Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ram23

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I had an old friend who was extreme left wing and made a lot of unhinged social media posts. Many could be considered quite offensive by those who did not agree with this individual  politically and the individual made many virulent attacks against conservatives. It just so happened that this individual works as a front line provider at a medical facility somewhere in the country (trying to be vague to protect his anonymity). Given some of this individual's posts, as someone who is not aligned politically with this individual, I would have similar concerns about this person treating a member of my family. At the same time, I still respect the individual's right to their beliefs and I would not seek to have them fired, but would find other ways to point out how damaging their social media presence may have been. .

 

Listen, I get it. It is a very personal matter, but at the same time, can be handled if everyone stepped back and took a deep breath. She was wrong, but what should the punishment be? Should it be the death penalty? Should she be fired without the ability to work in healthcare again the rest of her life? Should she be fired and not have the ability to work anywhere in the Tri-State area forever?  - Remember this was a social media post on a private board, not public.   She was wrong, she was wrong in her beliefs and she could use some different perspective in helping her evolve in her beliefs and maybe see the error of her ways.  That is much better than sending the mob after her because she made an ignorant statement on facebook. 

 

After all, if the goal is to teach tolerance and acceptance, what better way to change the hearts and minds then by teaching empathy. Doing it through the end of a sword is hardly effective long term, and only creates more resentment.

I don't have time right now to address your questions in full. But one salient difference is that being a Republican doesn't alter the approach one might take to their healthcare. It's not just a question of "will this person care less about my health" but also "will this person appropriately personalize my healthcare to my particular needs," which may actually hinge upon the exact thing the provider dislikes about the patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I'm not suggesting anything about police officers, but medical professionals, who certainly are a special case due to the Hippocratic Oath. But an expression of the attitude that any of the people police officers are meant to "protect and serve" deserve to die (because they OD'd or any other reason) should certainly be reviewed as potential cause for dismissal. The adversarial attitude by police toward members of the public is endemic and creates many problems which could be lessened if they weren't given a pass. Again, though, this is a separate topic as it's a bad analogy; police and medical professionals have different rules and circumstances.

 

Why does the Hippocratic Oath count more than the oath/motto to protect and serve?  Or, for that matter, the fact that no matter what the opinion of any individual officer is, the position of the mayor's office (a.k.a. the one with the political accountability to face the voters and defend spending government money on this policy, which I have personally heard Mayor Horrigan do ably, compassionately, and without apology at a ward meeting earlier this year) saying that we're going to do this?

 

I'm not trying to minimize the Hippocratic Oath, of course, but I think your elevation of the Hippocratic Oath minimizes the seriousness of law enforcement's own duties, though I can tell that wasn't really your intent.

 

Police officers aren't inherently first-line care providers the way paramedics are.  But the mayor's policy (with substantial public support) here has made them so.  Is that really so different?

 

(Also, just as an aside, do nurses even swear the Hippocratic Oath?)

Share this post


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

Why does the Hippocratic Oath count more than the oath/motto to protect and serve?

Because it's very explicitly about healthcare.

 

Quote

Police officers aren't inherently first-line care providers the way paramedics are.  But the mayor's policy (with substantial public support) here has made them so.  Is that really so different?

For the sake of analogy, yes. Because to say that they are the same requires a whole bunch of assumptions, which weakens the analogy. Losing the inherentness means gaining a whole bunch of contingencies.

 

Quote

I'm not trying to minimize the Hippocratic Oath, of course, but I think your elevation of the Hippocratic Oath minimizes the seriousness of law enforcement's own duties, though I can tell that wasn't really your intent.

Not my intent, but the Hippocratic Oath carries with it some special properties, such as holding thousands of years of tradition. As a conservative, that in itself should probably mean something to you. To me, it nods to its primacy and closeness to natural law. Policy decried by a mayor doesn't hold similar weight, or at the very least it is arguable that it does not. And, again, that weakens the analogy.

 

Quote

(Also, just as an aside, do nurses even swear the Hippocratic Oath?)

Good question, but unless you think nurses shouldn't adhere to its presently relevant tenets then I don't think it matters for our argument.

Share this post


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

I'm not suggesting anything about police officers, but medical professionals, who certainly are a special case due to the Hippocratic Oath. But an expression of the attitude that any of the people police officers are meant to "protect and serve" deserve to die (because they OD'd or any other reason) should certainly be reviewed as potential cause for dismissal. The adversarial attitude by police toward members of the public is endemic and creates many problems which could be lessened if they weren't given a pass. Again, though, this is a separate topic as it's a bad analogy; police and medical professionals have different rules and circumstances.

 

Gender and sexual orientation are very different than addiction, regardless of "sacrosanctity." I see where you're going with this, though, because your views probably draw equivalence between situations such as...

 

Being prone to addiction -> Being addicted -> Overdosing

and

Being gay -> "Practicing promiscuous homosexuality" -> Getting AIDS

 

While I emphatically disagree that these situations are analogous, I would say that a medical professional with discriminatory views toward people prone to addiction (particularly if the situation is so bad that they're blasting out slurs on Facebook) should pursue a different career path.

what about if it was a medical professional with views anti to conservatives? Wouldn't it be troublesome for a patient to worry about if the provider is truly providing the best level of care because they may disagree with their patient's political views? Would you not have the same worry if say a nurse practitioner or doctor or even X-ray tech held radical left wing views and treated someone in a MAGA shirt or even someone who was known to be sympathetic to more conservative viewpoints?

 

I think it would be reasonable for the patient to feel uncomfortable there too.

 

Which means, 1) don't express yourself at all on social media, no matter what your beliefs or,

2) do we just trust the medical professional that even if they vehemently disagree with us or maybe do not like our viewpoint, they will still do the right thing in the professional setting and treat us with respect.

 

Personally, I think number 2 is the far more realistic way to deal with things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 8:43 AM, DarkandStormy said:

4) An article of a few examples of "canceling" means kids aren't partying? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

 

Because these people have no sense of humor and don't know how to chill out.  They take themselves way too seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was state-of-the-art "cancel culture" back in 1981~, so about 40 years ago:

 

Look at how things have devolved thanks to Twitter.  Instead of hanging out and making and listening to music that brings people together, we have millions of know-it-alls on Twitter.

 

I just did the math.  You have to take 2,739 selfies per day to take one million selfies in a year.  Alternatively, you could cancel 2,739 people per day on Twitter.  Give an influencer a phone and he starts looking for nails!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^  1981 was near the beginning of a period where the different sides could get along, on a personal/individual level.   Even discussing politics.

Share this post


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

I found this funny and it really is my thoughts on this nonsense:

 

 

People don't like hearing contrary ideas and it becomes a natural response to want to hide in your "tribe"  To be fair we all have moments where we fall into this, even with  other members of this board,  and it takes work to force ourselves out of that thought process. "cancel Culture" in a way is our initial almost innate response (kind of like fight or flight). It is why it catches hold quickly and you see the mobs come for a person's head before you have time to truly think about the ramifications of such actions. Twitter (the cesspool of society) exacerbates this immensely because it allows the thoughts to spread instantaneously, and it allows the cancel culture to quickly mob up on the perceived offender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

People don't like hearing contrary ideas and it becomes a natural response to want to hide in your "tribe"  To be fair we all have moments where we fall into this, even with  other members of this board,  and it takes work to force ourselves out of that thought process. "cancel Culture" in a way is our initial almost innate response (kind of like fight or flight). It is why it catches hold quickly and you see the mobs come for a person's head before you have time to truly think about the ramifications of such actions. Twitter (the cesspool of society) exacerbates this immensely because it allows the thoughts to spread instantaneously, and it allows the cancel culture to quickly mob up on the perceived offender.

Cancel culture is not a real thing.  It is a concept created by online grifters.  

Share this post


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

 

Because these people have no sense of humor and don't know how to chill out.  They take themselves way too seriously. 

 

Wow. I'm sure glad we have the world's foremost expert on Gen Z on this forum. Such a resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Because these people have no sense of humor and don't know how to chill out.  They take themselves way too seriously. 

 

Anecdotes don't mean anything.  But, sure, tell us more about how all the teens these days don't party and why that's bad.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically, teens today do party a lot less as far as drinking and drugs go as compared to the '90s. It's way more about nerd stuff these days. D&D, online gaming, MTG, Pokemon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Statistically, teens today do party a lot less as far as drinking and drugs go as compared to the '90s. It's way more about nerd stuff these days. D&D, online gaming, MTG, Pokemon...

