Serious Political Correctness and Race

Status
Not open for further replies.

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
http://news.ku.edu/2017/05/01/resea...le-often-underpins-free-speech-defense-racist

“We wondered why people would go out on a limb to defend someone else’s misbehavior,” Crandall said. “We thought, maybe they felt personally implicated — they’re defending an extension of themselves. We did three studies and found no evidence for this idea at all.” “We thought that people would rush to the defense of people fired for saying prejudiced things because, firstly, people know they’re prejudiced and, secondly, watching someone getting punished for that same prejudice makes them feel like bad people,” White said. “Across three experiments, we found exactly no support for this idea. “It isn't so much that these controversies make prejudiced people feel bad about themselves; instead, it seems to be driven partially by prejudiced people feeling like they are not free to live how they want to live and say what they want to say — they feel as if their freedom is under attack,” he said. Indeed, people with high levels of prejudice were very sensitive to their own freedom of expression. “They weren’t defending their own attitudes, as much as ‘defending to the death their right to say it,’” Crandall said. “Just so long as the ‘it’ is the prejudiced speech they share.”

Ultimately, the researchers conclude the value of free speech appears “for the prejudiced person when it suits their needs but is absent when it does not. Freedom of speech defenses are unprincipled; it only appears for prejudiced people when it is needed. Values may be used as guiding principles to live by, but they are also strategically deployed to justify prejudices.”

“It would be irresponsible to say that everyone who makes this ‘free speech’ argument is prejudiced,” White said. “However, our data do show that racial prejudice is one of the many attitudes that go into people deciding to make this argument. We should not ignore the ‘free speech’ defense, but we shouldn’t assume that the motives are purely based on an abstract democratic principle, either.”
 

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
Hi there, Libertarian-leaning Centrist from the US here (voted for Gary Johnson in the main US election). Honestly, political correctness is such a hot button subject, while I believe in the last five years it's gone way too far, people seem to be misconstruing political correctness with common decency as a human being. Honestly, the problem that keeps fueling this endless cycle is the fact that radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum has been allowed to free roam for what seems like an eternity now.

Ignoring the internet and its wealth of crazy subcultures, I'd like to point out what I consider to be the two most pressing culturally detrimental organizations in the US. ANTIFA (Left-wing radical fascist group), and the Alt-Right (Right-wing radical fascist group). From the outside looking in, both of these organizations are actually quite similar.

- Both racially motivated (ANTIFA is racist towards white people, Alt-Right is racist towards non-white people)
- Both have similar methods of expression (Both want censorship of opposing views, both want specific religious based systems instituted [ANTIFA wants Sharia Law, Alt-Right wants Catholic Theocracy], both want racial segregation [ANTIFA wants whites to have less rights, Alt-Right wants non-whites to have less rights]
- Both are violent, and frequently use violent protesting methods including but not limited to: vandalism, bodily injury, theft, and road blocking (while this last one is controversial, it has resulted in death both due to protesters getting run over, and people who have died in ambulances because the road was being blocked by protesters).
- Both rose to relevancy due to the 2016 political election due to the main two candidates (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) being viewed as "morally repugnant" by each of the respective sides.

The fact that both of these groups have been receiving so much relevancy in the public eye is a contributor to their success. Mainstream media on both political sides loves to fuel the fire, and unfortunately I don't see any of that stopping any time soon. Both of these groups frequently argue over whether being "PC" is necessary or not, but in extreme ways. I feel as though "PC" culture should never be enforced, and us as people should maintain common decency towards our fellow human beings (along with limiting the government's power and reach as much as we can, as it's gotten way too involved in everyone's lives).

One negative thing that comes from political correctness is people attempting to attack freedom of speech, which is something that we as a society cannot afford to lose.

- Freedom of Speech: Now, I understand that people can't just say whatever the hell they want, but we do need to understand that the only type of Free Speech that is illegal is speech that directly incites, or causes physical harm. Notice the term physical, not emotional. It should also never be changed to fit "emotional" harm, or else no-one will be able to say anything without running the risk of being charged in the court of law, and no-one with a functioning brain wants that. This means that under no circumstances should someone be charged for calling someone a slur, or a mean name. As terrible as it is, and as bad as it feels (I can't even tell you guys how many times I was called some variation of "insert slur Smogon won't let me say here" in my early years due to my emo appearance back then), what causes emotional harm is subjective and varies between each individual person. Physical harm is objective, there's no interpreting a flesh wound, if someone stabs you in the leg, that's a physical wound, no room for interpretation. I do believe that people should be able to physically fight each other if it's consensual, and mutually agreed upon before hand (with witnesses and possible documentation to go along with more serious fights). Sometimes humans can't settle things verbally, and that people need to slug it out.

While there are some aspects of political correctness that are beneficial (increased awareness towards mental health, medical conditions, etc), overall the negative side-effects that come from it are far too risky to ever have it be a mainstay in culture.
i gotta ask you what sources you use. the fact that you come to the conclusion that antifa is fascist and wants sharia law and that the "alt-right" is catholic makes me doubt that whatever sources you use to read up on politics are particularly neutral or well-informed.

not trying to disrespect here but your post contains so much misinformation that it's actually funny, to me, so i recommend you reconsider a few things you deem true about politics.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
http://www.gq.com/story/san-francisco-is-burning

"
Later, I learn some more details about Alex Nieto’s killing. He was a former youth counselor and had lived in the area his whole life. The dog walker, his name was Evan Snow, worked in tech and had moved to the neighborhood six months earlier. Snow’s dog, a Siberian-husky puppy, wanted some of Nieto’s chips, so it careered toward him, pushing him onto a bench. Snow was unaware of his dog’s aggressive behavior because he was distracted by a passing female “jogger’s butt” at the time—as he later explained in a court deposition. Nieto got out his Taser (he carried it for his job as a nightclub bouncer) and pointed it at the dog. The two men yelled at each other; then Snow left. A few minutes later, a white couple—also newcomers to the area—saw Nieto looking upset and pacing, his hand on his Taser. They called the police. Four officers arrived almost instantaneously, saw Nieto’s Taser, and—after Nieto apparently waved it at them—fired 59 bullets at him.

There’s a mural of Alex Nieto on Clarion Alley in the Mission, close to a bar called the Elbo Room that’s about to be knocked down and turned into luxury condos.

I wonder how real estate agents are attracting buyers for all these new apartments. And so, posing as a prospective client, I arrange a viewing of a fancy condo. Not long ago, a real estate agent named Jennifer Rosdail blogged that the Mission should be re-christened as “The Quad, a newly defined meta-hood.” “Quadsters are young,” she wrote. “They like to hang in the sun with their friends. They work very hard—mostly in high tech—and make a lot of money.”

The man showing me the condo is less brash; in fact he’s very nice. So is the apartment, even if $2.6 million seems crazily excessive for 1,800 square feet. But it has a beautiful roof deck, which the two of us now stand on. It’s a lovely evening. A few streets away, I can see the empty space where Mauricio Orellana lost his life. I can also see Lazy Bear, a restaurant off Mission Street that does a 14-course tasting menu for $185, including foie gras and rabbit and sweet-pea custard.

“A new restaurant opens here every week,” the agent says. He pauses as we gaze out over the Mission’s rooftops. “It’s funny to think that a few years ago you wouldn’t be seen dead in this neighborhood.”
"

http://evonomics.com/they-dont-just-hide-their-money-economist-says-billionaire-wealth/

"There are, of course, all sorts of reasons why billionaire wealth intensity varies across industries, not all of which involve rents. However, Joseph Stiglitz counters that the very existence of extreme wealth is an indicator of rents. Competition drives profit down, such that it might be impossible to become extremely rich without market failures. Every good business strategy seeks to exploit one market failure or the other in order to generate excess profit. I discuss in my paper how some of these strategies are more or less harmful than others. While not all the excess billionaire wealth generated by state-dependent or market failure-prone industries may be due to rents, it is also possible that my figure underestimates the proportion of rent in billionaire wealth. After all, the perfect competition of economics textbooks rarely exists in reality and there must be many pockets of rents in what I call the “competitive industries” as well. Given the current state of research in the field, 74% is the best estimate of the proportion of US billionaire wealth derived from rents.

The bottom-line is that extreme wealth is not broad-based: it is disproportionately generated by a small portion of the economy. Economic theory predicts that activities that are prone to rent-seeking or market failures will concentrate wealth, and that is what we observe.

This finding has important moral, economic, and policy implications. To the extent that it is driven by rents as opposed to productive activities, the extreme concentration of wealth we observe is not fair according to a meritocratic conception of social justice. Moreover, because rents do not compensate productive activities, redistributing them through taxes or regulation does not harm the economy, and could even boost economic growth. As wealth inequality has become so extreme, even modest redistribution could have significant positive impact for the poor and the middle class."


content warning:



https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/co...facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

The group’s chief executive, Michael Green, said the US “is failing to address basic human needs, equip citizens to improve their quality of life, protect the environment, and provide opportunity for everyone to make personal choices and reach their full potential.”
"
Overall, a large share of the American public admits that Muslims, Latinos, LGBT individuals, and women face a lot of discrimination today as opposed to four years ago, according to the PEW Research Center. Since 2013, discrimination against African Americans has also been on the rise, the PEW study noted.

“If you want to observe the problems of poverty and inequality, you don’t need to travel all the way to Malawi. You can go to a rural house in America,” said Ichiro Kawachi, a Harvard professor.

“If you’re born a black man in, let’s say, New Orleans Parish, your average life expectancy is worse than the male average of countries that are much poorer than America,” he added.

In 2017, the average life expectancy in the US is 79 — that’s 53rd in the world according to Geoba, an online global database.

Scholars have said that the problems surrounding health inequality are threefold: disparities in health itself, access to care, and health insurance.
"
 
Last edited:
i gotta ask you what sources you use. the fact that you come to the conclusion that antifa is fascist and wants sharia law and that the "alt-right" is catholic makes me doubt that whatever sources you use to read up on politics are particularly neutral or well-informed.

not trying to disrespect here but your post contains so much misinformation that it's actually funny, to me, so i recommend you reconsider a few things you deem true about politics.
ANTIFA is undeniably fascist, look at their own official Facebook pages for proof of this. They're against free speech, and that's just one of the pieces of proof to determine that, but it's all the proof that's needed for that. Any group that's against free speech is by default authoritarian, and thus fascist. Needless to say, their political beliefs aside, any group that gains notoriety through destruction and chaos isn't worth supporting.
 

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
ANTIFA is undeniably fascist, look at their own official Facebook pages for proof of this. They're against free speech
[citation needed]
Any group that's against free speech is by default authoritarian, and thus fascist.
There are other forms of non-democratic government that oppose the prevalent liberal democratic notion of freedom of speech (totalitarianism, for example, is not the same thing as authoritarianism). In addition, there are several kinds of authoritarianism, you don't have to be fascist in order to be authoritarian and tbh fascism is moreso linked to totalitarianism than authoritarianism anyway. That you can't even seem to use words like authoritarian and fascist properly speaks volumes about your knowledge on the matter. Do some basic research or swerve.
I'm a libertarian, what did you expect? The more rights and liberties the populace has, the better off we are. Keep the government out of my shit, and let me make my own money without being taxed into oblivion.
[extremely 80s voice] love too live in a society where I am free to die of AIDS because I'm too damn poor to pay my medicine and the government won't chip in because some washed-up B-movie star was elected president!!

You'd do well to keep in mind that "rights and liberties" means more than keeping the law and government as minimal as possible. Look up "positive liberty."

We talking third wave "feminism" or actual feminism?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
ANTIFA is undeniably fascist, look at their own official Facebook pages for proof of this. They're against free speech, and that's just one of the pieces of proof to determine that, but it's all the proof that's needed for that. Any group that's against free speech is by default authoritarian, and thus fascist. Needless to say, their political beliefs aside, any group that gains notoriety through destruction and chaos isn't worth supporting.
lol is it one of the pieces of proof? or all the pieces? do you know what proof is.

We talking third wave "feminism" or actual feminism?
are we talking anti-fa in reference to a definition of fascism that you made up or actual antifa?
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Should libs be supporting BLM's "All Black space" (a space/ party that only black people can attend.)
Do you think it's a good idea for each ethnicity to have their own space once in a while?

I can see how some black people might want this all black space, but I worry that it will cause more division to society?
Sometimes, even Asians, would like to have their own space to discuss about their own issues, own history, etc.
But for Asians, usually this is done by talking in their own language, so people who don't understand the language won't have a clue with what's being said.
And that people from other ethnic groups who can speak the language are usually people who are know a lot about the history that's being discussed.
Black Americans though, don't really have their own distinct language that they can use it this way.
 

destinyunknown

Banned deucer.
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19...-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/

"On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech."

THUS FAR, NOT a single member of Congress has joined the ACLU in denouncing this bill. "
Reading the article and its references, all I get from this is that if those criticisms were made against any other minority, people here would be getting their pitchforks out and calling out 'racism', however anti-semitism is completely fine? Sounds hypocritical to me.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Being against foreign governments propping up a government of people to rule over you and having that government start committing heinous ethnic cleansing of your communities in what was formally your own country isn't anti-Semitic. People siding with that viewpoint is also not anti-Semitic. I don't know when being against the actions of the Israeli government started being equated with anti-semitism but it's just blatantly misrepresentative and an obfuscation of truth.
 

destinyunknown

Banned deucer.
Being against foreign governments propping up a government of people to rule over you and having that government start committing heinous ethnic cleansing of your communities in what was formally your own country isn't anti-Semitic. People siding with that viewpoint is also not anti-Semitic. I don't know when being against the actions of the Israeli government started being equated with anti-semitism but it's just blatantly misrepresentative and an obfuscation of truth.
But that also applies to the jews, as that was formerly their own country in the past. Why are there movements that claim that Palestinians or Native Americans have the right to have their own country, but are simultaneously against Jews having their own? Again, hypocrisy. Being against Israel trying to expand their frontiers is fine, however, being against them having a country at all (which is what the people the article mentions do) is not fine.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
There's a significant difference between a desire to return to and rebuild your homeland after being expelled from it generations in the past versus employing the tactics of colonialism and conquering the area claiming it as your own exclusively and instilling in an apartheid system.
 

destinyunknown

Banned deucer.
There's a significant difference between a desire to return to and rebuild your homeland after being expelled from it generations in the past versus employing the tactics of colonialism and conquering the area claiming it as your own exclusively and instilling in an apartheid system.
There is, but the state of Israel cant be solely blamed for this. From the very first moment the jewish people came back to their original home, the surrounding Arab countries decided to boycott or directly go to war, not accepting jewish people's right to have their own country. Most of the territories invaded by Israel have been a result of those wars (most of them, started by the Arab countries), so one cant help but wonder if Israel would have invaded/colonized any of those areas at all if its sovereignty had been accepted from the beginning. In fact, Israel has signed treaties with Egypt and Jordan, giving back the occupied territories, which suggests that the possibility of peaceful coexistence exists. With this I am not saying Arab countries are solely to blame either, but that both have their share of culpability. Same can be said about the palestinian refugees and the Palestine State sovereignty, as in both cases the surrounding Arab countries havent helped Palestine, but rather the opposite.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
I disagree with the people who criticize Israel but it's still free speech, should be legal
(People love to blame Israel but they were never the aggressor in any war, and literally the rest of the region ganged up on them in these wars. And whether you think what they are doing is wrong are not, there is definitely a problem when the UN cares more about Israel than North Korea and other countries combined, I forget the exact stats)
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://theintellectualist.co/study-mit-economist-u-s-regressed-third-world-nation-citizens/

word finally got to mit


also what original jewish home DestinyUnknown

are you referring to something mentioned in the bible?

that was thousands of years ago, and even then it wasn't solely occupied by jews.

just because everyone wanted to kick the jews out of europe doesnt make it fine for jews to occupy (lol 'original home', actual jewish person here, let me decide where my home is) palestine, installing an apartheid regime to remove palestinians from the territory, just as jews were once planned to be exiled from europe to palestine as an answer to the jewish question, israel now looks to answer its 'palestinian question'.

In the first place any notion of a jewish nation state is contradictory to the torah, which describes a diasporic destiny for jews. fun fact, all zionists are heretics. like deck nite or isis.

of course they would 'boycott' and go to war, given the history of that region and its present condition.

when israel expels palestinians by making conditions unlivable for them or economically impossible, then they become refugees, 'destabilizing' all the states around israel.

so yeah do the math, like a good neocon or real politik person.

either way what theyre doing with the palestinians is apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

by the logic of your post, europeans never colonized america because they have a common ancestor (adam and eve) with the native population which makes that land their original home



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

No one is criticizing israel for occupying the golan heights lol (well im sure ppl are, but im not particularly concerned with that considering other events), thats not the issue: there is way more to this context than just israel's expansion.
" Israeli documents from 1948 use the term "to cleanse" when referring to uprooting Arabs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

this shit is way older than the 6 day war where israel gained some minor territories. it's older than that, and the violence much more severe.

two wrongs still dont make a right: eliminationist european anti-semitism doesnt justify zionist aprtheid

"
Commenting on the use of 'psychological warfare broadcasts' and military tactics in Haifa, Benny Morris writes:

