Author Topic: "Trigger" words  (Read 13594 times)

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4689
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #200 on: June 11, 2019, 10:27:00 AM »
"political correctness" is almost always used as a bludgeon for "I should be able to keep using my privilege and asserting dominance of my whiteness and/or maleness" rather than anything else.

It is very, very rarely used in any other fashion.

In this thread it has very much been used in the exact opposite fashion.  Non-white and/or non-male persons in this thread have used this opportunity to insult and berate white males for being white males, on the assumption that they must be non-PC agents of the patriarchy with nefarious intent, by virtue of their born identity.

But it comes with the territory.  I didn't choose to be born a white male.  I have devoted much of my life to advancing and uplifting historically oppressed minority groups, and yet I am still openly attacked for being sexist and/or racist (and now fatphobic).  To some people on the fringes of this debate, it doesn't really matter what you do or what you believe, it only matters how you were born.  If that's not the definition of bigotry then I don't know what is.

Political correctness is a complicated topic, constantly evolving as society embraces new norms.  Part of that evolution, though, has been historically oppressed groups abandoning Dr. King's vision of judging a person based on the content of their character.  These days, identity matters just as much philosophy.  See, for example, the "punching up" vs "punching down" discussion above about how the history of oppression should be the defining characteristic of what is acceptable behavior.  In this version of liberal equality, Mother Theresa would be absolutely eviscerated for helping poor brown people because she was born a rich white European.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-society-shift-so-abruptly-to-a-politically-correct-culture-Everyone-was-saying-whatever-they-wanted-and-no-one-would-bat-an-eye-but-now-everythings-a-micro-aggression/answer/Peter-Kruger?share=1

jeninco

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Location: .... duh?
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #201 on: June 11, 2019, 10:28:38 AM »
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.

For  instance, if you're used to using the word "retard" for humor, and you're looking forward to the response you get, and then you remember that you were told that it's rude and can hurt people's feelings, you feel a surge of resentment because now you must find another word.  What can be done to reduce this negative surge?

Grow the F* up? Get yourself some better role models?

Seriously, if your (and I mean the generic "you", not you = @Poundwise) feelings are so butthurt by the fact that you can't just use whatever broad spectrum insults you want because you're being an ass to a whole class of people, the main problem is not the surge of resentment you feel when someone points out that what you're saying isn't OK, it's your sense of entitlement that you should be able to use whatever language you want, no matter who you're insulting or hurting.

My favorite so far:

Instead of "politically correct" I prefer the term "polite".

Or even "civil."

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #202 on: June 11, 2019, 10:31:37 AM »
While I agree that a little sensitivity is needed for medical/ patient interactions, it is all a lone medical provider can do with respect to a single patient.  Sol's point that it is far too easy to get fat in America, just like it used to be far too easy(and expected) to become a smoker 40-50 years ago.
30-70% of the US population indicates a system problem, not a problem solvable by individuals.

Disclosure: 40lbs over my actuarily ideal weight.  My wife and I have a $800 bet on a 15% weight loss. Even with that on the line 3 months in, and we haven't lost anything.

So maybe you see the madness in doctors focusing on weight loss as the solution to all of a fat person's health problems, when 95+% of people who attempt intentional weight loss do not succeed.

Do you have sources to support this? In searching I've seen it repeated a number of times, but without citation. I did find this:

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/health/95-regain-lost-weight-or-do-they.html

It suggests that the 5% number comes from a clinical study of 100 people in 1959. I'm not suggesting that this is proof that it's not 5%, I'm only asking if there is further evidence to support this number.

Here's an update on the National Weight Control Registry mentioned in that article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24355667

Lots of evidence shown here, scroll down
https://danceswithfat.org/2012/04/21/for-fat-patients-and-their-doctors/

ETA: I think the burden of proof about the efficacy of diets should fall on those who think that diets work, rather than others having to prove they don't work. I mean, it's not like a doctor will prescribe people a drug without any trials that indicate it's an effective treatment, right? So let the medical establishment prove that intentional weight loss via diet works before they try to prescribe that shit to me.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 10:34:51 AM by madgeylou »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #203 on: June 11, 2019, 10:43:24 AM »
@jeninco  I'm trying to take a charitable view of things. I really think that some people are caused pain by having to relearn a behavior.  They learn something once, they don't like change.  Or not having meant something ill, they become overly defensive when corrected.  I don't mean to condescend by saying this, I would almost guess that these are genetic traits.

Since we can't go back in time and re-raise people, perhaps if there is a rude term to avoid, and we were able to give people an alternative that was shorter and easier, or more fun to say, it would be more easily accepted. So for instance, instead of "retard" we had a word that could be used for somebody who was being willfully unintelligent? How about, say, "dunker" for Dunning-Kroger effect?

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #204 on: June 11, 2019, 10:46:57 AM »
@jeninco  I'm trying to take a charitable view of things. I really think that some people are caused pain by having to relearn a behavior.  They learn something once, they don't like change.  Or not having meant something ill, they become overly defensive when corrected.  I don't mean to condescend by saying this, I would almost guess that these are genetic traits.

Since we can't go back in time and re-raise people, perhaps if there is a rude term to avoid, and we were able to give people an alternative that was shorter and easier, or more fun to say, it would be more easily accepted. So for instance, instead of "retard" we had a word that could be used for somebody who was being willfully unintelligent? How about, say, "dunker" for Dunning-Kroger effect?

I think we have words like this already? Dimwit, numnuts, numpty, fool ... I have yet to come across any such word that can't be expressed in another way.

And I think you're probably correct about the interplay between genes and receptiveness to changes in culture. It has been shown that conservatives are more motivated by fear than liberals are -- some of that is probably genetic.

2Cent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #205 on: June 11, 2019, 10:49:18 AM »
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.

For  instance, if you're used to using the word "retard" for humor, and you're looking forward to the response you get, and then you remember that you were told that it's rude and can hurt people's feelings, you feel a surge of resentment because now you must find another word.  What can be done to reduce this negative surge?
No one likes being pointed out and told they did something wrong. Especially if there was no bad intention and people get hurt over a possible different interpretation of what you said. Like if I said you shouldn't use the words brain structure because it offends autistic people. Would you feel the need to change your words or feel this is ridiculous, I didn't mean anything of the sort. Also it feels like rather than being actually offended people are using offence as a stick. It really feels weird to me when there are different rules about who can make jokes about something. If it's really hurtful or offensive it shouldn't matter. Else it's just racism or sexism as well.

What I personally find irritating is when words that perfectly convey their meaning are banned because people don't want to be what they are. Like your example of retard. When you talk about a retarded person that is exactly what you mean. It is an insult only because it compares a normal person with a mentally retarded person. It's not the word that's the insult, its them. Changing it to something else will just make that new word an insult. In that way I like how gays handled it. Instead of banning the word gay or homo, they hold their head up and challenge the underlying assumption that that is a bad thing to be. We should have a retarded pride.



madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #206 on: June 11, 2019, 10:54:52 AM »
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.

For  instance, if you're used to using the word "retard" for humor, and you're looking forward to the response you get, and then you remember that you were told that it's rude and can hurt people's feelings, you feel a surge of resentment because now you must find another word.  What can be done to reduce this negative surge?
No one likes being pointed out and told they did something wrong. Especially if there was no bad intention and people get hurt over a possible different interpretation of what you said. Like if I said you shouldn't use the words brain structure because it offends autistic people. Would you feel the need to change your words or feel this is ridiculous, I didn't mean anything of the sort. Also it feels like rather than being actually offended people are using offence as a stick. It really feels weird to me when there are different rules about who can make jokes about something. If it's really hurtful or offensive it shouldn't matter. Else it's just racism or sexism as well.

If you started talking about history or math or the rules of some sport and got some stuff totally incorrect because you assumed you knew more than you did, and someone pointed that out, would you be offended or upset? Or would you just be like "oh right, I didn't know about that?" and integrate the new info into your understanding?

The phenomenon you are describing is called "white fragility" -- in which a person with privilege doesn't get that they can be a good person and also hold outdated or incorrect or incomplete ideas about reality. But I would argue that all of us -- good, bad, indifferent -- have outdated and incorrect and incomplete views about realities which we do not inhabit. Like, unless I listen to black people about what they experience and actually read the statistics about the differences in opportunity and outcome based on race, how would I as a white person know anything about it?

