What is the alternative to political correctness?

[Boyle5150]

Btw, the PC as understood in the OP is not exactly what I am talking about.  The PC that a couple of users itt have demonstrated is what I'm talking about.  Being PC is not bad, but shutting down speech is.  Let those with shitty ideas and beliefs speak, and then combat them with better speech.   Never not allow someone a platform, but rather educate them in the areas where they could be wrong, and sometimes you might find that it is you who has been mistaken.

[Boyle5150]

https://www.rd.com/culture/christopher-hitchens-on-freedom-of-speech/

"

No special circumstances, no emergency, no unforeseen contingency can dilute the plain and straightforward meaning of those words or that phrasing. We get ourselves called (and we proudly accept) a name that has a nice double meaning for me: First Amendment absolutists. Here’s why I like this quasi-ironic term. It commits us to an unshakable principle while it obliquely reminds us that absolutism is what the freedom of speech actually makes impossible.

 

From the predawn of human history, despots have relied on the idea that, quite literally, their word is law, or absolute. Pre-Roman and Roman emperors sought to cloak this in the idea that they themselves were suprahuman and had themselves deified in their own lifetimes.

Later tyrants claimed to rule by “the divine right of kings,” an assertion that didn’t end until the 18th century. All modern successors, from Hitler to Khomeini to Kim Jong-il, have insisted that only one man or one party or one book represents the absolute truth, and to challenge it is folly or worse. But all it takes is one little boy to blurt out the inconvenient truth that the emperor is as naked as the day he was born, and with that, the entire edifice of absolutism begins to crumble."

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

What liberal hogwash.

[Boyle5150]

4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

What liberal hogwash.

blah blah blah

 

I know your views, and they have been proven to be "hogwash".   Please move along

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

"Freedom of speech absolution" is perhaps one of the most base-level forms of intellectual reasoning possible in its utter mindless triviality and lack of rigor.

 

[Boyle5150]

9 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

"Freedom of speech absolution" is perhaps one of the most base-level forms of intellectual reasoning possible in its utter mindless triviality and lack of rigor.

 

Please continue...

 

The lack of "rigor" lies with those who are afraid of what intellectual reasoning might actually engender, or fear that they may perhaps be wrong. 

"There are certain things I am absolutely certain of, because I will not allow descent nor questioning of said beliefs."   GTFO

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

Please continue...

It is critically unthinking liberal nonsense to give every voice the benefit of the doubt that it should be heard and that every point -- no matter how inane -- should be debated to "change minds" or some other liberal fantasy.

 

Not only should not every voice not be heard, but their are tongues that should be removed and nailed to the wall so that they shall never wag again.  Wouldn't you agree, Cicero?

[Boyle5150]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

It is critically unthinking liberal nonsense to give every voice the benefit of the doubt that it should be heard and that every point -- no matter how inane -- should be debated to "change minds" or some other liberal fantasy.

 

Not only should not every voice not be heard, but their are tongues that should be removed and nailed to the wall so that they shall never wag again.  Wouldn't you agree, Cicero?

I never once claimed that every voice should be heard, on the contrary, I argue that no voice should be silenced or de-platformed.  There is a big difference between the two, and I hope you are capable of realizing this.

[Jason]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?!

[legend]

Free speech absolutism goes too far. Free speech is ultimately a social policy and it's either useful or not useful. By and large it's useful, but taken as an absolute it is not. (By assessing its usefulness, you might even argue that we preclude it from being an "absolute.") In this era of fake propaganda I'm even more weary of an absolutist stance.

 

One might rebuttal that "okay, not absolute if it encompasses fake information, but absolute for anything genuine." Except the problem with propaganda we face in this era is plenty of genuine people spread it without even realizing its fake. They're completely taken in by the deception.

 

I'm not sure what the solution to that problem is and it scares me a lot. But regardless of what the solution is, free speech absolutism seems more poised to hurt than help.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

37 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

I never once claimed that every voice should be heard, on the contrary, I argue that no voice should be silenced or de-platformed.  There is a big difference between the two, and I hope you are capable of realizing this.

A distinction without a practical difference.

[Jason]

9 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

A distinction without a practical difference.

 

Ignoring someone and silencing them aren't the same thing. 

[Boyle5150]

10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

A distinction without a practical difference.

Silence!  You don’t deserve a voice in this argument.  

 

Please expound on your reasoning. 

