7 ms·

I really wish people would stop saying this sort of bs. Deciding not to misgender or use racist/sexist slurs isn't PC out of control. It's called not being a bi

I really wish people would stop saying this sort of bs. Deciding not to misgender or use racist/sexist slurs isn't PC out of control. It's called not being a bigot. Maybe I'm just not all into dropping the n/f/t-words like some other folks. And honestly I wouldn't call myself particularly a leftist in politics save for my views in economics. So, if PC is out of control because people call you out for saying something racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic then maybe your first response should be "how it is that way?" and not "stop being so PC brah!!!1!". If this is seriously too hard for people to do then maybe you ought not be speaking in public because there's always going to be push back from the public audience you're speaking to. It's not a one way street.

DJtn 11y ago
The issue is the push back from the politically correct is having a serious chilling effect where even feminist comedians are being no platformed for having opinions that offend people. The definition of racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is so wide that there is a very vocal minority of people that are able to shut down opposing opinions by being offended on the behalf of someone else. Take Kate Smurthwaite for example, Because she had politically incorrect views on prostitution and the burka she was denied the ability to speak at a university due to pressure from Goldsmiths’ feminist society.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  1. The definition of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are not that wide. Racism is pretty clearly defined in terms of treating racial minorities as subhuman both in legal and social terms. The same follows for sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. The individual incident in question can be assessed pretty clearly by this standard. For example, if you insist on calling a POC "boy" when they're 20 years your senior then you're probably being a racist. Also, if you insist on calling Caitlyn Jenner by her old first name. Then you're probably a transphobe. And so forth. This isn't rocket science. If you can't determine what's bigotry either you're not observant or you're being dishonest. Either way, it's not the job of the marginalized to coddle you. 2. Having your event canceled isn't equivalent to censorship. No one has put a gag order on Smurthwaite to not perform. You're not guaranteed a platform to speak either beyond the voting booth or to petition. It's not the onus of individual organizations or individuals themselves to listen or debate you. The freedom of speech also implies the freedom to not listen to your speech. Or to not associate one's organization or self in regards to that speech. If you don't like this either, then IMO you're demanding to be coddled. So, all these false claims of PC being out of control smacks of social conservatives demanding to be taken seriously by their opposition. Guess what? They don't talk their opposition seriously either. DEAL WITH IT is my motto. If you can't then you're a brat.
  - DJtn 11y ago
    I think you've just shown how hard it is to define racism. We have different definitions of racism, Most people define it as discrimination against someone because of their race. Since we can all have different ideas on whats racist who is the arbiter? Currently it seems to be up to the small number of politically correct to decide what is racist and what isn't. Having your event cancelled in a university because of a few people is censorship. The comedy society in Goldsmiths wanted to hear what Kate had to say and arranged for her to talk at the university even though she was labeled a sexist. Their right to listen to other ideas were denied when the feminist society threatens to picket at it. We have a group of people who want to listen to "sexist" material and a group that don't, Would you not agree that the correct outcome would be to let Kate have her event and people who want to listen can go and people who don't want to listen don't go? The university denied the people who had arranged the event with Kate the ability to listen to her. The university favored the censors over the tolerant. Its important that the offensive have the ability to speak even when there is a backlash from the minority. Would you feel any different if instead of the politically correct there was a rabid group of religious zealots in university picketing to get people kicked of campus because they are seen as sinners?
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      Wow, there's so many flaws in your argument I'm not sure where to begin. It seems you want minorities to listen to any and all bigoted opinions without protest and you want to treat such opinions as morally equal. When you're part of a minority that gets assaulted, murdered, and discriminated in general you don't have to listen to any and all people's opinions. If you think that I as a transwoman must listen to TERFs, social conservatives, and hand wringers then you're greatly mistaken. Their opinions are morally invalid for many reasons chief among them is their desire to control others. Being ostracized/protested by a minority is nowhere near being harmed by said minority. And if a private party like a university feels its reputation is contingent on reaching out to those minorities then that's their authority to do so. It doesn't matter what you or I think either way. If you don't like that university then don't attend it. Or call your representative and see if they can cut its public funding. Either way, you, the comedy society, and the comedian are not entitled to any platform. Free speech is not about fairness, it's about whether or not the state or collusive corporations are intentionally impeding your ability to speak. The comedian isn't out of work because of one gig. The comedy society isn't defunct because it has to find another venue to present comedians. If said university went out of its way to tell every other venue holder to not let that society or comedian act in their interests then that would be true harm. Also, the fact people throw the word censorship around seems troubling to me for a couple reasons. First, it's turning into the modern bogey man of our day. If Twitter bans someone I swear every other day I see someone claiming its censorship whether the account was by a political conservative or liberal. It's ridiculous. Stop using a word as a bludgeon to get your way. Deal with the fact private parties can and will protect their reputations. Second, calling anything censorship at will has the same effect as censorship especially when the opposing side has pointed out rightly the bigotry of a specific opinion (ex. people who refuse to desist from using racial slurs). And that's exactly how I've seen it used both on Twitter and on here. If you don't like being called a bigot then ask the accuser why they called you one. You'd be surprised how easily such an accusation is disarmed by one question (Wil Wheaton did that easily despite the slow uptake by certain people on Twitter yesterday). Simply put, learn to interact with people, especially minorities. And stop blaming them when they're in the right.

