Compare it to the Right-Wing “PC” of the mandatory daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Wake me when Liberal “PC” gets to the point of mandatory daily loyalty oaths.
The concept of “political correctness” is not new, and predates the birth of the grandparents of anyone reading this forum. All that changes is WHAT is politically correct.
Today, as it happens, “political correctness” leans towards the avoidance of personal offense on the basis of group identification. Frankly, as waves of PC go, this is one of the lighter ones in all the history of English discourse.
Sometimes it isn’t very different, although for the most part the flak I catch in here is not due to violating unspoken rules about Stuff That Can’t Be Said.
One of us is clearly missing the other one’s point. It may be me. Be patient with me and explain, if you would, why the above questions are not a complete and utter non sequitur? I did not say anything awful had happened to me as a result of the “PC police”. I said “I hate that shit”.
I have in fact been banned from a Facebook group for genderqueer individuals for stepping over one of those lines, and have been shunned in some lefty-liberal social-justice local orgs …but that’s about the worst of it.
Are you, in some fashion, trying to assert that no one should complain about the irritating blinders-on we-don’t-need-to-think behaviors of some people in (theoretically) socially progressive (hence theoretically) socially conscious thoughtful circles unless we’re being arrested, beaten up, & otherwise mistreated on the scale of societal oppressions?
As in “PC police bullshit may be annoying but hey it isn’t as bad as oppression so shut your mouth” ???
Is that our social-radical version of “my country, right or wrong”? We’re not supposed to criticize our own internal intolerances?
I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, monstro. I mind people labeling me “wrong-headed” on the basis of a phrase or on the basis of a perspective or opinion that has been blindly associated with some kind of oppressive agenda, and then refusing to consider the possibility that anything else could have been going on there.
If I am not supposed to wake you until things get that bad, you must not have much interest in our side being any less culpable of oppression than theirs. Is that really the approach you want to go with here?
I’m far more inclined to attempt to wake you when liberal “PC” gets to within 1/1000th as bad as the problems that social-justice and liberation movements are attempting to fix. Because that’s plenty bad enough and worrisome enough.
And by the time it really did get that bad, you would, pretty much by definition, be part of the problem, not the solution, and waking you would be indistinguishable from the task of waking up the rest of the apathetic herds.
One one thousandth? Pfah! If liberal offenses are only one one thousandth as bad as conservative offenses (and I don’t actually believe that; I’d say my side is around one twentieth as bad as their side) then I’m content to nap.
Seriously: show me even one liberal “PC” offense that is as intrusive and offensive as the mandatory daily pledge of allegiance. You can’t; there aren’t any. And it’s still going on today, in total rejection (nullification!) of the Supreme Court’s ruling!
Sure.
But this thread is about strident Political Correctness leading to injustice.
The “niggardly” case and this are cut-and-dry examples of the above. Acknowledge that PC culture can run amok and we’re square.
But I asked if there were good examples of people being victimized by PC police that are akin to the kinds of incidents frequently relayed by victims of racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc… I thought you were addressing that question. Were you?
I’m not discounting your feelings towards the kind of people you bump heads with. I’m sure they ARE annoying. But how does their annoyingness differ from the annoyingness of the jackasses that populate all social media, including this board? I’ve been called a “racist” here because of my views. But again, I don’t think that makes me a victim. I consider it the price you have to pay to express an unpopular opinion.
I was once banned from a subreddit because my opinion was taken the wrong way. It hurt to be banned. But I attributed the whole thing to a jackass moderator, not to “PCness.” And nothing’s stopping me from starting my own subreddit for people who share my views.
Sure, in the sense that kittens can run amok.
Back in 2012, sex-positive feminist vlogger Laci Green ended up being forced to stop videos for a bit because in one of her videos that was years old at that point, she had used the term “tranny”, not realizing it was a pejorative.
The thing is, when informed about it, she immediately apologized and took the old video down, but the internet mob was already fired up about her being transphobic and mass sent her death threats, including at least one person doxxing her and sending her a picture of her apartment building.
There was also Jeph Jacques, writer of the webcomic Questionable Content which is generally pretty progressive, who has a character named Marigold who is a bit overweight. There was one strip where she was in a swimsuit and one of the other characters comments that she looks fine (because she’s nervous about being in it due to her wait). Activists flipped their shit because, uh… he didn’t draw her as fat enough for them, and he has noted problems with depression. He ended up getting drunk because of the flood of abuse and ended up stabbing his hand with a knife.
Some of that is his own mental issues and bad choices in getting drunk due to depression, but that sort of shit still isn’t cool.
