Are we too PC ?

[KoPilot]

And the "Callous comment of the day" award goes to:

Do you know how shitty it is to try and be part of something, only to be told you're a fake and not welcome? It's the stuff of schoolyard dickery.

 

[teknight]

Do you know how shitty it is to try and be part of something, only to be told you're a fake and not welcome? It's the stuff of schoolyard dickery.

Do you consider that to be "gay enough"?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Do you know how shitty it is to try and be part of something, only to be told you're a fake and not welcome? It's the stuff of schoolyard dickery.

Every fucking day of my life, which has lasted more than a half-century now. I'm queer. I'm not totally a lesbian, I'm not totally female, I'm certainly not male-- I am not comfortable with most het men and gay men are not comfortable with my plumbing. I'm neither fish nor fowl everywhere I go.

Do you know how shitty it is to watch the straight white men take over the only non-straight space -- because it's convenient for them?

They can't be bothered to do their own activism. Me and Etoile, we've done it for them. The desire for autonomy and territory is not schoolyard dickery. It's very much an adult issue.


Look, if you ID as Bi, and your macrophilia is presented in the context of being bi- then you, and your fetish, belong in the GLBT.

If you want to talk only about macro as a woman being macro'd by a man-- then you are, actually, and really-truly-- honestly, I'm not making this up or saying it to hurt your feelings-- You are insulting the lesbian women who live in this very straight world of ours, and do not have many places to call their own, by dragging straight-world convos into the one single forum that welcomes them.

As it is, the women STILL have to share this single space with a lot of gay/bi men, and I don't care about those "rainbow umbrella" slogans, there is a shitpot full of difference between lesbians and gay men.

 

[KoPilot]

K, I give up. I'll be heading back over to my neat, clearly-defined, little box over there now. If I'm lucky, the kid in the box next to mine might be able to hear me when I try to strike up a conversation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

K, I give up. I'll be heading back over to my neat, clearly-defined, little box over there now. If I'm lucky, the kid in the box next to mine might be able to hear me when I try to strike up a conversation.

Stop wallowing in self pity and re-read what I wrote.

 

[Braschi]

All the griping about PC has come about because people forget that fundamental part of Free Speech: It's not about saying whatever you want, but putting up with other people saying things you don't like. We're all too caught up in our own sense of entitlement to realize everyone else is entitled to the same things.

... were we still talking about that? *stares about blankly*
*wanders off*

 

[teknight]

All the griping about PC has come about because people forget that fundamental part of Free Speech: It's not about saying whatever you want, but putting up with other people saying things you don't like. We're all too caught up in our own sense of entitlement to realize everyone else is entitled to the same things.

... were we still talking about that? *stares about blankly*
*wanders off*

Wait.
Free Speech is an obligation to put up with others?
Interesting.
I thought it was one of them rights things.

Or, do I accept your opinion 'cause free speech FORCES me to?

What am I not getting?

 

[Braschi]

What am I not getting?

This:

Or, do I accept your opinion 'cause free speech FORCES me to?

Not quite. I'm not trying to be picky with words, but I'm insisting on my interpretation of "put up with"; namely that while you disagree in every way, and make that disagreement known, argue with, demonstrate beyond any possible doubt the wrongness of my opinion, you still have to suffer me to say it. You don't have to accept it. You don't even have to listen to it. I just have to be allowed to say it somewhere, and sometime.

I'm just annoyed by all the people who think, "ME, ME, ME!" when it comes to rights, and don't realize that every right implies an obligation on their part. Just a different point of view.

 

[teknight]

This:


Not quite. I'm not trying to be picky with words, but I'm insisting on my interpretation of "put up with"; namely that while you disagree in every way, and make that disagreement known, argue with, demonstrate beyond any possible doubt the wrongness of my opinion, you still have to suffer me to say it. You don't have to accept it. You don't even have to listen to it. I just have to be allowed to say it somewhere, and sometime.

I'm just annoyed by all the people who think, "ME, ME, ME!" when it comes to rights, and don't realize that every right implies an obligation on their part. Just a different point of view.

See, I prefer being picky with words- it's hard enough to understand one another otherwise.

