Honestly, they’re not encountered in the wild outside of academia and a handful of feminist/left-wing blogs. Unless, that is, you count the warnings at the beginnings of movies, etc… warning about violence and children, etc…
Except that “intersectionality” is a reasonable and well-thought-out concept, and basically a direct response and adaption to the common complaint of, “White privilege? I live in a trailer park, have you seen Oprah’s house?” If people are pointing to it as “silly”, they probably haven’t understood it.
And there’s the rub, in my eyes - there’s a fairly large industry that feeds off people not understanding these things. The right-wing blogosphere loves to point and laugh at concepts like this. But they’d do that no matter how well-thought-out they are. As long as the concept is so complex that it’s not impossible to misinterpret, some fucknugget on FOX News or The Daily Caller is going to proceed to (most likely intentionally) misunderstand and misrepresent it.
Great example: it should be blatantly obvious to anyone other than the most deluded John Galt fanatics that their business ain’t worth shit without roads to distribute their products and people in a position to buy that product. That they didn’t build all of society by themselves, and that they depend on society for their business to function. President Obama presented this entirely rational and reasonable concept a while back, saying:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
To this day I still hear dishonest fucking cretins lying and saying that he meant “If you have a business, you didn’t build that.”
So what’s the solution, other than to just stop talking about these things and cede the floor entirely to the dishonest fuckers who couldn’t give less of a shit? The moment we start talking about anything related to inequality or feminism or dealing with people that is at all more complex than “he said ‘nigger’ in a non-ironic concept”, we’re going to get shit for being disconnected from “the real world”, as if that makes any fucking sense whatsoever. What should we do about it?
Do they treat it as intentional, or do they just not care because they’re sick of hearing it either way?
How do you rehabilitate this?
or this
Nope not in the wild! Only in academia…
What, exactly, does this have to do with “political correctness”? Students are loudly and violently objecting to their campus welcoming a neo-nazi (no, I will not use the term “alt-right”) troll who actively fights against the values they espouse. What part of this is “politically correct”?
Post snipped.
Can a black artist play classical music? If so, why is that different than a white person playing blues? If the white artist really, really likes the music is that different than if they are playing it just to look cool? If so, how do you tell the artist who loves it from the artist who wants to look cool (assuming the performance level is roughly the same)?
That is the problem I run into with the the cultural appropriation thing.
Left Hand of Dorkness, in your doctor story how do you and the Doc know that the reporters question about where he was from wasn’t just referring to which city/state in the U.S. he came from? Something along the lines of ‘Dr P grew up in New Mexico…’. I disagree that if he was white the question wouldn’t have been asked. It is a standard question for a biographical piece. Why do you believe the question was related to his race or his name and not just general background? When writing an account of a persons life one would think where they were born might be of interest considering it is in pretty much every biographical piece ever written…
Slee
Neo-nazi? I don’t think you know what that term means.
The political correctness is the violent reaction to one deemed politically incorrect. And how do you enforce political correctness? Arson, beatings, intimidation, and rioting. This is the face of the intolerant modern left.
This is the face of a relatively small number of assholes. What does it have to do with this broader discussion? No one here has defended assault.
Milo Yiannopolous is one of the foremost faces of the neo-nazi “alt-right” movement, which I refuse to legitimize by calling it anything other than what it is.
No, Milo was not deamed “politically incorrect”. As Moviebob so accurately put it: “George Carlin was politically incorrect. Richard Pryor was politically incorrect. Bill Hicks was politically incorrect. Mel Brooks was politically incorrect. You’re [referring to Milo here] just a bigot”.
This isn’t about “breaking PC taboo”. You are trying to frame it as such because it makes the various complaints about Milo sound petty and weak. But this isn’t about him performing microaggressions, or even just having the wrong politics. This is about the fact that Milo Yiannopolous is a fucking terrible human; a misogynistic, homophobic bigot (and no, the fact that he is gay does not make this “better” when the fans of conversion therapy trot out his statements as cudgels against others) who deserves a platform for his bigotry the way that fucking neo-nazi who got punched in the face deserves a platform. Violence is not the answer. Rioting is not the answer. But this has fuck-all to do with political correctness.
