What is the alternative to political correctness?

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

I’ve been trying to tease an answer to this question to the most passionate anti-PC crusaders I know.  Thought I might post it here to provoke a bit of debate.

 

We can all see that politicians like Trump have been elected partially as a reaction against political correctness.  I largely understand the frustration towards political correctness ‘run amok’, and find aspects of political correctness deeply problematic, but I haven’t yet found a clear articulation of what should take its place.  Maybe someone here could give it a shot?

[SuperSpreader]

The opposite is Young Brett Kavanaugh

 

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

The opposite is Young Brett Kavanaugh

 

 

You really boofed this answer. 

[mclumber1]

If we strived to be more like Bill and Ted, we would be better off:

 

http://www.karmacolonic.com/2011/06/03/the-wisdom-of-bill-and-ted/

 

Quote

As various philosophers and religious figures have advocated across cultures and millenia, the general injunction to honor and care for other people (“love one another”) is clearly seen in Bill and Ted’s first principle. But more than just being “nice” or “good” to each other, a superlative degree of commitment is required in this mandate to respect and serve others: we are asked to be excellent to each other… to offer our best in day-to-day interactions. And consistently showing “excellence” toward others is a very challenging task indeed.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Conservative bitching about "PC culture run amok" or something like that is them just being pissy that they can't say the n word even in a rap song, or something similar. They can't be assholes to people because of who they are (rather than what they have or are doing/done) and that upsets them.

[RedSoxFan9]

ignore people who complain about political correctness

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Nothing because it doesn't exist.

 

It's an intellectually bankrupt, empty, vacuous red herring.

[Slug]

I don't know if I can express this correctly, but I'm going to try.  I think what's missing, and what gets to a lot of the anti-PC crowd and causes their lashback and frustration,  is an acceptance of context and intent.  There's a big difference between careless language (e.g. using "gay" as a pejorative) and active malicious intent.  A lot of otherwise good people use the former, and sometimes as a result they can get lumped in with folks who engage in the latter.  They get understandably defensive; being called an *ist or an *phobe is a serious thing.  So they dig their heels in.  Once  this has happened to them they begin seeing any social "correction" as sensitivity gone wrong and are apt to view any examples of it as more overreaction even in cases where it's probably deserved.  What you end up with is an active detractor of the PC movement because they've been "hurt" by over-correction that they didn't really deserve.  Does that make sense? 

 

As far as the question goes, I'm not sure I have a good answer.  I think that for the most part the social justice/PC movement is a Good Thing.  I just also believe that the cause would be better served if some of the more...I'm not sure zealous is the right word..."active" members of that community would dial it back a hair and take a critical eye to some of the incidents they react to.  Ask themselves if they're looking at a case of an actual bad actor that aims to harm or just someone who doesn't think before they speak.  The response shouldn't be the same for both.

[MarSolo]

It’s people crying about Merry Christmas not being on coffee cups.

 

Fuck anyone crying about political correctness. 

[Greatoneshere]

Trump's side employs more "political correctness" than anyone ever before, in the same way Nazi's and Stalin use "politically correct", that is, it's not "politically correct" to criticize the President, so scrub all criticisms, even factual ones, from the record.

 

That's the real political correctness we need to be worried about. The "political correctness" of some on the left argue not for "political correctness" but rather "moral correctness" and that's always going to be decided whether something needs to be morally accounted for or not culturally on a case by case basis. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Apathy or indifference. They're the opposite of caring if what you do negatively impacts somebody else. 

[Guest]

I’m generally in favor of a view of people that doesn’t presume the worst of intentions in everything they say or do.

[Boyle5150]

1 hour ago, Slug said:

I don't know if I can express this correctly, but I'm going to try.  I think what's missing, and what gets to a lot of the anti-PC crowd and causes their lashback and frustration,  is an acceptance of context and intent.  There's a big difference between careless language (e.g. using "gay" as a pejorative) and active malicious intent.  A lot of otherwise good people use the former, and sometimes as a result they can get lumped in with folks who engage in the latter.  They get understandably defensive; being called an *ist or an *phobe is a serious thing.  So they dig their heels in.  Once  this has happened to them they begin seeing any social "correction" as sensitivity gone wrong and are apt to view any examples of it as more overreaction even in cases where it's probably deserved.  What you end up with is an active detractor of the PC movement because they've been "hurt" by over-correction that they didn't really deserve.  Does that make sense? 

 

As far as the question goes, I'm not sure I have a good answer.  I think that for the most part the social justice/PC movement is a Good Thing.  I just also believe that the cause would be better served if some of the more...I'm not sure zealous is the right word..."active" members of that community would dial it back a hair and take a critical eye to some of the incidents they react to.  Ask themselves if they're looking at a case of an actual bad actor that aims to harm or just someone who doesn't think before they speak.  The response shouldn't be the same for both.

 

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I’m generally in favor of a view of people that doesn’t presume the worst of intentions in everything they say or do.

Exactly!  It’s one of our biggest problems in our current time. 

