-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious Political Correctness and Race
- Thread starter Chou Toshio
- Start date
- Status
well acc to Deck Knight there's a kill squad committing genocide or some shit on anyone who cannot memorize all the 72 pronouns.
Modern mainstream liberalism may have to figure out exactly where the stances should be on culture/tradition.
As it stands, culture/traditions seem to be celebrated by many liberals up until the point where they inconveniently lead people to hold beliefs or make actions contrary to modern liberal morality.
This may be the biggest difference between Hawaii culture and California/Other Mainland liberal states-- where we otherwise both bleed blue.
I hear often "You can change culture! Culture that is wrong should be changed!" Which is not wrong, but it's also incorrect to think that such change can or even should be immediate.
In Hawaii, culture/tradition are so revered, considered so sacred to each of the many represented backgrounds, that you cannot dismiss its importance even when it happens to be "inconvenient", "bigoted," or "backwards". Long-term, we would like to develop cross understanding and shared culture that eliminates truly harmful stigmatisms/bigotry, but we understand that culture/tradition are almost as sacred/irreplaceable in the individual as the color of their skin. There is no smooth easy answer. There is no easy or logical right and wrong. We have, and only continue to integrate new peoples into our community through patience, defusing tensions, and demonstrating mutual respect that eases (but never erases) tensions that inevitably arise from being a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Living and let live, a sense of becoming neighbors, is what brings you to a culture that better handles diversity.
Maybe it's because there are so many groups in Hawaii, all so different, and all cannot escape the heightened awareness of the value of this mutual cultural respect, that helps people to learn to hold their tongue, and let "micro-aggressions" slide as needed. I would admit that the dynamics and history of the mainland US are wildly different, and the history of slavery especially is a dark history that makes reconciliation a great difficulty. (Though I also do not mean to take away from Hawaii issues of race such as loss of Hawaiian sovereignty, war-era anti-Japanese discrimination, plantation era power dynamics, or harassment of whites) I try to be empathetic to the history behind deep divides on the mainland-- though I would admit that growing up in arguably the most privileged class in a more integrated state, I can't completely understand them.
However, I still think that the Hawaii model, while imperfect, is one that other societies seeking harmony in diversity can learn from. Certainly, while he rarely speaks about it, the values and motives Obama demonstrated in how he addressed racial issues could not be divided from or understood without the context of his upbringing in the Aloha state.
As it stands, culture/traditions seem to be celebrated by many liberals up until the point where they inconveniently lead people to hold beliefs or make actions contrary to modern liberal morality.
This may be the biggest difference between Hawaii culture and California/Other Mainland liberal states-- where we otherwise both bleed blue.
I hear often "You can change culture! Culture that is wrong should be changed!" Which is not wrong, but it's also incorrect to think that such change can or even should be immediate.
In Hawaii, culture/tradition are so revered, considered so sacred to each of the many represented backgrounds, that you cannot dismiss its importance even when it happens to be "inconvenient", "bigoted," or "backwards". Long-term, we would like to develop cross understanding and shared culture that eliminates truly harmful stigmatisms/bigotry, but we understand that culture/tradition are almost as sacred/irreplaceable in the individual as the color of their skin. There is no smooth easy answer. There is no easy or logical right and wrong. We have, and only continue to integrate new peoples into our community through patience, defusing tensions, and demonstrating mutual respect that eases (but never erases) tensions that inevitably arise from being a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Living and let live, a sense of becoming neighbors, is what brings you to a culture that better handles diversity.
Maybe it's because there are so many groups in Hawaii, all so different, and all cannot escape the heightened awareness of the value of this mutual cultural respect, that helps people to learn to hold their tongue, and let "micro-aggressions" slide as needed. I would admit that the dynamics and history of the mainland US are wildly different, and the history of slavery especially is a dark history that makes reconciliation a great difficulty. (Though I also do not mean to take away from Hawaii issues of race such as loss of Hawaiian sovereignty, war-era anti-Japanese discrimination, plantation era power dynamics, or harassment of whites) I try to be empathetic to the history behind deep divides on the mainland-- though I would admit that growing up in arguably the most privileged class in a more integrated state, I can't completely understand them.
However, I still think that the Hawaii model, while imperfect, is one that other societies seeking harmony in diversity can learn from. Certainly, while he rarely speaks about it, the values and motives Obama demonstrated in how he addressed racial issues could not be divided from or understood without the context of his upbringing in the Aloha state.
Last edited:
I love the concept of having to hold your tongue in the face of people being brash and culturally inconsiderate or bigoted or whatever rather than saying "maybe you should curb your outrage" to people who refuse to apologize when told the things they say could be hurtful.
Like how hard is that?
Just imagine a world where people can comfortably say "hey what you said is hurtful" and the response be "I'm sorry I didn't mean to hurt you how can I avoid hurting you in the future".
Instead the response is "I'm sorry I hurt you but maybe you're too sensitive maybe you need to thicken up people say this stuff all the time the world is rough." Zzzz god I'm bored typing that out that gaslighting is so tired.
Like how hard is that?
Just imagine a world where people can comfortably say "hey what you said is hurtful" and the response be "I'm sorry I didn't mean to hurt you how can I avoid hurting you in the future".
Instead the response is "I'm sorry I hurt you but maybe you're too sensitive maybe you need to thicken up people say this stuff all the time the world is rough." Zzzz god I'm bored typing that out that gaslighting is so tired.
The thing with political correctness is, too many non racist cases have been falsely labelled racist.
For example, people in USA treated Jynx from Pokemon like it was a total fail or something.
But even nowadays, the Japanese population still have no idea what blackface is, and people do not understand why Jynx is supposed to be racist.
So, how can the creators ofPokemon possibly be racist?
At leadt, the Jim Crow museum had made the issue, stating that the creators of Pokemon probably do not have ill intentions.
But then you see places like IGN treats Pokemon like a complete fail for notknowing what blackface is.
It's normal for Japanese people to not know what it is, even nowadays.
Not to mention 26 years ago. (pokemon took 6 years to develop)
This is exactly why political correctness is flawed.
Why is intent not considered when judging something?
Much like most of the 2016 election, You can flip a few buzzwords here and there and make the same statement about any political ideology ever.
Count the amount of people who want a race war, or 72 pronouns, or 72 virgins, that you meet in real life and you'll find that they really aren't that existent, and that mapping either of them onto half of the political landscape is just making the "fake" issue real. This isn't a liberal issue, this is a social media issue, and it's not going to go away if people keep blaming each other.
And I can sum up the problems facing the Modern Right right now.
The issue with plainspeak is believing our society stopped developing in the 1950s, labeling racism as non-racism, sexism as non-sexism, denying any modicum of sympathy for anyone outside the Nuclear Family Industrial Complex, and espousing religious morality as the rule of law, all while running from the specter of the Tumblr-thumping genderqueer Hydra that wants to prey on your children and wives in Target bathrooms and force its peanut butter and jelly problems down Pat Robertson's gullet.
But hey your generalizations are just as good as mine.
Funny that you spent an entire post tearing down the PC power hierarchy only to put up your own version of "normal people" on a marble pedestal (in the Trump Tower marble lobby, presumably).
"Ab"-normal people don't have "real" problems. Reverse political correctness at its finest.
Why should it? Why is ignorance a get-out-of-jail card? Yeah, being unintentionally an asshole is better than intentionally being one but neither position is good, the problem is when we ignore or even allow said stupidity because of reasons and when the ignorant person is unwilling to change it's stance even when called upon, then you transform from innocently insensitive to a huge jackass thanks to some misguided sense of entitlement.
Piggybacking off what Gerard said, let's pretend you accidentally ran over your neighbor's dog. You didn't intend to kill the dog, but it's still dead. Is it really that hard to apologize and be more vigilant while driving in the future?
Now part of this scenario depends on your neighbor's reaction. A decent person would, I hope, recognize your negligence for what it was -- no malice intended. It was an accident, after all. But I think that's what the argument boils down to: decency. If both parties could be more gracious* during the unintentional racist/sexist/72-other-ists encounters, (the offender apologizes, the "victim" doesn't fly off the handle), we could stop fighting so much. Intent should play some factor, but it shouldn't be a free pass to brush off the other party's chagrin.
*Hey look my white male privilege is acting up! I just unintentionally white/mansplained decorum to non-white/non-cisgendered male readers. Now I'm apologizing. I'm sorry. (And I didn't die, go figure.)
"But America has a PC problem."
Judging from this thread, I'd say we have a hyperbole problem.
Because no Japanese needs to know what a blackface is.
There are other things going on in the world, and what a blackface is, is in no way important to them.
I can see that it is still bad whether being intended or not.
But originally,
This probably implies that "whether intended or not, it is still exactly the same", or at least, this is my comprehension.
As you know, accidents do happen, and I wholeheartedly believe that Pokemon's issue was purely an accident.
But then, there are people who argue that Pokemon was racist.
Could people just be more gracious and treat it as an accident?
Why should regular Japanese people know anything about political correctness? It doesn't affect them in their daily lives.
To be blunt-- let's ask-- do average African Americans know what offends Asian Asians nowadays?
They probably don't.
It's not a game creator's job to know stuff like these. Game creators have degrees in programming, not global relations.
However, I'd blame the localization team-- they are the people who should be checking for stuff like this! They are the people who should have paid attention. They are the people who should have suggested changes BEFORE launching Pokemon in USA.
The Obama Era saw the Modern Right pick up 1,000 State and Federal Legislative seats. It now possesses the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and a majority in the Senate (which is sufficient to bring legislation to the floor.) It also possesses nearly enough control over state legislatures and governorships to pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Modern Right's problems are all about how to prioritize the public trust placed in it / us.
The Klein's were fined a six-figure sum for not a baking a gay wedding cake. Florists and photographers have similarly been targeted for refusing to participate in the celebration of homosexual unions. The most recent controversy hitting my own feed is apparently there are house flippers in Waco Texas that attend a church that teaches about human sexuality what churches have thought for several thousand years and apparently they are wondering if that makes the couple anti-gay or something. Those are the major flashpoints in the US, which is admittedly a much better relative position than Sweden's rapist migrant problem and no-go zones.
My generalizations are backed up by actual attempts to enact (or successfully enact) into law policies that ruin people's lives and finances. Your own attack is perfectly illustrative of the white-knighting (White-Generaling?) I referred to either. If you want to use "Ab"-normal people as a reference, the entire thrust of my post was that every lever of institutional power IS focusing on those concerns while ignoring the plight of people who just want to have a job and go to work in the morning without stepping on political landmines.
You can't talk about people breaking the law to enter the country and undermining your teenager's first job prospects (along with general criminality issues) because "racism."
You can't talk about how a conqueror religion with fundamentally anti-Western values is tearing apart civilizations importing it because "Islamophobia."
You can't talk about how the men of old factory towns have never received the re-training opportunities promised because the issue of chronically under-employed culturally Christian white men isn't going to get you tenure or national political acclaim. In fact, it's "white privilege" to even approach this subject.
Put another way, considering Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as a tool, institutional power (academia, government, media) has been focused on making life as comfortable as possible to Esteem or Actualize whatever nontraditional / nonmajority identity while discounting concerns of most people that fall under Physiological and Safety needs.
Or perhaps I can illustrate with an another example, affirmative action. It is commonplace for the left to argue about institutional power and power dynamics in the course of arguing their case. However they seem to ignore the actual policies of existing institutions in making these arguments.
That is, it does not matter that I as a White, Christian, Male do not qualify for any sort of affirmative action that is institutionally and legally supported in the existing system. Whenever the subject is discussed however this is ignored in favor of "history of slavery" style argumentation. It is standard practice to ignore what institutional power does in the present and bank on moral capital of condemning a past that is not around to defend itself and without present institutional power.
Even if the common person does not understand this as an intellectual exercise, what they do understand is people are ignoring problems they have in the present to gain moral and political capital condemning a past that no longer applies. This would not be so maddening if in the course of that quest for institutional relevance the left stopped painting the people being ignored as bad people for wanting their concerns addressed.
Institutional Power thus cocooned itself away from the people that ultimately decide if it has any influence, and it just paid a high political price for that. It had shrugged off previous losses under the assumption that as long as it retained the largest seat of power it could continue ignoring the people that ultimately give it legitimacy. This was not a bad theory, however having lost that leverage how does it now justify forcing people to change their lives and attitudes when there's no one bullying them from a government office to do so?
See first response. Normal people have been tearing down the PC power hierarchy systematically over the last eight years, it's only with the loss of the presidential election that the left is finally coming to grips with this issue. Don't shoot the messenger.
Last edited:
i mean, the thing with ignoring micro-aggressions is that they can often become, well, regular aggressions. they normalize actions that disrespect groups of people and ultimately turn into more dangerous cases of racism.
psa: making racist / homophobic / sexist etc. jokes makes privileged ppl more likely to act on their racist / homophobic / sexist biases http://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-consequences-of-jokes-that-denigrate-63855
You mean fined for refusing service to a customer unlawfully. When you frame it with religious bias, sure, I could see how the bakers are the victim (curse the homosexual cake agenda!), but if you frame it within the law, well, we know how things turned out.
Half of my post was hyperbolic (hence my self-deprecating line at the end). I'm sorry if it was perceived as an attack but I wasn't even rattling my saber.
Can you be more specific about the "plight of people who ... landmines"? Are we talking about the casual racist or David Duke's cadre of white sheet aficionados?
Again, what do you mean by "normal people"? Please elaborate.
But they often don't-- not when the main culture is one of acceptance, respecting cultural diversity, and community building. As people are respected, their families benefit from that respect, their families inter-marry cross racial lines (unavoidable when this is a strong social norm), when they are forced to work with people of all races, they generally are culturally forced/persuaded to change their minds regarding any genuine race hate they may be carrying.