Throughout the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans. Haganah Radio announced that 'the day of judgement had arrived' and called on inhabitants to 'kick out the foreign criminals' and to 'move away from every house and street, from every neighbourhood occupied by foreign criminals'. The Haganah broadcasts called on the populace to 'evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven'... Jewish tactics in the battle were designed to stun and quickly overpower opposition; demoralisation was a primary aim. It was deemed just as important to the outcome as the physical destruction of the Arab units. The mortar barrages and the psychological warfare broadcasts and announcements, and the tactics employed by the infantry companies, advancing from house to house, were all geared to this goal. The orders of Carmeli's 22nd Battalion were 'to kill every [adult male] Arab encountered' and to set alight with fire-bombs 'all objectives that can be set alight. I am sending you posters in Arabic; disperse on route'.[22]
"
 
Last edited:

destinyunknown

Banned deucer.
also what original jewish home DestinyUnknown

are you referring to something mentioned in the bible?

that was thousands of years ago, and even then it wasn't solely occupied by jews.
No, I'm talking about the existing Jewish Kingdom that was conquered by the Roman Empire, the Roman province of Judea, and then the Byzantine region Palaestinia Secunda which was also predominantly Jewish until it was colonized by the muslims in the seventh century. How much time does it have to pass before colonizers are considered 'indigenous' of a certain region? That's one of the questions here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

No one is criticizing israel for occupying the golan heights lol, thats not the issue: there is way more to this context than just israel's expansion.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

this shit is way older than the 6 day war where israel gained some minor territories. it's older than that, and the violence much more severe.
If you read the context of both of those happenings, they were in the middle of the war between the Arab countries and Israel. It doesn't excuse it, of course, but you can't focus the blame on either party since both are equally at fault.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Back on topic, it seems like the bill is targeted at the BDS movement, and those guys are a real piece of work. Not that the bill shouldn't be blocked, even J Street are saying it's gone too far. Misleading headline or not it's probably a smelly bill.

*yawn* You guys can continue talking about being PC now.
could you be more clear about why the headline is misleading

No, I'm talking about the existing Jewish Kingdom that was conquered by the Roman Empire, the Roman province of Judea, and then the Byzantine region Palaestinia Secunda which was also predominantly Jewish until it was colonized by the muslims in the seventh century. How much time does it have to pass before colonizers are considered 'indigenous' of a certain region? That's one of the questions here.
oh, okay, in that case ill pack up my things and head to israel right away.

If you read the context of both of those happenings, they were in the middle of the war between the Arab countries and Israel. It doesn't excuse it, of course, but you can't focus the blame on either party since both are equally at fault.
lawl no

if you read the context

there was no war between arab countries and israel before the Nakba, Israel didn't exist before the Nakba for one thing.

"The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine.[5]

During the civil war, the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed (the latter supported by the Arab Liberation Army) while the British, who had the obligation to maintain order,[6][7] organized their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis."

so uh what arab countries were fighting a war against israel when Palestine was under the British Mandate and Israel didnt exist?? I missed it

and then it goes on:

"When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948 (i.e one day before the nakba), and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine,[8] and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[9] The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War."

my additions in bold, all the easier for you to read them in

anyway im done playing the game of 'guess what event in the long history of this shit du is trying to refence to avoid talking about israel's current day apartheid regime' which has been mentioned in this thread already.
 
could you be more clear about why the headline is misleading
Like I said, the folks lobbying the bill want to curb the BDS. The article runs with that and describes some big mouth shutting phenomenon that may or may not exist... That's like if the govt wanted to fine mcdonalds for its health practices and some dude went up and said "fast food joints everywhere are getting shut down". As someone who has seen plenty of televised boycott rallies in us universities, well, if they really are punishing students for rallying, it sure isn't working.

Btw, it's really daft of you to say israel not existing before '48 ignores all the violence that was leading up to the war.....
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
no i correctly point out that this violence consisted in a civil war and factional infighting, not a war between 'Arab states' against israeli. i didnt ignore any violence i actually put a descriptor on it.
Like I said, the folks lobbying the bill want to curb the BDS. The article runs with that and describes some big mouth shutting phenomenon that may or may not exist... That's like if the govt wanted to fine mcdonalds for its health practices and some dude went up and said "fast food joints everywhere are getting shut down". As someone who has seen plenty of televised boycott rallies in us universities, well, if they really are punishing students for rallying, it sure isn't working.

Btw, it's really daft of you to say israel not existing before '48 ignores all the violence that was leading up to the war.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top