[Aptorian]

Ah, damn, we completely forgot to run this topic through the "is X worse than Y" formula to figure out our opinion is important.

Always remember, there are children dying of hunger in Africa, therefore nothing else in the universe matters.

[rant]

Studlock, on 21 August 2018 - 04:35 AM, said:

There's a crypto-fascist administration in power in the most powerful state in the world who then proceeded to put children into camps, 4 million Yemeni are starving in a war backed by that administration, the most populace state in Canada elected an actual idiot who immediately did lasting damage to education system, an Australian politician unironically called for a 'Final Solution' in banning muslim immigration to that country, Israel is an Apartheid settler-colonial state in 2018 and so on, and yet y'all still care about 'political correctness' brought to head by actual grifters (Peterson and his ilk) as if it as all that important.

Pull your heads out of your collective asses jesus fucking christ

I wasn't aware a rule had been implemented in which people were only allowed to think/ be concerned about a single issue. Of the five you listed, which did you pick? They're all so serious, I dunno if I could pick just one! Does it reset? Like daily or weekly or something? If I was debating about PC yesterday, do I have to keep thinking about it today? Or can I think about something else? Any tips on how a good and proper global citizen chooses?
You should find some transgender individuals (or any marginalized groups in the western world really) and tell them their struggles don't count cuz of Trump/Ford LOL. Lemme know how that goes!

SO do I need a /S here? I'm really hoping the sarcasm is just dripping off my words.

Its an-off-topic discussion board on an anonymous epic fantasy book forum for petes sake, really hope you did some copypasta for every conversation on the site.
Stop presuming the entirety of an individual is summed up within the couple posts they make here.

On a side note, I'd not heard about the australian politician had said 'final solution'.......... that is alarming. At first I read Austrian, and was even more alarmed lol

[Tsundoku]

rant, on 21 August 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

On a side note, I'd not heard about the australian politician had said 'final solution'.......... that is alarming. At first I read Austrian, and was even more alarmed lol

Yeah, when people think Arnie came from here you know the message was lost in translation.

To be honest, when they used the defence that he'd never heard about it, I actually believed them. Because he's a fucking moron who probably dropped out of school aged 6.
Because only someone born and bred under a rock somewhere out back of Bourke (Australian for a long way from civilisation, Bourke being a fairly remote town) would string those 2 particular words together without knowing what a shitstorm would be generated.

How few voters it took to get him in:

https://www.news.com...53626455a3698d6

Was it deliberate?

https://www.news.com...e677fbcf34f25e8

Fact checked:

https://www.news.com...191d1265ecd7d69

Yes I know all 3 of these are from the same site, but if I can find this in a few seconds on - of all places - a Murdoch site (which, admittedly does have a few token lefties), then it's pretty fucking obvious.

PC is one thing, but the fact this guy is in our national Parliament is mortifying. Considering the contempt I have for the vast majority of our politicians and ability to usually ignore their drivel, for me that's saying something.

Apparently John Oliver had a crack at him too:

https://www.news.com...1eb4cf8a9f9d02a

Can't be bothered finding the video.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 21 August 2018 - 11:57 AM

[Malankazooie]

[Macros]

That man Katter is an elected official??

Holy fuck that makes Trump look positively like a sort of possibly balanced individual.

[Studlock]

Alternative Goose, on 21 August 2018 - 05:10 AM, said:

Ah, damn, we completely forgot to run this topic through the "is X worse than Y" formula to figure out our opinion is important.

Always remember, there are children dying of hunger in Africa, therefore nothing else in the universe matters.

No, specifically 'political correctness' does not matter one little iota, and constantly used to justify a push rightward in politics, as seen by the United States literally electing a president in part because he's 'politically incorrect' (read racist, sexist, homophobic, generally terrible). It's inherently reactionary. And everything I said there is *directly* connected to the idea of 'politically correctness', through, again, the reactionary push back against being a decent fucking human being, and the power given to those people who demonstrate that they are willing to not be that.

It's almost like these things, these performative 'political incorrectness' actions have actual political consequences. Anyways keep being had by Jordan 'I once drank cider and was awake for 25 days, which here filled with feelings of impending doom' Peterson lol

[Aptorian]

I feel like we're seeing the complete opposite world view here.

You've made a complaint about overt political correctness into an argument about political incorrectness ruining the world. Sort of how when ever a feminist does something bad it's actually the patriarchy's fault.

The point of this thread is when people go too far in their effort to be open minded, progressive, accommodating - to the point where they actually themselves becomes oppressive, exclusionary and overly aggressive. People who get so fanatic about being good that they attack anything they ignorantly perceive as bad just because it doesn't fit into their narrow understanding of "politically correct".

Reverse prejudice, reverse racism, reverse gender bias. Or just prejudice, racism, gender bias really.

You're, I perceive, mad at us for discussing political correctness gone wrong, because there's wrongs that need to be fixed before we can back pedal and fix the things that went too far in the process of progress. The problem is just that for the rest of us, who are not invested in making the world into this soft safe space these, in the above example, college people desire, for us this is maddening.

I want equality. Not feminism. I want all lives to matter, not just black ones. I want universities to be places that are challenging, places where you can say or do things that people will challenge you on. I want people to stop shying away from subjects because feelings might get hurt. I want to discuss gender and race and religion and politics and culture in general with out having to walk on egg shells. The world does not come with a trigger warning, and while I am certainly willing to accommodate those who need help, emotionally or physically, I will never support the idea that the many need to conform to the needs of the few, if there is not a rational reason behind such thinking.

EDIT: Just to make sure somebody doesn't get triggered by this. I'm not saying the above topics aren't important. Black lives do matter, police violence is a problem, immigration policies need to be humane, etc. but they're not protected topics.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 24 August 2018 - 06:56 AM

[Morgoth]

Alternative Goose, on 24 August 2018 - 06:51 AM, said:

I want equality. Not feminism. I want all lives to matter, not just black ones. I want universities to be places that are challenging, places where you can say or do things that people will challenge you on. I want people to stop shying away from subjects because feelings might get hurt. I want to discuss gender and race and religion and politics and culture in general with out having to walk on egg shells. The world does not come with a trigger warning, and while I am certainly willing to accommodate those who need help, emotionally or physically, I will never support the idea that the many need to conform to the needs of the few, if there is not a rational reason behind such thinking.

EDIT: Just to make sure somebody doesn't get triggered by this. I'm not saying the above topics aren't important. Black lives do matter, police violence is a problem, immigration policies need to be humane, etc. but they're not protected topics.

This tells me, Apt, that you have been spending too much time reading the writings of twats. Or listening to their youtube channels or whatever.

[Maark Abbott]

Morgoth, on 24 August 2018 - 06:59 AM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 24 August 2018 - 06:51 AM, said:

I want equality. Not feminism. I want all lives to matter, not just black ones. I want universities to be places that are challenging, places where you can say or do things that people will challenge you on. I want people to stop shying away from subjects because feelings might get hurt. I want to discuss gender and race and religion and politics and culture in general with out having to walk on egg shells. The world does not come with a trigger warning, and while I am certainly willing to accommodate those who need help, emotionally or physically, I will never support the idea that the many need to conform to the needs of the few, if there is not a rational reason behind such thinking.

EDIT: Just to make sure somebody doesn't get triggered by this. I'm not saying the above topics aren't important. Black lives do matter, police violence is a problem, immigration policies need to be humane, etc. but they're not protected topics.

This tells me, Apt, that you have been spending too much time reading the writings of twats. Or listening to their youtube channels or whatever.

Your post oppresses Apt and thus is Patriarchy.

[Aptorian]

Morgoth, on 24 August 2018 - 06:59 AM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 24 August 2018 - 06:51 AM, said:

I want equality. Not feminism. I want all lives to matter, not just black ones. I want universities to be places that are challenging, places where you can say or do things that people will challenge you on. I want people to stop shying away from subjects because feelings might get hurt. I want to discuss gender and race and religion and politics and culture in general with out having to walk on egg shells. The world does not come with a trigger warning, and while I am certainly willing to accommodate those who need help, emotionally or physically, I will never support the idea that the many need to conform to the needs of the few, if there is not a rational reason behind such thinking.

