4 ms·

I will probably be down-voted to hell for this, but here's my 2c. This is the result of a PC culture. It has made it impossible to have an open and honest disc

by lurrr 9y ago

I will probably be down-voted to hell for this, but here's my 2c. This is the result of a PC culture. It has made it impossible to have an open and honest discussion about anything. It is easier to just label someone a racist, sexist, or other "buzzwords", than to strengthen your argument. Where are the times when we fought ideas, not people? From my observation the kind of people doing things like this are the ones losing the intellectual argument. If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them? Why go after them personally? I wrote this in a rush, I apologize for any mistakes or inconsistencies.

matt4077 9y ago
> From my observation the kind of people doing things like this are the ones losing the intellectual argument. So you're saying that, in your opinion, the KKK and those guys with the swastika face-tattoos are winning the "intellectual argument"? Because that's literally what you're saying. Unless you're trying to say that this has been a learning experience; And that maybe there are instances where after, say, fighting a World War over the topic, it no longer needs further intellectual debate?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  > the KKK and those guys with the swastika face-tattoos They, and the violent parts of anti-fa, are not the only groups.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
guildwriter 9y ago
People not being able to talk to one another is definitely a big part of it. Another thing to think about is how much the mediums of communication have changed since the PC era began. I don't think people appreciate just how much communicating in a specific format begins to change the way you think and perceive the world. If you talk frequently in a medium limited to 140 characters, that will affect the way you think and set up communication. Same goes with pictures, or only video. The means by which we interact and shape the world also shape us at the same time. Are we that surprised then that an outrage and drama driven culture emerge from tools that are driven by instant emotional reactions? Another thing to think about. With everyone having access to the ability to mass produce and distribute content to the world, what you consume begins to matter more and more. If all you want to eat is mental junk food, then you have all the mental junk food you could ever want for eternity. No one is going to stop you. No one at the internet companies want to stop you. People have never had to watch for this sort of thing before. Are we surprised that people binge on content that strengthens their world view and neglect views that challenge their own? There is no way a balanced view of the world can survive when people don't think about what they spend their time consuming and adjust. There is a lot more going on. It's a multi-system problem that feeds into itself and other systems at the same time.
- lurrr 9y ago
  People have always felt threatened by world views different from their own, our history shows exactly that. Being constrained by the communication medium is not an excuse, consuming "bad" content is not an excuse, nor is it the problem. In my opinion the problem is caused by pampering these people and giving in to their demands just to shut them up, like we do with children. In both cases the result is disastrous. Are we going to sacrifice the teachings of the enlightenment at the alter of political correctness? Are we going to remain silent just because reality is uncomfortable? It is my belief that these people are a minority. They are just very loud.
matt4077 9y ago
"PC culture" is nothing new. In fact it's as old as humanity, and arguably even extends to other species. Opinions, and speech, have power. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point in engaging in it. "Having power" is synonymous with the ability to cause harm. Therefore, some speech is harmful. When someone spreads opinions that someone else considers dangerous, a deeply human mechanism kicks in: criticising/shaming/isolating. These aren't new mechanisms. Beginning with the first species that formed groups of cooperation, i.e. societies, there was a need to establish and defend group norms. Today, the harshest mechanisms to correct people who behave in ways that are considered harmful are criminal laws. But long before we get to the level of crime, each one of us uses a repertoire of behaviours meant to inform you of your transgressions, and to put the perceived cost of them on you. This starts with your father's raised eyebrow when you're interrupting your sister (again!). It's the teacher calling you out for being lazy. And it's the teammates not talking to you after you lost them the match. These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job. Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed?
- guildwriter 9y ago
  >These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job. >Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed? Are you suggesting that the majority is always correct in what it deems is worthy of punishment?
  - matt4077 9y ago
    I'd think that ultimately, the idea of democracy is indeed that the majority gets to set the rules for punishment. But I'll freely admit that this ideal isn't true in practice, where we see elements of a wisdom-of-the-elders system of justice mixed in, because we don't fully trust the majority to understand that democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
EliRivers 9y ago
There is always PC, and always has been PC. It used to be PC, for example, that women should stay at home and not trouble their minds with worldy affairs. If it was broadly unacceptable to advocate that women should be socially equal, we'd have online mobs chasing down people who dared to suggest that. The current flavour of acceptable thought may change over time; the problem isn't the flavour, it's the mobs.
- lurrr 9y ago
  There is a difference between political correctness and culture. Political correctness is just a fancy way of saying: "You can't say that because <I> find it offensive!". The mob isn't the problem, letting them run free is.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    According to Google: /pəˈlidəkəl kəˈrek(t)nəs/ noun the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. If you think "political correctness" is about not being "offensive", you're missing the point. Calling someone an ass isn't politically incorrect, even though it's (probably) offensive and rude.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    There is a difference between political correctness and culture. Every culture has things that must not be said (whether true or not), and they certainly don't have to be offensive. To say them is not politically correct. PC is part of culture.
benjamincburns 9y ago
> If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them? Why go after them personally? Alternatively, just let them be wrong.
- lurrr 9y ago
  Absolutely. I was trying to say that silencing someone just because they have an opinion which you disagree with is not they way to approach things.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Duty calls... https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
archagon 9y ago
What's the point of railing against "PC culture", though? There's no leadership; it's not centralized. From what I can see, "PC culture" and related/contrary forces are an emergent consequence of the Internet a) giving marginalized groups a loud collective voice, b) granting individuals the power of global publication, c) enabling echo chambers that reinforce and concentrate disparate opinions, etc. It's neither good nor bad; it just is, and we must collectively learn to navigate these new waters. Parts will suck, parts will leave us better off as a society. I think it's an inevitable consequence of our exponentially increased global connectivity. You can't really stop it. Personally, I've found that the best way to deal with difficult topics is to just not discuss them online. Those kinds of conversations don't really work when you can't have interruptions or interludes, can't react to your companions' body language, can't experience genuine empathy and pain -- can't even sense that there's a living, breathing creature on the other end of the line. On the internet, everything is a manifesto. In the real world, ideas are ephemeral and flexible. "If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them?" To answer your question, you can read Kathy Sierra's article[1] on her interaction with gamergate. Basically, it's because there's no right answer and the questions never ever end. It's railing against a tidal wave of identical ideas, and the only apparent solution is to join an equally powerful wave heading in the opposite direction. [1]: http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/ http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/

