Political correctness run amok

[TopHatFox]

so is the best use of time really to yell at the white/asian people, or should it be spent on removing the systemic prejudice against blacks and latinos?

I think our ideas agree. The point is to remove systematic prejudice, discrimination, etc. against black, Latinos, and other currently disadvantaged and underrepresented groups. White guilt or shaming is not helpful; it's counterproductive because it takes the attention away from actually meeting the needs of all people in a population. Acknowledging history is only useful if it helps make the current and future iteration of society more just and equitable for all.

I'm in the part of the PC spectrum that is fine with politically incorrect comedians or unpopular opinions being presented on campus, though I do prefer it if their opinions are based on evidence rather than emotional arguments. For instance, climate deniers are really annoying people to be on campus, because they shift the attention away from solving climate change back to questioning its existence--which has already been proven to be 99% true.

On free speech, it's legal and should be encouraged, but with great freedom comes great responsibility. I would appreciate it if people took ownership of the consequences of saying potentially racist, sexist, or other ignorant statements. For instance, Trump essentially saying "boy's will be boy's" in a national election is problematic because it condones and likely perpetuates sexual disrespect of women by men from top-down leadership to the millions of Americans that vote for him.

[jennypenny]

From what I understand (I can't represent my entire age cohort, so please continue doing your own research too ya'll), micro-aggressions are not necessarily a topic of interest for wealthy people to discuss, as much as they are a subtle indicator of underlying systematic problems in the way our country and culture are run. For instance, I remember watching a video where a black person wearing a suit in NY was treated about as equally as a white person wearing casual clothing, and a black person wearing the same casual clothing was treated worse than when the white person wore them (the venues were at a bus stop, the cash register at shops, when talking with strangers, etc.). The inherent message in this specific micro-aggression is that there tends to be a culture of thinking white-appearing people are more trustworthy and upstanding than black-appearing people. ...

All of this can be applied similarly to issues of trans identities, queer identities, women, POCs, migrants, and other systematically disadvantaged groups.

I won't argue with any of that. I've often thought the same myself regarding Mark Zuckerberg and his basement-dweller attire. Would Sheryl Sandberg be COO of FB if she wore the same clothing? Of course not.

That said, I think you're underestimating the vehemence of the current PC movement, particularly on campuses. It goes beyond a desire to stamp out so-called micro-aggressions to the point of retaliatory prejudice. There's a difference between wanting to create a more equal society and wanting to exact retribution from the perceived offenders. Social justice has transformed into retributive justice, and when most SJWs act more like RJWs, they come across as hypocritical for exhibiting behavior similar to that which they are criticizing. The most disturbing part to me is that institutions built on a foundation of open and free speech are now using anti-discrimination ferver as an excuse to silence opposing viewpoints. It's inherently hypocritical and will lower the intellectual quality of those institutions and their students, not to mention the Orwellian effect it is having on the country.*

*To be fair, the Patriot Act, NSA, et al, has done just as much to chill free speech. It's frightening that both ends of the political spectrum are unknowingly(?) colluding to suppress free thought and speech.

[TopHatFox]

Yeah, to be honest, I've seen the nasty side of social justice too. At the campus's most tense point, some of my friends at Hampshire College (one of the most progressive/liberal colleges in the whole country) literally felt uncomfortable leaving their dormitories in fear of being called out and outed from the community as any "-ist".

I think the crux of the PC movement is that it absolutely needs to come with a healthy dose of forward thinking, forgiveness, and kindness.When it's not the case, I tend to leave. Although I understand where the idea is coming from, retributive justice does not seem useful to apply because what happened in the past is a sunk cost that should not solely determine the best course of action in the present. I'm hoping the edge of the PC movement matures into greater forgiveness, greater understanding of both sides, and societal problem solving over time.

[jennypenny]

I think the crux of the PC movement is that it absolutely needs to come with a healthy dose of forward thinking, forgiveness, and kindness. When it's not the case, I tend to leave.

Agreed. I have the same feelings about some in the Christian community when they use the Bible as a club instead of a guide.

[BRUTE]

Chicken or the egg?

yes

[jennypenny]

Jonathan Haidt discussing PC culture on college campuses ... Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice

[jacob]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... -stifling/

I never thought of it this way (damnit!)... but in retrospect, people become much easier to grok if their motivation is just to parrot politically correct verbiage.

[Dragline]

Oh, its been obvious for some time now. Code words are code words, whether you call them code words or dog-whistles. They are all designed to signal belonging and conforming to a shared set of values or beliefs. ("One of us".)

I prefer to call it reverse-elitism, though, because its largely just a mimetic rival to PC Culture with its own preferred language, articles of faith and sources of information. If they can do it, why can't we just copy them in reverse and have our own club? All we need to do is see what they say, like and do and say that's bad/wrong/immoral/whatever.

The article captures the basic reverse-elitist talking points, with the exception of the trivial references to insufficiently anti-elite Republicans as "RINOs" and using "Democrat" as an adjective instead of the grammatically correct "Democratic" (especially funny when you see Ivy-league educated politicians and commentators signalling that way as if they somehow forgot to speak as they were taught).

[jennypenny]

Berkeley cancelled a speech by Richard Dawkins over concerns of hateful speech towards Islam. This might be moment where the PC movement jumps the shark.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/us/r ... keley.html

[BRUTE]

Dawkins is not nearly mainstream enough in brute's opinion to make a big splash. humans don't care about angry atheists. Ann Coulter was probably a more mainstream human to be excluded.

[jennypenny]

Dawkins is well-known (and loved) in academia. That's what surprised me about this. It's one thing for Berkeley to deny anyone considered a Trump supporter since they have taken an anti-fascism stance, but Dawkins is one of their own so to speak. His credentials should get him onto any college campus.

It's a weird day when I'm defending Dawkins but I am ... IMO it's a very bad sign that he's not being allowed to speak.

[Dragline]

I think what happens at Berkeley stays at Berkeley. Maybe he can cop an invitation to Liberty U or Oral Roberts, though.

If you want to see what's really going on here, pull up left-wing media stories about Liberty and compare them with right-wing media stories about Berkeley. (You can substitute other college names in). Its the same story with different names and the same headline -- "Can you believe . . ." It's quite mimetic.

These stories actually have little to do with the vast majority of the students attending Liberty or Berkeley, who are just there to get ahead, and everything to do with pushing a story to an audience eager to confirm that the world is ending due to what is going on on some college campus that they have never been to.

[BRUTE]

probably true. but it seems that on both sides, the fringes have taken over a surprising number of institutions.

[Dragline]

Yes, people are raising their children differently than they used to, so they demand different things from their institutions than people did in the past. And institutions change in response. It's a terrible, horrible thing. Probably the worst thing that ever happened.

Why don't we just cut this off at the source and monitor parenting more closely to make sure there is no politically correct wrong-thinking going on in American homes? Or maybe just issue licenses after requiring anyone who wants to have children to take a test to make sure they are not too "politically correct" (which means whatever you want anymore) in the minds of a self-selected review board?

Then we can rescue our beleaguered institutions from the fringey hordes that are taking them over. And restore them to their Golden Era Ivory Tower-ness of Yore. Just a modest proposal.

[BRUTE]

Dragline's modest proposal sounds like a ton of work. brute will instead enjoy the decline, and watch it all burn.

[slowtraveler]

I did not know that political correctness was a thing until South Park made a season about it. Halfway through I decided to Google "PC define" and realized some people care about this but I still haven't seen this much in real life.

Sounds like people attacking free speech through fear again...

[Kriegsspiel]

Dragline's modest proposal sounds like a ton of work. brute will instead enjoy the decline, and watch it all burn.

Buuurn, baby burn.

[NPV]

Have I missed something or has this not been posted here yet?

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/excl ... at-google/

[Spartan_Warrior]

@NPV: That poor little snowflake! I can only shudder at the thought of how tough his life must be as a straight white male Google engineer. Of course he shouldn't be "silenced and shamed" by our politically correct "shaming culture" just for using company resources to punch down at underpaid women and minority co-workers in a ten-page manifesto of weird 1950s-era pseudo-psychology and libertarian raving about "de-emphasizing empathy". It's downright unimaginable that such actions would have consequences in the workplace or anywhere else in this upstanding fellow's life! He's had it rough enough. I mean isn't hurting his feelings the real oppression?

ETA: Seriously, I can't get over this. Why would libertarians like himself be upset if he did get fired? Aren't Google's hiring--and firing--practices a "voluntary" arrangement? Why would he even complain about their discrimination policies to begin with? Shouldn't libertarians like him "respect authority"? (He claims so himself, somewhere around what would be page 4 I guess.) Especially the authority of a huge corporation, right? And aren't Google's policies literally "the free market's solution"?

Haha, this gift keeps giving. Thanks for sharing. Classic!

[Dragline]

First rule about being a grunt-level at-will employee: Do not badmouth employer in widely disseminated screeds. Take it inside or take it to a lawyer if you suspect illegality.

Are you listening, Olaz? (Yes, I know your screed would be quite different if you had one.)