So yeah, you despise freedom of speech, we get that. If for you “political correctness” is synonymous with “freedom of speech,” we’ve moved into Orwell territory.
It’s not so much despising freedom of speech. It’s finding the actual exercise of free speech annoying, and I don’t think that’s uncommon. But there’s a world of difference between being annoyed by a thing and believing there’s something wrong with it. Students don’t have the power to stifle a former secretary of state/author/college professor/TV talking head or French finance minister/managing director of the IMF. These women chose not to speak at one campus one day, but they have all sorts of media access and power and can express their opinions all they like.
I can’t speak for Shagnasty, but when I was in college, I was a RA for a few years in a couple of dorms. (Texas A&M, 1993-1995)
We RAs were INDOCTRINATED in a whole lot of politically correct stuff- it wasn’t along the lines of “In the capacity of your job, you cannot use words or tell jokes, etc… that might be found offensive by minority groups or the LGBT community.”
Instead, it was very much along the lines of “This is how you SHOULD think, if you don’t, you’re benighted, and you need more coaching.”
I didn’t like that at all, even though for the most part I agreed with them. I didn’t like the being told how to think aspects. If I’m not supposed to act a certain way while on the job, fine, but don’t tell me how I should think and believe beyond that.
While I’m not crazy about that kind of thing, I’ve had plenty of jobs where I was told that getting with the program was a mindset kind of thing–is that what was going on here?
I’ve had plenty of those as well- they seem more to be instilling corporate culture.
This was very much indoctrination- it was all about minority sensitivity, with special emphasis on LGBT issues and attitudes, but it encompassed everything from vegetarians to . There was literally some sort of set of stages that was like a “Bloom’s Taxonomy” for LGBT acceptance, and we were told to identify where we were along it, and identify what we needed to do to move farther along.
It was as if the Student Affairs/Residence Life dept. had decided that they were the shock troops for this kind of thing, even though it really wasn’t part and parcel of our jobs. I mean, we had to be sensitive to that kind of thing, but realizing when someone was being harassed for being gay, and doing something about it didn’t really require a high level of tolerance and acceptance, just professionalism and willingness to do your job correctly.
Yeah, the one I grabbed at random was about London police shutting down an art gallery because one of the pictures was of Leda and the swan, on the grounds that it was “promoting beastiality.” Apparently, enforcing Old Testament sexual morality is “PC” nowadays.
LOL. Political satire at its best. Your diatribe serves as a perfect illustration on how some advocates for PC are always at the ready to “call them out” - for not being more sensitive, understanding individuals - as rudely and obnoxiously as they know how.
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. That was a popular tactic on college campuses during the early to mid-90’s. Older and younger people may not believe it but it is true. My university was only moderately liberal and we still had to go through what I would also call indoctrination from day one (the first exposure incidentally was from our freshman dorm RA’s who drew diagrams in the common areas about the ways that we needed to think if we were to fit in).
Second exposure was an intensive writing seminar worth 6 credits that was required for all freshmen. That sounds like a great idea but only part of it was about college level writing. We had a broad range of things we had to write about including gay rights, the cons of the first Gulf War, oppression of minorities and subtle sexism in the media. It was almost like the bar in the Blues Brothers. They have both kinds of music, country and western :). I still got an A in the class because even I can fake interest in topics I care very little about in general but I didn’t like it. It wasn’t just my professor either. They were all like that and it was absolutely mandatory. Those are just two examples of many.
That bullshit didn’t stop until I got into higher level science classes.
I think that sort of thing is basically age-related. That’s just what typical college students like to do, they can’t help themselves. But give’em 40 years and they’ll have all turned into Fox News addicts, only pausing to write checks to Republicans. Cycle of life and all that…
That is basically it. I am very firm supporter of all free speech but I also reserve the right to judge people negatively when they use it inappropriately or ineffectively (in my view). In the cases of the commencement speakers, I view it as a rag-tag group of intellectual thugs that try to intimidate someone else from giving an address just because they don’t like something they did in the past. It doesn’t matter the position or whose side they are on, I am always going to side with the person that was invited to speak at a formal event over a bunch of hooligans. They are both engaging in free speech but that doesn’t mean that they are equal even when we disregard whatever positions each side has.
I freely admit, I have never liked protesters in general just because I think they are misdirected at best and more likely ineffective idiots engaging in a party type behavior with their ill-informed friends more than they care about the actual subject at hand. Did people learn nothing from Occupy Wallstreet?
The Onion sums it up well as always:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/college-student-does-nothing-for-tibet-over-summer,1724/
So, political correctness is being willing to call out bigots, and the problem is more with how bigots might face a little rudeness than with the bigotry itself? Gotcha. If that’s what you mean by “politically correct”, then you and I agree: it’s a pejorative term for basic decency.
Whoever said that political correctness at its heart is basic decency and courtesy is absolutely right.
But the problem comes in when it goes beyond just expecting people to be decent, courteous and polite, and people are expected to conform to some standard of thinking or of speech that’s not necessarily the prevailing, mainstream way of thinking or speaking.