But, I see your point. However, ME is the only object to whom rights pertain. (feel free to put that in any person from first to third, singular and plural). Rights begin with me, the individual, and you only really give a shit about your own rights, much as you clamor something else. Willingly depriving others of theirs either means you're ignorant, or you're risking to have your own rights trashed at some point.

 

[Stella_Omega]

All the griping about PC has come about because people forget that fundamental part of Free Speech: It's not about saying whatever you want, but putting up with other people saying things you don't like. We're all too caught up in our own sense of entitlement to realize everyone else is entitled to the same things.

... were we still talking about that? *stares about blankly*
*wanders off*

Such as;

You do not have any fucking right to talk about me and my people like that.

Once upon a time, I did not have the right to say that, and whatever bigoted peice of shit remark someone wanted to make was A okay in the public eye-- public, of course, being defined as "straight white male majority."

Now I can, and will, say that you have no right to speak about any minority, because you abused that privilege for too many generations.

You'll have to put up with me saying that.

 

[Braschi]

See, I prefer being picky with words- it's hard enough to understand one another otherwise.

But, I see your point. However, ME is the only object to whom rights pertain. (feel free to put that in any person from first to third, singular and plural). Rights begin with me, the individual, and you only really give a shit about your own rights, much as you clamor something else. Willingly depriving others of theirs either means you're ignorant, or you're risking to have your own rights trashed at some point.

Yes, exactly! On both points, actually.

The thing is, I think a lot of people don't fully understand the right to free speech -and any of the other Human Rights- fully, and forcing some of these misinterpretations more hurts people's basic rights than strengthens them. Especially when one particular right is used to undermine another.

For me, that's the basic problem of Political Correctness; certain topics become "unfashionable", like how it used to be taboo to talk about gays, or be openly homosexual. Now it's considered a good thing, and being openly anti-gay is considered taboo. The fundamental problem with both forms of thinking is the same, however, in that there is a social movement to suppress a certain type of "wrong thinking". This movement is often quite successful by trumpeting a particular right that undermines another. For example, anti-abortionists who rag on about the "right to life", but forget as much as they can the "right to liberty" (and vice versa).

I think it's a combination of both ignorance and risking having their own rights trashed: most of them are thinking of the "me and now", and neglect to include the global picture, or the consequences of their actions. Which is why I like my idea of flipping rights on their head and talking about the obligations they imply. Maybe people won't be so adamant about their right to be offensive, if that means people can offend them as well

Such as;

You do not have any fucking right to talk about me and my people like that.

Once upon a time, I did not have the right to say that, and whatever bigoted peice of shit remark someone wanted to make was A okay in the public eye-- public, of course, being defined as "straight white male majority."

Now I can, and will, say that you have no right to speak about any minority, because you abused that privilege for too many generations.

You'll have to put up with me saying that.

Yup. You can say it. You just can't make that into law

But, since I disagree with you there, because there never was -to my knowledge- a "straight white male majority", principally because there are more women than men in any given population, I'll add that you have to put up with that, too

 

[teknight]

Yes, exactly! On both points, actually.

The thing is, I think a lot of people don't fully understand the right to free speech -and any of the other Human Rights- fully, and forcing some of these misinterpretations more hurts people's basic rights than strengthens them. Especially when one particular right is used to undermine another.

For me, that's the basic problem of Political Correctness; certain topics become "unfashionable", like how it used to be taboo to talk about gays, or be openly homosexual. Now it's considered a good thing, and being openly anti-gay is considered taboo. The fundamental problem with both forms of thinking is the same, however, in that there is a social movement to suppress a certain type of "wrong thinking". This movement is often quite successful by trumpeting a particular right that undermines another. For example, anti-abortionists who rag on about the "right to life", but forget as much as they can the "right to liberty" (and vice versa).

I think it's a combination of both ignorance and risking having their own rights trashed: most of them are thinking of the "me and now", and neglect to include the global picture, or the consequences of their actions. Which is why I like my idea of flipping rights on their head and talking about the obligations they imply. Maybe people won't be so adamant about their right to be offensive, if that means people can offend them as well

Are you saying that all opinions are right?

