Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ram23

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

When you can laugh at both far right idiocy AND far left idiocy life is better.

 

 

The ironic thing is that when you get a Dem president you have the far right crying about taking away all guns, etc. which can never really happen anyway, but everyone gets caught up in the hyperbole.

 

Just like when you have a GOP president everyone on the left gets caught up in the whole Obergfell case will get overtuned, which again is not realistic either. 

 

Sometimes, fear gets the best of logic and common sense I guess

 

Obergfell being overturned is a real possibility if liberal justices retire and are replaced with more Scalia types.  And that is certainly the goal of many conservatives, along with banning abortion, enshrining religious-based ability to discriminate into law, etc.  Guns being taken away is in no way on the same level of possibility.  One is based on a legitimate concern from actual previous national policy that many Americans still want to go back to.  The other is baseless fear-mongering. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't student protests a for of protected speech?  Or do certain viewpoints deserve to never be criticized?

 

The comical thing here is that You continue to invent strawman arguments to prop up whatever weak argument you do have.

 

Nobody says students do not have a right to protest and their protest is not protected speech, but the protest must be peaceful and must not interfere with another's right to express their thoughts and their opinions and beliefs. The problem with the students is that they do not understand that their rights to protest end where they step on someone else's right to express their viewpoints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vibe I am getting from the anti-PC crown is that they are upset that sensitive issues should be brought up in a sensitive manner and people don't like that.

 

They don't like not being able to say and do whatever they want without consequences.  Because you should be able to say the N-word without losing your job, right?

 

I think the idea being peddled here is that all voices should be heard and all opinions are equally valid, but that's not what PC is, nor should that be the goal we strive for.  The uncomfortable truth is that not all opinions are valid, and therefore do not all deserve equal time or consideration.  If someone says that Mexican immigrants are rapists, that's just not a valid viewpoint that can be supported by facts, but we have a president and his supporters who want that viewpoint expressed without consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ in other words you think that people should be free to discuss any opinion without consequence from their employer.

 

I already said that I think that the range of opinions that should warrant professional sanction when expressed should be considerably narrowed, so while you're making my position more absolute than it is, yes, I do believe we should move a certain distance in that direction.  In Google's case, I consider the firing particularly egregious because an express purpose of those internal forums was open discussion.

 

But you agree that there should be limits even on the open discussion forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Can you kindly remind me of the speech that was shut down at Yale?  I am not sure of what this is specifically in reference to.

 

Nicholas and Erika Christakis trying to have a conversation about cultural appropriation (another favorite vector of PC infection) while being shouted down and deluged by hate mail by PC-police undergrads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't student protests a for of protected speech?  Or do certain viewpoints deserve to never be criticized?

 

The comical thing here is that You continue to invent strawman arguments to prop up whatever weak argument you do have.

 

Nobody says students do not have a right to protest and their protest is not protected speech, but the protest must be peaceful and must not interfere with another's right to express their thoughts and their opinions and beliefs. The problem with the students is that they do not understand that their rights to protest end where they step on someone else's right to express their viewpoints.

 

Just because a few protests (the only ones that make the news) due to some students escalating it does not mean that PC is widespread.  Again this is cherrypicked extremism.  I am still waiting for my invitation to speak at Liberty University about why Christians should stop wasting time praying to a non-existent entity.  When do I get tl share my belief with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Can you kindly remind me of the speech that was shut down at Yale?  I am not sure of what this is specifically in reference to.

 

Nicholas and Erika Christakis trying to have a conversation about cultural appropriation (another favorite vector of PC infection) while being shouted down and deluged by hate mail by PC-police undergrads.

 

So the important viewpoint being shut down is the ability for students to wear blackface?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you can laugh at both far right idiocy AND far left idiocy life is better.

 

 

The ironic thing is that when you get a Dem president you have the far right crying about taking away all guns, etc. which can never really happen anyway, but everyone gets caught up in the hyperbole.

 

Just like when you have a GOP president everyone on the left gets caught up in the whole Obergfell case will get overtuned, which again is not realistic either. 

 

Sometimes, fear gets the best of logic and common sense I guess

 

Obergfell being overturned is a real possibility if liberal justices retire and are replaced with more Scalia types.  And that is certainly the goal of many conservatives, along with banning abortion, enshrining religious-based ability to discriminate into law, etc.  Guns being taken away is in no way on the same level of possibility.  One is based on a legitimate concern from actual previous national policy that many Americans still want to go back to.  The other is baseless fear-mongering. 

 

 

 

 

That is a scare tactic. No it will not be overturned. It is pretty near impossible to overturn a SC decision because of precedence. Also as pointed out above, even if that were the case, there are enough states that recognize gay marriage now that it is in effect cemented into the law. Third, even if it were to be overturned, the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution would ensure that all marriages are valid and recognized across all state lines. Finally, outside of a small minority, public opinion on this matter has turned so it is essentially a settled issue.  Any talk about overturning it is hyperbole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ in other words you think that people should be free to discuss any opinion without consequence from their employer.

 

I already said that I think that the range of opinions that should warrant professional sanction when expressed should be considerably narrowed, so while you're making my position more absolute than it is, yes, I do believe we should move a certain distance in that direction.  In Google's case, I consider the firing particularly egregious because an express purpose of those internal forums was open discussion.

 

But you agree that there should be limits even on the open discussion forum?

 

Yes.  But those limits should be things like slurs, plagiarism, etc., not the substance of any issue.  I get that for public-facing positions, the rules might need to be a little more restrictive because of the nature of the work, but even there, there should be as much freedom as possible, with every benefit of the doubt to the employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ in other words you think that people should be free to discuss any opinion without consequence from their employer.

 

I already said that I think that the range of opinions that should warrant professional sanction when expressed should be considerably narrowed, so while you're making my position more absolute than it is, yes, I do believe we should move a certain distance in that direction.  In Google's case, I consider the firing particularly egregious because an express purpose of those internal forums was open discussion.

 

The fallacy of that argument is that the examples he primarily cites are at private schools. Also, if you read the court cases recently, you will see that college campus's of state run universities have increasingly become public forums and therefore the right to free speech exists there. You can blame the ACLU for this.  Over the last 40 years, many universities have tried to limit some controversial speakers on the liberal side only to be threatened with lawsuits and the like. Now the tables have turned and it is the conservative speakers who are just using the precedence their liberal brothers  have provided to stake their right to speak.

 

His comment about male protestors at Yale is not valid, because Yale is a private school and can limit free speech both on an off campus. State institutions would not have such latitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It's rather disingenuous to have a provocative speaker come to campus and then use the fact that people were provoked to prove that PC has run amok.  Especially when the speaker was also banned from speaking at CPAC.  Are we saying that CPAC is a bastion of leftist PC culture too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Can you kindly remind me of the speech that was shut down at Yale?  I am not sure of what this is specifically in reference to.

 

Nicholas and Erika Christakis trying to have a conversation about cultural appropriation (another favorite vector of PC infection) while being shouted down and deluged by hate mail by PC-police undergrads.

 

So the important viewpoint being shut down is the ability for students to wear blackface?

 

Here is the e-mail in question.  I'm pretty sure you can search it all you like for the word "blackface."

 

https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/

 

The closest you'll come is the reference to someone perhaps wanting to be Disney princess Tiana, which could definitely be done without blackface.

 

Incidentally, if you're still confused about what PC is and represents to its opponents, www.thefire.org is generally a pretty good place to be exposed to what we really oppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So spreading untrue stereotypes about a group of people should be well within the rights of an employee?

 

If he believes them himself and wants to try to convince people that they have bases in fact, then yes.  At least it should not be a firing offense.  And the proper response should be scientific correction rather than a PC lynching.

 

Also, Damore's memo might not have gotten all the science right but it certainly didn't get it all wrong.  You do it an injustice to handwave it away as mere "untrue stereotypes."

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/  But this isn't the place to debate the substance of it, particularly given that I'm not arguing that the substance matters--what matters is that he was censored and terminated for even making the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess fire.org does a good job representing what you oppose by leaving out important facts. It's interesting that they would leave out information that is pertinent to the discussion.  So yes, I can search your source for blackface and not find it for some reason. Once again proving how easily people are manipulated into believing that PC is a real thing. 

 

 

The debate over Halloween costumes began late last month when the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee sent an email to the student body asking students to avoid wearing “culturally unaware and insensitive” costumes that could offend minority students. It specifically advised them to steer clear of outfits that included elements like feathered headdresses, turbans or blackface.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/nyregion/yale-culturally-insensitive-halloween-costumes-free-speech.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It's rather disingenuous to have a provocative speaker come to campus and then use the fact that people were provoked to prove that PC has run amok.  Especially when the speaker was also banned from speaking at CPAC.  Are we saying that CPAC is a bastion of leftist PC culture too?

 

Wow, is that what you get from that? I guess I have to double down on my earlier snowflake comment to you.

 

You seem to think that a right to protest is the same thing as shutting down a speech or protesting to get the speech cancelled or shut down. This is wrong and you are mistaken by this.

 

If a few hundred students want to have a candlelight vigil or a shouting protest outside the venue where the speech is, they absolutely have a right to do this.

 

Where their protest interferes with the speakers right to express their opinion and speak, and the guests right to hear what he/she has to say inside the venue, then, they have overstepped their rights. It is pretty simple. I don't care if you are Mother Theresa or Richard Spencer, you have the right to speak ina public forum and shutting down that is violation of those rights. 

 

Now, the responsible thing to do is have a peaceful protest or even better just ignore the speech altogether so the person does not get the publicity they crave. This will save cities and towns hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from having to have security detail to protect people like Spencer when they do speak.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So spreading untrue stereotypes about a group of people should be well within the rights of an employee?

 

If he believes them himself and wants to try to convince people that they have bases in fact, then yes.  At least it should not be a firing offense.  And the proper response should be scientific correction rather than a PC lynching.

 

Also, Damore's memo might not have gotten all the science right but it certainly didn't get it all wrong.  You do it an injustice to handwave it away as mere "untrue stereotypes."

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/  But this isn't the place to debate the substance of it, particularly given that I'm not arguing that the substance matters--what matters is that he was censored and terminated for even making the argument.

 

Getting fired from your job for saying stupid stuff is not a lynching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Can you kindly remind me of the speech that was shut down at Yale?  I am not sure of what this is specifically in reference to.

 

Nicholas and Erika Christakis trying to have a conversation about cultural appropriation (another favorite vector of PC infection) while being shouted down and deluged by hate mail by PC-police undergrads.

 

So the important viewpoint being shut down is the ability for students to wear blackface?

 

Here is the e-mail in question.  I'm pretty sure you can search it all you like for the word "blackface."

 

https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/

 

The closest you'll come is the reference to someone perhaps wanting to be Disney princess Tiana, which could definitely be done without blackface.

 

Incidentally, if you're still confused about what PC is and represents to its opponents, www.thefire.org is generally a pretty good place to be exposed to what we really oppose.

 

thanks. This is my punishment for reading the New York Times, which of course wrote this, and seems to show how much regard Yale's so-called "Intercultural Affairs Committee" has for their own "highly selective" student body to do the right thing (but hey, what do I know? After all, I'm only a "racist" according to the local trollosphere):

 

"She wrote the email in response to a directive from the Intercultural Affairs Committee at Yale that warned students that it would be insensitive to wear costumes that symbolized cultural appropriation or misrepresentation, or both, like feathered headdresses, turbans, war paint, blackface or redface, or costumes that made fun of people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It's rather disingenuous to have a provocative speaker come to campus and then use the fact that people were provoked to prove that PC has run amok.  Especially when the speaker was also banned from speaking at CPAC.  Are we saying that CPAC is a bastion of leftist PC culture too?

 

Wow, is that what you get from that? I guess I have to double down on my earlier snowflake comment to you.

 

You seem to think that a right to protest is the same thing as shutting down a speech or protesting to get the speech cancelled or shut down. This is wrong and you are mistaken by this.

 

If a few hundred students want to have a candlelight vigil or a shouting protest outside the venue where the speech is, they absolutely have a right to do this.

 

Where their protest interferes with the speakers right to express their opinion and speak, and the guests right to hear what he/she has to say inside the venue, then, they have overstepped their rights. It is pretty simple. I don't care if you are Mother Theresa or Richard Spencer, you have the right to speak ina public forum and shutting down that is violation of those rights. 

 

Now, the responsible thing to do is have a peaceful protest or even better just ignore the speech altogether so the person does not get the publicity they crave. This will save cities and towns hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from having to have security detail to protect people like Spencer when they do speak.

 

So you agree that CPAC is a bastion of PC thought then.  Again I stopped reading at the insult/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So spreading untrue stereotypes about a group of people should be well within the rights of an employee?

