They mean anything Imperial China, ie: anything from or before the Qing Dynasty.
(The Qing Dynasty ended in 1911)
So ya, there's a LOT of films to be banned.
-
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
(The Qing Dynasty ended in 1911)
So ya, there's a LOT of films to be banned.
Boring? I loved watching them. Maybe you aren't familiar with the history/ culture so you don't know what's going on?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...WAfMkR8Q&noredirect=on&utm_term=.1c4c15b95c69
"
What should make us most upset, right now, is those disrespectful enough to suggest that what is happening is in any way similar to the tragedies of the past. This is not to be compared to concentration camps or the atrocities of the Holocaust, except to say that this is not anything like that. If we were to compare the two, we might discover similarities.
It is important to be precise with the language used to describe such places and such things.
For example, the things the children were kept in were Not Cages. The administration was very strong on that point. Whatever the thing was that the children separated from their parents were kept in, it was not a cage, so we can sleep at night, and our consciences are clear. It was not so bad. Keep to the words!
The words will help you see when you are going really wrong. A man is not providing water and succor for people walking thirstily through the desert; he is doing a crime, human smuggling. It is good that we have these words to make it clear that providing shelter and comfort to people in need is a crime, whereas letting them perish is — well, is not unthinkable. It is nothing like the never-to-be-repeated past. It is merely something that is occurring in the present, when we are busy."
crazy how the official rightwing stance is 'wait till we strategically murder all of these people before you start calling it a concentration camp'
"
What should make us most upset, right now, is those disrespectful enough to suggest that what is happening is in any way similar to the tragedies of the past. This is not to be compared to concentration camps or the atrocities of the Holocaust, except to say that this is not anything like that. If we were to compare the two, we might discover similarities.
It is important to be precise with the language used to describe such places and such things.
For example, the things the children were kept in were Not Cages. The administration was very strong on that point. Whatever the thing was that the children separated from their parents were kept in, it was not a cage, so we can sleep at night, and our consciences are clear. It was not so bad. Keep to the words!
The words will help you see when you are going really wrong. A man is not providing water and succor for people walking thirstily through the desert; he is doing a crime, human smuggling. It is good that we have these words to make it clear that providing shelter and comfort to people in need is a crime, whereas letting them perish is — well, is not unthinkable. It is nothing like the never-to-be-repeated past. It is merely something that is occurring in the present, when we are busy."
crazy how the official rightwing stance is 'wait till we strategically murder all of these people before you start calling it a concentration camp'
Whilst I in no way condone whats going on at the border, I do think certain media outlets are deliberately using language which, whilst factually correct, evokes a stronger image in the mind that what appears to be going on.
Certain language has both a factual and a societal definition. Yes, the factual definition of a concentration camp is a place where large numbers of people are held against their will, almost always a persecuted minority. By that definition, yes, these are concentration camps.
But it'd be naïve to say that this is also the social definition. For decades, the word concentration camp has been almost exclusively associated with the Nazi mass genocide of Jewish / disabled / political prisoners etc. Now this is the fault of the worldwide education systems, who let's be clear should be referring to those camps under their true name of extermination camps. If kids were taught that the Nazi's used specialised extermination camps, then the word concentration camp would be freely usable for situations like this. But this isn't the case - nowadays if you say concentration camp, I believe the vast majority of people would think of gas chambers.
Its pretty clear to me that many of those who are using the phrase concentration camp right now aren't doing it in good conscience. They know that its factually correct, but they also know that it is indirectly misinforming the vast majority of people who have a different personal definition. This is something has definitely been employed previously by right-wing media, so yeah its kinda ironic that the Trump administration has their pants in a twist when they've been guilty of using factually true but socially charged language themselves. But at least IMO, once it became clear that kids were being explicitly taught that "nazis used concentration camps to kill people", we should probably reserve that phrase to exclusively refer to the Nazis.
Just to be clear, I'm british left-wing which is largely considered a step further left than even american democrats, so I'm not saying this out of political bias. I visited Sachsenhausen extermination camp in Berlin last year (which in the 1930s started as concentration camp, and today remains advertised as a concentration camp) and it was the most chilling day of my life And like everyone else, I can see the similarities between worldwide populism and what kicked off everything in 1930s Germany. But I'm also of the view that you can communicate how awful the border camps are without having to evoke imagery of the Nazis. Whenever someone does something awful people are far too quick to compare them to the worst human in modern history. To do this de-values what it means to call somebody a nazi.
What's going on over there is really unbelievably awful, but american media is well aware of what they are doing when they use the phrase concentration camp. Their heart is undeniably in the right place, but misleading people in order to shut these down is still kind of unethical. It opens a can of worms, and if you sit back and allow people to use the word concentration camp here, then you can't really complain when Trump later tries his "mislead people using factually correct statements that everyone knows mean something different" shtick.
Certain language has both a factual and a societal definition. Yes, the factual definition of a concentration camp is a place where large numbers of people are held against their will, almost always a persecuted minority. By that definition, yes, these are concentration camps.
But it'd be naïve to say that this is also the social definition. For decades, the word concentration camp has been almost exclusively associated with the Nazi mass genocide of Jewish / disabled / political prisoners etc. Now this is the fault of the worldwide education systems, who let's be clear should be referring to those camps under their true name of extermination camps. If kids were taught that the Nazi's used specialised extermination camps, then the word concentration camp would be freely usable for situations like this. But this isn't the case - nowadays if you say concentration camp, I believe the vast majority of people would think of gas chambers.
Its pretty clear to me that many of those who are using the phrase concentration camp right now aren't doing it in good conscience. They know that its factually correct, but they also know that it is indirectly misinforming the vast majority of people who have a different personal definition. This is something has definitely been employed previously by right-wing media, so yeah its kinda ironic that the Trump administration has their pants in a twist when they've been guilty of using factually true but socially charged language themselves. But at least IMO, once it became clear that kids were being explicitly taught that "nazis used concentration camps to kill people", we should probably reserve that phrase to exclusively refer to the Nazis.
Just to be clear, I'm british left-wing which is largely considered a step further left than even american democrats, so I'm not saying this out of political bias. I visited Sachsenhausen extermination camp in Berlin last year (which in the 1930s started as concentration camp, and today remains advertised as a concentration camp) and it was the most chilling day of my life And like everyone else, I can see the similarities between worldwide populism and what kicked off everything in 1930s Germany. But I'm also of the view that you can communicate how awful the border camps are without having to evoke imagery of the Nazis. Whenever someone does something awful people are far too quick to compare them to the worst human in modern history. To do this de-values what it means to call somebody a nazi.
What's going on over there is really unbelievably awful, but american media is well aware of what they are doing when they use the phrase concentration camp. Their heart is undeniably in the right place, but misleading people in order to shut these down is still kind of unethical. It opens a can of worms, and if you sit back and allow people to use the word concentration camp here, then you can't really complain when Trump later tries his "mislead people using factually correct statements that everyone knows mean something different" shtick.
edit: kept the old post for reference, but on further reflection I've changed my mind a touch. I'll still say that theres a discrepancy between the literal definition and the social connotations of what "concentration camp" means to average people, and I'm under no illusion that this nuance is being played on a bit to evoke strong emotional responses. People can quote the definition all they want, but we all know exactly what images go through people's heads when we say those words.
That said, if the best way to reunite these families and stop the cruelty is to knowingly put thoughts of forced labour and murder in people's heads then its probably worth it. There's still a line at which it becomes insensitive (e.g. still think direct comparisons to death camps and Hitler would be absolutely not OK and lack a sense of proportion), but if indirectly planting the worst case scenario in people's heads gets us a step closer to change, then I can't really argue with that.
Last edited:
what would you have them be called?
concentration camps pre-exist the will to systematically exterminate a population, theyre called concentration camps because by concentrating people you create a scarcity that will naturally lead to a competition for resources in which the outcome is loss of life. so no, your post confuses what something is with what it can become, intentionally mismanaged refugee camps, concentration camps, extermination camps, w.e you'd like them called theyre identical in premise and literally they're identical, the first refugee camps being literally repurposed extermination camps such as Fohrenwald http://remember.org/witness/cohen. In any case, these people are held without due process of the law in terrible and purposefully cruel conditions, so whatever your bleeding heart would like them to be called feel free.
attempting to misinterpret descriptors of past and present into some sort of attack on THE BAD MEDIA for raising ALARM about the historical fact that refugee camps become concentration camps and vice versa without any material update or change, is both pathetic and straight out of the far-right toolbook js. in addition it ignores the actual conditions for the population held there, so yeah, don't look away from the present and pretend like the facts of the past are sacred to you or smthg.
attempting to misinterpret descriptors of past and present into some sort of attack on THE BAD MEDIA for raising ALARM about the historical fact that refugee camps become concentration camps and vice versa without any material update or change, is both pathetic and straight out of the far-right toolbook js. in addition it ignores the actual conditions for the population held there, so yeah, don't look away from the present and pretend like the facts of the past are sacred to you or smthg.
Last edited:
I agree absolutely with everything here, I don't justify the border camps for a second and the sooner they're shut down the better. Its a humanitarian disgrace and the fact that children are routinely being seperated from parents and then kept in deliberately cruel conditions to prevent others from making the same journey is nothing short of abhorrent.
My only point is that definitions of things change depending on the way that they are socially used. In the last couple decades alone this has occured for countless of words including "awesome", "leech", "gay", "terrorist", "bully" to name just some random ones. There's a very strong case to be made that "concentration camp" has also been taken to mean something else - because it is falsely used interchangeably with "extermination camp" when educating people about the nazi atrocities. Nobody uses the word "leech" to mean doctor anymore, even though that was its literal initial meaning.
Yes, all extermination camps originally begin as concentration camps. And yes the stuff that is going on there right now is horrific, and we should be incredibly concerned and aware of it. But for the sake of explanation we do need to have words that accurately describe the horrifics that are going on at a specific camp, and if the phrase "concentration camp" has been falsely adopted when educating people about the forced labour and murder during the holocaust, it is then unethical to continue using that phrase if you are referring to the old definition of concentration camp.
So yes, name does matter. You can have different words to describe how "bad" a situation is. It doesn't make the conditions acceptable, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't still fight for the freedom of the people in those camps. But I do firmly believe that referring to them as "concentration camps" misleads millions of people who have been taught to associate that phrase with extermination.
We're literally debating whether or not there should be one word that that describes a whole host of different types of crimes, or whether we should have differing words that are more specific. We're on the same side of the fence when it comes to the actual ethics, the chance that it could progress into something far far worse etc but getting bogged down in how its described by out-of-date terms. We divide robbery into several different subtypes, we divide assault, we divide murder - doesn't it only make sense to also divide forceful internment of people? It doesn't make any of these things acceptable or ok but it improves our ability to accurately communicate.
My only point is that definitions of things change depending on the way that they are socially used. In the last couple decades alone this has occured for countless of words including "awesome", "leech", "gay", "terrorist", "bully" to name just some random ones. There's a very strong case to be made that "concentration camp" has also been taken to mean something else - because it is falsely used interchangeably with "extermination camp" when educating people about the nazi atrocities. Nobody uses the word "leech" to mean doctor anymore, even though that was its literal initial meaning.
Yes, all extermination camps originally begin as concentration camps. And yes the stuff that is going on there right now is horrific, and we should be incredibly concerned and aware of it. But for the sake of explanation we do need to have words that accurately describe the horrifics that are going on at a specific camp, and if the phrase "concentration camp" has been falsely adopted when educating people about the forced labour and murder during the holocaust, it is then unethical to continue using that phrase if you are referring to the old definition of concentration camp.
So yes, name does matter. You can have different words to describe how "bad" a situation is. It doesn't make the conditions acceptable, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't still fight for the freedom of the people in those camps. But I do firmly believe that referring to them as "concentration camps" misleads millions of people who have been taught to associate that phrase with extermination.
We're literally debating whether or not there should be one word that that describes a whole host of different types of crimes, or whether we should have differing words that are more specific. We're on the same side of the fence when it comes to the actual ethics, the chance that it could progress into something far far worse etc but getting bogged down in how its described by out-of-date terms. We divide robbery into several different subtypes, we divide assault, we divide murder - doesn't it only make sense to also divide forceful internment of people? It doesn't make any of these things acceptable or ok but it improves our ability to accurately communicate.
edit: kept the old post for reference, but on further reflection I've changed my mind a touch. I'll still say that theres a discrepancy between the literal definition and the social connotations of what "concentration camp" means to average people, and I'm under no illusion that this nuance is being played on a bit to evoke strong emotional responses. People can quote the definition all they want, but we all know exactly what images go through people's heads when we say those words.
That said, if the best way to reunite these families and stop the cruelty is to knowingly put thoughts of forced labour and murder in people's heads then its probably worth it. There's still a line at which it becomes insensitive (e.g. still think direct comparisons to death camps and Hitler would be absolutely not OK and lack a sense of proportion), but if indirectly planting the worst case scenario in people's heads gets us a step closer to change, then I can't really argue with that.
Last edited:
https://jewishcurrents.org/policing-the-borders-of-suffering/ is a solid articulation of the political zeitgeist in concentration camp policing, esp regarding AOC's use.
"Such establishment figures often, Kulwin writes, offer “readings of the Holocaust [that] suggest that there are no broader lessons to be drawn from it, other than the unique persecution faced by Jews.” Holocaust Studies scholar and Editor-in-Chief of PROTOCOLS Ben Ratskoff described this phenomenon to me as a “possessive investment in Holocaust memory,” or the operating “assumption that Jews alone have authority over terms that ‘evoke’ the Holocaust—terms such as ‘concentration camp.’” In this way, the analogy functions less as a tool for mobilizing empathy and more as a means of emotional-historical gatekeeping.
It also functions to segregate memory of the Holocaust from a more dynamic interaction with German colonialism and European imperial history. Germany was party to two genocides before the commencement of the Holocaust. It carried out the genocide of Herero and Nama peoples in its colony in South West Africa from 1904-1908 and then supported the Ottoman Empire’s genocide of Christian Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians as its ally during World War I—the latter was the case study for Raphael Lemkin’s coining of the word “genocide.” But the history of this genocidal trajectory has been eclipsed by the positioning of Nazi violence as singular.
.................................
Is the typology affixed to a structure more important than the material conditions produced? Is the semantic distinction more critical than the urgency of our collective solidarity and intervention?"
let'a also keep in mind the implications surrounding language, memory policing, and how modern carcerality is yet another reification of colonial violence. if white jews have a monopolization surrounding what creates a 'concentration camp', we are yet again ignoring black and indigenous scholars and giving more credence to white scholars to produce knowledge. that is a form of academic exploitation and colonialism itself. how can you defend this?
kids are dying, y'all. we are on step 8 and y'all restraining the conversation because you think the lessons of the holocaust are being muddied, instead of learned, by some awful logics and political gatekeeping. yikes.
"Such establishment figures often, Kulwin writes, offer “readings of the Holocaust [that] suggest that there are no broader lessons to be drawn from it, other than the unique persecution faced by Jews.” Holocaust Studies scholar and Editor-in-Chief of PROTOCOLS Ben Ratskoff described this phenomenon to me as a “possessive investment in Holocaust memory,” or the operating “assumption that Jews alone have authority over terms that ‘evoke’ the Holocaust—terms such as ‘concentration camp.’” In this way, the analogy functions less as a tool for mobilizing empathy and more as a means of emotional-historical gatekeeping.
It also functions to segregate memory of the Holocaust from a more dynamic interaction with German colonialism and European imperial history. Germany was party to two genocides before the commencement of the Holocaust. It carried out the genocide of Herero and Nama peoples in its colony in South West Africa from 1904-1908 and then supported the Ottoman Empire’s genocide of Christian Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians as its ally during World War I—the latter was the case study for Raphael Lemkin’s coining of the word “genocide.” But the history of this genocidal trajectory has been eclipsed by the positioning of Nazi violence as singular.
.................................
Is the typology affixed to a structure more important than the material conditions produced? Is the semantic distinction more critical than the urgency of our collective solidarity and intervention?"
let'a also keep in mind the implications surrounding language, memory policing, and how modern carcerality is yet another reification of colonial violence. if white jews have a monopolization surrounding what creates a 'concentration camp', we are yet again ignoring black and indigenous scholars and giving more credence to white scholars to produce knowledge. that is a form of academic exploitation and colonialism itself. how can you defend this?
kids are dying, y'all. we are on step 8 and y'all restraining the conversation because you think the lessons of the holocaust are being muddied, instead of learned, by some awful logics and political gatekeeping. yikes.
Totally-not-loaded question: when did the border camps or whatever we're calling them become concentration camps? As soon as they were built? As soon as the family separation policy came into existence? Two weeks ago when media began calling them that?
refugee/displaced persons camps are not usually distinguishable in the early phase from a concentration camp, the answer to your question depends on how long you want to wait to find out what the outcome of refusing to have a process of asylum claims, deteriorating and unsafe conditions for migrants, refusing to allow migrants to work legally while staying in the refugee camp, confiscating migrants valuable property, denying them access to lawyers in a way that satisfies due process, etc, will be. The effect of all these things seems to satisfy the standards for calling them concentration camps given a definition where scarcity is intentionally produced in a carceral context in order to effect a slower and perhaps more profitable death than a line to the gas chamber. If you look at the further criminalization of aiding migrants you can see that the purpose of these camps is to increase the risk of loss of life to people who try to migrate in order to discourage it. one difficult aspect of your question is that refugee camps and concentration camps are both militarized institutions thus their existence is in order to fulfill a state's objective not the migrants' safety/rights.
perhaps one event that might have played a formative role in the process of placing people seeking asylum in america in concentration camp conditions took place in 1994 when Fidel Castro again threatened to send a 6 figure migrant flow to the us, forcing the clinton administration to take steps to avoid repeat of the 1980 mariel boat lift that supposedly contributed to sinking carter.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...rn-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/
perhaps one event that might have played a formative role in the process of placing people seeking asylum in america in concentration camp conditions took place in 1994 when Fidel Castro again threatened to send a 6 figure migrant flow to the us, forcing the clinton administration to take steps to avoid repeat of the 1980 mariel boat lift that supposedly contributed to sinking carter.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...rn-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/
Last edited:
Not like this is important, but here are my recent thoughts. (That probably aren't relevant to those who don't know me)
Many of you might remember that I used to believe in shit like white supremacy. (Even in earlier posts on this thread, which I now have deleted)
I don't anymore.
I would argue that I was not evil, but brainwashed.
They don't just tell you one lie. They tell you an entire set of lies that were carefully thought out.
If you're brainwashed with something's that's far from the truth, the truth becomes very difficult to accept at first. And you'd find the truth stupid at first.
Most of the liberal ideals sounded "stupid" to me at first, including things like socialism.
I'd argue that not all people who find liberal ideals stupid are not all evil. Some of them may be evil, but not all of them.
Hong Kong was a legit British colony when I was little, and white supremacist propaganda was everywhere- teachers would talk about how stupid Chinese people were and how great Europeans were. (China was really poor at the time)
We were told that we got rich because we were submissive towards the whites, and we as Chinese people are not smart enough to have our own decisions. "Chinese rulers always ruled badly" we had this sentence shoved into our minds regularly.
People would justify the theory by saying that Asian countries were no match against the European ones during World War II.
So it looked like history supported their claim.
But World War II was a rather short time frame, and was far from being the entire history of humanity.
Things started to crumble due to China's economic boom in the 2010's, but people quickly came up with the theory "Asians are not a bad race, we are just slightly lower than the whites, so we can achieve a lot of we work hard."
Then people believed that for a long time.
People would justify the theory by stating poor African countries the charities love to talk about.
Most of us only knew about African countries from charities.
Then people would also say that African Americans are still overwhelmingly poor after being freed.
That is because no one taught them about the existence of Jim Crow laws/ segregation laws.
People thought that equality was suddenly achieved after slavery was abolished, when in reality, equality has not even been achieved nowadays.
But what about the economic boom in Africa nowadays?
This is when things are starting to really change.
Moreover, with the development of the internet, more and more Asians now know about the existence of Jim Crow laws/ segregation laws, and realize that the society still treats black people unfairly.
More and more young people realize that we were brainwashed with crap during colonization.
My point is, it takes a lot of time and effort to convert a brainwashed person, because the theories the rulers come up with were carefully thought out. They don't just tell you one lie. They tell you an entire set of lies, carefully packaged and well thought out.
But converting a person is not impossible.
So, next time you see someone supporting ridiculous things, maybe you shouldn't assume that he / she's a troll, or that he/ she was evil.
He/ she could have been a victim of brainwashing.
Try pointing out the flaws of his/ her claims, instead of insulting him/ her.
That is how we are trying to convert the older generation now.
Things are certainly changing.
I don't anymore.
I would argue that I was not evil, but brainwashed.
They don't just tell you one lie. They tell you an entire set of lies that were carefully thought out.
If you're brainwashed with something's that's far from the truth, the truth becomes very difficult to accept at first. And you'd find the truth stupid at first.
Most of the liberal ideals sounded "stupid" to me at first, including things like socialism.
I'd argue that not all people who find liberal ideals stupid are not all evil. Some of them may be evil, but not all of them.
Hong Kong was a legit British colony when I was little, and white supremacist propaganda was everywhere- teachers would talk about how stupid Chinese people were and how great Europeans were. (China was really poor at the time)
We were told that we got rich because we were submissive towards the whites, and we as Chinese people are not smart enough to have our own decisions. "Chinese rulers always ruled badly" we had this sentence shoved into our minds regularly.
People would justify the theory by saying that Asian countries were no match against the European ones during World War II.
So it looked like history supported their claim.
But World War II was a rather short time frame, and was far from being the entire history of humanity.
Things started to crumble due to China's economic boom in the 2010's, but people quickly came up with the theory "Asians are not a bad race, we are just slightly lower than the whites, so we can achieve a lot of we work hard."
Then people believed that for a long time.
People would justify the theory by stating poor African countries the charities love to talk about.
Most of us only knew about African countries from charities.
Then people would also say that African Americans are still overwhelmingly poor after being freed.
That is because no one taught them about the existence of Jim Crow laws/ segregation laws.
People thought that equality was suddenly achieved after slavery was abolished, when in reality, equality has not even been achieved nowadays.
But what about the economic boom in Africa nowadays?
This is when things are starting to really change.
Moreover, with the development of the internet, more and more Asians now know about the existence of Jim Crow laws/ segregation laws, and realize that the society still treats black people unfairly.
More and more young people realize that we were brainwashed with crap during colonization.
My point is, it takes a lot of time and effort to convert a brainwashed person, because the theories the rulers come up with were carefully thought out. They don't just tell you one lie. They tell you an entire set of lies, carefully packaged and well thought out.
But converting a person is not impossible.
So, next time you see someone supporting ridiculous things, maybe you shouldn't assume that he / she's a troll, or that he/ she was evil.
He/ she could have been a victim of brainwashing.
Try pointing out the flaws of his/ her claims, instead of insulting him/ her.
That is how we are trying to convert the older generation now.
Things are certainly changing.
Last edited:
If you think carefully PC culture makes no one happy, not even the minorities you claim you're fighting the rights for. Imagine if you're a minority and some average commoner is forced to put on a facade and only act and say certain words and use very specific terminology when interacting between each other simply because an outrage mob is always behind you with a gun pointed towards your head.
As an immigrant to the west after growing up in an Asian background for 18 years, I can tell many of these people trying to be politically correct are making fools of themselves. They tried to speak my native language when I actually attended an English speaking international school and had a fluency on par with them. I was like 'bruv, stop BSing yourself and just treat me as if I'm local born, it's really not that hard, what exactly are you trying to achieve by putting this fake smile and pretending that you actually care about cultural appropriation? I actually bothered to study English well for a reason - to immigrate and assimulate.'
PC culture creates a lot of unnecessary friction between relationships and forces people to be two-faced while not really having anything to benefit from if you ask me.
As an immigrant to the west after growing up in an Asian background for 18 years, I can tell many of these people trying to be politically correct are making fools of themselves. They tried to speak my native language when I actually attended an English speaking international school and had a fluency on par with them. I was like 'bruv, stop BSing yourself and just treat me as if I'm local born, it's really not that hard, what exactly are you trying to achieve by putting this fake smile and pretending that you actually care about cultural appropriation? I actually bothered to study English well for a reason - to immigrate and assimulate.'
PC culture creates a lot of unnecessary friction between relationships and forces people to be two-faced while not really having anything to benefit from if you ask me.
Despite the necromancy performed on this thread, I have to say while approaching from the wrong angle I do think you have a point when it comes to the performativeness of "pc culture". I think aiming to be more respectful and mindful of minority people is a net good, but you are correct that a lot of the time the surface level politics over corrects and only achieves a greater feeling of othering rather than any real inclusivity. There is a lot of condescension almost that is involved in such performative behavior as say, Kamala Harris announcing her pronouns, or in a more niche example the push behind quote unquote normalizing "bi lesbian" as an identifier.
Ultimately respect is earned not demanded, regardless whom it may be minority or not and there shouldn't be a single exception to that principle. I for example do NOT need nor do I want people to give me special treatment or always double think about the language they use when they are next to me. It's just bloody awkward when people have to be or act as a person they aren't. It's insincere, disingenuous and simply fradulant. On the other hand I actually see that as an insult, it's equivalent to say 'youre an immigrant or your skin colour is different so you are incapable of assimilating with our culture/vibing as other people who are natural born so we need to act and treat you differently to ensure you don't feel left out'. Which makes PC individuals discriminating and looking down on those minorities they claim they want to be more 'polite' and 'kind' to ironically enough. It creates an unnecessary false victimhood mentality
Maybe this is just a personal experience but 99 times out of 100 if you assimilate to the local culture well which may include but not limited to speaking the native language fluently, abide by laws and regulations, embrace the social norms customs and traditions of a culture and most importantly prove you're actually a valuable asset to society in the workforce such as getting a professional job and paying your taxes 99 times out of 100 nobody gives a damn about what identity you may possess and if you're an immigrant or natural born. Ofcourse from time to time you will bump to those bigots that will literally persecute or discriminate you simply because of your skin colour or whatever intersectional identity status you might hold but aside from the tiny fringe minority of those people by no means does this justify an entire civilization to adopt PC culture. It's just ridiculous and uncalled for.
Last edited:
I get what you're saying and empathise with you on the issue of people overcompensating for you based on identity. Being trans, I've experienced it quite regularly, specifically with people parading me around among friend groups and making a scene over certain things. It can be really patronising at times.
But, I think you're misunderstanding a small part of this, about being mindful. This isn't about changing how you act - that would be very excessive - but about understanding. This isn't to say people should be profiled on their identity either, as that repeats wrongs enacted by many, though I can also see why this can be seen as a grey area. Respect should certainly be earned, but there should always be a baseline understanding to ensure you treat people the way they rightfully deserve, which is what this is about.
So for example, if you go around spouting dark humour that would rub certain minorities the wrong way, saying it to those minorities, unsolicited, would be dickish, right? You could say it's fraudulent to not, but I'd disagree. Personally, I see it as a courtesy, akin to why you wouldn't say offensive jokes in public forums. By nature, people will change the ways they act towards different people to ensure they feel comfortable.
If I've interpreted this wrong, feel free to point it out.
People who complain about 'political correctness' just want an excuse to be a bastard.
I mean, people often complain about not being able to use certain slurs, because of political correctness. But why is it so important to say the N-word, for example? Why is it such a bad thing to just not use a certain word, if you know it offends and hurts people? Of course you can say people should be able to handle that, but if you know it hurts people, why do you need to be an asshole and do it anyways?
Having to be 'politically correct' is NOT opressive. It just means people are asking you not to be a dick.
People often say that 'social justice warriors' have no sense of humor, because they don't like 'politically incorrect' jokes. But if your sense of humour consists of sexist, racist, ableist, transphobic and homophobic 'jokes' and nothing else, maybe you might not be that funny. There are plenty of jokes that aren't problematic, so just make those or come up with one. Ask yourself why it's so important to you to make a racist or sexist joke, even if people told you how much it hurts them.
People might not mean anything bad when they use certain terms, reinforce stereotypes or say certain things, but even if this is not your intention, you are reinforcing stereotypes and hurting people.
For example, I have aspergers. I am autistic. People often joke about it, based on stereotypes. They might not mean any harm (but some people do), but they are reinforcing horrible ableist stereotypes that most people actually believe in. They are normalizing those stereotypes. And these stereotypes make it almost impossible to get a job, make friends or date for many autistic people. After all, no one is going to give you a chance if they believe you're mentally a child and if they believe you have no emotions and no empathy. These stereotypes are bullshit, but most people believe this shit, because people keep spreading the stereotypes. And even if someone would fit that stereotype, does that make them any less human and any less deserving of respect? No. Autism isn't a social death sentence, but ableist stereotypes certainly are a social death sentence for many autistic people.
If you joke about a 'funny stereotype' you saw in Rain Man or Atypical, you reinforce these stereotypes. If you treat autistic adults like children or assume that they don't have emotions or empathy, you are reinforcing stereotypes that ruin our lives, whether you like it or not.
After spending the first twenty years of my life in complete social isolation, being bullied and dealing with victim blaming, I have I've been ridiculously lucky when it comes to friendship and dating. Not because non-autistic people are finally accepting me, which they aren't and probably never will... But because I met autistic women. However, I know that a lot of autistic people spend their entire life without ever experiencing friendship, romance, independence and/or happiness. Is that because of their autism? No. This is because we live in a society that doesn't accept autistic people. And despite having amazing fellow aspies in my life now, I still suffer from PTSD and chronical depression.
When it comes to personal experiences, I can only talk about ableism. But sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. cause a lot of people to suffer. Do you really want to contribute to that, just because you want to say something sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc.?
Sadly, most people don't give a fuck, and will continue to use racist slurs and make sexist jokes, despite being told over and over again not to do so.
I mean, people often complain about not being able to use certain slurs, because of political correctness. But why is it so important to say the N-word, for example? Why is it such a bad thing to just not use a certain word, if you know it offends and hurts people? Of course you can say people should be able to handle that, but if you know it hurts people, why do you need to be an asshole and do it anyways?
Having to be 'politically correct' is NOT opressive. It just means people are asking you not to be a dick.
People often say that 'social justice warriors' have no sense of humor, because they don't like 'politically incorrect' jokes. But if your sense of humour consists of sexist, racist, ableist, transphobic and homophobic 'jokes' and nothing else, maybe you might not be that funny. There are plenty of jokes that aren't problematic, so just make those or come up with one. Ask yourself why it's so important to you to make a racist or sexist joke, even if people told you how much it hurts them.
People might not mean anything bad when they use certain terms, reinforce stereotypes or say certain things, but even if this is not your intention, you are reinforcing stereotypes and hurting people.
For example, I have aspergers. I am autistic. People often joke about it, based on stereotypes. They might not mean any harm (but some people do), but they are reinforcing horrible ableist stereotypes that most people actually believe in. They are normalizing those stereotypes. And these stereotypes make it almost impossible to get a job, make friends or date for many autistic people. After all, no one is going to give you a chance if they believe you're mentally a child and if they believe you have no emotions and no empathy. These stereotypes are bullshit, but most people believe this shit, because people keep spreading the stereotypes. And even if someone would fit that stereotype, does that make them any less human and any less deserving of respect? No. Autism isn't a social death sentence, but ableist stereotypes certainly are a social death sentence for many autistic people.
If you joke about a 'funny stereotype' you saw in Rain Man or Atypical, you reinforce these stereotypes. If you treat autistic adults like children or assume that they don't have emotions or empathy, you are reinforcing stereotypes that ruin our lives, whether you like it or not.
After spending the first twenty years of my life in complete social isolation, being bullied and dealing with victim blaming, I have I've been ridiculously lucky when it comes to friendship and dating. Not because non-autistic people are finally accepting me, which they aren't and probably never will... But because I met autistic women. However, I know that a lot of autistic people spend their entire life without ever experiencing friendship, romance, independence and/or happiness. Is that because of their autism? No. This is because we live in a society that doesn't accept autistic people. And despite having amazing fellow aspies in my life now, I still suffer from PTSD and chronical depression.
When it comes to personal experiences, I can only talk about ableism. But sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. cause a lot of people to suffer. Do you really want to contribute to that, just because you want to say something sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc.?
Sadly, most people don't give a fuck, and will continue to use racist slurs and make sexist jokes, despite being told over and over again not to do so.
The situation you're experiencing isn't necessarily anyone complaining about PC culture or are simply not PC enough but it's just a bunch of either toxic people trying to inflict harm on others for whatever reason or simply they aren't aware/educated enough of people that are also autistic similar to you and thus create false or inaccurate stereotypes. What you should really do is just stay away from then and circle yourself around with people that are a lot more reasonable and don't bite into such stereotypes; or simply prove them wrong.
Well, I just described my situation to make people understand why being PC is a good thing. As in, not making harmful jokes or comments. Not being ableist. Just like how people should try their best not to be sexist, racist, homophobic etc.
Lots of people are not willing to listen or change their behaviour. Lots of people are not willing to think critically about their behaviour. But there are also people who are well-meaning, but just don't get it yet. And trying to explain something, hoping that those people will learn something, is always worth it.
But yeah, I do have to deal with lots of ableist stereotypes, and with offensive jokes about autism that are supposed to be 'funny'. Both from well-meaning people who don't understand how harmful that is, and from people who just don't give a fuck and who are unwilling to change.
Surrounding yourself with kind, understanding people doesn't erase discrimination and oppression. Most people can't avoid racist, ableist, transphobic, racist and sexist family members, even if they wanted to. And people who go to school, study or have a job can't avoid colleagues or fellow students, even if they wanted to. 'Just avoid people' is not how it works, sadly.
Even if someone would manage to avoid all ableist people, which is not possible... That doesn't erase the fact that there are movies like Rain Man, books like The Rosie Project and series like Atypical, made by non-autistic people, that spread stereotypes and make fun of autism. And those movies and series have an impact on their non-autistic audience. In that audience are family members, fellow students, colleagues, potential employers, potential love interests... You name it. And if family members, fellow students, colleagues, potential love interests or potential employers hear other people tell jokes or spread stereotypes, that will impact the way they view autistic people.
And it doesn't just work that way with autism. It also works that way with harmful views, stereotypes and jokes about women, gay people, trans people, people of colour, disabled people and many other people who are oppressed.
And that is why political correctness is a good thing. It challenges people to think about what they say. If people try their best to be politically correct, they would be less racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic etc., which will make the world a better place for marginalized people.
So yes, political correctness does link up to what I described about my experiences with ableism.
And of course I'm not going to befriend someone who believes autistic people are incapable of empathy (which is bullshit, my autistic best friend and girlfriend are the most empathetic people on the planet). or someone who believes that I must be an emotionless robot. I've ended a potential friendship once because that woman was kind to me, until I told her about my autism. When I told her, she started talking to me as if I was a child, explaining simple things and speaking extremely slowly. As you can understand, I was no longer interested in befriending her.
I would never be able to befriend someone who is sexist, homophobic, racist, ableist, transphobic, or in any other way actively oppressive. If someone makes a mistake sometimes, that's fine. Everyone does. So do I. Nobody is perfect. But if someone is really sexist of homophobic, and not willing to actively try to be feminist and pro-LGBT, I am not able to befriend that person. And if I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to listen to people who explain to me what I did wrong.
Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying my best to explain things as thoroughly as possible.
Last edited:
EDIT 2:
You also can't really change peoples minds via censorship. If they are blank-ist then telling them to shut up about it won't tell them what to learn and they'll be more opposed to actually changing. And full out cancelling (for social media) for the high crime of blankism probably shouldn't be a thing, but that's also commentary of the nonsecurity of being an influencer
Also there's the case of people actively searching out -isms (such as in the media, like video games. "everything is sexist, everything is racist"). And now you're actively scared of accidentally slipping bc PC
also being artificially nice is pretty bad, and 'wanting an excuse to be a bastard' isnt very tight
there's ways to skirt around being partially blank-ist, ie sarcasm, plenty of edge cases
there's also commentary of *actual* things that trend within a group which is always iffy (like women and shopping, even if some don't like it)
i've never heard of anybody who outright joked about disability but that's just me
You also can't really change peoples minds via censorship. If they are blank-ist then telling them to shut up about it won't tell them what to learn and they'll be more opposed to actually changing. And full out cancelling (for social media) for the high crime of blankism probably shouldn't be a thing, but that's also commentary of the nonsecurity of being an influencer
Also there's the case of people actively searching out -isms (such as in the media, like video games. "everything is sexist, everything is racist"). And now you're actively scared of accidentally slipping bc PC
part of it is that censorship bad lmao
also being artificially nice is pretty bad, and 'wanting an excuse to be a bastard' isnt very tight
-ist, -ist, -ist, eeee
there's ways to skirt around being partially blank-ist, ie sarcasm, plenty of edge cases
there's also commentary of *actual* things that trend within a group which is always iffy (like women and shopping, even if some don't like it)
first off nitpick but you don't have to report any disability on getting a job (interviews, sure, but i digress and normal people are 'judged' too)
i've never heard of anybody who outright joked about disability but that's just me
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone who is also autistic, I have to say that this feels like a double standard. I constantly need to be "artificially nice," because most people expect things like eye contact and small talk topics that don't include Arbitrary Code glitches in video games. Doing this doesn't come naturally, it takes effort. And if I'm going to be constantly asked to put in extra effort when talking with people, I don't see the problem with expecting some effort out of other people when they are talking with me.
You can also just not say the N-word. Whether you mean to be racist or not, saying it is racist. It hurts lots of black people. That alone should be a good reason not to say it.
And is there really a need to say it? Why do people want to say it so badly? You can also just not say the N-word. Do you really lose anything if you don't say that word anymore? No, you don't. So just don't use it. Period. There's no good excuse to use that word.
Reporting a disability to get a job... Well, just personally... I can hide it decently, but masking is exhausting. If I get a job and don't open up at all, I will have to keep acting 24/7, which is impossible to keep up. It will result in a burn-out if I do.
If I do open up, and the employer would be okay with it, I can work just fine without any adjustments or accomodations. All I need is just not having to keep walking on eggshells, trying to hide it. An employer accepting it and colleagues knowing and accepting it.
However, if the word 'aspergers' or 'autism' is enough to turn off any employer... Well, you're pretty fucked.
Also, some people HAVE TO open up. Some people need accomodations, and can't get them if they don't explain to their employer why they need accomodations.
Well, that's just you.
I've often had to deal with people joking about the movie Rain Man, counting lucifers and shit like that.
And there's the stereotype about autistic people being maths/science wonders, which not all of us are. At least I'm the total opposite. I once had an internship at this local newspaper, and when a colleague's computer broke down, he joked that I should be able to fix it, because I'm autistic... And other colleagues were laughing. Might be seen as a minor microagression, but still not very nice if you have to deal with it.
