8 ms·

Yes. It's rather interesting from my perspective. There are actually three sides. Not two. Three. The first side is those who support political correctness. T

Yes. It's rather interesting from my perspective. There are actually three sides. Not two. Three. The first side is those who support political correctness. This side is singular. Simple. The other two sides are those who don't. This is where it gets interesting. One side that doesn't support it actually has hatred for marginalized groups. They aren't politically correct because of actual raw hatred. These people include racists, nazis, the KKK, etc. This group is a huge minority of the population. The third group are those that are not racist. They are normal people who respect other races, genders, sexual orientations but do not support political correctness. The argument here is more interesting. Why should I have to refer to a male with a penis as a "she" when objective reality and scientific truth defines this person as a biological "he"? Why do I have to redefine and complexify well established and obvious vocabulary, to make it fit someone else's perception or reality as we know it? That is the core of the argument. Which is more important? Emotional well being and social harmony Or Objective Reality/Truth? The answer is not clear. Scientific studies show that well-being is associated with lying to oneself. People who are happier are less aware of the objective truth and people who are brutally honest with themselves tend to meet the clinical definitions of depression. The majority of people you meet lie to themselves. Do we construct a reality that allows us to be happy or do we face the horror of objective reality? It's too late for me already. I've chosen the later and I can't go back. But the question is still interesting to me; given some aspect of the knowledge I have now and the ability to go back to the cross roads before I made that choice.... Would I be better off going down the other path? What is more important? Happiness? Or Truth? That to me is a profound question, and the core central question that's being asked by this culture war. We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. But of course we'd also be, in a way, lying to ourselves.

