Political correctness run amok

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Jenny: You're right. I am often politically incorrect myself. In this case "muh freedumbs" is an insinuation at the education level of folks with these concerns. I didn't claim my mama taught me those things very well... Sorry if I offended. I do, however, stand by the content of the statement, that concern over political correctness (or more specifically this concept of "the PC police") in my experience appears to correlate with the angry populism associated with lower class whites who are adjusting to the reality of their current position in the new world order. Is that an offensive opinion? I guess, maybe. If we are to believe Zalo, and we consider this an "ERE safe space", then discussing these differences openly is why we're here.

I do see the danger in limiting speech in some ways. I see more danger in not limiting it in other ways. There are instances when absolute free speech is harmful to the greater good (not to mention specific individuals). Yelling "fire" in a theater comes to mind.

Perhaps the issue is I don't see the danger in the examples being posed. (I didn't read the whole thread, actually, perhaps I should.) Schools had rules about appropriate costumes when I was a kid, too, some of them (to me) sillier than others. It never bothered us and also didn't stop us from wearing what we wanted outside school. If the government starts imprisoning me (or police officers start killing me) for using certain words, then I'm concerned. Is this really a step toward that? I guess it's possible.

I certainly and emphatically agree that this is all the stuff of bread and circuses, and merely another memetic tool for the real oppressors to divide the oppressed.

ETA: Again, in my personal life (not media sensationalism), the only time I even hear the words "politically correct" it's when a generally conservative, lower class, cis-gender straight white person is complaining about someone who isn't like them, typically because those people are seeking rather simple rights, often rights already enjoyed by the complainer and his culture. For instance, if there are Asian students on a campus asking for authentic Asian food, I don't know that that's a great example of "the PC police" crushing free speech. Being forbidden from wearing certain costumes is a little bit further toward the line of censorship, but free speech is a protection that is between people and the government, not between people and every institution with which they interact; and there is broad precedent for limitations on speech in campuses and other public areas. I don't know, maybe this should concern me more than it does... it just doesn't.

[Spartan_Warrior]

After reading the whole thread, I can see there are some ridiculous examples of people finding things to be upset about (which naturally the media blows up). The concept of "cultural appropriation" in particular seems to be stretched to its absolute limit at times.

I also find myself somewhat inclined to agree with @cmonkey who noted that some of this is the result of where we are in the "Age of Decadence", as well as with @7Wannabe5 that outrage over micro-aggressions is sort of a luxury of the affluent. (I often suspect I myself have now hit "peak affluence" and sometimes invent sources of concern where there were or should be none.) @Jenny, your thoughts about being in "Yellowland" too long and looking for enemies everywhere is probably also part of why this is being made an issue.

Ultimately, what I'm trying to convey, most likely ineptly and in politically incorrect fashion, is that I think the whole issue of political correctness--whether there is too much or too little--is now overly politicized beyond all common sense. It seems to be one of the ways of dividing people along partisan lines that is particularly unrooted in concrete reality. Liberals attack conservatives and conservative values through the memetics of "social injustice", "political correctness", and "cultural appropriation" while conservatives attack liberals and liberal values through the memetics of "social justice warriors", "PC police" and, excuse my (cultural appropriation of) French, but, "muh freedumbs!"

While the reality is nobody wants to be stereotyped, nobody wants to be excluded or exploited, nobody wants their culture or belief system mocked, etc, etc. By the same token, nobody wants their personal speech limited, nobody wants to have their intentions falsely characterized, etc, etc.

So my take is that it's a silly politicized concept that we'd all be better off ignoring whenever it rears its head. "Political correctness" in its original meaning is basically commonsense respect. If someone's trying to be an asshole, they're an asshole. If they're not, they're not. Likewise, if the government is restricting Constitutionally protected free speech, that's an infringement on freedoms. If some school board or student group somewhere is doing it--well, an argument could be made, but IMO it does not rise to the same level. Beyond that, it all seems to be another avenue of partisan attacks sanctioned by the establishment (with ample fuel for both sides provided by the media) as one of the things we're allowed to fight over. Maybe that's just me carrying my hammer and seeing everything as nails.

[GandK]

Ahhhhh, old people misunderstanding everything.

...

On the specifics of costumes, the deal is to avoid perpetuating symbolic oppression. For instance, wearing a native "american" costume is just another way to show indigenous people everywhere that we as colonialists can not only use their lands to our benefit without asking, but their culture as well; it's a form of symbolic violence.

The problem with the current political correctness conversation is that it's somehow become both far too wordy and not nuanced enough.

I am of both British and Native American origin. What ethnicity am I? I appear white, but that's not the whole story. What race am I? Do I get to wear Native costume because I have the requisite bloodlines? Should I be required to explain myself for being a white girl in a headdress if I do? And if someone does take offense, whose problem is that? Mine for being insensitive to the probable conclusions and cultural sensitivities of others, or theirs for incorrectly and unjustly stereotyping me based on looks... IOW, doing to me the very thing they're pissed about other people doing in the first place?

This is part of why I'm so irritated by social justice warriors. Mixed race people (in actuality, this is everyone) don't generally have a place in the racial/cultural conversation. Admitting that we should have one means admitting that race and ethnicity are not binary or simple to deal with, socially (e.g. costumes) or politically (e.g. reparations). And all the major complainants want that black/white simplicity. Half bloods muddy the waters.

The well-meaning effort to include every marginalized group has unfortunately resulted in a pressure to pick a label....

[cmonkey]

On the specifics of costumes, the deal is to avoid perpetuating symbolic oppression.

This is not who I am, and it's not ok. Gotta say, Tigger should be pretty offended by that.

[jennypenny]

On the specifics of costumes, the deal is to avoid perpetuating symbolic oppression.

This is not who I am, and it's not ok. Gotta say, Tigger should be pretty offended by that.

Is there any way to un-see that Tigger costume?!

[BRUTE]

Is it also inoffensive for a white person to dress in blackface?

it is inoffensive to brute. why would brute give a fuck if somebody puts sharpie on their face? what's the offense? trying to look black? doesn't that imply it's offensive to be black?

brute doesn't get why oppression comes into this - yes, some black humans were/are being oppressed by some other humans, of whom some were/are white. but if a white person puts black paint on their face, how is this offensive to blacks?

[Dragline]

For the same reason Jewish people (and most other people) have a visceral negative reaction to swastikas, which prior to the 1920s were just a lucky symbol that originated in India.

Historically, white actors would don black face and then act like fools, buffoons and animals while wearing it for the purpose of generating laughter and delight in ridiculing black people because they were black and held to be inferior or even "sub-human". Cartoons from the 1930s-1950s are also emblematic of this. Blackface still carries that symbolism, which is why it is regarded as extremely bad manners even if no ill will or denigration is intended.

Humans are strongly primed with symbols from their cultural histories or collective memories, both positive and negative, through what Kahneman would identify as "System 1" heuristics. To pretend that these things don't matter or should not matter is to essentially say that "the problem with human beings is that they act like human beings", instead of working with them in the way they actually exist.

But you can also see where this breaks down -- where there is no cultural history or collective memory of the symbol having a particular meaning -- or if that meaning has disappeared with time which it often does --, but instead the meaning is being newly manufactured to claim victimhood, the whole idea becomes a parody of itself.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Dragline pretty much explained why the blackface example is offensive, and this should also explain why past/present oppression in general is (or presumably should be) a prerequisite for anything to be considered politically incorrect/cultural appropriation/etc. For any act to be politically incorrect it seems to require that in some way it serves as a reminder of a past or present injustice or oppression.

This is also why, while funny, the "this is a culture, not a costume" series rather misses the mark IMO (perhaps deliberately); with few exceptions, none of those characters represents an actual culture*, much less a culture that has actually been oppressed.

*Ironically, some of the characters that do represent a culture, like Machete, would probably be considered non-PC in and of themselves by some. (I haven't seen the movie, but I seem to recall some amount of controversy.)

[BRUTE]

To pretend that these things don't matter or should not matter is to essentially say that "the problem with human beings is that they act like human beings", instead of working with them in the way they actually exist.

instead, let's perpetuate this. great idea.

[Riggerjack]

I find political correctness offensive. Cuz mah freedums.

Specifically, I find it offensive that someone is trying to impose the rules and behaviors of children, on adults. Hall monitoring should stop in elementary school.

You have no authority over my speach. None. Ever.

There may be consequences to my speach. If that is the case, I will face them. Nobody has the right to silence me for their comfort. Everyone has the right to leave/avoid me/shout me down. To imply that I don't have the responsibility for my actions, is to deny my freedom to act, to try to relegate me to the status of dependant, a child. I will not subrogate my will to comply with the rulings of a Hall monitor.

This is important, because these "students" who are so afraid of ideas/speach/images/ideas will eventually be coworkers, supervisors, or, most likely, HR directors.

The pattern of this that I object to, is that someone finds something to be "offended" by, and then all progress of the organization must stop, and address this potentially offensive issue. How can this behavior lead to good things for society? How can such childish behavior be tolerated, and still team goals be achieved? This places "being offended" at the top of the list of problems to solve.

I don't espouse offending anyone, for any reason, but I am aware that it is an inevitable result of people with differing views/opinions/values interacting.

How is someone supposed to learn to respect other cultures if nobody is allowed to be exposed to other cultures? The disabled kids shouldn't have a stretching class for fear that someone will lose respect for yoga?

Trump 2016 in chalk on a wall, is Not the same as spray painted swastikas. If your problem can be solved by rain, maybe it should be solved by rain, or get a hose. Or chalk!

I'm trying to keep other cultures from the raw power my white trash culture is hoarding. Seriously? This is simply trying to shame anyone with a critical thought. If I think we gain thru diversity of thinking, I must be a racist. Ignorant. Threatened by the rise in power of the (insert sympathetic cause here).

I object to the preaching of intolerance. The fact that they preach intolerance, and call it tolerance, just adds an Orwellian twist that doesn't improve the flavor.

[Riggerjack]

For the record, I approve of kids being the force of progressive thought. Hell, that's when you should be progressive, before being exposed to the real world, and how badly the results of progressive thought go sideways with unintended consequences. I approve of protests in colleges. I think that progressives have made a lot of good contributions to society. And that society is moving in that direction, and this is good.

What I don't want to see, is censorship, victim culture, or shaming/bullying of those with minority opinions. That is the political correctness that raises my hackles.

[jacob]

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain more than one thought without accepting it.

Therefore, universities should by definition and construction be the last place where "safe spaces" and similar anti-intellectual ideas are entertained. They're supposed to be spaces where disagreements are solved intellectually. It seems that they're increasingly not. Perhaps this is part of the fourth turning. Intellectuals are also the first to get shut down when there's a rapid change in values. The western world is currently cycling through a period of increased fascism, so maybe that explains the desire to put in top-down restrictions "for the greater "corporate(*) good".

(*) Which in this case doesn't mean "business" but is to be taken in its contextual/political meaning.

I've also noticed that these disagreements are somewhat explainable if people are assigned to three stages for a given cause, X:
1) X is commonly and unquestionably accepted. The pre-X stage.
2) X is controversial with lines sharply drawn up. This stage is where the particular X-ism typically gets named.
3) X is commonly believed to be only of historic interest. The post-X stage.

The dynamics of the disagreement happens when people belonging to different stages interact and meet. In that case, there's a kind of Wheaton-like social dynamics going on. Except in this case it's circular! Anyone both too far ahead and too far behind is considered to be some kind of insensitive/clueless neanderthal(*) incapable of contextual reference. Hence, much disagreement ensues.

(*)

[BRUTE]

You have no authority over my speach. None. Ever.

speech

[BRUTE]

Therefore, universities should by definition and construction be the last place where "safe spaces" and similar anti-intellectual ideas are entertained. They're supposed to be spaces where disagreements are solved intellectually.

schools and universities are day care for humans who haven't joined the work force and those who never will (i.e. professors and teachers).

[Spartan_Warrior]

Therefore, universities should by definition and construction be the last place where "safe spaces" and similar anti-intellectual ideas are entertained. They're supposed to be spaces where disagreements are solved intellectually.

schools and universities are day care for humans who haven't joined the work force and those who never will (i.e. professors and teachers).

Exactly! I find the outrage over dress codes at university and the allusions to fascism a little much considering every one here bows (or bowed) your heads to the almighty dress code at your fascist jobs, too, right? If I wore an inappropriate costume to work I'd be in trouble there, too. You do not and have never had free speech outside of your relationship with the government itself. In other words, the only consequence of free speech from which you are (supposedly, lol) protected is arrest and prosecution. Other consequences between you and private entities, like at schools, or jobs, can remain very much in play with no infringement to anyone's rights. If anything, rules like that on a campus strike me as serving to indoctrinate--sorry, train kids for their future wage slave existences, which is the actual goal of most edumacation in this country anyway--nothing to do with intellectualism. Can we even call this a new trend? If this is fascism, it's been here quite a while, IMO. Maybe this is just a new place for it.

Also, I seem to be out of the loop on this issue (I've certainly never been in a safe space), but are we sure that safe spaces AREN'T "spaces where disagreements are solved intellectually"? According to Zalo, they are intended for just that, akin to what's happening in this thread. (Perhaps this is semantic, as it would seem the general "PC culture" is separate from the concept of "safe space", with the former being more ubiquitous and the latter being a designated zone and/or student group.)

[jennypenny]

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a young San Francisco native and Berkeley grad upon me moving to the Bay Area. Paraphrasing her (and spoken without a scent of irony): "I love San Francisco. It's the most diverse, inclusive, and tolerant city, and everyone is welcome. Well, unless you're Republican or Christian. In which case, GTFO. You don't belong here."

Article from the Yale News: Election 2016: Conservative Views Considered Unwelcome at Yale

"Despite ongoing campus discussions about free speech, Yale remains deeply unwelcoming to students with conservative political beliefs, according to a News survey distributed earlier this month."

This is why people don't want to be lectured by the same people about not being PC enough.

[TopHatFox]

micro-aggressions is sort of a luxury of the affluent.

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.

The larger systematic consequences of the aggregate of these micro-aggressions include a large percentage of black people being incarcerated in prisons (a large percentage of those for minor possession of weed), black people having less access to education, black people growing up in low-income, low-opportunity neighborhoods, and more. There's something to be said for personal initiative and resilience, but a systematic starting point that is much lower than everybody elses definitely requires more personal initiative to overcome.

Personally, I do not think race is real--meaning physiologically different enough to matter--but I definitely do think racism--and ultimately, prejudice, discrimination, and racial violence--is very real (as in, statistically significant).

------------------------------

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

All of that said, there is certainly a spectrum of camps in the so-called "politically correct movement". I do think it can be taken too far. For example, when thinking about systematic inequality causes groups to think of themselves as victims without agency, or if it causes permanent segregation between groups, I think this line of thinking does more of a disservice than anything else. The point of thinking about systematic inequality is to work toward more people's needs being met. A minority of people owning the majority of the wealth comes to mind. (Yes, ERE and MMM are things pretty much anybody in a developed nation can do, but only a tiny minority will. I don't think it's a stretch to say that usually it's the people with greater levels of opportunity, education, a stable family, and other benefits).

On safe spaces, I believe they can be a designated closed meeting for the minority group in question to talk with only people that share their identity. This is the point where the allies of that minority identity are asked to acknowledge the fact that they can never emphasize with the affected group's position, and let them deliberate for that set time and space. So for instance, it could be a closed group of undocumented migrants talking about how to overcome illegality together. Having a documented person in that closed space could be problematic at best.

On the media, it does a absolute shit job at accurately representing the movements currently being discussed and pushed forward on college campuses. It does this intentionally. From what I've seen, the media thrives off of controversy between liberals and conservatives. One can usually tell by the headline if the article is using the issue for views and ad revenue or not. This practice is damaging to the validity of movements, even if does increase their notoriety (for better or usually worse). As George Carlin astutely said: "think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that". Just take a look at the comments section of any mainstream media article to have some proof for that statement.

-------------------------------

A question to prod home with: is it a coincidence that the majority of the people on this board, on MMMs board, and in most personal finance spaces are white (or white-passing), and male?

[BRUTE]

"race" as a biological concept is indeed not "real", and has long been dropped from the professional conversation. it simply is too arbitrary. there are no hard and fast biological markers that makes up what humans consider a "race" - they're just clusterings of geno/phenotypes.

any human who believes in "race" should go visit Brazil, and observe a 6ft girl with black skin, and bright blue almond eyes. unlike the US, Brazil never forbade marriage and sex between different "races" (=skin colors), so they're mixed through thoroughly. and what a sight it is to behold

brute whole-heartedly approves of genetic mixing.

brute also agrees that there are terrible systemic disadvantages that affect black (and some latino) humans, especially in the "justice" system.

the whole idea of privilege seems to be that anyone not affected or less affected by systemic prejudice is at fault for it. with this, brute disagrees. one, it's not true. two, it's counter productive.

in order to get rid of systemic prejudice, showing that it exists is necessary. but how is blaming it on an entire population of humans, who happen to not suffer from it, going to solve the problem? all that happens is that these humans now feel alienated and sometimes threatened by the privilege-accuser. instead of joining the cause or having an open mind, they will now shut down and either do their best to ignore the cause, or even become hostile to it ("reverse racism").

having a "latino lounge" or "black club" on campus is fine. but increasingly, students protest to have comedians or other speakers banned from the entire campus, making it impossible for the 90% of students who are NOT "threatened" or "triggered" by edgy jokes to listen to the speaker. this is also happening to curriculums. it's one thing to be safe, it's another to threaten others with "feeling unsafe". it's the difference between disallowing yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and policing everyone's political opinion on grounds that many remember a fire when they hear "Trump".

as for Olaz' last question, it's not a coincidence. Olaz will observe a huge part of the FI crowd are white male computer programmers. are programmers privileged? brute thinks it's more an overlap of habits, interests, and skills.

to program computers for a living, humans have to be slightly autistic. sitting in front of a box for 40 hours a week and think about logical structures and program flow isn't something most humans would enjoy or want to sustain. computer programmers are typically socially awkward, somewhat loners, like to stay indoors, and spend time with their hobbies. they're not very integrated into society, and therefore don't necessarily suffer all the societal pressures to buy a McMansion, drive a new BMW, and so on. they have grown up doing their own thing, often alone or in small groups of similar minded humans.

in addition, computer programmers right now have a somewhat unique position in that it's a well-paying job that comes without any of the typical societal "obligations" that lawyers, doctors, and so on have. no wearing suits, no going to dinner parties, shaving not necessary, status is dished out by nerdy standards, not by who has the biggest car or the fanciest dinners.

but is this privilege?

to brute, it feels more like a curse that happens to be of great value in a niche market, in this very specific time period. anywhere from 2000 BC to 1980 AD, these humans would've been considered losers. somehow, since then, this autistic ability to focus on very abstract things for long periods of time, has become valuable.

brute would say this is definitely a thing that male humans have more. male humans decide that they'll spend their lives doing silly shit like becoming professional players of ball games, climb high mountains, or ride their bicycles very fast. it seems males are more often able to "cut lose" from society and its pressures.

and sure, white people in the US do not suffer from much systematic prejudice like blacks and latinos do. then again, neither do most asians. 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?

[GandK]

@BRUTE

Outstanding post.

[7Wannabe5]

BRUTE said: to program computers for a living, humans have to be slightly autistic. sitting in front of a box for 40 hours a week and think about logical structures and program flow

Chicken or the egg? Back in the olden days, when I studied FORTRAN, I had to go down into a sub-sub-basement laboratory, with cinder-block walls and fluorescent lighting, to work on my programs, and every time I emerged from that environment and looked at myself in the mirror in the only bathroom for females in the building, I noticed that my appearance had become remarkably un-prettier.