EDIT: Just to make sure somebody doesn't get triggered by this. I'm not saying the above topics aren't important. Black lives do matter, police violence is a problem, immigration policies need to be humane, etc. but they're not protected topics.

This tells me, Apt, that you have been spending too much time reading the writings of twats. Or listening to their youtube channels or whatever.

The fact that your only reaction to my comment is in relation to the subjects you highlight, suggests to me that you might be doing the same.

Criticism is not the same as attacking something. Questioning the current trends is a good thing. Or do you just want to follow Trumps example and socially shame those who disagree?

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

I find the stance confusing, and I'm not sure if I'm missing the point you're making Apt.

"I want equality, not feminism." - well given that the latter arose as a response to the lack of the former, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you want equality instead of feminism because if we actually achieve equality, feminism will no longer need to exist as a movement? I have an admitted leaning towards reading statements like that and assuming it's people throwing feminists on the "they all hate men and want inequality in the opposite direction instead of equality" pile, so I'm asking.

Black Lives Matter is in the same boat, if there wasn't a problem with the stance of non-white people then no such movement need exist. Nobody's suggesting with the BLM movement that black lives matter more than any other - the point is that they matter just as much as any other. It'd be nice to eventually live in a world where the distinction isn't needed, but we sadly don't. Again, I'm unsure of your point.

I didn't go to university, but as an otherwise educated, intelligent woman I actually agree with your point on the place of academia. There should be open discussion of topics, including problematic ones, because discourse is important even on uncomfortable subjects. I see a handful of rather extreme examples reported but have no idea how widespread the shutting down of discussion across universities is or isn't.

"Life doesn't come with trigger warnings" - no, it doesn't. By the same token there's nothing wrong with people being given enough information about the topic of a discussion (for example) to make an informed choice about whether it's something they want to participate in. I don't see that as a problematic or difficult thing to ask for. The current trend for snarky "in case anybody is triggered" is infuriating. Triggered in a medical sense does not mean getting upset or uncomfortable, and the term being bastardised down to that (usually in conjunction with "safe spaces" and everything else) is one of the many, MANY things wrong with discourse surrounding mental health.

I'm not blaming you for that Apt, but as you used the phrase in your post I'm just commenting generally that it's wildly annoying trend I'm suddenly seeing a lot of.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 24 August 2018 - 10:38 AM

[Cause]

My view on safe places can be summed up in one incident here locally. Ill see if I can find the video to share with you all.

We recently had a wave of student protests about everything from fees to wanting to 'de-colonialize education'. De-colonializing education is a tricky subject but one that I think has some merit. Even in South Africa we tend to learn about the history of the west for example and we tend to learn about African history only after colonization. Now there are very good reasons for this, South Africa for example had no recorded history before colonialization. Nevertheless it would not hurt to re-examine history and try to rework a few syllabuses to have an African focus. WW2 was a global war, it had an African campaign maybe we could learn more about its influence on Africa? How did the slave trade influence those African Kingdoms that participated or the Africans that stayed behind. Human civilization did begin in Africa so how did it migrate elsewhere? Anyway there is a lot that could be done and I think its a debate that is worth having. However what quickly happened is that the debate got hijacked by radicals, they only listened to each other creating an echo chamber and denounced any voice of criticism or debate that disagreed with them as being oppressive. It was racist if done by white people and it was from house niggers if done by black people. A lovely term from America that I have begun to notice pops up in South Africa more and more. (Quick aside I am fascinated by how American race politics, its brand of activism and radicalism etc is being exported to Africa rather then the other way around. Don't know what it means yet or the long term implications.)

So decolonization went from being a legitimate debate in my mind to crazy when they wanted to decolonize science. They wanted to know why we focused only on the theories of white scientists. They wanted a curriculum built by black scientists that also focused only on issues that concerned Africa. Science I would argue has no providence, a things is true or not true regardless of who proves it or disproves it. Similarly the truth is the truth everywhere. Anyway at one student meeting a women stood up and said that Sangomas (S. African traditional healers) believe that they can call down lightning and she didn't understand why no scientists had every examined this for example. Somebody replied they had never examined this because they cant do it. Next thing that guy who pointed out common sense was hounded out of the room. That is the madness that safe places create. If no one can tell the emperor he is naked, now to prevent offending him rather than because they fear him, he will never know he is out in public naked.

[Aptorian]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 24 August 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

I find the stance confusing, and I'm not sure if I'm missing the point you're making Apt.

"I want equality, not feminism." - well given that the latter arose as a response to the lack of the former, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you want equality instead of feminism because if we actually achieve equality, feminism will no longer need to exist as a movement? I have an admitted leaning towards reading statements like that and assuming it's people throwing feminists on the "they all hate men and want inequality in the opposite direction instead of equality" pile, so I'm asking.

Black Lives Matter is in the same boat, if there wasn't a problem with the stance of non-white people then no such movement need exist. Nobody's suggesting with the BLM movement that black lives matter more than any other - the point is that they matter just as much as any other. It'd be nice to eventually live in a world where the distinction isn't needed, but we sadly don't. Again, I'm unsure of your point.

I didn't go to university, but as an otherwise educated, intelligent woman I actually agree with your point on the place of academia. There should be open discussion of topics, including problematic ones, because discourse is important even on uncomfortable subjects. I see a handful of rather extreme examples reported but have no idea how widespread the shutting down of discussion across universities is or isn't.

"Life doesn't come with trigger warnings" - no, it doesn't. By the same token there's nothing wrong with people being given enough information about the topic of a discussion (for example) to make an informed choice about whether it's something they want to participate in. I don't see that as a problematic or difficult thing to ask for. The current trend for snarky "in case anybody is triggered" is infuriating. Triggered in a medical sense does not mean getting upset or uncomfortable, and the term being bastardised down to that (usually in conjunction with "safe spaces" and everything else) is one of the many, MANY things wrong with discourse surrounding mental health.

I'm not blaming you for that Apt, but as you used the phrase in your post I'm just commenting generally that it's wildly annoying trend I'm suddenly seeing a lot of.

You've more or less understood me well enough. All your arguments are fair and I am sure your concerns are warranted. My arguments are used by others as a means of shutting down legitimate conversations about injustice, but I think it swings both ways.

The reason why I say I want equality and not feminism or race based movements (alone) is that the trend I've observed in the media or on the web, is a tendency to form lines and settle in to an us and them mentality, where if you're not with us you're against us. If you don't repeat the talking points you're a part of the problem. Everybody is a racist or misogynist or bigot because all non-oppressed people are products of a hetero-normative fascist patriarchy.

Everything becomes about how unsafe and unfair society is, when in reality the world becomes ever more civilised and fair.

If we take the above example, you see a lot of videos now, of students some how bullying "normies" for not being PC or woke enough. They're so intent on creating safe spaces that they become unsafe for those who don't act or look right. People who don't conform to what ever hivemind tweet that is making ways is piled on as being the scum of the earth, etc.

Maybe I am just selectively biased for negative feed back, maybe I'm just a white middle class male who doesn't understand millennials, but I feel like my inner caveman is threatened when ever people want to wrap the whole world in bubble wrap instead of facing problems head on and engaging in an grown up discussion.

[Maark Abbott]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 24 August 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

I find the stance confusing, and I'm not sure if I'm missing the point you're making Apt.

"I want equality, not feminism." - well given that the latter arose as a response to the lack of the former, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you want equality instead of feminism because if we actually achieve equality, feminism will no longer need to exist as a movement? I have an admitted leaning towards reading statements like that and assuming it's people throwing feminists on the "they all hate men and want inequality in the opposite direction instead of equality" pile, so I'm asking.

On this note, I do feel there needs to be accepted nomenclature between those seeking progress and those who are on the "you are man, ergo die" side of things so as not to tar the former with the latter. I'd quite happily use nutters for the latter.

[Tsundoku]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 24 August 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

"Life doesn't come with trigger warnings" - no, it doesn't. By the same token there's nothing wrong with people being given enough information about the topic of a discussion (for example) to make an informed choice about whether it's something they want to participate in. I don't see that as a problematic or difficult thing to ask for.

Of course not. By the same token, those who have a problem with that topic should also have zero rights to prevent other people from discussing it. But they insist on shutting it down because feelings. THAT'S the problem.
You don't want to participate in a polite, logical discussion, cool. There's the door. Just don't try to stop the rest of us from learning to critically examine and discuss topics as objectively and politely as possible.

Therein lies the rub: those who preach tolerance should learn what the word actually means. I'm not saying full-on hate speech and incitement to commit crime should be countenanced though. Remember that discussion of something doesn't necessarily mean promotion of it.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 24 August 2018 - 12:08 PM

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Alternative Goose, on 24 August 2018 - 11:57 AM, said:

If we take the above example, you see a lot of videos now, of students some how bullying "normies" for not being PC or woke enough. They're so intent on creating safe spaces that they become unsafe for those who don't act or look right. People who don't conform to what ever hivemind tweet that is making ways is piled on as being the scum of the earth, etc.

Maybe I am just selectively biased for negative feed back, maybe I'm just a white middle class male who doesn't understand millennials, but I feel like my inner caveman is threatened when ever people want to wrap the whole world in bubble wrap instead of facing problems head on and engaging in an grown up discussion.

Yup - those odd "extreme" examples I mentioned were along those lines, and I can't disagree with it. There's a fine line to be drawn and being miles past it to the left is no better than being miles past it to the right in terms of sensible discussion.

Maark Abbott, on 24 August 2018 - 12:00 PM, said:

On this note, I do feel there needs to be accepted nomenclature between those seeking progress and those who are on the "you are man, ergo die" side of things so as not to tar the former with the latter. I'd quite happily use nutters for the latter.

Can't disagree with this. The term has been dirtied by long association with the nutter end of the scale.

Tsundoku, on 24 August 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 24 August 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

"Life doesn't come with trigger warnings" - no, it doesn't. By the same token there's nothing wrong with people being given enough information about the topic of a discussion (for example) to make an informed choice about whether it's something they want to participate in. I don't see that as a problematic or difficult thing to ask for.

Of course not. By the same token, those who have a problem with that topic should also have zero rights to prevent other people from discussing it. But they insist on shutting it down because feelings. THAT'S the problem.
You don't want to participate in a polite, logical discussion, cool. There's the door. Just don't try to stop the rest of us from learning to critically examine and discuss topics as objectively and politely as possible.

Agreed 100%. Discussion is important whether you like the topic or not - and your dislike doesn't mean other people don't get to have the discussion. Or, it shouldn't at any rate. It's a worrying trend that it seems to do so in some cases.

Quote

Therein lies the rub: those who preach tolerance should learn what the word actually means. I'm not saying full-on hate speech and incitement to commit crime should be countenanced though. Remember that discussion of something doesn't necessarily mean promotion of it.

And again, I can't disagree. Sensible discourse really shouldn't be so rationed a commodity as it appears to have become.

EDIT: The hell is with the linebreaks???

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 24 August 2018 - 12:24 PM

[Macros]

I think it ultimately boils down to common sense being an oxymoron as I rarely seem to encounter it

[Studlock]

Tsundoku, on 24 August 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 24 August 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

"Life doesn't come with trigger warnings" - no, it doesn't. By the same token there's nothing wrong with people being given enough information about the topic of a discussion (for example) to make an informed choice about whether it's something they want to participate in. I don't see that as a problematic or difficult thing to ask for.

Of course not. By the same token, those who have a problem with that topic should also have zero rights to prevent other people from discussing it. But they insist on shutting it down because feelings. THAT'S the problem.
You don't want to participate in a polite, logical discussion, cool. There's the door. Just don't try to stop the rest of us from learning to critically examine and discuss topics as objectively and politely as possible.

Therein lies the rub: those who preach tolerance should learn what the word actually means. I'm not saying full-on hate speech and incitement to commit crime should be countenanced though. Remember that discussion of something doesn't necessarily mean promotion of it.

