The consequences of political correctness

[213374U]

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.

[Ineth]

Racism as an ideology is pretty much marginalized into irrelevance.

 

Racism as an institution, an emergent property of cultural inertia? Very much alive and kicking.

 

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.

 

Yeah no, Critical race theory did not come about as a result of scientific research, it was invented by left-wing ideologues in those circle-jerk-&-free-association sessions that have replaced research and debate in those parts of academia where the course names end in "studies".

 

Just like the, ahem, insight that E=mc² is a "sexed equation" because it unfairly privileges the speed of light , and many similar "discoveries".

[Namutree]

 

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

 

1) I see no reason why "try not to be a racist ****wad" would be incompatible with honesty, assertiveness, etc.

 

Political correctness can get in the way of honesty because sometimes the truth is not politically correct. It was politically incorrect to talk about the Pakistani rape gangs; thus any mention of said gangs had to be met with denial. If you didn't deny there was a problem you would be endangering your political career.

 

Political correctness can get in the way of assertiveness because the mention of the rape gangs was politically incorrect. Thus the issue was ignored and that gave the rapists free reign to beat, rape, and threaten innocent young girls. 

 

Who is a racist ****wad is subjective. To some of the leftist in the UK trying to stop Pakistani rapists is being a racist ****wad.

[Ineth]

It's a conundrum though. Let's say you were in charge of the Weimar republic, and you had the knowledge that you have today...

 

Such in-hindsight hypotheticals are not very meaningful imo.

 

Enabling & encouraging decision-makers (be it state governments or forum moderators) to censor and oppress based on "expected harm", will at best make them target people and ideas they guess might cause harm, and at worse (and unfortunately more realistically) abuse that power for their own self-interest.

 

It's a conundrum though. Let's say you were in charge of the Weimar republic, and you had the knowledge that you have today... Would you crack down on the Nazi party?

 

The Weimar republic did not lack reasons to crack down on the Nazi party and its militia (who were violating the constitutional rules for political parties and committing violent crimes and were in fact officially banned at one point), it lacked the internal conviction and the physical ability to enforce such a crack-down, since at that time the Weimar republic was already sort of a "failed state" that could not prevent the various violent socialist factions (of which the National Socialists where just one) from carrying out armed street fights among each other as well as attacks on the democratic authorities and on the members/rallies of democratic parties.

 

[Meshugger]

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.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Yuri Bezmenov

 

The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=29077

 

The History of Political Correctness

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=28996

 

CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

 

Patrick Henningsen - Hour 1 - The Politically Correct Matrix

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/12/RIR-131223.php

 

Cultural Marxism for Dummies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUt8iHVTO4w&list=PLVCYZiC20h34ooDIC3BjPSiIDlmM9pvT9

 

Ah, the sweet ramblings of the paranoid.

 

You have to seriously overestimate the impact isolated academic discussion has on the public consciousness to believe that mind-controlling America through the power of "cultural marxism" was ever a feasible plan.

 

 

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.

 

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, that you think the links I provided are just paranoia or overestimating something (they discuss the very topic of this thread in different contexts), that you can't be bothered to cite any of the cognitive research you belittle others for not understanding, that you fail to even say how that it's relevant to this conversation here at all, leads me to think you're a know-it-all who is talking out of your ass. Please prove me wrong.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

Elaborate.

 

 

Well, OK, since you asked.

 

In the more meta way, I was obviously referring to the recently closed threads here. When will this thread get the Nguyễn Ngọc Loan treatment, and for what? We don't know- as soon as someone complains about it hurting their feelings? When someone repeatedly complains? That's a ridiculous metric for anything when you don't have to read the thread. But in any case, the implication is that if we don't make it 'inclusive' in some nebulous way- most likely which 'we' cannot control such as people with counter views speaking up- it'll go because the people who don't speak up think it's unwelcoming.

 

Some women may be insulted by a robust discussion on feminism. Some will be even more offended if you assume that they're delicate snowflakes who cannot handle a robust discussion on feminism, or that such a thing will drive them from the internet. Which contradictory set of women should be catered for? Obvious answer, you never actually have any discussion because however you handle it someone will be offended. It's also why your definition is ridiculous*- if you're going to try to be PC it relies on guessing what other people think and what other people will be offended by. And, is very seldom actually held to by the people espousing it (often except as a means of getting other people to shut while feeling morally superior about it) so, with acknowledgement that you certainly have definitively stated that it's an aspirational aim that you don't always live up to, but as an illustration:

 

Ah, the sweet ramblings of the paranoid.

 

 

Paranoia is a serious mental issue. Perhaps you should refrain from using it as a derogatory term in the future as well as retarded?

 

Political correctness has a chilling effect on free speech because it is a nebulously defined set of non rules in which you are expected to self censor based on what other people may be offended by. It makes subjects taboo, stifles debate on others and is used as a crutch to shut other people up under the guise of preventing offence. It also tends towards being counter productive. Hurlshot wanted to know why feminism- which everyone said was a great idea alleviating obvious unfairness, up to a point, at which the debate began- was so badly received nowadays, and that, largely, is the answer why. Political Correctness too is actually a great idea, up to a point, but has a largely negative connotation now because it's passed the point where many people think it's reasonable.

 

Most of all though, there is no right not to be offended and there should never be a right not to be offended as 'offence' is subjective and is often caused by simple disagreement. If one applies empathy evenly, to both parties, it becomes obvious that you have two options; both sides should shut up for fear of offending the other in which case nothing controversial will ever be said, or neither side should shut up and both should be OK with that.

