So yeah, the PC people have won once again..

[Banzai]

When did feelings became more important than truth or opinion?

Do you honestly believe your opinion is more important than someone else's feelings?

Better, but still bad, is thinking your truth is everyone else's truth:

As a white christian male, what do you really know about discrimination?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Do you honestly believe your opinion is more important than someone else's feelings?

Better, but still bad, is thinking your truth is everyone else's truth:

As a white christian male, what do you really know about discrimination?

I am still trying to digest the new woke nation advice to be "less white".... That sounds vaguely racist (being white is bad). If people behave too differently they get accused of cultural appropriation... So be less white, but don't be something else.

I don't think these people even hear (or understand) what they are saying.

I keep waiting for this nonsense to run out of energy but some are riding this all the way to the ground.

JR

PS: My apologies to any who take this personally.

 

[midwayfair]

Some history may help.

Political correctness was originally a joke among leftists. It had to do with adhering too rigidly to a political stance:
http://www.ram-wan.net/restrepo/hall/some%20politically%20incorrect%20pathways.pdf

Eventually it became a political effort to avoid disparaging groups of people. There are small modifications to speech that can be made to induce an inclusive society, but some people will loudly protest moderation that doesn't hurt them in any way with a slippery slope argument, that social moderation of any speech is forced moderation of all speech. There are people who will refuse to change to "people" or "humans" instead of "mankind" or other pointlessly gendered speech, as if it physically pains them to just use a generalized term for a general category. For the utilitarians, useful political correctness is the realization that sensitive speech increases the happiness of an affected group for no cost other than a moment's thought to an individual.

Ironically, hating political correctness has become a rigid orthodoxy itself. The logical extreme of the counter movement's argument is that people can and should say any old thing that comes into their heads, and any social consequences for that are always wrong. (C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). You can justify all sorts of punching down with this attitude. Since I'm sure most of the smart people here would agree that we don't want to go to that logical extreme, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle that some measure of political correctness is in fact necessary for an equal and just society.

"Punching down" is also the test for humor. But good humor simply doesn't generalize a group or rely on stereotyping. This has never been the case. Comedians who make jokes like that get forgotten or they discomfort their readers later. Comedians who speak truth to power, talk about *specific* funny things, and dig deep into themselves and their own culture are the ones who survive and thrive in every era. (Also, obviously fake violence or fake injury is always funny, see for reference Looney Tunes, but I digress.)

An excellent case study is George Carlin. If you read his actual words he actually often is politically correct, despite his dislike of political correctness. He simply doesn't engage in the type of humor that requires a PC check even when he's using "offensive" speech, because he's not targeting disadvantaged groups. Carlin understood nuance and paradox and thought very deeply about his words and language itself. Here's a full quote from him about PC:

Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.

Carlin is saying here that the type of political correctness that's based on rigid rules of speech doesn't make people want to say the correct thing. Aristotle might disagree and say that virtuous speech can lead to virtuous action, but the point is that Carlin was still arguing that the speech that people want to moderate is a symptom and not the disease itself. This is actually same argument as the seven words bit: That someone came up with some rigid rule for speech in a specific context, but the rules are about style and not substance.

I think one might ask: If you long for hearing someone make a joke based on stereotyping of an outgroup, why is that? What are you getting out of a joke like that? Is it the stereotype itself? Does the joke maker elucidate another culture to you, or do they just press a pleasure button in your brain? Because ultimately that's the difference: Good humor enlightens.

Good humor is also an equalizing force. Two fools can make fun of each other. And a king can keep a fool. But it's not funny for the king to make fun of the fool. Knowing whether you're the king or fool and acting accordingly is what political correctness is supposed to be.

--

There's a bunch of stereotyping going on in this thread, too, and I'd argue that this is all part of the same problem. Some person complained about someone wearing a sombrero, which OP finds ridiculous; therefore any complaints about cultural appropriation must be wrong (EDIT: I am not saying that user 37518 thinks this -- I don't know what they think. I am just using this as an example). That there's some "woke nation" with some culturally agreed-upon rules of what's allowed (again, JR, I'm not saying you necessarily think that, but your post gives that impression). Or even that the same people who think that the U.S. should not default to an assumption of WASP culture are the same people talking about cultural appropriation. Many ideas come from people with nuanced views and are picked up an "enforced" as orthodoxy by people without nuance. And then they are opposed without nuance by people with the opposite orthodoxy.

Edited my last paragraph for tone.

 

[boji]

For the utilitarians, useful political correctness is the realization that sensitive speech increases the happiness of an affected group for no cost

The pragmatist watches people split-up across tribes of temperament and passion and asks, what behavior / language is new? Inclusivity has to be an uncompelled, free-will option to not cost anything.

I think the left needs to choose what's more important in the coming decade: multicultural society or equality of outcome. One will eventually deny the other success.

 

[midwayfair]

The pragmatist watches people split-up across tribes of temperament and passion and asks, what behavior / language is new?

I have to admit I don't understand what you're saying in this sentence at all.

Inclusivity has to be an uncompelled, free-will option to not cost anything.

Why did you truncate my sentence? It makes it look like I said that there was no cost at all. I acknowledged that there is a mental burden to moderating one's speech. I also made a utilitarian argument that any individual's unhappiness with this mental burden almost certainly weighs less than the happiness gained by a group not being excluded through non-inclusive language. I gave examples of the type of speech I was talking about. No one can actually compel the speech of another person. You can disappear people, but we're not talking about that.

I think the left needs to choose what's more important in the coming decade: fostering multicultural society or equality of outcome. One will eventually deny the other success.

I would argue that one definition of leftist politics is in fact equality of outcome (whether or not that's actually possible doesn't enter into it). But equality doesn't mean uniform or identical. I'm sure you can think of plenty of things that are no better or worse but simply different.

 

[rob_gould]

I think the left needs to choose what's more important in the coming decade: multicultural society or equality of outcome. One will eventually deny the other success.

Why? What prevents both happening simultaneously?

 

[midwayfair]

Why? What prevents both happening simultaneously?

I won't speak for Boji, but I would guess that the argument is that some outcomes are a product of a particular culture.

One example might be the use of English as the Lingua Franca (hehe) of the world. This could cause other languages to disappear or lose cultural information, but if communication can't exist between many people then in some situations, equality of outcome for the people who don't speak a certain language could be impossible (imagine two companies competing for an international contract, and one of them doesn't have anyone who speaks English).

 

[user 37518]

Do you honestly believe your opinion is more important than someone else's feelings?

Better, but still bad, is thinking your truth is everyone else's truth:

As a white christian male, what do you really know about discrimination?

I am not saying that my opinion is more important that someone elses feelings, what I am saying is that  in order to be able to express your opinion you have to face the fact that you can hurt some people feelings, that is the whole concept of free speech.

As for opression or discrimination, how far do you want me to go back? My family is from Spain, and Spain was invaded by a caliphate for hundreds of years, should I be pissed? Like I said, throughout history, people has always been opressed by other people, you are saying that for instance black people have never discriminated or oppressed anyone? I suggest you to take a look at the history of some African countries and rulers, some of them are still alive today,here is a peek https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/africas-top-10-dictators-and-warlords-body-count-included/,

The only reason you can go out to the streets with a "black lives matter" T-shirt is BECAUSE of free speech, If you feel like saving someone and its so important to manifest your contempt, I suggest you do the same thing in Darfur Sudan, were the arabs are wiping out the black people, go out to streets over there with your t-shirt and start marching, then let us know how it goes, and if you do come back alive then tell me if you think free speech is valuable or not.

 

[boji]

Why? What prevents both happening simultaneously?

It's just my intuition, but I think equality of outcome forces tribes into zero sum games that might have a net negative effect. It would be nice to treat Multiculturalism as a game-theoretic optimal solution where balancing the incentive to cooperate and suppression to compete is not done at the political or tribal level, but at the scientific level, out in the open, and not implemented by Silicon Valley elites.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Since reading George Orwell's "1984" many moons ago, I have been sensitive to political "newspeak", imbuing old words with new meaning.

One that has recently risen onto my radar screen is "equity" being substituted for "equality".

Make up your own conspiracy theories for what they are up to.

JR

[update- it appears that even Bill Marr, a serial offender, has warned about the cancel culture coming to a neighborhood near you. Mainstream comedians have long been avoiding college campuses for the obvious reason, but the cancel culture has spread. I never expected to agree with Bill Marr but stranger things have happened.  /update]

 

[rob_gould]

It's just my intuition, but I think equality of outcome forces tribes into zero sum games that might have a net negative effect. It would be nice to treat Multiculturalism as a game-theoretic optimal solution where balancing the incentive to cooperate and suppression to compete is not done at the political or tribal level, but at the scientific level, out in the open, and not implemented by Silicon Valley elites.

Thanks, need to mull this over a bit

 

[boji]

Why did you truncate my sentence?

Figured it rhetorical, since we all agree being nice costs next to nothing and often pays dividends.

[individual] unhappiness...weighs less than happiness gained by a group

Yes, this is where we disagree. Because groups are made of individuals, 'the unhappy' forms a competing group and new group conflicts are created.

 

[boji]

Thanks, need to mull this over a bit

Sweet. For sake of context, Daniel Schmachtenberger has been on my playlist a lot lately.

 

[Dreams]

So many words lmao come on, just don't be jerks, it's not that deep. Are any of you even affected by any of this, or do you just read about it online and get red in the face? You can just log off. Do you even see what a relative ghost town this place is anymore? People will just not come to where you are and chose to go elsewhere, I'm sure some of you are familiar with that already

jfc get a grip

 

[Banzai]

The only reason you can go out to the streets with a "black lives matter" T-shirt is BECAUSE of free speech, If you feel like saving someone and its so important to manifest your contempt, I suggest you do the same thing in Darfur Sudan, were the arabs are wiping out the black people, go out to streets over there with your t-shirt and start marching, then let us know how it goes, and if you do come back alive then tell me if you think free speech is valuable or not.

Fella, Arabs in Sudan are black too  :

 

[Mbira]

Gearslutz is a stupid name and if changing it makes more women feel welcome, then I'm all for it.  I could give a shit if a bunch of old white guys (like myself) are up in arms about it.  I think we can handle it. 

 

[gyraf]

..groupdiy is a pretty neutralistic name imo, just look at how many females it brought us around here..?

/Jakob E.

 

[user 37518]

Fella, Arabs in Sudan are black too  :

So following your logic, I guess that makes it ok, since it is blacks against blacks....

 

[user 37518]

..groupdiy is a pretty neutralistic name imo, just look at how many females it brought us around here..?

/Jakob E.

How many females are actually here? and I mean active members, not just someone who registered, in 13 years of being a member I havent seen even one of them.

I've already mentioned that I personally admire Jordan Peterson, he has said numerous times that in the most gender egalitarian countries like Norway and Sweden, the gender gap between professions has increased, because once you give women and men more freedom to do what they want they actually do what they want, not what the goverment expects them to do, so there are actually less women going into STEM fields as a result, that certainly backfired. When are we going to realize as a society that most women don't want to become engineers and most men don't want to become nurses? to begin with, why is having different preferences between the sexes a bad thing?

 

[rob_gould]

the gender gap between professions has increased, because once you give women and men more freedom to do what they want they actually do what they want, not what the goverment expects them to do, so there are actually less women going into STEM fields as a result

The gender pay gap is not established by comparing the salaries of men and women in different jobs.

If you compare women who're nurses and men who're hedge fund managers and vice versa, there'll obviously be a gap in salaries.

The gender pay gap is established by comparing men and women who do equivalent work. 

To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue.

I'm also curious about where you got the info about Sweden's gender pay gap increasing.  That doesn't tally with this information

Sweden has greatly increased the economic equality between women and men over time. Still, a pay gap remains. This is one of the challenges on the Swedish gender equality agenda.
Why is there not equal pay?

Women’s average monthly salaries in Sweden are less than 88 per cent of men’s – 95.5 per cent when differences in choice of profession and sector are taken into account (2016). Pay differences are most obvious in the county councils, and the smallest difference is found among blue-collar workers.

https://sweden.se/society/gender-equality-in-sweden/