Political correctness?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2017, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2017 04:31 PM by Vera.)
RE: Political correctness?
(02-06-2017 03:39 PM)Dr H Wrote:  That we should legally curtail everyone's liberty, because some people happen to be assholes?

Do you even KNOW how SOCIETIES work or are you too busy getting a hardon from hearing yourself speak to give a fuck? Or to stop and think before you start bloviating?

Facepalm

I get it, we shouldn't curtail people's liberty to kill and steal, either, I guess.

Fucking hell! Where did all those creeps crawl out of all of a sudden!

Facepalm

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2017, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2017 04:53 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Political correctness?
Respectfully, I'm not sure WTF you're talking about, Dr. H.

There's no attempt by anyone, as far as I am aware, to make any form of PC speech policing into statute/law. The only thing that is legislated into statute is speech that is threatening or designed to place a person in a state of fear-- assault. Every version of that statute (including Hate Speech aggravated-sentencing laws) I have ever seen requires that a prosecutor convince the jury that the person had the intent to cause harm with their speech, to place the victim into a state of fear. If I call you and tell you I'm going to stalk and kidnap your children, I deserve to be in jail, because no "reasonable person" (the laws' wording) would take that as anything but a threat that would place you into a state of fear.

I suspect that very few people, even among the most ardent free speech proponents, would object to such laws.

What is happening with "PC speech" is a push-back by people of empathy against those who think it's okay to use whatever speech they want without repercussion-- social repercussion. There's no law anywhere that says I can't call someone the N-word, yet you almost never hear it anymore. Why? Because enough people of good will stood up and said "you need to stop that right now, you asshole". That's what "PC" is, and that's what is at the root of almost every complaint I have ever seen against "PC" advocates; they think they should be able to slur anyone for being different from the majority, using whatever pejoratives they choose, without being called out on it.

Do I think that some of the extremists go too far? Sure. I think "cultural appropriation" is utter bullshit, especially in the United States where almost literally every type of (good) food, music, and style is heavily, heavily influenced by the fusion of various cultures, here in the great melting pot. For instance, "Cajun" food does not actually belong to us, but is a combination of old-world French cooking (butter, roux, minced onions/garlic/peppers) and techniques with Native American ingredients/recipes (tribes they met upon moving to south Louisiana) and Afro-Caribbean spices and recipes (where many of us stopped after expulsion from Acadia, what is now Nova Scotia, before finding a new homeland in Louisiana). The result of that three-way "appropriation" is spectacular. Best food on earth, in my opinion. The same is true for almost literally every other "American" food, from hotdogs to pizzas.

And where in the world would music today be without the "appropriation" of Jazz/Blues and Rock & Roll from African-American culture? I shudder to think what the world would be like today if everyone wrote off white artists who recorded and popularized the music of black artists, like Elvis with Big Mama Thornton's song "Hound Dog". And sooo many more. If not for those early "appropriations", would the Beatles have ever existed? On and on it goes.

Sorry if anyone is against appropriation, but I think it's a ridiculous argument to claim that something "belongs" to one particular culture and is immune to use by another. If the best Cajun food cook on earth is from Beijing, then I want to eat at her restaurant!

What's not okay is using "Coonass" (a hurtful nickname, originally a strong racial pejorative used against Cajuns, that we occasionally call one another as a joke, somewhat akin to how gay people sometimes refer to one another as "fag" or black people use the N-word among themselves, yet which remain painful when directed at either group by outsiders) as a derogatory term when talking to me, or to let someone get away with doing it when they know it would not be okay with me.

That's not PC, that's basic human decency. I just don't see "I have a right to free speech" as a defense against treating other human beings like shit for who they are, as opposed to criticizing their ideas or actions.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-06-2017, 05:04 PM
RE: Political correctness?
(02-06-2017 04:50 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  There's no attempt by anyone, as far as I am aware, to make any form of PC speech policing into statute/law.

Actually, in Canada, there is.