This is what I mean by “It’s a snarl word. A way to shut down criticism of any statement that may be offensive or hateful or bigoted.”
You have just lost all credibility…
I won’t defend it, but I will say that Yiannopolos depends on it. He’s a troll, a provocateur, and his whole brand is around pissing people off.
I sometimes have a conversation with students like this:
“Mr. Dorkness, Alli called my momma poor!”
“Was she trying to make you mad?”
“Yeah, maybe.”
“If she sees you’re really mad, who wins?”
“Her?”
“Yup. So, yeah, she shouldn’t be talking about your momma, but if you don’t want her to win, maybe don’t show her how mad you are?”
I’d like to have the grownup version of that conversation with people who give Yiannopolos what he wants.
By calling a spade a spade? Then I guess you must not think highly of the LA Times, the Guardian, the New York Times, and many others, who have made the same statement - the alt-right movement is essentially a modern neo-nazi movement. Their goals are those of white nationalists. I’m not going to pretend otherwise.
This stops working when the troll is in a position of power. This is great advice for, say, a random troll on a message board that the mods refuse to ban for some godawful reason. It’s bad advice when dealing with thousands of people posting racist messages to your twitter feed. It doesn’t work. You think anyone gives a fuck if you or me ignore Milo? Fuck no. He’s got his dedicated, cult-like following, and they’re all going to read his content regardless of how fucking irrelevant he becomes.
Strike back there. Taking over his events is what he wants. How many people would have watched a video of his event if a bunch of activists hadn’t shown up with whistles?
The face of the neo-nazi movement is a gay Jew? What the fuck are you smoking?
Yeah, the best way to protest such things is either not to show up, or if you want to be more active, show up, but refuse to face the stage while he is speaking.
Protests just draw attention, which he wants, and violence draws even more attention and also hurts their message.
Not sure which would (peacefully) shut a hate speaker down faster, no crowd, or a crowd that is deliberately ignoring him.
Neo-Nazi may be a bit of a stretch. He only encourages and enables them, though I think he does it for the attention that he gets, not because he actually believes the things he says.
Basically a troll to the left, and a messiah to the alt-right. Neo-nazi actually gives him too much credit for having an ideology that he believes in.
A self-hating homophobic troll who takes every opportunity to paint gays in a negative light and throw around antisemitic rhetoric. Yeah, he’s a gay jew. He also obviously either hates gay people and jews, or pretends he does to piss people off. And like it or not, when you stand up as one of the primary figureheads of a neo-nazi group, and that group accepts you, you are a figurehead for a neo-nazi group.
Well the concept that only certain speech is acceptable sort of implicitly does just what you deny.
We’re talking about socially acceptable, not legally acceptable. I don’t think yelling racial slurs at random people in the street is socially acceptable – do you? I would harshly criticize someone who chose to do this, and I hope others would as well. If a store owner yells racial slurs at customers, I would no longer shop there, and I would encourage others to no longer shop there as well.
Do you disagree with any of this?
Do you not find it acceptable to criticize the speech of others?
If so, what is you point?
If not, then you are determining what kind of speech is acceptable.
Ernst Rohm was a face of the regular oldfashioned Nazis, and was gay. Wikipedia has a short but existant page of Jewish collaborators with the Nazis. It’s by no means common, but you’ll always find people teaming up with and even becoming a well-known face of those who, ostensibly, would hate them. People are often willing to make exceptions when “they’re one of the good ones!”.
That’s all fine. What I don’t agree with is how acceptable violence and intimidation are when applied by a mob and directed at opposing viewpoints. At the moment the war on free speech is being waged violently by a subset of the left. Well, when counter protesters show up armed what do you think will happen?
Anyways, I feel that fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are far more important than thought policing every bigot out of town.