The truth is the real victim of political correctness. It is now no longer socially permissible to call a cracker a cracker.
Finally! A place for me to say @Financial.Velociraptor sounds like a mouth-breathing dipshit with a child's comprehension of what passive-aggression, free speech, or political correctness means.
Back in nursery school, I learned a little rhyme. It started "sticks and stones". I'd bet dollars to donuts that everyone here from an English speaking country learned the same rhyme. Somehow, the lesson of that rhyme (which is intuitive to 4 year olds) is lost on the majority of American teens and even adults. Seriously?!? WORDS hurt your feelings? Have you no self-esteem? Is your "locus of control" so far external to you that other people are fully in control of your attitude?
But what about my free speech?
Disagree? Start your own thread.
Huh.
Well, without having seen the other post and knowing the context, I can't really say I have an opinion on it.
For me, particular words aren't so much the issue as ad hominem attacks. Which are against the forum rules, so... *shrug* yeah.
But I don't know if that's what you did. IDK. I mean, I have no issue with you ranting here, but it's hard to feel much about it at all since I don't really know the particulars of what you're ranting about.
The truth is the real victim of political correctness. It is now no longer socially permissible to call a cracker a cracker.
I'm intrigued by this concept. What truths are you concerned about that require offensive language to tell?
I suspect your issue isn't actually with the basic concept of political correctness but rather with where to draw the line. Would you agree?
Have you been sanctioned by the government for using "triggering" words, or just asked politely to edit something? Seems your free speech is alive and well.
But what about my free speech!!!!??!!1!
Huh.
Well, without having seen the other post and knowing the context, I can't really say I have an opinion on it.
For me, particular words aren't so much the issue as ad hominem attacks. Which are against the forum rules, so... *shrug* yeah.
But I don't know if that's what you did. IDK. I mean, I have no issue with you ranting here, but it's hard to feel much about it at all since I don't really know the particulars of what you're ranting about.
I embellished my dislike for my former mode of employment as an accountant for an oilfield services major due to a disconnect in values. Namely, I described their corporate objective as "rapi”ng the planet for fun and profit". I thought the usage was colloquial rather than offensive. But I once split a pitcher with a co-worker who called me a "pig-fucker" to my face about 6 hours after the fact. I have thicker skin than most and bristle a little at people who can't roll with the punches. Very concerned about the resiliency of a coddled generation...
...but I must say the irony is quite rich ...
Huh.
Well, without having seen the other post and knowing the context, I can't really say I have an opinion on it.
For me, particular words aren't so much the issue as ad hominem attacks. Which are against the forum rules, so... *shrug* yeah.
But I don't know if that's what you did. IDK. I mean, I have no issue with you ranting here, but it's hard to feel much about it at all since I don't really know the particulars of what you're ranting about.
I embellished my dislike for my former mode of employment as an accountant for an oilfield services major due to a disconnect in values. Namely, I described their corporate objective as "raping the planet for fun and profit". I thought the usage was colloquial rather than offensive. But I once split a pitcher with a co-worker who called me a "pig-fucker" to my face about 6 hours after the fact. I have thicker skin than most and bristle a little at people who can't roll with the punches. Very concerned about the resiliency of a coddled generation...
Finally! A place for me to say @Financial.Velociraptor sounds like a mouth-breathing dipshit with a child's comprehension of what passive-aggression, free speech, or political correctness means.
:-) Thanks, you made me smile.
I guess I can see why you’d be kinda pissed.
In retrospect, I kinda wish that someone had told me to stop using the word before that happened.
Huh.
Well, without having seen the other post and knowing the context, I can't really say I have an opinion on it.
For me, particular words aren't so much the issue as ad hominem attacks. Which are against the forum rules, so... *shrug* yeah.
But I don't know if that's what you did. IDK. I mean, I have no issue with you ranting here, but it's hard to feel much about it at all since I don't really know the particulars of what you're ranting about.
I embellished my dislike for my former mode of employment as an accountant for an oilfield services major due to a disconnect in values. Namely, I described their corporate objective as "raping the planet for fun and profit". I thought the usage was colloquial rather than offensive. But I once split a pitcher with a co-worker who called me a "pig-fucker" to my face about 6 hours after the fact. I have thicker skin than most and bristle a little at people who can't roll with the punches. Very concerned about the resiliency of a coddled generation...
The truth is the real victim of political correctness. It is now no longer socially permissible to call a cracker a cracker.
I'm intrigued by this concept. What truths are you concerned about that require offensive language to tell?
Put your way, it doesn't exist. But in my opinion, statements that were 50 years ago pretty tame are now being reclassified as "offensive".
I feel there is an element of the political correctness movement that would move to use social pressure to squelch any ideas they disagree with. Does that seem plausible to you too?
Hmm.
Yeah, that's bullshit. You are/were using the word in one of its standard definitions: as a synonym of "despoil."
Huh.
Well, without having seen the other post and knowing the context, I can't really say I have an opinion on it.
For me, particular words aren't so much the issue as ad hominem attacks. Which are against the forum rules, so... *shrug* yeah.
But I don't know if that's what you did. IDK. I mean, I have no issue with you ranting here, but it's hard to feel much about it at all since I don't really know the particulars of what you're ranting about.
I embellished my dislike for my former mode of employment as an accountant for an oilfield services major due to a disconnect in values. Namely, I described their corporate objective as "raping the planet for fun and profit". I thought the usage was colloquial rather than offensive. But I once split a pitcher with a co-worker who called me a "pig-fucker" to my face about 6 hours after the fact. I have thicker skin than most and bristle a little at people who can't roll with the punches. Very concerned about the resiliency of a coddled generation...
Hmm.
Yeah, that's bullshit. You are/were using the word in one of its standard definitions: as a synonym of "despoil."
5/11/15 Edit:
Rule #6 added: "Use good taste." There's nothing wrong with using good, solid, hyperbole and exaggeration in a metaphor, but we expect our members to refrain from tasteless comparisons that are completely out of proportion. As an example, it not appropriate to compare rape, domestic assault, or genocide to unfair business practices that result in being overcharged for a service.
I'm not arguing with the dictionary definition of the term. It's usage was correct. My argument is that there are other words you can use for the same effect, and no extra effort that are less likely to cause another person pain. My inclination would therefore be to use them.
The truth is the real victim of political correctness. It is now no longer socially permissible to call a cracker a cracker.
I'm intrigued by this concept. What truths are you concerned about that require offensive language to tell?
Put your way, it doesn't exist. But in my opinion, statements that were 50 years ago pretty tame are now being reclassified as "offensive".
Idiot was formerly a legal and psychiatric category of profound intellectual disability in which a person's mental age is two years or less, and he or she cannot guard against common dangers. Along with terms like moron, imbecile, and cretin, the term is now archaic and offensive, and was replaced by the term "profound mental retardation".
I'm not arguing with the dictionary definition of the term. It's usage was correct. My argument is that there are other words you can use for the same effect, and no extra effort that are less likely to cause another person pain. My inclination would therefore be to use them.
Maybe we should run down to the library and start burning books. Isn’t it starting to get a little ridiculous?
FVR used a word someone else found offensive. That person made a polite and private request to change that word. FVR didn't mean any offense, and politely agreed to change the word.
None of this seems in any way ridiculous. None of it resembles book burning. I am 100% unbothered by any of it. Does that make me a snowflake?
I don’t think FVR should conform to an unreasonable request. If everyone keeps giving in soon all of our speech will be regulated. Nobody will make comments for fear of saying something that may offend.
I'm not arguing with the dictionary definition of the term. It's usage was correct. My argument is that there are other words you can use for the same effect, and no extra effort that are less likely to cause another person pain. My inclination would therefore be to use them.
I changed it to "exploiting" before starting this thread. Outside of this thread, will not use the term here again. More interested in discussing whether political correctness is starting to go too far.
I'm not arguing with the dictionary definition of the term. It's usage was correct. My argument is that there are other words you can use for the same effect, and no extra effort that are less likely to cause another person pain. My inclination would therefore be to use them.
I changed it to "exploiting" before starting this thread. Outside of this thread, will not use the term here again. More interested in discussing whether political correctness is starting to go too far.
I too sometimes ponder whether political correctness is starting to go too far. On the word in question, though, I feel:
2/3 that the shift to where using "rape" to mean "despoil something" is unacceptable because it trivializes the sexual meaning of rape is a good shift.
1/3 that using rape to say "despoil something - and this despoiling is so bad we should scorn the despoiler as we would scorn a rapist" is a legitimate usage that does not require trivializing rape, only lots of caring about the despoiled thing.
So on balance, I feel it's not too far in this case.
I don’t think FVR should conform to an unreasonable request. If everyone keeps giving in soon all of our speech will be regulated. Nobody will make comments for fear of saying something that may offend.
It's not a shift. It's the original meaning.
I don’t think FVR should conform to an unreasonable request. If everyone keeps giving in soon all of our speech will be regulated. Nobody will make comments for fear of saying something that may offend.
We aren't there yet. But I fear we have walked out onto some precariously thin ice. If I can refer to ice as being "thin" without "fat-shaming" someone in the process...
I don’t think FVR should conform to an unreasonable request. If everyone keeps giving in soon all of our speech will be regulated. Nobody will make comments for fear of saying something that may offend.
We aren't there yet. But I fear we have walked out onto some precariously thin ice. If I can refer to ice as being "thin" without "fat-shaming" someone in the process...
By that same token, we should avoid using the words "kill," "murder," "snuff out," etc. in ANY context because someone in the company of our conversation may have been subjected to homicide (or a loved one)? When my comedian friend gets off stage, I am no longer allowed to say "man you really killed it!" because someone in earshot could be triggered? This is a very slippery slope. Maybe we should all be mute so there is zero probability of unknowingly offending someone with a particular word or its usage?
By that same token, we should avoid using the words "kill," "murder," "snuff out," etc. in ANY context because someone in the company of our conversation may have been subjected to homicide (or a loved one)? When my comedian friend gets off stage, I am no longer allowed to say "man you really killed it!" because someone in earshot could be triggered? This is a very slippery slope. Maybe we should all be mute so there is zero probability of unknowingly offending someone with a particular word or its usage?
Murder is quite rare (luckily), so relatively few people have been directly affected by a murder (and you'll never get a chance to offend a murder victim). Sexual assault is, sadly, much more common. In any decent sized crowd, there is a high likelihood of there being a sexual assault survivor.
A thought experiment: Imagine my sister was murdered. We go out for a game of tennis; my first fun activity since it happened. We beat our opponents easily. Are you going to say to me "We murdered them!"? Probably not, because you'd understand that could be upsetting. That's an extreme case, but my point is there are circumstances where pretty much everyone agrees you should censor yourself. We just all draw the line in different places.
Well, it is mean for one. And ineffective for another.I don’t think FVR should conform to an unreasonable request. If everyone keeps giving in soon all of our speech will be regulated. Nobody will make comments for fear of saying something that may offend.
We aren't there yet. But I fear we have walked out onto some precariously thin ice. If I can refer to ice as being "thin" without "fat-shaming" someone in the process...
Whats wrong with fat shaming? I was under the presumption that current medical directives discourage obesity as well as behaviors promoting said phenotype?
Whats wrong with fat shaming?
I don’t think FVR should conform to an unreasonable request. If everyone keeps giving in soon all of our speech will be regulated. Nobody will make comments for fear of saying something that may offend.
We aren't there yet. But I fear we have walked out onto some precariously thin ice. If I can refer to ice as being "thin" without "fat-shaming" someone in the process...
Whats wrong with fat shaming? I was under the presumption that current medical directives discourage obesity as well as behaviors promoting said phenotype?
When do I get to lose my shit over you being an enormously excessively sensitive snowflake PUSSY?!?
-Lizard King-
But what about my free speech? You get to be angry (perpetually offended even) but I have to be completely cool and passive while you lose your shit over my behavior? When do I get to lose my shit over you being an enormously excessively sensitive snowflake PUSSY?!? *FACEPUNCH* Life is hard. Face facts, you are a big wimp and need to grow up. Else, you will never be effectively an adult. And, oh yeah, your behavior is passive-aggressive. Somebody needs to call you people out on your bullshit already.
I'm not arguing with the dictionary definition of the term. It's usage was correct. My argument is that there are other words you can use for the same effect, and no extra effort that are less likely to cause another person pain. My inclination would therefore be to use them.
I changed it to "exploiting" before starting this thread. Outside of this thread, will not use the term here again. More interested in discussing whether political correctness is starting to go too far.
I too sometimes ponder whether political correctness is starting to go too far. On the word in question, though, I feel:
2/3 that the shift to where using "rape" to mean "despoil something" is unacceptable because it trivializes the sexual meaning of rape is a good shift.
1/3 that using rape to say "despoil something - and this despoiling is so bad we should scorn the despoiler as we would scorn a rapist" is a legitimate usage that does not require trivializing rape, only lots of caring about the despoiled thing.
So on balance, I feel it's not too far in this case.
The word rape has been used to mean "to snatch, carry off, despoil" for longer than it has been used explicitly to mean to penetrate/violate a person forcibly.
Just a clarification. It's not a shift. It's the original meaning.
Well I guess it's OK now for me (granddaughter of a Nazi soldier) to tattoo a swastika on my arm and call myself a proud Aryan because it use to mean something different pre-1933 then it does now and all you pansies should just STFU and accept it because of it's original meaning.
Words change because their usage changed to something that caused harm. Symbols change for the same reason. We choose not to use hateful words not because we are PC pansies, we choose not to use them because they evoke hate and intolerance. And we want to be better people who can express ourselves without deriding or debasing others.
Language changes. I still miss "gay" as in the song from South Pacific (A Wonderful Guy - "I'm as trite and as gay as a daisy in May,"). Do I still use it in that sense? No.
"Fag" - In pack up your troubles in your old kit bag there is the line "While you've a lucifer to light your fag" - "fag" has changed meaning (at least on this side of the Atlantic) and I think is now totally out for use for anything.
So all of you moaning about changes in English usage, grow up and accept that language changes. If I can adapt at my age (this is your grandmother giving you the stink eye) you youngsters can surely manage. And if you aren't sure, just think if Miss Manners would approve of your vocabulary choices.
Well I guess it's OK now for me (granddaughter of a Nazi soldier) to tattoo a swastika on my arm and call myself a proud Aryan because it use to mean something different pre-1933 then it does now and all you pansies should just STFU and accept it because of it's original meaning.
Language changes. I still miss "gay" as in the song from South Pacific (A Wonderful Guy - "I'm as trite and as gay as a daisy in May,"). Do I still use it in that sense? No.
"Fag" - In pack up your troubles in your old kit bag there is the line "While you've a lucifer to light your fag" - "fag" has changed meaning (at least on this side of the Atlantic) and I think is now totally out for use for anything.
So all of you moaning about changes in English usage, grow up and accept that language changes. If I can adapt at my age (this is your grandmother giving you the stink eye) you youngsters can surely manage. And if you aren't sure, just think if Miss Manners would approve of your vocabulary choices.
Sure people should have the freedom to express themselves verbally even if its horribly hateful to others. But those who choose to use that kind of speech like FVR shouldn't get all.whiney-pants when people ask them to change the words. Who's a little whiney snowflake now? "Mommmmm... they yelled at me and said I couldn't play with them any more for calling them twinker Nazis earth rapers and now I'm soooo hurt and offended! They're such big meanies! Sniff...
Well I guess it's OK now for me (granddaughter of a Nazi soldier) to tattoo a swastika on my arm and call myself a proud Aryan because it use to mean something different pre-1933 then it does now and all you pansies should just STFU and accept it because of it's original meaning.
Words change because their usage changed to something that caused harm. Symbols change for the same reason. We choose not to use hateful words not because we are PC pansies, we choose not to use them because they evoke hate and intolerance. And we want to be better people who can express ourselves without deriding or debasing others.
Actually, many of my my family members were murdered by the Nazis. While I despise everything they stood for as well as the relevant symbols (e.g. swastikas), I will defend your right to wear one on your arm and tolerate your freedom to do so. So long as your freedom of expression does not extend to actionable physical duress/harm.
QuoteSure people should have the freedom to express themselves verbally even if its horribly hateful to others. But those who choose to use that kind of speech like FVR shouldn't get all.whiney-pants when people ask them to change the words. Who's a little whiney snowflake now? "Mommmmm... they yelled at me and said I couldn't play with them any more for calling them twinker Nazis earth rapers and now I'm soooo hurt and offended! They're such big meanies! Sniff...
+1
This is the heart of the matter.
Why not just say I offended some women, and I am sorry. I have been on one male dominated forum where they use the term rape or gang rape to describe how they put their battery packs together, and how they raped the park driving their Ebikes around. It is insensitive and immature IMO to throw that workd out there willy nilly. Demonstrates an insensitivity to half of the population.
Also I think it's silly when people use the phrase "PC culture" as if this is a thing that only one side of the debate does. Politically in the US, both conservatives and liberals patrol and enforce their social boundaries and dismiss people who don't use their language. This isn't new. It's just another phrase conservative talk-heads use to create the illusion that their side is a purely rational or logical, and it's only the "other side" that commits all these logical fallacies. It feeds into the narrative that liberals are liberal because of emotion and politeness and conservatives are conservative because they're older, wiser, and "just using logic".I would definitely agree that it's not just "liberals" that can try to shove PCness down our throats (can't help myself here). A few years ago on Easter I casually and without thought used the phrase "happy zombie Jesus day" somewhere that I definitely should not have.
I'm not saying anyone in this thread was using it that way. I didn't read everyone's comment. But I think it's a silly phrase, and it needs to go away.
Also I think it's silly when people use the phrase "PC culture" as if this is a thing that only one side of the debate does. Politically in the US, both conservatives and liberals patrol and enforce their social boundaries and dismiss people who don't use their language. This isn't new. It's just another phrase conservative talk-heads use to create the illusion that their side is a purely rational or logical, and it's only the "other side" that commits all these logical fallacies. It feeds into the narrative that liberals are liberal because of emotion and politeness and conservatives are conservative because they're older, wiser, and "just using logic".I would definitely agree that it's not just "liberals" that can try to shove PCness down our throats (can't help myself here). A few years ago on Easter I casually and without thought used the phrase "happy zombie Jesus day" somewhere that I definitely should not have.
I'm not saying anyone in this thread was using it that way. I didn't read everyone's comment. But I think it's a silly phrase, and it needs to go away.
No matter who you are, what your opinions are, and what offends you, it's good to know how to read the room.
Oh my god, you just sent me down an awful Google rabbit hole... It'd almost be funny if it wasn't so gross and tragedy-sideshowing. The victims were worshiping. It was Easter. Nobody argues those two facts but you combine them in the wrong way and everyone loses their shit.Also I think it's silly when people use the phrase "PC culture" as if this is a thing that only one side of the debate does. Politically in the US, both conservatives and liberals patrol and enforce their social boundaries and dismiss people who don't use their language. This isn't new. It's just another phrase conservative talk-heads use to create the illusion that their side is a purely rational or logical, and it's only the "other side" that commits all these logical fallacies. It feeds into the narrative that liberals are liberal because of emotion and politeness and conservatives are conservative because they're older, wiser, and "just using logic".I would definitely agree that it's not just "liberals" that can try to shove PCness down our throats (can't help myself here). A few years ago on Easter I casually and without thought used the phrase "happy zombie Jesus day" somewhere that I definitely should not have.
I'm not saying anyone in this thread was using it that way. I didn't read everyone's comment. But I think it's a silly phrase, and it needs to go away.
No matter who you are, what your opinions are, and what offends you, it's good to know how to read the room.
Yeah... like when conservatives lost their minds a couple of weeks ago when Obama tweeted about the tragedy in Sri Lanka and the attacks on "Easter worshipers." You would have thought he'd posted a picture of himself biting the head off a good Christian baby.
The sad part is, there are a lot of political forces at work trying to manufacture outrage out of terms -- and it often works like a charm. And in part because of that, there's a lot of ridicule to go around about PCness, which tends to derail the more productive conversations about language and the harm it can sometimes do.
Oh my god, you just sent me down an awful Google rabbit hole... It'd almost be funny if it wasn't so gross and tragedy-sideshowing. The victims were worshiping. It was Easter. Nobody argues those two facts but you combine them in the wrong way and everyone loses their shit.Also I think it's silly when people use the phrase "PC culture" as if this is a thing that only one side of the debate does. Politically in the US, both conservatives and liberals patrol and enforce their social boundaries and dismiss people who don't use their language. This isn't new. It's just another phrase conservative talk-heads use to create the illusion that their side is a purely rational or logical, and it's only the "other side" that commits all these logical fallacies. It feeds into the narrative that liberals are liberal because of emotion and politeness and conservatives are conservative because they're older, wiser, and "just using logic".I would definitely agree that it's not just "liberals" that can try to shove PCness down our throats (can't help myself here). A few years ago on Easter I casually and without thought used the phrase "happy zombie Jesus day" somewhere that I definitely should not have.
I'm not saying anyone in this thread was using it that way. I didn't read everyone's comment. But I think it's a silly phrase, and it needs to go away.
No matter who you are, what your opinions are, and what offends you, it's good to know how to read the room.
Yeah... like when conservatives lost their minds a couple of weeks ago when Obama tweeted about the tragedy in Sri Lanka and the attacks on "Easter worshipers." You would have thought he'd posted a picture of himself biting the head off a good Christian baby.
The sad part is, there are a lot of political forces at work trying to manufacture outrage out of terms -- and it often works like a charm. And in part because of that, there's a lot of ridicule to go around about PCness, which tends to derail the more productive conversations about language and the harm it can sometimes do.
My trigger word is "climate denier". I get annoyed at being called a climate denier. For example:
"The science is settled! Climate change is real."
"Ok, but the science isn't settled. It continues to evolve as we learn more."
"Climate denier!"
Yes RE63 and Calimom I am older and remember a different meaning of those words. Why hurt people instead of just being kind? Yes people can be too sensitive but rape leaves people with life long trauma. Actually the word that replaces retarded is intellectually disabled.
Yes RE63 and Calimom I am older and remember a different meaning of those words. Why hurt people instead of just being kind? Yes people can be too sensitive but rape leaves people with life long trauma. Actually the word that replaces retarded is intellectually disabled.
Sounds like I never received the memo. I thought the word police preferred "handi-capable?"
Yes RE63 and Calimom I am older and remember a different meaning of those words. Why hurt people instead of just being kind? Yes people can be too sensitive but rape leaves people with life long trauma. Actually the word that replaces retarded is intellectually disabled.
Sounds like I never received the memo. I thought the word police preferred "handi-capable?"
Now, if you are a person with a handicap, this is a hilarious post.
Meanwhile, if you are someone who has spent little to no time with handicapped people and cannot speak to the experience and culture of the differently abled, then this post is just shitty and mean.
Context matters.
Your right; context (and more specifically, INTENT) matters.
Yes RE63 and Calimom I am older and remember a different meaning of those words. Why hurt people instead of just being kind? Yes people can be too sensitive but rape leaves people with life long trauma. Actually the word that replaces retarded is intellectually disabled.
Sounds like I never received the memo. I thought the word police preferred "handi-capable?"
Now, if you are a person with a handicap, this is a hilarious post.
Meanwhile, if you are someone who has spent little to no time with handicapped people and cannot speak to the experience and culture of the differently abled, then this post is just shitty and mean.
Context matters.
I personally am not aware of any mental of physical handicaps that I may have, though have spent plenty of time over the years with family and friends who do have physical and/or cognitive handicaps. In your mind does this exonerate me from attack? Actually, I dont really care, I come from a George Carlin school of thought when it comes to use of language. Your right; context (and more specifically, INTENT) matters.
Yes RE63 and Calimom I am older and remember a different meaning of those words. Why hurt people instead of just being kind? Yes people can be too sensitive but rape leaves people with life long trauma. Actually the word that replaces retarded is intellectually disabled.
Sounds like I never received the memo. I thought the word police preferred "handi-capable?"
Now, if you are a person with a handicap, this is a hilarious post.
Meanwhile, if you are someone who has spent little to no time with handicapped people and cannot speak to the experience and culture of the differently abled, then this post is just shitty and mean.
Context matters.
I personally am not aware of any mental of physical handicaps that I may have, though have spent plenty of time over the years with family and friends who do have physical and/or cognitive handicaps. In your mind does this exonerate me from attack? Actually, I dont really care, I come from a George Carlin school of thought when it comes to use of language. Your right; context (and more specifically, INTENT) matters.
I wasn't criticizing you.
I was pointing out that context, and yes intent, matters. I'm not about to hold myself as judge and jury of what you are allowed to say.
As for whether or not anything ever exonerates you from "attack" is a whole other issue. I don't believe anyone is ever above criticism, but I also don't think of criticism as an attack to be avoided either.
My trigger word is "climate denier". I get annoyed at being called a climate denier. For example:
"The science is settled! Climate change is real."
"Ok, but the science isn't settled. It continues to evolve as we learn more."
"Climate denier!"
I think the "science is settled" applies to the fact that the climate is indeed changing and man made global warming is playing a big role in that change. I've personally never seen that phrase used to imply we know everything about the climate and there is no need to study it anymore.
We all seem to suffer from a goldilocks syndrome when it comes to societal norms.
Every generation seems to feel the previous one was too conservative, the next one is too liberal and their own generation somehow got it just right.
We all seem to suffer from a goldilocks syndrome when it comes to societal norms.
Every generation seems to feel the previous one was too conservative, the next one is too liberal and their own generation somehow got it just right.
I often say to my DH: "I can't wait until I turn into a righteously indignant old lady who thinks that young people have lost their minds, because it will finally mean that society has progressed beyond my personal values."
I truly can't wait to feel behind social progress.
There's no fucking way that my generation has it right.
We all seem to suffer from a goldilocks syndrome when it comes to societal norms.
Every generation seems to feel the previous one was too conservative, the next one is too liberal and their own generation somehow got it just right.
I often say to my DH: "I can't wait until I turn into a righteously indignant old lady who thinks that young people have lost their minds, because it will finally mean that society has progressed beyond my personal values."
I truly can't wait to feel behind social progress.
There's no fucking way that my generation has it right.
HA. Fair enough. :)
I suppose I meant my comment in a very general sense - obviously we don't all feel our generation got it right, given how much debate there is within each generation.
But there does seem to be a general trend of "our parents were too conservative" and "kids today are nuts," which assumes that our own vantage point is the 'average' or 'reasonable' position.
Just heard that it is being recommended at a medical conference not to use the term "blind peer review". It is able-ist. Presumably, double-blind studies are able-ist squared. Really think this thing is going to far. Scientist haven't been using those terms for centuries with the intent of jeering at the blind...
I missed this - "double blind study " is not acceptable terminology?
We are going to lose a lot of metaphors if people start taking the impersonal to be personal. I won't have a leg to stand on arguing for "double-blind" studies.
I missed this - "double blind study " is not acceptable terminology?
We are going to lose a lot of metaphors if people start taking the impersonal to be personal. I won't have a leg to stand on arguing for "double-blind" studies.
I missed this - "double blind study " is not acceptable terminology?
We are going to lose a lot of metaphors if people start taking the impersonal to be personal. I won't have a leg to stand on arguing for "double-blind" studies.
I've personally been instructed not to use this term for blinded preclinical studies I conduct or blinded/double-blinded clinical studies I report on. No shit.
I missed this - "double blind study " is not acceptable terminology?
We are going to lose a lot of metaphors if people start taking the impersonal to be personal. I won't have a leg to stand on arguing for "double-blind" studies.
I've personally been instructed not to use this term for blinded preclinical studies I conduct or blinded/double-blinded clinical studies I report on. No shit.
I have some concerns that sensitivity to phrases like this could lead to a reduced use of metaphor and consequentially a loss of vibrancy, color, and beauty in the language. I think this is not a great example to use though, because it's a purely functional term. Replacing it with something like 'dual-veiled' or 'double-concealed' study would have zero impact on anyone.
I'm also not convinced that my worry is valid--either that the reduced use of metaphor would happen, or that losing those metaphors would negatively impact the language. That's just my layperson's concern.
I think it's also important to remember that a changing language isn't something that just happens, it's something we as a society do. If the language changes, it's because people find value in the new forms, even if you (or I) do not.
The unspoken communication of people posting to correct you on a word or a phrase is that you are some sort of troglodyte who is barely tolerable. While they may be right with the correction, the pompous arrogance of such an inference will always grate. To me it is eerily too similar to Christian moralizers of past decades that used to dominate political and religious discourse (though mostly in letters to the editor and the pulpit). “But we’re defending equality and social justice” they’ll say. But I see the same shady tactics. Often used against people who would sympathize if they just had a sociology class in the last 10 years.
I also see the phenomenon of “virtue signaling” (now there’s a trigger phrase!) among the left where they constantly assert how supportive they are of the left’s social causes. Even in circles where they’re only among allies and sympathizers. My theory is that if they don’t they’ll become suspect. And if you become too suspect your allies and sympathizers will fucking eat you alive.. They’ll definitely ostracize you - another tactic Christian moral purists used to do. So basically a culture with norms enforced via fear. No member is safe either. You are not black, gay, female, atheist or immigrant enough to be declared not so (or dismissed as internalizing oppression) if you dispute the status quo.
As an added bonus, you get the reverse psychology that happens when self proclaimed authorities decree something “wrong” and “forbidden” and in doing so endow it with a mystique that attracts rather than repels. And the ill will engendered by enforcing it alienates the subject from that authority and encourages disobedience. Even a hint of hypocrisy exacerbates the process. The Marine who raises his son to be a Marine winds up father to a gay artist in San Francisco. Fundamentalist parents raise militant atheists or even Satanists. Militant atheists raise Christians.
I should note that I’m harsh on the far left here because political correctness is a topic referencing them. However, the far right is where the surviving Christian moral purist retreated to. And have the benefit of harboring extreme racists and Nazis. Nothing wrong with extreme racism and Nazism! Except slavery, that bit of conflict between 1939-45 and 8 million people sent up a chimney, of course. Plus the far right mimics the far left in a host of attitudes and tactics to include its own form of virtue signaling.
What should be done? Corrections should still be made. But they should be phrased as politely as possible, without accusation, and under the assumption the other person just doesn’t know. They might not. A lot of the far left’s jargon and outlook was framed in the past five years in sociology classes 99% of the world never heard of let alone attended and only slightly transmitted via FB echo chambers. The assumption bit I suspect is key. I think it’s possible to effect people by the assumptions you have of them. Even over the Internet. (I wrote a post on that a month or so ago but it excited no interest.)
This hits home for me with disability wording. My husband describes himself as either "disabled" or "cripple". (The latter is in his Twitter bio; though not everyone likes it and it's a "know your audience" sort of thing.) He's fine with "handicapped", he knows people who prefer that or "differently abled". But he's never met anyone who preferred "diffabled", "handicapable" or "disAbled".
At some level these things becomes offensive in the implication that the group is so fragile that they can't deal with normal words.
I also see the phenomenon of “virtue signaling” (now there’s a trigger phrase!) among the left where they constantly assert how supportive they are of the left’s social causes. Even in circles where they’re only among allies and sympathizers. My theory is that if they don’t they’ll become suspect. And if you become too suspect your allies and sympathizers will fucking eat you alive..
I missed this - "double blind study " is not acceptable terminology?
We are going to lose a lot of metaphors if people start taking the impersonal to be personal. I won't have a leg to stand on arguing for "double-blind" studies.
Please be more careful with your choice of metaphors. Some people literally only have one leg to stand on.
I missed this - "double blind study " is not acceptable terminology?
We are going to lose a lot of metaphors if people start taking the impersonal to be personal. I won't have a leg to stand on arguing for "double-blind" studies.
Please be more careful with your choice of metaphors. Some people literally only have one leg to stand on.
I chose that metaphor specifically to see if someone would notice it.
I often wonder if people who are outraged by political correctness also find the following things ridiculous:
"unborn" to mean a fetus (by that logic, anyone alive is "undead")
insisting people say "Merry Christmas" regardless of if they celebrate
"The War on Christmas"
"Pro-life" to mean against abortion - even though it is really pro-birth, generally at any cost
"religious freedom" as a euphemism for discrimination
"family values" which really only means 1 type of family (hetero, christian, etc.).
And if you go back a few years - "job creators" to mean rich people
Because, honestly, the most snowflake-y thing I have heard in my life is the people who are up in arms about Christmas and act like society forces them to worship in secret and hide any celebration. The holiday is literally everywhere from Nov.-Jan., all government buildings and public places have decorations, it is a government holiday despite being a religious holiday (which other religions do not get their holidays off - Eid or Rosh Hashannah for example).
Case in point - the right wingers who were up in arms about a GD cup from Starbucks because it wasn't "Christmas-y" enough. WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!!
I also see the phenomenon of “virtue signaling” (now there’s a trigger phrase!) among the left where they constantly assert how supportive they are of the left’s social causes. Even in circles where they’re only among allies and sympathizers. My theory is that if they don’t they’ll become suspect. And if you become too suspect your allies and sympathizers will fucking eat you alive.. They’ll definitely ostracize you - another tactic Christian moral purists used to do. So basically a culture with norms enforced via fear. No member is safe either. You are not black, gay, female, atheist or immigrant enough to be declared not so (or dismissed as internalizing oppression) if you dispute the status quo.
This is extremely well put. Based on your description of your politics, you and I probably couldn't find much else to agree on, but I thoroughly appreciate the thought put into this.
I think you're particularly correct on the virtue-signalling aspect of avoiding trigger words. If I say LGBT and you say LGBTQIAA, you are signaling that you are more up on inclusive language than I am. If I say black and you say Black and Financial.Veliciraptor says African American, we're all saying something about our politics. (Same concept, though obviously different politics, with white/White/Aryan.)
I also see the phenomenon of “virtue signaling” (now there’s a trigger phrase!) among the left where they constantly assert how supportive they are of the left’s social causes. Even in circles where they’re only among allies and sympathizers. My theory is that if they don’t they’ll become suspect. And if you become too suspect your allies and sympathizers will fucking eat you alive.. They’ll definitely ostracize you - another tactic Christian moral purists used to do. So basically a culture with norms enforced via fear. No member is safe either. You are not black, gay, female, atheist or immigrant enough to be declared not so (or dismissed as internalizing oppression) if you dispute the status quo.
This is extremely well put. Based on your description of your politics, you and I probably couldn't find much else to agree on, but I thoroughly appreciate the thought put into this.
I think you're particularly correct on the virtue-signalling aspect of avoiding trigger words. If I say LGBT and you say LGBTQIAA, you are signaling that you are more up on inclusive language than I am. If I say black and you say Black and Financial.Veliciraptor says African American, we're all saying something about our politics. (Same concept, though obviously different politics, with white/White/Aryan.)
Just want to chime in as a 3rd voice on this point. There is a surprising amount of fear in making sure you're signaling the right things and not signaling the wrong things in your choice of language (and also positions). And like EricL, I have definitely seen how rapidly folks will turn on a person once you're suspected of something that would separate you out from the in-group. For those who are interested, I highly recommend the episode of Invisibilia on the rise of ostracism (https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2018/04/13/602117384/invisibilia-punks-policing-their-own) as a method groups use to enforce their own social norms in the USA today. A lot more interesting than the episode summary makes it sound.
I hadn't realized black/Black white/White where distinct ones though so now I'll add that to my list of things to worry about matching word choice to audience.
I also see the phenomenon of “virtue signaling” (now there’s a trigger phrase!) among the left where they constantly assert how supportive they are of the left’s social causes. Even in circles where they’re only among allies and sympathizers. My theory is that if they don’t they’ll become suspect. And if you become too suspect your allies and sympathizers will fucking eat you alive.. They’ll definitely ostracize you - another tactic Christian moral purists used to do. So basically a culture with norms enforced via fear. No member is safe either. You are not black, gay, female, atheist or immigrant enough to be declared not so (or dismissed as internalizing oppression) if you dispute the status quo.
This is extremely well put. Based on your description of your politics, you and I probably couldn't find much else to agree on, but I thoroughly appreciate the thought put into this.
I think you're particularly correct on the virtue-signalling aspect of avoiding trigger words. If I say LGBT and you say LGBTQIAA, you are signaling that you are more up on inclusive language than I am. If I say black and you say Black and Financial.Veliciraptor says African American, we're all saying something about our politics. (Same concept, though obviously different politics, with white/White/Aryan.)
Just want to chime in as a 3rd voice on this point. There is a surprising amount of fear in making sure you're signaling the right things and not signaling the wrong things in your choice of language (and also positions). And like EricL, I have definitely seen how rapidly folks will turn on a person once you're suspected of something that would separate you out from the in-group. For those who are interested, I highly recommend the episode of Invisibilia on the rise of ostracism (https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2018/04/13/602117384/invisibilia-punks-policing-their-own) as a method groups use to enforce their own social norms in the USA today. A lot more interesting than the episode summary makes it sound.
I hadn't realized black/Black white/White where distinct ones though so now I'll add that to my list of things to worry about matching word choice to audience.
Some understanding of the phenomena is necessary too. Whenever you have an extreme group it is often faced with threats. Some of those threats are pure BS and hysteria. Others might be threats but aren't because they lack the ability to be so. Other threats exist as solid and implacable as a speeding bus. And inside the ranks is a fear, a terror, of betrayal by the "less than pure." The textbook example is Robespierre's regime in the French Revolution. They searched so diligently for enemies they found all of them. And where they couldn't find them, they made them and found them. It's a very human reaction and aggravated whenever such a group exists in a state of siege or feels that it is. Since 2016 certain elements of the far left definitely feel like they'e under siege.
I think there are some things that should not be joked about: murder, rape, racism, sexism. I.e., anything that involves personal violence against another, or discrimination against an innate characteristic.
That aside, I have little time for political correctness. But I find a lot of people who yell 'political correctness' really just want a venue to express discriminatory and bigoted views.
I think there are some things that should not be joked about: murder, rape, racism, sexism. I.e., anything that involves personal violence against another, or discrimination against an innate characteristic.
That aside, I have little time for political correctness. But I find a lot of people who yell 'political correctness' really just want a venue to express discriminatory and bigoted views.
I think there is no limit on what should be joked about. Humor is one of the greatest things about being human.
Lets all joke about Sandy Hook.I think there are some things that should not be joked about: murder, rape, racism, sexism. I.e., anything that involves personal violence against another, or discrimination against an innate characteristic.
That aside, I have little time for political correctness. But I find a lot of people who yell 'political correctness' really just want a venue to express discriminatory and bigoted views.
I think there is no limit on what should be joked about. Humor is one of the greatest things about being human.
Lets all joke about Sandy Hook.I think there are some things that should not be joked about: murder, rape, racism, sexism. I.e., anything that involves personal violence against another, or discrimination against an innate characteristic.
That aside, I have little time for political correctness. But I find a lot of people who yell 'political correctness' really just want a venue to express discriminatory and bigoted views.
I think there is no limit on what should be joked about. Humor is one of the greatest things about being human.
Continuing on, I used to get offended at special snowflakes that got offended by everything. My philosophy: "The world is not mother fucking fair and does not give a shit about your feelings, your safe spaces, etc. You are not entitled to go about your life unoffended from time to time."
That said, I've pondered the "world is not mother fucking fair" premise of that philosophy. In a fair world these snowflakes wouldn't exist - nor would many other objectionable people and things. So I realized the world is not mother fucking fair and does not give a shit about my feelings about the too easily offended and their temper tantrums. I'm not entitled to not run into those types of people from time to time. This freed me of the vexation I used to feel about them and they from my knee jerk impulse to troll them in response. Plus I've come to suspect there's more on a personal, psychological level going on for such people than mere background Trumptardation.
It's similar to when I found out the cabin pressure on airplanes during takeoff and landing often caused babies, sensitive to that, feel like someone trying to pry their brain their ears out ice picks. Suddenly the screaming just became unavoidable background noise akin to the jet engines and a reason for sympathy. Instead of a judgement on parenting skills, airline cabin space, and my bad luck in the roulette wheel of airline seating.
Lets all joke about Sandy Hook.I think there are some things that should not be joked about: murder, rape, racism, sexism. I.e., anything that involves personal violence against another, or discrimination against an innate characteristic.
That aside, I have little time for political correctness. But I find a lot of people who yell 'political correctness' really just want a venue to express discriminatory and bigoted views.
I think there is no limit on what should be joked about. Humor is one of the greatest things about being human.
I'm with cromacster on this one.
I don't say this lightly at all as Sandy Hook, and our country's ultimately apathetic response to it, is as dark a day as I can recall. But I think there is a context (somewhere, sometime) when a joke could be made about it. Jokes aren't pointless. Humor has power--the power to affect change in society and the power to help people heal.
That doesn't mean I think any joke about Sandy Hook is fine and shouldn't be criticized. It doesn't mean I think people aren't responsible for what they say and shouldn't have to deal with the consequences.
I also see the phenomenon of “virtue signaling” (now there’s a trigger phrase!) among the left where they constantly assert how supportive they are of the left’s social causes. Even in circles where they’re only among allies and sympathizers. My theory is that if they don’t they’ll become suspect. And if you become too suspect your allies and sympathizers will fucking eat you alive.. They’ll definitely ostracize you - another tactic Christian moral purists used to do. So basically a culture with norms enforced via fear. No member is safe either. You are not black, gay, female, atheist or immigrant enough to be declared not so (or dismissed as internalizing oppression) if you dispute the status quo.
This is extremely well put. Based on your description of your politics, you and I probably couldn't find much else to agree on, but I thoroughly appreciate the thought put into this.
I think you're particularly correct on the virtue-signalling aspect of avoiding trigger words. If I say LGBT and you say LGBTQIAA, you are signaling that you are more up on inclusive language than I am. If I say black and you say Black and Financial.Veliciraptor says African American, we're all saying something about our politics. (Same concept, though obviously different politics, with white/White/Aryan.)
Just want to chime in as a 3rd voice on this point. There is a surprising amount of fear in making sure you're signaling the right things and not signaling the wrong things in your choice of language (and also positions). And like EricL, I have definitely seen how rapidly folks will turn on a person once you're suspected of something that would separate you out from the in-group. For those who are interested, I highly recommend the episode of Invisibilia on the rise of ostracism (https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2018/04/13/602117384/invisibilia-punks-policing-their-own) as a method groups use to enforce their own social norms in the USA today. A lot more interesting than the episode summary makes it sound.
I hadn't realized black/Black white/White where distinct ones though so now I'll add that to my list of things to worry about matching word choice to audience.
Some understanding of the phenomena is necessary too. Whenever you have an extreme group it is often faced with threats. Some of those threats are pure BS and hysteria. Others might be threats but aren't because they lack the ability to be so. Other threats exist as solid and implacable as a speeding bus. And inside the ranks is a fear, a terror, of betrayal by the "less than pure." The textbook example is Robespierre's regime in the French Revolution. They searched so diligently for enemies they found all of them. And where they couldn't find them, they made them and found them. It's a very human reaction and aggravated whenever such a group exists in a state of siege or feels that it is. Since 2016 certain elements of the far left definitely feel like they'e under siege.
What? I'm nodding and following along, and then you mention some nebulous political spectrum? These discussions work when you can point to a particular group of people, but what is "the far left"? Whose their leader, and when do they meet up and discuss things?
I could just easily say centerists feel so under siege since 2016 they feel the need to constantly define and talk about a far left to create an enemy.
And Trump and Trump supporters are constantly, constantly talking about being under seige. They create chants that make them part of a particular group "lock her up" "fake news" etc.
I'm reminded of a couple of Mel Brooks quotes:I think there's a big difference between making a joke or fun off people like Hitler or Adam Lanza verses makes jokes about about the actual victims. Some people who have done horrible things are totally mockable - and that's what good comics like Mel Brooks with Hitler. Making cracks about the actual victims is usually seen as pretty deplorable my most people. But like @Malkynn said, you are free to say whatever you want, just don't get your panties in a bunch if people tell you that awful and you should just STFU.
“You have to bring him down with ridicule … It’s been one of my lifelong jobs – to make the world laugh at Adolf Hitler.”
“After all the people that he was responsible for killing and after utterly destroying half the world, I just thought the only weapon I’ve really got is comedy. And if I can make this guy ludicrous, if I can make you laugh at him, then it’s a victory of sorts. You can’t get on a soapbox with these orators, because they’re very good at convincing the masses that they’re right. But if you can make them look ridiculous, you can win over the people.”
Are Holocaust or Hitler jokes OK? It depends a lot on the tone, content, and yeah, on the comedian. A joke from a Jewish man who served on the front lines of WWII defusing land mines, who saw his extended family decimated by the Holocaust is going to be a lot different than a joke from a Holocaust denier.
So, are school shooting jokes OK? To the extent that they're told by the victims and mock those in power, probably. "My school banned candy so I've been sneaking it in inside my gun." is one I've seen that would seem to fit that.
Probably not everyone liked it. Not everyone liked The Producers either. Such is comedy and satire. I'm allowed to say it, you're allowed to vocally hate it.
I pulled up next to this guy, rolled down my window, and yelled “HOW ABOUT THAT FUCKING RETARD DRIVING OFF WITH THE PUMP STILL ATTACHED.”
Jokes that might seem on their face to be directed at the victims of Sandy Hook are often actually directed at the audience. To shock them by pointing out a hypocrisy in their life, for example. Merula's example about sneaking in candy in a gun is a good example, as it's actually directed at the audience and how we'll sit by and do nothing while children are slaughtered, but get up in arms about relatively innocuous things.Yes but the candy in the gun joke isn't directed at the victims directly so isn't as offensive as say making a joke about how the Sandy Hook parents can now afford a luxury vacation since they don't have to worry about paying for kids college. Or about the SS officer who invites the neighbor Jews to a barbeque, etc.
Jokes that might seem on their face to be directed at the victims of Sandy Hook are often actually directed at the audience. To shock them by pointing out a hypocrisy in their life, for example. Merula's example about sneaking in candy in a gun is a good example, as it's actually directed at the audience and how we'll sit by and do nothing while children are slaughtered, but get up in arms about relatively innocuous things.Yes but the candy in the gun joke isn't directed at the victims directly so isn't as offensive as say making a joke about how the Sandy Hook parents can now afford a luxury vacation since they don't have to worry about paying for kids college. Or about the SS officer who invites the neighbor Jews to a barbeque, etc.
I certainly agree that it's possible to make a tasteless joke about Sandy Hook or Nazis- no debate there. But I also think it's (in theory) possible to make a worthwhile one.
Fantastic article.Jokes that might seem on their face to be directed at the victims of Sandy Hook are often actually directed at the audience. To shock them by pointing out a hypocrisy in their life, for example. Merula's example about sneaking in candy in a gun is a good example, as it's actually directed at the audience and how we'll sit by and do nothing while children are slaughtered, but get up in arms about relatively innocuous things.Yes but the candy in the gun joke isn't directed at the victims directly so isn't as offensive as say making a joke about how the Sandy Hook parents can now afford a luxury vacation since they don't have to worry about paying for kids college. Or about the SS officer who invites the neighbor Jews to a barbeque, etc.
I certainly agree that it's possible to make a tasteless joke about Sandy Hook or Nazis- no debate there. But I also think it's (in theory) possible to make a worthwhile one.
The mention of Sandy Hook (and by proxy other school shootings) made me think of the Onion, who just reposts the same article over and over after every shooting. Satire is powerful.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527
I’m a millennial, but I think all this political, hurt feeling bull shit is ridiculous. My generation is the most self entitled, thin skinned group of people out there. I try and stay pretty “politically correct” online because so many people are thin skinned.
I pulled up next to this guy, rolled down my window, and yelled “HOW ABOUT THAT FUCKING RETARD DRIVING OFF WITH THE PUMP STILL ATTACHED.”
Well, when you've got a line that good, you've got to use it.
Seriously though, you say it was "time to say something wildly inappropriate". So you know what you said was inappropriate-- in fact you relied on that taboo for your humor.
You are free to do that, and others are free to draw conclusions about you based on that.
By that same token, we should avoid using the words "kill," "murder," "snuff out," etc. in ANY context because someone in the company of our conversation may have been subjected to homicide (or a loved one)? When my comedian friend gets off stage, I am no longer allowed to say "man you really killed it!" because someone in earshot could be triggered? This is a very slippery slope. Maybe we should all be mute so there is zero probability of unknowingly offending someone with a particular word or its usage?
OP here. Thanks for all the replies. I think I have learned a few things about society, this board, and even myself.
How? Know thy enemy. Strike from a position of power. Keep "clean."
Would like to point out this: https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ (https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ)
This is troubling to me on so many levels. Harvard caves to student pressure and fires someone because they served as Harvey Weinstein's attorney. Clearly, a critical constitutional protection for citizens is being eroded by mod mentality. But how can a sane person fight back against political correctness gone to far?
OP here. Thanks for all the replies. I think I have learned a few things about society, this board, and even myself.
Would like to point out this: https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ (https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ)
This is troubling to me on so many levels. Harvard caves to student pressure and fires someone because they served as Harvey Weinstein's attorney. Clearly, a critical constitutional protection for citizens is being eroded by mod mentality. But how can a sane person fight back against political correctness gone to far?
OP here. Thanks for all the replies. I think I have learned a few things about society, this board, and even myself.
Would like to point out this: https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ (https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ)
This is troubling to me on so many levels. Harvard caves to student pressure and fires someone because they served as Harvey Weinstein's attorney. Clearly, a critical constitutional protection for citizens is being eroded by mod mentality. But how can a sane person fight back against political correctness gone to far?
OP here. Thanks for all the replies. I think I have learned a few things about society, this board, and even myself.
OP here. Thanks for all the replies. I think I have learned a few things about society, this board, and even myself.
Would like to point out this: https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ (https://reason.com/2019/05/12/ronald-sullivan-harvard-fired-student-mob/?fbclid=IwAR1u7JCVDaRc9OmGAdoWs5am6G1LXrZMEfWboCDztLHnbc06RhNUNGGEBcQ)
This is troubling to me on so many levels. Harvard caves to student pressure and fires someone because they served as Harvey Weinstein's attorney. Clearly, a critical constitutional protection for citizens is being eroded by mod mentality. But how can a sane person fight back against political correctness gone to far?
Based on what that article says, that Sullivan was fired solely because he chose to defend Harvey Weinstein . . . yes, I agree with you. That seems pretty fucked up.
I agree with you, it's important that long time serial rapists are able to receive a legal defense in court. I don't agree with you that this is evidence of a constitutional protection being eroded. Weinstein has had no problem hiring a crack legal team.
The article you posted also seemed kinda slanted, so I figured it was worth checking some other reports of the story. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/ronald-sullivan-harvard.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/ronald-sullivan-harvard.html) Sullivan isn't being fired from Harvard. He remains in the same position in the law school, he's just not being renewed as faculty dean. The fact that current and former staff members of the faculty are on record saying that they had experienced “a workplace climate of hostility and suspicion” might have something to do with the decision as well.
Paints a bit less dire situation than was originally presented, no?
OP here. Thanks for all the replies. I think I have learned a few things about society, this board, and even myself.
FVR--Would you be willing to share a little bit more on this? I'm always interested in what other people are taking away from conversations like this.
Social pressure to conform to the social contract becomes obnoxious when it is applied unevenly and in favor of one interest group over another.
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.
FV, I like your framing of this issue, because I think it captures something that is often missed, and something I really hadn't thought about myself before.
I think this has somehow turned into a valuable discussion (at least to me). I took a little flak in the first page or so (and some of it was actually deserved). Now people seem to be digging into a problem that is actually sort of difficult to define. I'm reminded of the Supreme Court opinion on pornography (forget which Justice), "I can't effectively define pornography, but damned if I don't what it is when I see it." (paraphrased)
So, I'm all for cracking down on and ridiculing white supremacists when they post the pic with Dr. King in a sniper sight with the caption "Our Dream Came True" on my Facebook feed. But I'm irritated when someone objects to me using the word "rape" as per the actual dictionary definition. Like the justice who said he couldn't define pornography, I can't define when the thin red line is crossed, but I damn well know when someone has gone too far in my personal opinion. So how polite do I have to be when I tell them I think they have become one of the "muthafuckas"?
FV, I like your framing of this issue, because I think it captures something that is often missed, and something I really hadn't thought about myself before.
Thanks @maizeman
I think this has somehow turned into a valuable discussion (at least to me). I took a little flak in the first page or so (and some of it was actually deserved). Now people seem to be digging into a problem that is actually sort of difficult to define. I'm reminded of the Supreme Court opinion on pornography (forget which Justice), "I can't effectively define pornography, but damned if I don't what it is when I see it." (paraphrased)
So, I'm all for cracking down on and ridiculing white supremacists when they post the pic with Dr. King in a sniper sight with the caption "Our Dream Came True" on my Facebook feed. But I'm irritated when someone objects to me using the word "rape" as per the actual dictionary definition. Like the justice who said he couldn't define pornography, I can't define when the thin red line is crossed, but I damn well know when someone has gone too far in my personal opinion. So how polite do I have to be when I tell them I think they have become one of the "muthafuckas"?
I'm beginning to wonder why anyone else (including me) bothers posting, when you know Malkynn is just going to come along and do it better.
I'm beginning to wonder why anyone else (including me) bothers posting, when you know Malkynn is just going to come along and do it better.
Careful...the people who can't stand my writing and wish I would just shut the fuck up are really going to take offense to this comment ;)
FV, I like your framing of this issue, because I think it captures something that is often missed, and something I really hadn't thought about myself before.
Thanks @maizeman
I think this has somehow turned into a valuable discussion (at least to me). I took a little flak in the first page or so (and some of it was actually deserved). Now people seem to be digging into a problem that is actually sort of difficult to define. I'm reminded of the Supreme Court opinion on pornography (forget which Justice), "I can't effectively define pornography, but damned if I don't what it is when I see it." (paraphrased)
So, I'm all for cracking down on and ridiculing white supremacists when they post the pic with Dr. King in a sniper sight with the caption "Our Dream Came True" on my Facebook feed. But I'm irritated when someone objects to me using the word "rape" as per the actual dictionary definition. Like the justice who said he couldn't define pornography, I can't define when the thin red line is crossed, but I damn well know when someone has gone too far in my personal opinion. So how polite do I have to be when I tell them I think they have become one of the "muthafuckas"?
Trigger words and snowflakes...
I honestly chuckle at anyone calling us the snowflake generation. It's usually the older folks around me doing the complaining, either about us or the way "things used to be."
I'm a millennial, and of course that means I'm one of the fabled snowflake/participation trophy generation. But I did grow up when making fun of another kid meant you either called him gay, a retard, or a girl. Older people gave off color names to things like Brazil nuts, negotiating prices, and anyone who wore a turban. The thing of it is-yes it was funny, at the time. It's not anymore. It's not funny when priorities shift and horizons expand. I'm glad all that's changed. I'm glad we've moved beyond this kind of language as a society. If I have to be a bit more careful with my word choice, so be it-I consider myself lucky. We still live in a society that is constantly progressing. 50 years ago is not where I want to be.
Telling a kid he "throws like a girl" is not cool.
Trigger words and snowflakes...+1 from a fellow millennial.
I honestly chuckle at anyone calling us the snowflake generation. It's usually the older folks around me doing the complaining, either about us or the way "things used to be."
I'm a millennial, and of course that means I'm one of the fabled snowflake/participation trophy generation. But I did grow up when making fun of another kid meant you either called him gay, a retard, or a girl. Older people gave off color names to things like Brazil nuts, negotiating prices, and anyone who wore a turban. The thing of it is-yes it was funny, at the time. It's not anymore. It's not funny when priorities shift and horizons expand. I'm glad all that's changed. I'm glad we've moved beyond this kind of language as a society. If I have to be a bit more careful with my word choice, so be it-I consider myself lucky. We still live in a society that is constantly progressing. 50 years ago is not where I want to be.
I guess I can see why you’d be kinda pissed.
Not pissed. My blood pressure didn't jump. I'm just sort of annoyed and feel the obnoxious unintended consequences of political correctness (which is probably a good idea IN THEORY) are not being explored. And are maybe even being squelched.
Trigger words and snowflakes...+1 from a fellow millennial.
I honestly chuckle at anyone calling us the snowflake generation. It's usually the older folks around me doing the complaining, either about us or the way "things used to be."
I'm a millennial, and of course that means I'm one of the fabled snowflake/participation trophy generation. But I did grow up when making fun of another kid meant you either called him gay, a retard, or a girl. Older people gave off color names to things like Brazil nuts, negotiating prices, and anyone who wore a turban. The thing of it is-yes it was funny, at the time. It's not anymore. It's not funny when priorities shift and horizons expand. I'm glad all that's changed. I'm glad we've moved beyond this kind of language as a society. If I have to be a bit more careful with my word choice, so be it-I consider myself lucky. We still live in a society that is constantly progressing. 50 years ago is not where I want to be.
And also, I'm not convinced that people really are more easily offended now than they used to. I think minorities, women, gay people, the disabled, etc. have always been hurt by slurs and cruel jokes, they just didn't have the power to speak up about it and now they do, and how is that not a good thing?
(Yes, there are a few people who latch onto every minor microagression, but I think those people are a lot rarer IRL than some internet arguments would lead you to believe).
I think the term "political correctness" is bullshit in and of itself. It's the user's way of excusing themselves for saying or doing something that was rude, inconsiderate, or just plain mean. People who say they hate being politically correct are declaring that they want to behave in a manner that is mostly unacceptable, but they want to cover their own reprehensible behavior by blaming other people for being civilized.
But that's just my opinion.
Trigger words and snowflakes...+1 from a fellow millennial.
I honestly chuckle at anyone calling us the snowflake generation. It's usually the older folks around me doing the complaining, either about us or the way "things used to be."
I'm a millennial, and of course that means I'm one of the fabled snowflake/participation trophy generation. But I did grow up when making fun of another kid meant you either called him gay, a retard, or a girl. Older people gave off color names to things like Brazil nuts, negotiating prices, and anyone who wore a turban. The thing of it is-yes it was funny, at the time. It's not anymore. It's not funny when priorities shift and horizons expand. I'm glad all that's changed. I'm glad we've moved beyond this kind of language as a society. If I have to be a bit more careful with my word choice, so be it-I consider myself lucky. We still live in a society that is constantly progressing. 50 years ago is not where I want to be.
And also, I'm not convinced that people really are more easily offended now than they used to. I think minorities, women, gay people, the disabled, etc. have always been hurt by slurs and cruel jokes, they just didn't have the power to speak up about it and now they do, and how is that not a good thing?
(Yes, there are a few people who latch onto every minor microagression, but I think those people are a lot rarer IRL than some internet arguments would lead you to believe).
I think the term "political correctness" is bullshit in and of itself. It's the user's way of excusing themselves for saying or doing something that was rude, inconsiderate, or just plain mean. People who say they hate being politically correct are declaring that they want to behave in a manner that is mostly unacceptable, but they want to cover their own reprehensible behavior by blaming other people for being civilized.
But that's just my opinion.
+1
99 times out of 100, when someone starts a sentence with, "Now I'm not politically correct..." the rest of the sentence is that person being a total jerk.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
Or, there’s an alternative take.
You came on here and tossed out an incredibly offensive term, and then tried to spin it as you being some sort of oppressed freedom of speech hero.
Nope.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
Or, there’s an alternative take.
You came on here and tossed out an incredibly offensive term, and then tried to spin it as you being some sort of oppressed freedom of speech hero.
Nope.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
Or, there’s an alternative take.
You came on here and tossed out an incredibly offensive term, and then tried to spin it as you being some sort of oppressed freedom of speech hero.
Nope.
Yep.
Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
This is Pete's forum, this is his house, he can dictate whatever he wants here.
There are PLENTY of forums out there where that speech is openly welcomed, but not here.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
Or, there’s an alternative take.
You came on here and tossed out an incredibly offensive term, and then tried to spin it as you being some sort of oppressed freedom of speech hero.
Nope.
Yep.
Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
This is Pete's forum, this is his house, he can dictate whatever he wants here.
There are PLENTY of forums out there where that speech is openly welcomed, but not here.
Never made a claim to have the right to say whatever I want on here.
Merely making a point that two words or phrases, with the exact same meaning, are tolerated differently.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
Or, there’s an alternative take.
You came on here and tossed out an incredibly offensive term, and then tried to spin it as you being some sort of oppressed freedom of speech hero.
Nope.
Yep.
Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
This is Pete's forum, this is his house, he can dictate whatever he wants here.
There are PLENTY of forums out there where that speech is openly welcomed, but not here.
Never made a claim to have the right to say whatever I want on here.
Merely making a point that two words or phrases, with the exact same meaning, are tolerated differently.
The two words/phrases you pointed out do not have the exact same meaning though.
One is a highly charged racially offensive term, and carries certain connotations that are very strongly context dependent. One is a descriptor of that word, designed to allow discussion of it without the same connotations, and without giving offense.
It's like the difference between saying "Excuse me please" and "Get the fuck out of the way". They're used in similar situations, for similar reasons, but are quite different.
