The consequences of political correctness

[Malcador]

Ah okay, I shall update Obsidian_stalking.txt.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

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.

[Orogun01]

 

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.

[TrashMan]

 

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

[Valsuelm]

 

 

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 February 18, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Barothmuk]

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

Majority in former Soviet states believe breakup was harmful mistake

 

About 60 percent of Russians believe there were more positive than negative aspects to life in the former Soviet Union

 

Russian Life Expectancy shorter now compared to Soviet rule

 

81% of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia

 

63% of Romanians survey participants said their life was better during communism

 

72% of Hungarians say most people were better off under communism

 

57% of East Germans defended the former GDR

 

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

Edited February 19, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Tsuga C]

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.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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.

[Malcador]

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.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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?

[Malcador]

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 February 19, 2015 by Malcador

[ShadySands]

Aren't your friends supposed to accept you as you are?

 

I don't have a lot of friends so that may explain some things

[Malcador]

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.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

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 February 19, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[teknoman2]

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

[Malcador]

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 February 19, 2015 by Malcador

[TrashMan]

 

 

 

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.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

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.

[Junai]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Malcador]

Pft, I do that AND beat my wife.

[HoonDing]

im politically correct irl but politically incorrect on the internets

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

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.

[Valsuelm]

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).

[Malcador]

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