Another Example of the Insanity of PC Culture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2016, 12:48 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2016 12:53 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Another Example of the Insanity of PC Culture
(02-03-2016 07:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're assuming that they see the title as the threat, even though they and Harvard agreed it wasn't. The threat is the state of race relations in the US today. Changing titles is a way of bringing attention to the larger conversation.

You said that it was changed for fear of possibly offending someone by its use of the word master. I'm merely taking you at your word.

The idea that the conversation about race in America is helped by this seems questionable. The multiple unjustified murders of blacks by white policemen, the BlackLivesMatter movement, those have already driven the conversation far beyond this "issue" could ever hope to.

(02-03-2016 07:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Crying wolf" would require the students to be calling the titles and only the titles themselves as threats to the students and minorities. You're grossly oversimplifying this.

No, crying wolf is alerting the public to a nonexistent danger. The danger of someone getting offended by an out-of-context word in a job title is miniscule, and quite frankly such a person taking such offense strikes me as one looking to be offended (going back to my first post in this thread).

The problem with crying wolf is that when a later danger is valid, it is ignored because the complainants have lost credibility.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2016, 03:57 PM
RE: Another Example of the Insanity of PC Culture
(02-03-2016 12:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 07:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're assuming that they see the title as the threat, even though they and Harvard agreed it wasn't. The threat is the state of race relations in the US today. Changing titles is a way of bringing attention to the larger conversation.

You said that it was changed for fear of possibly offending someone by its use of the word master. I'm merely taking you at your word.

The idea that the conversation about race in America is helped by this seems questionable. The multiple unjustified murders of blacks by white policemen, the BlackLivesMatter movement, those have already driven the conversation far beyond this "issue" could ever hope to.

(02-03-2016 07:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Crying wolf" would require the students to be calling the titles and only the titles themselves as threats to the students and minorities. You're grossly oversimplifying this.

No, crying wolf is alerting the public to a nonexistent danger. The danger of someone getting offended by an out-of-context word in a job title is miniscule, and quite frankly such a person taking such offense strikes me as one looking to be offended (going back to my first post in this thread).

The problem with crying wolf is that when a later danger is valid, it is ignored because the complainants have lost credibility.

Facepalm

There is really no point going round and round. You keep claiming that they "cried wolf" when there is no reason to think that is the case. As for taking me at my word because I "said that it was changed for fear of possibly offending someone..." What I said was:
"...they were concerned about the perception of a title because of how it might be perceived and agreed that the titles were not literally tied to racism but all agreed to change the titles anyways."
And:
"The argument is that titles using the word "Master" could be conceived of us as racist or racist in origin. In this case, agreement was reached that these specific titles were not racist or racist in origin, but they (both students and the university) agreed to change the titles as part of a way of drawing attention to the conversation of racism in our cultures that persist."
And:
"They are saying it could be conceived of that way and pointing out that a change in title to prevent unintentional insult is a small change to make."


At no point can I find me having said that they changed the title over the "fear of offending someone." What I DID point out is that perception plays a role in the dialogue but that the titles were NOT changed over fear of offense.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2016, 03:59 PM
RE: Another Example of the Insanity of PC Culture
(02-03-2016 12:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 07:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're assuming that they see the title as the threat, even though they and Harvard agreed it wasn't. The threat is the state of race relations in the US today. Changing titles is a way of bringing attention to the larger conversation.

You said that it was changed for fear of possibly offending someone by its use of the word master. I'm merely taking you at your word.

The idea that the conversation about race in America is helped by this seems questionable. The multiple unjustified murders of blacks by white policemen, the BlackLivesMatter movement, those have already driven the conversation far beyond this "issue" could ever hope to.

(02-03-2016 07:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Crying wolf" would require the students to be calling the titles and only the titles themselves as threats to the students and minorities. You're grossly oversimplifying this.

No, crying wolf is alerting the public to a nonexistent danger. The danger of someone getting offended by an out-of-context word in a job title is miniscule, and quite frankly such a person taking such offense strikes me as one looking to be offended (going back to my first post in this thread).

The problem with crying wolf is that when a later danger is valid, it is ignored because the complainants have lost credibility.

"The idea that the conversation about race in America is helped by this seems questionable. The multiple unjustified murders of blacks by white policemen, the BlackLivesMatter movement, those have already driven the conversation far beyond this "issue" could ever hope to."

You might question it, but that doesn't mean its questionable. Did this get students talking about aspects of racism in America that they had probably never considered before? I'd wager money that the answer is yes for a fair number of them. Why? Because they probably don't think about the origins of terms and labels in every case. to them, there is no specific reason that any given title was chosen, but that clearly isn't true in all cases.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
02-03-2016, 06:28 PM
RE: Another Example of the Insanity of PC Culture
(02-03-2016 03:24 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The cactus is perfect because you can get a little one in a pot so it will fit up someones poop-shoot but at the same time you can use the pot to bash them over the head.

You people think I just say these things? When I say go shove a cactus up your ass I have thought this through as a plausible course of action someone needs to go take.

[Image: peral.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2016, 08:46 PM
RE: Another Example of the Insanity of PC Culture
(02-03-2016 06:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 03:24 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The cactus is perfect because you can get a little one in a pot so it will fit up someones poop-shoot but at the same time you can use the pot to bash them over the head.

You people think I just say these things? When I say go shove a cactus up your ass I have thought this through as a plausible course of action someone needs to go take.

[Image: peral.jpg]

Gasp Cactus, not Plum. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
03-03-2016, 12:57 AM
RE: Another Example of the Insanity of PC Culture
(02-03-2016 03:57 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-03-2016 12:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You said that it was changed for fear of possibly offending someone by its use of the word master. I'm merely taking you at your word.

The idea that the conversation about race in America is helped by this seems questionable. The multiple unjustified murders of blacks by white policemen, the BlackLivesMatter movement, those have already driven the conversation far beyond this "issue" could ever hope to.


No, crying wolf is alerting the public to a nonexistent danger. The danger of someone getting offended by an out-of-context word in a job title is miniscule, and quite frankly such a person taking such offense strikes me as one looking to be offended (going back to my first post in this thread).

The problem with crying wolf is that when a later danger is valid, it is ignored because the complainants have lost credibility.

Facepalm

There is really no point going round and round. You keep claiming that they "cried wolf" when there is no reason to think that is the case. As for taking me at my word because I "said that it was changed for fear of possibly offending someone..." What I said was:
"...they were concerned about the perception of a title because of how it might be perceived and agreed that the titles were not literally tied to racism but all agreed to change the titles anyways."
And:
"The argument is that titles using the word "Master" could be conceived of us as racist or racist in origin. In this case, agreement was reached that these specific titles were not racist or racist in origin, but they (both students and the university) agreed to change the titles as part of a way of drawing attention to the conversation of racism in our cultures that persist."
And:
"They are saying it could be conceived of that way and pointing out that a change in title to prevent unintentional insult is a small change to make."


At no point can I find me having said that they changed the title over the "fear of offending someone." What I DID point out is that perception plays a role in the dialogue but that the titles were NOT changed over fear of offense.

I didn't put quote marks around the phrase "fear of offending someone" because it was a paraphrase of your words ("conceived of [us] as racist or racist in origin", for instance.) I wasn't trying to say or imply you used those exact words.

I agree that there's little point to going around again on the topic; I think it's fair to say we each find the other's position unconvincing. I appreciate the generally civil tone you've brought to the table on a topic that can result in heated exchanges. And where I've departed from civility myself, I do apologize.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: