Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[whiteflags]

However if a person were to get an audience being a bigot, I wouldn't believe it to be the governments right to shut them down. Usually those sorts of things take care of themselves though, companies don't like being seen to support racism (or those types of things). Look at Opie and Anthony.

Yes exactly. That is the sort of solution people would want. As you say, if a bigot gets an audience in like, the paper, then one of the first questions is "who let this happen?" and then the one responsible is usually disciplined by the paper. Importantly, no paper ever violates the first amendment by doing so. If you tried to make it so the police had to show up and fix it that would put them in the position of violating the first amendment.

Neither is disciplining threats. The police may show up for those, but it is still not a violation, because your rights are only as protected as the next persons.

[Alpo]

Yes exactly. That is the sort of solution people would want. As you say, if a bigot gets an audience in like, the paper, then one of the first questions is "who let this happen?" and then the one responsible is usually disciplined by the paper.

I have noticed this odd thing in recent years though (with twitter), where people will get fired for things they didn't say on the job. I don't go on those sites personally (too addictive), and I don't endorse discrimination in any way, but I sometimes feel like it turns into a witch hunt.

A good example might be Adria Richards, who roused up an online party to get a guy fired for a sexual pun, then was fired herself. (There was another example, can't find the link :\)

It seems like the amount of demonization that happens makes it harder to actually dialog with such people, because they are too afraid to express theirself. I would like a society where no racism/sexism exists, rather than one where it is just suppressed. That's part of why I would help a racist person who was getting beaten for a slur (in reference to MutantJohn), because I don't feel the aggressive/ accusatory context is the best for changing minds.

I'm wondering how everyone feels about this. Do you think people go overboard with accusations of discrimination? Do you feel as if marginalization of a discriminatory viewpoint is better than discussing it (ie, If you heard someone say ****, would you just tell them to screw off, or would you ask them if they really felt that way and why?).

Sorry for these long posts btw, I live in a pretty racist place and have developed lots of thoughts on the issue over the years :P.

[Alpo]

I was just on youtube and saw this PSA (sexual assault - "No More"), thought I would post it here. It's a good example of trying to start a conversation in an accusatory context, like I was talking about.

The first 40 seconds is an iteration of things that are "No More" allowed to be said, then directly after that an actor tells us, "No More, 'We don't talk about that'". Just as if the first 40 seconds weren't meant to marginalize the opposing viewpoints of the people already "Talking about that".

NO MORE PSA CAMPAIGN "ANTHEM" :60 - YouTube

[stahta01]

I predict in twenty years that the PCers will have a time when people push back on it, hard.
The Politically Correct crowd is approaching a point where it will be valid to call it a religion.

Tim S.

[Alpo]

I predict in twenty years that the PCers will have a time when people push back on it, hard.
The Politically Correct crowd is approaching a point where it will be valid to call it a religion.

Tim S.

I don't know. I hope it all dies down one day, but a lot of people have this reaction of "If you're against a thing, then you are for it's opposite". So I suspect PC principals will be one of those things most people will be too nervous to question for a while.

At least it's not as bad as it was in the 90's. People went so overboard then that just trying to describe a person was risky lol.

[MutantJohn]

Being politically correct is a lot like being a good programmer though. And even then, what you're talking about, Tim, is the same as the people who equate feminism to anti-men.

Political correctness isn't all that difficult but a lot of people on the internet give it a bad name just like literally everything on the internet.

For example, try never using a gender-specific pronoun ever again. In C++ we say RAII is the paradigm so we stick to it. It's the same for actual language as well. It's a better way of speaking.

[stahta01]

FYI: They are now complaining about what you did NOT do or say.
It no longer about what you did or said for PCers.

Tim S.

[Matticus]

Political correctness can be a very bad thing, when taken to extremes, or even applied moderately.

Among other things:

- It obfuscates clear communication
- It enables some people to feel "offended" for false or trivial reasons
- While everyone has the right to be "offended", it makes some people feel entitled to use this as a reason to limit the free speech of other people

And I always find it particularly annoying when a politically correct person deigns to feel "offended" for a perceived slight against another group that they are not even a part of - especially when reasonable people of that other group would not be offended themselves.

Political correctness isn't all that difficult but a lot of people on the internet give it a bad name just like literally everything on the internet.

This may or may not be true, but many people (myself included) have experienced the annoyance/danger of PC speech well before the internet was in widespread use.

[Mario F.]

Do you think people go overboard with accusations of discrimination?

Most definitely some do. There's a general tendency these days, particularly on matters of sexism, to produce a mute society where even a joke among friends or workmates is considered a pronunciation of discrimination. However it is mostly being done by feminists and white knights; rather small groups in our societies. But being these two so vocal and with a militant predisposition, it is no wonder that we get so much coverage from these small incidents that should otherwise bother only the people involved.

Mostly, there's a strong desire to turn localized happenings into global events, like saying that a sexist joke from a workmate shows our our societies discriminate women. When in fact, at least from my experience, the women I know don't feel particularly discriminated. Or if they do, not to the extent that some try to give.

But I'm a man. And the anti-discrimination advocates say my opinion and my own experience doesn't count...

Do you feel as if marginalization of a discriminatory viewpoint is better than discussing it (ie, If you heard someone say ****, would you just tell them to screw off, or would you ask them if they really felt that way and why?).

I don't trust talk. Talk has a place that is usually at the start. If it needs to end with a smack down, so be it.

It takes all kinds of people to make up the world. The rude and obnoxious too. And if someone says ****, it's a good bet that asking him or her why they feel about that is a waste of everyone's time. Wars have done more for world peace than peace talks. Our communication skills are still not fully developed, because Humans understand strength more than they do words. But fighting against discrimination through force is probably as useless as through conversation. It's a deeply rooted human trait that WE ALL share in some way or another. Our lack of comprehension for something that is different than us, is only mitigated on some people. But we all share it. I've seen great humanitarians condemn or criticize Muslims way of life, I've seen racist feminists, I've seen black machismo, and there's no doubt in my mind that a victim of prejudice can discriminate too.

Finding social solutions to this genetic human trait is as old as our first civilizations. And we still keep trying to create multicultural societies with a decent level of tolerance. But I trust we won't get anywhere near soon.

[MutantJohn]

Have you guys heard of Social Justice Warriors?

There was this girl I'm friends on Facebook with who refuses to watch Game of Thrones because the Dothraki are a racist representation. Also, really, Chrome? Dothraki is part of your dictionary?

Anyway, she's never once seen an episode of the show but read an article written by some 20 year old who had also never watched the show and was all up in arms about how racist the show was. I tried arguing but it was pointless.

I tried saying that there were savages north of the Wall and that they were white but that doesn't count because white people are represented as a spectrum. We all know that medieval Europe (which is what GoT is based on) was absolutely full of non-white people... Oh wait...

Hmm... I'll count the Spanish as white.

[Alpo]

Being politically correct is a lot like being a good programmer though. And even then, what you're talking about, Tim, is the same as the people who equate feminism to anti-men.

Political correctness isn't all that difficult but a lot of people on the internet give it a bad name just like literally everything on the internet.

For example, try never using a gender-specific pronoun ever again. In C++ we say RAII is the paradigm so we stick to it. It's the same for actual language as well. It's a better way of speaking.

I believe in being polite myself. The problem comes when you dogmatize it, or associate motives to certain groups (like you say, some people equate feminism to anti-man, and others equate disagreeing with certain feminist ideals as anti-woman).

For instance, a PSA on women's rights tells you that saying "Stay safe." to a woman is bad. If you are inclined to not question this groups worldview, you might buy in without thinking anything of it.

Now, someone with an opposing viewpoint says the same thing. You would probably be a lot more likely to question their motives. (Why doesn't he want women to "stay safe"? Is he for violence against women? ect.).

Taken all in all, these sorts of associations make it easy to write off entire groups of people's opinions (like the concept of privilege). This writing off then makes for alienation, which then hurts the cause you are supporting.

Edit: On GoT. It's supposed to be a more adult type of fantasy, with elements of realism. It actually helps to have racism, and misogyny in fantasy such as this. It gives the viewer a chance to see such things disassociated from real world, where they can have a chance to reevaluate their ideals in a space that's disconnected from preconceptions. It's one of the most powerful aspects of literature for changing minds (look at 1984 for instance).

[Alpo]

Have you guys heard of Social Justice Warriors?

There was this girl I'm friends on Facebook with who refuses to watch Game of Thrones because the Dothraki are a racist representation. Also, really, Chrome? Dothraki is part of your dictionary?

Anyway, she's never once seen an episode of the show but read an article written by some 20 year old who had also never watched the show and was all up in arms about how racist the show was. I tried arguing but it was pointless.

I tried saying that there were savages north of the Wall and that they were white but that doesn't count because white people are represented as a spectrum. We all know that medieval Europe (which is what GoT is based on) was absolutely full of non-white people... Oh wait...

Hmm... I'll count the Spanish as white.

I wondered if you have ever read "The Wheel of Time" by Robert Jordan? It's another fantasy book, not as good as GoT, but still pretty good.

The author did a pretty good job of screwing up racial recognition in the book. For instance the northerners have slanted eyes (epicanthic folds), but also have long noses. The Aeil, are basically Irish nomads who live in giant desert and practice tribal warfare.

The book also has a gendered aspect. The magic system (The Source), is something that men and women have to use differently. Also the men's source of magic was tainted and using it drives you insane. If your friend like fantasy but doesn't want to watch GoT, you should recommend Wheel of Time .

[Matticus]

I wondered if you have ever read "The Wheel of Time" by Robert Jordan?

I love this series.

[phantomotap]

I love this series.

O_o

Even the ones not written by Robert Jordan?

I'm seriously asking; I've heard they went wonky.

Soma

[Alpo]

O_o

Even the ones not written by Robert Jordan?

I'm seriously asking; I've heard they went wonky.

Soma

Eh, Brandon Sanderson didn't do Mat very well (my favorite character). I was just glad to get the end of the story. I don't know if I really believed the thing about Jordan having the ending planned from the first book, but it went the way I was expecting. This could be the Stockholm Fanboyism Syndrome talking, but the ending was decent.