If I'm offended, I'd feel justified in offering offense. But, that's me. I'm a vindictive bitch.

 

[Netzach]

Wait.
Free Speech is an obligation to put up with others?
Interesting.
I thought it was one of them rights things.

Or, do I accept your opinion 'cause free speech FORCES me to?

What am I not getting?

Free speech seems to end the minute you use your rights to say "um, no I think that's bullshit" or "I think that's insulting" then you are squashing free speech. So basically free speech covers the racist sexist asstard, but when anyone wants to say something they are "shutting down debate." This is how it was becoming in college while I was there - backlash for the idea that maybe there's a time and a place for the privileged to have to STFU and hear things they don't like.

"Shutting down debate" is the new "taking it personally."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, exactly! On both points, actually.

The thing is, I think a lot of people don't fully understand the right to free speech -and any of the other Human Rights- fully, and forcing some of these misinterpretations more hurts people's basic rights than strengthens them. Especially when one particular right is used to undermine another.

For me, that's the basic problem of Political Correctness; certain topics become "unfashionable", like how it used to be taboo to talk about gays, or be openly homosexual. Now it's considered a good thing, and being openly anti-gay is considered taboo.

Only in tiny pockets of the country. In most parts of the country, being anti-gay is just as popular as it ever was. And far too many of those people are sitting on the senate and in the house of representatives. This is not a "political correctedness" problem. This is a fundamental human rights problem. No one can force a straight man to welcome gays or become gay. But we can force him to stop killing gays just because they are gay.

The fundamental problem with both forms of thinking is the same, however, in that there is a social movement to suppress a certain type of "wrong thinking". This movement is often quite successful by trumpeting a particular right that undermines another. For example, anti-abortionists who rag on about the "right to life", but forget as much as they can the "right to liberty" (and vice versa).

What vice versa? The right to choose is the right to liberty. If you don't approve of abortions, don't have one. That's the standard slogan of the pro abortion, pro-choice movement.

I think it's a combination of both ignorance and risking having their own rights trashed: most of them are thinking of the "me and now", and neglect to include the global picture, or the consequences of their actions. Which is why I like my idea of flipping rights on their head and talking about the obligations they imply. Maybe people won't be so adamant about their right to be offensive, if that means people can offend them as well

To whom are you explaining this?

 

[teknight]

Free speech seems to end the minute you use your rights to say "um, no I think that's bullshit" or "I think that's insulting" then you are squashing free speech. So basically free speech covers the racist sexist asstard, but when anyone wants to say something they are "shutting down debate." This is how it was becoming in college while I was there - backlash for the idea that maybe there's a time and a place for the privileged to have to STFU and hear things they don't like.

"Shutting down debate" is the new "taking it personally."

That is indeed a very dangerous game of misdirection that people play. It's stupid people, unable or unwilling to reason, for the most part, who feel offended and can't articulate their thoughts beyond "I think that's insulting."
These right things are something you have to fight for, for they are not "natural." However, if party A quits its defense of its rights in front of a "This is insulting" argument, then that's up to them. They shouldn't do it, but "should" is the weakest action verb there is, methinks.

 

[Netzach]

That is indeed a very dangerous game of misdirection that people play. It's stupid people, unable or unwilling to reason, for the most part, who feel offended and can't articulate their thoughts beyond "I think that's insulting."
These right things are something you have to fight for, for they are not "natural." However, if party A quits its defense of its rights in front of a "This is insulting" argument, then that's up to them. They shouldn't do it, but "should" is the weakest action verb there is, methinks.

Well if "you know I find that offensive" is horribly abusive and intolerably intimidating to you and you're going to whine that all these women and poors and black people are making you suffer, exactly who is displaying butthurt inability to cope? Who exactly is flying the "stupid" flag?

 

[teknight]

Well if "you know I find that offensive" is horribly abusive and intolerably intimidating to you and you're going to whine that all these women and poors and black people are making you suffer, exactly who is displaying butthurt inability to cope? Who exactly is flying the "stupid" flag?

I swear I always have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. I always think I'm missing your point.
You've lost me.