Reject defensiveness and embrace listening. It's the only way out of this conundrum, unless you want to drop out of the evolving stream of culture entirely and be like a 90 year still calling black folks "colored."

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4689
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #207 on: June 11, 2019, 11:05:08 AM »
No one likes being pointed out and told they did something wrong. Especially if there was no bad intention and people get hurt over a possible different interpretation of what you said. Like if I said you shouldn't use the words brain structure because it offends autistic people. Would you feel the need to change your words or feel this is ridiculous, I didn't mean anything of the sort. Also it feels like rather than being actually offended people are using offence as a stick. It really feels weird to me when there are different rules about who can make jokes about something. If it's really hurtful or offensive it shouldn't matter. Else it's just racism or sexism as well.


https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/

jeninco

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Location: .... duh?
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #208 on: June 11, 2019, 11:20:53 AM »
@jeninco  I'm trying to take a charitable view of things. I really think that some people are caused pain by having to relearn a behavior.  They learn something once, they don't like change.  Or not having meant something ill, they become overly defensive when corrected.  I don't mean to condescend by saying this, I would almost guess that these are genetic traits.

Since we can't go back in time and re-raise people, perhaps if there is a rude term to avoid, and we were able to give people an alternative that was shorter and easier, or more fun to say, it would be more easily accepted. So for instance, instead of "retard" we had a word that could be used for somebody who was being willfully unintelligent? How about, say, "dunker" for Dunning-Kroger effect?

You're right, and I apologize for being snippy.

I had to look up "Dunning-Kroger effect", and I love "dunker." I think I'll start using it with my teenaged boys when they're clearly demonstrating "the cognitive bias of illusory superiority" based on their inability to recognize their lack of ability! ("Dunger" might be even better .. I'll have to try them both out!)

Thanks for being gentler with me then I was being with you.

And I don't think this is "white fragility", exactly ... I agree that there's a weird defensiveness about being told, however gently, that "times have changed, and you can choose from these other words that don't demean entire groups of people." (We lean toward "chowderhead" around here.) We were at a wedding this past weekend and every time MrInCO or I started comparing things to our own wedding (20-something years ago) the other one would prompt them to stop with "and you kids, get off my damn lawn!" We made up rituals that were meaningful to us, and they're doing the same thing. It's cool!

@2Cent, times change. What's funny changes, and people who have long been so marginalized that they haven't felt comfortable objecting to insulting "humor" are feeling empowered to speak up. (If I had a dime for every time I've been told I have no sense of humor because I don't laugh at jokes that demean the groups I personally belong to, I'd be buying expensive lattes for life.)

"don't be a jerk" is a decent working motto, you know? If "be kind to other people" seems too aspirational.

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #209 on: June 11, 2019, 11:30:16 AM »
In this thread it has very much been used in the exact opposite fashion.  Non-white and/or non-male persons in this thread have used this opportunity to insult and berate white males for being white males, on the assumption that they must be non-PC agents of the patriarchy with nefarious intent, by virtue of their born identity.

But it comes with the territory.  I didn't choose to be born a white male.  I have devoted much of my life to advancing and uplifting historically oppressed minority groups, and yet I am still openly attacked for being sexist and/or racist (and now fatphobic).  To some people on the fringes of this debate, it doesn't really matter what you do or what you believe, it only matters how you were born.  If that's not the definition of bigotry then I don't know what is.

I honestly can't remember how many times I've explained this to you specifically, but you don't seem to want to get it. Intent doesn't matter! There are lots of totally nice white people who would never ever consider themselves racist who do racist shit every day (I include myself in this). Totally nice men (yourself included) who act in sexist ways. Totally lovely skinny people who have fat friends and treat them in a fatphobic way without even realizing. The intent doesn't matter.

In fact the entire problem with these kinds of biases is that they are UNCONSCIOUS. That means we aren't aware of them unless we make a heroic effort to listen to people suffering the effects of those biases, who see them much more clearly than those who don't.

One more thing -- you keep equating calling out racism / sexism / fatphobia as an "attack." It's not an attack. It's an attempt to help you grow beyond the shitty attitudes of our culture that you and every single person in this culture have internalized to whatever extent. We all have unconscious bias, and the only way that we are able to make them conscious and thus grow past them. That means listening and embracing a little humility.

The more privilege each of us has, the harder we have to work to get beyond this stuff. Sort of the flip side of the way that folks with less privilege have to be twice as good to get ahead.

None of this is an attack. I get heated, sure, because I'm human and I'm upset about how so many people I care about are being fucked over by people with privilege refusing to take it on. But saying "what you said was fatphobic" doesn't mean "you are a terrible person." It means "what you said is fatphobic, and if you are more interested in learning about that and possibly dismantling it than you are defending what a great person you are who couldn't possibly have any blind spots anywhere, well here are some resources to check into."

Sounds like you have been hurt and frustrated in the past by multiple doctors, friends, family, and society. You're right that we should treat fat people better as a society. Shame and guilt do not help people lose weight.

I believe that we should love but not normalize fatness. Much like poverty, we can still love those in poverty, not blame them for their circumstances, and still recognize it as 100% a problem. Just because people point it out as a problem does not mean that they are blaming the individual for it. Of course there are ways individuals might be able to better their own circumstances, but it is largely outside of their own control. I believe Sol has more or less been saying this several times.

Fat people can lose weight, they can lose it long-term. I don't think your 95% number is quite accurate. Anyone who has been following health trends in the past 10 years should know that dieting science has come a long way. So any statistics from 70 years ago aren't really relevant. Most people can lose weight and keep it off. https://idmprogram.com/ But the problem we ace now is information. Doctors need to actually train in nutrition (they currently don't). We need food programs to teach poor people how to cook basics. We need to end "food deserts".

More than anything though is that you keep writing from a position that you are the one with all the knowledge in this conversation and the only thing missing is that sol and others just haven't properly googled enough about it. One. Sol, better than most, knows how to read and research. Two. It's a terrible way to debate even if you're right. Surround your critiques with what parts of comments you agree with. 1 agree, 1 critique, 1 agree.

As you said before, there are far too many ways people in society shame fat people. And there are far too many fat people to simply say "slim up or else you're not allowed to function in society anymore". Society can only flex so much, so we can't expect it to change absolutely everything to accommodate, but where it can, I think we should.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 11:32:30 AM by FIPurpose »

Adam Zapple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #210 on: June 11, 2019, 11:31:53 AM »
Social pressure to conform to the social contract becomes obnoxious when it is applied unevenly and in favor of one interest group over another.

I wholeheartedly agree with this view, but I don't know if I'm convinced that it is being applied unevenly. This thread has examples of phrases that both sides of the spectrum object to: "Happy Holidays", "Easter worshippers", "Double-blind study", "Smear the Queer".

Humans are prone to confirmation bias. We're more likely to look for evidence that confirms our initial hypothesis ("Liberals are snowflakes!" "Conservatives are the real snowflakes!"), and less likely to recognize or look for evidence that would disprove that hypothesis.

It's very possible that this is lopsided, I would say probably, but it's difficult to any one of us to independently assess that.

There is an interest group that has made it their mission to seek out anyone who has ever made an offensive comment at any point in their lives and destroy their careers or livelihoods.  I don't see Christian groups destroying careers or publicly humiliating people for saying "Happy Holidays." At least not in any impactful way.


https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/02/employees-can-be-fired-for-being-lgbtq-in-26-states-will-the-supreme-court-make-that-even-worse/

Public humiliation . . . check.  Destroying careers . . . check.  Impactful . . . check.  Religious (typically Christian) motivation . . . check.

Not really apples to apples but it is hard to equate religious zealotry with ideological zealotry...I should not have tried.  My point was to say that there needs to be a a distinction between something questionably offensive and open bigotry.  The current PC lynch mob makes no distinction and the goal posts seem to move when it is politically convenient to do so.  The most recent example I can think of is the Megyn Kelly "scandal".

2Cent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #211 on: June 11, 2019, 11:36:20 AM »
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.

For  instance, if you're used to using the word "retard" for humor, and you're looking forward to the response you get, and then you remember that you were told that it's rude and can hurt people's feelings, you feel a surge of resentment because now you must find another word.  What can be done to reduce this negative surge?
No one likes being pointed out and told they did something wrong. Especially if there was no bad intention and people get hurt over a possible different interpretation of what you said. Like if I said you shouldn't use the words brain structure because it offends autistic people. Would you feel the need to change your words or feel this is ridiculous, I didn't mean anything of the sort. Also it feels like rather than being actually offended people are using offence as a stick. It really feels weird to me when there are different rules about who can make jokes about something. If it's really hurtful or offensive it shouldn't matter. Else it's just racism or sexism as well.

If you started talking about history or math or the rules of some sport and got some stuff totally incorrect because you assumed you knew more than you did, and someone pointed that out, would you be offended or upset? Or would you just be like "oh right, I didn't know about that?" and integrate the new info into your understanding?
Because math and history are facts and what is offensive/rude is an opinion. I really don't get upset at either. I just don't agree with the latter.
Quote
The phenomenon you are describing is called "white fragility" -- in which a person with privilege doesn't get that they can be a good person and also hold outdated or incorrect or incomplete ideas about reality. But I would argue that all of us -- good, bad, indifferent -- have outdated and incorrect and incomplete views about realities which we do not inhabit. Like, unless I listen to black people about what they experience and actually read the statistics about the differences in opportunity and outcome based on race, how would I as a white person know anything about it?

Reject defensiveness and embrace listening. It's the only way out of this conundrum, unless you want to drop out of the evolving stream of culture entirely and be like a 90 year still calling black folks "colored."
The way I see it is the only way out is reconciliation from both sides, where black people also let go of their stereotypes of white people and learn to appreciate them. I see a lot of push for acceptance of black people by white people, but not much on the other side. Individual black people may have made peace with whites, but in the media they are still often portrayed as the poor oppressed even though that is no longer true.

Another funny thing is that it seems to be perfectly civil to remind any white person about their races part in slavery and racial oppression, but it's very rude to remind a German of their Nazi past.

All this make me feel like it's not real anger, but just an excuse to ventilate anger at white people, which is quite racist.

@jeninco:
Ofcourse you shouldn't be a jerk, but jokes are jokes.

Speaking of which. These jokes illustrate the point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBkXSGK08dY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcBCy5SYEps

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #212 on: June 11, 2019, 11:38:34 AM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #213 on: June 11, 2019, 11:41:05 AM »
@jeninco  I'm trying to take a charitable view of things. I really think that some people are caused pain by having to relearn a behavior.  They learn something once, they don't like change.  Or not having meant something ill, they become overly defensive when corrected.  I don't mean to condescend by saying this, I would almost guess that these are genetic traits.

Since we can't go back in time and re-raise people, perhaps if there is a rude term to avoid, and we were able to give people an alternative that was shorter and easier, or more fun to say, it would be more easily accepted. So for instance, instead of "retard" we had a word that could be used for somebody who was being willfully unintelligent? How about, say, "dunker" for Dunning-Kroger effect?

You're right, and I apologize for being snippy.

I had to look up "Dunning-Kroger effect", and I love "dunker." I think I'll start using it with my teenaged boys when they're clearly demonstrating "the cognitive bias of illusory superiority" based on their inability to recognize their lack of ability! ("Dunger" might be even better .. I'll have to try them both out!)

As a mom of a teenaged boy myself (greetings fellow sufferer) I can guarantee that it won't catch on if used by their mother, unless we can somehow smuggle it into the dark web and then out again.  Though I just looked up the term and it already exists with some disgusting meanings already, so maybe it will be acceptable.

Quote
Thanks for being gentler with me then I was being with you.
No worries, I got that your anger wasn't directed at me.

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #214 on: June 11, 2019, 11:42:26 AM »
My doctor had a good long talk with me when I was 256 pounds (quite fat!)  I'm now stablish between 195 and 205 pounds and hope to crack the 190 mark for the first time this summer.  I started with small, tolerable, permanent lifestyle changes 1MAR2015.  Dieting works if you work the diet.  Mine is frustratingly slow at about 15 pounds a year but it is certain I will healthier this time next year.  I feel a ton better and my Tourette's symptoms are better controlled by my medication (which is part of why I bloated up so big to begin with).

I'm thankful my doctor took the time and from now on I won't stay with any medical professional that doesn't espouse striving for a healthy diet supplemented with at least a moderate amount of exercise.  To me it would be akin to using a dentist that tells you it isn't really important to brush and floss.

Good doctors share the science on weight and weight loss and nutrition without getting in anyone's face and calling them a "fat fucker." 

Adam Zapple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #215 on: June 11, 2019, 11:49:17 AM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

That's exactly what I just said.

To the post up thread which stated intent doesn't matter, I would say that it matters when some form of Justice is brought upon the "offender".  In every form of Justice, intent is taken into consideration, with the exception of this new form of social justice.

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #216 on: June 11, 2019, 11:53:55 AM »
My doctor had a good long talk with me when I was 256 pounds (quite fat!)  I'm now stablish between 195 and 205 pounds and hope to crack the 190 mark for the first time this summer.  I started with small, tolerable, permanent lifestyle changes 1MAR2015.  Dieting works if you work the diet.  Mine is frustratingly slow at about 15 pounds a year but it is certain I will healthier this time next year.  I feel a ton better and my Tourette's symptoms are better controlled by my medication (which is part of why I bloated up so big to begin with).

I'm thankful my doctor took the time and from now on I won't stay with any medical professional that doesn't espouse striving for a healthy diet supplemented with at least a moderate amount of exercise.  To me it would be akin to using a dentist that tells you it isn't really important to brush and floss.

Good doctors share the science on weight and weight loss and nutrition without getting in anyone's face and calling them a "fat fucker."

I was 260 when I first got married, chubby from early childhood. I was 20, went keto lost down to 210. In the past year or so I've been reading a lot on fasting and that has provided me greater eating flexibility and allowed me to start hitting new lows. Never went back up above 220, currently floating around 195 pretty consistently. So I've maintained my weightloss for 7-8 years so far.

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Age: 91
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #217 on: June 11, 2019, 11:54:57 AM »
While I agree that a little sensitivity is needed for medical/ patient interactions, it is all a lone medical provider can do with respect to a single patient.  Sol's point that it is far too easy to get fat in America, just like it used to be far too easy(and expected) to become a smoker 40-50 years ago.
30-70% of the US population indicates a system problem, not a problem solvable by individuals.

Disclosure: 40lbs over my actuarily ideal weight.  My wife and I have a $800 bet on a 15% weight loss. Even with that on the line 3 months in, and we haven't lost anything.

So maybe you see the madness in doctors focusing on weight loss as the solution to all of a fat person's health problems, when 95+% of people who attempt intentional weight loss do not succeed.

Do you have sources to support this? In searching I've seen it repeated a number of times, but without citation. I did find this:

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/health/95-regain-lost-weight-or-do-they.html

It suggests that the 5% number comes from a clinical study of 100 people in 1959. I'm not suggesting that this is proof that it's not 5%, I'm only asking if there is further evidence to support this number.

Here's an update on the National Weight Control Registry mentioned in that article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24355667

Lots of evidence shown here, scroll down
https://danceswithfat.org/2012/04/21/for-fat-patients-and-their-doctors/

ETA: I think the burden of proof about the efficacy of diets should fall on those who think that diets work, rather than others having to prove they don't work. I mean, it's not like a doctor will prescribe people a drug without any trials that indicate it's an effective treatment, right? So let the medical establishment prove that intentional weight loss via diet works before they try to prescribe that shit to me.

untrue. Doctors all across america are free to use their own professional judgement to prescribe drugs "off-label." This term permits doctors to use a drug that is approved for one condition (and for which clinical safety/efficacy data exists) and use it for a completely different condition, irrespective of whether there is safety/efficacy data for the latter. While there are some constraints on how this operates in the real world, it is extremely common, at least in the USA. Many of the products made by the company I work for, are currently used off-label.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4689
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #218 on: June 11, 2019, 11:59:25 AM »
Another funny thing is that it seems to be perfectly civil to remind any white person about their races part in slavery and racial oppression, but it's very rude to remind a German of their Nazi past.

<snip>

Individual black people may have made peace with whites, but in the media they are still often portrayed as the poor oppressed even though that is no longer true.

The best part of this particularly poor example is the differences in how Germans react to that vs white people actually disprove your overall point.

Germans almost across the board are horrified of the things their nation did. They culturally abhor the Nazi past and have laws/legistlation against even reminders of that past. Deny the Holocaust in Germany? They sent an 89 year old woman to jail because of this.

When I lived in Germany, people there were absolutely ashamed of that past (even in recent years when almost all the direct contributors are dead). Their government still pays restitution to Jews. They have owned that problem.