And in Hawaii, where the social norm is acceptance of a level of un-ill-intended stereotyping/race-joking, people have an even clearer sense of the line where something is not benign but genuinely hateful. The fact that we don't call out every micro-aggression means that when we DO call racism, the impact is much more clear-- so when there IS a problem, we're able to take it much more seriously. The offending party genuinely sees the problem.
When there is shared trust, it's much easier to get an apology and actual regret-- and then more trust. And much easier to avoid a pointless screaming match.
Last edited:
I accidentally posted the thread literally as I was typing in the title-- and I forgot what I was going to make the full title. lolz
Please fill in the blank with any word other than "white."
Then defend the statement you made.
This sentiment is the fucking problem, oh my god how do you not see that?
... Or, more accurately, for breaking the bloody law and for doxxing the couple and deliberately endangering them and their kids.
Don't spread lies to further your garbage agenda. Then again, lies are all your side has.
Last edited:
Yeah that happened, and they're shitty people for doing it but they weren't fined for it.
Deck Knight is (somewhat) factually correct about the Kleins being fined for breaking non-discrimination laws pertinent to Oregon. His post is already rife with strawmen and general bad logic, don't give him a lifeline to make it about something else. That's not doing this thread any favors.
Deck Knight is (somewhat) factually correct about the Kleins being fined for breaking non-discrimination laws pertinent to Oregon. His post is already rife with strawmen and general bad logic, don't give him a lifeline to make it about something else. That's not doing this thread any favors.
Let's ask a different question: Do you believe $135,000 is an appropriate fine for a business with as low a profit margin as a bakery? Incidentally, the guy who did it (Brad Avakian) ran for office in Oregon and went down in flames. One rogue with a political agenda is not an arbiter of what is ethical under the law, even if he has the power to ruin people's lives with abuses of it.
The First Amendment inherently protects framing things with a religious bias. It is why you can't compel Mormons to transfuse blood or even force avowed atheists to serve in armed combat during a draft because they have entirely non-religious moral and ethical values. Demanding a couple compel their labor commemorating an act they believe is sure to send to hell not only themselves but also the party they are catering to is as sure a violation of that principle as any.
For background, there have been innumerable articles written about "The New Democratic Majority / The New Democratic Coalition" that was forged by the Obama candidacy and presidency - chiefly minorities, Millenials, unmarried women, and secular whites. Here's a recent one from TheFederalist. The policy priorities of Institutional Power (academia, government, media) have been on catering to the hobby horses of those niche groups, believing in the aggregate they had more political strength than traditional working class votes.
How do I put this to an audience like Smogon which is composed primarily of college-age or younger people without children, homes, or families to provide for, who have no aspirations for anything currently but perhaps their own house? Out in the real world people who are aging are finding the economy increasingly brutal (the labor force participation rate being at lows not seen for decades and the reported unemployment number being drastically distorted by people no longer even seeking work being removed from the pool) and wondering how they can provide a better world for their children than the ones their parents gave to them.
Social institutions for the last eight years have been focused mostly on virtue policing through the force of law because that agenda appeals to "New Democratic Majority" subgroups, the most prominent issues being the forced usage of "undocumented" over "illegal," the knee-jerk media reaction of people being slaughtered by terrorist sympathizers to warn the public against discussing the root cause, and the the advancement of LGBTQ+ privileges. It became so absurd that a few months before the election the Obama Administration through an executive ruling at the Department of Education demanded every public school in America procure transgender bathrooms or risk losing federal funding. What conclusion should the average person come to other than that they are invisible to their own government? What conclusion can they arrive at other than their government does not represent them but instead represents special agendas that it feels compelled to impose on them?
As far as political representation, it's the general electorates of most of the 50 states. I frame them as normal and I guess Smogon's community as abnormal because in the grand scheme of things, this community IS abnormal. It lies well outside the mean of general political views within the United States for the purposes of this discussion, part of which stems from its international nature and part of which stems from its general age cohort. When I use "normal" (vs "abnormal") I'm not talking about specific minorities or subgroups but of the general US voting age population vs the voting issues that animate Smogon's userbase.
you can't take that without nuance though, there are plenty of things people do in the name of their religious beliefs that actively harm so many people. by this logic, religious beliefs put you above the law and allow your religious beliefs to infringe on others' rights.
practicing your religion does not give you the right to discriminate and oppress others.
from reynolds vs. united states: "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order."
if the law says you can't discriminate against people for any reason, and you do, your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the fact that you broke the law.
- Status