It seems in many ways to me to be an easy mechanism for people of whatever group to place the proverbial chip on their shoulder, at least in their own minds, and then decry anyone who dares knock it off, either through legitimate reasons like bigotry and intolerance, but also through much more innocent means such as sheer ignorance of the presence of the chip in the first place, or worst of all, differing opinions.
For example (an example of what I’ve heard some people say, not my beliefs), if some church-going redneck was to say that transgender people are basically fucked up and confused because God made men and women separately, and not some ungodly hybrids, they may be perfectly right from their standpoint. There is NOT an absolute truth about these things- it’s a matter of belief, and to a degree, faith. All you can legitimately expect from them is courtesy and politeness… you can’t and shouldn’t expect them to think differently, but many PC advocates expect just that because they disagree with them.
The church-going redneck says transgender people are fucked up and confused because God blah blah blah.
I say the church-going redneck is fucked up and confused because he blames a fictional being for his stupid hatred and prejudices.
His views may be perfectly right, but my views raise the dreaded spectre of political correctness?
–
Sure, but what did you expect at such a liberal institution?
Saw Varsity’s horns off!
even shorter now 
All kidding aside, I found myself hooked on the amusement of how crazy people can get. I’m supposed to be doing other things and I can’t help going back to this list and reading another one.
But the one I have left here takes the cake of the half dozen I have read of these.
I just could not believe how bad thinking can get. Well, yeah I can…
Do you know what we do with the males, lady? Instead I think her focus on connections between diet and sexism have lead her to the fact that men are not worth even keeping alive, since we kill and eat the males, and therefore she can ignore the fact that connections of this sort make even worse connections for men. Men don’t have any value, so we don’t even need to consider that. Why isn’t killing the animal far far worse? It may be that killing animals to eat them is wrong, but she wants us to stop because it’s misogynistic to exploit female reproduction (ahem, that’s heterosexual reproduction we’re talking about there, and it has to be exploiting the male too–) but of course it isn’t misandrist at all to see nothing wrong with killing males.
Well, if we quasi-rape the female and then quasi-murder and quasi-cannibalize the male, (why not anthropomorphize male cattle, too?) she can’t catch the problem with her argument? You’d think equality would have something to do with looking at both points of view, but I guess not…
FORCED into pregnancy? My God. Does she think the bull will not mount the cow in nature? We interfere with that happening the haphazard natural way and selectively breed, but having lived on a farm, I can assure you all that we do not need to do any forcing. We allow what nature would do anyway in more controlled circumstances. But controlling the circumstances is hardly the quasi-rape she describes. Well, if we quasi-rape the female and then quasi-murder and quasi-cannibalize the male,
What? we don’t treat female fish differently than males? (actually we do for breeding purposes.) And I’ll bet it is degrading to use the plural women too. (But not men, men are nameless and needless.) Because when we talk about more than one woman, she needs individually identified. Forget getting to anything else, if I want to talk about the world population of women I need to list 2.6 billion women’s names, or some other individual identification, I would suppose, to avoid degrading women.
I bet she has five + cats and has that crazy cat lady disease.
“We” can certainly decide which words are hateful based on our first-hand experience with the context. Most minority groups can. It’s been that way since, well, forever.
I don’t see why your single experience with a single “transvestite” is relevant.
I see.
And your ignorance in thinking we “pick(ed)” our genders tells me you really do not understand, or simply don’t believe the evidence.
I’m weary of repeating the same posts and same points on this message board. Clearly I’m not communicating the message.
That is simply bizarre. You sound as though you don’t understand what a commencement speaker invitation actually entails.
None of these protestors are trying to intimidate someone else from giving an address, in the sense of infringing their right to express their views in a general public forum.
What the protestors are doing is objecting to choosing a particular someone else whose actions and/or character they disapprove of to be OFFICIALLY HONORED by their affiliated institution.
You do realize, don’t you, that commencement speakers aren’t just emcees or debate team leaders tasked with getting a lively group discussion going? They are individuals to whom the college or university is saying, in effect, "We admire you so much that we wish to associate our institution with you by awarding you a prestigious academic distinction [usually a doctoral degree] honoris causa".
How on earth can you argue that members of the institution who consider the invitee seriously unworthy of such an honor should just keep quiet when, in their view, their alma mater is compromising its own principles and good name by issuing the invitation?
[QUOTE=Shagnasty]
It doesn’t matter the position or whose side they are on, I am always going to side with the person that was invited to speak at a formal event over a bunch of hooligans.
[/quote]
Wow, talk about elevating style over substance. “Now you dreadful people just take your nasty petitions away from here and stop disturbing us: we’re trying to plan a formal event, and you’ve made us lose count of the cucumber sandwiches! Hooligans!” :rolleyes:
Shagnasty claims he’s “not socially conservative at all”, but when it comes to privileging superficial decorum over underlying principle, he makes Mrs. Grundy look like a hippie.
Here’s a much more thoughtful take on the issue of protesting the invitation of commencement speakers: