Author Topic: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate  (Read 2868 times)

Offline Sal1981

Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« on: May 22, 2018, 09:55:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think Stephen Fry had the best opening and Dr. Jordan B Peterson the best, fiery, rebuttals.

Michael Dyson stinks to high heaven of a solipsist reasoning and race-baiter. All his points could be reduced to a lowest common denominator of collectivism and constant playing of identity politics *coughracecough*. Definitely a radical leftist by any stretch of the word.

Goldberg was rather tame and only offered standard talking points. Didn't really stand out, IMO.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2018, 09:58:37 AM »
I've rarely seen anyone complaining about political correctness who wasn't angry because they couldn't insult as many people as they'd like.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Cavebear

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2018, 10:45:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've rarely seen anyone complaining about political correctness who wasn't angry because they couldn't insult as many people as they'd like.

I care.  Or don't where are you from that this matters///
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2018, 12:15:15 PM »
Eh?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline trdsf

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2018, 07:55:59 PM »
I appreciate the *idea* of 'political correctness' -- to avoid hurtful speech and actions -- but Jesus H fucking Christ on a popsicle stick, I loathe its implementation with every fiber of my being.  PC lost its way when it mistook words for context.

It's perfectly okay for me to refer to myself as a 'dumb Polack' when I do something stupid, because I know the sense in which I mean that.

I had a roommate who said that I was merely homosexual and not actually gay because to be gay required a certain amount of "fabulousness".  When he saw the detail I put into wrapping holiday presents, he declared that I had vaulted past 'gay' and right into the middle of 'art fag'.  Because of context, I knew the sense in which it was meant and I laughed my ass off.

But there is a certain flavor of PC that says the words 'Polack' and 'fag' and probably even 'dumb' are inherently bad words, without pausing a microsecond to consider usage.

And they are wrong.

It's reached the point where you use You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login just because it sounds like a racial epithet.  It isn't one—the words are etymologically unrelated—but apparently guilt by association is a thing.

I say fuck that, and fuck them.  To quote the movie Inherit the Wind, "Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands."
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2018, 09:03:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I had a roommate who said that I was merely homosexual and not actually gay because to be gay required a certain amount of "fabulousness".  When he saw the detail I put into wrapping holiday presents, he declared that I had vaulted past 'gay' and right into the middle of 'art fag'.  Because of context, I knew the sense in which it was meant and I laughed my ass off.

But there is a certain flavor of PC that says the words 'Polack' and 'fag' and probably even 'dumb' are inherently bad words, without pausing a microsecond to consider usage.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“You are the sky. Everything else – it’s just the weather.”

― Pema Chödrön

Online Hydra009

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2018, 09:12:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I appreciate the *idea* of 'political correctness' -- to avoid hurtful speech and actions -- but Jesus H fucking Christ on a popsicle stick, I loathe its implementation with every fiber of my being.  PC lost its way when it mistook words for context.
My thoughts exactly.

Offline Baruch

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2018, 11:20:47 PM »
A debate on PC speech?  Makes me think of two little old ladies throwing embroidered hankies at each other ;-)

In a debate, things might get rough, because usually participants think the others are idiots.
𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎌𐎀𐎍𐎎𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀𐎟𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎁𐎀𐎍𐎉𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2018, 12:31:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A debate on PC speech?  Makes me think of two little old ladies throwing embroidered hankies at each other ;-)

In a debate, things might get rough, because usually participants think the others are idiots.

Most of the debate wasn't about PC speech. Peterson talked about radical Leftists, Dyson talked about race in America and their acrimony toward one another was blatant. Goldberg and Fry, neither living in a university bubble, both knew what most people generally mean when they refer to political correctness and Fry pointed out they were not addressing the topic. I found the debate interesting but unproductive. My favorite moment was when Fry, in a very un-PC manner, referred to Dyson's oratory preaching style as hucksterism and snake oil-- Dyson didn't appreciate that crack one bit.
“You are the sky. Everything else – it’s just the weather.”

― Pema Chödrön

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2018, 03:37:53 AM »
People need to take responsibility for their own feelings. My words don't make you feel anything - your perception, and subsequently your cognition, causes you to 'feel' things, including offense. Take responsibility for it and stop trying to curtail my speech, faggots.

That's my hot take on it.

Offline pr126

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2018, 05:23:37 AM »
Political correctness is tyranny with manners.
"Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their free will."
 - Joseph Goebbels

Cognitive-dissonance is fighting for women's rights and LBGT rights while defending Islam and Muslims against "Islamophobia".

Offline Sal1981

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2018, 06:12:37 AM »
DoctorRandomercam has an alternative view:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Cavebear

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2018, 02:58:50 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People need to take responsibility for their own feelings. My words don't make you feel anything - your perception, and subsequently your cognition, causes you to 'feel' things, including offense. Take responsibility for it and stop trying to curtail my speech, faggots.

That's my hot take on it.

I take responsibility for my own speech.  I'll defend it (allowing for occasional typos - I tend to leave off "n'ts" by thinking ahead of my typing).  Sad...

I read your words and consider them.  That doesn't mean I agree, but I do read and consider them.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline SGOS

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2018, 06:43:10 AM »
I was visiting a friend in Portland, OR when I used the term "politically correct."  His response was that he didn't like the term, because it didn't mean anything, and challenged me to define it.  I realized it's one of those words we all know the meaning of.  It's just that the meaning changes from person to person.  We all know the meaning, just not the same meaning.

Setting my definition aside, while observing others using it, I would say it is a non-descriptive pejorative, similar to a phrase like  "asshole idea."  It fails to explain or even understand what an the idea is, but it labels it as something negative thought up by half a brain.

To me, a politically correct idea might be good, bad, true, or false.  It is simply something advanced by a majority.  It could be the total majority, or a majority of a sub group.  20 years ago, it was politically correct to claim that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.  If you didn't believe this, you were considered an airhead, because the majority knew it was true, even though there was no means by which to actually know this.

Unfortunately, the term does seem rather worthless.  Things are either correct or incorrect.  There is no need for a vague qualifier like "politically" correct.  "Politically" is a notion and vague, and devalues the meaning of "correct."  It is similar to the fashionable way we use the word "fact" today.  Something is either a fact or it is not.  It's fools play to talk about "alternate" facts.  Nothing of value is added to the concept of "fact."  It actually devalues a fact.  But it is politically correct to talk and think in absurd ways.  It's fashionable and politically correct.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2018, 07:19:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I was visiting a friend in Portland, OR when I used the term "politically correct."  His response was that he didn't like the term, because it didn't mean anything, and challenged me to define it.  I realized it's one of those words we all know the meaning of.  It's just that the meaning changes from person to person.  We all know the meaning, just not the same meaning.

Setting my definition aside, while observing others using it, I would say it is a non-descriptive pejorative, similar to a phrase like  "asshole idea."  It fails to explain or even understand what an the idea is, but it labels it as something negative thought up by half a brain.

To me, a politically correct idea might be good, bad, true, or false.  It is simply something advanced by a majority.  It could be the total majority, or a majority of a sub group.  20 years ago, it was politically correct to claim that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.  If you didn't believe this, you were considered an airhead, because the majority knew it was true, even though there was no means by which to actually know this.

Unfortunately, the term does seem rather worthless.  Things are either correct or incorrect.  There is no need for a vague qualifier like "politically" correct.  "Politically" is a notion and vague, and devalues the meaning of "correct."  It is similar to the fashionable way we use the word "fact" today.  Something is either a fact or it is not.  It's fools play to talk about "alternate" facts.  Nothing of value is added to the concept of "fact."  It actually devalues a fact.  But it is politically correct to talk and think in absurd ways.  It's fashionable and politically correct.

OK, that's something worth discussing.  I tend to think of "political correctness " as either saying things you think because your collective friends think that way, or avoiding saying things your group may disagree with.  Though I am not known for doing either...

But I will suggest it is NOT saying what a political leader says just because you think he/she wants to hear that.  THAT gets into sycopanthy.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk