Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Political Correctness Works

YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 1:03:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This post will serve to explain how political correctness works, with both an example and an explanation. There are other examples, which I could explain on request. This is generally consistent with the ideas of two writers, namely Foucault and Chomsky, even though to my recollection neither specifically advanced the arguments I am here.

The best answer, and indeed the only democratic answer, to bad speech is more speech... better speech.

The issues are these: (1) who defines what is politically correct; (2) whose interests does political correctness serve; (3) what function does political correctness have in discourse; and (4) what are the reasons that those who define political correctness do so? All of these kind of overlap, and they only are reasonable questions, after we figure out what political correctness is, and the sum of those answers tell us why political correctness is what it is.

The bottom line is that political correctness ("PC") is about power, and specifically the power to define the acceptable range of discourse. This is an incredibly complex concept, and one that really gets at the theory of how PC works. The way that PC defines the scope of what counts for permissible discourse is that it controls the connotative effect of language.

So, we can't call an "illegal immigrant" an "illegal immigrant" because that implies that the person who crossed the border illegally is himself morally culpable. Indeed, he is. But, this might "offend" two relevant groups: (a) illegals themselves; and (b) ivory tower academics. However, it is "only" ivory tower academics and those who subscribe to the power of ivory tower academics that "enforce" the rules of political correctness, because they believe they have a moral imperative to do that. So, they wage character assaults against those people who use language they find to be unacceptable.

In that way, by not calling an "illegal alien" an "illegal alien" but, in the alternative, an "undocumented worker" (or whatever other euphemism those at such institutions as Harvard or Columbia come up with at any particular time), we remove the moral culpability from the person who broke the United States' laws to come to the United States and work illegally. Likewise, we place the moral culpability on any and all people who simply "describe" the person (read: illegal alien or undocumented worker) as an "illegal alien." That kind of culpability shift is about POWER, the POWER to use language to control thought.

How does this work? The phrase "undocumented worker" carries an entirely different mental connotation than "illegal immigrant" even though the words' meanings are identical. Denotative congruence, however, does not imply connotative congruence. In that way, controlling the connotation controls how the public at large perceives those who illegally enter the United States for the purpose of securing employment in violation of American labor and immigration laws. If we call them "undocumented workers" they are more sympathetic, and the "stigma" associated with breaking federal law --which they did-- is removed.

The reason that this SPECIFIC method of thought police exists is because THERE IS NO QUESTION that illegal immigrants break the law by entering the United States illegally, and securing employment illegally. And, more importantly, ivory tower academics know this, which is why they do not debate, for example, whether the substance of US immigration law ought to be revised. (I think it should, and the process for obtaining US citizenship should be profoundly easier than it currently is, and I also think that illegal aliens are generally pretty sympathetic people. I know five personally, and they're good people who came to this country for the same reasons that my ancestors came to America: to live a better life, in this land of opportunity. But, that doesn't matter.)

What matters is that the public at large, when they vote, form certain connotations about illegals (people who most Americans do not know), just as incredibly naive, sheltered and bubble-bred and raised college students form opinions about those people who disagree with them (e.g. "he's a republican so he's an inherently bad person that must be a racist, bigoted homophobe"). So, just as these ivory tower thought police frame the context of permissible discourse in the United States at large, so too does PC rhetoric imbue college students with a set of values as well: tolerance towards all, other than the intolerant, where to be "intolerant" means to "take issue with the PC standards" or "not to abide by PC standards."

Whose interests does this serve? In general, most of these ivory tower thought police do not realize what they're doing. They're just misguided social justice warriors looking for the next bastion of bigotry to tear down, mainly to advance their own professional reputation. This is especially the case in race, class and gender divisions. Race and gender studies programs are especially pernicious, and gender-race programs are just the worst ever. For example, they come up with the kind of intellectual trash like the concept of "micro aggressions." It's vile, sick and perverse... but all done in the name of "political correctness."

Ostensibly, the objective is to protect people's sensibilities... and that's what a lot of people think they're doing. In reality, what's going on is that they are trying to silence opposition by limiting the range of permissible discourse to reflect only those perspectives which are comparable with their worldview. So, even if you have, for example, the right to say what you will, you will go nowhere in the world of academia if you don't abide by these norms which define the scope of permissible conduct.

And that's what PC is all about. It's about silencing dissent and limiting thought. It's thought police, of the most insidious kind. Maybe this is a good thing, you say... maybe some perspectives are so egregious that they have no place in modern rhetorical discourse. This notion runs counter to the very foundation of free and open societies. Words have tremendous power. Words are the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. To the extent that words become inaccessible, the bounds of truth become constrained. No group, no matter how noble their cause, is entitled to their own version of the truth. This is why PC is damaging.

The fact is that the PC people regard themselves in a unique way: they believe that their using certain language, and not using other language, makes them in some way morally superior to those who make different choices, with respect to language use. That creates, in them, a view and/or belief about any person who makes choices with respect to language use which are different than those within that group do. The view and/or belief, for persons within the scope of that latter group, generally tends to be that any such person is, of necessity, a bad person because they fall into one of three general categories: racist, bigot, or homophobe.

So, in that sense, what the person says, therefore, can be summarily rejected (see generally what Ike did in this thread) on the basis of its being "outside the scope of permissible discourse" (read: politically incorrect). And that's literally how it works. That's how the power at stake, in the PC context, is exercised. It has a limiting, channeling, and defining function. PC limits the scope of political discourse; channels incongruent discourse from the range of public consideration; and defines the scope of what is permissible.

More to come later.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 1:59:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 1:41:41 AM, YYW wrote:
All are encouraged to engage with the substance of what I said.

But I doubt anyone can...
Tsar of DDO
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 8:56:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 1:59:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/17/2015 1:41:41 AM, YYW wrote:
All are encouraged to engage with the substance of what I said.

But I doubt anyone can...

In general I do agree with what you said. The only thing that I might take issue with is that you noted that the illegal immigrant takes on the moral culpability of his action. This assumes that the law in question is morally just - as there is no moral culpability without the law being moral in the first place.

Now if we extend this to all PC things then every PC issue becomes about morality (which it sometime is) instead of legal or social in nature - or vise-versa where something is moral and presented as merely social/legal in nature. I believe that this frames the whole idea further into the PC realm instead of identifying it for what it is.
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 9:22:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 1:41:41 AM, YYW wrote:
All are encouraged to engage with the substance of what I said.

PC is not about power, but prudence and accuracy.


"So, we can't call an "illegal immigrant" an "illegal immigrant" because that implies that the person who crossed the border illegally is himself morally culpable."

This example entirely misses the mark. We can"t call an undocumented immigrant an illegal immigrant because it is a non sequiter. The person themselves is not illegal, the immigration was. Thus, we can conclude that there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, Only undocumented immigrants who came here illegally. So there is illegal immigration" but no illegal immigrants.

"That kind of culpability shift is about POWER, the POWER to use language to control thought."

Again, that PC example shows prudence and accuracy" not an attempt to control thought.

The harm that results from the P.C. inept:

Perhaps those reading will recall some of the recent comments made by GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump when he announced he was running.

"When Mexico sends its people, they"re not sending their best. They"re not sending you. They"re sending people that have lots of problems, and they"re bringing those problems [with them]. They"re bringing drugs. They"re bringing crime. They"re rapists." (1)

Obviously immigration is an issue in this election, but the crass comments from Donald Trump exemplify the harm that comes from the P.C. Inept. Donald Trump with this short statement effectively insulted and demeaned millions of people. Clearly this type of rhetoric is indicative of an uneducated bigot.

Those who are avoiding PC are not avoiding thought control, they are avoiding prudence and accuracy in communication. Clarity of thought comes from accuracy. Intelligent communication is prudent.

(1) https://www.youtube.com...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2015 9:26:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 1:03:07 AM, YYW wrote:
This post will serve to explain how political correctness works, with both an example and an explanation. There are other examples, which I could explain on request. This is generally consistent with the ideas of two writers, namely Foucault and Chomsky, even though to my recollection neither specifically advanced the arguments I am here.

The best answer, and indeed the only democratic answer, to bad speech is more speech... better speech.

The issues are these: (1) who defines what is politically correct; (2) whose interests does political correctness serve; (3) what function does political correctness have in discourse; and (4) what are the reasons that those who define political correctness do so? All of these kind of overlap, and they only are reasonable questions, after we figure out what political correctness is, and the sum of those answers tell us why political correctness is what it is.

The bottom line is that political correctness ("PC") is about power, and specifically the power to define the acceptable range of discourse. This is an incredibly complex concept, and one that really gets at the theory of how PC works. The way that PC defines the scope of what counts for permissible discourse is that it controls the connotative effect of language.

So, we can't call an "illegal immigrant" an "illegal immigrant" because that implies that the person who crossed the border illegally is himself morally culpable. Indeed, he is. But, this might "offend" two relevant groups: (a) illegals themselves; and (b) ivory tower academics. However, it is "only" ivory tower academics and those who subscribe to the power of ivory tower academics that "enforce" the rules of political correctness, because they believe they have a moral imperative to do that. So, they wage character assaults against those people who use language they find to be unacceptable.

In that way, by not calling an "illegal alien" an "illegal alien" but, in the alternative, an "undocumented worker" (or whatever other euphemism those at such institutions as Harvard or Columbia come up with at any particular time), we remove the moral culpability from the person who broke the United States' laws to come to the United States and work illegally. Likewise, we place the moral culpability on any and all people who simply "describe" the person (read: illegal alien or undocumented worker) as an "illegal alien." That kind of culpability shift is about POWER, the POWER to use language to control thought.

How does this work? The phrase "undocumented worker" carries an entirely different mental connotation than "illegal immigrant" even though the words' meanings are identical. Denotative congruence, however, does not imply connotative congruence. In that way, controlling the connotation controls how the public at large perceives those who illegally enter the United States for the purpose of securing employment in violation of American labor and immigration laws. If we call them "undocumented workers" they are more sympathetic, and the "stigma" associated with breaking federal law --which they did-- is removed.

The reason that this SPECIFIC method of thought police exists is because THERE IS NO QUESTION that illegal immigrants break the law by entering the United States illegally, and securing employment illegally. And, more importantly, ivory tower academics know this, which is why they do not debate, for example, whether the substance of US immigration law ought to be revised. (I think it should, and the process for obtaining US citizenship should be profoundly easier than it currently is, and I also think that illegal aliens are generally pretty sympathetic people. I know five personally, and they're good people who came to this country for the same reasons that my ancestors came to America: to live a better life, in this land of opportunity. But, that doesn't matter.)

What matters is that the public at large, when they vote, form certain connotations about illegals (people who most Americans do not know), just as incredibly naive, sheltered and bubble-bred and raised college students form opinions about those people who disagree with them (e.g. "he's a republican so he's an inherently bad person that must be a racist, bigoted homophobe"). So, just as these ivory tower thought police frame the context of permissible discourse in the United States at large, so too does PC rhetoric imbue college students with a set of values as well: tolerance towards all, other than the intolerant, where to be "intolerant" means to "take issue with the PC standards" or "not to abide by PC standards."

Whose interests does this serve? In general, most of these ivory tower thought police do not realize what they're doing. They're just misguided social justice warriors looking for the next bastion of bigotry to tear down, mainly to advance their own professional reputation. This is especially the case in race, class and gender divisions. Race and gender studies programs are especially pernicious, and gender-race programs are just the worst ever. For example, they come up with the kind of intellectual trash like the concept of "micro aggressions." It's vile, sick and perverse... but all done in the name of "political correctness."

Ostensibly, the objective is to protect people's sensibilities... and that's what a lot of people think they're doing. In reality, what's going on is that they are trying to silence opposition by limiting the range of permissible discourse to reflect only those perspectives which are comparable with their worldview. So, even if you have, for example, the right to say what you will, you will go nowhere in the world of academia if you don't abide by these norms which define the scope of permissible conduct.

And that's what PC is all about. It's about silencing dissent and limiting thought. It's thought police, of the most insidious kind. Maybe this is a good thing, you say... maybe some perspectives are so egregious that they have no place in modern rhetorical discourse. This notion runs counter to the very foundation of free and open societies. Words have tremendous power. Words are the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. To the extent that words become inaccessible, the bounds of truth become constrained. No group, no matter how noble their cause, is entitled to their own version of the truth. This is why PC is damaging.

The fact is that the PC people regard themselves in a unique way: they believe that their using certain language, and not using other language, makes them in some way morally superior to those who make different choices, with respect to language use. That creates, in them, a view and/or belief about any person who makes choices with respect to language use which are different than those within that group do. The view and/or belief, for persons within the scope of that latter group, generally tends to be that any such person is, of necessity, a bad person because they fall into one of three general categories: racist, bigot, or homophobe.



More to come later.

Very good analysis, summarizes my views on the issue pretty well. I also find that this PC culture we have created nurtures a culture of grievance mongering, where the discussion of substantive issues that actually impact people is abandoned in place of fabricated "social justice" issues like cultural appropriation, terminology, etc.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 12:23:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 9:22:36 PM, kasmic wrote:

Again, that PC example shows prudence and accuracy" not an attempt to control thought.

Most of the time it is an attempt to control thought. One used to have rape laws. Now you have sexual assault laws. So when rape was replaced with sexual assault, people assumed that whomever was charged with sexual assault was raping or trying to rape the woman.

Now sexual assault can be sneaking a kiss (rightly or wrongly).

Someone isn't in the country illegally, they're just undocumented.

Bob didn't break into the house, it was an unauthorized entry.

Mary isn't a suspect, she is a person of interest.

You're not mother and father, you're parents.

You're not husband and wife, you're partners.

and on and on and on...

PC language is an attempt to reframe people's opinion on something by using a broader word to make something appear to be less than it is. It makes non-equivalent things the same by lumping together dissimilar things to make the less palatable seem more reasonable.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 12:55:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 9:22:36 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 11/17/2015 1:41:41 AM, YYW wrote:
All are encouraged to engage with the substance of what I said.

PC is not about power, but prudence and accuracy.


"So, we can't call an "illegal immigrant" an "illegal immigrant" because that implies that the person who crossed the border illegally is himself morally culpable."

This example entirely misses the mark. We can"t call an undocumented immigrant an illegal immigrant because it is a non sequiter. The person themselves is not illegal, the immigration was. Thus, we can conclude that there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, Only undocumented immigrants who came here illegally. So there is illegal immigration" but no illegal immigrants.

This is a terrible application of semantics. Let's say one needs to fill out a shooting application in order to enter a certain range. In this case, the person would be a 'shooting applicant', regardless of whether or not they themselves are shooting at things while they fill out the form. You're applying the adjective literally in a situation where it's not meant to apply literally, because the entire noun phrase is a derived from another one. The suffix -ant is indicative of a standard verb -> noun derivation, and in this case the full phrase was preserved. Thus, an illegal immigrant is a person who immigrated illegally, not an illegal person who immigrated. Just as a house servant is a person who serves in the home, not a deranged individual who serves an anthropomorphized residential building.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 1:14:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll throw a question at you, YYW. Where's the line in political correctness? I assuming you're against the employment of vitriolic or hateful diction, such as f*ggot, n*gger, or r*tard. Refraining from employing such offensive terminology designed to belittle and disgrace entire groups of people - and shunning those who do - is itself an example of political correctness. One could argue, often correctly, that many (primarily) liberals will use this as an easy means to dismiss dialogue with others, but isn't it also true that rhetorical points and arguments, indeed, the essence of debate and discussion, are made stronger when the speaker is eloquent and versed enough to avoid needless pejoratives? Here, political correctness appears to be born out of a desire for extending kindness and basic human empathy while strengthening discussion.

Obviously it goes too far in the other direction, to the point where you get jokes like, "two entities entered a building." Where, in your mind, can that line be drawn?
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 1:49:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 1:14:09 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'll throw a question at you, YYW. Where's the line in political correctness? I assuming you're against the employment of vitriolic or hateful diction, such as f*ggot, n*gger, or r*tard. Refraining from employing such offensive terminology designed to belittle and disgrace entire groups of people - and shunning those who do - is itself an example of political correctness. One could argue, often correctly, that many (primarily) liberals will use this as an easy means to dismiss dialogue with others, but isn't it also true that rhetorical points and arguments, indeed, the essence of debate and discussion, are made stronger when the speaker is eloquent and versed enough to avoid needless pejoratives? Here, political correctness appears to be born out of a desire for extending kindness and basic human empathy while strengthening discussion.

Obviously it goes too far in the other direction, to the point where you get jokes like, "two entities entered a building." Where, in your mind, can that line be drawn?

That is an excellent question. Really, it shows both that you read what I wrote, and that you understood it, which is more than I can say for some others. Although, you're a pretty smart guy, so it doesn't so much take me by surprise.... but i digress. (I feel like these little digressions are important, though, because it explains why I am responding to some posts and not to others.)

And indeed, the scope of what counts as "politically correct" is broader than the scope of what particular sort of political correctness intrudes on free expression. Perhaps it is therefore necessary to say that there are some instances where political correctness's limiting functions are useful, for the purpose of separating the rhetorical "wheat" from the "chaff."

So the issue then becomes, as you rightfully pointed out, where do you draw the line, between when political correctness is acceptable and when it is overreaching. That is not to mitigate, per se, the effect of what I said. PC still serves all of those functions, and in some instances those functions ought to be served for a variety of reasons.

Yet, there is an issue *behind* that question which has to be first resolved: when does *enforcement* of "politically correct" linguistic norms so narrow thought as to render consideration of alternative or dissenting perspectives non-cognizable. You answer that question, and then your answer is going to be clear: only in those circumstances where political correctness's *enforcement* (be it active or passive) silences, or endeavors to silence political views which are outside the scope of political correctness's nebulous penumbras.

The next issue, then, is "what counts for enforcement"? I said above it can be active or passive. Active enforcement is where someone takes some affirmative act to, for example, silence dissent. For example, consider a person's running a K on a resolution that uses the phrase "illegal alien" because to "discuss such a resolution would be to perpetuate micro-aggressive rhetorical violence at the expense of the disenfranchised group described by the phrase "illegal alien"." Now, of course, that is an idiotic K (as most K's are). It's a cop out, of the most perverse sort. In the alternative, a "passive" form of enforcement would be something to the effect of denying a student's admission to a certain graduate program because he or she participated in the Young Americans for Freedom (a conservative youth group with more or less neocon or libertarian inclinations, depending on the chapter). That's "not taking" an action, which has the effect of excluding a person from, say, a history Ph.D. program at, for example, Cornell University with precisely no good or sound basis -but it is an institutional act of PC enforcement, and it's an insidious one. They've got their "cats paws" of course... but that's tangential to this discussion.

When political correctness has an exclusionary effect which purposefully functions to silence opposition, it has gone over the line. Not all PC does this... and there are a lot of undergraduates (e.g. Ike) who will likely not experience this. But I have SEEN it, and KNOWN it (though not personally been subject to it because, despite my decidedly non-PC way of conducting myself, I am smart enough to march to the piper's tune when it serves my interests; and I am only "outspoken" enough, IRL, so as not to raise too many eyebrows).

PC, however, doesn't just cut against the political right. It also cuts against the far left (e.g. Noam Chomsky at MIT), in many ways. But the effects on the left are usually less egregious.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:01:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 9:22:36 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 11/17/2015 1:41:41 AM, YYW wrote:
All are encouraged to engage with the substance of what I said.

PC is not about power, but prudence and accuracy.


"So, we can't call an "illegal immigrant" an "illegal immigrant" because that implies that the person who crossed the border illegally is himself morally culpable."

This example entirely misses the mark. We can"t call an undocumented immigrant an illegal immigrant because it is a non sequiter. The person themselves is not illegal, the immigration was. Thus, we can conclude that there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, Only undocumented immigrants who came here illegally. So there is illegal immigration" but no illegal immigrants.

"That kind of culpability shift is about POWER, the POWER to use language to control thought."

Again, that PC example shows prudence and accuracy" not an attempt to control thought.

In the context of illegal immigrants, their act of crossing the border into the United States without proper documentation is illegal, and their status in the United States is one that is necessarily unlawful. Anyone who told you otherwise lied to you, or was incompetent. It is so often the case that those who speak on such esoteric subjects as Federal Immigration Law, who are not lawyers, really just ought to not speak. So, your point there is entirely without merit; meaning that its falsity is not isolated to specific parts, but factually bankrupt in its totality.

To say, similarly, that PC is not about "power" but "accuracy" is equally absurd because (1) power and accuracy are not mutually exclusive (although I would argue that accuracy has nothing to do with PC anything); and (2) there is nothing inaccurate about describing a cripple as a cripple, or an illegal alien as an illegal alien, etc. To say that it's about "accuracy" is to pervert facts.

However, the argument from accuracy is certainly not one that hasn't been tried before... it just happens to be among the most idiotic in support of PC norms. Absent any showing of inaccuracy with hard language (to contrast with soft -read: PC- language), the argument implodes to begin with. You've made no such showing, therefore your argument more or less "implodes." This is tragic for you, and probably your adoption of PC-esque values.

However, the fact that I know the argument from accuracy is not your own more or less gives me hope that you will abandon it when presented with a perspective that destroys it. The gist is this: if you're going to correct someone on the basis of their being "inaccurate" then you goddamn well better be right. To be right requires more than a showing of the descriptive accuracy of whatever alternative you're proffering; you've got to go the additional step of showing that the person whom you're correcting got it wrong. In no instance have you done that, therefore you should not buy the argument from accuracy. (Be aware that I can debunk any other example you give me. It is like taking, as they say, candy from a baby.)

But beyond that silly contention, lies the more philosophical concern with regard to "why do proponents of political correctness make arguments from accuracy?" The reason is simple: it's about power. If you deny reality by manipulating language, or at least distort reality enough to muddy the water, you create a space for "maneuvering" your political agenda by way of that factual manipulation. This kind of "maneuvering" usually takes the form of controlling connotations (e.g. an illegal alien is not an illegal alien, but simply an undocumented worker... no one would deny that the latter is softer, and less connotatively troublesome, than the former).

I'm going to address your other points in another post.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:13:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/17/2015 9:22:36 PM, kasmic wrote:

First of all, I want to begin by saying that your conclusion is not properly supported. The fact that one particular person said some insensitive things does not mean that there is "harm" of the undefined, and entirely nebulous sort you're implying, if any at all. But let's unpack this together.

The harm that results from the P.C. inept:

Perhaps those reading will recall some of the recent comments made by GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump when he announced he was running.

"When Mexico sends its people, they"re not sending their best. They"re not sending you. They"re sending people that have lots of problems, and they"re bringing those problems [with them]. They"re bringing drugs. They"re bringing crime. They"re rapists." (1)

I do recall this. I thought it was comically absurd, because it was comically absurd.

Obviously immigration is an issue in this election, but the crass comments from Donald Trump exemplify the harm that comes from the P.C. Inept. Donald Trump with this short statement effectively insulted and demeaned millions of people. Clearly this type of rhetoric is indicative of an uneducated bigot.

And what is that "harm"? Define it. Who is harmed? How are they harmed? What is this harm's impact? To simply say that a person said some things does not mean that there are "harms" that result. You have to go the extra step of saying what that harm is. But, that's just why your argument is insufficient. It's not so much the reason why you're wrong.

The reason why you're wrong is because Trump, while an insensitive @ss, harms precisely no one in any meaningful sense by being an insensitive @ss. He rambles on, and some people like what he says (read: Iowans), while other people do not (read: YYW, and probably the rest of the civilized world). To "dislike" something, or even to be actually offended (and even if such offense is objectively reasonable) does not mean that there is "harm."

And moreover, even if there is "harm" what right do you, or does any other person have to say that he SHOULD NOT SPEAK in the way that he does? We can certainly mock him. Make fun of him. Deride him. Shame him. But to silence him? That's going too far. To force him to modify his language to someone else's standards of permissible rhetoric? It's downright un-American, and offensive to the rich intellectual tradition of free and open discourse in our Western world. It literally rebukes the very foundation of Western liberal democracy.

Those who are avoiding PC are not avoiding thought control, they are avoiding prudence and accuracy in communication. Clarity of thought comes from accuracy. Intelligent communication is prudent.

This is garbage for similar reasons above. But it's no accident that you've endeavored to ground political correctness as what counts for "intelligent conversation." So, anything not politically correct is therefore NOT intelligent conversation. Insofar as there is a vast world of ideas beyond that scope, the officiousness of PC's functioning in that way should not be lost upon you. But, it could simply be that you really lack exposure to ideas that would not count as politically correct, such that you're unable to recognize the world of possible ideas beyond the scope of what counts for politically correct. This, likely, is because your horizons aren't as broad as they ought to be, meaning that you don't recognize the limits because you haven't gone to the edge of what counts for PC before.

I know that's the case with most of PC's most ardent defenders. But, hopefully that will change with some worldly exposure.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:14:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Like I said... I encourage all to engage with the substance of my OP. I have little doubt that none will be able to meaningfully rebut what I said.
Tsar of DDO
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:42:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:14:30 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said... I encourage all to engage with the substance of my OP. I have little doubt that none will be able to meaningfully rebut what I said.

Y'know, you make reasonable points every now and then. However, you are incredible pompous. I would be more inclined to discuss issues and view points with you if you were not so condescending. The ostentatious nature of your writing and your overwhelming self love and self assurance often deter me from participating in the forums. Occasionally I have made some effort to converse with you. Though it has been as stimulating as conversing with a brick wall. I am finished participating in the forums because of the negative atmosphere you create in them.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:46:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:42:31 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:14:30 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said... I encourage all to engage with the substance of my OP. I have little doubt that none will be able to meaningfully rebut what I said.

Y'know, you make reasonable points every now and then. However, you are incredible pompous. I would be more inclined to discuss issues and view points with you if you were not so condescending. The ostentatious nature of your writing and your overwhelming self love and self assurance often deter me from participating in the forums. Occasionally I have made some effort to converse with you. Though it has been as stimulating as conversing with a brick wall. I am finished participating in the forums because of the negative atmosphere you create in them.

I see you're unable to respond to what I said... because if you were, given your interest, you would have done so. Alas... history repeats itself.

To be beaten, intellectually, is not to have been subject to "meanness."
Tsar of DDO
kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:49:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:46:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:42:31 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:14:30 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said... I encourage all to engage with the substance of my OP. I have little doubt that none will be able to meaningfully rebut what I said.

Y'know, you make reasonable points every now and then. However, you are incredible pompous. I would be more inclined to discuss issues and view points with you if you were not so condescending. The ostentatious nature of your writing and your overwhelming self love and self assurance often deter me from participating in the forums. Occasionally I have made some effort to converse with you. Though it has been as stimulating as conversing with a brick wall. I am finished participating in the forums because of the negative atmosphere you create in them.

I see you're unable to respond to what I said... because if you were, given your interest, you would have done so. Alas... history repeats itself.

To be beaten, intellectually, is not to have been subject to "meanness."

I feel as though I could respond to you, not to say that I am right or you are wrong. My lack of substantive response has to do with it not being worth all of the insults you passively apply rather than my lack of intellectual ability.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:53:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:49:59 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:46:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:42:31 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:14:30 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said... I encourage all to engage with the substance of my OP. I have little doubt that none will be able to meaningfully rebut what I said.

Y'know, you make reasonable points every now and then. However, you are incredible pompous. I would be more inclined to discuss issues and view points with you if you were not so condescending. The ostentatious nature of your writing and your overwhelming self love and self assurance often deter me from participating in the forums. Occasionally I have made some effort to converse with you. Though it has been as stimulating as conversing with a brick wall. I am finished participating in the forums because of the negative atmosphere you create in them.

I see you're unable to respond to what I said... because if you were, given your interest, you would have done so. Alas... history repeats itself.

To be beaten, intellectually, is not to have been subject to "meanness."

I feel as though I could respond to you, not to say that I am right or you are wrong. My lack of substantive response has to do with it not being worth all of the insults you passively apply rather than my lack of intellectual ability.

I don't believe you, and I don't think others will, in light of the rebuttal I wrote which preceded your "departure" from the substance of this conversation, but say whatever you like. It's of no consequence. If you don't want to play in my sandbox anymore, it's certainly your prerogative to not do so.
Tsar of DDO
SolonKR
Posts: 4,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:58:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have nothing of substance to add in terms of my own thoughts, but here's a relevant video on the subject. It's fantastic:
https://www.youtube.com...
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:03:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:42:31 AM, kasmic wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:14:30 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said... I encourage all to engage with the substance of my OP. I have little doubt that none will be able to meaningfully rebut what I said.

Y'know, you make reasonable points every now and then. However, you are incredible pompous. I would be more inclined to discuss issues and view points with you if you were not so condescending. The ostentatious nature of your writing and your overwhelming self love and self assurance often deter me from participating in the forums. Occasionally I have made some effort to converse with you. Though it has been as stimulating as conversing with a brick wall. I am finished participating in the forums because of the negative atmosphere you create in them.

It wouldn't surprise me if he suffers from a neurodevelopmental disorder... something about his brand of arrogance strikes me as deeply pathological. It may not be his fault.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:04:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 1:14:09 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'll throw a question at you, YYW. Where's the line in political correctness? I assuming you're against the employment of vitriolic or hateful diction, such as f*ggot, n*gger, or r*tard. Refraining from employing such offensive terminology designed to belittle and disgrace entire groups of people - and shunning those who do

Shunning anyone for their word choice or mindset isn't productive. It isn't like we all haven't had a discussion with someone blatantly racist before. It is just better to respect there views than be equally childish and confrontational by attacking their word choice.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:07:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:03:39 AM, 000ike wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if he suffers from a neurodevelopmental disorder... something about his brand of arrogance strikes me as deeply pathological. It may not be his fault.

This is one of, if not the, most profoundly absurd things you've ever posted.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:08:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:04:59 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/18/2015 1:14:09 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
I'll throw a question at you, YYW. Where's the line in political correctness? I assuming you're against the employment of vitriolic or hateful diction, such as f*ggot, n*gger, or r*tard. Refraining from employing such offensive terminology designed to belittle and disgrace entire groups of people - and shunning those who do

Shunning anyone for their word choice or mindset isn't productive. It isn't like we all haven't had a discussion with someone blatantly racist before. It is just better to respect there views than be equally childish and confrontational by attacking their word choice.

I think that's a very reasonable response.
Tsar of DDO
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:13:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
YYW, you are arrogant and condescending. People will be more welcoming if you are at least open about it.

Let's hope I do not receive an update on my psyche in responce to this post
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:16:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:13:24 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
YYW, you are arrogant and condescending. People will be more welcoming if you are at least open about it.

Let's hope I do not receive an update on my psyche in responce to this post

loololol
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:16:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Btw, the only reason words like nigger and faggot are associated with so much negativity is due to political correctness in the first place. It wouldn't be hard to imagine the use of the word black and gay being completely intolerable 100 years from now if this keeps up.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:16:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:13:24 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
YYW, you are arrogant and condescending. People will be more welcoming if you are at least open about it.

We can have a discussion about my arrogance and condescension in some other thread. In this instance, let's stick to political correctness.

Ironically political correctness is the height of arrogance and condescension.

Let's hope I do not receive an update on my psyche in responce to this post

lol
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:17:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:07:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2015 3:03:39 AM, 000ike wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if he suffers from a neurodevelopmental disorder... something about his brand of arrogance strikes me as deeply pathological. It may not be his fault.

This is one of, if not the, most profoundly absurd things you've ever posted.

Surely one must land somewhere on the autism spectrum to speak with the level of narcissism, self-aggrandizement, and sheer bombast that you do. If you really are perfectly psychologically healthy, then surely you must have some delayed social development and maturity.

How can someone be so pitilessly arrogant and be entirely oblivious of it? No, something's definitely terribly awry upstairs...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:20:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:17:13 AM, 000ike wrote:
How can someone be so pitilessly arrogant and be entirely oblivious of it? No, something's definitely terribly awry upstairs...

IF you want to have a discussion about me, that's certainly fine, but do not derail my thread.
Tsar of DDO
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:21:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A member of this site used to accuse me of having autism on one of my old accounts. In reality we are all insane. You do not need to have a mental illness to be stupid, nor do you need a mental illness to be a complete weirdo.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:25:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:21:38 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
A member of this site used to accuse me of having autism on one of my old accounts. In reality we are all insane. You do not need to have a mental illness to be stupid, nor do you need a mental illness to be a complete weirdo.

What disappoints me is that, now, Ike is not only being ironically politically incorrect (by his invocation of "autism"), but he's also just being dumb. He has no concept of what autism is, and clearly he doesn't understand it.
Tsar of DDO