 

[Netzach]

I swear I always have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. I always think I'm missing your point.
You've lost me.

Maybe I'm missing yours. You're saying "that's offensive" is a weak emotional argument, making the appeal "stupid."

I'm saying if you're such a little hothouse flower that the declaration of hurt by someone else is enough to put you off your "free speech" food, you are the moron. You're basically insisting that your free speech is your right never to be challenged.

 

[DVS]

Such as;

You do not have any fucking right to talk about me and my people like that.

Once upon a time, I did not have the right to say that, and whatever bigoted peice of shit remark someone wanted to make was A okay in the public eye-- public, of course, being defined as "straight white male majority."

Now I can, and will, say that you have no right to speak about any minority, because you abused that privilege for too many generations.

You'll have to put up with me saying that.

I don't have a problem with you saying that, because I'm not so PC that it offends me. But, when you say "you abused that privilege for too many generations" you include a lot of people. I've only been around for my one generation. Do you think we get together and discuss this topic, to make sure we continue our majority status? Maybe the KKK does that, but not whites as a whole. If we do, then I've never been invited to the meetings.

And don't forget that I was labeled a racist by a minority and just because he said I was racist, I was fired. I was not allowed to counter his statement and I was put through the ringer financially, causing a great deal of stress in my life, because I was considered guilty by my employer and by the government, while they debated the whole fucking thing.

And by the way, I was eventually cleared of the whole thing by the government and allowed my unemployment checks that had been on hold for two fucking months, although I still lost my job. And the other guy who lied and said he was offended by the so called racist comments I made is free and clear to try it all again, the next time he doesn't like his white boss. Because he was the offended minority, even though I hadn't said anything that he said I had.

My sister was born with Downs Syndrome. I hear people talk about retards and downies all of the fucking time. Do I get upset? No. I know they don't know my sister was born with Downs, and I let it go. Now, if I was to tell someone my sister was born with Downs, and they then said something like, "Oh, she's retarded then?"...I'd be offended, and rightly so.

I'm Irish. Do I get offended by Irish jokes? No. Frankly, I think they are funny. I'm left handed. Do I get offended when people say I'm wrong handed, clumsy or somehow I'm demented because of that? No. Why should I?

I'm bald. Do I get offended when I hear a bald joke? I had no part in my baldness. It just happened. Maybe it's hereditary, maybe it's not. If I could have changed it, I might be offended that someone is making fun of a choice I made in life. But otherwise, I don't see an issue with it.

I'm a blond. I think dumb blond jokes are funny. I know I'm not dumb. I know not all blonds are dumb. Oh, someone might say the dumb blond jokes are about women blonds. I have three sisters and they are all blond. They enjoy a good blond joke, like anybody else. They don't get offended because they are blond. It's just a fucking joke.

Sure, the world does need to be a little PC, because if it isn't, there will be those who take advantage of that and walk all over some minorities. But, the pendulum can also go too far the other way, and because I'm a white Anglo Saxon male, I now have fewer rights than someone else who knows he can use his minority status to cry wolf...just because he knows he can.

Some people have a serious chip on their shoulder and use the PC thing to vent their aggressions. Sure, there are times when it's necessary, but just as often, there are times when we just need to let it go.

And it's not a generation thing...it's an individual thing on both sides of the argument. We shouldn't try to label everybody of one color, one race or one gender as being the same. It ain't going to work.

 

[teknight]

Maybe I'm missing yours. You're saying "that's offensive" is a weak emotional argument, making the appeal "stupid."

I'm saying if you're such a little hothouse flower that the declaration of hurt by someone else is enough to put you off your "free speech" food, you are the moron. You're basically insisting that your free speech is your right never to be challenged.

Oh, but that won't stop me.
However, it'd appear that the "emotional" arguments works on some.
Challenge away, if that's what you must.

 

[Braschi]

Are you saying that all opinions are right?

If I'm offended, I'd feel justified in offering offense. But, that's me. I'm a vindictive bitch.

Nope. Just saying they can be expressed. In fact, I don't think "right and wrong" apply to opinions; they just are. Agree with them, disagree with them, try to change them, try to keep them the way they are...

