content

The consequences of political correctness


Namutree

Recommended Posts

Ah okay, I shall update Obsidian_stalking.txt.

  • Like 3

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What did they have?

 

 

Nothing. Road police had battons to regulate traffic. Normal police on the street while they I'm sure had guns somewhere they didn't carry them.

 

Violent street crime was practically nonexistent. Women could leave their baby carts with the baby outside a shop's door and it would be safe because even if something happened the random passers by would take care of it.

 

It is unthinkable today but it was real. This was of course a small town, bigger cities were a little more hectic but only slightly.

Wow man, that sounds alien to me. Of course I grew up in Houston in the 90's/00's and the crime rate here isn't low. I don't think I've ever seen a cop who wasn't packing a handgun.

"Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman run the 21st century version of MK ULTRA." - majestic

"I'm gonna hunt you down so that I can slap you square in the mouth." - Bartimaeus

"Without individual thinking you can't notice the plot holes." - InsaneCommander

"Just feed off the suffering of gamers." - Malcador

"You are calling my taste crap." -Hurlshort

"thankfully it seems like the creators like Hungary less this time around." - Sarex

"Don't forget the wakame, dumbass" -Keyrock

"Are you trolling or just being inadvertently nonsensical?' -Pidesco

"we have already been forced to admit you are at least human" - uuuhhii

"I refuse to buy from non-woke businesses" - HoonDing

"feral camels are now considered a pest" - Gorth

"Melkathi is known to be an overly critical grumpy person" - Melkathi

"Oddly enough Sanderson was a lot more direct despite being a Mormon" - Zoraptor

"I found it greatly disturbing to scroll through my cartoon's halfing selection of genitalias." - Wormerine

"Am I phrasing in the most negative light for them? Yes, but it's not untrue." - ShadySands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It sounds you are suggesting life was better under the USSR?

 

I'm describing one aspect of USSR life. And only suggesting that nothing is completely black or white.

 

Was life better? For me and anyone in my family. No. Very much no. But for a great many people who have no basic stability and are struggling for basic living standards, yes it was.

 

I used to hear stories of how life was better for my people back when the USSR existed, of how you could buy lunch with a coin and get some change back. The trade is the freedom of expression, ideology and choice. Now it seems like those things are going to be taken away for political correctness and because the wealthy will tolerate no competition.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What did they have?

 

Nothing. Road police had battons to regulate traffic. Normal police on the street while they I'm sure had guns somewhere they didn't carry them.

 

Violent street crime was practically nonexistent. Women could leave their baby carts with the baby outside a shop's door and it would be safe because even if something happened the random passers by would take care of it.

 

It is unthinkable today but it was real. This was of course a small town, bigger cities were a little more hectic but only slightly.

 

 

 

Some time back in my town, you could leave your house wide open without fear.

The entire town was like one big family, and everyone basically helped with raising everyone elses kids.

Not anymore

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What did they have?

 

Nothing. Road police had battons to regulate traffic. Normal police on the street while they I'm sure had guns somewhere they didn't carry them.

 

Violent street crime was practically nonexistent. Women could leave their baby carts with the baby outside a shop's door and it would be safe because even if something happened the random passers by would take care of it.

 

It is unthinkable today but it was real. This was of course a small town, bigger cities were a little more hectic but only slightly.

 

 

 

Some time back in my town, you could leave your house wide open without fear.

The entire town was like one big family, and everyone basically helped with raising everyone elses kids.

Not anymore

 

 

This still exists in some small towns in the US. It's a beautiful thing. I know of one such place. I used to live there, and it's at the top of my list of potential places to retire (that's a long ways off however).

 

 

 

Wow man, that sounds alien to me. Of course I grew up in Houston in the 90's/00's and the crime rate here isn't low. I don't think I've ever seen a cop who wasn't packing a handgun.

 

 

I don't think I've ever seen a modern cop without a side arm either. It wasn't always that way though. I've seen pictures of my local police in action back in the early part of the 20th century and the only weapon they had, if they had one, was a nightstick. One can peruse a search engine and find the same of most pictures with police in them during this time frame also only had batons. Movies from the time sometimes depicted cops without guns as well. Then there are other movies of course depicting them with guns. I've no doubt TV/movies played a part in arming the police as time went on as well the public at large's perception that they should be armed. 