There are a few more instances I can think of, but the more interesting thing is that pretty much every example I can think of about the “PC Police” causing actual harm have far more to do with leftists cannibalizing our own far more than causing harm to more overt racists/sexists/etc. It’s largely a problem on the internet, however. It’s also a problem that I’m not alone in noting (she writes a bit too flowery for my tastes, but it’s otherwise a decent article). I find it’s a real problem that people in especially online social justice movements people are far too eager to prove a sort of “holier than thou” sense and wait for people to say something that’s not exactly in with that group’s party line and thus take it as carte blanche to treat that person as if they were personally in charge of a child sex trafficking ring.
Personally, I think it safe to assume that 1% of any potential audience for any public statement is totally fucking insane and, related, they will be among the most loudmouthed.
This is not hyperbolic. Imagine making a presentation before 100 people. Is it implausible to think one of them might be prone to mental illness, obsessive behaviour, irrational interpretations, unwarranted hostility, etc? The content of your presentation doesn’t really matter at all - one person out of a hundred will have a totally fucking insane reaction to it.
Then when it comes time for audience feedback, maybe 80 people offer none, 10 express varying degrees of positivity, 9 offer varying degrees of negativity, and one is totally fucking insane.
Heck, someone could be praising you and still be totally fucking insane about it.
I won’t deny that happens, and I won’t deny that it’s awful and should not happen. But as Bryan Ekers suggests, I think that’s a problem with humanity.
.
You asked me that??
Sorry, no, I was not addressing that question. I’ll address it now: NO! HELL NO!!!
The hassles and irritations caused by the PC police are like frenetic little pekinguese and chihuahua dogs that bite you on the shoe and won’t let go. Frustrating and infuriating as all getout at times but it’s not like they’re lynching people. Racism, homophobia, and etc are lethally destructive hateful things and an entirely different calibre of behavior than the bullshitty mindless self-importance of the PC Police. And I would never equate them as somehow cancelling out or being reciprocal types of injuries.
I hope we’re on the same channel now.
To reiterate, the board culture here does not readily embrace a set of “ooh you said a wrong thing” attitudes. Individuals on the board, yeah, sure. But other individuals will tend to say “oh for freak’s sake that doesn’t make him a racist / sexist / child molester / misogynist”; yet other individuals will wait and see and read my response if I stand up for myself.
That’s how the annoyingness of PC Police differs.
Perhaps I should post an example. I believe I have a transcript that I saved. Be back momentarily.
That’s true, and I don’t think my examples are indicative of “LOCAL MOM DISCOVERS PC CULTURE GOING TOO FAR!!!” or whatever. While there are certainly, indisputably examples I don’t think I’ve ever really seen overzealous “political correctness” get to Gamergate levels or anything.
I was just showing that there are examples of truly harmful things coming from it.
There are other, perhaps more pertinent, examples from Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, who have been known to perpetrate extremely disgusting things against transwomen because they believe that transexuality is anti-feminist for reasons I’m not going to hash out here*. But that’s a really grey-area example in terms of “political correctness gone mad” because while under the guys of social justice it relies on a form of bigotry so it’s not clear whether they’re valid examples or not.
(* To give an idea, one of the big ones is the idea that trans-lesbians who try to attract lesbians are essentially just men trying to rape lesbians and trick them into being straight. Viewing trans-lesbians as rapists, as you can imagine, might lead to some rather extreme attempts to correct this perceived injustice)
OK, the one I had in mind was too much of an overall trainwreck, but I found this transcript that illustrates my point.
This was a thread started on a Facebook group for discussing polyamory. I myself don’t tend to think of polyamorous people as horribly oppressed and subjected to violence and dehumanizations on a regular basis, although we’re definitely a minority and marginalized a good portion of the time. Not that that’s necessarily relevant.
Someone started the thread to discuss a cartoon in which a woman was wearing a shirt proclaiming her to be a “SLUT”. The thread wound around to a general discussion of oppression, and I posted the next post, which apparently expressed a sentiment about oppression that violated established PC Truths, with the results shown here:
(names elided)
AHunter3 Oppression benefits no person. In fact, all individuals suffer as a consequence of the existence of oppression in the world. The notion that oppression BENEFITS oppressors is a relic of a political worldview that ultimately explains all oppression by opportunity: that oppressors oppress because they can. If it were true, then it would be an unfixable problem, since opportunity will always be found. There would be no revolution, only an occasional rotation of who gets to sit in the topmost tier of oppressor’s seats.
If we DO posit that an oppression-free world is one that we all would benefit from, then are we stuck with some wishy-washy blather about how we should all be equal and free but we’re all affected by oppression and that therefore we should no longer point out specific oppressions? Certainly not! When someone calls my attention to ways in which the behavior of my sex (class, caste, race, or other category) is oppressive, that gives me information that may let me modify my individual participation. It empowers me to perhaps do something about it. And if I cannot call your attention to the ways in which I am categorically oppressed, how else would your awareness be drawn to it?
Dxxx A Xxx > that oppressors oppress because they can
I… someone else want to get this? rubs temples edit: I thought I got it; it sounded good in the second paragraph but your startup is losing me, AHunter3.
KB_admin Oppression advantages oppressors.
KB_admin Because oppressors don’t experience oppression, tthey benefit from that oppression.
AHunter3 KB_admin “Oppression advantages oppressors”. Depends on whether you’re comparing their situation to what it would be if they were in the oppressed class instead (in which case it certainly does) or if you’re comparing their situation to what it would be if the oppression itself were not in existence (in which case no, it does not, because power over other people is NOT INTRINSICALLY DESIRABLE).
KB_admin AHunter3 But oppression benefits oppressors. I am not wiilling to dispute that.
KB_admin AHunter3 I am disengaging from convo wiith you
Sarah_admin AHunter3 ~ People in positions of privilege are inherently advantaged over those who do not have access to privilege. “Check you privilege” isn’t just a trendy catchphrase, it’s a call to examine the ways you are advantaged over others, and avoid doing harm. Most of us have some advantage not available to someone else, and the responsibility to be aware of that and attempt to lessen the what our privilege costs others.
To say that power over other people isn’t intrinsically desirable is silly. Every oppressive system which is perpetuated benefits the people in power. Going along with it, for people who are oppressed and internalize oppressive attitudes, can even be superficially beneficial to those who are oppressed. (Standing up against oppression can be dangerous and harmful in ways more immediately concerning, and going along can have the benefit of avoiding that danger.)
None of us does anything without some kind of perceived benefit, whether for ourselves, others, or the world we live in. Unfortunately, those who access privilege most oppressively are most concerned with the benefit to themselves, and are unwilling to examine or release any of that benefit. They are advantaged over others, and want to keep it that way.
AHunter3 @Sarah_admin= “To say that power over other people isn’t intrinsically desirable is silly”. Are you therefore recommending, TO ME, that if I have the opportunity to have (or increase my grip on) power over other people, that would be the best course of action for me? I think your position is rather silly. No oppressive system which is perpetuated benefits the people in power. The belief that power over other people is desirable is, ITSELF, a patriarchal belief, one of the more deeply rooted ones. The ultimate desirable social goal for everyone is that all transactions are done via voluntary cooperation, not coercion. In my opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion but if you seek power over me (because in your opinion it’s intrinsically desirable) I won’t much appreciate it and will resist if possible.
Axx Mxxx AHunter3 - you need to stop looking at this on a micro and individual level, and start recognising that these are entire systems that oppress some peoples and that benefit other peoples.
And if you can’t do that, then you need to take a seat.
KB_admin AHunter3 I experience all sorts of passive oppression all the time. Example: At a subway station here in Toronto, one of the buildings the station is connected to uses the term “handicapped.”
Sarah_admin AHunter3 ~ Your attitude towards this assumes a selflessness not intrinsic to human nature, but rather learned or chosen. “The ultimate desirable social goal for everyone is that all transactions are done via voluntary cooperation, not coercion.” Do you think that people who receive less advantage through such a system of transactions than they do under the current systems of oppression would agree that such would be more desirable? Just because it would be more equitable for those who are currently oppressed, they would be willing to give up the privilege they work so damn hard to hold on to?
Um…that is one way of burying one’s head in the sand that I am just not willing to go for. People take power over other people because it benefits them in some way. Period.
AHunter3 Sarah_admin “Your attitude towards this assumes a selflessness not intrinsic to human nature, but rather learned or chosen”. Not really. Depends on what you mean when you say “selfishness”. There’s an attention-span issue at work here: things that are in my self-serving best interest in the short run are not necessarily the same things that are in my self-serving best interests in the long haul. Furthermore, my self-serving best interests in the long haul are going to mesh with your self-serving best interests whereas my short-term interests may not.
AHunter3 Axx Mxxx “you need to stop looking at this on a micro and individual level, and start recognising that these are entire systems that oppress some peoples and that benefit other peoples.” On the contrary, you need to realize that that all macro level phenomena are verbs, activities if you will, that micro level phenomena engage in interactively. There is no social structure whatsoever except as it exists as an epiphenomenon of individual people’s behaviors, or, rather, there and inside of people’s heads. (Social structures do very much reside there). Radical feminism is also radical interactionist theory.
“And if you can’t do that, then you need to take a seat.” It is most kind of you to offer me a seat and I thank you for that.
Rxx Fxxxxx Lol love it!
–
Axx Mxxx AHunter3 - do you realise that the refusal to examine your own privilege is against group guidelines?
AHunter3 Patriarchy is real. Anyone who does not operate from an understanding that the fundamental political backdrop against which we operate is 10,000 years (+ or -) of patriarchy is even more in reality-denial than folks like the holocaust deniers.
