Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ram23

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I guess if you have to tell yourself that to justify not being willing to listen to other people's opinions then have at it. I just don't understand why you're a member of a message board that discusses politics if you're not interested in being challenged.


I was unaware that my Current Events posts have somehow gone “unchallenged” for the last 14 months ... seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get to decide what gender you are and I will refer to you as such even if you correct me. Do not challenge my religious freedom.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gramarye said:


I was unaware that my Current Events posts have somehow gone “unchallenged” for the last 14 months ... seriously?

 

No, you're right. You tolerate some of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Yes, he would be able to troll me more if I hadn't blocked him, and we could go back to having the toxic and unproductive conversations we had in 2018 and earlier.  You're probably right that he would just be calling me an unhinged conspiracy theorist or other personal attacks.  Which, of course, is not "dialogue," it's just baseless verbal abuse that I'm happier continuing to ignore, and the overall quality of discussion on the Current Events boards is better for it, too.  Seriously, go back and read some of the "dialogues" we had in 2018 and earlier.  They accomplished nothing but increased blood pressure and post counts.

 

He's not going to see this (and we don't need to keep up the "Cite DaS to make him read this" exercise at this point - it was pointed out to the Admins long ago the hypocrisy of a Mod blocking multiple people on this forum, requesting other people not cite our posts to him, and our inability to place a mod on an "ignore" list and nothing happened, meaning this ridiculousness is greenlighted, but it's not our site so nothing can be done about it), but the people who cite "PC police are on a crusade to control everyone's speech" are not taken seriously in most parts of our society.  Because it's an unhinged conspiracy theory.  It's just the right slashing about trying to find another thing they can claim they are the "victim" of.  If you ask for evidence, they will of course provide the stories shared in this very thread.  The equal or greater number of stories shared of "PC run amok" where it's a supposed liberal being infringed upon?  Silence.  We have 67 pages of Gram, Ram, EVD, etc. never engaging when the supposed "PC police" run the other way.  That's how we know they're not serious.  That's how we know there isn't a shadowy PC police group who wants to control everyone's speech.  Because if you only acknowledge it when your "team" is the one in the crossfire and routinely ignore it when the "other team" is, you don't care about free speech or anything remotely resembling it.  You want people who believe things like you do to be able to play victim and you need a bully to lash out at - in this case, a made up "PC police."

 

Notice how Gram hasn't once acknowledged that this supposed case at Shawnee State is actually about a professor violating his employer's code of conduct.  You know, how an actual judge saw it.  Nope.  It's about a vast conspiracy to overthrow the right's religious beliefs.  Not, you know, basic employment law.  That is how we know this isn't a serious accusation of political correctness.  For folks who love to tell us about the free market, they sure seem to be ignoring a basic tenet of free market employment - that employers are free to enforce a code of conduct that this professor knew about when he signed his contract but still chose to violate.  But, again, you won't get a single hyped up conservative to acknowledge that basic fact.  Once they get into victim mode, they only have tunnel vision.

 

And The Federalist is closer to Breitbart than it is The Weekly Standard, the WSJ, or the Washington Examiner.  It really is a joke to be citing it because it has been shown to push conspiracy theory takes.  I don't mind right-leaning biased outlets - like I said, I read them from time to time, no use living in a bubble - but The Federalist is widely acknowledged as one of the most extreme outlets.  Basically only RedState and InfoWars are farther right / more extreme.  But I suppose citing NBC or whatever, where they'd just state the facts of the case, doesn't help your case of a "PC out of control!" that you want to portray.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gramarye you do take a lot of flak here but you typically keep your cool and don’t insult.  You’re someone I have disagreements with but respect because your positions are usually defensible and thoughtful.  I’ve wondered how people who genuinely use sound logic to inform their positions can come to such different conclusions, and I end up feeling it comes down to the sources of information.  Regardless, just calling out that I enjoy hearing your thoughts because it’s one of the few places I can hear a reasoned right-leaning position that doesn’t come from a national publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

He's not going to see this (and we don't need to keep up the "Cite DaS to make him read this" exercise at this point - it was pointed out to the Admins long ago the hypocrisy of a Mod blocking multiple people on this forum, requesting other people not cite our posts to him, and our inability to place a mod on an "ignore" list and nothing happened, meaning this ridiculousness is greenlighted, but it's not our site so nothing can be done about it), but the people who cite "PC police are on a crusade to control everyone's speech" are not taken seriously in most parts of our society.  Because it's an unhinged conspiracy theory.  It's just the right slashing about trying to find another thing they can claim they are the "victim" of.  If you ask for evidence, they will of course provide the stories shared in this very thread.  The equal or greater number of stories shared of "PC run amok" where it's a supposed liberal being infringed upon?  Silence.  We have 67 pages of Gram, Ram, EVD, etc. never engaging when the supposed "PC police" run the other way.  That's how we know they're not serious.  That's how we know there isn't a shadowy PC police group who wants to control everyone's speech.  Because if you only acknowledge it when your "team" is the one in the crossfire and routinely ignore it when the "other team" is, you don't care about free speech or anything remotely resembling it.  You want people who believe things like you do to be able to play victim and you need a bully to lash out at - in this case, a made up "PC police."

 

Notice how Gram hasn't once acknowledged that this supposed case at Shawnee State is actually about a professor violating his employer's code of conduct.  You know, how an actual judge saw it.  Nope.  It's about a vast conspiracy to overthrow the right's religious beliefs.  Not, you know, basic employment law.  That is how we know this isn't a serious accusation of political correctness.  For folks who love to tell us about the free market, they sure seem to be ignoring a basic tenet of free market employment - that employers are free to enforce a code of conduct that this professor knew about when he signed his contract but still chose to violate.  But, again, you won't get a single hyped up conservative to acknowledge that basic fact.  Once they get into victim mode, they only have tunnel vision.

 

And The Federalist is closer to Breitbart than it is The Weekly Standard, the WSJ, or the Washington Examiner.  It really is a joke to be citing it because it has been shown to push conspiracy theory takes.  I don't mind right-leaning biased outlets - like I said, I read them from time to time, no use living in a bubble - but The Federalist is widely acknowledged as one of the most extreme outlets.  Basically only RedState and InfoWars are farther right / more extreme.  But I suppose citing NBC or whatever, where they'd just state the facts of the case, doesn't help your case of a "PC out of control!" that you want to portray.

 

I'd like to know what's so special about religious viewpoints that their protection must be codified into law beyond the 1st Amendment?  In America, the people who demand "religious freedom" are really only talking about Christianity.  Those same people will argue against other religions (or lack thereof) having influence in public schools, will get outraged if you don't say Merry Christmas and will freak out if they see a Muslim wearing a hijab.  They're not *for* religious freedom.  They're for their brand of a theocracy.  The 1st Amendment protects the freedom to practice a religion from government intervention or persecution.  It does not, however, protect religious views from criticism, whether from the public or private enterprise.  It does not mean that they get to do whatever they want in the name of religion.  It does not guarantee that a specific religion or view gets legal or cultural favoritism   Yet that favoritism is exactly what the religious freedom folks really want- a nation in which only their views have prominence and rights.  And they want to be able to use their views to control how others live while calling any criticism of that control "PC".  Religious freedom is just a cover for being able to discriminate and always has been.  There's nothing about it worthy of support or special treatment.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know you could block/shadowblock people on urbanohio. So DarkandStormy, you can see his comments but Gramm can't read yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TBideon said:

I didn't even know you could block/shadowblock people on urbanohio. So DarkandStormy, you can see his comments but Gramm can't read yours?

 

If you hover over a username, you can then click the option to "Ignore User."  Non-mods cannot ignore mods.  So yes, every post of Gram's shows up as readable to me in every thread.  Gram can only read my comments if he chooses to click a button or something to unblock that specific post (which I assume he does when we are talking about Tesla or any other non-political topic).

 

12 hours ago, Gramarye said:

They accomplished nothing but increased blood pressure and post counts.

 

My blood pressure has remained the same at every doctor's visit I've had.  So I assume he just means he didn't like being challenged on his viewpoints/posts?  Because jonoh did the same and got similar treatment.  Which, sure, fine, if you want to live in a bubble feel free.  Just seems counterintuitive to do that while taking on moderator duties, let alone joining a forum that is going to feature a diverse set of viewpoints and opinions.  But again, not my place to tell people how to live their lives.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gramarye said:


I was unaware that my Current Events posts have somehow gone “unchallenged” for the last 14 months ... seriously?

 

Wish I could click a "laugh" on this.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Again, I would ask both of you, how did this professor supposedly know the biological sex of the student? Did the professor inspect their genitalia?

 

You guys really work hard to defend being a d*ck to people.

 

It seems like the people who get the most "offended" and push the limits the hardest are the most obvious.

 

The Gamestop "ma'am" guy and Jonathan Yaniv come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

It seems like the people who get the most "offended" and push the limits the hardest are the most obvious.

 

The Gamestop "ma'am" guy and Jonathan Yaniv come to mind.

 

The most obvious what?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 5:16 PM, DEPACincy said:

And honestly, I've never met a transgender person that would expect you to know their gender if they do not appear conforming. I once mistakenly called a man "she" and he politely informed me that he preferred "he." I said "oops, I'm so sorry" and his response was "it's okay, you didn't know." Easy peasy. No one was harmed and everyone walked away feeling good about the interaction.

 

Most of the time, when I hear people complaining about PC "pronouns", they're like, how am I supposed to know what pronouns to use?! And if I use the wrong one, suddenly, I'm the bad guy?! This is ridiculous!

 

In reality, what usually happens is what DEPA described above. If someone looks like a woman to you and you call them "ma'am", and they say, "actually, I'd like to be called [x]", then you call them "[x]" going forward, and no one is mad, and everyone moves on with their lives. The person who (sincerely) used the wrong pronoun is not murdered and does not have their career ruined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Most obviously born male.

 

I have a suspicion you wouldn't be able to tell as much as you think, at least not in the end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 4:33 PM, Gramarye said:

 

I have not been given a good reason to consider The Federalist an unserious source other than that it is conservative and frequently politically incorrect, i.e., does not buy into prevailing progressive media narratives or postmodern academic gender theory nonsense. 

 

Doesn't this person write for The Federalist?

 

ERvhnv7W4AEEfj0.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 11:39 AM, ck said:

So I'm really struggling with the whole thing around getting to choose your gender identity.  The logic is hard to compute for me, so many different areas where if we applied the same logic everyone would be confused.  But, I read the article and I saw he had the option of simply not referring to anyone by Mr. or Ms. and instead just use their last name.  He didn't want to do that.  I think that should have been the middle ground and was a reasonable alternative for him.  

 

 

Talking to a transgender person is the best way to understand it.

 

"Call someone what they want to be called" is a pretty simple rule, don't overthink it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 12:01 PM, E Rocc said:

 

It seems like the people who get the most "offended" and push the limits the hardest are the most obvious.

 

The Gamestop "ma'am" guy and Jonathan Yaniv come to mind.

The fascination conservatives have with hyperbolic scenarios is... strange, but using them for ammo to push discriminatory legislation is depraved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Talking to a transgender person is the best way to understand it.

 

"Call someone what they want to be called" is a pretty simple rule, don't overthink it.

 

Ya I don't have a problem with calling people what they want to be called, as I called out later in the thread - my confusion is more around ancillary issues.  Like can someone who was born a man but wants to be a woman compete in women's sports?  Lots of issues like that confuse me.  Calling someone a different pronoun is not confusing, as long as they accept that it's them asking others to alter social norms and it's less than 1% of the population requesting this so it will catch a lot of people off guard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the sports thing is a complicated issue. You don't have to have an opinion on everything.

 

8 minutes ago, ck said:

than 1% of the population requesting this so it will catch a lot of people off guard. 

Much higher in some social circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya and your family members are a much higher percent at your family gatherings...  Not sure where you were going there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone ask Burning Man his pronouns?  I believe the implication is that the Burning Man is straight.  What if, instead, the festival started burning women and trans people? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 8:34 PM, ck said:

Ya and your family members are a much higher percent at your family gatherings...  Not sure where you were going there.  

meaning that the social distribution is not uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2020 at 4:52 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

I have a suspicion you wouldn't be able to tell as much as you think, at least not in the end.  

 

My point is it seems the people that get the most loudly offended are the easiest to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

My point is it seems the people that get the most loudly offended are the easiest to tell.

 

Maybe, but there might be a perfectly logical reason for that.  A psychologist would probably say that "being loudly offended" is a defense mechanism from the regular discrimination they receive.  I imagine it's a very precarious position to have gender dysphoria, but either not yet be started in the transition, or only in the beginning stages when they're not yet fully passable, a time when they would be most vulnerable because they can't hide it. Every time someone cracks a joke or refers to a MTF in male pronouns, it's a continuing humiliation.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good one:

 

 

What's dumb about this is that they couldn't really come up with a word that conveyed the same meaning. "Lover" sounds like more of a one-night stand and "companion" sounds like a friend or a pet. There really isn't another term (or, rather, not a more appropriate term), which leads me to believe the intention is that the AP style guide simple wants us to not think about nor discuss such circumstances at all. You can't talk about a woman being a mistress if the word mistress disappears from the lexicon.

 

As always, these sorts of nonsensical moves remind me of one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite books:

 

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,” he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What do we call a man that is in a long-term sexual relationship with, and financially supported by, a women who is married to someone else?  Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hootenany said:

^What do we call a man that is in a long-term sexual relationship with, and financially supported by, a women who is married to someone else?  Just curious.

 

Lecher.  Philanderer.  Cad.  Cheat.

 

If you want to do something gender-neutral that still captures the severity of the issue, maybe "adulterer" or "homewrecker."  Much more appropriate than "companion" or "lover."

 

I do not give the APA the beneficent presumption of mere incompetence on this.  They knew very well that they were intending to morally sanitize having affairs, not merely change the label for one of the people involved.  They're trying to deny people the language to express just how not OK this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I wouldn't use homewrecker either to describe the lesser of two evils in the relationship described above.  Sure, it takes two to tango, but the term "mistress" in a way stigmatizes the female half of a consensual sexual relationship when it's the male counterpart that's cheating on their spouse.  At least that's my perspective.  Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, but I don't think the AP is attempting to morally sanitize affairs.  Instead I see them attempting to place the majority of the blame where it belongs - with the one who is actually cheating on their spouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a member of the LGBT(etc) group(a G), I am having a bit of a problem with some of the more extreme elements of the T. 

 

There has been some internet talk lately where biological women are being shamed for talking about their periods from male to female transwomen, talk about "girl d**K', even statements like "God created in his image not biological women,  but transwomen", and some other stuff like this (including that transwomen are the "real women" and are superior to biological women,) etc. and plenty of biowomen feminists are not here for it.

 

There are 17 year old transgenders who are male and have taken no female hormones but are participating in female sports-and dominating. They are completely biologically male-no alterations or hormones differ them from males. Records have been broken in some track stuff by these transgender athletes, and is this really fair? This has happened in Connecticut.

 

Also some feminists believe that transwomen are trying to "take over" the spaces of biological women, and not just the bathroom stuff(I don't care about that myself-not a big deal). I am talking about demanding that women's sanitary products no longer carry a "female only" label(really now?), that protective shelters for biological females who are suffering abuse must be open for transwomen-including those who have not undergone re-assignment surgery, the derogatory usage of the term "TERF"-trans exclusive radical feminist to describe any biological women who has any question whatsoever about any of this, etc.

 

There seems to be a growing number of biowomen and feminists who are getting fed up with what they see as the encroachment of particularly transwomen into biowomen's spaces.

 

 

It even has me wondering if maybe the "T" should be a separate entity and it should be just "LGB"-although I am still thinking that as long as the most radical of the "T"s don't take over completely I would be opposed to this separation. But it is disturbing to me that I even am thinking about it. There are a number of LGB's who think that the 'T' has gone too far and will drag the whole movement down. I don't have a problem with T rights and using the pronouns a person would prefer, etc. but some of this radical T stuff seems to be increasing. I can understand the concerns that some biological women(I will not use the term "ciswomen"-it is not up to the majority to have to adopt such a term and I see it as women(biological women)and transwomen(born male, now female)are having.

 

 

 

So what do people think of this?

 

It seems like a significant number of people in the LGBT(etc) movement have been discussing this.

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hootenany said:

^I wouldn't use homewrecker either to describe the lesser of two evils in the relationship described above.  Sure, it takes two to tango, but the term "mistress" in a way stigmatizes the female half of a consensual sexual relationship when it's the male counterpart that's cheating on their spouse.  At least that's my perspective.  Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, but I don't think the AP is attempting to morally sanitize affairs.  Instead I see them attempting to place the majority of the blame where it belongs - with the one who is actually cheating on their spouse.

 

Fair point, but my point was that if the APA were seeking a term that was "merely" gender-neutral, I'd be happy to start applying the term homewrecker to both.  (I don't see the man as more culpable unless he lied to his mistress about the fact that he was married.)  But "lover" or "companion" is far too positive a term for either of them; the APA wasn't going for gender-neutrality, they were going for moral neutrality.  Heck, they practically go beyond that to make it sound exciting and fulfilling and not something to be concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, freefourur said:

why don't we go with side-piece as the catch all term?  😂😂

 

Well, doesn't that imply the existence of a "main piece?"

 

In the scenario Hoot and I were discussing above, I think the operating assumption was that the philandering husband had a "main piece," but the mistress didn't.  (Though of course that's not a given.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hootenany said:

^I wouldn't use homewrecker either to describe the lesser of two evils in the relationship described above.  Sure, it takes two to tango, but the term "mistress" in a way stigmatizes the female half of a consensual sexual relationship when it's the male counterpart that's cheating on their spouse.  At least that's my perspective.  Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, but I don't think the AP is attempting to morally sanitize affairs.  Instead I see them attempting to place the majority of the blame where it belongs - with the one who is actually cheating on their spouse.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the term "mistress" dates back to the era of pseudo-arranged marriages and especially those of the European upper class.

 

We Americans hardly had mistresses, and we certainly didn't have concubines.  I had a Chinese-American professor who grew up in Manhattan's Chinatown told us about how his grandfather in Shanghai had no less than 60 concubines.  He moved to New York City with much of the family in 1949 to escape Mao and had a family reunion in the 1970s with roughly 500 attendees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Toddguy said:

So what do people think of this?

 

I imagine it being like somebody new moving into the condo complex and taking over the HOA with their "concerns". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Atlantic Ocean must be cancelled.  Atlantis had slaves, of course, and without the ocean there would have been no Columbus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City Council Member Chris Smitherman is pretending to be "triggered" by a statement made by his colleague and trying to "cancel" him:

 

 

His colleague's explanation for his statement:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people are so consumed by their desire to be offended that it has a quantifiable impact on their cognitive functions - specifically, they aren't productive workers because they're so hyper-focused on micro-aggressions:

 

Study Reveals That Easily Offended People Are Less Productive, Bad Employees

 

The study, conducted by Dr. Jeremy Berneth, involved asking almost 400 employees, aged 25.9 on average, across seven US colleges about different events that have recently gotten “substantial media attention”.

 

The study notes that the events consisted of “17 items developed to assess the proclivity to be offended, eight moral outrage items, 11 microagression items and nine political correctness items.”

 

...

 

Dr Berneth found that high PTBOs are less productive, because they are constantly worrying about how the organizations they work for are “less fair,” than everywhere else, and they “consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.”

 

“The person offended by everyday occurrences diverts important and limited cognitive resources away from the client (and potential sale) towards a task-irrelevant stimuli.” the study notes.

 

 

Read More

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati City Council Member Christopher Smitherman is super triggered over the fact that PG Sittenfeld and Chris Seelbach used the word "bruh" in text messages to eachother. He perceives this as a micro-agression towards African Americans and AAVE. Not sure if that has anything to do with Smitherman being a bad council member.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, taestell said:

Cincinnati City Council Member Christopher Smitherman is super triggered over the fact that PG Sittenfeld and Chris Seelbach used the word "bruh" in text messages to eachother. He perceives this as a micro-agression towards African Americans and AAVE. Not sure if that has anything to do with Smitherman being a bad council member.

 

Yeah if you're a politician don't text message and don't write your own emails.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

The study was published in the Journal of Business Research, a peer-reviewed academic journal. They provide a copy of the full study if you don't care for the commentary.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296320303416?via%3Dihub

Wouldn't this research lead to the conclusion that an organization should work on not allowing offensive behavior in the workplace. It seems to be treating the behavior as an uncontrollable neutral force that simply exists. It would behoove business owners to root out offensive people because their disruption cause loss of productivity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Wouldn't this research lead to the conclusion that an organization should work on not allowing offensive behavior in the workplace. It seems to be treating the behavior as an uncontrollable neutral force that simply exists. It would behoove business owners to root out offensive people because their disruption cause loss of productivity.

 

The idea is that people who have a proclivity to be offended (PTBO) are going to by hyper-focused on their endless search for things to be offended by, regardless of whether or not they actually exist. This behavior is seemingly more detrimental to organizational productivity than actual offensive behavior.

 

I think I've noted before that "cancel culture" is significantly different from actually taking offense to something. Going out and searching for things to be offended by is not the same as someone offending you. You have to go really out of your way, for example, to be offended by a statue of William Henry Harrison. It doesn't just happen naturally, it requires significant time and effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

The idea is that people who have a proclivity to be offended (PTBO) are going to by hyper-focused on their endless search for things to be offended by, regardless of whether or not they actually exist. This behavior is seemingly more detrimental to organizational productivity than actual offensive behavior.

 

I think I've noted before that "cancel culture" is significantly different from actually taking offense to something. Going out and searching for things to be offended by is not the same as someone offending you. You have to go really out of your way, for example, to be offended by a statue of William Henry Harrison. It doesn't just happen naturally, it requires significant time and effort.

 

Basically a non answer with conservative made up catch phrases.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

Basically a non answer with conservative made up catch phrases.  

 

Well over 100 years ago, Dostoevsky called out the fraud of those beating the drum for a more egalitarian society - if the society they espouse were to come to pass, the advocates would lose the status they enjoy.  In his 1920s writing for The Toronto Star, Hemingway called out the fake bohemians in Paris.  

 

It's all the same thing.  It never ends.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As liberal as I am, I think "cancel culture" has gone too far.  At times it is not that the behavior is offensive to most or reasonable people. Look at what is happening to JK Rowlings online-getting death threats and rape threats just because she is trying to defend women being women and having a right to women's spaces. SMH! If the mainstream T's do not get the radical T's inline then I am going to have to disconnect myself with any LGBTQ+ organizations. I can't support women and their rights and have their spaces invaded. Intersectionality is a B****.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...