by lurrr 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

> From my observation the kind of people doing things like this are the ones losing the intellectual argument. So you're saying that, in your opinion, the KKK and those guys with the swastika face-tattoos are winning the "intellectual argument"? Because that's literally what you're saying. Unless you're trying to say that this has been a learning experience; And that maybe there are instances where after, say, fighting a World War over the topic, it no longer needs further intellectual debate?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
> the KKK and those guys with the swastika face-tattoos They, and the violent parts of anti-fa, are not the only groups.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

guildwriter 9y ago

People not being able to talk to one another is definitely a big part of it. Another thing to think about is how much the mediums of communication have changed since the PC era began. I don't think people appreciate just how much communicating in a specific format begins to change the way you think and perceive the world. If you talk frequently in a medium limited to 140 characters, that will affect the way you think and set up communication. Same goes with pictures, or only video. The means by which we interact and shape the world also shape us at the same time. Are we that surprised then that an outrage and drama driven culture emerge from tools that are driven by instant emotional reactions? Another thing to think about. With everyone having access to the ability to mass produce and distribute content to the world, what you consume begins to matter more and more. If all you want to eat is mental junk food, then you have all the mental junk food you could ever want for eternity. No one is going to stop you. No one at the internet companies want to stop you. People have never had to watch for this sort of thing before. Are we surprised that people binge on content that strengthens their world view and neglect views that challenge their own? There is no way a balanced view of the world can survive when people don't think about what they spend their time consuming and adjust. There is a lot more going on. It's a multi-system problem that feeds into itself and other systems at the same time.

lurrr 9y ago
People have always felt threatened by world views different from their own, our history shows exactly that. Being constrained by the communication medium is not an excuse, consuming "bad" content is not an excuse, nor is it the problem. In my opinion the problem is caused by pampering these people and giving in to their demands just to shut them up, like we do with children. In both cases the result is disastrous. Are we going to sacrifice the teachings of the enlightenment at the alter of political correctness? Are we going to remain silent just because reality is uncomfortable? It is my belief that these people are a minority. They are just very loud.

matt4077 9y ago

"PC culture" is nothing new. In fact it's as old as humanity, and arguably even extends to other species. Opinions, and speech, have power. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point in engaging in it. "Having power" is synonymous with the ability to cause harm. Therefore, some speech is harmful. When someone spreads opinions that someone else considers dangerous, a deeply human mechanism kicks in: criticising/shaming/isolating. These aren't new mechanisms. Beginning with the first species that formed groups of cooperation, i.e. societies, there was a need to establish and defend group norms. Today, the harshest mechanisms to correct people who behave in ways that are considered harmful are criminal laws. But long before we get to the level of crime, each one of us uses a repertoire of behaviours meant to inform you of your transgressions, and to put the perceived cost of them on you. This starts with your father's raised eyebrow when you're interrupting your sister (again!). It's the teacher calling you out for being lazy. And it's the teammates not talking to you after you lost them the match. These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job. Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed?

guildwriter 9y ago
>These mechanisms escalate along with the perceived harm. It starts with subtle hints that you should work more diligently, and only when such attempts fail, it escalates to direct appeals, or even the loss of your job. >Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others. If there's a real danger that a reasonable employer will fire you for you political opinion, don't ask "who will be targeted next?". Ask just how far from the pack have you strayed? Are you suggesting that the majority is always correct in what it deems is worthy of punishment?
- matt4077 9y ago
  I'd think that ultimately, the idea of democracy is indeed that the majority gets to set the rules for punishment. But I'll freely admit that this ideal isn't true in practice, where we see elements of a wisdom-of-the-elders system of justice mixed in, because we don't fully trust the majority to understand that democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

EliRivers 9y ago

There is always PC, and always has been PC. It used to be PC, for example, that women should stay at home and not trouble their minds with worldy affairs. If it was broadly unacceptable to advocate that women should be socially equal, we'd have online mobs chasing down people who dared to suggest that. The current flavour of acceptable thought may change over time; the problem isn't the flavour, it's the mobs.

lurrr 9y ago
There is a difference between political correctness and culture. Political correctness is just a fancy way of saying: "You can't say that because <I> find it offensive!". The mob isn't the problem, letting them run free is.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  According to Google: /pəˈlidəkəl kəˈrek(t)nəs/ noun the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. If you think "political correctness" is about not being "offensive", you're missing the point. Calling someone an ass isn't politically incorrect, even though it's (probably) offensive and rude.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  There is a difference between political correctness and culture. Every culture has things that must not be said (whether true or not), and they certainly don't have to be offensive. To say them is not politically correct. PC is part of culture.

benjamincburns 9y ago

> If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them? Why go after them personally? Alternatively, just let them be wrong.

lurrr 9y ago
Absolutely. I was trying to say that silencing someone just because they have an opinion which you disagree with is not they way to approach things.
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Duty calls... https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/

archagon 9y ago

What's the point of railing against "PC culture", though? There's no leadership; it's not centralized. From what I can see, "PC culture" and related/contrary forces are an emergent consequence of the Internet a) giving marginalized groups a loud collective voice, b) granting individuals the power of global publication, c) enabling echo chambers that reinforce and concentrate disparate opinions, etc. It's neither good nor bad; it just is, and we must collectively learn to navigate these new waters. Parts will suck, parts will leave us better off as a society. I think it's an inevitable consequence of our exponentially increased global connectivity. You can't really stop it. Personally, I've found that the best way to deal with difficult topics is to just not discuss them online. Those kinds of conversations don't really work when you can't have interruptions or interludes, can't react to your companions' body language, can't experience genuine empathy and pain -- can't even sense that there's a living, breathing creature on the other end of the line. On the internet, everything is a manifesto. In the real world, ideas are ephemeral and flexible. "If you KNOW someone is wrong, why not debate them?" To answer your question, you can read Kathy Sierra's article[1] on her interaction with gamergate. Basically, it's because there's no right answer and the questions never ever end. It's railing against a tidal wave of identical ideas, and the only apparent solution is to join an equally powerful wave heading in the opposite direction. [1]: http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/ http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/