Yet... a lot of white folks in America seem to have this attitude of "meh, whatever, slavery is over, get over it, why is this even a big deal now, there's no racism come on now" which is entirely the opposite attitude entirely that Germans take. It's ignoring the socioeconomic factors directly resulting from slavery and 150 years of segregation. Ignoring all the bias now in 2019 against minorities (for "fun" take your resume with a very white sounding name and put something more African American sounding as an experiment - this and countless other things are both conscious/unconsciously biased against minorities). Or look at police actions over the last few years, etc. Not to mention it was much more recent than WWII that large portions of the USA were still heavily officially racist.


It is easy to say from a position where your race has never once caused you to be treated differently than another that racism is "no longer true."

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #219 on: June 11, 2019, 12:00:41 PM »
While I agree that a little sensitivity is needed for medical/ patient interactions, it is all a lone medical provider can do with respect to a single patient.  Sol's point that it is far too easy to get fat in America, just like it used to be far too easy(and expected) to become a smoker 40-50 years ago.
30-70% of the US population indicates a system problem, not a problem solvable by individuals.

Disclosure: 40lbs over my actuarily ideal weight.  My wife and I have a $800 bet on a 15% weight loss. Even with that on the line 3 months in, and we haven't lost anything.

So maybe you see the madness in doctors focusing on weight loss as the solution to all of a fat person's health problems, when 95+% of people who attempt intentional weight loss do not succeed.

Do you have sources to support this? In searching I've seen it repeated a number of times, but without citation. I did find this:

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/health/95-regain-lost-weight-or-do-they.html

It suggests that the 5% number comes from a clinical study of 100 people in 1959. I'm not suggesting that this is proof that it's not 5%, I'm only asking if there is further evidence to support this number.

Here's an update on the National Weight Control Registry mentioned in that article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24355667

Lots of evidence shown here, scroll down
https://danceswithfat.org/2012/04/21/for-fat-patients-and-their-doctors/

ETA: I think the burden of proof about the efficacy of diets should fall on those who think that diets work, rather than others having to prove they don't work. I mean, it's not like a doctor will prescribe people a drug without any trials that indicate it's an effective treatment, right? So let the medical establishment prove that intentional weight loss via diet works before they try to prescribe that shit to me.

untrue. Doctors all across america are free to use their own professional judgement to prescribe drugs "off-label." This term permits doctors to use a drug that is approved for one condition (and for which clinical safety/efficacy data exists) and use it for a completely different condition, irrespective of whether there is safety/efficacy data for the latter. While there are some constraints on how this operates in the real world, it is extremely common, at least in the USA. Many of the products made by the company I work for, are currently used off-label.

Way to completely miss the point and be pedantic without paying attention to the crux of what I was saying, great job.

Also dieting is not safe. It definitely contributes to metabolic disorder and eating disorders in a lot of people.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #220 on: June 11, 2019, 12:09:48 PM »
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.

For  instance, if you're used to using the word "retard" for humor, and you're looking forward to the response you get, and then you remember that you were told that it's rude and can hurt people's feelings, you feel a surge of resentment because now you must find another word.  What can be done to reduce this negative surge?
No one likes being pointed out and told they did something wrong. Especially if there was no bad intention and people get hurt over a possible different interpretation of what you said. Like if I said you shouldn't use the words brain structure because it offends autistic people. Would you feel the need to change your words or feel this is ridiculous, I didn't mean anything of the sort. Also it feels like rather than being actually offended people are using offence as a stick. It really feels weird to me when there are different rules about who can make jokes about something. If it's really hurtful or offensive it shouldn't matter. Else it's just racism or sexism as well.

In my posts, I kind of mushed two phenomena together. The first is the hurt and anger that one feels when called out for an unintended offense. A second is the annoyance that one feels when finding that a previously used term is not acceptable.  Then you are also bringing up a third issue, which is when a word has multiple usages.
 
In the first case, I can see how a person can get defensive. For instance, if you are among friends and call somebody a "retard", knowing that there are no mentally disabled people or their relatives present, what's the harm and why should anybody get their panties in a twist? Well, even this "victimless" usage, it keeps a usage alive that may eventually strike and hurt somebody down the line. Apologize then move on.

I was talking more about the second case, where one knows a term is disliked, but still wants to use it. Not sure why it is so inconvenient or painful, to avoid using terms that hurt others. If I've been using a term that turns out to be impolite, I just make a mental note to stop using it and move on.

Quote
What I personally find irritating is when words that perfectly convey their meaning are banned because people don't want to be what they are. Like your example of retard. When you talk about a retarded person that is exactly what you mean. It is an insult only because it compares a normal person with a mentally retarded person. It's not the word that's the insult, its them. Changing it to something else will just make that new word an insult. In that way I like how gays handled it. Instead of banning the word gay or homo, they hold their head up and challenge the underlying assumption that that is a bad thing to be. We should have a retarded pride.

As for the third issue, I don't think it comes up often, but it seems to be good sense to use a term for people that they prefer.  Mentally disabled people don't want to be called "retarded" any more. So we'll stop.

It's like if you would like to be called Richard, but one friend keeps calling you Dicky. He may not understand why you don't care for one version of your name over the other, but if you've asked nicely a few times and he persists, well, it means he doesn't care enough about your happiness to make this small concession.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 12:33:30 PM by Poundwise »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8475
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #221 on: June 11, 2019, 12:15:29 PM »
+1. I think it is vitally important that we recognize the real victims of oppression in the US today. White males in general, and Sol in particular.

Perhaps I want clear enough.  I wasn't objecting to the punching up/down historical context, or the use of identity to discern intent.  I certainly wasn't arguing with victims determining when harm has occurred.  Offense is always determined by the offended party.  I was merely staying that these things are now equally important, even in cases where they can lead to unwarranted criticisms based on incorrect assumptions.  That's the way it is, as part of our ever evolving understanding of how to get along in polite society.  White males in particular have to be uniquely cognizant of causing inadvertent offense because of this history.

I am rarely a victim of personal discrimination on an individual level, but we are all, every one of us, party to a system that constantly discriminates against everyone in different ways.  No one is above fault here, and we should all be open to criticism if we choose to make any public statements whatsoever.

The world is not a fair place.  Do your best not to be a jerk about it, please.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #222 on: June 11, 2019, 12:17:23 PM »

As for the third issue, I don't think it comes up often, but it seems to be good sense to use a term for people that they prefer.  Mentally disabled people don't want to be called "retarded" any more. So we'll stop.

It's like if you would like to be called Richard, but one friend keeps calling you Dicky. He may not understand why you don't care for one version of your name over the other, but if you've asked nicely a few times and he persists, well, it means he doesn't care enough about your happiness to make this small concession.

Right? Except in 2cents' belief, a joke is a joke. So if you call Richard "Dicky" and he doesn't like it, all you have to say is, "It's a joke." That means it's okay.

According to 2cents.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 12:19:13 PM by Kris »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #223 on: June 11, 2019, 12:23:42 PM »
Individual black people may have made peace with whites, but in the media they are still often portrayed as the poor oppressed even though that is no longer true.

At risk of derailing this discussion, Black Americans are much poorer than White Americans, even if their families have lived in the US for the same amount of time or even longer.
https://www.epi.org/blog/10-years-after-the-start-of-the-great-recession-black-and-asian-households-have-yet-to-recover-lost-income/

And they have much more severe encounters with the law for the same (or no) offenses as White Americans. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/

Quote
The world is not a fair place.  Do your best not to be a jerk about it, please.
Yes.
On another note, @sol, I think you're a great guy and I usually enjoy what you write. Sorry to hear there seems to have been some squabbles in the past.  Sometimes we are rougher with those of whom we expect more.

@iris lily  We agree, manners were not made up for no reason!

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #224 on: June 11, 2019, 12:44:47 PM »
So if you call Richard "Dicky" and he doesn't like it, all you have to say is, "It's a joke." That means it's okay.

Actually, it might be okay, if you and Dicky, er, Richard, are friends and equals. It's not okay if Richard is your employee, or your boss, or your client, or an elderly person, or really anybody else with whom you are not on an equal social footing. An awareness of where respect needs to be shown, is an important trait. Because if you don't show respect where appropriate, people don't like you.  And that can lead to consequences, even dollars and cents consequences.  So in instances where, say, a corporate employee is captured on video calling somebody the n-word, they probably end up fired for showing poor judgement, rather than intended malice.   

(interestingly, I wonder whether conservatives are more visually offended than progressives, since they tend to be much more sensitive to dress code offenses to respect) <- edited here, this was kind of a non sequitur but my thoughts were jumping to other poor-judgement reasons why corporations fire employees for minor transgressions
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 12:50:54 PM by Poundwise »

Villanelle

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2587
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #225 on: June 11, 2019, 12:48:51 PM »
I think some of the problem (and the resistance to change) is that we are now at a place where, in most (or at least many) circles, racist, sexist/misogynistic/, or some other "'-ist" is one of the worst things one can be.  It's almost equated with "shitty human being".  So if someone points out an racist (or other -ist) behavior, the speaker is of course going to be defensive.  We've moved past a point where it can be something that's simply taken on board and learned from.  Someone who is generally an ally to a community, and who acts without bigotry or malice or any other negativity, can't accept that maybe a specific behavior is a bit "-ist" because they equate that with being a shitty human being, which they know their are not and which their behavior toward that group clearly shows they are not.  So terrible has become "racist" (and generally that's for good, but there's a small downside) that we can no longer have a conversation about a specific behavior because the title itself is so abhorrent that it must be avoided at all costs.  So the focus is on defense, rather than on enlightenment and growth.

In a way, I feel this is similar to how people treat Trump voters.  A certain type of people throws out "racist/sexists/classist" labels regularly and vigorously.  So whatever they say goes unheard because the listener's focus is on affirming (to himself or to others) that no, he is not those horrid things.  That leaves him unable or unwilling to actually examine his behaviors, and in fact may cause him to dig in his heels even further.  Voting for Trump means I'm racist?  Of course not, so screw you!  Without nuance, no one is going to examine their own behavior.  There needs to be a way to say, "you can be and probably are a good person.  And maybe just take a look at the motivation behind or results of this one thing, and consider them in a racial context."  Certainly, it's not going to work for everyone (and of course there are those who are just blatantly racist/-ist).  But we have to try to find away to allow people to step back from defending against one of the worst labels we have in our culture, if we want them to actually be able to examine their behaviors and make changes.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #226 on: June 11, 2019, 12:50:37 PM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

That's exactly what I just said.

To the post up thread which stated intent doesn't matter, I would say that it matters when some form of Justice is brought upon the "offender".  In every form of Justice, intent is taken into consideration, with the exception of this new form of social justice.


Can you link some examples of what you're talking about?  I'm not sure if I follow you.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #227 on: June 11, 2019, 01:16:53 PM »
I think some of the problem (and the resistance to change) is that we are now at a place where, in most (or at least many) circles, racist, sexist/misogynistic/, or some other "'-ist" is one of the worst things one can be.  It's almost equated with "shitty human being".  So if someone points out an racist (or other -ist) behavior, the speaker is of course going to be defensive.  We've moved past a point where it can be something that's simply taken on board and learned from.  Someone who is generally an ally to a community, and who acts without bigotry or malice or any other negativity, can't accept that maybe a specific behavior is a bit "-ist" because they equate that with being a shitty human being, which they know their are not and which their behavior toward that group clearly shows they are not.  So terrible has become "racist" (and generally that's for good, but there's a small downside) that we can no longer have a conversation about a specific behavior because the title itself is so abhorrent that it must be avoided at all costs.  So the focus is on defense, rather than on enlightenment and growth.

The only problem with this approach is that it requires marginalized people to do a lot of work on top of all the work they are already doing to survive in this culture.

Put another way, this well-intentioned post is STILL centering the experiences of privileged people, and that is part of the whole issue.

I would say that if someone is truly an ally, then part of that is being willing to listen to critiques without defensiveness, and do the legwork to educate themselves so they don’t do the same gross thing again.

Villanelle

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2587
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #228 on: June 11, 2019, 01:26:24 PM »
I think some of the problem (and the resistance to change) is that we are now at a place where, in most (or at least many) circles, racist, sexist/misogynistic/, or some other "'-ist" is one of the worst things one can be.  It's almost equated with "shitty human being".  So if someone points out an racist (or other -ist) behavior, the speaker is of course going to be defensive.  We've moved past a point where it can be something that's simply taken on board and learned from.  Someone who is generally an ally to a community, and who acts without bigotry or malice or any other negativity, can't accept that maybe a specific behavior is a bit "-ist" because they equate that with being a shitty human being, which they know their are not and which their behavior toward that group clearly shows they are not.  So terrible has become "racist" (and generally that's for good, but there's a small downside) that we can no longer have a conversation about a specific behavior because the title itself is so abhorrent that it must be avoided at all costs.  So the focus is on defense, rather than on enlightenment and growth.

The only problem with this approach is that it requires marginalized people to do a lot of work on top of all the work they are already doing to survive in this culture.

Put another way, this well-intentioned post is STILL centering the experiences of privileged people, and that is part of the whole issue.

I would say that if someone is truly an ally, then part of that is being willing to listen to critiques without defensiveness, and do the legwork to educate themselves so they don’t do the same gross thing again.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is obligated to approach it like this.  But I think that if the main goal is changing the mind/behavior of the other party (and that certainly does not need to be the main goal, as making it the job of the oppressed to fix the oppressor is ridiculous), it's likely to be far more effective. 

As a woman, it's shouldn't be my responsibility to fix the patriarchy.  But that doesn't mean that if I (and many other women) don't try to do the work that should never be ours to begin with, we are unlikely to see progress.  It shouldn't be that way; it's not fair that it is.  And if a woman doesn't have it in her or has no desire to cater to the delicate feelings of a man in order to bring him a bit further in to the fold, more power to her.  But if her specific goal with a specific person is to get him to perhaps see a bit more of the light, its almost always going to be more effective (if also more exhausting) to treat him with kid gloves and choose words hyper-carefully and avoid putting him on the defense. 

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #229 on: June 11, 2019, 01:33:48 PM »
While I agree that a little sensitivity is needed for medical/ patient interactions, it is all a lone medical provider can do with respect to a single patient.  Sol's point that it is far too easy to get fat in America, just like it used to be far too easy(and expected) to become a smoker 40-50 years ago.
30-70% of the US population indicates a system problem, not a problem solvable by individuals.

Disclosure: 40lbs over my actuarily ideal weight.  My wife and I have a $800 bet on a 15% weight loss. Even with that on the line 3 months in, and we haven't lost anything.

So maybe you see the madness in doctors focusing on weight loss as the solution to all of a fat person's health problems, when 95+% of people who attempt intentional weight loss do not succeed.

Do you have sources to support this? In searching I've seen it repeated a number of times, but without citation. I did find this:

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/health/95-regain-lost-weight-or-do-they.html

It suggests that the 5% number comes from a clinical study of 100 people in 1959. I'm not suggesting that this is proof that it's not 5%, I'm only asking if there is further evidence to support this number.

Here's an update on the National Weight Control Registry mentioned in that article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24355667

Lots of evidence shown here, scroll down
https://danceswithfat.org/2012/04/21/for-fat-patients-and-their-doctors/

ETA: I think the burden of proof about the efficacy of diets should fall on those who think that diets work, rather than others having to prove they don't work. I mean, it's not like a doctor will prescribe people a drug without any trials that indicate it's an effective treatment, right? So let the medical establishment prove that intentional weight loss via diet works before they try to prescribe that shit to me.

I don't see any conclusion that only 5% of dieters are successful long term. What I did see is evidence that the majority of people who attempt a diet either fail or gain the weight back. The studies cited in this article and others I've read all seem to use different metrics for what success is so it's not going to be easy to come up with a figure that has meaning out of context.

I should add that I don't disagree with the notion that many, most, or perhaps even 95% of attempted diets fail, but I don't think the conclusion should be that we should give up on the idea of losing weight. One of the reasons the figures in these articles are so disappointing is that they include anyone who attempted any sort of diet. This includes all the fad diets designed with the intent to make money rather than be successful. If we observed groups who properly learn about nutrition and/or have a support system the results may be different.

I haven't even touched on the other part of your argument that increased body fat does not lead to worse health outcomes, but this is getting way too off topic for the discussion. If you'd like to start another thread I would follow it, and I suspect others would be interested as well, but you also stated that you're not interested in a debate so that's up to you. But I would like you to know that I've spent more time than I probably should have reading up on Linda Bacon and the studies we've been discussing. I agree with this:

More than anything though is that you keep writing from a position that you are the one with all the knowledge in this conversation and the only thing missing is that sol and others just haven't properly googled enough about it.

There's nothing wrong with presenting the articles and studies, but it's entirely possible that someone can read them and still disagree. Perhaps they have information you haven't seen which refutes your claims or perhaps one study agrees with your conclusion and another disagrees. In any case the stance that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't have the right information doesn't result in productive conversation.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #230 on: June 11, 2019, 01:43:22 PM »
While I agree that a little sensitivity is needed for medical/ patient interactions, it is all a lone medical provider can do with respect to a single patient.  Sol's point that it is far too easy to get fat in America, just like it used to be far too easy(and expected) to become a smoker 40-50 years ago.
30-70% of the US population indicates a system problem, not a problem solvable by individuals.

Disclosure: 40lbs over my actuarily ideal weight.  My wife and I have a $800 bet on a 15% weight loss. Even with that on the line 3 months in, and we haven't lost anything.

So maybe you see the madness in doctors focusing on weight loss as the solution to all of a fat person's health problems, when 95+% of people who attempt intentional weight loss do not succeed.

Do you have sources to support this? In searching I've seen it repeated a number of times, but without citation. I did find this:

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/health/95-regain-lost-weight-or-do-they.html

It suggests that the 5% number comes from a clinical study of 100 people in 1959. I'm not suggesting that this is proof that it's not 5%, I'm only asking if there is further evidence to support this number.

Here's an update on the National Weight Control Registry mentioned in that article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24355667

Lots of evidence shown here, scroll down
https://danceswithfat.org/2012/04/21/for-fat-patients-and-their-doctors/

ETA: I think the burden of proof about the efficacy of diets should fall on those who think that diets work, rather than others having to prove they don't work. I mean, it's not like a doctor will prescribe people a drug without any trials that indicate it's an effective treatment, right? So let the medical establishment prove that intentional weight loss via diet works before they try to prescribe that shit to me.

I don't see any conclusion that only 5% of dieters are successful long term. What I did see is evidence that the majority of people who attempt a diet either fail or gain the weight back. The studies cited in this article and others I've read all seem to use different metrics for what success is so it's not going to be easy to come up with a figure that has meaning out of context.

I should add that I don't disagree with the notion that many, most, or perhaps even 95% of attempted diets fail, but I don't think the conclusion should be that we should give up on the idea of losing weight. One of the reasons the figures in these articles are so disappointing is that they include anyone who attempted any sort of diet. This includes all the fad diets designed with the intent to make money rather than be successful. If we observed groups who properly learn about nutrition and/or have a support system the results may be different.

I haven't even touched on the other part of your argument that increased body fat does not lead to worse health outcomes, but this is getting way too off topic for the discussion. If you'd like to start another thread I would follow it, and I suspect others would be interested as well, but you also stated that you're not interested in a debate so that's up to you. But I would like you to know that I've spent more time than I probably should have reading up on Linda Bacon and the studies we've been discussing. I agree with this:

More than anything though is that you keep writing from a position that you are the one with all the knowledge in this conversation and the only thing missing is that sol and others just haven't properly googled enough about it.

There's nothing wrong with presenting the articles and studies, but it's entirely possible that someone can read them and still disagree. Perhaps they have information you haven't seen which refutes your claims or perhaps one study agrees with your conclusion and another disagrees. In any case the stance that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't have the right information doesn't result in productive conversation.

If anyone I’ve been debating with on this thread has read anything substantive on fatphobia or HAES before this conversation, this fat lady will eat her hat.

Y’all are still missing the fact that we are all seeing reality through a lens that says “fatness is bad.” Unless folks are truly and honestly willing to question that lens, debating HAES is a complete waste of time.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #231 on: June 11, 2019, 02:12:44 PM »
If anyone I’ve been debating with on this thread has read anything substantive on fatphobia or HAES before this conversation, this fat lady will eat her hat.

Y’all are still missing the fact that we are all seeing reality through a lens that says “fatness is bad.” Unless folks are truly and honestly willing to question that lens, debating HAES is a complete waste of time.

I'm willing to try, but I'm sure I have some amount of the unconscious bias you mentioned due to a lifetime of learning that fatness is indeed bad, statistically that is. I think I accepted the idea that an individual can have excess body fat and be healthy relative to the average a long time ago.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #232 on: June 11, 2019, 02:17:15 PM »
I think some of the problem (and the resistance to change) is that we are now at a place where, in most (or at least many) circles, racist, sexist/misogynistic/, or some other "'-ist" is one of the worst things one can be.  It's almost equated with "shitty human being".  So if someone points out an racist (or other -ist) behavior, the speaker is of course going to be defensive.  We've moved past a point where it can be something that's simply taken on board and learned from.  Someone who is generally an ally to a community, and who acts without bigotry or malice or any other negativity, can't accept that maybe a specific behavior is a bit "-ist" because they equate that with being a shitty human being, which they know their are not and which their behavior toward that group clearly shows they are not.  So terrible has become "racist" (and generally that's for good, but there's a small downside) that we can no longer have a conversation about a specific behavior because the title itself is so abhorrent that it must be avoided at all costs.  So the focus is on defense, rather than on enlightenment and growth.

The only problem with this approach is that it requires marginalized people to do a lot of work on top of all the work they are already doing to survive in this culture.

Put another way, this well-intentioned post is STILL centering the experiences of privileged people, and that is part of the whole issue.

I would say that if someone is truly an ally, then part of that is being willing to listen to critiques without defensiveness, and do the legwork to educate themselves so they don’t do the same gross thing again.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is obligated to approach it like this.  But I think that if the main goal is changing the mind/behavior of the other party (and that certainly does not need to be the main goal, as making it the job of the oppressed to fix the oppressor is ridiculous), it's likely to be far more effective.


As a woman, it's shouldn't be my responsibility to fix the patriarchy.  But that doesn't mean that if I (and many other women) don't try to do the work that should never be ours to begin with, we are unlikely to see progress.  It shouldn't be that way; it's not fair that it is.  And if a woman doesn't have it in her or has no desire to cater to the delicate feelings of a man in order to bring him a bit further in to the fold, more power to her.  But if her specific goal with a specific person is to get him to perhaps see a bit more of the light, its almost always going to be more effective (if also more exhausting) to treat him with kid gloves and choose words hyper-carefully and avoid putting him on the defense.

+1 to this. I feel there are often 2 different arguments in these debates that ought to run parallel but they get mixed up.

One is the question of what's fair and right. The other is how we as an individual should act in order to improve the real world.

They are related and can be part of the same conversation but I can't use one to disprove the other.


madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #233 on: June 11, 2019, 02:31:40 PM »
If anyone I’ve been debating with on this thread has read anything substantive on fatphobia or HAES before this conversation, this fat lady will eat her hat.

Y’all are still missing the fact that we are all seeing reality through a lens that says “fatness is bad.” Unless folks are truly and honestly willing to question that lens, debating HAES is a complete waste of time.

I'm willing to try, but I'm sure I have some amount of the unconscious bias you mentioned due to a lifetime of learning that fatness is indeed bad, statistically that is. I think I accepted the idea that an individual can have excess body fat and be healthy relative to the average a long time ago.

It’s a start and I’ll take it!

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #234 on: June 11, 2019, 02:43:07 PM »
I think some of the problem (and the resistance to change) is that we are now at a place where, in most (or at least many) circles, racist, sexist/misogynistic/, or some other "'-ist" is one of the worst things one can be.  It's almost equated with "shitty human being".  So if someone points out an racist (or other -ist) behavior, the speaker is of course going to be defensive.  We've moved past a point where it can be something that's simply taken on board and learned from.  Someone who is generally an ally to a community, and who acts without bigotry or malice or any other negativity, can't accept that maybe a specific behavior is a bit "-ist" because they equate that with being a shitty human being, which they know their are not and which their behavior toward that group clearly shows they are not.  So terrible has become "racist" (and generally that's for good, but there's a small downside) that we can no longer have a conversation about a specific behavior because the title itself is so abhorrent that it must be avoided at all costs.  So the focus is on defense, rather than on enlightenment and growth.

The only problem with this approach is that it requires marginalized people to do a lot of work on top of all the work they are already doing to survive in this culture.

Put another way, this well-intentioned post is STILL centering the experiences of privileged people, and that is part of the whole issue.