Edited by Valsuelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, this does not equal personal support for the late-Soviet Union.

They haven't yet developed the cultural capital, the ways and mores that created the manifold blessings of Western Civilization. I'd suggest reading Thomas Sowell's Conquests and Cultures for more information on their failure to evolve beyond authoritarianism and kleptocracy.

http://cbrrescue.org/

 

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear

 

http://michigansaf.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok, i will play nice here. How can a vibrant and open society grow if it depends on the sensibilities of the one feeling most offended?

 

 

 

Well, i have been looking for material on cognitive science and cultural inertia (not wikipedia) and i can't really find anything that justifies political correctness as the way of communication in society instead of free speech. Not 'justified' as in irrefutable evidence, but rather the literature doesn't seem to exist or is very hard to find. Perhaps my google-fu is not good enough.

 

Most of it seems to be more about pattern recognition, biology in relation of development of the mind, memory and sensory development in different surroundings and so on. Most of cultural inertia seems to be about project management and adopting to new market strategies in order to not to fail or miss emerging markets.

 

So, in conclusion: Still not better than free speech, which is so simple. You use it, and you defend it. Political Correctness on the other is not really defined, it can be anything from basic morality found in many religions to authoritarian social engineering, and you cannot defend it without the expense of the freedom of expression of another.

 

 

Ah, okay, I think I see what you're concerned about now.

 

It would indeed be exceedingly unwise to implement "political correctness" on a society-wide scale, because it's a paradigm that can go wrong myriads of ways (just like unbridled freedom of speech can), and until we test in a micro scale how this happens and whether the associated benefits outweigh the losses, there is simply no reliable way to tell whether it's objectively better or not.

 

But in order to do this testing, we need suitable micro-environments where it can take place. 

 

 

 

No they don't, their only "obligation" to do so is an egoistical one to themselves (and "their goal" as you put it), not a moral one.

 

The only moral obligation (if any) for an ethical person in such a situation, would be to respond to the stated opinion peacefully and fairly and put forth a reasonable counter-argument to try and convince the author of the opinion, or at least any bystanders and spectators, of its folly.

 

 

 

Even if a/ the likelihood of achieving success with that course of action is minuscule (because people in general are supremely irrational beings, see my earlier comments about the need of familiarizing oneself with cognitive sciences), and b/ allowing that opinion to fester is believed by the person in question to cause measurable (if very small) harm in the macro scale?

 

 

 

NO.

 

If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me.

 

 

 

So basically you are of the mind that your feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.

 

I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative.

 

 

 

And this is why I don't do these discussions nowadays.

 

You not being up-to-date with decades' worth of research into cognitive science is not something I can correct during the course of a random internet conversation.

Well, you could start by reading up on cognitive science; knowing how the human brain works is a fairly useful skillset to have anyway.

 

May I suggest you dial back on the condescension (my feelings are being hurt by your insinuations that I'm ignorant and uneducated ;))? A more fruitful discussion would be had if, even if you are unwilling/unable to produce a complete dissertation expanding on your very interesting comments about structural racism, at least you gave a few references to literature, articles or even specific authors to start with, for those of us keen on learning more about how that actually works.

 

 

No condescension was meant; I quite literally don't have the time at the moment to do the digging required to acquire and present all relevant studies I've read that contributed to me finally becoming convinced that actually, the science seems to support the - on the face ridiculous - statements feminists tend to make. It was a synthetic process and I didn't save any of the studies I came across (and there was quite a large number of them).

 

If you're willing to overlook the fact that it makes no mention of feminism at all (and therefore, on the face, has no bearing on the subject), Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is a nice introduction to the idea that human beings are not rational, and cultural conditioning does affect decision-making unless constant effort is made to supervise your impulses. Its best feature is that it's very thoroughly indexed, so you can do some digging regarding the individual studies on your own (assuming you have access to the relevant journals they were published in).

 

 

 

Neither paranoid nor overestimating.

 

How about you actually watch and learn, rather than just dismiss out of hand, and then go on to chastise people in the thread for not understanding a bunch of ambiguous advances in cognitive research that you don't bother to cite. I also recommend reading up on Bernays, Goebbels, and their work (and not just their wiki entries). 'Isolated academic discussion', ha! These are things that are widely discussed. However, something need not be widely discussed to have great impact on wider public perception or dialogue. The folks behind any successful ad or political campaign can tell you that.

 

 

 

Well, I've watched some of those videos, and the funny thing about them is that they have the common thread of being completely reasonable and fact-based up to, say, 80% of their runtime, then they take those facts and do some incredible mental gymnastics to have them point to something completely unrealistic. It's like the people who made them have never heard of Occam's Razor or the principle of "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence".

 
 

 

Reading your other posts though you seem to think that PC is all about racism/sexism, it isn't. No more than fruit is all about apples/oranges. That you've so narrowed your thinking on this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that's observable by anyone who's lived in the western world for any length of time

 

 

 

As a citizen of a postcommunist state, I'm obviously not an expert on how things work in the western world.

 

Thankfully, I never claimed otherwise.

 

 

 

Political Correctness too is actually a great idea, up to a point (...)

 

 

meta acknowledgement: Obsidian has no obligation at all to allow free speech on their own private property, and they don't actually need to have a good reason to nuke them either

 

 

Truer words have never been spoken, on both accounts.

  • Like 1

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative.

What benefits are there to that ? Other than I guess the people liking you more from just rolling over for them, so to speak.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What benefits are there to that ? Other than I guess the people liking you more from just rolling over for them, so to speak.

 

 

I'd hardly consider "maybe choosing my words a bit more carefully when I'm around them" the same as "rolling over for them". I mean, you're willing to do the same in your workplace to look professional, why wouldn't you do it for your friends?

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is a contest - they are requiring a modification of your behaviour, so either you yield (rolling over, so to speak) or they do (and probably end the friendship if there was one, or just flounce *snort*). It is a calculation, in any case, but was not really seeing much of a benefit to it, especially when approaching this as a stranger taking offense and having sore feelings, which is more likely.

Edited by Malcador

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. I'm not above changing my behaviour. I do it all the time at work - just tell people what they want to hear so they will shut up and leave me alone.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is a contest - they are requiring a modification of your behaviour, so either you yield (rolling over, so to speak) or they do (and probably end the friendship if there was one, or just flounce *snort*). 

 

I generally find looking at actions in terms of a power exchange with the people I'm supposedly chill with... unproductive, to say the least.

Edited by aluminiumtrioxid

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in all cases that i have seen, political correctness does only one thing: by using "softer" words to describe the same thing, it belittles the essense of said thing.

by using the politicaly correct definition of a desease capable of wipping out humanity from the planet, you make it sound like its a little worse than a cold. 

a mental illness first diagnosed in WW1 was shelshock. as time passed, the name became more politicaly correct and now it is known as PTSD. to someone who has no idea about psychology, the first word will evoke images of someone severely scarred by the horrors of war, the other will sound like someone broke his leg and now is reluctant to walk on it fearing it is not yet fully healed. and thus a serious problem becomes synonimous to something trivial in the minds of people without relevant knowledge

  • Like 1

The words freedom and liberty, are diminishing the true meaning of the abstract concept they try to explain. The true nature of freedom is such, that the human mind is unable to comprehend it, so we make a cage and name it freedom in order to give a tangible meaning to what we dont understand, just as our ancestors made gods like Thor or Zeus to explain thunder.

 

-Teknoman2-

What? You thought it was a quote from some well known wise guy from the past?

 

Stupidity leads to willful ignorance - willful ignorance leads to hope - hope leads to sex - and that is how a new generation of fools is born!


We are hardcore role players... When we go to bed with a girl, we roll a D20 to see if we hit the target and a D6 to see how much penetration damage we did.

 

Modern democracy is: the sheep voting for which dog will be the shepherd's right hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally find looking at actions in terms of a power exchange with the people I'm supposedly chill with... unproductive, to say the least.

Fair enough, not as if the entire friendship is war (though, my mate and I that routinely had near violent arguments was a good one) but in the instance where someone's essentially telling you to not say or do something, it is a contest.

Edited by Malcador

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

NO.

 

If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me.

 

 

 

So basically you are of the mind that your feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.