Hehe, I'm pretty vindictive myself, so you get my support there Though, it's really, really hard to offend me, so I don't get to be vindictive all that often.

Free speech seems to end the minute you use your rights to say "um, no I think that's bullshit" or "I think that's insulting" then you are squashing free speech. So basically free speech covers the racist sexist asstard, but when anyone wants to say something they are "shutting down debate." This is how it was becoming in college while I was there - backlash for the idea that maybe there's a time and a place for the privileged to have to STFU and hear things they don't like.

"Shutting down debate" is the new "taking it personally."

Yup. It's like they say, if you are called a Nazi, it means you won the debate.

Only in tiny pockets of the country. In most parts of the country, being anti-gay is just as popular as it ever was. And far too many of those people are sitting on the senate and in the house of representatives. This is not a "political correctedness" problem. This is a fundamental human rights problem. No one can force a straight man to welcome gays or become gay. But we can force him to stop killing gays just because they are gay.

Well, I don't know what back-water, underdeveloped country you live in, but I was of course talking from the ivory tower of the ideal world where everyone knew their rights, and -perhaps more importantly- where those rights ended. I agree it's a fundamental Human Rights problem, which is why I like to join debates about Political correctness and Free Speech, because I hope to raise awareness and discussion on it.

What vice versa? The right to choose is the right to liberty. If you don't approve of abortions, don't have one. That's the standard slogan of the pro abortion, pro-choice movement.

That would be another abortion debate... maybe another topic?

To whom are you explaining this?

Hopefully to someone who's interested beyond me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

because I'm a white Anglo Saxon male, I now have fewer rights than someone else who knows he can use his minority status to cry wolf...just because he knows he can.

It's the white man's burden, I'm afraid. And it's come about because white folk abused those priveleges for so many generations.

Sure, not you personally. But that black guy's grandfather never asked to be Jim Crowed. His father never wanted to be a sharecropper. And his father got dragged aboard a slave ship to come here willy-nilly. None of those people had much choice about what rights they were given. And so now-- reparations. It sucks. It doesn't work especially well. Now is now, right?


My mother's family were serfs in Russia, so I too am the product of a slave system. I probably have slave ancestors closer than three generations back--but in America, no one looks at the color of my skin and makes all those inferences about my family history. No one I pass on the street assumes I'm shiftless, stupid, undeserving. They might if they knew me better!

 

[Netzach]

Yup. It's like they say, if you are called a Nazi, it means you won the debate.

No. No it really doesn't. It means someone else is going to get laid. That's winning in the real world, not just academia. The blue eyed dude who turned into a little blubbery bitch every time he got shot down legitimately did not get laid.

 

[Netzach]

My sister was born with Downs Syndrome. I hear people talk about retards and downies all of the fucking time. Do I get upset? No. I know they don't know my sister was born with Downs, and I let it go. Now, if I was to tell someone my sister was born with Downs, and they then said something like, "Oh, she's retarded then?"...I'd be offended, and rightly so.

Right, but if you actually called that person out or tried to educate them about why that's not cool, you would then be told that you were being overly sensitive, you weren't taking their background in which "retard" is just what people say all the time into account - and you were making the classroom/workplace/forum less "open" by protecting your right not to have something like that being shoved in your face and at least to be able to say it's not cool with you.

Doesn't that sound a little - insane? Because that seems to be the new standards of Free Speech. Free speech is the privileged can't be challenged without crying into a hankie and the less privileged are bullies with baseball bats enforcing PC with horrifying phrases like "I find that personally offensive" in their arsenals.

 

[Braschi]

That is indeed a very dangerous game of misdirection that people play. It's stupid people, unable or unwilling to reason, for the most part, who feel offended and can't articulate their thoughts beyond "I think that's insulting."
These right things are something you have to fight for, for they are not "natural." However, if party A quits its defense of its rights in front of a "This is insulting" argument, then that's up to them. They shouldn't do it, but "should" is the weakest action verb there is, methinks.

I'm beginning to really like the way you think.

We shouldn't try to label everybody of one color, one race or one gender as being the same.

Well, that makes you a racist