I would say that if someone is truly an ally, then part of that is being willing to listen to critiques without defensiveness, and do the legwork to educate themselves so they don’t do the same gross thing again.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is obligated to approach it like this.  But I think that if the main goal is changing the mind/behavior of the other party (and that certainly does not need to be the main goal, as making it the job of the oppressed to fix the oppressor is ridiculous), it's likely to be far more effective.


As a woman, it's shouldn't be my responsibility to fix the patriarchy.  But that doesn't mean that if I (and many other women) don't try to do the work that should never be ours to begin with, we are unlikely to see progress.  It shouldn't be that way; it's not fair that it is.  And if a woman doesn't have it in her or has no desire to cater to the delicate feelings of a man in order to bring him a bit further in to the fold, more power to her.  But if her specific goal with a specific person is to get him to perhaps see a bit more of the light, its almost always going to be more effective (if also more exhausting) to treat him with kid gloves and choose words hyper-carefully and avoid putting him on the defense.

+1 to this. I feel there are often 2 different arguments in these debates that ought to run parallel but they get mixed up.

One is the question of what's fair and right. The other is how we as an individual should act in order to improve the real world.

They are related and can be part of the same conversation but I can't use one to disprove the other.

I see the question differently. I see it as, who actually has the flawed thinking in any lopsided privilege situation, and who has more power. To me, expecting people who are already suffering from the effects of oppression to educate folks who aren’t not — and who honestly are often quite hostile to such education — is another manifestation of privilege. It’s saying that educating the oppressor is a higher priority than caring for the oppressed.

That being said, there are already TONS of resources out there that people can use to educate themselves and become better allies without heaping more labor onto already stressed shoulders.

The point of feminism, anti-racism, body liberation, all of these movements is to center the perspectives of the people who are suffering most and attend to what they need.. That necessarily means de-centering one’s own perspective if one is a man, or white, or straight-sizes, or able bodied, or neurotypical, or rich. That means that the feelings of the privileged person HAVE to take lower priority than the bodily autonomy and freedom of the oppressed.

If we don’t do this we end up building a feminism that only cares about white women ... an economy that only cares about rich people ... a built landscape that doesn’t allow disabled bodies to move around in it — like on the Tonys the other night, an actress in a wheelchair won a Tony but there was no ramp for her to get up on stage! In what world does that make sense???

As people with power and privilege in this world, we have to try to think less about how we feel about being called out on our bullshit and more about what other people actually need to live their lives.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4689
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #235 on: June 11, 2019, 03:10:33 PM »
I see the question differently. I see it as, who actually has the flawed thinking in any lopsided privilege situation, and who has more power. To me, expecting people who are already suffering from the effects of oppression to educate folks who aren’t not — and who honestly are often quite hostile to such education — is another manifestation of privilege. It’s saying that educating the oppressor is a higher priority than caring for the oppressed.

That being said, there are already TONS of resources out there that people can use to educate themselves and become better allies without heaping more labor onto already stressed shoulders.

The point of feminism, anti-racism, body liberation, all of these movements is to center the perspectives of the people who are suffering most and attend to what they need.. That necessarily means de-centering one’s own perspective if one is a man, or white, or straight-sizes, or able bodied, or neurotypical, or rich. That means that the feelings of the privileged person HAVE to take lower priority than the bodily autonomy and freedom of the oppressed.

If we don’t do this we end up building a feminism that only cares about white women ... an economy that only cares about rich people ... a built landscape that doesn’t allow disabled bodies to move around in it — like on the Tonys the other night, an actress in a wheelchair won a Tony but there was no ramp for her to get up on stage! In what world does that make sense???

As people with power and privilege in this world, we have to try to think less about how we feel about being called out on our bullshit and more about what other people actually need to live their lives.

This is one of the things that was most insightful on my journey to realize.

When I thought about it, it became about me and my needs (how to educate me without my feelings being hurt, protecting me at the sake of underrepresented folks, etc) -- this was a literal example of the problem.

It is a good encouragement for us folks who have those positions of privilege to become active allies. And it's a tangible thing to do - carrying that "torch" so to speak. Especially because in a lot of real life situations (less so in an anonymous forum here where I can't tell gender/race of nearly everyone as most folks have unclear names/avatars), there is a significantly lower risk for whites/men to communicate those messages than when a woman or minority does so.

Every time there's a slight uncomfortableness for me in the gender/race discussions... I am reminded: this rare occurrence for me is life for a lot of folks.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #236 on: June 11, 2019, 05:58:55 PM »
“Oppressor” vs. “oppressed”.  How constructive are those terms anyways?  Some peoples have been historically oppressed and others have historically oppressed them.  That can be an objective statement of fact.  But in dialogue it seems to me to attach a value judgement on both that isn’t. The oppressed are oppressed because they’re weak.  I’ve seriously seen people argue they’re always the victims and may do anything they please because morality was invented by the oppressors for the oppressors’ sole benefit.  Indeed, they’re so browbeat by the oppressors they can do nothing but act out with rudeness or violence.  As if they have no actual agency or need of it.

The oppressors are always presumed bad.  That’s a valid observation historically.  However, when applied to public discussion it seems unnecessarily harsh and not always accurate.  No matter how distant an individual may be from the group oppression.  An Irishman fleeing British oppression during the Potato Famine or a Slav escaping 19th century serfdom to America are seen as no better than a white slave owner.  (To be fair quite a few weren’t, so maybe not the best examples.).  “When did you stop oppressing (insert oppressed group)?”  Is it ever possible to?   Must the oppressors always apologize for their ancestors, their accidental slights, forever bound by moral judgement like early Puritans beneath an angry God?  Or will they decide to act as wolves if they’re already judged as wolves? 

Is this typification/terminology in modern discussion going to lead us to a just and equitable society?  I’d like to think the hysteria driven rhetoric used by both the oppressed and the oppressors will die down or not derail that ambition.  Time will tell but it doesn’t look promising from here.

Malkynn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #237 on: June 11, 2019, 06:02:08 PM »

Every time there's a slight uncomfortableness for me in the gender/race discussions... I am reminded: this rare occurrence for me is life for a lot of folks.

This right here.

Damn straight.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #238 on: June 11, 2019, 06:03:37 PM »

Every time there's a slight uncomfortableness for me in the gender/race discussions... I am reminded: this rare occurrence for me is life for a lot of folks.

This right here.

Damn straight.

+1.

expatartist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Location: The Big Lychee
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #239 on: June 11, 2019, 07:51:04 PM »
This:
"Privilege is not about wealth, or even power.

Privilege is the extent to which certain hidden rules of society do or do not apply to you. To which the systems of society, daily interactions, either advantage you or do not work against you."

from the article linked to above https://www.quora.com/How-did-society-shift-so-abruptly-to-a-politically-correct-culture-Everyone-was-saying-whatever-they-wanted-and-no-one-would-bat-an-eye-but-now-everythings-a-micro-aggression/answer/Peter-Kruger

is brilliant.

Adam Zapple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #240 on: June 11, 2019, 08:10:59 PM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

That's exactly what I just said.

To the post up thread which stated intent doesn't matter, I would say that it matters when some form of Justice is brought upon the "offender".  In every form of Justice, intent is taken into consideration, with the exception of this new form of social justice.


Can you link some examples of what you're talking about?  I'm not sure if I follow you.

I think s great example of what I'm getting at is the firing of Megyn Kelly following her attempt to have a discussion on why blackface is offensive.  She simply asked a question.  Does this really warrant a talkshow host being fired?  Who gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom? 

MrDelane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #241 on: June 11, 2019, 08:34:35 PM »
I think s great example of what I'm getting at is the firing of Megyn Kelly ...

...Who gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom?

In the case of Megyn Kelly, I guess the executives at NBC get to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #242 on: June 11, 2019, 08:48:37 PM »
This:
"Privilege is not about wealth, or even power.

Privilege is the extent to which certain hidden rules of society do or do not apply to you. To which the systems of society, daily interactions, either advantage you or do not work against you."

from the article linked to above https://www.quora.com/How-did-society-shift-so-abruptly-to-a-politically-correct-culture-Everyone-was-saying-whatever-they-wanted-and-no-one-would-bat-an-eye-but-now-everythings-a-micro-aggression/answer/Peter-Kruger

is brilliant.

