What is the alternative to political correctness?

[Boyle5150]

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'd separate the us from other western countries first of all. And also grouping the "west" together is just stupid anyway once you start getting into the country by country differences, or what defines the west? Is it Christendom? Or white people? Or what? What *is* the west? What constitutes "Western culture"? Or is it just an ideal?

 

And of course they're better off here. Just because we're better than some third world shit hole doesn't mean we're great. In all honesty I don't care about other countries when we have enough problems here. Comparing us to obviously awful countries minimizes the suffering and Injustice that resides here. (Side note: given the history of colonialism across the world, a great deal many problems have roots in our ancestors) It reminds me of down playing poverty by saying people in sub Saharan Africa have it worse. Similarly, an Amazon warehouse worker in the US is in a better position than the Sri Lankan slave laborer in Qatar, but that doesn't make things any better for the guy in the wearhouse when they live in the US. It's worse elsewhere is so dismissive (and thus generally dismissive of the problems of black and brown workers) to the point of insulting.

Yes, compared to the rest of most of the world, you have it GREAT!! 

[legend]

35 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'd separate the us from other western countries first of all.

 

Okay we can do the US specifically if you'd like.

 

Quote

And also grouping the "west" together is just stupid anyway once you start getting into the country by country differences, or what defines the west? Is it Christendom? Or white people? Or what? What *is* the west? What constitutes "Western culture"? Or is it just an ideal?

 

I'm not sure why it's stupid. There's very clear historical reasons for why "the west" is not an unreasonable aggregation. Large enough that academics and others have no problem using it, whether it's for talking about unimportant descriptive differences or even criticizing the west. So I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with it now.

 

But as I noted above, feel free to choose a more specific subset if you'd like. You can even choose somewhere other than the US that you think is even better if you'd like.

 

Quote

And of course they're better off here.

 

Cool. Then it seems you've agreed with Boyle's claim that some cultures are better than others, or at least agreed that it is so along one important dimension.

 

Quote

Just because we're better than some third world shit hole doesn't mean we're great.

 

Okay, but that's not really the argument that was being put forward. All that was put forward is that some cultures are better than others. So I'm not sure why you're arguing this.

 

Quote

In all honesty I don't care about other countries when we have enough problems here. Comparing us to obviously awful countries minimizes the suffering and Injustice that resides here.

 

I don't see how it minimizes anything. In fact, I think noting that some cultures are worse than others is a consequence of acknowledging that there is room for improvement. (It would be rather unlikely that if there is room for improvement that all cultures happen to fall at exactly the same spot on the spectrum).

 

And the reason this observation that some cultures are better than others comes up in discussion is because when talking about how to achieve social progress, some people are so afraid to admit that some cultures are better that they paralyze themselves from ever establishing metrics that we can use analyze the situation within our own cultures. And yes, I've seen this dynamic occur in conversations. 

 

Quote

(Side note: given the history of colonialism across the world, a great deal many problems have roots in our ancestors) It reminds me of down playing poverty by saying people in sub Saharan Africa have it worse. Similarly, an Amazon warehouse worker in the US is in a better position than the Sri Lankan slave laborer in Qatar, but that doesn't make things any better for the guy in the wearhouse when they live in the US. It's worse elsewhere is so dismissive (and thus generally dismissive of the problems of black and brown workers) to the point of insulting.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions from Boyle's statements that are not there. You could have responded to him with "that's true, but I want to make sure we're not being too complacent, because there's lots of room for our own culture to improve too!" to which he could agree or disagree. That would have been more productive than being disagreeable merely because you're worried about hidden motivations.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

You'd be stupid to not worry about hidden motivations when people start talking about how one undefined "culture" is better than another. Failing to describe what "the west" is allows you to make any number of positivr assumptions or negative strawmen about it. "The culture" of "the west" also then can't be removed from the generational wealth of "the west" which can in large part be attributed to the subjugation, enslavement, and genocide of native people's all over the world (how's that for "Western culture" eh?)

 

I don't really have the time to discuss other points right now

[Boyle5150]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

You'd be stupid to not worry about hidden motivations when people start talking about how one undefined "culture" is better than another. Failing to describe what "the west" is allows you to make any number of positivr assumptions or negative strawmen about it. "The culture" of "the west" also then can't be removed from the generational wealth of "the west" which can in large part be attributed to the subjugation, enslavement, and genocide of native people's all over the world (how's that for "Western culture" eh?)

 

I don't really have the time to discuss other points right now

Do you even know what’s going on in the rest of the world when it comes to ”genocide”?  Are you serious right now?   

 

Like I said, do you literally want to see all these things in action in this very moment in time?   I can tell you where to find it and it’s not the “West”.   Holy fuck

[Boyle5150]

Soft bigotry of low expectations!! 

[legend]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

You'd be stupid to not worry about hidden motivations when people start talking about how one undefined "culture" is better than another.

 

Thinking that's the case with Boyle is rather off point. But lets say there is less clarity about whether the person has hidden motivations. Why not clarify like I described? Why immediately assume the worst intentions and respond to those worst feared motivations as if that's what the person said instead of what they actually said?

 

Quote

 

Failing to describe what "the west" is allows you to make any number of positivr assumptions or negative strawmen about it. "The culture" of "the west" also then can't be removed from the generational wealth of "the west" which can in large part be attributed to the subjugation, enslavement, and genocide of native people's all over the world (how's that for "Western culture" eh?)

 

I don't really have the time to discuss other points right now

 

I really don't know why "the west" is so confusing to you. You can talk about bad things about the west as well as good. Using the aggregate doesn't mean "only good things." It's just a common aggregate that works for any number of discussions. 

 

But we don't need to discuss it further. It's not critical to the main point and as I already said, I'm perfectly happy to be more specific.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

10 hours ago, Boyle5150 said:

Do you even know what’s going on in the rest of the world when it comes to ”genocide”?  Are you serious right now?   

 

Like I said, do you literally want to see all these things in action in this very moment in time?   I can tell you where to find it and it’s not the “West”.   Holy fuck

I’m interested in your answer to the original question—let me grant you, for a moment, (perhaps against my better judgment) that political correctness prevents us from criticizing certain oppressive cultural practices.  Let me grant you that we can count the Middle Eastern strand of Islam among these practices.

 

Is your alternative to this politically correct discourse simply ‘being okay’ with (among other things) the kind of openly contemptuous and sometimes bile-filled criticism you direct towards this group?  

 

Does political correctness, in other words, also include calls for civility in criticism—I.e., censure towards the description of cultures someone finds deserving of reproach as ‘crap’? (As in the statement ‘No I dislike it because it’s crap as is all religion’)

 

Or are such such calls for ‘civility’ just another destructive extension of political correctness, thus implying that what is needed is, at least in part, the normalization of some of what is currently dubbed ‘uncivil’?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The sooner "Western culture" and its inherent degeneracy meets its demise, the better.

[Bloodporne]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The sooner "Western culture" and its inherent degeneracy meets its demise, the better.

I don't even necessarily disagree with some aspects of this, but what will fill its void? Wishing for a complete demise implies there's a substitute one would like to see, what would that be potentially? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

17 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

I don't even necessarily disagree with some aspects of this, but what will fill its void? Wishing for a complete demise implies there's a substitute one would like to see, what would that be potentially? 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I honestly have no idea and that's what makes it exciting!

 

I'm willing to bet that the "Western culture is superior" zealots wouldn't be singing that same tune if they were truly honest with themselves in a situation where Islamic culture -- no matter how repressive -- had somehow managed to attain the identical achievements far ahead of the "secular" West if history had played out differently.  If the first man on the moon planted the Islamic crescent flag, if Islamic scientists had made the first advancements in medicine, genetics, etc.  Every single Western civilization chauvinist would probably be rushing to throw the West's women into burqas, outlaw alcohol, etc. 

 

Hell, if the Mongol Horde had turned further west instead of due south, this is exactly what would've happened.  One culture's "superiority" over any other is largely an accident of history.  Don't put too much -- or any -- stock in it.

[Bloodporne]

23 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I honestly have no idea and that's what makes it exciting!

 

I'm willing to bet that the "Western culture is superior" zealots wouldn't be singing that same tune if they were truly honest with themselves in a situation where Islamic culture -- no matter how repressive -- had somehow managed to attain the identical achievements far ahead of the "secular" West if history had played out differently.  If the first man on the moon planted the Islamic crescent flag, if Islamic scientists had made the first advancements in medicine, genetics, etc.  Every single Western civilization chauvinist would probably be rushing to throw the West's women into burqas, outlaw alcohol, etc. 

 

Hell, if the Mongol Horde had turned further west instead of due south, this is exactly what would've happened.  One culture's "superiority" over any other is largely an accident of history.  Don't put too much -- or any -- stock in it.

As in me personally?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

As in me personally?

As in anyone

[Bloodporne]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

As in anyone

In regards to wishing for the complete demise of Western culture, how would you like to see it? Something physical like nuclear destruction, erosion of Christian faiths and social structures/laws built on such, simply being bred out? 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

In regards to wishing for the complete demise of Western culture, how would you like to see it? Something physical like nuclear destruction, erosion of Christian faiths and social structures/laws built on such, simply being bred out? 

As the population of Western society grows that has less and less "reverence" for the norms, values, ethics, practices, etc. of Western culture, those things will continue the erosion that has already begun and eventually they will simply peter out.

[legend]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I honestly have no idea and that's what makes it exciting!

 

I'm willing to bet that the "Western culture is superior" zealots wouldn't be singing that same tune if they were truly honest with themselves in a situation where Islamic culture -- no matter how repressive -- had somehow managed to attain the identical achievements far ahead of the "secular" West if history had played out differently.  If the first man on the moon planted the Islamic crescent flag, if Islamic scientists had made the first advancements in medicine, genetics, etc.  Every single Western civilization chauvinist would probably be rushing to throw the West's women into burqas, outlaw alcohol, etc. 

 

Hell, if the Mongol Horde had turned further west instead of due south, this is exactly what would've happened.  One culture's "superiority" over any other is largely an accident of history.  Don't put too much -- or any -- stock in it.

 

 

Hogwash. China is poised to be more economically productive than the US or other western cultures and in no world do I wish our society to be like the Chinese.

 

I do, however, wish for a society different than our own.

 

 

If you're referring only to the intersection of people who praise the west and are misgonistic assholes, okay sure. I have no doubt there are plenty of misogynistic assholes who don't actually give shit about women et al. But it's not useful to conflate the position that the west is superior to some cultures with that intersection.

[Bloodporne]

8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

As the population of Western society grows that has less and less "reverence" for the norms, values, ethics, practices, etc. of Western culture, those things will continue the erosion that has already begun and eventually they will simply peter out.

Sure. Birth rates are down, Christianity will be completely irrelevant rather shortly and non-Westerners are being imported in high numbers (counting birth rates) at least speaking strictly of Europe. I think we both can agree that we'll more than likely see this outcome as a reality. 

 

Well, maybe not 'us', but whatever future generations that is. 

 

 

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, legend said:

Hogwash. China is poised to be more economically productive than the US or other western cultures and in no world do I wish our society to be like the Chinese.

That is because you've been indoctrinated by Western liberalism to internalize those values as being superior, even if the "metrics" don't necessarily indicate a basis for such an assumption

[legend]

8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

That is because you've been indoctrinated by Western liberalism to internalize those values as being superior, even if the "metrics" don't necessarily indicate a basis for such an assumption

 

 

 Absolute bullshit! If anything people are frequently annoyed by how metric driven I am when I approach ethical questions. This same drive is also why I'm extremely dissatisfied with the state of our culture as it is. I'm also, however, even more dissatisfied on average with the culture of the world.

 

It's possible to think that we rank rather highly relatively, while also still being dog shit, you know  

[osxmatt]

The arguments against political correctness are effectively a cover for anti-intellectualism and emotional reactions. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, legend said:

 

 Absolute bullshit! If anything people are frequently annoyed by how metric driven I am when I approach ethical questions. This same drive is also why I'm extremely dissatisfied with the state of our culture as it is. I'm also, however, even more dissatisfied on average with the culture of the world.

But why wouldn't you want our society to be more like that of China if the "metrics" -- however they are defined -- indicate that it is indeed the "superior" one?

[legend]

7 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

But why wouldn't you want our society to be more like that of China if the "metrics" indicate that it is indeed the "superior" one?

 

Because the metric isn't economic success. It would be easy for me to move to China if I wanted because they're anxious to gobble up people in AI, but I would not enjoy the life I would live there, even as a someone who would individually be on the upper side, so I'm not moving there.

 

Economics is an important instrumental value, but it's not the goal.

 

(This is also the very same reason I'm not working at Amazon or Facebook. Even though they would pay me a lot more, I would be more dissatisfied in my life.)

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

So the bottomline is that notions of "cultural superiority" largely boil down to self-defined metrics whereby an individual puts more weight on certain factors than others to arrive at what they consider to be their "optimal" cultural/societal/operating environment, thereby resulting in a relativistic approach which largely precludes any "objective" notions of the superiority of one cultural/societal/operating environment over another.

 

I have achieved victory in this discussion.

[legend]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

So the bottomline is that notions of "cultural superiority" largely boil down to self-defined metrics whereby an individual puts more weight on certain factors than others to arrive at what they consider to be their "optimal" cultural/societal/operating environment, thereby resulting in a relativistic approach which largely precludes any "objective" notions of the superiority of one cultural/societal/operating environment over another.

 

I have achieved victory in this discussion.

 

Sorry, no victory. You haven't said anything inconsistent with what I've said  (Except depending on how you mean it, your conclusion that subjectivity of values precludes any objectivity. I will elaborate on the distinction I would like to make below.)

 

Metrics/values are always subjectively determined. I have made my position clear on this in I don't know how many threads and places on the internet   However, people tend to overlap a lot more on their values then they realize, so in practice there is quite often ways to reach conclusions that apply for large groups of people, not just single individuals. So when people do overlap, it's easy to put your heads together to find better policies on which you can both agree.

 

But even ignoring that there is a lot of overlap--even if there was not a lot of overlap--there are multiple issues with what people do in practice.

 

First, while one's underlying metrics and values are subjectively determined, that doesn't mean reasoning about those metrics should be done subjectively. Quite the contrary, given the value, there are objective ways to reason about it and ways to maximize it. Sadly, however, too often people do not actually reason objectively about their values. Instead they appeal to behavioral norms rather than the actual thing they're trying to maximize. This is why if you look at a lot of posts I've made, I'm not arguing for my values, I'm trying to get people to even establish what they're trying to achieve so that we can discuss whether some policy is actually useful to this end. Or, I'm arguing how the policy they propose isn't actually effective at maximizing what they claim to care about. 

 

Humanity is really bad at this to our own detriment.

 

Second, that your objective is subjectively determined doesn't mean you can't evaluate other cultures against it. Refusing to accept your metric and do the calculus is just putting your head in the sand. People who purport to care about the quality of life of women, for example, are being insane and counter productive if they paralyze themselves from criticizing some middle eastern cultures on that very dimension they purport to care about. Since I also care about the quality of life for women, I'm especially annoyed by people failing to step up to the plate in this regard.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

25 minutes ago, legend said:

Second, that your objective is subjectively determined doesn't mean you can't evaluate other cultures against it. 

I thoroughly and completely disagree.

 

The society from which that metric is derived is inextricably linked to that metric itself.  The entire dialectic of those societies' history and development culminates to that point of evaluation with any deviation changing the calculus in any direction thereby rendering evaluation at best deeply flawed and at worst utterly pointless.

 

Because that all existence itself is subjective in one form or another due to the inherent nature of being human, the best we can do is to evaluate those entities are are "similar enough" against our own criteria.

 

 

[legend]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I thoroughly and completely disagree.

 

The society from which that metric is derived is inextricably linked to that metric itself.  The entire dialectic of those societies' history and development culminates to that point of evaluation with any deviation changing the calculus in any direction thereby rendering evaluation at best deeply flawed and at worst pointless.

 

Because all existence is subjective in one form or another due to the inherent nature of being human, the best we can do is to evaluate those entities are are "similar enough" against our own criteria.

 

 

 

 

Then you're just plain wrong. There is absolutely nothing that precludes me from not only evaluating another culture based on my own values, but optimizing against it when it conflicts with my values. The entire field of game theory is in fact dedicated to studying that interaction.

 

Claiming to hold a value, and then not acting according to it is entirely nonsensical.

 

And quite honestly, relativism of the sort you're describing is something that sounds like it's right out the most left leaning liberals book of ethics that you so frequently chastise. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Then you're just plain wrong. There is absolutely nothing that precludes me from not only evaluating another culture based on my own value, but optimizing against it when it conflicts with my values. The entire field of game theory is in fact dedicated to studying that interaction.

From that perspective,  I'll gladly concede that such evaluations are not "utterly pointless" and can be rather "useful".

 

But that's not the same as being "correct" or "better".

[legend]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

From that perspective,  I'll gladly concede that it's not "utterly pointless".  But that's not the same as being "correct".

 

Depends on what you mean by "correct." I don't appeal to some metethical nonsense about "correctness" or what is right existing in reality in some form if that's what you mean. We should be on the same page there.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

7 minutes ago, legend said:

And quite honestly, relativism of the sort you're describing is something that sounds like it's right out the most left leaning liberals book of ethics that you so frequently chastise. 