Oh, and a former friend of mine once saw this Dutch documentary about this guy who matches all the stereotypes. And she kept joking that I must love trains... And when she talked about a one night stand she had the day before, she joked that I couldn't know what she was talking about, 'because all autistic people are virgin neckbeards'. Very, very funny...
Her stereotypes were bullshit. I don't give a fuck about trains, and I had a fuckbuddy at that time (and a girlfriend now). And I don't have any facial hair.
And if some people do love trains and do happen to be neckbeards who never had sex, they deserve just as much respect as someone who doesn't fit those traits.
Anyways, this person and I are no longer friends. But yeah, it's not as if those jokes are rare. I've heard shit like this many, many, many times. Both jokingly and people who seriously mean it.
I've actively been rejected by people after telling them I'm autistic. People who just treated me normally until I told them.
For example, I had a job interview a few years ago. Things went well, and that woman was very optimistic and gave me compliments. Until I told her about my aspergers. After that, she started talking to me as if I'm a child. I tried to calmly explain how autism affects me and that I'm not like the stereotype, but she didn't take me seriously anymore. I did not get the job.
This is just one example, but there are more. This happens all the time to autistic people. Sometimes when looking for a job, sometimes when looking for an internship, sometimes when dating, sometimes when trying to make friends... Often, we are fucked when we open up. I've been lucky when it comes to dating, and I have an amazing best friend, but I've had to deal with very nasty job interviews and attempts at befriending people.
First of all, not every autistic person has every autistic trait. Some are more social than others. And not all autistic people stim, or stim in an obvious way. I don't really stim. And a friend of mine sometimes stims by softly tapping a pen or a stim toy, but she always makes sure to not make any loud noises. She hides it very well, especially around non-autistic people. How is that antisocial?
Second, what is considered socially acceptable is subjective. I mean, if someone stims and needs that for stress-relief, and it's not super loud or anything, why not just accept it and not pay too much attention to it? Live and let live.
And plenty of non-autistic people also have traits that aren't very social. Plenty of non-autistic people are not very empathetic or sensitive. Most people say autistic people are like that, but plenty of non-autistic people are like that as well! And there are also autistic people who are sensitive and empathetic!
Both non-autistic and autistic people can have antisocial traits.
Indeed! We constantly have to adapt and mask, and even then, we're lucky if we get tolerated. Tolerated, because most of the time, acceptance is completely out of reach. And then, people say we're not adapting well enough... Non-autistic people don't even try to adapt to us, while we constantly try our best to hide our true self and it's still not good enough...
I'm not expecting non-autistic people to make extreme effort the way autistic people have to, even though I wouldn't mind. Just accepting some oddities or differences, and not judging us or treating us like children would be nice. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.
Last edited:
Out of curiosity would you consider people not wanting to chat with you, not wanting to be your friend or even simply not wanting to interact with you altogether discriminative or bullying
Gonna call you out on this one because that is "100% bs". I've straight up lost job opportunities over my autism because of sociopathic employers who think my high functioning autism made me unable to work the job. In the UK, this is illegal under discrimination laws (specifically if you reject on disability alone), and I've reported every single one successfully. I've even seen this with friends.
Not to mention Autism Speaks is an organisation that exists and has been thoroughly discredited. Hell, it may as we be a hate group at this point. I suggest doing some research on that one, they willfully ignore basic facts and science to push an agenda that autism is some kind of pandemic rather than your brain being wired differently.
Oh, if people don't want to talk to me, they shouldn't. That's perfectly fine.
If people think I'm a dick, that's fine. Let them think that.
If people don't want to talk to me because I'm not interested in befriending nasty sexists, homophobes etc., that's fine. I don't want to talk to them either.
I would never bully anyone. I don't snap at random people to call them out. Most of the time when I see nasty shit, I'm too afraid to even say anything. I'm not calling out strangers online or anything. At most, I talk to people I know, if someone seems willing to listen, I try to talk to them in a calm and respectful way.
And about calling out other people... I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If someone believes they have a right to free speech, and the right to say sexist things, for example... Then feminists also have a right to free speech and are allowed to call them out for saying sexist things. If someone believes they have the right to be racist because of a right to free speech... Then don't complain if anti-racists call you out. That's also free speech.
Indeed! Sadly, I couldn't report employers who treated me like this. I mean, they won't outright say they reject you because of your autism. They will often use some kind of excuse, so you can't prove that they discriminated you. Discrimination laws make it illegal to reject based on disability in the Netherlands as well, but if they come up with some bullshit excuse as their so-called reason to reject you, and if they don't outright say they reject you because of your autism... Then you're pretty fucked here.
That woman I brought up in this post... When she called me to say she didn't hire me, she just said she felt like I would not match well with the other journalists at that newspaper. That way, I can't prove it's because of my autism. Of course it's obvious that that's the reason, since she was super optimistic and positive until I told her, and she started treating me like a child after telling her... But I can't prove it.
Autism Speaks is definitely a hate group. I hate 'parent activism' altogether. There are autistic people who are autism advocates, but nobody listens to them, because people only listen to ableist 'autism parents'...
It's just like... If you have a talk show on television and there's a topic related to feminism, you should invite feminist women, not pro-feminist men, no matter how well-meaning they are. If there's a topic about homosexuality, you should invite gays, not straight allies.
When it comes to autism, journalists always interview parents and parent-lead organisations. After all, why should they take autistic people seriously? We are eternal children without any empathy or emotions...
When it comes to autism activism, parents need to fuck off. Sadly, they never will, since they think they can represent us better than we can represent ourselves. And because other people, including media, believe that parents represent us better than we represent ourselves... :(
Last edited:
- Status