 

I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative.

 

 

Who's this "everyone else"?

I find it exceedingly selfish to try and censor and regulate other people because one is so weak and frail that they break under some mild discomfort.

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

NO.

 

If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me.

 

 

 

So basically you are of the mind that your feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.

 

I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative.

 

 

Who's this "everyone else"?

 

 

Me: if your peer group finds a particular phrase distasteful, you might want to value their sensibilities over your freedom to say whatever you want.

You: NO. If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me.

 

 

I took the liberty of assuming if you're not even willing to do this for your friends, you're even less likely to do it for anyone else. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, this has gone predictably.  And sadly. 

 

While I appreciate Al2O3's efforts to fight the usual suspects turning this subforum into a ridiculous social-reactionary echo chamber, it's probably best to leave this to the Dragon at this point.  They're taking out the trash in anticipation of Eternity's release-- can't have all the new folks who are likely to start stopping by here thinking that Obsidian is happy with this kind of silly advocacy going on here. 

we were a second or two away from making an on-topic post in this thread, but common sense, inexplicably, took a hold o' us. the bat-crap crazies is even more stubborn than is Gromnir, so we decided the best way to win this fight were to avoid it altogether.  

 

the release o' poe will create a new kinda board havoc for a considerable period o' time, but at least it will be chaos related to games.  sadly, the "usual suspects" will not starve in the absence o' plentiful fodder. they will hibernate, feeding on their own stored rage until poe is forgotten or until the next major world crisis hits.  we hear that snails can hibernate for years.  some similarly tedious obsidian posters is very snail-like... angry snails... angry and bat-crap crazy snails. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I find this post offensive on the behalf of people i do not know and whose sensibilities that i cannot possibly feel. Calling people bat-crap snails is quite problematic and in my opinion, zoophobic. This kind of trolling behaviour is not acceptable by any means and your post have been reported.

 

Expect a displinary warning for a lack of tolerance and self tone-policing.

 

 

:p

 

 

There are people on these boards with thousands of posts, who display the same behaviour and resort to the same rhetorical tricks they used on similar gaming boards fifteen years ago. They engage in the same cut'n paste who-said-what monstrosities they have started and engaged in for decades. When there's no fodder, they will quibble over who said what, desperately looking for someone to argue with. Their therapists tell them it's better for their psyche to bash people around on gaming boards, than turning to alcohol or beating their wives.

 

I have compassion for them. Deep down they really are quite sensitive. Society has treated them badly, and they need to lable people in order to feel better about themselves. Give them a hug them when you see them. It usually scares them away, as they're more afraid of peace than conflict.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pft, I do that AND beat my wife.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

NO.

 

If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me.

 

 

 

So basically you are of the mind that your feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.

 

I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative.

 

 

Who's this "everyone else"?

 

 

Me: if your peer group finds a particular phrase distasteful, you might want to value their sensibilities over your freedom to say whatever you want.

You: NO. If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me.

 

 

I took the liberty of assuming if you're not even willing to do this for your friends, you're even less likely to do it for anyone else. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Well, there is a diffrenece between well paid job you want to  keep (or need) and friends you can choose completely freely, dont you think?

I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So basically you are of the mind that your feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings.

 

I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative.

 

 

Who's this "everyone else"?

 

 

Me: if your peer group finds a particular phrase distasteful, you might want to value their sensibilities over your freedom to say whatever you want.

You: NO. If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me.

 

 

I took the liberty of assuming if you're not even willing to do this for your friends, you're even less likely to do it for anyone else. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Well, there is a diffrenece between well paid job you want to  keep (or need) and friends you can choose completely freely, dont you think?

 

 

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand; ie. someone who keeps his mouth shut out of a desire to keep his job isn't doing it because he finds his co-workers' feelings more important than his own.

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being diplomatic /= political correctness.

 

Also, I recommend finding a job where you can call your fat boss fat if he's fat. Working for people who call spades spades, who don't appreciate anything but straight talk, and have a sense of humor is ideal for almost everyone, even most doublespeakers. Doublespeakers will tend to not get hired or fired though (that whole boss not appreciating anything but straight talk thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like that will be a hard search, at least here.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...