While it's certainly a leftist ethical position, it's also a very right-leaning "realist" position when it comes to areas of foreign policy because it pretty much casts aside the notion of "universal" values.

[legend]

33 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

While it's certainly a leftist ethical position, it's also a very right-leaning "realist" position when it comes to areas of foreign policy because it pretty much casts aside the notion of "universal" values.

 

I'm totally with you on casting aside the notion that there is some single "right" set of values for all conceivable agents. My objection is in thinking that fact means you can't be critical or reject other culture's practices.

 

Also in practice, I think there is often overlap among humans. I also think people are quite awful at meaningfully working toward their own values because they get so stuck in how they currently do things and don't question whether that's a good way. That is, people of a culture may insist on their culture to their own detriment by their very own metrics.

[Anathema-]

Anti-PC is so pervasive because it cleaves with a real problem in politics and that's with politicians not speaking plainly and the media chastising anyone who does as insufficiently "centrist."  We've been walking on eggshells around the revanchist racists in this country for far too long and people are sick of it, even if they don't realize that that's what they're sick of.  There's a reason that politicians like Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner got famous so fast -- they spoke plainly.  The fact that they're both terrible people is a bit of a shame because that part of politics is something we're sorely missing.

[Massdriver]

Moral anti-realism has always been the popular flavor around here.

[Boyle5150]

8 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I’m interested in your answer to the original question—let me grant you, for a moment, (perhaps against my better judgment) that political correctness prevents us from criticizing certain oppressive cultural practices.  Let me grant you that we can count the Middle Eastern strand of Islam among these practices.

 

Is your alternative to this politically correct discourse simply ‘being okay’ with (among other things) the kind of openly contemptuous and sometimes bile-filled criticism you direct towards this group?  

 

Does political correctness, in other words, also include calls for civility in criticism—I.e., censure towards the description of cultures someone finds deserving of reproach as ‘crap’? (As in the statement ‘No I dislike it because it’s crap as is all religion’)

 

Or are such such calls for ‘civility’ just another destructive extension of political correctness, thus implying that what is needed is, at least in part, the normalization of some of what is currently dubbed ‘uncivil’?

Please point out any "bile-filled" criticism I have directed towards that group.

No religion nor idea should be above criticism regardless if you find them to be "bile-filled"  The only way to combat bad ideas is with better ideas, which usually come across as criticism. 

"civility" is subjective when describing language, so what I find to be civil criticisms of religious dogma, you might find to be "bile-filled"  The threshold, for me personally, is when people are criticized rather than their ideas or beliefs.  I don't find that to be "civil". 

Culture, is not a people but rather a set of ideas that a large group of people agree as "true" and "right" and "how it's always been".  So criticizing culture is simply criticizing the ideas held by the group of people, and not the people themselves. 

[Boyle5150]

"My own opinion is a very simple one. The right of others to free expression is part of my own. If someone’s voice is silenced, then I am deprived of the right to hear. Moreover, I have never met nor heard of anybody I would trust with the job of deciding in advance what it might be permissible for me or anyone else to say or read. That freedom of expression consists of being able to tell people what they may not wish to hear, and that it must extend, above all, to those who think differently is, to me, self-evident. " -C.H.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

39 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

Please point out any "bile-filled" criticism I have directed towards that group.

No religion nor idea should be above criticism regardless if you find them to be "bile-filled"  The only way to combat bad ideas is with better ideas, which usually come across as criticism. 

"civility" is subjective when describing language, so what I find to be civil criticisms of religious dogma, you might find to be "bile-filled"  The threshold, for me personally, is when people are criticized rather than their ideas or beliefs.  I don't find that to be "civil". 

Culture, is not a people but rather a set of ideas that a large group of people agree as "true" and "right" and "how it's always been".  So criticizing culture is simply criticizing the ideas held by the group of people, and not the people themselves. 

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.  

[Boyle5150]

1 minute 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 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.  

Would you call the nomination of BK crap?  How would you describe our current president and political climate?  Get over yourself if you don't think both of those things are indeed CRAP

 

and beliefs can change, and sometimes it takes "offensive" language to change and sometimes it take people who are no longer willing to allow shit practices to continue... ie FGM and other such atrocities.  So yes, calling something "crap" can be more civil than trying to be PC and not pointing out that not all ideas are equally good.