Not to mention teens in the 70's early 80's who were drinking and using drugs way more than those of the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Statistically, teens today do party a lot less as far as drinking and drugs go as compared to the '90s. It's way more about nerd stuff these days. D&D, online gaming, MTG, Pokemon...

 

TIL I would have much more fun as a teenager today than I did as a teenager in the '90s.

Share this post


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

Cancel culture is not a real thing.  It is a concept created by online grifters.  

 

A few months ago I heard Michael Jackson was cancelled but then I went to a wedding and they played 12 of his songs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Not to mention teens in the 70's early 80's who were drinking and using drugs way more than those of the 90's.

Interests and values change as time goes on. In the 70s and 80s and even 90s you could get away with a lot more. People could not snoop on you as easily. That has changed a lot of teenage behaviors.

 

Even back in college, I remember drinking (underage) with the swim coaches and families at the end of the year party. People would take photos all the time and it was no big deal.

 

Today, that would cause the coach to be fired.

 

Times change. Today, the risk is the kids sexting or sending revenge porn photos of their ex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Interests and values change as time goes on. In the 70s and 80s and even 90s you could get away with a lot more. People could not snoop on you as easily. That has changed a lot of teenage behaviors.

 

Even back in college, I remember drinking (underage) with the swim coaches and families at the end of the year party. People would take photos all the time and it was no big deal.

 

Today, that would cause the coach to be fired.

 

Times change. Today, the risk is the kids sexting or sending revenge porn photos of their ex.

When I think of some of the things that I have done in the 70's 80's and even the 90's, I thank CHRIST that nobody had smart phones, etc. so anything and everything I did could be recorded. There is no audio-visual-internet documentation of that stuff, thank God.  Just a few pics that I have never seen on the internet and pray that I never do see online. 

Share this post


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

When I think of some of the things that I have done in the 70's 80's and even the 90's, I thank CHRIST that nobody had smart phones, etc. so anything and everything I did could be recorded. There is no audio-visual-internet documentation of that stuff, thank God.  Just a few pics that I have never seen on the internet and pray that I never do see online. 

I did a lot of stuff in the 90s that I wouldn't want online that is for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me waiting for some overly sensitive liberal to get triggered by Christmas lyrics, thereby triggering some overly sensitive Conservative to declare the War on Christmas ceasefire has lapsed and the shelling of the North Pole has commenced:

 

image.png.4f8fafd66e9f517ed7062d084d9eca09.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I am eagerly awaiting the new Starbucks holiday cups and the backlash from conservatives that they are not Chrismasy enough. The War on Christmas is my favorite part of winter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for Trumpies to tell us for the 3rd (4th?) straight year that we're saying, "Merry Christmas" again at the White House, despite Obama saying it every holiday season on tape, Facebook, or Twitter.  A tradition unlike any other.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes, I remember the Obama when our guns were taken away and I was forbidden from saying Merry Christmas. But now dear leader has returned the joy of Christmas to us all. 

Share this post


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

I did a lot of stuff in the 90s that I wouldn't want online that is for sure. 

 

If my Motorola pager could talk....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

I can't wait for Trumpies to tell us for the 3rd (4th?) straight year that we're saying, "Merry Christmas" again at the White House, despite Obama saying it every holiday season on tape, Facebook, or Twitter.  A tradition unlike any other.

 

What good is a religion if you can't use it as a cudgel against perceived others?

Share this post


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

^ I am eagerly awaiting the new Starbucks holiday cups and the backlash from conservatives that they are not Chrismasy enough. The War on Christmas is my favorite part of winter. 

I never understood the starbucks cups thing. The cups were bright red with the green starbucks logo on them. That is pretty Christmas in my eyes at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I never understood the starbucks cups thing. The cups were bright red with the green starbucks logo on them. That is pretty Christmas in my eyes at least.

 

Look Brutus, if I can't enjoy a $7 soy latte in a cup that adequately portrays the birth of our lord, then what can I enjoy?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

^No possible slight gets past snowflakes

 

Conservatives have victim culture perfected.Ass long as you remember that everything they complain is projection it makes life easier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Statistically, teens today do party a lot less as far as drinking and drugs go as compared to the '90s. It's way more about nerd stuff these days. D&D, online gaming, MTG, Pokemon...

 

It is true that teens drink less today than they did in generations past. But if you go to Athens, or Columbus, or Kent, or Uptown Cincinnati and visit the bars you'll see that this hand-wringing about kids not partying anymore and being isolated in their dorm rooms is bunk. Uptown Athens is nicer now than it was when I was in college. Many of the bars have been renovated. There are new eateries and bars, etc. But the scene is still the same. Those places are PACKED every weekend, with lines around the block to get in. And inside the scene is much the same as it was 15 years ago.

Share this post


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

 

Anecdotes don't mean anything.  But, sure, tell us more about how all the teens these days don't party and why that's bad.

 

Anecdotes are everything.  People who spent their childhoods indoors don't have any anecdotes.  College-age partying is a continuation of childhood play.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This piece showed up in my Twitter feed today. It's a good encapsulation of the right wing hand wringing about a largely made up problem. 

 

 

There’s an enduring feature of the national media that I’ve taken to calling the “student panic industrial complex.”

Here’s how it works: Minor college campus controversies involving diversity and/or free speech get breathlessly reported by the right-wing press, laundered into the mainstream by click-hungry neutral outlets, and eventually become fodder for breathless takes from conservatives and moderate liberals about the supposed authoritarianism of Kids Today and their “woke” ideology. The cycle uses a few absurd-sounding cases to create a sense of crisis about the state of American college campuses, in complete contradiction of both the aggregate data and sometimes even the basic facts of the campus controversy in question.

 

This is not, fundamentally, a story about Oberlin. It’s a story about how parts of the national media have developed an unhealthy relationship with college campuses, treating the low-stakes controversies that characterize students as far more important than they actually are. It’s also a story about how public debate is pushed to focus on the stories of tiny numbers of college students — young adults who are still learning how to think about the world — by a bad-faith right-wing press.

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/5/20944138/oberlin-banh-mi-college-campus-diversity

Share this post


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

Anecdotes are everything.  People who spent their childhoods indoors don't have any anecdotes.  College-age partying is a continuation of childhood play.  

 

"Anecdotes matter when they support my position" is...an argument, I guess.  A moderator recently discussed logical fallacies here.  Taking a story of five pseudo-anonymous stories about "cancel culture" (of which, one, at least, discusses college students acknowledging how ridiculous and over-the-top "cancelling" everyone/everything is) and then making that a point about how today's teens don't party enough would certainly fall into that, imo.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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

This piece showed up in my Twitter feed today. It's a good encapsulation of the right wing hand wringing about a largely made up problem. 

 

There’s an enduring feature of the national media that I’ve taken to calling the “student panic industrial complex.”

Here’s how it works: Minor college campus controversies involving diversity and/or free speech get breathlessly reported by the right-wing press, laundered into the mainstream by click-hungry neutral outlets, and eventually become fodder for breathless takes from conservatives and moderate liberals about the supposed authoritarianism of Kids Today and their “woke” ideology. The cycle uses a few absurd-sounding cases to create a sense of crisis about the state of American college campuses, in complete contradiction of both the aggregate data and sometimes even the basic facts of the campus controversy in question.

 

This is not, fundamentally, a story about Oberlin. It’s a story about how parts of the national media have developed an unhealthy relationship with college campuses, treating the low-stakes controversies that characterize students as far more important than they actually are. It’s also a story about how public debate is pushed to focus on the stories of tiny numbers of college students — young adults who are still learning how to think about the world — by a bad-faith right-wing press.

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/5/20944138/oberlin-banh-mi-college-campus-diversity

 

This isn't the story that resulted in a $44M judgment against the university.  This is a convenient distraction from that story and the other much more serious stories like it, clearly intended to feed into the "conservatives are just overreacting and are just as big of snowflakes as the snowflakes" narrative.

 

It seems that both Beauchamp and Friersdorf acknowledge that this is a minor issue.

 

Conservative concern for political correctness, wokeness, cancel culture, SJW activism, etc. is not about poorly made banh mi.  It is about the "be woke or go broke" attitude of the modern left that believes that almost any political disagreement with progressive pieties is worth unrestricted social and economic warfare: lost jobs, boycotts, campus tribunals that make mockeries of due process, social media brigading (including with respect to nonpublic figures such as ordinary students, not those who court the public eye), and more.  Those who disagree are to be deplatformed, dehumanized, and destroyed.  Donald Trump capitalized on this in 2016 and it remains one of his most potent campaign issues in 2020.  There is a poster here that thinks that Trump will not leave office in 2020 even if the election goes against him, but it seems to be that he's looking the wrong direction for people who think that holding the "wrong" views must not be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gramarye said:

 

This isn't the story that resulted in a $44M judgment against the university.  This is a convenient distraction from that story and the other much more serious stories like it, clearly intended to feed into the "conservatives are just overreacting and are just as big of snowflakes as the snowflakes" narrative.

 

It seems that both Beauchamp and Friersdorf acknowledge that this is a minor issue.

 

Conservative concern for political correctness, wokeness, cancel culture, SJW activism, etc. is not about poorly made banh mi.  It is about the "be woke or go broke" attitude of the modern left that believes that almost any political disagreement with progressive pieties is worth unrestricted social and economic warfare: lost jobs, boycotts, campus tribunals that make mockeries of due process, social media brigading (including with respect to nonpublic figures such as ordinary students, not those who court the public eye), and more.  Those who disagree are to be deplatformed, dehumanized, and destroyed.  Donald Trump capitalized on this in 2016 and it remains one of his most potent campaign issues in 2020.  There is a poster here that thinks that Trump will not leave office in 2020 even if the election goes against him, but it seems to be that he's looking the wrong direction for people who think that holding the "wrong" views must not be tolerated.

Nobody claimed this to be about the judgment. But this is a story that got a lot of press in right wing media and additionally in mainstream press.  The poorly made bahn mi is an example that media has used to make us believe that PC culture is some big thing.  If you had happened to read the piece with an open mind you would see that the point is that the majority of these issues stem from a small number of students and are blown up to fool people.  It is not my fault you haven;t been able to seer that you are being fooled into believing that this is an overwhelming issue.  

 

Let the record reflect that I am the only one to post actual evidence in this thread and not merely anecdotes such as the one in this article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a liberal and always have been(have never voted for a Republican in my life)but even I think the micro-aggressiveness/bullsh*ttery of the extreme far left has gone too far-any farther and it will go over the edge. The way to combat the far nutjob extreme far right is not to match them in ridiculousness. And hate speech is protected speech whether we like it or not. I hated the Westboro Baptist Church and the venom they spewed, but as long as they were not directly calling for violence they had the right to be as evil as they were. 

 

I do not like the "Remove it(them)/Ban it(them) if I don't like or agree with it(them)" culture on any side of the spectrum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toddguy said:

I am a liberal and always have been(have never voted for a Republican in my life)but even I think the micro-aggressiveness/bullsh*ttery of the extreme far left has gone too far-any farther and it will go over the edge. The way to combat the far nutjob extreme far right is not to match them in ridiculousness. And hate speech is protected speech whether we like it or not. I hated the Westboro Baptist Church and the venom they spewed, but as long as they were not directly calling for violence they had the right to be as evil as they were. 

 

I do not like the "Remove it(them)/Ban it(them) if I don't like or agree with it(them)" culture on any side of the spectrum.  

 

This is not a thing that is really happening to any large degree. Nearly every instance of PC/ cancel culture/ micro-aggression is a blown out of proportion incident that is hyped up by media outlets because it gets clicks.  

 

The Gibson Bakery incident was an actual incident that went too far and the college had to pay for it via a libel lawsuit. 

 

 I am not claiming that people don;t get out of hand. It's just not as widespread as we are to believe and it isn't even in the top ten of actual real things to worry about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I am a liberal and always have been(have never voted for a Republican in my life)but even I think the micro-aggressiveness/bullsh*ttery of the extreme far left has gone too far-any farther and it will go over the edge. The way to combat the far nutjob extreme far right is not to match them in ridiculousness. And hate speech is protected speech whether we like it or not. I hated the Westboro Baptist Church and the venom they spewed, but as long as they were not directly calling for violence they had the right to be as evil as they were. 

 

I do not like the "Remove it(them)/Ban it(them) if I don't like or agree with it(them)" culture on any side of the spectrum.  

Free speech is what makes us a strong country. If we cant handle vile, misguided, wrongheaded, or speech we disagree with, then we really have no place as an influential leader in the world. We pride ourselves from being free to disseminate this information however we need to. We know that in the long run the cream rises to the top. The biggest challenges is controlling our fears to self regulate ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...