You aren't 'critically examining' jack shit though. You're literally repeating the same bullshit lines that millions upon millions upon millions of emotionally motivated reactionaries do, while states across the world restrict more and more rights, capitalism continues to run rampant. Like its laughable to me that you think 'PC gone wrong' is some 'polite, logical discussion' because the main format of it is youtube videos with titles like 'Blue hair feminazi SJW DESTROYED by PROUD patriot'. No one is shutting that down--in fact that form of discourse is more popular than ever, and is actively driver global politics, especially in the West, further and further into a ditch. Do you know what is the most common restricted speech on college campuses? Leftists. Far more than right-wingers, leftists professor are fired for their speech. Where is the 'PC gone mad' thread about that? You've bought so much into this false reality that you refuse to see the actually reality behind.

If you want to actually be critical, in the tradition of the humanities, you should ask yourself who is benefiting the most from this myth that our societies have gone made with 'PC culture'. You should ask yourself how this discourse supports and maintains corrosive political and social hierarchies. You should reflect on your own role in those hierarchies, and ask yourself if you're doing the right thing when you buy into the false claims as presented by obviously political motivated individuals. Y'all go on and on about university being 'challenging' and yet scoff at actually challenging ideas, like the idea of our society being built upon the bones of the oppressed. Or that we live in societies that inherently discriminate against certain groups of people, based on and justified by perceived social and biological differences. Or that to challenge those oppression, we might actually have to treat people differently, that we might actually have to directly challenge those hierarchies through specialized and specific political projects. That calling for 'equality' without first understanding how and why we are unequal isn't useful, or particular insightful, but a product of a lazy mind that doesn't want to do the work. And on, and on. I don't see much challenging or critical thought going on here--you're just repeating basic right-wing shit and pretending like its new.

As for tolerance--I've never stated I was. I am not. As with Karl Popper, I believe the solution to the paradox of tolerance is being intolerance of the intolerant. John Rawls offers a different answer--but I suggest you look up Charles W. Mills extensive body of work on deconstruction of Rawls political philosophy that places it in the material context of reality.

[rant]

Studlock, on 10 October 2018 - 01:23 AM, said:

Do you know what is the most common restricted speech on college campuses? Leftists. Far more than right-wingers, leftists professor are fired for their speech.

Hey that would be a really interesting stat/question. You have evidence, or is it more just based off your day-to-day observations (not trying to be a dick--just prefer defined methodologies to "trust me"s)?

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the white genocide guy...and AFAIK he actually resigned rather than getting fired (though he was suspended...so there were some repercussions).

[Studlock]

A study out of Georgetown, of all places, supports this. Vox has a surprisingly good right up on the subject here (https://www.vox.com/...data-georgetown). Two things become clear here: 1) punishment for speech in the USA, at the very least, is extremely rare, in numbers of raw numbers, and 2) when it does happen, it happens more often to liberal and leftists professors. Only 6 'conservative' professors have been fired for their speech since 2016. Even when compared to the relatively small number of self-identified conservatives in the academy this number is laughably small when compared to the outrage it produces. We rarely hear of the abuse, and lack of university support for liberal and leftists professors because no one who cares about this actually cares about free speech, they just care about utilizing the perceived 'discrimination' against conservatives as a way to further create reactionaries. Here's an article by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor on the inherent hypocrisy of the current view of 'PC culture gone wrong' (https://www.nytimes....wing-media.html).

And I'll restate why I think this whole fixation is both ridiculous, and politically, morally even, misguided. Neonazis, and yes fucking neonazis, are positions of power in the most powerful country on the planet. White supremacy violence is, by a very wide margin, the most common kind of politically motivated violence in North America (and probably in Europe--not up-to-date there). Imperialist bombing campaigns are happening throughout the Middle East, fueling a refugee crisis in Europe (which isn't helped by the coming climate collapse, created by Western industrialization). Reactionaries and worse are winning and you're all focused on the thing that happens so fucking rarely that it effects maybe a hundred people a year, as if it is important. It isn't, it never was, and never will be. You're being had--people on the right make massive amounts of money off of this bullshit, which then use to support actually damaging policies and political movements.