My point being, they should be tolerated differently.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
Or, there’s an alternative take.
You came on here and tossed out an incredibly offensive term, and then tried to spin it as you being some sort of oppressed freedom of speech hero.
Nope.
Yep.
Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
This is Pete's forum, this is his house, he can dictate whatever he wants here.
There are PLENTY of forums out there where that speech is openly welcomed, but not here.
Never made a claim to have the right to say whatever I want on here.
Merely making a point that two words or phrases, with the exact same meaning, are tolerated differently.
The two words/phrases you pointed out do not have the exact same meaning though.
One is a highly charged racially offensive term, and carries certain connotations that are very strongly context dependent. One is a descriptor of that word, designed to allow discussion of it without the same connotations, and without giving offense.
It's like the difference between saying "Excuse me please" and "Get the fuck out of the way". They're used in similar situations, for similar reasons, but are quite different.
My point being, they should be tolerated differently.
You're making good points and the example you used is a good one that makes sense.
I guess my overall point is...if you are going to use a word, own it, and use it. Similar example is people who use the f*cking **** to censor their own fucking words. Either type out the word and own it, or don't use it.
Using the word I did was too inflammatory and was the wrong word to use to get my point across.
See I guess the Mod made my point.
They're both the same thing, but one hides behind PC bullshit.
Or, there’s an alternative take.
You came on here and tossed out an incredibly offensive term, and then tried to spin it as you being some sort of oppressed freedom of speech hero.
Nope.
Yep.
Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
This is Pete's forum, this is his house, he can dictate whatever he wants here.
There are PLENTY of forums out there where that speech is openly welcomed, but not here.
Never made a claim to have the right to say whatever I want on here.
Merely making a point that two words or phrases, with the exact same meaning, are tolerated differently.
The two words/phrases you pointed out do not have the exact same meaning though.
One is a highly charged racially offensive term, and carries certain connotations that are very strongly context dependent. One is a descriptor of that word, designed to allow discussion of it without the same connotations, and without giving offense.
It's like the difference between saying "Excuse me please" and "Get the fuck out of the way". They're used in similar situations, for similar reasons, but are quite different.
My point being, they should be tolerated differently.
You're making good points and the example you used is a good one that makes sense.
I guess my overall point is...if you are going to use a word, own it, and use it. Similar example is people who use the f*cking **** to censor their own fucking words. Either type out the word and own it, or don't use it.
Using the word I did was too inflammatory and was the wrong word to use to get my point across.
I was honestly having trouble understanding what you were saying from your first comment but I think f*ck is a better example. No point in censoring, we know what you mean.
But with "N word" it's a matter of context in addition to content. If I were to call someone a stupid N word, then ya, that's just as bad as saying the real thing because everyone knows what I mean, but typically the context where someone would say "N word" is when they're recounting an event or describing a situation. I agree that using the full word in those cases should be fine too, but lots of people disagree so I refrain from saying it entirely.
If nothing else the mods may want to avoid it just to keep the site from showing up when someone searches the word.
I think the term "political correctness" is bullshit in and of itself. It's the user's way of excusing themselves for saying or doing something that was rude, inconsiderate, or just plain mean. People who say they hate being politically correct are declaring that they want to behave in a manner that is mostly unacceptable, but they want to cover their own reprehensible behavior by blaming other people for being civilized.
But that's just my opinion.
By that same token, we should avoid using the words "kill," "murder," "snuff out," etc. in ANY context because someone in the company of our conversation may have been subjected to homicide (or a loved one)? When my comedian friend gets off stage, I am no longer allowed to say "man you really killed it!" because someone in earshot could be triggered? This is a very slippery slope. Maybe we should all be mute so there is zero probability of unknowingly offending someone with a particular word or its usage?
Go out there and break a leg.
My apologizes to those of you that have broken a leg.
(Not understanding that when they say someone is "fat", it's offensive and "overweight" is preferred, for example.)
Also the word "obese" is offensive to the ears of many fat people as well, because it inaccurately medicalizes body size and weight, when the truth is that the relationship between fatness and health problems is not what most people think it is (ie., there are plenty of healthy fat people and plenty of unhealthy skinny ones).
(Not understanding that when they say someone is "fat", it's offensive and "overweight" is preferred, for example.)
I agree with your overall point, but this is outdated. Most of us fat people would rather just be called "fat" because "overweight" is like -- over what weight? I am the weight I am. It sets up a "normal" and a "not normal" and since more than half of the people in the US are fat now, it just doesn't make sense.
Also the word "obese" is offensive to the ears of many fat people as well, because it inaccurately medicalizes body size and weight, when the truth is that the relationship between fatness and health problems is not what most people think it is (ie., there are plenty of healthy fat people and plenty of unhealthy skinny ones).
Also the word "obese" is offensive to the ears of many fat people as well, because it inaccurately medicalizes body size and weight, when the truth is that the relationship between fatness and health problems is not what most people think it is (ie., there are plenty of healthy fat people and plenty of unhealthy skinny ones).
While I 100% agree with the underlying point about unnecessary connotations of personal judgment in many of these terms, saying that there are plenty of healthy fat people is kind of like saying there are plenty of healthy smokers. Yes, that is technically true. You can be a smoker who smokes one or two sticks a day and is otherwise healthy, but being a smoker of any sort still isn't good for you, in the medical sense of the word. People who are light smokers tend to become heavy smokers over time, and heavy smokers develop known smoking-related health problems. Saying that you're a healthy smoker seems contradictory to me, even if you can justify it as technically true today. It still cuts into your life expectancy, no matter how healthy you think you are.
People are absolutely free to smoke, just like they are absolutely free to be fat. But I also understand the "medicalized" nature of those descriptors, because both of these issues are being treated like the public health crises they are. I'm not sure why there is such a strong public push to ignore obesity in America, while we continue to focus on things like smoking, seatbelts, and vaccinations. Obesity-related health problems are still the 2nd leading cause of preventable death in America, after tobacco, and I think that requires the same sort of large scale government intervention in our food industry that we've previously seen work with the tobacco and auto industries. This is a systemic problem, nationally, and we should probably stop treating it as a personal failing on the part of individual fat people.
I'm fat too, and the actual conversation with them was much more nuanced. "I've started walking with my friend Yoshiko every morning. She is very fat. We walk in the park." I am pretty sure that most people, especially most older people for whom, in the US at least "fat" is still pejorative) wouldn't like to be referred to like that. This was a different lesson than the fateful banned/band.
We actually had a whole conversation about shifting social norms, including how "retarded" used to be perfectly acceptable and now it isn't. And that "fat" used to very offensive and now that's changing, but right now we are in an transitional situation where some still find it offensive, and others may prefer it. Explaining all that in what was already going to be a very long post seemed overkill, so I self-edited. :lol
They also found that sort of thing fascinating. According to them, there isn't a concept similar to political correctness in Japan, and their minds were also blown at the concept of cultural appropriation. They wanted to dress me in a kimono (one of the students did wedding kimono dressing as her retirement side-hustle). I was thrilled to have them do it as I'd only ever worn a yukata (casual summer kimono, basically), but I brought up the concept of cultural appropriation as part of the discussion. It was a tough one as the word "appropriate" was new and somewhat advanced for most of them, but they clearly gave zero fucks about anyone wearing traditional Japanese clothing, even if it wasn't being worn properly (an kimono "jacket" with jeans, or even an obi as a table runner). To them, if someone thought a Japanese item was pretty, they felt proud, regardless of use. I even asked if they would find it offensive or uncomfortable if I wore a kimono as a Halloween costume (as opposed to perhaps a wedding or something where it was clearly meant to be dress clothes, like it is for the Japanese). Still didn't care. That said, I'm back in the US and probably unlikely to wear anything Japanese in most situations because someone (likely someone not Japanese!) would feel the need to hurl the "appropriation" label at me.
There are a lot of assumptions and inaccuracies in your post
Even the lens through which you are viewing this is exclusionary to fat people trying to live in the world in the bodies we have today.
Also the word "obese" is offensive to the ears of many fat people as well, because it inaccurately medicalizes body size and weight, when the truth is that the relationship between fatness and health problems is not what most people think it is (ie., there are plenty of healthy fat people and plenty of unhealthy skinny ones).
While I 100% agree with the underlying point about unnecessary connotations of personal judgment in many of these terms, saying that there are plenty of healthy fat people is kind of like saying there are plenty of healthy smokers. Yes, that is technically true. You can be a smoker who smokes one or two sticks a day and is otherwise healthy, but being a smoker of any sort still isn't good for you, in the medical sense of the word. People who are light smokers tend to become heavy smokers over time, and heavy smokers develop known smoking-related health problems. Saying that you're a healthy smoker seems contradictory to me, even if you can justify it as technically true today. It still cuts into your life expectancy, no matter how healthy you think you are.
People are absolutely free to smoke, just like they are absolutely free to be fat. But I also understand the "medicalized" nature of those descriptors, because both of these issues are being treated like the public health crises they are. I'm not sure why there is such a strong public push to ignore obesity in America, while we continue to focus on things like smoking, seatbelts, and vaccinations. Obesity-related health problems are still the 2nd leading cause of preventable death in America, after tobacco, and I think that requires the same sort of large scale government intervention in our food industry that we've previously seen work with the tobacco and auto industries. This is a systemic problem, nationally, and we should probably stop treating it as a personal failing on the part of individual fat people.
There are a lot of assumptions and inaccuracies in your post. Even the lens through which you are viewing this is exclusionary to fat people trying to live in the world in the bodies we have today. I encourage you to check out the research around Health at Every Size (https://lindabacon.org/health-at-every-size-book/) and upgrade your thinking.I'm fat too, and the actual conversation with them was much more nuanced. "I've started walking with my friend Yoshiko every morning. She is very fat. We walk in the park." I am pretty sure that most people, especially most older people for whom, in the US at least "fat" is still pejorative) wouldn't like to be referred to like that. This was a different lesson than the fateful banned/band.
We actually had a whole conversation about shifting social norms, including how "retarded" used to be perfectly acceptable and now it isn't. And that "fat" used to very offensive and now that's changing, but right now we are in an transitional situation where some still find it offensive, and others may prefer it. Explaining all that in what was already going to be a very long post seemed overkill, so I self-edited. :lol
They also found that sort of thing fascinating. According to them, there isn't a concept similar to political correctness in Japan, and their minds were also blown at the concept of cultural appropriation. They wanted to dress me in a kimono (one of the students did wedding kimono dressing as her retirement side-hustle). I was thrilled to have them do it as I'd only ever worn a yukata (casual summer kimono, basically), but I brought up the concept of cultural appropriation as part of the discussion. It was a tough one as the word "appropriate" was new and somewhat advanced for most of them, but they clearly gave zero fucks about anyone wearing traditional Japanese clothing, even if it wasn't being worn properly (an kimono "jacket" with jeans, or even an obi as a table runner). To them, if someone thought a Japanese item was pretty, they felt proud, regardless of use. I even asked if they would find it offensive or uncomfortable if I wore a kimono as a Halloween costume (as opposed to perhaps a wedding or something where it was clearly meant to be dress clothes, like it is for the Japanese). Still didn't care. That said, I'm back in the US and probably unlikely to wear anything Japanese in most situations because someone (likely someone not Japanese!) would feel the need to hurl the "appropriation" label at me.
Super-interesting post, Villanelle. There's so much nuance to these ideas, especially across cultures. I wonder if cultural appropriation really only becomes an issue in a heterogenous culture like the US, and not so much in a homogenous one in Japan. Like part of the problem with something like a white girl wearing a Native-style headdress to Coachella is that her people have kicked the shit out of Native people for centuries in every possible way ... and now one of their last surviving symbols is being treated like it's nothing more than a cute kind of hat. That kind of history and context makes all the difference with cultural appropriation.
Super-interesting post, Villanelle. There's so much nuance to these ideas, especially across cultures. I wonder if cultural appropriation really only becomes an issue in a heterogenous culture like the US, and not so much in a homogenous one in Japan. Like part of the problem with something like a white girl wearing a Native-style headdress to Coachella is that her people have kicked the shit out of Native people for centuries in every possible way ... and now one of their last surviving symbols is being treated like it's nothing more than a cute kind of hat. That kind of history and context makes all the difference with cultural appropriation.
That could be. There's also the fact that the items we were discussing weren't sacred. Wearing hapi coat with jeans and a tee isn't quite comparable to wearing a rosary as a necklace. That hapi coat, or the obi I have draped over my dining table, was never sacred. It was always "just" clothing, albeit traditional and culture-specific clothing, so maybe it's easier to see it used as something else than it wold be if it were a sacred item or an item that had to be earned in its original cultural context?
Some of this stuff we couldn't discuss in class because it got to be too nuanced for the language level (although many of them had wonderful English!), and sometimes I also got uncomfortable being the only voice of America to them, so I tried to keep things general. I didn't want to tell them how I felt about Social Security or abortion or Trump (The class the day after the election when my students were in tears was not the most fun for me! Oh, and trying to explain the electoral college and why we have it, when I'd very happily see it gone, was also a nice little challenge!), because I worried them might think that was how Americans felt. So I walked a fine line (and surely didn't always get it right) between sharing my opinions something but also trying to keep it general so as not to present only one side.
As an aside, conversational English is the only job I've ever had that I probably loved. Some days were awkward and some days I failed to explain a concept and floundered a bit, but most days it was fucking magic. And it's also the only job where I never felt imposter syndrome. I was *great* at that job!
There are a lot of assumptions and inaccuracies in your post
Can you spell them out for me? I understand that there are various contributors to a person't overall health, and you can still have great flexibility and balance and be a two-pack-a-day smoker, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. Smoking, like obesity, cuts into your cardiovascular performance if nothing else. Also like smoking (and sun exposure and alcohol consumption), obesity is definitely associated with an increased risk of certain types of cancers.QuoteEven the lens through which you are viewing this is exclusionary to fat people trying to live in the world in the bodies we have today.
I think of myself as the exact opposite of exclusionary in this case. I explicitly mentioned in that post my desire to remove the personal judgments that have historically accompanied fatness, because most people are not fat as an isolated consequence of their own decisions. There are larger problems afoot here, and they need addressing at a level far above the individual's choices that doctors have typically prescribed for controlling weight. We could stop farm subsidies for red meat, for example, since they're a known carcinogen and generally terrible for you, and Uncle Sam probably shouldn't be making it as cheap as possible to get heart disease.
Lots of American are fat. I get that, and each and every one of them deserves to be happy in their own way. But I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors if we pretend that being very overweight is just as healthy as being less overweight. People who have trouble fitting into passenger cars or office chairs are suffering through very real negative consequences of their weight, before we even get to their struggles with carrying groceries or playing with their kids. I'm not excluding anyone, I'm arguing for national policy changes to lower obesity rates so that future generations will be better off than my generation. You can still choose to be any size, I just think we should find a way to make it a choice, rather than something that is forced on people by government-subsidized lifestyle manipulation.
How many people have I triggered with this post?
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before someone invents a birth control styled hormone treatment that anyone can take that interrupts the body's nutrient cycling and fat storage mechanisms, and we'll all be able to eat whatever garbage we want and independently choose what shape we want to be. But not in time to help millions of Americans who will otherwise succumb to obesity-related health problems before it becomes widely available.
See, and I think we should be making bigger chairs and airplane seats
training medical professionals to treat fat people with respect, rather than asking them to do something with a 95-98% failure rate (lose weight).
If you want to educate yourself on this, all you need to do is google "fatphobia" and "health at every size"
See, and I think we should be making bigger chairs and airplane seats
I don't think that's ever going to work. There will always be 0.01% outliers.
What about 30-70% of the US population? In what world does that mean "outlier"?
And Laserjet3051 feel free to do your own research on this. If you are not going to do that, then it's clear to me that you aren't interested in actually learning anything, just beating fat people over the head with how gross and close to death we are.
See, and I think we should be making bigger chairs and airplane seats and training medical professionals to treat fat people with respect, rather than asking them to do something with a 95-98% failure rate (lose weight)..
If you want to educate yourself on this, all you need to do is google "fatphobia" and "health at every size" -- there are many resources out there that I don't care to rehash here.
I will say that the most recent research is showing that fatphobic medical providers are AT LEAST as much of a health risk to fat people as fat itself.
There are a lot of assumptions and inaccuracies in your post
Can you spell them out for me? I understand that there are various contributors to a person't overall health, and you can still have great flexibility and balance and be a two-pack-a-day smoker, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. Smoking, like obesity, cuts into your cardiovascular performance if nothing else. Also like smoking (and sun exposure and alcohol consumption), obesity is definitely associated with an increased risk of certain types of cancers.QuoteEven the lens through which you are viewing this is exclusionary to fat people trying to live in the world in the bodies we have today.
I think of myself as the exact opposite of exclusionary in this case. I explicitly mentioned in that post my desire to remove the personal judgments that have historically accompanied fatness, because most people are not fat as an isolated consequence of their own decisions. There are larger problems afoot here, and they need addressing at a level far above the individual's choices that doctors have typically prescribed for controlling weight. We could stop farm subsidies for red meat, for example, since they're a known carcinogen and generally terrible for you, and Uncle Sam probably shouldn't be making it as cheap as possible to get heart disease.
Lots of American are fat. I get that, and each and every one of them deserves to be happy in their own way. But I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors if we pretend that being very overweight is just as healthy as being less overweight. People who have trouble fitting into passenger cars or office chairs are suffering through very real negative consequences of their weight, before we even get to their struggles with carrying groceries or playing with their kids. I'm not excluding anyone, I'm arguing for national policy changes to lower obesity rates so that future generations will be better off than my generation. You can still choose to be any size, I just think we should find a way to make it a choice, rather than something that is forced on people by government-subsidized lifestyle manipulation.
How many people have I triggered with this post?
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before someone invents a birth control styled hormone treatment that anyone can take that interrupts the body's nutrient cycling and fat storage mechanisms, and we'll all be able to eat whatever garbage we want and independently choose what shape we want to be. But not in time to help millions of Americans who will otherwise succumb to obesity-related health problems before it becomes widely available.
As someone actively working in adipose homeostasis R&D, I too, would be very interested in learning about the positive health benefits of obesity, including morbid obesity. Pubmed references (PMID) should suffice. Thank you in advance.
Exactly. I mean if the more privileged folks on this thread are sick of being told their words are offensive ... imagine how sick marginalized forks are of hearing offensive shit every day of their lives. It seriously stuns me how often grown adults need to be reminded of this, but try putting yourself in the other person's shoes.
Is it more important for each of us to be able to use any word we want, or for some of us to be freed to navigate the world free of constantly having to be reminded of truly horrible shit?
I think the term "political correctness" is bullshit in and of itself. It's the user's way of excusing themselves for saying or doing something that was rude, inconsiderate, or just plain mean. People who say they hate being politically correct are declaring that they want to behave in a manner that is mostly unacceptable, but they want to cover their own reprehensible behavior by blaming other people for being civilized.
But that's just my opinion.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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. (https://i.imgur.com/0oYW3Ta.jpg)
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.
"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. (https://i.imgur.com/0oYW3Ta.jpg)
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.
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. (https://i.imgur.com/0oYW3Ta.jpg)
"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. (https://i.imgur.com/0oYW3Ta.jpg)
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.
But Mother Theresa is not eviscerated for helping poor brown people even though she was born a rich white European. In fact, she's generally revered as being a pretty good person. Therefore your theory doesn't appear to fit the facts.
The argument about punching up/down is one of context, not identity. A history of oppression can easily cause a different context, which actually changes the meaning of words.
Let me give you an example:
"Hand me that shovel, boy" has a very different meaning if an older white guy says it to a black man than if an older white guy says it to a white man. Even though they're the same words. Context matters because of history, and in this case history dictates that race does matter to establish context.
I think that Dr. King would be upset in the former but not upset the latter example given, because he knew very well that judging a man based on his actions means taking those actions in context. This doesn't really mean that you're being discriminated against for being born white . . . it means that you being white is sometimes part of the historical context in how your actions will be perceived.
Instead of "politically correct" I prefer the term "polite".That is a good thought.
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.
"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. (https://i.imgur.com/0oYW3Ta.jpg)
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.
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?
Instead of "politically correct" I prefer the term "polite".
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
@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" (https://www.sonc.org/EndtheRWord) we had a word that could be used for somebody who was being willfully unintelligent? How about, say, "dunker" for Dunning-Kroger effect?
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.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.
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?
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.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.
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.
@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" (https://www.sonc.org/EndtheRWord) we had a word that could be used for somebody who was being willfully unintelligent? How about, say, "dunker" for Dunning-Kroger effect?
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. (https://i.imgur.com/0oYW3Ta.jpg)
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."
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/ (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.
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.Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.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.
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?
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?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.
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."
@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" (https://www.sonc.org/EndtheRWord) 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.No worries, I got that your anger wasn't directed at me.
FWIW, I've never seen someone publicly humiliated or having their career destroyed for saying "Happy Holidays". Can you link some of these cases?
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."
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes I wonder if there is something in some people's brain structures that makes it almost painful to change their way of speech.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.
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?
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.
+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.
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.
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 world is not a fair place. Do your best not to be a jerk about it, please.Yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
...Who gets to decide what subjects can be discussed and by whom?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
To a racist, it's just a matter of degree. What one person calls funny jokes, another calls overt racism. So from their perspective, being fired for overt racism IS an example of the PC police running amok.
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."
To a racist, it's just a matter of degree. What one person calls funny jokes, another calls overt racism. So from their perspective, being fired for overt racism IS an example of the PC police running amok.
So, so, sooooo true.
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."
To a racist, it's just a matter of degree. What one person calls funny jokes, another calls overt racism. So from their perspective, being fired for overt racism IS an example of the PC police running amok.
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."
To a racist, it's just a matter of degree. What one person calls funny jokes, another calls overt racism. So from their perspective, being fired for overt racism IS an example of the PC police running amok.
Which circles back to the original premise for this thread. Why can't the customer at the McDonald's tough out being called the n-word? Why can't your co-worker just deal with being called a dumb c*** if she makes a mistake at work? Is it okay to make dumb blond(e) or fiery redhead jokes? Why do some groups go unpunished for racial humor? Why is everybody such a snowflake these days? They are just WORDS!!
Here's my summary of the answers
1. Insults and controversial language of any kind, even humorous, are not usually part of a healthy and professional work environment. Because it can cause you to lose customers, collaborations, and cause a hostile work environment. Un/fortunately, because of widespread handheld cameras, what you do in public during your time out of work, also can affect your work status.
2. Insult jokes are only funny between social equals (punch down/punch up discussion). If your friend is also your boss, your employee, your grandmother, your student, or even just a friend who is outnumbered 5:1 by race/sex/etc. in your social group, then there's a power inequality which needs consideration.
3. Jokes using slurs were never very fun for disadvantaged groups but only recently have they been able to speak up. It is a means of "otherizing" groups and splinters society.
4. Self-deprecating humor is okay (because of #2). Stay in your own lane and make jokes about your own ethnicity or group.
5. Manners and politeness were invented for a reason, and that reason is to prevent conflict. In times of rapid social change, it's better to be safe than sorry.
Another thought. Jokes are sometimes needed to relieve stress. But it's better to base them on what people do, not what people are.
Nobody's perfect. If somebody didn't mean ill, educating them gently works better and makes allies, not enemies. If you are an ally, you can do the work within your own group of speaking out.
Also, some people just don't have the emotional intelligence to know when and what kind of joke or language is appropriate. This is why a list of (don't use, or use with extreme care) trigger words probably needs to be codified.
Another thought. Jokes are sometimes needed to relieve stress. But it's better to base them on what people do, not what people are.
Nobody's perfect. If somebody didn't mean ill, educating them gently works better and makes allies, not enemies. If you are an ally, you can do the work within your own group of speaking out.
Also, some people just don't have the emotional intelligence to know when and what kind of joke or language is appropriate. This is why a list of (don't use, or use with extreme care) trigger words probably needs to be codified.
The real problem with bigotry isn't that it hurts someone's feeling, it's that it literally hurts people. Getting your feelings hurt is just a side effect, and one we all have to deal with sometimes.
If you're a majority-group member who feels that the PC police are on your back all of the time, you probably need to STFU until you can show me your cuts and bruises. I don't really care that your feelings are being hurt. But by the exact same token, if you're a minority-group member who gets your feelings hurt, let's try to remember that the purpose of our objections is about stopping the violence that follows, not JUST about protecting your feelings.
That is certainly part of the "real problem" (as much as we can distill the whole issue of race/gender into a single problem) but there are far more insidious consequences to gender/race issues than "just" violence.
Because frankly, I disagree entirely with this paragraph as being the end goal of any gender/race conversations happening in the USA right now.
The real problem with bigotry isn't that it hurts someone's feeling, it's that it literally hurts people. Getting your feelings hurt is just a side effect, and one we all have to deal with sometimes.
That is certainly part of the "real problem" (as much as we can distill the whole issue of race/gender into a single problem) but there are far more insidious consequences to gender/race issues than "just" violence.QuoteIf you're a majority-group member who feels that the PC police are on your back all of the time, you probably need to STFU until you can show me your cuts and bruises. I don't really care that your feelings are being hurt. But by the exact same token, if you're a minority-group member who gets your feelings hurt, let's try to remember that the purpose of our objections is about stopping the violence that follows, not JUST about protecting your feelings.
What do you define as "violence" with respect to this?
Because frankly, I disagree entirely with this paragraph as being the end goal of any gender/race conversations happening in the USA right now.
I'm sorry, what are these "far more insidious" consequences than violence? And if you aren't defining what is and is not violence, is it difficult to determine what might be more insidious than that?
It was really more of an aspirational wish list than an attempt to accurately describe our current reality. Part of the reason I sometimes feel sympathy for the anti-PC crowd is that we seem to have elevated feelings to a position of primacy. Yea, it's great if everyone gets along and is happy, but we don't fight against racism so that people can attend dinner parties. There are larger problems afoot here, and sometimes the common complaints about being offended seem kind of shallow and silly by comparison with the real drivers behind the equal rights movement.
My experience is nearly all the people focusing conversation to being around "offended" types of topics is instigated by people who are in a position of privilege.
Are there many people pushing for racial/gender issues primarily focusing on not being offended or its various derivatives?
This whole quote just trivializes all concerns other than "violence based" and is a nice way of saying "get over it, get a thicker skin."
My experience is nearly all the people focusing conversation to being around "offended" types of topics is instigated by people who are in a position of privilege.
Do you include Poundwise in that description? How about Madge and Kris and GuitarStv? Lots of people in this thread have spoken about how a person's words, or even their very participation in this conversation, are offensive in ways that don't seem to support discrimination or violence. We had several pages of discussion about negative stereotypes about overweight people, with overweight people telling me I was being offensive by suggesting that being overweight is unhealthy. I was literally arguing for LESS discrimination against people based on body size, and I STILL offended people. Those people told me they were offended, and that I needed to listen to them and believe them when they told me I was out of line. They were not arguing from a position of privilege.
^--- I don't think Sol is arguing against most of these points, and in fact he's just used PoutineLover's pyramids to argue that not interrupting "offensive" language provides a basis for more serious forms of discrimination and harassment and violence. (Sorry if I mis-summarized that: I'm trying to say that Sol is arguing that biased language SHOULD be called out, because it's support for "bigger" baked in biases.)
I think he just used "overweight" in his paragraph because he's been conditioned not to call people "fat". So his autonomic impulse to be civil overrode his inclination to use a different word. (Which I get -- there are adjectives I don't use either.)
I'm not suggesting that racism (sexism/homophobia/etc) aren't systemic problems in ways that far exceed direct violence. I'm saying that a history of violence is the way that we decide which forms of being offended are worth taking seriously and which aren't. So far, the anti-PC crowd is pretty easy to ignore. Yes they get attacked all the time and oftentimes in viciously discriminatory language, but without any actual harm to offer as evidence they can sit and spin. If you're a woman, a gay person, a black person, a Jew, or any of a hundred other classes of people that have been regularly shat upon by European society, I tend to take your "I'm offended" comments a little more seriously.
What they object to, essentially, is anyone else being able to draw the line. Like, the people they're actually being racist/sexist/homophobic to. When other people try to draw the line and not the racist/sexist/homophobe, then the racist/sexist/homophobe pulls out the "PC police" label.
Which is kinda ironic, because it's actually the person him/herself that's so determined to be the one in control of policing/enforcing the situation.
What they object to, essentially, is anyone else being able to draw the line. Like, the people they're actually being racist/sexist/homophobic to. When other people try to draw the line and not the racist/sexist/homophobe, then the racist/sexist/homophobe pulls out the "PC police" label.
Which is kinda ironic, because it's actually the person him/herself that's so determined to be the one in control of policing/enforcing the situation.
+1. Also this image made me think of this thread today.
The "punching up/down" argument makes clear that a history of violence and active discrimination makes certain words unacceptable, while similar words in the other direction are still socially accepted because they have not historically preceded rape/lynching/genocide.That's definitely not true. In fact the hate against white people is one of the main drivers of radicalization of Muslim youth. They are being told that white people are evil and to blame for all their troubles, and at least in my country this has led to violence and rape and people feeling like stealing from white people is more like justice than a crime. The most irritating thing is that a lot of them complain about racist things that are happening only in the US, and try to make that an issue here.
QuoteThe "punching up/down" argument makes clear that a history of violence and active discrimination makes certain words unacceptable, while similar words in the other direction are still socially accepted because they have not historically preceded rape/lynching/genocide.That's definitely not true. In fact the hate against white people is one of the main drivers of radicalization of Muslim youth. They are being told that white people are evil and to blame for all their troubles, and at least in my country this has led to violence and rape and people feeling like stealing from white people is more like justice than a crime. The most irritating thing is that a lot of them complain about racist things that are happening only in the US, and try to make that an issue here.
QuoteThe "punching up/down" argument makes clear that a history of violence and active discrimination makes certain words unacceptable, while similar words in the other direction are still socially accepted because they have not historically preceded rape/lynching/genocide.That's definitely not true. In fact the hate against white people is one of the main drivers of radicalization of Muslim youth. They are being told that white people are evil and to blame for all their troubles, and at least in my country this has led to violence and rape and people feeling like stealing from white people is more like justice than a crime. The most irritating thing is that a lot of them complain about racist things that are happening only in the US, and try to make that an issue here.
And there it is. We’ve come full-circle.
The real problem — if you haven’t been paying attention, folks — is hatred against whites.
Had an interesting and timely conversation with a family member last night. She works as an elementary school teacher in a black majority rural town in the southern US. She mentioned how difficult and frustrating it is to live around people who constantly question her motives and are suspicious of her, referring to students, their parents, and the community in general. She has students who make negative comments about white people and tell her things like "this is why my mom hates white people" when she does something they don't like. She said these comments are not rare, they are the norm. I don't think her concern is just about her feelings, it's that these comments and the prejudice behind them make her job more difficult and makes her students less likely to succeed. They maintain the divide between white and black in that community. They are not harmless words.
Now obviously if a large portion of a community says and does things like this, there's something bigger going on than individual people being assholes. I don't accept the idea that an entire population can be inherently better or worse, something happened in this community's history to create this situation. But that doesn't make prejudiced words ok. It still creates tension and frustration, particularly for my relative who could've easily moved to a more white area after she got her degree. She moved to a poor community (with terrible teacher salaries) to do something good. She's been there ~10 years now so I don't know if she'll stay, but I can't imagine putting up with that by choice. Good teachers may be the best hope to improve that community, and words are chasing them away. Perhaps the most virtuous among us could endure that situation and be fine with it because it's societies fault and not the individual's fault, but when your average white person hears someone say "I hate white people" their reaction is going to be, "well fuck you too then".
Perhaps in a deeper sense, "punching up" is ok, but the real world doesn't care. Defending the right of the oppressed to speak their prejudice is defending their right to maintain their oppression. In the end, we're all just animals and if you poke an animal with a stick, it's going to bite.
Had an interesting and timely conversation with a family member last night. She works as an elementary school teacher in a black majority rural town in the southern US. She mentioned how difficult and frustrating it is to live around people who constantly question her motives and are suspicious of her, referring to students, their parents, and the community in general. She has students who make negative comments about white people and tell her things like "this is why my mom hates white people" when she does something they don't like. She said these comments are not rare, they are the norm. I don't think her concern is just about her feelings, it's that these comments and the prejudice behind them make her job more difficult and makes her students less likely to succeed. They maintain the divide between white and black in that community. They are not harmless words.
Now obviously if a large portion of a community says and does things like this, there's something bigger going on than individual people being assholes. I don't accept the idea that an entire population can be inherently better or worse, something happened in this community's history to create this situation. But that doesn't make prejudiced words ok. It still creates tension and frustration, particularly for my relative who could've easily moved to a more white area after she got her degree. She moved to a poor community (with terrible teacher salaries) to do something good. She's been there ~10 years now so I don't know if she'll stay, but I can't imagine putting up with that by choice. Good teachers may be the best hope to improve that community, and words are chasing them away. Perhaps the most virtuous among us could endure that situation and be fine with it because it's societies fault and not the individual's fault, but when your average white person hears someone say "I hate white people" their reaction is going to be, "well fuck you too then".
Perhaps in a deeper sense, "punching up" is ok, but the real world doesn't care. Defending the right of the oppressed to speak their prejudice is defending their right to maintain their oppression. In the end, we're all just animals and if you poke an animal with a stick, it's going to bite.
Had an interesting and timely conversation with a family member last night. She works as an elementary school teacher in a black majority rural town in the southern US. She mentioned how difficult and frustrating it is to live around people who constantly question her motives and are suspicious of her, referring to students, their parents, and the community in general. She has students who make negative comments about white people and tell her things like "this is why my mom hates white people" when she does something they don't like. She said these comments are not rare, they are the norm. I don't think her concern is just about her feelings, it's that these comments and the prejudice behind them make her job more difficult and makes her students less likely to succeed. They maintain the divide between white and black in that community. They are not harmless words.
Now obviously if a large portion of a community says and does things like this, there's something bigger going on than individual people being assholes. I don't accept the idea that an entire population can be inherently better or worse, something happened in this community's history to create this situation. But that doesn't make prejudiced words ok. It still creates tension and frustration, particularly for my relative who could've easily moved to a more white area after she got her degree. She moved to a poor community (with terrible teacher salaries) to do something good. She's been there ~10 years now so I don't know if she'll stay, but I can't imagine putting up with that by choice. Good teachers may be the best hope to improve that community, and words are chasing them away. Perhaps the most virtuous among us could endure that situation and be fine with it because it's societies fault and not the individual's fault, but when your average white person hears someone say "I hate white people" their reaction is going to be, "well fuck you too then".
Perhaps in a deeper sense, "punching up" is ok, but the real world doesn't care. Defending the right of the oppressed to speak their prejudice is defending their right to maintain their oppression. In the end, we're all just animals and if you poke an animal with a stick, it's going to bite.
I'm not sure that what you're describing is "punching up". The term is used specifically to describe jokes. Saying 'I hate white people' in a non-joking context isn't a joke . . . it's just racist.
Had an interesting and timely conversation with a family member last night. She works as an elementary school teacher in a black majority rural town in the southern US. She mentioned how difficult and frustrating it is to live around people who constantly question her motives and are suspicious of her, referring to students, their parents, and the community in general. She has students who make negative comments about white people and tell her things like "this is why my mom hates white people" when she does something they don't like. She said these comments are not rare, they are the norm. I don't think her concern is just about her feelings, it's that these comments and the prejudice behind them make her job more difficult and makes her students less likely to succeed. They maintain the divide between white and black in that community. They are not harmless words.
Now obviously if a large portion of a community says and does things like this, there's something bigger going on than individual people being assholes. I don't accept the idea that an entire population can be inherently better or worse, something happened in this community's history to create this situation. But that doesn't make prejudiced words ok. It still creates tension and frustration, particularly for my relative who could've easily moved to a more white area after she got her degree. She moved to a poor community (with terrible teacher salaries) to do something good. She's been there ~10 years now so I don't know if she'll stay, but I can't imagine putting up with that by choice. Good teachers may be the best hope to improve that community, and words are chasing them away. Perhaps the most virtuous among us could endure that situation and be fine with it because it's societies fault and not the individual's fault, but when your average white person hears someone say "I hate white people" their reaction is going to be, "well fuck you too then".
Perhaps in a deeper sense, "punching up" is ok, but the real world doesn't care. Defending the right of the oppressed to speak their prejudice is defending their right to maintain their oppression. In the end, we're all just animals and if you poke an animal with a stick, it's going to bite.
I'm not sure that what you're describing is "punching up". The term is used specifically to describe jokes. Saying 'I hate white people' in a non-joking context isn't a joke . . . it's just racist.
Perhaps punching up was the wrong term although I've seen it used to refer to more than just jokes. I wasn't responding to anyone in particular because different posters have defended the idea of using negative language against the "privileged" or the "oppressor" to varying degrees. Not to mention it's difficult to draw a line between what is a joke and what is a sincerely held belief. They often overlap.
Even so, if we were referring to "just jokes", they still support these more direct comments in the same way that the base of the white supremacy pyramid presented earlier in this thread supports more harmful actions. These kids obviously learned this language somewhere and they can learn it just as easily from jokes as sincere comments, they often don't know the difference.
Also, "I hate white people" is in fact used as a joke. I grew up in a different but very similar community to the one described above and "I hate white people" or "fucking white people" were commonly used to be funny. It was a different version of "first world problems", although the majority of white people in that area were also quite poor. The teacher I described didn't explicitly say that kids used that term jokingly, but I assumed that this and some of the other comments she referred to were meant to be funny based on context of the conversation.
Had an interesting and timely conversation with a family member last night. She works as an elementary school teacher in a black majority rural town in the southern US...
when your average white person hears someone say "I hate white people" their reaction is going to be, "well fuck you too then".
As former "white trash," it irritates me to no end to see rich educated people throwing "white trash" parties. Meanwhile I love guillotine memes and making fun of rich white dudes unreservedly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Defending the right of the oppressed to speak their prejudice is defending their right to maintain their oppression.
Even so, if we were referring to "just jokes", they still support these more direct comments in the same way that the base of the white supremacy pyramid presented earlier in this thread supports more harmful actions. These kids obviously learned this language somewhere and they can learn it just as easily from jokes as sincere comments, they often don't know the difference.
1. You should stfu because no one cares what a white person thinks about racism. Your story shouldn't even be part of this discussion.
2. By sharing your story you are harming our conversation about race by drowning out real stories of racism.
3. You're only displaying your privilege by forcing your views on the rest of us, like the patriarchy always does. Your racism is so inherent you don't even see it.
4. Your framing of this town as "poor and black" is just another example of your inherent racism denigrating these good hardworking people.
5. Black people can't be racist against white people, because of your ancestor's history of oppression.
You do not seem to understand the reason why that type of response comes up.
Remember all of those Trump voters on the forum in 2017 who were super pissed off that everyone was calling them racist? The fact that they WERE racist wasn't the point, they didn't like being called racist and they said so repeatedly and yet lots of people here were jerks to them about it and felt fine about being jerks, because hey racism! I think that probably wasn't the most productive approach. We only entrenched them more deeply in their racist positions, rather than helping them come around.
I think that probably wasn't the most productive approach. We only entrenched them more deeply in their racist positions, rather than helping them come around.
Remember all of those Trump voters on the forum in 2017 who were super pissed off that everyone was calling them racist? The fact that they WERE racist wasn't the point, they didn't like being called racist and they said so repeatedly and yet lots of people here were jerks to them about it and felt fine about being jerks, because hey racism! I think that probably wasn't the most productive approach. We only entrenched them more deeply in their racist positions, rather than helping them come around.
It's your inexhaustible optimism on things like the chance of racist Trump voters changing to be better people that makes me like your posts sol.
Indeed. They are 2 real problems, and they feed each other. You can not solve one without also solving the other. Reconciliation means both sides should come together, not just reversing the roles.QuoteThe "punching up/down" argument makes clear that a history of violence and active discrimination makes certain words unacceptable, while similar words in the other direction are still socially accepted because they have not historically preceded rape/lynching/genocide.That's definitely not true. In fact the hate against white people is one of the main drivers of radicalization of Muslim youth. They are being told that white people are evil and to blame for all their troubles, and at least in my country this has led to violence and rape and people feeling like stealing from white people is more like justice than a crime. The most irritating thing is that a lot of them complain about racist things that are happening only in the US, and try to make that an issue here.
And there it is. We’ve come full-circle.
The real problem — if you haven’t been paying attention, folks — is hatred against whites.
Is there not room for two problems in the world?
2cents, if you don't mid sharing, where do you live?
Remember all of those Trump voters on the forum in 2017 who were super pissed off that everyone was calling them racist? The fact that they WERE racist wasn't the point, they didn't like being called racist and they said so repeatedly and yet lots of people here were jerks to them about it and felt fine about being jerks, because hey racism! I think that probably wasn't the most productive approach. We only entrenched them more deeply in their racist positions, rather than helping them come around.
It's your inexhaustible optimism on things like the chance of racist Trump voters changing to be better people that makes me like your posts sol.
Had an interesting and timely conversation with a family member last night. She works as an elementary school teacher in a black majority rural town in the southern US. She mentioned how difficult and frustrating it is to live around people who constantly question her motives and are suspicious of her, referring to students, their parents, and the community in general. She has students who make negative comments about white people and tell her things like "this is why my mom hates white people" when she does something they don't like. She said these comments are not rare, they are the norm. I don't think her concern is just about her feelings, it's that these comments and the prejudice behind them make her job more difficult and makes her students less likely to succeed. They maintain the divide between white and black in that community. They are not harmless words.
Now obviously if a large portion of a community says and does things like this, there's something bigger going on than individual people being assholes. I don't accept the idea that an entire population can be inherently better or worse, something happened in this community's history to create this situation. But that doesn't make prejudiced words ok.
Indeed. They are 2 real problems, and they feed each other. You can not solve one without also solving the other. Reconciliation means both sides should come together, not just reversing the roles.No, no. This is not reversing roles. The fight is not equal. This is a case where the wronged party was never made whole; it is too early to demand that Black Americans forgive and forget when the oppression continues.
TLDR;
When you do wrong and hurt somebody seriously, if you don't apologize or make amends, if bad blood and name calling persists between the two of you, the person you hurt is not as bad as you. You need to apologize and make amends first.
Apply this principle to groups of people.
It's harder because individuals in the offending group of people can only do so much to make amends, and individuals of the hurt group can do only so much to show forgiveness.
Which is just a long way of saying that I agree with your point in the general sense, but calling for people to apologize for things they haven't themselves done, because other members of their group have done them, is pretty bigoted too.
I don't make black people from the suburbs apologize for inner city crime rates. It's possible to recognize a social ill in your own demographic without being a part of it, and people assuming you're a part of it because of your visible membership in that demographic is kind of a downer, right? I'm not "demanding forgiveness" from anyone, I'm just asking not to be lumped in with people that you hate, without any evidence. I'm asking you (the generic you) not to embrace bigotry. Dab's teacher friend is in the same boat, being labelled and denigrated to her face with racist stereotypes of the exact kind she is trying to fight.
The battle against racism is far from won, but we probably shouldn't be shooting our allies in the middle of it.
No, no. This is not reversing roles. The fight is not equal. This is a case where the wronged party was never made whole; it is too early to demand that Black Americans forgive and forget when the oppression continues.But that is the thing. Oppression is not continued. It's not perfect, but its also not at all the same as before. So if you keep looking at 1960, 1900's and before you will be disconnected from what the situation is today. In my mind, before there was a problem of rights and people really thought that blacks as a people where bad/lesser. Now it's mostly a perception problem where people are scared of black people they don't know because the black community is seen as more criminal.
My point is that to make the next step, the black community needs to show how its youth are not crooks and gangsters, not lazy and hostile, but decent loving hardworking and responsible people. Hollywood is doing a lot, but unless it is backed up by what is seen in the streets it won't work.Pardon me, but that is BULL.
Demanding reparations and protesting and rioting is exactly the opposite of what is needed. Also hiring or admission quotas might help the peoples situation, but also confirms the idea that they are not worthy on their own merit. To me the area of focus should be elementary and high school and supporting young families. If black kids are raised to be great employees and model citizens and are shielded from bad home and community situations, racism will be gone in a generation.I would agree that "rioting" is no good and that supporting young families should be an area of focus, but I disagree with you on the rest. Protesting is an American tradition and right and is not the same as "rioting".
Everything else is not going to change a thing. Is it fair that they have to work hard to overcome a problem that they didn't cause? Yes. But it's better than staying at the bottom of society.Actually, studies have shown (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20160121) that affirmative action has been effective in its goal, especially in combination with class conscious admissions (https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/02/27/dangerous-myths-about-affirmative-action.html). Removal of affirmative action in the workplace causes a drop in minority hirings (http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/impact-eliminating-affirmative-action-minority-and-female-employment-natural-experiment-approach).
Meanwhile, the white community needs to do everything possible to welcome black kids into their circle. So lets have joint soccer teams, joint summer camps, etc.They already exist but people go out of their way to avoid the "ghetto" camps; or simply avoid living in "bad" neighborhoods to avoid the "bad" schools.
If you spend time with a few well behaved, likable black kids no way will you grow up racist.That's a lovely thought, but not always true from what I have seen.
Also a question, @2Cent, since you're in the Netherlands how do you know what Black Americans are like except through the smudgy window of the Internet, which likes to show the outrageous and unusual?Yea, so that is where I probably should stop and be quiet, but if I don't talk, I don't give you the opportunity to challenge my views. My country has similar problems with some minorities, which use the American Black people as a model in how they talk, dress and behave. I've been in Chicago a while and it seemed pretty accurate. I know black people are not somehow inherently inferior, and I work with a lot of black people who are quite frankly great at their jobs and good human beings.
They already exist but people go out of their way to avoid the "ghetto" camps; or simply avoid living in "bad" neighborhoods to avoid the "bad" schools.I agree, US city planning is set up to favour separation of classes. So this is where white/rich people need to step up and not only organize things for their own neighborhoods, but open up to poor black kids. I could see a system of sister neighborhoods that link poor and rich together.
It's your inexhaustible optimism on things like the chance of racist Trump voters changing to be better people that makes me like your posts sol.
But focusing on the need for Black Americans to acknowledge/apologize for prejudicial crimes and attitudes creates a false equivalency.
It's your inexhaustible optimism on things like the chance of racist Trump voters changing to be better people that makes me like your posts sol.
This bothered me a little bit when you posted it, and it took me a few days to think about why.
Trying to extend empathy and understanding to racists (sexists, homophobes, rich people, etc) doesn't feel like optimism, it feels more like defeatism. An optimist would look at improvements in the past 50 years and think we were on the right track, that if we just wait long enough everyone will come around. An optimist would trumpet the past successes of the progressive movement and assume that was going to be sufficient. I'm arguing that we need work a little harder, and that the only way to really move the needle is to treat people better than they deserve. That's hard.
A racist Trump voter, or a misogynist, or a fat-shamer, these people probably don't deserve your patience and understanding. It feels totally justified to flip them the bird and move on. But I think we HAVE to make a better effort to reach out to worst among us, as it's the hallmark of liberalism to do so. For example, when social conservatives controlled the majority they never made any attempt at "well let's listen to both sides" or "everyone deserves a chance to be heard" or even "let's identify the underlying problems here". It was always just attack dogs and firehoses, arson and lynching, Jim Crow and boot stomping. They didn't give a shit about the minority. Now that the social conservatives are becoming the minority, suddenly they're all about protecting minority opinions, and listening to everyone's feedback as equally valid, because they lost the culture war and found themselves on the wrong end of the metaphorical boot heel. Liberals would be slightly hypocritical to take their new majority and treat the minority the same way they were treated just because it feels good.
In some sense, racists are the new minority. And just like "the blacks and the gays" of generations past, the unique set of cultural problems inherent to their culture are not wholly the result of them all being bad individuals. They are raised in bad environments that reinforce these problems. Just like kids from the projects grew up to be drug dealers, racist white boys grow up to catcall and hurl racial slurs. Blaming every single redneck for being a shithead isn't that different from blaming the Central Park 5. There are larger, systemic problems at work here that need rooting out and addressing, rather than just shoveling hate at each individual person.
Racism effects everyone differently, and to varying degrees, and not just based on skin color. Sasha and Malia are not more downtrodden victims of racism than white trailer trash from Alabama. Those girls grew up with wealth and privilege, in a world that tries to judge them for their skin color. BillyBob grew up in poverty surrounded by hatred and bigotry, in a world that judges him for his. If he's a complete piece of shit racist with a confederate flag on his pickup, that's not entirely his fault, just like it's not entirely the fault of the kid from the projects who turns to dealing drugs. His options are somewhat limited.
Which is why it bothers me when Poundwise says white Americans should not only take action to stop racism, but also apologize for the actions of white people. I didn't oppress you, and I'm supposed to apologize? Ben Carson is black and he's done more to harm black Americans than I ever have, why isn't anyone calling on him to apologize? My family have been the victims of racist hate crimes, and I'm supposed to apologize to our attackers because it's assumed that I'm part of the problem because of my skin color? How is that different from expecting Sasha and Malia to apologize for the inner city crack epidemic? Isn't that, itself, textbook racism?
Racism impacts individuals in different ways, and as such individuals each bear differing amounts of responsibility for it. It's not my fault that I have benefited from being born white, just like it's not Treyvon's fault that he has suffered from being born black. I'd like to believe that the real target here is inequality, and that people who have suffered from bigotry and hatred are the ones who deserve apologies, not everyone with slightly darker than average skin. Random chance determines how you were born. Society at large determines how you are treated. You only get to decide how you live, and I strive to personally treat people based solely on that last one, and I'm only asking you to return the favor. Don't lump me in with BillyBob just because I'm also white, because that's racist.
Or with the Pussy Grabber in Chief because I'm also a man, or Mike "conversion therapy" Pence because I'm also straight. I am not guilty of the sins you despise, so maybe stop treating me the way you would treat them.
And before that paragraph brings an onslaught of "yea but"s, yes I'm acutely aware of the generations or evil committed by white people, and the way that evil continues to echo through modern society. I'm not pretending things are anywhere near equal, nor do I believe we'll ever see appropriate amends made. I'm only saying that at some point, in order to heal and move forward, we're going to have to let the sins of our forefathers die with them. Don't blame me, the product of starving immigrant Iowa dirt farmers, for what happened on cotton plantations in Georgia. In return, I won't blame Obama for what's been done to my family by black people. You don't swear off marriage because one of your ex-boyfriends called you the c-word. You don't fly a swastika flag because a Jewish lawyer screwed you once. You have to treat people as people, despite the historical patterns that came before.
And in the meantime, since that's at least several generations away, maybe trying to extend a little unwarranted kindness to someone who hates you. Understanding their circumstances goes a long way toward forgiving their behavior, in my experience. You don't change anyone's mind with your middle fingers in the air, and I feel like large portions of the liberal establishment, my establishment, just live with middle fingers permanently extended these days.
And before that paragraph brings an onslaught of "yea but"s, yes I'm acutely aware of the generations or evil committed by white people, and the way that evil continues to echo through modern society. I'm not pretending things are anywhere near equal, nor do I believe we'll ever see appropriate amends made. I'm only saying that at some point, in order to heal and move forward, we're going to have to let the sins of our forefathers die with them. Don't blame me, the product of starving immigrant Iowa dirt farmers, for what happened on cotton plantations in Georgia. In return, I won't blame Obama for what's been done to my family by black people. You don't swear off marriage because one of your ex-boyfriends called you the c-word. You don't fly a swastika flag because a Jewish lawyer screwed you once. You have to treat people as people, despite the historical patterns that came before.
When the systemic problems created by our forefathers have been eliminated, we can more forward. While systemic problems related to race/sex/sexual orientation exist asking the people who bear the brunt of those issues to just forget it and all the history that led up to it . . . well, that's not likely to go over very well. Understandably.
Kindness to others (even those you don't get along with) is generally good policy. Understanding does go a long way towards making the world a better place to live . . . but understanding doesn't mean acceptance. Repeatedly forgiving the same behaviour without outcry seems like a defeatist acceptance of the status quo.
I don't entirely agree with the 'racists as a new minority that we need to care for' bit.
When the systemic problems created by our forefathers have been eliminated, we can more forward. While systemic problems related to race/sex/sexual orientation exist asking the people who bear the brunt of those issues to just forget it and all the history that led up to it . . . well, that's not likely to go over very well. Understandably.
What do you believe the best way to change the minds of white racists really is?
How many acts of racism (subtle or overt) have to be quietly and understandingly accepted?
I don't entirely agree with the 'racists as a new minority that we need to care for' bit.
I don't think they need to be cared for. I think they are afflicted by a social malady that needs curing, and that making fun of them doesn't help reduce the harm they cause.
Just look at all of the Trump voters who were mostly anti-Clinton voters, and who now vocally defend Trump no matter what crazy BS he comes up with. I think we helped push them into those more extreme views by not listening to their less-offensive and slightly misguided initial positions. Hence my focus in this thread on outreach to the undeserving. It's not appeasement, it's conversation about finding common ground. Then from there we can work on expanding the areas of overlap.
QuoteWhen the systemic problems created by our forefathers have been eliminated, we can more forward. While systemic problems related to race/sex/sexual orientation exist asking the people who bear the brunt of those issues to just forget it and all the history that led up to it . . . well, that's not likely to go over very well. Understandably.
I understand that. I also don't see any other way. White Americans are never going to be able to set things right for American slavery, so why hold up attempts at future equality while we all stew over it? I worry that as long as our national conversation is only about one group's advantage vs another group's advantage, we're not going to achieve any sort of equality. It just sets up the us vs them conflict mentality. Eventually, we have to all be Americans working towards a common goal. The Catholics and the Protestants used to hate each other too, and I don't think any of them feel like their score is fairly settled. They're moving on anyways. America will get there too, one day, when all of this is sufficiently ancient history.
QuoteWhat do you believe the best way to change the minds of white racists really is?
Depends on the racist, I suppose. I'm pretty sure sure that shouting "fuck you" at him every day isn't it, though.
In the case of racist Trump supporters, some of them are clearly lost causes but there were thousands of white voters in WI/PA/MI who voted for him without considering themselves racists. Some of them were union workers who felt free trade agreements were robbing their communities of their only good employers. Some of them were evangelicals who believed Clinton used aborted fetuses as an anti-aging facial cream. Some of them just got swept up in the Russian propaganda coming out of Fox News. But most of those people, for all of their faults, genuinely want economic prosperity, privacy protections, and reliable political discourse. They just voted against those interests in this case, because of the way the arguments were phrased. I think we could have swayed some of them with better information, and honest conversations. Free trade saved their jobs, not ruined them. Abortion is a right guaranteed to you along with many other rights, for your protection, but not something you will ever be forced into by your government. And it's pretty easy to show that Fox News trades in lies and outrage, and if you want America to succeed it needs to die.
Those arguments might fail 99% of the time, but shouting "you're just a fucking racist" at those people is guaranteed to fail all of the time.
QuoteHow many acts of racism (subtle or overt) have to be quietly and understandingly accepted?
None, obviously. Just like I don't have to accept three black men gang raping my sister. Horrible acts deserve to be called out as such. That doesn't mean I decided that every black person in Oakland is an irredeemable rapist, though. I can call out each and every rape without denigrating every member of that demographic. If you want to lower the rape stats in Oakland, you don't go on TV and call everyone a rapist. You do outreach to the people you think are most likely to rape. You educate. You offer alternative methodologies. Maybe you still fail to stop 99% of rapes. You've still moved the needle in the right direction with that hard work.
And most importantly, you don't attack the people doing that outreach for "understanding" or "accepting" the very attitudes they are trying to correct. That was BS, man.
I'm sorry that happened to her, and I'm sorry all the collateral damage happened to you and whomever else. I hope she is doing OK now.
What common ground are you going to find without a framework of logic, or a belief in science?
But again, I gotta ask . . . did the Protestants and Catholics move on while a systemic power imbalance existed in the US between them?
I want what you want too. I just think that you're asking for it too soon.
And to be fair to them, not everyone is robbing the bank . . . many are just driving the getaway car or fencing the goods.
But I was specifically referring to the really, unquestionably racist folks. Because I honestly don't know of a very good way to reach these people.
As long as the understanding doesn't turn into tolerance we've got no disagreement.
Which is why it bothers me when Poundwise says white Americans should not only take action to stop racism, but also apologize for the actions of white people. I didn't oppress you, and I'm supposed to apologize? Ben Carson is black and he's done more to harm black Americans than I ever have, why isn't anyone calling on him to apologize? My family have been the victims of racist hate crimes, and I'm supposed to apologize to our attackers because it's assumed that I'm part of the problem because of my skin color? How is that different from expecting Sasha and Malia to apologize for the inner city crack epidemic? Isn't that, itself, textbook racism?
Racism impacts individuals in different ways, and as such individuals each bear differing amounts of responsibility for it.We can't easily identify who or whose ancestors were the winners and losers of racism, and we only have blunt tools like blanket apologies, cash reparations, affirmative action, grants, and policy.
Okay. Well I would argue that in fact members of certain subcultures should apologize for perpetuating/not fighting misogyny and violence against women, but only a few (https://thegrio.com/2019/01/11/nick-cannon-posts-his-old-duet-with-r-kelly-and-apologizes-to-black-women-for-misogyny/) have (https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/eminem-finally-apologizes-to-kim-on-new-album-revival.html).But focusing on the need for Black Americans to acknowledge/apologize for prejudicial crimes and attitudes creates a false equivalency.
I'm definitely NOT focusing on that. In fact I was doing the exact opposite, saying it's ridiculous to expect a black accountant from the suburbs to carry the least bit of individual racial guilt for inner city crime rates. I wasn't creating false equivalency, I was highlighting how dumb that equivalence would be. Only a racist would blame all black people for a problem in the black community, so why do we continue to blame all white people for problems in the white community?
I'm only saying that at some point, in order to heal and move forward, we're going to have to let the sins of our forefathers die with them. Don't blame me, the product of starving immigrant Iowa dirt farmers, for what happened on cotton plantations in Georgia. In return, I won't blame Obama for what's been done to my family by black people.Yes, this point will come, when the wounds stop being re-opened. As long as the harms keep happening, we cannot move forward. Just as I think your breaking point would come if your loved ones were the subject of more racially based harm.
And in the meantime, since that's at least several generations away, maybe trying to extend a little unwarranted kindness to someone who hates you. Understanding their circumstances goes a long way toward forgiving their behavior, in my experience. You don't change anyone's mind with your middle fingers in the air, and I feel like large portions of the liberal establishment, my establishment, just live with middle fingers permanently extended these days.Absolutely and well said.
Although, perhaps that's the apology we all need to practice: I'm sorry that happened to you, and how can I help you recover and is there anything I can to do help you feel OK again?
Your family has suffered greatly from racism, and you are being more than gracious in fighting the temptation to take an eye for an eye.
<snip>
While I do appreciate the positivity, it doesn't feel like graciousness any more than it felt like optimism earlier in this thread. Individual black people have done some terrible things, but that doesn't need to be a reflection on all black people. Individual white people have done some terrible things, but that doesn't need to be a reflection on all white people. If you think an entire race of people should bear the burden of sin for the actions of specific individuals, I think you're probably a racist.
Which is different from modern white people recognizing that they benefit from hidden racism. Of course we have. But I personally, as an individual, can be the unwitting beneficiary of racism without supporting racism, just like I can be the unwitting beneficiary of fossil fuel energy without supporting climate change, or the unwitting beneficiary of exploitive child labor in Vietnamese garment factories without supporting child labor. We all live in and benefit from a world that routinely runs on some pretty shady shit, even as we try to make that shit less shady.
But it would never occur to me to look at a case like child labor laws in third world free trade zones and think to myself "An eye for an eye! American kids should have to make sneakers for 35 cents/hour until this problem is solved!" So why is racism perceived any differently?
...I personally, as an individual, can be the unwitting beneficiary of racism without supporting racism, just like I can be the unwitting beneficiary of fossil fuel energy without supporting climate change, or the unwitting beneficiary of exploitive child labor in Vietnamese garment factories without supporting child labor. We all live in and benefit from a world that routinely runs on some pretty shady shit, even as we try to make that shit less shady.
But it would never occur to me to look at a case like child labor laws in third world free trade zones and think to myself "An eye for an eye! American kids should have to make sneakers for 35 cents/hour until this problem is solved!" So why is racism perceived any differently?
Your family has suffered greatly from racism, and you are being more than gracious in fighting the temptation to take an eye for an eye.
While I do appreciate the positivity, it doesn't feel like graciousness any more than it felt like optimism earlier in this thread. Individual black people have done some terrible things, but that doesn't need to be a reflection on all black people. Individual white people have done some terrible things, but that doesn't need to be a reflection on all white people. If you think an entire race of people should bear the burden of sin for the actions of specific individuals, I think you're probably a racist.
I think there may also be a bit of ... well, what if it IS the case that my kids have to attend a slightly crappier school so that other kids can have more educational opportunities?
If the Vietnamese child who worked in that factory grew up to have a dim view of Americans, would that be that surprising, or unwarranted? And would you blame them if they weren't particularly interested in hearing about how unwitting your role was?
It seems to me that you are sticking at one aspect of an apology, the admission of guilt part, because you deny your participation or belonging to the group of people who have received advantages from racism against people of color, or to the group of people who could have done/could be doing something about it. Is that correct?
I think there may also be a bit of ... well, what if it IS the case that my kids have to attend a slightly crappier school so that other kids can have more educational opportunities?
I'm not sure that this is any different than the argument above that American kids needs to make sneakers for 35 cents/hour. Since when do we solve inequality by tearing people down?
Let's just go ahead and slippery slope that argument: we could significantly advance the economic status of black Americans if we just placed a ten year hiatus on admitting any white people to colleges. Does anybody really think that's a good idea? Just cut off all forms of higher education for every white person until we have equity? Would our nation benefit from that?
Now if you as a white person want to choose to forego college for your white kids, then by all means send them out into the world with a high school education and let them fend for themselves. No one is stopping you for taking on that burden, and making that small contribution towards narrowing the racial pay gap. But I think it's bad policy to make it nationally mandatory.
It's a tough sell, right? Much easier to get popular support behind providing additional scholarship money or stem summer camps to minority kids, I think.
<snippity snip>
I can't deny being white, I was born this way. That's not exactly my fault, though. And I freely admit that most white people have both benefited from racism and perpetuated racism. But here's the key difference: I have benefited from (and been harmed by) racism, without actively perpetuating racism. I thought I made that clear in the previous posts, with examples of other types of inequality that a person can benefit from invisibly, while actively opposing. If we're going to lob hatred at people, it should probably be at the individuals who caused the problem and not everyone else who belongs to that person's class. Hating people because of their race is called racism. People who claim to be fighting racism should probably know better.
Which is not to say I am different from anyone else, in that we're all part of a society with inherent racial biases that we often can't even see. Is it racist of me to live in a good school district that is more than 50% white? Maybe a little? Would it be non-racist of me to move back to East Oakland and be the only white family on the block? Definitely not. In a larger sense, every American of every color has benefited from racism, in that much of our country's economic prosperity was built on it. Just like we have all benefited from the exploitation of child labor in free trade zones, the larger inequities of capitalism, the destruction of our environment, and the US military torturing "enemy combatants" in secret international prisons. America is shady as hell, right? That doesn't mean every American is shady as hell, though. Many of us, black white and other, hate all that stuff despite benefiting from it.
It seems to me that you are sticking at one aspect of an apology, the admission of guilt part, because you deny your participation or belonging to the group of people who have received advantages from racism against people of color, or to the group of people who could have done/could be doing something about it. Is that correct?
No, that's incorrect.
I can't deny being white, I was born this way. That's not exactly my fault, though. And I freely admit that most white people have both benefited from racism and perpetuated racism. But here's the key difference: I have benefited from (and been harmed by) racism, without actively perpetuating racism. I thought I made that clear in the previous posts, with examples of other types of inequality that a person can benefit from invisibly, while actively opposing. If we're going to lob hatred at people, it should probably be at the individuals who caused the problem and not everyone else who belongs to that person's class. Hating people because of their race is called racism. People who claim to be fighting racism should probably know better.
If the Vietnamese child who worked in that factory grew up to have a dim view of Americans, would that be that surprising, or unwarranted? And would you blame them if they weren't particularly interested in hearing about how unwitting your role was?
I would expect nothing less. Of course they should be pissed off about it.
But they should be pissed at the person who put them in that situation, not every white person. Lots of black Americans benefit from child labor violations in free trade zones, but we don't see black people walking around carrying the guilt of capitalism on their shoulders, or Vietnamese kids holding similarly dim views of the Brits and Australians who equally benefit from that crappy situation.
And if those kids DID grow up to hate all white people, that would also be racism. I wouldn't wholly blame them, because just like my grandfather's racism it's a product of a bad environment that simplifies complex social problems into easy-to-chant racist slogans. I don't wholly blame my grandfather, either. Or BillyBob from Alabama, or Malcom X. We are all products of our environment, good and bad. But whenever a person says "I hate white/black/purple people" instead of "I hate this particular person who is white/black/purple" then that's bigotry of a sort that doesn't do us any good. That's always racism, and it deserves to be called out as such even in situations where the person expressing that hateful rhetoric comes from a background that makes it seem justifiable to them.
Returning to the OP's sentiments, here are my two cents:
If I never hear the word "micro-aggression" again it will be too soon. It appears to mean an occasion where someone chooses to be offended by a word/action that clearly wasn't meant to be rude or offensive -- so trivial as to be called "micro" by the offended themselves. The world does not need this.
I am completely disdainful of the concept of "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in a college environment. Students should be attending college to learn; to stretch their minds and become acquainted with people, experiences, and philosophies they may not have encountered before. If you want to remain in your "safe space" bubble, stay the hell home. Yes, this also applies to students making colleges ban speakers they don't agree with. (Here's an idea: just don't attend the speech if you don't want to hear it. Or attend, hear them out, then respectfully challenge the speaker's views.)
My first exposure to the idea of "trigger words" was also from the college environment. The idea was that students needed to be warned about "triggering" materials that might occur as part of the course work. This strikes me as both ridiculous and impractical. College students are (mostly) legal adults and on the verge of being expected to function as adults in broader society. Expecting all others to anticipate what might upset you and to make your way smooth is going to lead to some serious disappointment in post-graduate life.
Note that I am not making a comment here against treating people equally, being civil and polite, or having the simple tact not to express obviously offensive language. I am simply expressing my own opinion that "micro-aggressions", "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in their original incarnations annoy me intensely.
@PoundwiseSure, you can subdivide if you like. The point is that there there IS a continuum that needs to be recognized. And we should recognize that people don't like to be called "racist" if they fall into Bin 2a and not Bins 3, 4, or 5.
Nice of you to structure things. It makes it easier to analyse. I would say split bin 2 into 2a failed to combat a wrong that is happening in his presence.(non-reactive). Like ignoring racist comments. 2b not making efforts to address the wider problem beyond their personal circle. Like not supporting a program to help black people(non-proactive)
But, do you really think that when some white guy is making apologies for slavery, it will help in healing? I think that kind of apology is taken in exactly the same way as saying we're not all like that.Insufficient apologies are:
OK. Then, do you feel that people belonging to the first two bins (Bin 1= benefited from a wrong, bin 2= failed to combat a wrong) do not owe any apology to those harmed by a wrong?
And to bring this back around to your particular exercise of racism, not only are you demanding that sol the white man take a stand on these issues, you have totally ignored the fact that I have made it my personal mission in life to take that stand. You told me I that I owe an apology to black Americans because I have failed to combat racism, and you're wrong. That's a bigoted assumption based on my skin color, not on me as an individual.No, I didn't tell you that. I asked you to clarify if you belong to the group of people who have failed to combat racism. And I stated that if you belong to this group, then I feel that you owe an apology.
And to bring this back around to your particular exercise of racism, not only are you demanding that sol the white man take a stand on these issues, you have totally ignored the fact that I have made it my personal mission in life to take that stand. You told me I that I owe an apology to black Americans because I have failed to combat racism, and you're wrong. That's a bigoted assumption based on my skin color, not on me as an individual.
Quote from: PoundwiseIt seems to me that you are sticking at one aspect of an apology, the admission of guilt part, because you deny your participation or belonging to the group of people who have received advantages from racism against people of color, or to the group of people who could have done/could be doing something about it. Is that correct?
No, that's incorrect.
I can't deny being white, I was born this way. That's not exactly my fault, though. And I freely admit that most white people have both benefited from racism and perpetuated racism. But here's the key difference: I have benefited from (and been harmed by) racism, without actively perpetuating racism.
5.It seems that you feel that assuming group responsibility for an individual's actions is part of the problem, and you are attempting to break the cycle of racism by denying that members of an involuntary group need to take responsibility for what others in the group do.
5. This is an interesting point. I disagree, believing that membership, however involuntary, in a group may give a person more power to influence others within that group, and also gives the power to mend relationships with the other group. Innocent members of a group who humble themselves in answering for the sins of a few, are more effective in healing trust than simply asserting "we're not all like that". The assumption of group responsibility can be abused when externally applied (like blaming all Muslims for the actions of Daesh) or simply ineffective (https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats) if unheard. But it is a good first step towards making amends.
Your assumptions about "group responsibility" are racist, whether you see it or not.
Maybe the issue is that it is racist to demand a Bin 1 apology, but practically speaking, a good policy to offer it. As an "ally" it may be a good idea to urge others within your own group to make the Bin 1 or 2 apologies, but it is not good taste to demand an apology to your own group.
Maybe the issue is that it is racist to demand a Bin 1 apology, but practically speaking, a good policy to offer it. As an "ally" it may be a good idea to urge others within your own group to make the Bin 1 or 2 apologies, but it is not good taste to demand an apology to your own group.
I think both sol and poundwise are making good points. I disagree with Poundwise (and sol as well) somewhat on the quoted section above though. My view is that it's impossible to be a completely innocent white person in America. When you wanted it or not, whether you were witting or not, and whether you do things to combat it, as a white person you have benefited from a racist system. It is good and commendable when a white person does things to fight this system, but no one I know has done all they could possible do to fight it.
(It's very likely that sol has done more than I have to combat it, so that last sentence is in no way meant to be accusatory towards anyone.)
I don't think it is necessarily racist to say "I hate white people". If the hatred is because they are white, yes, that's racism. But if you believe all white people to be culpable to some degree (and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that), then I don't see that as a racist position. And I've been told by many people that when allies take up time emphasizing the moral equivalence of "reverse" racism/sexism/etc, it feels like a betrayal. Like if a kid is being beaten up, you don't criticism them for throwing a punch back (especially when they are still getting beaten up).
For the record, I don't think hatred solves anything, and I think it damages the hater more than the hated anyway.
And (sorry OP) I don't apologize for the derailment. This thread of the conversation is more productive than the original complainypants one was.
Maybe some of the disagreement is in the definition of "innocent"? I don't see why someone can't benefit and still be innocent. If my parents steal to provide for me without my knowledge, am I not innocent? What if I know they are stealing to provide for me? What if I know they are stealing to provide for me and I reject the stolen goods and try to repair the losses of the victims?
To say anyone who benefits should acknowledge as much is fair, to say they are culpable seems wrong to me.
You told me I that I owe an apology to black Americans because I have failed to combat racismNo, I didn't tell you that. I asked you to clarify if you belong to the group of people who have failed to combat racism. And I stated that if you belong to this group, then I feel that you owe an apology.
do you feel that people belonging to the first two bins (Bin 1= benefited from a wrong, bin 2= failed to combat a wrong) do not owe any apology to those harmed by a wrong?
If the answer is no, then this is the root of our disagreement. It's certainly your right to hold this viewpoint, but in my opinion, one that will be less effective in repairing the damaged relationship between Black and White Americans.
If the answer is yes, then since you admit that you probably belong to the first two bins, then logically you should be part of an apology to Black Americans.
I did not ignore that this has been your life mission. I did not know
My assumption about "group responsibility" is only a practical one, based on my experience about social interactions.
I'm sorry for my poor wording and for making racist assumptions.
It is good and commendable when a white person does things to fight this system, but no one I know has done all they could possible do to fight it.
And I've been told by many people that when allies take up time emphasizing the moral equivalence of "reverse" racism/sexism/etc, it feels like a betrayal. Like if a kid is being beaten up, you don't criticism them for throwing a punch back (especially when they are still getting beaten up).
Yes, I did.QuoteI did not ignore that this has been your life mission. I did not know
You didn't ask.
You told me I that I owe an apology to black Americans because I have failed to combat racismNo, I didn't tell you that. I asked you to clarify if you belong to the group of people who have failed to combat racism. And I stated that if you belong to this group, then I feel that you owe an apology.
The part of this discussion in which you told me I owed an apology to black Americans looked like thisQuotedo you feel that people belonging to the first two bins (Bin 1= benefited from a wrong, bin 2= failed to combat a wrong) do not owe any apology to those harmed by a wrong?
If the answer is no, then this is the root of our disagreement. It's certainly your right to hold this viewpoint, but in my opinion, one that will be less effective in repairing the damaged relationship between Black and White Americans.
If the answer is yes, then since you admit that you probably belong to the first two bins, then logically you should be part of an apology to Black Americans.
In it, you posited that I must belong to one of two groups, and if that I belong to one group then I must apologize to black people, and if I belong to the other group then I am wrong. Except that you don't get to define these groups, you don't get to put me in your fictional groupings, and you don't get to expect anything from me or anyone else based on your attempt to put me into a group. The whole exercise is kind of racist, right? Who gave you the power to make up the rules, and why do you think that your rules should apply to anyone else? Maybe stick to judging yourself, for now. I wholly support efforts to identify your own best course of action, but you can leave me out of it, thanks.
It is good and commendable when a white person does things to fight this system, but no one I know has done all they could possible do to fight it.
I agree that it is good and commendable when a white person fights against racism. I'm just not convinced we can really ever solve this problem as long it is still phrased as a task that white people must do for the benefit of black people. We're all in this fight together, and everyone should be fighting discrimination in all its forms. We don't require every straight person to march for gay rights, and we don't require every natural born citizen to protest immigration restrictions. It's great when they do, but it's not fair to assign it to them as their burden alone, to demand they apologize for past transgressions, or to judge them harshly for focusing on racism instead of homophobia/sexism/xenophobia/etc.
QuoteAnd I've been told by many people that when allies take up time emphasizing the moral equivalence of "reverse" racism/sexism/etc, it feels like a betrayal. Like if a kid is being beaten up, you don't criticism them for throwing a punch back (especially when they are still getting beaten up).
I agree that this is a real problem. I don't think that's what we're doing here, though.
And it still smacks of self-defeating hypocrisy, to me, to say "Violence is never the answer, so my kid HAD to fight back against the bully." If you believe that violence is the correct response to violence, then you're not really opposed to violence. You're not betraying the anti-violence cause by "taking up time emphasizing the moral equivalence" of reverse violence, you're holding true to your anti-violence ideals by calling out violent behavior regardless of cause or direction.
I think that same argument can be probably be applied, very carefully, to racism and sexism. If you honestly believe in fighting those things, then it's not necessarily a betrayal of that mission to highlight that someone is being racist and sexist in their efforts to fight racism and sexism, right? If we can get everyone on board with the idea of treating these problems as shared afflictions, to be fought by everyone regardless of what labels you give them, I suspect we stand a better chance of making real progress. Of course, that plan requires the wronged parties to accept they are probably not going to get any sort of intergenerational revenge for past wrongs, and I don't think most people are there quite yet. Forgiveness comes slowly.
And it still smacks of self-defeating hypocrisy, to me, to say "Violence is never the answer, so my kid HAD to fight back against the bully." If you believe that violence is the correct response to violence, then you're not really opposed to violence. You're not betraying the anti-violence cause by "taking up time emphasizing the moral equivalence" of reverse violence, you're holding true to your anti-violence ideals by calling out violent behavior regardless of cause or direction.
I'm done pestering you and will leave you alone from now on.
I agree that that is not what we're doing here, because we're not derailing some discussion of racism towards blacks, we're derailing F.V.'s "reverse safe space".
I think the process for forgiveness hasn't begun for a lot of people yet, because the oppression hasn't ended. You can't shake hands and make up till the other kid stops punching you.
I hate violence. I don't think it solves anything. And I don't think we're really very far apart on any of this sol.
Maybe our biggest difference is that I feel like it is most important to not get distracted from dealing with the original wrong, whereas you feel it is most important to consistently denounce all wrongs.
QuoteI think the process for forgiveness hasn't begun for a lot of people yet, because the oppression hasn't ended. You can't shake hands and make up till the other kid stops punching you.
Sure, I get that. But you have to counterpunch in the right direction. If a bully is currently kicking you while you're down, you don't help yourself by lashing out at the crowd trying to stop him, even if the crowd and the bully have the same skin color.
QuoteMaybe our biggest difference is that I feel like it is most important to not get distracted from dealing with the original wrong, whereas you feel it is most important to consistently denounce all wrongs.
Perhaps, but I think I would rephrase your thought a little bit to make a slightly different distinction. Some people who claim to oppose racism are more accurately described as opposing the oppression of black people by white people, which isn't 100% the same idea. If your real concern is rectifying that particular historical iniquity, rather than opposing racism, then you might support more extreme proposals like taxing all white people to pay reparations, or placing a national hiring freeze on white job applicants for a decade, because those proposals feel like justice. They tear down the oppressors and lift up the oppressed. They are also racist, because they continue to use race to determine how to treat people, and to place people into artificial subgroups that can be pitted against each other for political gain. If you really oppose racism, though, those racist ideas look terrible.
I certainly don't blame people who want to tear down the oppressors and lift up the oppressed, as that can also be a noble goal. It's just not the same goal as ending racism, and I wish they wouldn't pretend they were against racism while pushing for racist "solutions" to racism. That just makes it harder for the rest of us who think racism should die out.
Returning to the OP's sentiments, here are my two cents:
If I never hear the word "micro-aggression" again it will be too soon. It appears to mean an occasion where someone chooses to be offended by a word/action that clearly wasn't meant to be rude or offensive -- so trivial as to be called "micro" by the offended themselves. The world does not need this.
I am completely disdainful of the concept of "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in a college environment. Students should be attending college to learn; to stretch their minds and become acquainted with people, experiences, and philosophies they may not have encountered before. If you want to remain in your "safe space" bubble, stay the hell home. Yes, this also applies to students making colleges ban speakers they don't agree with. (Here's an idea: just don't attend the speech if you don't want to hear it. Or attend, hear them out, then respectfully challenge the speaker's views.)
My first exposure to the idea of "trigger words" was also from the college environment. The idea was that students needed to be warned about "triggering" materials that might occur as part of the course work. This strikes me as both ridiculous and impractical. College students are (mostly) legal adults and on the verge of being expected to function as adults in broader society. Expecting all others to anticipate what might upset you and to make your way smooth is going to lead to some serious disappointment in post-graduate life.
Note that I am not making a comment here against treating people equally, being civil and polite, or having the simple tact not to express obviously offensive language. I am simply expressing my own opinion that "micro-aggressions", "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in their original incarnations annoy me intensely.
"Safe Spaces" originates from gay culture in the 60s where gay people had legitimate concerns about being murdered in the streets.
"Trigger words", I may be wrong about this, but I first learned about in my psych degree as pertaining to PTSD, which I'm sure you know kills double the US vets as actual combat does.
"Microaggression" was coined in the 70s to describe very real behaviour used to marginalize black people while ostensibly sounding polite, which is the foundation of systemic racism.
None of these terms was developed in any way frivolously. You may feel like certain groups have co-opted them, which is a legitimate debate, but where they come from is a place of VERY REAL violence, VERY REAL pain and suffering, and VERY REAL history that is utterly heartbreaking.
So by shitting on those words you shit on their history and even worse, erase it.
Someone might not view me as an innocent though, if by their measure I haven't done as much as I could to fight the problem. I don't find that view unreasonable.
I don't agree with your framing (but I do find it an interesting perspective). I am most concerned with ending oppression (of anyone by anyone). But I'm also very interested in ending racism. The reason I am less concerned with racism towards whites is primarily because I view it as a symptom of white racism, and see the best cure to be to fight to original problem.
Someone might not view me as an innocent though, if by their measure I haven't done as much as I could to fight the problem. I don't find that view unreasonable.
I think I do find it unreasonable? I mean we don't accuse every straight person of being a homophobe if they've only marched for gay rights twice instead of twenty times. I'm not entirely sure a person can reasonably be accused of supporting homophobia or racism just because you feel they haven't done enough to fight it.
I certainly get the impulse to want more, but it also feels like its own kind of racism to say "society demands that you act in only this one specific way because of the skin color you were born with."
And any time we turn a blind eye to example of racism, even the silly inconsequential kind like so-called "reverse racism" in America, we perpetuate all forms of racism by sending the signal that racial discrimination is okay, in some circumstances.
I don't think the demand is "because of the color of the skin you were born with". I think it's because you've chosen to accept, to some degree, a society which benefits you are the cost of others.
Just wanted to pop in to say, I've been following along and I really appreciate all of your nuanced arguments, and how civil you're all being. It's rare to see a good discussion on this kind of thing, I'm learning a lot. Thanks!