 

*I actually do try to follow "don't be needlessly offensive" as a personal rule, which is pretty similar- because by and large being offensive is counter productive as a technique and being needlessly offensive usually means you're actually losing as well. If I followed "don't be offensive" instead though I'd barely write anything at all because, well, someone will be offended at pretty much anything.

 

[Edit: 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]

Edited February 17, 2015 by Zoraptor

[pseudonymous]

Some things just don't need a debate.

[Namutree]

Some things just don't need a debate.

example?

[Malcador]

Vi's superiority as a text editor

[Blarghagh]

The superiority of my undergarments to anyone else's. (They're green and say ninja turtles.)

[Nonek]

The supremacy of tea as an imbibement.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The superiority of whiskey as a spirit.

[Tsuga C]

The satisfaction of a difficult job well done.

[Valsuelm]

 

Some things just don't need a debate.

example?

 

 

 

You fell for the bait.

[Enoch]

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. 

[Malcador]

Hardly an echo chamber when you, shirty and Bruce show up and get stuck in, though, is it ?  

 

Wonder if Eternity is a problem, a lot of the "usual suspects" you have an issue with are people that joined during the PE kickstarter - maybe we'll end up with more of the same, hah.  Will be interesting to see the result anyway, I imagine most of them will stay in that subforum and not wander out.

[Gromnir]

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!

[Valsuelm]

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. 

 

Ah yes. Ambiguously doubly insult everyone who doesn't agree with you, and then call for the censorship of their views. You're awesome. I'll sign a glowing letter of recommendation for you if you'd like for your job application at the Ministry of Love. You're a shoe in and will go far there I'm sure.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Valsuelm

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Social-reactionary fiend George Carlin on politically correct phrases.

 

http://youtu.be/yeB7dnXFMcg

 

Hardly an echo chamber when you, shirty and Bruce show up and get stuck in, though, is it ?  

 

Wonder if Eternity is a problem, a lot of the "usual suspects" you have an issue with are people that joined during the PE kickstarter - maybe we'll end up with more of the same, hah.  Will be interesting to see the result anyway, I imagine most of them will stay in that subforum and not wander out.

If the current behavior is any indication, it's quite likely they stick to PoE forums.

[Orogun01]

The superiority of whiskey as a spirit.

 

 

The satisfaction of a difficult job well done.

 

 

The supremacy of tea as an imbibement.

 

For everything else, there is MasterCard.

[ManifestedISO]

The superiority of my undergarments to anyone else's. (They're green and say ninja turtles.)

 

So, so true. If they're boxers. If they're tighty-greenies ... still cool. TMNT!

[213374U]

Most of all though, there is no right not to be offended and there should never be a right not to be offended as 'offence' is subjective and is often caused by simple disagreement. If one applies empathy evenly, to both parties, it becomes obvious that you have two options; both sides should shut up for fear of offending the other in which case nothing controversial will ever be said, or neither side should shut up and both should be OK with that.

 

*I actually do try to follow "don't be needlessly offensive" as a personal rule, which is pretty similar- because by and large being offensive is counter productive as a technique and being needlessly offensive usually means you're actually losing as well. If I followed "don't be offensive" instead though I'd barely write anything at all because, well, someone will be offended at pretty much anything.

 

That sounds like a cop-out to me. Not being offensive vs not being needlessly offensive? In which cases do you need to be offensive? Necessity in this context is as nebulously defined as the very non rules you mention. Where do you draw the line? Smoking or non-smoking seat? Whole grain or white bread? Kantian or Hobbesian ethics?! Does being devoid of any offensive intent absolve you of the responsibility for the offense that you know your remarks may cause?

 

I agree that there is no right not to be offended. The most popular solution is to "grow a thicker skin". Not that this applies specifically to you, mind. Unfortunately, suggesting that others grow a thicker skin is about as useful as telling a drowning man to swim harder. And more than a bit hypocritical unless the one making the suggestion is literally incapable of being offended. Were that we could all be perfectly detached and level headed in our interactions.

 

Through empathy (and possibly extraordinary interpersonal skill and courage) it may be possible* to arrive at an outcome that is beneficial for all involved. It's a way to do away with the need for self-censorship, not a path to reinforce it.

 

Regardless, everyone avoids some topics. Nobody is a perfectly frank, assertive, stone cold bearer of truth, internets posturing notwithstanding, because the price of clinging to and defending The Truth 24/7 can be too high. We are wired to value comfort and safety over The Truth. PC is just that tendency made into a meme.

 

You say PC has a chilling effect on free speech. This is automatically assumed to be bad (again, not necessarily by yourself, as you acknowledge that PC can be useful in principle). It can only be necessarily bad however if absolute free speech is considered good. I... don't know about that.

 

Sorry if I offended you, but I thought it was necessary!

 

 

*though you may well end up sleeping on the couch. IANAP

[pseudonymous]

 

 

Some things just don't need a debate.

example?

 

 

 

You fell for the bait.

 

 

The internet is serious business.  You should post an essay on medium.com about how offensive it is that no one takes it seriously.  

[Malcador]

If the current behavior is any indication, it's quite likely they stick to PoE forums.

Hope so, not that it'll matter much with the new ideas on making this a 'safe space' or whatever the invented terminology is. Hey, this means oby might get banned - I guess Walshingam may climax if that comes to pass

 

I agree that there is no right not to be offended. The most popular solution is to "grow a thicker skin". Not that this applies specifically to you, mind. Unfortunately, suggesting that others grow a thicker skin is about as useful as telling a drowning man to swim harder

Hm, well in terms of offering a practical solution it's not a cure all - but this is just all text on a screen and there are mechanisms to hide content you are unable to handle without having some distress over. And "HTFU" is good advice 65% of the time in life.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Malcador