[legend]

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I guess I'm not sure under what standard calling some idea 'crap' would qualify as 'civil criticism', even if whatever's being called 'crap' is indeed reprehensible.  But my question was whether you think accepting and normalizing (by not criticizing) that kind of vitriol is part of the price of doing away with political correctness--a necessary tradeoff for a more 'honest' discourse? 

 

Because, realistically, your distinction doesn't really work, as criticism of an idea or belief always implies a certain critique of people who deeply hold that idea or belief.  That is down to the simple fact that a person is defined by their ideas and beliefs.  Everything a person does is at least partly--and much of the time wholly--a reflection of what they believe and the ideas in their mind.  

 

I'd like to respond with some thoughts about the bolded.

 

The criticism of a person implied by criticism of their ideas shouldn't be one that troubles anyone. The nature of being a person is getting things wrong all the fucking time. We get better typically only by being wrong first. No one is safe from this, and consequently, no one ought to feel especially bad about having their ideas called out.

 

And indeed, taking this attitude is sometimes achieved with success. I've participated in and observed many very heated arguments where opponents are quite critical of each other's ideas. And yet at the same time are able to still like, respect, and accept their opponent at the end of it. Most typically, I observe this in academia, but I see it outside sometimes too.

 

That is the attitude I wish we could all adopt more frequently. But I concede it's also not reality. Most people will get hurt or take harsh criticism of their ideas badly a great deal of the time. I'm not 100% immune to it either even though I strive to be and succeed some of the time.  

 

Given that reality, we have two costs. One is the obvious: do you really want to be hurting the person you're talking to? Sometimes it might be unavoidable to make a more important point, but not always. It's also often not rhetorically useful if the person starts feeling overly hurt. That is, by being very harsh, you can turn the person away from hearing you out.

 

For those reasons, I think it's fine to criticize someone's rhetoric as being unproductive. More specifically, while I sometimes am pretty harsh myself, I do think Boyle might do better being less harsh than he sometimes is. And I'm pretty sure I told him this so I don't think he'll be surprised to hear it  

 

I think the bottom line is we would do better as a people striving to sort out the truth. That includes confronting sometimes uncomfortable ideas rather than shying away as the extreme PC culture has sometimes done. But we can also manage our rhetoric to be effective given the psychology of people as they are. If you are confronting a despicable person, then harshness might be warranted. Other times, maybe less so.

 

/rant

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

In a society where mass communication on the scale that currently exists is present, it is practically impossible to "ignore" those voices.  It's simply not an achievable possibility.  As a result, the only recourse is to deny access to those  mass communication mediums so that the voices are silenced.

 

Don't think for a minute that I don't recognize the sheer undemocratic and hypocritical nature of this position of "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee", but I've never had a problem of being accused of either.

[Boyle5150]

20 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I'd like to respond with some thoughts about the bolded.

 

The criticism of a person implied by criticism of their ideas shouldn't be one that troubles anyone. The nature of being a person is getting things wrong all the fucking time. We get better typically only by being wrong first. No one is safe from this, and consequently, no one ought to feel especially bad about having their ideas called out.

 

And indeed, taking this attitude is sometimes achieved with success. I've participated in and observed many very heated arguments where opponents are quite critical of each other's ideas. And yet at the same time are able to still like, respect, and accept their opponent at the end of it. Most typically, I observe this in academia, but I see it outside sometimes too.

 

That is the attitude I wish we could all adopt more frequently. But I concede it's also not reality. Most people will get hurt or take harsh criticism of their ideas badly a great deal of the time. I'm not 100% immune to it either even though I strive to be and succeed some of the time.  

 

Given that reality, we have two costs. One is the obvious: do you really want to be hurting the person you're talking to? Sometimes it might be unavoidable to make a more important point, but not always. It's also often not rhetorically useful if the person starts feeling overly hurt. That is, by being very harsh, you can turn the person away from hearing you out.

 

For those reasons, I think it's fine to criticize someone's rhetoric as being unproductive. More specifically, while I sometimes am pretty harsh myself, I do think Boyle might do better being less harsh than he sometimes is. And I'm pretty sure I told him this so I don't think he'll be surprised to hear it  

 

I think the bottom line is we would do better as a people striving to sort out the truth. That includes confronting sometimes uncomfortable ideas rather than shying away as the extreme PC culture has sometimes done. But we can also manage our rhetoric to be effective given the psychology of people as they are. If you are confronting a despicable person, then harshness might be warranted. Other times, maybe less so.