AHunter3 Axx Mxxx “do you realise that the refusal to examine your own privilege is against group guidelines?” I rarely cease examining my involvement with the patriarchal systems that comprise my environment, and the way that I am a participant in its ongoing patterns. (That does not, however, constitute an inclination to agree with every single opinion perspective or individual comment made by every other person who directly opposes patriarchy. It does, however, mean that I take you seriously and will quite seriously consider all that you have to say)
Dxxx A Xxx AHunter3’s still at it.
K, but u still rong doe. Check your damn self and take a seat.
Dxxx A Xxx Seriously. Oppression isn’t individualistic and can’t be treated as such. This is right up there with people taking call-outs personally- it ain’t about you, but you can be part of the problem.
Dxxx A Xxx I am offering you a stadium of seats. You are going to need them. That is, if you’re around for much longer.
AHunter3 People in positions of privilege — such as males, heterosexuals, cisgendered people, adults, able-bodied people, white people, first-world people, and so forth (the list is not only long, it is also by definition always incomplete and EVERYONE should assume they are on the list several times over) — don’t like to hear that they are participants in other people’s oppression. Why? Because hearing that DEMANDS SOMETHING OF US. It requires of us some sort of moral action.
That it does so, however, implies that the privileged may act in valorous ways. That the entirety of their relationship to systems of oppression need not be limited to their oppressive acts.
Anyone in a position of being marginalized — such as females, gay folks, bi folks, trans folks, children, disabled people, people of color, third-world people, and so forth — should note that this list is also not only long, but also by definition always incomplete and NO ONE should assume that ANYONE they encounter is not on the list.
KB_admin AHunter3 stop talking please.
Dxxx A Xxx > Because hearing that DEMANDS SOMETHING OF US. It requires of us some sort of moral action.
lmao what
No it requires you to shut the fuck up and listen to the marginalized
Dxxx A Xxx > Because hearing that DEMANDS SOMETHING OF US. It requires of us some sort of moral action.
lmao what
No it requires you to shut the fuck up and listen to the marginalized
KB_admin AHunter3 male entitlement from the patriarchy teaches you that your opinion is valid everywhere
AHunter3 AHunter3 is taking KB_admin’ suggestion and is going to stop talking for awhile and read back over the things he doesn’t agree with to give them a more considered examination.
KB_admin Also, agreeing/disagreeing … I think that folks with privilege need to realize - and eventually many will come around to see - that lived experience is not really a thing to “disagree” with.
KB_admin Also, agreeing/disagreeing … I think that folks with privilege need to realize - and eventually many will come around to see - that lived experience is not really a thing to “disagree” with.
July 24 at 11:45pm · Like · 4
KB_admin Because that’s an act of dominance
July 24 at 11:46pm · Like · 3
KB_admin It communicates that people’s experiences are only valid if a privileged person agrees
July 24 at 11:47pm · Like · 1
KB_admin But what lens is being used to determine agreementoor disagrement?
Sarah_admin AHunter3 ~ "That it does so, however, implies that the privileged may act in valorous ways. That the entirety of their relationship to systems of oppression need not be limited to their oppressive acts. "
Sure, because, you know, white knighting doesn’t uphold systems of privilege and oppression AT ALL. <—SARCASM
The privileged may choose to act like decent human beings, choose not to behave in oppressive ways, choose to lessen the harm done by the privilege they access. They (we) may choose to be quiet when someone oppressed by their (our) power-holding positions talks about lived experience, about that particular location of oppression. They (we) can take time for analysis of their (our) own oppressive attitudes and behaviors.
They (we) cannot be “valorous” in the sense of heroism. They (we) can be courageous enough to examine the worldview which harms others, and learn about the worldview of people who do not access the same privilege.
Axx Mxxx Dxxx A Xxx said “I am offering you a stadium of seats”
BWAHAHAHAHA hahahah
I fucking love this.
TERF war, huh?
I think American culture is not PC enough. There are certain things we shouldn’t say and do because you’d be an asshole to say it, like calling a trans person purposefully by the wrong gender. Being PC is like politeness but for society. You can easily be polite yourselves, but when it comes to other people, what’s polite for you may not be for others and that’s where we have the conflict.
So we should really replace PC with politeness. Is American culture too polite? Not at all, its not polite enough
(convo omitted)
When I am condemned to hell for my many sins I think my punishment will be to participate in that conversation for all eternity.
Who should enforce this politeness? The government?
Autonomous killbots.
The same people who enforce all other social graces, like not farting in church. Other people.
Don’t use offensive language. Don’t fart in church.
We don’t need the government for this.
I agree. But public schools and universities are the government, and they try to enforce this crap.