It’s a pretty good article.  The only thing I dislike about it is where he implies any dissent to the dissent is going to result in a brutal hate crime.  Ironically, I knew a guy who used that same example to justify bullying a woman online because she had the audacity to use the word “fag.”   It was double ironic because he was a cis white male living in pretty LBQT friendly Marin county and she was an open lesbian living in a red state where something like that is much more possible.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #243 on: June 12, 2019, 07:14:30 AM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

That's exactly what I just said.

To the post up thread which stated intent doesn't matter, I would say that it matters when some form of Justice is brought upon the "offender".  In every form of Justice, intent is taken into consideration, with the exception of this new form of social justice.


Can you link some examples of what you're talking about?  I'm not sure if I follow you.

I think s great example of what I'm getting at is the firing of Megyn Kelly following her attempt to have a discussion on why blackface is offensive.  She simply asked a question.  Does this really warrant a talkshow host being fired?  Who gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom?

So, I've looked up this Megyn Kelly person.  She has a history of making semi-racist and pretty questionable statements (like when she said that Santa Clause and Jesus are both white.)  It appears she was fired because she publicly said something while at work that her employer didn't agree with/authorize.  The direct quote OKing blackface that led to her firing was:  "What is racist?  Because you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character."

In this case, I'd say that the employer gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom.  I mean, it's the employers television program, their broadcast booth, and their airtime.  If you have a problem with the employer's decision that's fine, but don't paint it as some sort of shadowy PC conspiracy.  The employer didn't want to support her comments, that's their privilege.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #244 on: June 12, 2019, 07:46:28 AM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

That's exactly what I just said.

To the post up thread which stated intent doesn't matter, I would say that it matters when some form of Justice is brought upon the "offender".  In every form of Justice, intent is taken into consideration, with the exception of this new form of social justice.


Can you link some examples of what you're talking about?  I'm not sure if I follow you.

I think s great example of what I'm getting at is the firing of Megyn Kelly following her attempt to have a discussion on why blackface is offensive.  She simply asked a question.  Does this really warrant a talkshow host being fired?  Who gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom?

So, I've looked up this Megyn Kelly person.  She has a history of making semi-racist and pretty questionable statements (like when she said that Santa Clause and Jesus are both white.)  It appears she was fired because she publicly said something while at work that her employer didn't agree with/authorize.  The direct quote OKing blackface that led to her firing was:  "What is racist?  Because you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character."

In this case, I'd say that the employer gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom.  I mean, it's the employers television program, their broadcast booth, and their airtime.  If you have a problem with the employer's decision that's fine, but don't paint it as some sort of shadowy PC conspiracy.  The employer didn't want to support her comments, that's their privilege.

Based on what little I’ve read she appears to be a bit of a troll.  And if her employer wants to dump her for that I don’t see a problem.  But would you consider it employer privilege if she said something you agreed with like, say “a woman’s right to choose abortion should never be infringed” and an employer dumped her for it?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #245 on: June 12, 2019, 07:56:58 AM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

That's exactly what I just said.

To the post up thread which stated intent doesn't matter, I would say that it matters when some form of Justice is brought upon the "offender".  In every form of Justice, intent is taken into consideration, with the exception of this new form of social justice.


Can you link some examples of what you're talking about?  I'm not sure if I follow you.

I think s great example of what I'm getting at is the firing of Megyn Kelly following her attempt to have a discussion on why blackface is offensive.  She simply asked a question.  Does this really warrant a talkshow host being fired?  Who gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom?

So, I've looked up this Megyn Kelly person.  She has a history of making semi-racist and pretty questionable statements (like when she said that Santa Clause and Jesus are both white.)  It appears she was fired because she publicly said something while at work that her employer didn't agree with/authorize.  The direct quote OKing blackface that led to her firing was:  "What is racist?  Because you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character."

In this case, I'd say that the employer gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom.  I mean, it's the employers television program, their broadcast booth, and their airtime.  If you have a problem with the employer's decision that's fine, but don't paint it as some sort of shadowy PC conspiracy.  The employer didn't want to support her comments, that's their privilege.

Based on what little I’ve read she appears to be a bit of a troll.  And if her employer wants to dump her for that I don’t see a problem.  But would you consider it employer privilege if she said something you agreed with like, say “a woman’s right to choose abortion should never be infringed” and an employer dumped her for it?

I'd expect if she said that on say, Fox news she would be immediately dumped for voicing an opinion not endorsed by the Koch brothers.  Do I see a problem with that?  Actually, yes, kinda.  But I see bigger problems trying to police employers control over their employees.  So it would seem to be the lesser of two evils.

Not to digress too far here . . . we still don't really have an example of someone publicly humiliated and having his/her career unjustly destroyed by the PC police.

Adam Zapple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #246 on: June 12, 2019, 08:08:14 AM »
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays".  Can you link some of these cases?

That's exactly what I just said.

To the post up thread which stated intent doesn't matter, I would say that it matters when some form of Justice is brought upon the "offender".  In every form of Justice, intent is taken into consideration, with the exception of this new form of social justice.


Can you link some examples of what you're talking about?  I'm not sure if I follow you.

I think s great example of what I'm getting at is the firing of Megyn Kelly following her attempt to have a discussion on why blackface is offensive.  She simply asked a question.  Does this really warrant a talkshow host being fired?  Who gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom?

So, I've looked up this Megyn Kelly person.  She has a history of making semi-racist and pretty questionable statements (like when she said that Santa Clause and Jesus are both white.)  It appears she was fired because she publicly said something while at work that her employer didn't agree with/authorize.  The direct quote OKing blackface that led to her firing was:  "What is racist?  Because you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character."

In this case, I'd say that the employer gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom.  I mean, it's the employers television program, their broadcast booth, and their airtime.  If you have a problem with the employer's decision that's fine, but don't paint it as some sort of shadowy PC conspiracy.  The employer didn't want to support her comments, that's their privilege.

I don't necessarily disagree with the employers actions but their actions are in response to pressures from their sponsors.  These sponsors absolutely react to political activists.  It is not a conspiracy, just activism. 

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #247 on: June 12, 2019, 08:18:20 AM »
Megyn Kelly already had terrible ratings, and her comments showed poor judgement (of the MSNBC audience) so they dumped her for $30 million. It was a business decision.


Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #248 on: June 12, 2019, 08:32:59 AM »
Not to digress too far here . . . we still don't really have an example of someone publicly humiliated and having his/her career unjustly destroyed by the PC police.

Is the following the type of thing we are looking for? These aren't "Happy Holidays" level, though. Unjust is debatable: these firings were probably employer decisions that they would lose business by having a person like this representing them.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-fired-video-yelling-racially-charged-statements-public/story?id=58831977
https://www.theroot.com/mcdonalds-employee-serves-racial-mcslurries-to-black-cu-1831835406

There are also many firings for racist behavior that was not limited to words. A lot of these involved calling the police on darker skinned people just living their lives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/06/idadam-the-white-man-who-called-police-on-a-woman-at-their-neighborhood-pool-loses-his-job/?utm_term=.3b584b42db08
https://www.thedailybeast.com/missouri-woman-fired-after-blocking-black-man-from-entering-his-home
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/29/black-couple-white-woman-gun-picnic/?utm_term=.be0babf6dc92
etc, etc.

If you google "white fired after racist" you will turn up dozens of these incidents. 

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4689
Re: "Trigger" words
« Reply #249 on: June 12, 2019, 08:46:49 AM »
Not to digress too far here . . . we still don't really have an example of someone publicly humiliated and having his/her career unjustly destroyed by the PC police.

Is the following the type of thing we are looking for? These aren't "Happy Holidays" level, though. Unjust is debatable: these firings were probably employer decisions that they would lose business by having a person like this representing them.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-fired-video-yelling-racially-charged-statements-public/story?id=58831977
https://www.theroot.com/mcdonalds-employee-serves-racial-mcslurries-to-black-cu-1831835406

There are also many firings for racist behavior that was not limited to words. A lot of these involved calling the police on darker skinned people just living their lives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/06/idadam-the-white-man-who-called-police-on-a-woman-at-their-neighborhood-pool-loses-his-job/?utm_term=.3b584b42db08
https://www.thedailybeast.com/missouri-woman-fired-after-blocking-black-man-from-entering-his-home
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/29/black-couple-white-woman-gun-picnic/?utm_term=.be0babf6dc92
etc, etc.

If you google "white fired after racist" you will turn up dozens of these incidents.

I'm not really sure that being overtly racist (which most of these examples are) is on the same level as someone lamenting the "PC police."