I don't think the demand is "because of the color of the skin you were born with". I think it's because you've chosen to accept, to some degree, a society which benefits you are the cost of others.
This is an interesting part of the argument. How would one possibly choose to not accept the society or societal benefits? It would seem to leave only literally extricating yourself from the society. Would being an expat in a far flung corner of the world without any history of unfair advantages given to white people really be the only solution to fully eliminate culpability? Otherwise, from what I can see, there are no other ways to fully not accept the benefits and therefore have culpability, and if that's the case, then that's an unreasonable expectation. I'm not saying that you're saying any of this, just that it seems that you've set up an ethical framework that seems to intrinsically generate a catch-22 situation.
There aren't very many places on the internet where you can voice unpopular opinions like "we shouldn't make white people apologize for racism" without getting shouted down by the mob.Is this really an unpopular opinion, in your experience? It seems to me that most white people hold this view.
Just wanted to pop in to say, I've been following along and I really appreciate all of your nuanced arguments, and how civil you're all being. It's rare to see a good discussion on this kind of thing, I'm learning a lot. Thanks!
Returning to the OP's sentiments, here are my two cents:
If I never hear the word "micro-aggression" again it will be too soon. It appears to mean an occasion where someone chooses to be offended by a word/action that clearly wasn't meant to be rude or offensive -- so trivial as to be called "micro" by the offended themselves. The world does not need this.
I am completely disdainful of the concept of "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in a college environment. Students should be attending college to learn; to stretch their minds and become acquainted with people, experiences, and philosophies they may not have encountered before. If you want to remain in your "safe space" bubble, stay the hell home. Yes, this also applies to students making colleges ban speakers they don't agree with. (Here's an idea: just don't attend the speech if you don't want to hear it. Or attend, hear them out, then respectfully challenge the speaker's views.)
My first exposure to the idea of "trigger words" was also from the college environment. The idea was that students needed to be warned about "triggering" materials that might occur as part of the course work. This strikes me as both ridiculous and impractical. College students are (mostly) legal adults and on the verge of being expected to function as adults in broader society. Expecting all others to anticipate what might upset you and to make your way smooth is going to lead to some serious disappointment in post-graduate life.
Note that I am not making a comment here against treating people equally, being civil and polite, or having the simple tact not to express obviously offensive language. I am simply expressing my own opinion that "micro-aggressions", "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in their original incarnations annoy me intensely.
Just wanted to pop in to say, I've been following along and I really appreciate all of your nuanced arguments, and how civil you're all being. It's rare to see a good discussion on this kind of thing, I'm learning a lot. Thanks!
Thank you, Raenia. These discussions are always sort of performative, and long detailed ones like this thread tend to be so dense that they reach only relatively small audiences of a handful of people. I'm pretty sure you're one of like six people who has read all of this thread.
I don't think the demand is "because of the color of the skin you were born with". I think it's because you've chosen to accept, to some degree, a society which benefits you are the cost of others.
This is an interesting part of the argument. How would one possibly choose to not accept the society or societal benefits? It would seem to leave only literally extricating yourself from the society. Would being an expat in a far flung corner of the world without any history of unfair advantages given to white people really be the only solution to fully eliminate culpability? Otherwise, from what I can see, there are no other ways to fully not accept the benefits and therefore have culpability, and if that's the case, then that's an unreasonable expectation. I'm not saying that you're saying any of this, just that it seems that you've set up an ethical framework that seems to intrinsically generate a catch-22 situation.
I agree: it's very difficult to reject society's benefits. There's the option you suggest, and at least one more I can think of. By why does that have to be a catch, rather than just a fact?
Just because the alternative is hard doesn't make a choice right.
Now, I'm not saying we should all reject society and move to some far flung corner (how many far flung corners are there?). I'm saying we should accept that we are responsible, to some degree, for the ills of our society, and work to correct them the best we are able.
Here's the issue with this line of thought. You didn't mention your other optionAnd I'm not going to. Going that direction will, I think, derail this interesting discussion.
Because they only way to avoid ethical culpability in your situation is to not exist. There is no, not being culpable in your situation with the exception of not existing altogether.Yep.
Again, I have intimate experience with this line of thought. It sucks. On top of that, it’s futile and ultimately harmful to the psyche. Guilt itself is of dubious benefit even when you are directly the one who did something that was wrong. What we’re talking about here is continual culpability about something you could be even be very actively fighting against because of a situation you have no means to control. It’s futile and actually detrimental overall. My life improved immensely when I stopped looking at things with what I need to feel bad for or apologize for and instead redefined everyone else, working to avoid anyone being “other” and viewing them as intrinsically worthy of love and compassion. My well being improved, and I improved in my interactions with them. I felt immense culpability for everything I did and yet was paralyzed and actually failed to do what I could to improve even mistakes I had made because the focus was on my culpability. My point is, if taken seriously, in my experience, the mindset you describe is intrinsically toxic. Encourage people to acknowledge the benefits they had from birth, sure. Decry the biases present in society, no problem. Work from a personal or in whatever sphere of influence you have to fight against these issues, we’re on the same page. As for maintaining a mental headspace of innate blame and a state of continual need to apologize for actions that I have not taken part in, no. I will actively fight against that when that perspective comes in my head, and I will encourage anyone willing to talk to me about it to avoid it as well. It is toxic.
Returning to the OP's sentiments, here are my two cents:
If I never hear the word "micro-aggression" again it will be too soon. It appears to mean an occasion where someone chooses to be offended by a word/action that clearly wasn't meant to be rude or offensive -- so trivial as to be called "micro" by the offended themselves. The world does not need this.
I am completely disdainful of the concept of "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in a college environment. Students should be attending college to learn; to stretch their minds and become acquainted with people, experiences, and philosophies they may not have encountered before. If you want to remain in your "safe space" bubble, stay the hell home. Yes, this also applies to students making colleges ban speakers they don't agree with. (Here's an idea: just don't attend the speech if you don't want to hear it. Or attend, hear them out, then respectfully challenge the speaker's views.)
My first exposure to the idea of "trigger words" was also from the college environment. The idea was that students needed to be warned about "triggering" materials that might occur as part of the course work. This strikes me as both ridiculous and impractical. College students are (mostly) legal adults and on the verge of being expected to function as adults in broader society. Expecting all others to anticipate what might upset you and to make your way smooth is going to lead to some serious disappointment in post-graduate life.
Note that I am not making a comment here against treating people equally, being civil and polite, or having the simple tact not to express obviously offensive language. I am simply expressing my own opinion that "micro-aggressions", "safe spaces" and "trigger words" in their original incarnations annoy me intensely.
Here's the issue with this line of thought. You didn't mention your other optionAnd I'm not going to. Going that direction will, I think, derail this interesting discussion.Because they only way to avoid ethical culpability in your situation is to not exist. There is no, not being culpable in your situation with the exception of not existing altogether.Yep.Again, I have intimate experience with this line of thought. It sucks. On top of that, it’s futile and ultimately harmful to the psyche. Guilt itself is of dubious benefit even when you are directly the one who did something that was wrong. What we’re talking about here is continual culpability about something you could be even be very actively fighting against because of a situation you have no means to control. It’s futile and actually detrimental overall. My life improved immensely when I stopped looking at things with what I need to feel bad for or apologize for and instead redefined everyone else, working to avoid anyone being “other” and viewing them as intrinsically worthy of love and compassion. My well being improved, and I improved in my interactions with them. I felt immense culpability for everything I did and yet was paralyzed and actually failed to do what I could to improve even mistakes I had made because the focus was on my culpability. My point is, if taken seriously, in my experience, the mindset you describe is intrinsically toxic. Encourage people to acknowledge the benefits they had from birth, sure. Decry the biases present in society, no problem. Work from a personal or in whatever sphere of influence you have to fight against these issues, we’re on the same page. As for maintaining a mental headspace of innate blame and a state of continual need to apologize for actions that I have not taken part in, no. I will actively fight against that when that perspective comes in my head, and I will encourage anyone willing to talk to me about it to avoid it as well. It is toxic.
I respect your personal experience, but most of what you say isn't true for me (I've bolded the one line above I wholehearted agree with).
There are a lot of things that could be contributing to our different positions--you mention a religious background; my background is completely areligious so I don't carry any of the christian baggage associated with guilt. I also suspect we're not talking about the exact same thing when we use words like guilt and culpability; words are relative after all.
Part of my position is that you have "taken part", but that aside, I don't feel a "continual need to apologize", just an acceptance that I am not some righteous exception to the species. And I find that idea bracing and clarifying.
Your explanations make sense to me, Watchmaker. But I find that I just don't like the word "micro-aggression". I think it's because to my mind, aggression involves violence or threat. Micro actions by definition don't rise to that level, so labeling them aggressions feels like an overstatement. As a scholarly term of art to categorize "deplorable behaviors on an atmospherically oppressive but not overtly threatening level", I guess it's as good a word as any. But when used to talk about an individual's behavior, it strikes my ear oddly. Seems it would be clearer to describe the person's behavior as rude/racist/sexist/annoying/etc.
College students have a safe space to get away from stress; it's called their dorm room. Or a friend's dorm room. Or a counselor's office, library, church, pub, etc.Sometimes students don't have those places, or those places aren't safe for them. College students often have poor support networks. If like-minded students and staff want to make sure students know there is a place and a community they can go for support, that sounds commendable, doesn't it? That's what I would mean when I talk about a safe-space.
I respectfully submit that is not the meaning assigned. I stand by my previous example where students clamor for administrations to revoke speaker invitations. They are demanding to be protected from ideas they disagree with, at an event they're not even required to attend. So no, it is not reasonable. It's in direct contravention to the principle of free speech.
Re trigger warnings: If you're going to be presenting material that's widely considered to be graphic or disturbing, yes, you should give people notice. For example, I attended a healthcare equipment sales meeting where a doctor's presentation included slides of battlefield injuries. Some people got out of that room in a hurry! Another example: in community theater we give notice to patrons when a show includes significant adult language/content.
I don't think it's as clear-cut in reference to academic materials. I've quoted a Psychology Today article that puts it better than I can:
Our differing backgrounds and may be causing some terminology issues. However, from a logical standpoint, it's pretty clear cut. I can acknowledge that I have benefited from something without having culpability from it. I can even work to mitigate it for others who didn't benefit from it. I was born in a stable family who supported my education, encouraged me, etc. I have tremendous benefits from that. I admit it. I am not culpable for anything because of it. It would be a good idea for me to work to help others who weren't less fortunate, but I have nothing to apologize for.
However, you were very clear above in your belief that there is no way, period, for me to not be ethically culpable.
My perspective on guilt is pretty all encompassing. It resonates with me ethically, philosophically, practically in my life and in the lives of others I have seen, even religiously despite my initial challenges (it has been a newfound understanding of Christianity as I grew and learned that helped me to realize the part you mentioned above about not seeing anyone else as other but that all are included in God's love, although I do a poor job at many times of displaying this). I said guilt is of dubious value, and I firmly believe it. It can help to guide us to apologies and attempts at recompense when we have done something wrong in the short term. Past the very short term, it tends to have very negative consequences. Guilt in my life and in the lives of so many others is extremely negative. I was a whole heck of a lot more guilt ridden when I was 10, but it comes from a negative, inward focused space.
I see what you mean by de-platforming, and mostly agree with you. I still believe that there's a freedom of speech concern in the sense that these students believe they are entitled to exist in a bubble free of speech/thoughts/ideas they don't like.
However, you were very clear above in your belief that there is no way, period, for me to not be ethically culpable.
That is incorrect. I do not believe that there is "no way, period", just that it is incredibly difficult.
Because they only way to avoid ethical culpability in your situation is to not exist. There is no, not being culpable in your situation with the exception of not existing altogether.Yep.
My perspective on guilt is pretty all encompassing. It resonates with me ethically, philosophically, practically in my life and in the lives of others I have seen, even religiously despite my initial challenges (it has been a newfound understanding of Christianity as I grew and learned that helped me to realize the part you mentioned above about not seeing anyone else as other but that all are included in God's love, although I do a poor job at many times of displaying this). I said guilt is of dubious value, and I firmly believe it. It can help to guide us to apologies and attempts at recompense when we have done something wrong in the short term. Past the very short term, it tends to have very negative consequences. Guilt in my life and in the lives of so many others is extremely negative. I was a whole heck of a lot more guilt ridden when I was 10, but it comes from a negative, inward focused space.
It's sounds like your talking about the physical+emotional state of "feeling guilty". That's not what I mean at all. I don't feel that, and I agree that it's largely negative. I mean guilt in a factual sense. The understanding that I am responsible for my choice to accept the benefits of an unfair system that is biased towards me and against others. There's value for me (and , I believe, for others) in owning that choice.
However, you were very clear above in your belief that there is no way, period, for me to not be ethically culpable.
That is incorrect. I do not believe that there is "no way, period", just that it is incredibly difficult.
No, the statement you just made above is incorrect. You said as much here:Because they only way to avoid ethical culpability in your situation is to not exist. There is no, not being culpable in your situation with the exception of not existing altogether.Yep.
Call me old fashioned :), but not existing is pretty much the bar for there being no way for it to happen.
Ok, so here's the issue with what you're saying. Of course I'm talking about the physical emotional state of feeling guilty. Of course I'm talking about the internals of it. That's all there is left in the argument.
We've both agreed that acknowledging the fact that we've benefited from the society is good. We've acknowledged the facts.
However, you were very clear above in your belief that there is no way, period, for me to not be ethically culpable.
That is incorrect. I do not believe that there is "no way, period", just that it is incredibly difficult.
No, the statement you just made above is incorrect. You said as much here:Because they only way to avoid ethical culpability in your situation is to not exist. There is no, not being culpable in your situation with the exception of not existing altogether.Yep.
Call me old fashioned :), but not existing is pretty much the bar for there being no way for it to happen.
I don't think you're old fashioned, I just think you're not thinking through all the possibilities if you think those two statements are equivalent.
Ok, so here's the issue with what you're saying. Of course I'm talking about the physical emotional state of feeling guilty. Of course I'm talking about the internals of it. That's all there is left in the argument.
We've both agreed that acknowledging the fact that we've benefited from the society is good. We've acknowledged the facts.
Great!
Sorry, I don't have time to respond to everything you said individually. I'm on the road and about to disconnect from the internet for a while; I will come back to this conversation, but it will be a week or so.
But in short--I think you're reading some things into my words that aren't meant to be there (which is, of course, my fault for not being clearer). What I meant when I said guilt, and what you mean when you say guilt are clearly not the same. Let me try it in different words to avoid the ones that seem to be a source of disagreement.
-We are responsible for the the society we live in.
-If our society is unfair, that is because of choices we make.
-Because the unfairness is often amorphous and subtle, it can be easy for people to disavow their individual responsibility and say "I'm not part of the problem".
-It's healthier, more honest, and more productive to acknowledge that individual responsibility, particularly in the cases where you are a beneficiary of a bias.
By that same token, we should avoid using the words "kill," "murder," "snuff out," etc. in ANY context because someone in the company of our conversation may have been subjected to homicide (or a loved one)? When my comedian friend gets off stage, I am no longer allowed to say "man you really killed it!" because someone in earshot could be triggered? This is a very slippery slope. Maybe we should all be mute so there is zero probability of unknowingly offending someone with a particular word or its usage?
Murder is quite rare (luckily), so relatively few people have been directly affected by a murder (and you'll never get a chance to offend a murder victim). Sexual assault is, sadly, much more common. In any decent sized crowd, there is a high likelihood of there being a sexual assault survivor.
A thought experiment: Imagine my sister was murdered. We go out for a game of tennis; my first fun activity since it happened. We beat our opponents easily. Are you going to say to me "We murdered them!"? Probably not, because you'd understand that could be upsetting. That's an extreme case, but my point is there are circumstances where pretty much everyone agrees you should censor yourself. We just all draw the line in different places.
I always thought it was "glove" for some reason.... I'm an idiot.By that same token, we should avoid using the words "kill," "murder," "snuff out," etc. in ANY context because someone in the company of our conversation may have been subjected to homicide (or a loved one)? When my comedian friend gets off stage, I am no longer allowed to say "man you really killed it!" because someone in earshot could be triggered? This is a very slippery slope. Maybe we should all be mute so there is zero probability of unknowingly offending someone with a particular word or its usage?
Murder is quite rare (luckily), so relatively few people have been directly affected by a murder (and you'll never get a chance to offend a murder victim). Sexual assault is, sadly, much more common. In any decent sized crowd, there is a high likelihood of there being a sexual assault survivor.
A thought experiment: Imagine my sister was murdered. We go out for a game of tennis; my first fun activity since it happened. We beat our opponents easily. Are you going to say to me "We murdered them!"? Probably not, because you'd understand that could be upsetting. That's an extreme case, but my point is there are circumstances where pretty much everyone agrees you should censor yourself. We just all draw the line in different places.
If your tennis opponent was just just jilted by someone she was madly line love with, and the score was 15/love should you say 15/zero?
This politically correct BS has gone to far.
To totally sidetrack, it came from the French "oeuf" which is egg, because a 0 looks like an egg.I always thought it was "glove" for some reason.... I'm an idiot.By that same token, we should avoid using the words "kill," "murder," "snuff out," etc. in ANY context because someone in the company of our conversation may have been subjected to homicide (or a loved one)? When my comedian friend gets off stage, I am no longer allowed to say "man you really killed it!" because someone in earshot could be triggered? This is a very slippery slope. Maybe we should all be mute so there is zero probability of unknowingly offending someone with a particular word or its usage?
Murder is quite rare (luckily), so relatively few people have been directly affected by a murder (and you'll never get a chance to offend a murder victim). Sexual assault is, sadly, much more common. In any decent sized crowd, there is a high likelihood of there being a sexual assault survivor.
A thought experiment: Imagine my sister was murdered. We go out for a game of tennis; my first fun activity since it happened. We beat our opponents easily. Are you going to say to me "We murdered them!"? Probably not, because you'd understand that could be upsetting. That's an extreme case, but my point is there are circumstances where pretty much everyone agrees you should censor yourself. We just all draw the line in different places.
If your tennis opponent was just just jilted by someone she was madly line love with, and the score was 15/love should you say 15/zero?
This politically correct BS has gone to far.
When people say Huw-where instead of where... as in they put the h before the w. Drives me mental!
When people say Huw-where instead of where... as in they put the h before the w. Drives me mental!
That's an annoyance, not a trigger.
Depends. I certainly think he should be held accountable for knucklehead things he said on June 19, 2019 and on the debate.
I doubt anybody would have dredged up the fact that he had a cordial relationship with Dixiecrats Eastland and Talmadge (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/23/segregationist-barely-begins-describe-racist-dixiecrats-that-joe-biden-worked-with-senate) if he hadn't brought it up himself.
There were good responses that Biden could have made to Harris's debate attack as well. Forced busing wasn't universally popular with Black Americans of the time. He could also have pointed to progressive legislation (if any) that passed because of his alliance with the Dixiecrats. But he just didn't make these points, for some reason.
To get back on topic, I think a fair way of dealing with trigger words on this forum would be to use theSpoiler: show
And it's not a bad idea to let students know if there is going to be trigger words or discussions in a classroom discussion. This allows the topic to be discussed without stressing people out, like those warnings on TV where they tell you that topics unsuitable for kids are about to come on. I'd raise my eyebrows if somebody started to talk about upsetting topics or bathroom topics at the dinner table, then privately take them aside to the woodshed and start whacking them with a two-by-four. But the same issues were raised in appropriate company I would probably be happy to join in the conversation.
I don't see a real issue with people learning to adapt their language to fit a situation, as long as important issues can be discussed frankly as needed.
To get back on topic, I think a fair way of dealing with trigger words on this forum would be to use theSpoiler: show
And it's not a bad idea to let students know if there is going to be trigger words or discussions in a classroom discussion. This allows the topic to be discussed without stressing people out, like those warnings on TV where they tell you that topics unsuitable for kids are about to come on. I'd raise my eyebrows if somebody started to talk about upsetting topics or bathroom topics at the dinner table, then privately take them aside to the woodshed and start whacking them with a two-by-four. But the same issues were raised in appropriate company I would probably be happy to join in the conversation.
I don't see a real issue with people learning to adapt their language to fit a situation, as long as important issues can be discussed frankly as needed.
The problem isn't with the civility of giving a notice, it's with the expansion ad nauseum of what is a "trigger".