There's an amendment that's been put forth in Bill C-16. The amendment reads,
Quote:This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

In short, you can be charged with a federal offence if you do not call someone by their preferred gender identity (or non-identity). It could be a criminal action to call someone "him" or "her" if that person would prefer zie or zim or ey or ve... there's a long, long list that's growing all the time.

There's already a law in New York State outlining fines if you do not call someone by their preferred pronoun. Seriously. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo...eccb6b5097
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2017, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2017 05:38 PM by Vera.)
RE: Political correctness?
Even if all of the above is true (and that's a BIG if), it is still light years better than the alternative. But hey, they had true freedom, back in those glorious, glorious days, when men were men and people could say whatever the hell they pleased and no fucking government could tell them what to do, gawd damn them all!

[Image: lynchinglg%2Bwaco2a.jpg]

[Image: Lynching_of_Laura_Nelson%2C_May_1911.jpg]

[Image: 1375925_231586936999099_674623267_n.jpg?...;amp;h=300]

[Image: Lynching_of_six_African-Americans_in_Lee...6.tiff.png]

And she, she's just an innocent little girl, isn't she?

[Image: bc314dfbb9236740eb187b817ec32c5b.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2017, 05:26 PM
RE: Political correctness?
(02-06-2017 04:20 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(02-06-2017 09:33 AM)tomilay Wrote:  I see "free speech" proponents as having a tendency to favor of speech that might offend minorities. You rarely see those suspects supporting the actions of someone like Colin Kaepernick. In fact they find his actions offensive. It's not rocket science to figure out what their beef is.

You see all free-speech proponents as a single, homogenous, monolithic group?

Speech is either free, or it isn't. There's no such thing as "partly free speech".

No. Tendency is the operative term. They tend to be heavily represented among a group with certain grievances. Alt-right. The Ann Coulters. There are exceptions. But anti-PC is reliably just a PC term for something else.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tomilay's post
02-06-2017, 05:29 PM
RE: Political correctness?
(02-06-2017 05:22 PM)Vera Wrote:  Even if all of the above is true (and that's a BIG if), it is still light years better than the alternative. But hey, they had true freedom, back in those glorious, glorious days, where men were men and people could say whatever the hell they pleased and no fucking government could tell them what to do, gawd damn them all!




Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
02-06-2017, 05:34 PM
RE: Political correctness?
Indeed, unfogged, indeed. Thought about posting it but am so revolted right now...

Some people will never leave the caves and the tribal mentality of us and them. I would pity them, if they weren't making the world so much more difficult to live in for all the DECENT people, who possess at least a semblance of human empathy.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2017, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2017 06:43 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Political correctness?
(02-06-2017 05:04 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Actually, in Canada, there is.

There's an amendment that's been put forth in Bill C-16. The amendment reads,
Quote:This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

In short, you can be charged with a federal offence if you do not call someone by their preferred gender identity (or non-identity). It could be a criminal action to call someone "him" or "her" if that person would prefer zie or zim or ey or ve... there's a long, long list that's growing all the time.

There's already a law in New York State outlining fines if you do not call someone by their preferred pronoun. Seriously. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo...eccb6b5097

That's not what either of those laws say. Either you did not read closely, or you misunderstood them.

The Canadian law is a sentence-enhancement law (of the sort I mentioned), which requires proof that the person's actions against the individual were motivated by their hatred of that group. Evidence of that can include speaking to them in a particular way. For instance, if a white guy beats up a black guy, it's not necessarily a hate crime... but if he's yelling the N-word while punching him, it's a pretty good bet that it's a hate crime, and that enhances the sentence. Rightfully so.

The New York law, according to the article, is about landlords, employers, and people with whom you have a business relationship, if they are clearly abusive in their refusal to treat you as you want to be treated, creating a hostile business relationship. Quote:

Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.


The article then goes on to whine about being "forced" to treat people with respect, in a surprisingly similar tone of voice, so to speak, to the stuff I used to hear my grandparent's generation whine about when discussing the fact that black people could no longer be legally treated badly by public businesses, landlords, etc.