DJtn 11y ago

The issue is the push back from the politically correct is having a serious chilling effect where even feminist comedians are being no platformed for having opinions that offend people. The definition of racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is so wide that there is a very vocal minority of people that are able to shut down opposing opinions by being offended on the behalf of someone else. Take Kate Smurthwaite for example, Because she had politically incorrect views on prostitution and the burka she was denied the ability to speak at a university due to pressure from Goldsmiths’ feminist society.

norea-armozel 11y ago
1. The definition of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are not that wide. Racism is pretty clearly defined in terms of treating racial minorities as subhuman both in legal and social terms. The same follows for sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. The individual incident in question can be assessed pretty clearly by this standard. For example, if you insist on calling a POC "boy" when they're 20 years your senior then you're probably being a racist. Also, if you insist on calling Caitlyn Jenner by her old first name. Then you're probably a transphobe. And so forth. This isn't rocket science. If you can't determine what's bigotry either you're not observant or you're being dishonest. Either way, it's not the job of the marginalized to coddle you. 2. Having your event canceled isn't equivalent to censorship. No one has put a gag order on Smurthwaite to not perform. You're not guaranteed a platform to speak either beyond the voting booth or to petition. It's not the onus of individual organizations or individuals themselves to listen or debate you. The freedom of speech also implies the freedom to not listen to your speech. Or to not associate one's organization or self in regards to that speech. If you don't like this either, then IMO you're demanding to be coddled. So, all these false claims of PC being out of control smacks of social conservatives demanding to be taken seriously by their opposition. Guess what? They don't talk their opposition seriously either. DEAL WITH IT is my motto. If you can't then you're a brat.
- DJtn 11y ago
  I think you've just shown how hard it is to define racism. We have different definitions of racism, Most people define it as discrimination against someone because of their race. Since we can all have different ideas on whats racist who is the arbiter? Currently it seems to be up to the small number of politically correct to decide what is racist and what isn't. Having your event cancelled in a university because of a few people is censorship. The comedy society in Goldsmiths wanted to hear what Kate had to say and arranged for her to talk at the university even though she was labeled a sexist. Their right to listen to other ideas were denied when the feminist society threatens to picket at it. We have a group of people who want to listen to "sexist" material and a group that don't, Would you not agree that the correct outcome would be to let Kate have her event and people who want to listen can go and people who don't want to listen don't go? The university denied the people who had arranged the event with Kate the ability to listen to her. The university favored the censors over the tolerant. Its important that the offensive have the ability to speak even when there is a backlash from the minority. Would you feel any different if instead of the politically correct there was a rabid group of religious zealots in university picketing to get people kicked of campus because they are seen as sinners?
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    Wow, there's so many flaws in your argument I'm not sure where to begin. It seems you want minorities to listen to any and all bigoted opinions without protest and you want to treat such opinions as morally equal. When you're part of a minority that gets assaulted, murdered, and discriminated in general you don't have to listen to any and all people's opinions. If you think that I as a transwoman must listen to TERFs, social conservatives, and hand wringers then you're greatly mistaken. Their opinions are morally invalid for many reasons chief among them is their desire to control others. Being ostracized/protested by a minority is nowhere near being harmed by said minority. And if a private party like a university feels its reputation is contingent on reaching out to those minorities then that's their authority to do so. It doesn't matter what you or I think either way. If you don't like that university then don't attend it. Or call your representative and see if they can cut its public funding. Either way, you, the comedy society, and the comedian are not entitled to any platform. Free speech is not about fairness, it's about whether or not the state or collusive corporations are intentionally impeding your ability to speak. The comedian isn't out of work because of one gig. The comedy society isn't defunct because it has to find another venue to present comedians. If said university went out of its way to tell every other venue holder to not let that society or comedian act in their interests then that would be true harm. Also, the fact people throw the word censorship around seems troubling to me for a couple reasons. First, it's turning into the modern bogey man of our day. If Twitter bans someone I swear every other day I see someone claiming its censorship whether the account was by a political conservative or liberal. It's ridiculous. Stop using a word as a bludgeon to get your way. Deal with the fact private parties can and will protect their reputations. Second, calling anything censorship at will has the same effect as censorship especially when the opposing side has pointed out rightly the bigotry of a specific opinion (ex. people who refuse to desist from using racial slurs). And that's exactly how I've seen it used both on Twitter and on here. If you don't like being called a bigot then ask the accuser why they called you one. You'd be surprised how easily such an accusation is disarmed by one question (Wil Wheaton did that easily despite the slow uptake by certain people on Twitter yesterday). Simply put, learn to interact with people, especially minorities. And stop blaming them when they're in the right.