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Slug said:

I don't know if I can express this correctly, but I'm going to try.  I think what's missing, and what gets to a lot of the anti-PC crowd and causes their lashback and frustration,  is an acceptance of context and intent.  There's a big difference between careless language (e.g. using "gay" as a pejorative) and active malicious intent.  A lot of otherwise good people use the former, and sometimes as a result they can get lumped in with folks who engage in the latter.  They get understandably defensive; being called an *ist or an *phobe is a serious thing.  So they dig their heels in.  Once  this has happened to them they begin seeing any social "correction" as sensitivity gone wrong and are apt to view any examples of it as more overreaction even in cases where it's probably deserved.  What you end up with is an active detractor of the PC movement because they've been "hurt" by over-correction that they didn't really deserve.  Does that make sense? 

 

As far as the question goes, I'm not sure I have a good answer.  I think that for the most part the social justice/PC movement is a Good Thing.  I just also believe that the cause would be better served if some of the more...I'm not sure zealous is the right word..."active" members of that community would dial it back a hair and take a critical eye to some of the incidents they react to.  Ask themselves if they're looking at a case of an actual bad actor that aims to harm or just someone who doesn't think before they speak.  The response shouldn't be the same for both.

 

If you use something as a pejorative instead of having active malicious intent, you should be totally fine with refraining once you learn it offends certain people. If you continue to use it, then you deserve whatever name is thrown at you.

 

*The hypothetical "you", not you, Slug.

[Jason]

Just now, Jose said:

 

If you use something as a pejorative instead of having active malicious intent, you should be totally fine with refraining once you learn it offends certain people. If you continue to use it, then you deserve whatever name is thrown at you.

 

And his point is that all too often the name IMMEDIATELY gets thrown at you instead of giving you a chance to refrain. 

[Joe]

This is ridiculous.  That excuse could be used for teenagers, but not for adults. 

[Boyle5150]

7 minutes ago, Jose said:

This is ridiculous.  That excuse could be used for teenagers, but not for adults. 

It’s not like someone like Richard Dawkins would get called an islamphobe and prevented from speaking at a university.  

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

It’s not like someone like Richard Dawkins would get called an islamphobe and prevented from speaking at a university.  

 

Are you ok with people using gay as a pejorative?

[Boyle5150]

4 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

Are you ok with people using gay as a pejorative?

No. But that’s not what I’m talking about.  

[Joe]

Alright, but that's what I was talking about. The Dawkins issue is murkier.

[Boyle5150]

Just now, Jose said:

Alright, but that's what I was talking about. The Dawkins issue is murkier.

The Dawkins thing is exactly the problem with the far left. 

[Boyle5150]

However, I wouldn’t call that political correctness but rather pure ignorance. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

As always, the issue isn't black-and-white.  At one end of the spectrum, there are people who look to take offence to almost anything.  At the other end of the spectrum, are people who feel they should be able to say anything they want, especially if others take offence to it.  In my experience, most people who are at either end of the spectrum, feel that everyone that doesn't 100% agree with them are at the other end of the spectrum.

 

In the middle, there are people who try to be nice to everyone, but recognize they will occasionally hear things they find offensive -- and are "OK" with that.  As one of these people, I feel that both type of people I described above are generally idiots.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I totally agree with a Central American right-wing death squad leader from the 1980s whose name escapes me right now:

 

The "moderate center" is like an anus: it's round and it stinks.

[Bloodporne]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I totally agree with a Central American right-wing death squad leader from the 1980s whose name escapes me right now:

 

The "moderate center" is like an anus: it's round and it stinks.

Roberto?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Bloodporne said:

Roberto?

The odds of his name being Roberto are pretty high.

[Bloodporne]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

The odds of his name being Roberto are pretty high.

Had to google this fucker's name. I can't spell that:

 

Roberto D'Aubuisson

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Bloodporne said:

Had to google this fucker's name. I can't spell that:

 

Roberto D'Aubuisson

It might have been D'Aubuisson, but I don't remember if it was El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras.

[sexy_shapiro]

I don’t necessarily think society is more sensitive, it’s just that our values are always shifting. Some things are more taboo than they were 20 years ago, some things are less.

 

There’s Somethint About Mary is a great example of the how things have shifted. The semen in hair gag was quite controversial at the time, but the same joke could be put in Family Guy today and nobody would bat and eye. (Hell, it’s crazy to even think that The Simpsons was boundary pushing when it first came out) On the other hand, all the stuff with Mary’s mentally challenged brother wouldn’t fly nowadays.

 

The problem with these “anti-PC” guys is that they never look at the big picture.

[AbsolutSurgen]

An example of "PC-run-amok":

Toronto airport removes ad after activists complain it's 'insulting' to cows

[RedSoxFan9]

supreme logic god Richard Dawkins compared clock boy to a terrorist

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/25/richard-dawkins-links-isis-child-who-beheaded-man-and-clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed

[Boyle5150]

12 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

supreme logic god Richard Dawkins compared clock boy to a terrorist

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/25/richard-dawkins-links-isis-child-who-beheaded-man-and-clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed

OMG ? 

now go back and read the rest of his tweets in response.  

[RedSoxFan9]

He hates Muslims, and I’m happy to see him get deplatformed  

[Boyle5150]

Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

He hates Muslims, and I’m happy to see him get deplatformed  

This here is the problem with the left.  This is exactly why there is such a huge pendulum swing.  

[Boyle5150]