silicon2401 4y ago
> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct That's objectively false. I would not be happier if everyone were politically correct, because I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. You can say whatever heinous, horrendous things you want about me and my loved ones as long as I'm able to walk away and disengage (if you pursue and target me, it changes from free speech to harassment/assault IMO). I'm also a strong believer in the ideal of objectivity, so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  > so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods. But as a believer in free speech, you must support peoples' freedom to engage in lies, no?
  - Banana699 4y ago
    As long as they don't impede my own right to free speech? sure, go ahead, delude yourself to your heart's content. Free speech advocates aren't the ones screaming hysterically about "dead naming" and 3rd person pronouns.
  - silicon2401 4y ago
    You can lie all you want as long as it doesn't impact others; that's why we have things like slander and libel. If you want to say your favorite color is blue when in fact it's red, I'd support you every day of the week. If you want to force me to say you're blond when in fact you're a redhead, then I would expect a civilized society to protect my freedom to not repeat your lie. Similarly I would expect a civilized society to protect you from me if I start saying something negative about you that actually impacts you negatively.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  >That's objectively false. No. If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. Everyone would be happier. This is objectively true. You just misinterpreted what I mean here. >I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. This is off topic. Free speech is part of the battle but it's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to something much deeper then that. Proponents of political correctness are attempting to redefine reality. They want to change the concept of gender as "fluid" and non-binary and they are trying to change this from a scientific aka "objective" standpoint. Compelled speech is just a tool to push this agenda, and while I don't support it, the arguments behind free speech aren't interesting to me. It's this entire idea of attempting to categorize this new interpretation of gender as the objective truth that interests me.
CrazedGeek 4y ago
You do realize that you’re in the second group, yeah? That’s wildly hateful. It’s the exact same discrimination-based position but on gender identity instead of race.
- hansvm 4y ago
  > wildly hateful To be clear, the bit where they mention biology exists, or the bit where they say they won't conform to other people's preferred language?
  - CrazedGeek 4y ago
    Both and neither? The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. The biology bit is just an excuse, made worse by it being wrong: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...
    - ohCh6zos 4y ago
      Do you believe that there exists a moral obligation to affirm someone's identity?
      - ryandrake 4y ago
        Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?
        ohCh6zos 4y ago
        I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I admire your attempt to be honest, but being honest in return, I think this "we just care about facts" thing is just one of many tactics to move people from the first group to the second group, while they themselves don't realise what's happened. I'm sure there's something you believe, and that is the accepted 'politically correct' consensus, that someone else is arguing the 'but it's just facts' about. Possibilities are, for example, the people who say they're not 'racists', they don't hate anyone, they call themselves 'race realists' because they just simply believe that a) multiple human races exist, b) some are inferior to others. To them it's just objective facts. They're not happy about it, but can't stand by and pretend it's not true. They've done their own research and decided that the politically correct poindexters might want to pretend that there's no scientific basis for race, and it's a social construct, but they they can't fool them. So they'll happily talk at great length about this pseudoscientific belief they have, all the time railing against the consensus. And they'll sadly have to side with the racists, not because they're racist, but just because well, some races are inferior, so you have to treat them in a way that might appear 'racist' if you thought they were equally human. Here's another example, guess what their big focus is: > ...there will be an accounting for this fraud. People are very very angry, and while the skeptics whose darkest doubts have been vindicated don't pull the levers of organized science (the frauds do that), there are some financial and political resources available to the skeptics who have been demanding integrity in science, and they understand now that this is war. > A cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media concubines have conspired to lie about global warming. The reasons are obvious: power and money. The illusion of planetary crisis serves as vehicle for 'emergency measures to save the planet', which are merely measures to empower and enrich an elite few. Al Gore, carbon-credit entrepreneur who puts his 'mouth where his money is', had it figured out a decade ago. The fraudulent scientists who suckle off the 7 billion dollars spent this year alone on the global warming scam (more than the U.S. spends annually on cancer research and AIDS research) are merely using science, rather than hedge funds, to enrich themselves... > I'm not sure that the scientific community can or will respond to this debacle in a courageous or ethical way. The [redacted] debate clearly demonstrates that venality and shameless self-interest, as well as a toxic leftist-atheist ideology, runs very deep in the scientific community. > 'Consensus science' isn't science. 'Consensus' is an attribute of politics, not science. Science inherently involves utter transparency and rigorous and respectful open debate. Real scientists welcome scrutiny and critique; the hallmark of a good scientist is that a good scientist reserves his most rigorous scrutiny for his own work. Censorship, invocation of 'consensus science' to elide scrutiny, real or threatened use of judicial coercion, and professional destruction of skeptics- which are characteristic tactics of global warming alarmists and of Darwinists- are tactics used to circumvent the scientific process. I redacted it above, at first mention but you probably gathered from the last line that this guy doesn't believe in evolution. He's not anti-science though, not in his mind, he's only against those Darwinist frauds.
naasking 4y ago
> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. That's not really clear. Language is for communication. Political correctness makes language a constantly shifting landscape, far more so than it is now, which I think is the primary reason why there's resistance to it. If everyone bought into that project, then any marginalized group, no matter how small, would be able to dictate a global shift in language. This would dramatically impede effective communication.

silicon2401 4y ago

> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct That's objectively false. I would not be happier if everyone were politically correct, because I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. You can say whatever heinous, horrendous things you want about me and my loved ones as long as I'm able to walk away and disengage (if you pursue and target me, it changes from free speech to harassment/assault IMO). I'm also a strong believer in the ideal of objectivity, so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods.

hotpotamus 4y ago
> so I hate the idea of white lies or convenient falsehoods. But as a believer in free speech, you must support peoples' freedom to engage in lies, no?
- Banana699 4y ago
  As long as they don't impede my own right to free speech? sure, go ahead, delude yourself to your heart's content. Free speech advocates aren't the ones screaming hysterically about "dead naming" and 3rd person pronouns.
- silicon2401 4y ago
  You can lie all you want as long as it doesn't impact others; that's why we have things like slander and libel. If you want to say your favorite color is blue when in fact it's red, I'd support you every day of the week. If you want to force me to say you're blond when in fact you're a redhead, then I would expect a civilized society to protect my freedom to not repeat your lie. Similarly I would expect a civilized society to protect you from me if I start saying something negative about you that actually impacts you negatively.
deltasevennine 4y ago
>That's objectively false. No. If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. Everyone would be happier. This is objectively true. You just misinterpreted what I mean here. >I'm a strong believer in free speech, even if it's offensive. This is off topic. Free speech is part of the battle but it's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to something much deeper then that. Proponents of political correctness are attempting to redefine reality. They want to change the concept of gender as "fluid" and non-binary and they are trying to change this from a scientific aka "objective" standpoint. Compelled speech is just a tool to push this agenda, and while I don't support it, the arguments behind free speech aren't interesting to me. It's this entire idea of attempting to categorize this new interpretation of gender as the objective truth that interests me.

CrazedGeek 4y ago

You do realize that you’re in the second group, yeah? That’s wildly hateful. It’s the exact same discrimination-based position but on gender identity instead of race.

hansvm 4y ago
> wildly hateful To be clear, the bit where they mention biology exists, or the bit where they say they won't conform to other people's preferred language?
- CrazedGeek 4y ago
  Both and neither? The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. The biology bit is just an excuse, made worse by it being wrong: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...
  - ohCh6zos 4y ago
    Do you believe that there exists a moral obligation to affirm someone's identity?
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?
      - ohCh6zos 4y ago
        I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I admire your attempt to be honest, but being honest in return, I think this "we just care about facts" thing is just one of many tactics to move people from the first group to the second group, while they themselves don't realise what's happened. I'm sure there's something you believe, and that is the accepted 'politically correct' consensus, that someone else is arguing the 'but it's just facts' about. Possibilities are, for example, the people who say they're not 'racists', they don't hate anyone, they call themselves 'race realists' because they just simply believe that a) multiple human races exist, b) some are inferior to others. To them it's just objective facts. They're not happy about it, but can't stand by and pretend it's not true. They've done their own research and decided that the politically correct poindexters might want to pretend that there's no scientific basis for race, and it's a social construct, but they they can't fool them. So they'll happily talk at great length about this pseudoscientific belief they have, all the time railing against the consensus. And they'll sadly have to side with the racists, not because they're racist, but just because well, some races are inferior, so you have to treat them in a way that might appear 'racist' if you thought they were equally human. Here's another example, guess what their big focus is: > ...there will be an accounting for this fraud. People are very very angry, and while the skeptics whose darkest doubts have been vindicated don't pull the levers of organized science (the frauds do that), there are some financial and political resources available to the skeptics who have been demanding integrity in science, and they understand now that this is war. > A cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media concubines have conspired to lie about global warming. The reasons are obvious: power and money. The illusion of planetary crisis serves as vehicle for 'emergency measures to save the planet', which are merely measures to empower and enrich an elite few. Al Gore, carbon-credit entrepreneur who puts his 'mouth where his money is', had it figured out a decade ago. The fraudulent scientists who suckle off the 7 billion dollars spent this year alone on the global warming scam (more than the U.S. spends annually on cancer research and AIDS research) are merely using science, rather than hedge funds, to enrich themselves... > I'm not sure that the scientific community can or will respond to this debacle in a courageous or ethical way. The [redacted] debate clearly demonstrates that venality and shameless self-interest, as well as a toxic leftist-atheist ideology, runs very deep in the scientific community. > 'Consensus science' isn't science. 'Consensus' is an attribute of politics, not science. Science inherently involves utter transparency and rigorous and respectful open debate. Real scientists welcome scrutiny and critique; the hallmark of a good scientist is that a good scientist reserves his most rigorous scrutiny for his own work. Censorship, invocation of 'consensus science' to elide scrutiny, real or threatened use of judicial coercion, and professional destruction of skeptics- which are characteristic tactics of global warming alarmists and of Darwinists- are tactics used to circumvent the scientific process. I redacted it above, at first mention but you probably gathered from the last line that this guy doesn't believe in evolution. He's not anti-science though, not in his mind, he's only against those Darwinist frauds.

naasking 4y ago

> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. That's not really clear. Language is for communication. Political correctness makes language a constantly shifting landscape, far more so than it is now, which I think is the primary reason why there's resistance to it. If everyone bought into that project, then any marginalized group, no matter how small, would be able to dictate a global shift in language. This would dramatically impede effective communication.