 

If he believes them himself and wants to try to convince people that they have bases in fact, then yes.  At least it should not be a firing offense.  And the proper response should be scientific correction rather than a PC lynching.

 

Also, Damore's memo might not have gotten all the science right but it certainly didn't get it all wrong.  You do it an injustice to handwave it away as mere "untrue stereotypes."

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/  But this isn't the place to debate the substance of it, particularly given that I'm not arguing that the substance matters--what matters is that he was censored and terminated for even making the argument.

 

Getting fired from your job for saying stupid stuff is not a lynching. 

 

I retract my previous comment about you.  You are not part of the problem and blind to it.  You are part of the problem and proud of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPAC is a private group and not a public forum. They can invite who they want. Personally, I would never invite someone like Spencer or Milo to any group I run but they absolutely have a right to speak at a public forum and venue.  Your argument about CPAC is apples to oranges and makes no sense.

 

Sorry you feel that calling you a snowflake is an insult. I meant it as a compliment :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So spreading untrue stereotypes about a group of people should be well within the rights of an employee?

 

If he believes them himself and wants to try to convince people that they have bases in fact, then yes.  At least it should not be a firing offense.  And the proper response should be scientific correction rather than a PC lynching.

 

Also, Damore's memo might not have gotten all the science right but it certainly didn't get it all wrong.  You do it an injustice to handwave it away as mere "untrue stereotypes."

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/  But this isn't the place to debate the substance of it, particularly given that I'm not arguing that the substance matters--what matters is that he was censored and terminated for even making the argument.

 

Getting fired from your job for saying stupid stuff is not a lynching. 

 

I retract my previous comment about you.  You are not part of the problem and blind to it.  You are part of the problem and proud of it.

 

I am part of the problem for thinking that an employer can fire you for spreading untrue stereotypes.  And this is somehow PC run amok.  My opinion of anti-PC thought has dropped immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPAC is a private group and not a public forum. They can invite who they want. Personally, I would never invite someone like Spencer or Milo to any group I run but they absolutely have a right to speak at a public forum and venue.  Your argument about CPAC is apples to oranges and makes no sense.

 

Sorry you feel that calling you a snowflake is an insult. I meant it as a compliment :)

Milo went to Berkely to provoke people.  Even the snowflakes at CPAC know he is too controversial.  His presence caused an unfortunate yet predictable response at one very liberal college this is somehow proof that PC culture is common.  Color me unimpressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPAC is a private group and not a public forum. They can invite who they want. Personally, I would never invite someone like Spencer or Milo to any group I run but they absolutely have a right to speak at a public forum and venue.  Your argument about CPAC is apples to oranges and makes no sense.

 

Sorry you feel that calling you a snowflake is an insult. I meant it as a compliment :)

Milo went to Berkely to provoke people.  Even the snowflakes at CPAC know he is too controversial.  His presence caused an unfortunate yet predictable response at one very liberal college this is somehow proof that PC culture is common.  Color me unimpressed.

 

His purpose for going there is irrelevant. Berkeley is a public space and he was entitled to speak. The best thing to do is ignore him and the problem takes care of itself. Protests are what he was seeking and he got what he wanted. If people just wise up to him and ignore him, the problem goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ does the angry mob have a right to take away someone's livelihood without due process. Legally yes, but don't you see the moral problem with this?

 

The company took away his livelihood.  That's what happens when you spread inaccurate stereotypes to criticize company policy.  So the underlying opinion is a factually inaccurate stereotype.  And PC culture is shutting down intellectual thought by not allowing this.  hmmm...i'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPAC is a private group and not a public forum. They can invite who they want. Personally, I would never invite someone like Spencer or Milo to any group I run but they absolutely have a right to speak at a public forum and venue.  Your argument about CPAC is apples to oranges and makes no sense.

 

Sorry you feel that calling you a snowflake is an insult. I meant it as a compliment :)

Milo went to Berkely to provoke people.  Even the snowflakes at CPAC know he is too controversial.  His presence caused an unfortunate yet predictable response at one very liberal college this is somehow proof that PC culture is common.  Color me unimpressed.

 

His purpose for going there is irrelevant. Berkeley is a public space and he was entitled to speak. The best thing to do is ignore him and the problem takes care of itself. Protests are what he was seeking and he got what he wanted. If people just wise up to him and ignore him, the problem goes away.

 

what if I told you that 18 - 22 year olds are not the most rational people and are not reflective of an overall PC culture. especially when referring to one group of 18-22 year olds from one college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what I am seeing here is an attempt to take the most extreme examples of what appears to be PC culture run amok (when in many cases it isn't) and painting the entire left with it.  But at the same time, if I want to take the most extreme examples of racist thought form the right and paint the entire right with those opinions then I am wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ does the angry mob have a right to take away someone's livelihood without due process. Legally yes, but don't you see the moral problem with this?

 

The company took away his livelihood.  That's what happens when you spread inaccurate stereotypes to criticize company policy.  So the underlying opinion is a factually inaccurate stereotype.  And PC culture is shutting down intellectual thought by not allowing this.  hmmm...i'm confused.

 

Was it an inaccurate stereotype or a much-needed empirical analysis in a corporate environment potentially shunting excessive resources into diversity programs with no rational hope of success?  Who gets to make that determination and when it should be a firing offense to even suggest such a thing?  Also, as I noted before somewhere between 30-40% of Google's employees said they agreed with the memo.  Should Google be out to expose and fire all the people who signaled such agreement?  Or do you hope and pray that the chilling effect of firing the person who actually put their name to it will be enough to shut up all those noisy, pesky nonconformists?

 

Well, it probably will.  People generally don't like getting fired and can see just how thin Google's welcome mat for open discussion is.  So they'll be quiet ...

 

... At least until the next election in which someone is campaigning on the promise that that culture is a threat that needs to be confronted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether other google employees agreed with the memo is irrelevant to its factual accuracy. 

 

Again. should people be able to spread inaccurate stereotypes about any group of people to undermine corporate policy and not be fired?  remember Google is a private at-will employer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPAC is a private group and not a public forum. They can invite who they want. Personally, I would never invite someone like Spencer or Milo to any group I run but they absolutely have a right to speak at a public forum and venue.  Your argument about CPAC is apples to oranges and makes no sense.

 

Sorry you feel that calling you a snowflake is an insult. I meant it as a compliment :)

Milo went to Berkely to provoke people.  Even the snowflakes at CPAC know he is too controversial.  His presence caused an unfortunate yet predictable response at one very liberal college this is somehow proof that PC culture is common.  Color me unimpressed.

 

His purpose for going there is irrelevant. Berkeley is a public space and he was entitled to speak. The best thing to do is ignore him and the problem takes care of itself. Protests are what he was seeking and he got what he wanted. If people just wise up to him and ignore him, the problem goes away.

 

what if I told you that 18 - 22 year olds are not the most rational people and are not reflective of an overall PC culture. especially when referring to one group of 18-22 year olds from one college.

 

What if I told you that people in the 18-22 age range are often are exposed to PC culture by people older than those ages?  What if I told you that the average age of the people voting to oust Larry Summers for daring to even suggest that biological differences between the sexes could affect more than just outward appearances was greater than 22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people at Berkely are smart enough to know that Milo is a bum just like the PC crowd at CPAC.

 

Also, there are no biological differences that would effect a woman's ability to do technical work.  Suggesting it erroneously is unfortunate for someone who should be smarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether other google employees agreed with the memo is irrelevant to its factual accuracy. 

 

Again. should people be able to spread inaccurate stereotypes about any group of people to undermine corporate policy and not be fired?  remember Google is a private at-will employer.

 

You misunderstand.  Google absolutely is a private, at-will employer.  I fully support Google's legal right to fire that person for any reason or no reason.  I probably actually support at-will employment as a legal matter even more strongly than you do.  PC is a cultural phenomenon first; to the extent that it infects law, it does so downstream of culture.  I am not saying that Google had no right to fire Damore.  I am saying that, based on what I've seen, it had no good reason for doing so.  Likewise, the Harvard faculty was even more clearly within its rights to oust Larry Summers.  So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ does the angry mob have a right to take away someone's livelihood without due process. Legally yes, but don't you see the moral problem with this?

 

An angry mob didn't take away the guy's livelihood.  Google did.

 

He can gain employment elsewhere (and probably already has).


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just reported that men involved with Gamergate who made threats to women were never charged with crimes.  I expect the anti-PC crowd to be as upset as they were about the kids at Yale not getting charged with crimes. 

 

Also, could I use gamergate and Milo to make blanket statements about the right?

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...