4 ms·

Where the boundaries are drawn is a matter of linguistics. That's not all that interesting to me. I think the important question is the extent to which marginal

by gizmo 11y ago

Where the boundaries are drawn is a matter of linguistics. That's not all that interesting to me. I think the important question is the extent to which marginalized groups are marginalized, and the extent to which the public discourse contributes to that marginalization. I think the evidence is fairly one-sided, so I treat claims about certain cultures not promoting personal achievement with as much disdain as phrenology. Issues like sexism in tech, campus rape, etc are covered extensively in social science departments everywhere. Stricter enforcement of political correctness should not impede these discussions. And it doesn't, mostly. Of course, internet discussions often turn into shouting matches, and then political correctness can be used as a club. That's not good, but unproductive internet debates aren't a new thing.

oldmanjay 11y ago
it is the rare human indeed who doesn't seen the evidence leading to their opinions as one-sided. it's probably more common to find people who are willing to silence opposition so they can find the evidence even more so.
deciplex 11y ago
I'm sorry to hear that the boundaries themselves are not interesting to you, since you seem to have some opinions about policy itself, which ought to be informed as much as possible by actual facts. If a governing or organizing body at any level hopes to address these issues, I would hope they are very interested in where the boundaries should be drawn, and why they should be drawn there.
- gizmo 11y ago
  My bad, I think I misunderstood your previous post. It doesn't matter to me whether certain behavior is called "hate speech" or something else. I also don't mind that the meaning of words changes over time. That's mere linguistics. I do care about the the trade-off between preventing harm and stifling expression. However, I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where social science is hampered because certain ideas can no longer be expressed without any consequence. If there's harm being done, then where is the evidence of that harm? And if we're not close to crossing that line yet, what's the big deal? There have always been rules about what you can and cannot say on TV, in newspapers, and on college campuses. Cliquish, cultish and insular behavior is the default. You don't get fired for recommending IBM and you don't get in hot water for agreement with the status quo. This has always been the case, and stricter PC rules won't really make an impact here. But PC rules help clamp down on casual racism/sexism/etc, and so contribute to a more inclusive environment. Besides, who's more likely to get in trouble? The employee who claims political correctness is overblown nonsense, or the employee who keeps complaining about sexual harassment/racist jokes? The latter is career suicide. So who's fighting for their right to free speech? They're just addressing blatantly illegal behavior, after all. And yet the silence is deafening. Because apparently people should be able to say that sexism in tech isn't real without consequence, but complaints about sexism in tech get you shunned like you wouldn't believe, and nobody cares.

by gizmo 11y ago

oldmanjay 11y ago

it is the rare human indeed who doesn't seen the evidence leading to their opinions as one-sided. it's probably more common to find people who are willing to silence opposition so they can find the evidence even more so.

deciplex 11y ago

I'm sorry to hear that the boundaries themselves are not interesting to you, since you seem to have some opinions about policy itself, which ought to be informed as much as possible by actual facts. If a governing or organizing body at any level hopes to address these issues, I would hope they are very interested in where the boundaries should be drawn, and why they should be drawn there.

gizmo 11y ago
My bad, I think I misunderstood your previous post. It doesn't matter to me whether certain behavior is called "hate speech" or something else. I also don't mind that the meaning of words changes over time. That's mere linguistics. I do care about the the trade-off between preventing harm and stifling expression. However, I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where social science is hampered because certain ideas can no longer be expressed without any consequence. If there's harm being done, then where is the evidence of that harm? And if we're not close to crossing that line yet, what's the big deal? There have always been rules about what you can and cannot say on TV, in newspapers, and on college campuses. Cliquish, cultish and insular behavior is the default. You don't get fired for recommending IBM and you don't get in hot water for agreement with the status quo. This has always been the case, and stricter PC rules won't really make an impact here. But PC rules help clamp down on casual racism/sexism/etc, and so contribute to a more inclusive environment. Besides, who's more likely to get in trouble? The employee who claims political correctness is overblown nonsense, or the employee who keeps complaining about sexual harassment/racist jokes? The latter is career suicide. So who's fighting for their right to free speech? They're just addressing blatantly illegal behavior, after all. And yet the silence is deafening. Because apparently people should be able to say that sexism in tech isn't real without consequence, but complaints about sexism in tech get you shunned like you wouldn't believe, and nobody cares.