 

/rant

Sometimes I can’t help myself... I’m working on it (not really, my average* IQ continues at its default). 

[Boyle5150]

5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

In a society where mass communication on the scale that currently exists is present, it is practically impossible to "ignore" those voices.  It's simply not an achievable possibility.  As a result, the only recourse is to deny access to those  mass communication mediums so that the voices are silenced.

 

Don't think for a minute that I don't recognize the sheer undemocratic and hypocritical nature of this position of "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee", but I've never had a problem of being accused of either.

Consider this your first 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, Boyle5150 said:

There are certain things I am absolutely certain of, because I will not allow descent nor questioning of said beliefs." 

Of course this is true for both me and you!

 

There are certain unequivocal (usually scientific) truths that we have come to believe that there is simply zero profit or utility for us to engage with dissenters or questioners.

[Boyle5150]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Of course this is true for both me and you!

 

There are certain unequivocal (usually scientific) truths that we have come to believe that there is simply zero profit or utility for us to engage with dissenters or questioners.

I 100% agree, but would never not want to hear your viewpoint... nor would I ever want someone else to not allow me to hear your viewpoint.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

2 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

It is critically unthinking liberal nonsense to give every voice the benefit of the doubt that it should be heard and that every point -- no matter how inane -- should be debated to "change minds" or some other liberal fantasy.

 

Not only should not every voice not be heard, but their are tongues that should be removed and nailed to the wall so that they shall never wag again.  Wouldn't you agree, Cicero?

On a side note, I’m kind of disappointed; I thought your point would be that the ‘freedom’ of speech, is actually a privilege granted by the ruling elite—those who wield real power—and is in fact the byproduct of skillfully administered absolutism rather than its nemesis.

 

Do you not still believe that the liberal’s first mistake is their belief in innate rights?  Or are you straying from your longtime fascist persuasions and into natural rights territory these days?  And if so Wherever will we get our technocratic realpolitik perspective now?!

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

On a side note, I’m kind of disappointed; I thought your point would be that the ‘freedom’ of speech, is actually a privilege granted by the ruling elite—those who wield real power—and is in fact the byproduct of skillfully administered absolutism rather than its nemesis.

 

Do you not still believe that the liberal’s first mistake is their belief in innate rights?  Or are you straying from your longtime fascist persuasions and into natural rights territory these days?  And if so Wherever will we get our technocratic realpolitik perspective now?!

It absolutely is a privilege granted by the ruling elite and the belief in innate rights is still very much the liberal's folly, but such a digression wasn't really relevant for this discourse!

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

1 hour ago, Boyle5150 said:

I 100% agree, but would never not want to hear your viewpoint... nor would I ever want someone else to not allow me to hear your viewpoint.

Coincidentally, I find this to be where discussions of political correctness and censorship get particularly murky.

 

In particular, some anti-PC critics  go beyond a ‘legalist’ definition of censorship and expand its boundaries to include what they claim is the ‘silencing of discussion ‘ through the labeling of certain points of view as racist/sexist/whatever.

 

I find it easier to understand the ‘legalist’ vision—that no concerted action should be taken to deny anyone the means to speak their mind.  A kind of First Amendment anarchy.  Sure; That’s not difficult to envision.  What has escaped me is a concrete definition of the vision of the second group.   What you get when you strip away explicit *and* so-called ‘implicit’ forms of politically correct ‘censorship ‘. That’s kind of what I was trying to get at with this thread.  

[Boyle5150]

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Coincidentally, I find this to be where discussions of political correctness and censorship get particularly murky.

 

In particular, some anti-PC critics  go beyond a ‘legalist’ definition of censorship and expand its boundaries to include what they claim is the ‘silencing of discussion ‘ through the labeling of certain points of view as racist/sexist/whatever.

 

I find it easier to understand the ‘legalist’ vision—that no concerted action should be taken to deny anyone the means to speak their mind.  A kind of First Amendment anarchy.  Sure; That’s not difficult to envision.  What has escaped me is a concrete definition of the vision of the second group.   What you get when you strip away explicit *and* so-called ‘implicit’ forms of politically correct ‘censorship ‘. That’s kind of what I was trying to get at with this thread.  

I fully understand where you are coming from but I also realize that often times the “collective” get it wrong and the “collective” are often times those who wield the power of what is acceptable.  This is where freedom of speech in all its forms should be granted as it creates movements that would otherwise be deplatformed.