None of that is an infringement on what an individual can say or think, only on how they must be treated in public accommodations. This is hardly a new area of law, but rather just a new type of person who falls under the umbrella of "you may not legally treat them the way you want to treat them, you bigoted fuck".

My question for you is why do you think landlords, businesses, etc., should be able to be disrespectful to trans* persons?

I will, of course, freely admit my mistake if you furnish an example of public, individual speech being legislated against.

Edit to Add: Think of it like this. There's no law saying that I can't refer to women on the street as "toots" or "babydoll". It makes me a creepy jerk, if I do so, but it's not illegal. However, if I do this in a public work environment, I can (rightfully) be sued under statute, for creating a hostile work environment. There's nothing inherently wrong with the words "toots" or "babydoll", except that they are blatantly disrespectful to the women being called that, in those situations, and their right to be at work without being harassed outweighs the right of anyone to say anything they want. So the question we're really addressing here is "why do you think it should be different for trans* people?"

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-06-2017, 07:45 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2017 07:54 PM by Heath_Tierney.)
RE: Political correctness?
Bill C-16 is not yet law (as far as I know - it's been through committee but not yet received third reading or Royal Assent) so there hasn't been any prosecutions referring to the gender-pronoun issue.

Here's a video of some of the discussions at the Senate Committee by Dr Jordan Peterson of University of Toronto. Not my video but well worth a look. It's about 20 minutes long and is primarily focused on Peterson and a solicitor.

One quote from Peterson which I think is worth consideration: "The danger that's intrinsic to the law far outweighs whatever potential benefit it might produce especially given that there's no hard evidence for any benefit." (Starting at 1:30 in the video.)



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2017, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2017 08:07 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Political correctness?
Is he high?

On what possible planet could adding people who have been telling us for decades that they're endlessly harassed and discriminated against, to the point that their demographic has extraordinarily high suicide rates and other social problems as a result of that harassment, to already-existing discrimination laws be something we can call "has no hard evidence" for a benefit, especially before such legislation is even passed?

But the quote of his you mention is in answer to a question of why should professors (since he is one) not be required to speak to their trans* students by the gender pronoun of their preference. The answer of his you cite isn't even an answer, but a dodge. He offers only a giant red herring of an argument about "respect is earned by reciprocal interactions", from a position of neutrality, and that a law's good intentions do not necessarily equate to good outcomes. I cannot think of a greater red herring to offer on that issue.

He then goes on to give "evidence" in the form of "thirty letters" he claims he has received from trans* people that says they don't want such protections, while ironically claiming that the people who are pushing the legislation are unable to speak on behalf of the trans* community (as if the 30 trans people, assuming the letter-writers exist in the first place, ARE qualified to speak on behalf of the trans* community). It's another red herring.

That's what made me think he was high... because otherwise, he simply didn't understand the question, or worse, was deliberately obfuscating. The issue is not whether a person respects the trans* student in the way he's discussing, but whether they are allowed to overtly disrespect the trans* student by defying their request to use the correct pronouns for their identity.

Think of how well you might do in a class where you were constantly and deliberately referred to as "Miss", "Ma'am", etc., because that professor held an inherent dislike of men and refused to address you properly. Now imagine that was the norm in society. Think it might affect your performance? Your willingness to push on and assert yourself in class? You see the problem?

I had to stop watching the video after just two segments. The man clearly had no intention of honestly addressing the issues presented to him, and I doubt he would have anything useful to say on the subject, if I continued watching.

(By the way, the video says it was "subsequently" passed, without amendment.)]

Edit to Add: I ask your patience if I seem a little harsh about this subject, or a little bit short-tempered. I work every single week with trans* persons, and have for the past almost 20 years, as part of an organization for which I volunteer. If you had ever heard a tiny fraction of the horror stories I've heard from them, you'd never support a man who speaks as he does. I suspect if that professor really knew 30 trans* people, he'd speak very differently about the subject, and wouldn't act like accommodating such a basic request for decent treatment-- or at least, an absence of mistreatment-- is some infringement on his life or upon society.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: