The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

On Political Correctness Options
Hope123
Posted: Monday, May 28, 2018 12:48:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I see I missed putting a cheeky emoji after my last sentence in my last post.

I'm so glad you were able to change your mind, FD. We always knew you were special. I'm glad you are enjoying any privilege you have which is as it is meant to be. Recognizing White Privilege doesn't mean you should feel guilty. Nobody's saying that Straight White Middle Class Able-Bodied Males (and to a lesser extent women) are all a bunch of a**holes who don't work hard for what they have or that they need to relinquish any of what they've accomplished. It just means BEING AWARE that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted and that some never do get there.

Just being born in the United States gives you privileges non US citizens will never have. If you were born into a stable family with loving parents, especially a financially stable family, you can have good health, education, safety, opportunities, even the opportunity to protect the country you love.

I'll take any perks I can get in this life and be grateful. (Well, most of the time I'm grateful to still be on this side of the grass. Think ) I've been lucky too to be born in Canada and although we didn't have much, our parents did the best they could. My mother made sure we got to teachers' college and I did the university by extension while teaching. I was also lucky to meet a wonderful man who has always encouraged me to be who I am, and although I may fall short sometimes, to be the best that I can be.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) recognizing ownership of privilege of any kind may make that little conscience being on your shoulder prick you with some more responsibility to look around a little more often and see what you can do to help those less fortunate or see things from their POV. You've already done more than your share as a vet.

I notice you still didn't admit you might be wrong about the motivations of that teacher. I said if you wanted to discuss WP we could but since you have come to your senses Whistle we don't need to now.

So sit back, pour yourself a glass of wine, 🍸🍷 or beer, 🍺 or scotch, 🥃 and enjoy your privilege of being a Texan 😎🌴🌵🦎with that view and weather on Memorial Day weekend. 💥🗽


And thank you for serving to make the world safer for all of us. We are grateful.




The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:03:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,715
Neurons: 172,120
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I think possibly you need to think before you type, FounDit.

Quote:
. . .the implication of it, which is to somehow bring all white people down to the level of people of color.

So that means that people of colour are 'down' - they are lower in status than white people.

Quote:
. . . that we are all to brought down to the lowest level we can find

So people of colour are 'the lowest level we can find', not just 'lower', but 'the lowest'.

Of course any attempt to say that all white people are different, bad, evil, good, better than others, worse than others, more intelligent, less intelligent, more violent, less violent is just a discriminatory and biased as someone who says "coloured people" or "Mexicans" or "Latinos" are different, bad, evil, good, better than others, worse than others, more intelligent, less intelligent, more violent or less violent.

No-one should be pulled 'down'.
Everyone should have the privileges attributed to Humanity (in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - mainly drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt while she was first lady).

Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
Article 17 Right to Own Property
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
Article 22 Right to Social Security
Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights


So, if someone is refused a job he wants because he's white and wouldn't fit in with the customers - it's discrimination, and a violation of human rights.

Lack of a suitable social security system, which provides adequate living standard for all is a violation of human rights. (There are millions of white citizens of the USA who live below minimum living standards - also millions of couloured people in the same situation).

Any police who consider or treat one race as 'more likely to be violent or criminal' are violating Article Seven (this would include police in predominantly-coloured areas who victimise whites - which does happen).

Any lack of provision of good schooling for everyone in any district (not just those who can afford special teachers and schools) is a violation of Article Nineteen (Freedom of Information) and Twenty-Six (Education).

These are rights for ALL - not just whites, not just coloured, not just men or women - not only 'those who can afford to pay for it' - they are rights for everyone. (There are ample resources for everyone in the USA to have acceptable living standards, education and medical treatment and for the rich to be able to get MUCH more in the way of 'special treatment', without bringing anyone 'down' a level.

These rights are either incorporated in the Constitution or they are part of Federal Law (and have been since 1948).




Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Monday, May 28, 2018 12:40:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559
DragOnspeaker,

Perhaps it would be good to return to my original post wherein I referenced an article that spoke to a certain consensus of thought here in the U.S.

There is a movement here that attempts to force thinking into "...agreement with or silence about certain ideas of “white privilege,” patriarchal “oppression,” “Islamophobia,” and “gender fluidity.” To dissent from these ideas — to exercise one’s right to say no — invites not only anathematization from polite society but also the loss of one’s job and, in some cases, physical threats.”

It is NOT an attempt to hold a discussion on discrimination or bias and why that isn't a good idea. Rather, it is a function of so-called "identity politics" that portrays groups of people as "victims" of the White majority. These ideas are all about the labels listed above: “white privilege,” patriarchal “oppression,” “Islamophobia,” and “gender fluidity.” These are the excuses used to justify violence on campuses, killing of police officers, political policies, and social policies. And as stated, the right to say "no" isn't permitted.

That was the point of the OP, but it has quite often been challenged as being non-existent, or defined as being something other than what it actually is. As just one example, just this morning I read an article about a bar in Oregon that offered a "Reparations Happy Hour". Only black people were invited. Whites were asked to stay away. "A local activist group, Brown Hope, wanted the event to be a space for people of color in a mostly white city to meet, organize, discuss public policy and potentially plan various actions."

Each black person was given $10 upon entering, a symbolic gift paid for by white customers. The notion of full-scale reparations has been talked about for several years now, as if all white people were somehow guilty of being slave owners - which isn't true. In fact, the very first slave owner here in the colonies is documented to be a black man, who sought legal control over his slaves who had ran away.

Even the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, who ran for President in our last election said reparations was "divisive" and not likely to ever get through Congress. This is simply one of the so-called "politically correct" ideas that have been pushed in our media for many years. My OP was merely pointing out what it is, and how it is often used.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, May 28, 2018 12:59:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,715
Neurons: 172,120
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Bit stupid really (the situations one finds - not the people here discussing it).

True - why should today's citizens 'pay reparation' for what their great-grandparents did?
Why should one child get a great education because of money his great-grandparents made, while another hardly learns to read because his parents inherited nothing from their grandparents?

Both attitudes are wrong:
1. That white people (today) should pay reparation to black people.
2. That white people are being pulled down to the lowest level possible - the level of black people.

Both are divisive and racist and discriminatory.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Monday, May 28, 2018 6:05:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,219
Neurons: 44,063
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Drago -

I'm glad you also brought attention to those two comments about racial superiority - and I hope that all the very many people on this forum who are brown/black/whatever-isn't-"white", never get to read this thread.

(Rather ironic - given the title of this thread.)




Two or three other posters commented on those "low" "lowest level" evaluations.

But Foundit hasn't addressed them at all.

Those who reserve the right to 'say whatever I like because it's my Right" make it political. Thus they resist certain changes to the language which have been brought about to reflect changes to the society in which we all live now. Which is what language always does.

So they make a defiant stance - and refuse to understand that the rest of the world doesn't see it in terms of some American minority group's politics: we just, genuinely... do not like causing pain and hurt to other people.

It doesn't matter if someone is a Republican, Labour, Democrat,Tory, Whig, Green, those sorts of comments should be condemned purely on the point of shocking manners, if nothing else!

On a public forum, where one talks, and jokes about, and swaps stories with people every day - why on earth - no matter one's inner beliefs - would you want to make a public announcement that you consider yourself on a plane above many of those very people.....because of your politicsd'oh!

Whether the idea of racial superiority is so engrained that those comments were made unconsciously revealing the fact; or whether they were consciously provocative doesn't matter.

They are indefensibleNot talking .

Silenced And we should not allow them to pass unremarked.



philips daughter
Posted: Monday, May 28, 2018 6:26:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
Oh, you hope no one who is black or brown ever reads this do you? Too late for that. The views represented by FD are obscene. And that you have engaged these views are so disrespectful to those of us being represented by his views. And now you are embarrassed? You asked that I listen to his side and try to reason with such irrational views? You wonder why I am outraged? How do you compromise with hatred?
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 12:11:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Don't worry, PD and Romany. Rest assured that "Freedom of Speech" doesn’t mean there is "Freedom from Consequences".

Readers of all colours saw unmistakably with their own eyes what was said about coloured people dragging whites down to their level. Five posters have now remarked about it. Readers can judge the most likely Freudian slip for themselves. The original argument was all shot to hell with those statements.

Anger can be a good motivator - maybe it will motivate any Americans reading it to get out and vote Democrat in November.

Take note as well that two women were "laughed" at and called "negative" for pointing out the racism inherent in the statements, while one male was called "positive" for doing the same thing. Coincidence?


The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 2:52:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,405
Neurons: 26,728
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:

Perhaps it would be good to return to my original post wherein I referenced an article that spoke to a certain consensus of thought here in the U.S.

A consensus, any critically thinking reader would recognize, that exists only in the words of this "professional" shit stirrer troll.

But please continue.

FounDit wrote:

There is a movement here that attempts to force thinking into "...agreement with or silence about certain ideas of “white privilege,” patriarchal “oppression,” “Islamophobia,” and “gender fluidity.” To dissent from these ideas — to exercise one’s right to say no — invites not only anathematization from polite society but also the loss of one’s job and, in some cases, physical threats.”


Says who? A freelance agent provocateur of the *gags* National Review? If you were to say this is the voice of conservatism in America, I would say that you are not even wrong. Think dorsal and caudal and you'd be closer to the source.

I would not even characterize this "piece" as a polemic: it is bottomless demagoguery at its most insipid, the dogs barking at every tweet of the whistle, salivating with pavlovian certitude, and the band playing "Hail to the Cheek"!

Why? When there are so many thoughtful essays on the issue of political correctness and the whack-a-mole nature of trigger words, why is this one offered as a talking point?

Just Asking Questions, he said? In less polite society this is called JAQqing off.
Whistle




"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 4:04:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559

So when I say:

“There is a movement here that attempts to force thinking into "...agreement with or silence about certain ideas of “white privilege,” patriarchal “oppression,” “Islamophobia,” and “gender fluidity”. [And that] To dissent from these ideas — to exercise one’s right to say no — invites…anathematization from polite society…”

You have before you here, prime examples of what I just described. Notice that the last several posts do not address the OP of Political Correctness; nor do they address the advisability of a college professor distributing a syllabus that threatens to expel from class any student who engages in stereotyping, while at the same time distributing a handout that does exactly that — stereotype one group of people based on skin color.

Rather, the focus has shifted to attacking my character and me. It’s priceless!
Quote from philips daughter: “The views represented by FD are obscene.” Obscene? Questioning Political Correctness is now obscene. Well, I guess in your world it is.

While leonAzul *gags* at the fact that it was printed in the National Review. Horrors! And it doesn’t matter if what the professor did is true or not. No, no. What matters is that it was reported by, quote: “A freelance agent provocateur”. He doesn’t say how he knows this as a fact. I'm left to assume it is his own personal characterization, much like that directed at me.

He characterizes my questioning of the validity of the professor’s actions and handout as “bottomless demagoguery at its most insipid, the dogs barking at every tweet of the whistle, salivating with pavlovian certitude, and the band playing "Hail to the Cheek"!”
Really? Wow. I'll bet if you check the TFD thesaurus you might be able to find a few more synonyms to string together. This is so comical. Thanks for the laugh.

He then goes on to say there are many “thoughtful” essays on the issue, but doesn’t say exactly why my questioning isn’t one of those “thoughtful” essays, and thus admitting that he knows Political Correctness does exist. Apparently, my questioning of the Progressive Left isn't considered "thoughtful" (oh, well). He merely attacks with the demagoguery he accuses me of using. Yet all I did was describe what Political Correctness itself consists of, and used one of its positions as an example. What you see here is exactly how Political Correctness works. If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.

Anyone who is unaware of the facts of Political Correctness and its use on college campuses isn’t paying attention, or worse, is woefully ignorant. The more frightening prospect is that they are willfully ignorant. But then, we are talking about the Political Left, so....



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 6:38:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,405
Neurons: 26,728
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:


While leonAzul *gags* at the fact that it was printed in the National Review. Horrors! And it doesn’t matter if what the professor did is true or not. No, no. What matters is that it was reported by, quote: “A freelance agent provocateur”. He doesn’t say how he knows this as a fact. I'm left to assume it is his own personal characterization, much like that directed at me.


It is the nature of the publication, if you are at all familiar with it, to encourage "op ed" pieces from writers who are not regularly employed by them.

FounDit wrote:

He characterizes my questioning of the validity of the professor’s actions and handout as “bottomless demagoguery at its most insipid, the dogs barking at every tweet of the whistle, salivating with pavlovian certitude, and the band playing "Hail to the Cheek"!”
Really? Wow. I'll bet if you check the TFD thesaurus you might be able to find a few more synonyms to string together. This is so comical. Thanks for the laugh.

Please read critically. I characterized his article as such, and then parodied it.

FounDit wrote:

He then goes on to say there are many “thoughtful” essays on the issue, but doesn’t say exactly why my questioning isn’t one of those “thoughtful” essays, and thus admitting that he knows Political Correctness does exist. Apparently, my questioning of the Progressive Left isn't considered "thoughtful" (oh, well). He merely attacks with the demagoguery he accuses me of using. Yet all I did was describe what Political Correctness itself consists of, and used one of its positions as an example. What you see here is exactly how Political Correctness works. If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.

Please read critically. I questioned your choice of "source material", not your position nor your expression thereof.

What you see here is how critical thinking works. Where there is a body of work and a preponderance of evidence, it is usually safe to draw conclusions. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Pease check a dictionary. "Demagoguery" is similar to a populism that appeals to the lowest most general fears of a population rather than considering its best interests.
FounDit wrote:

Anyone who is unaware of the facts of Political Correctness and its use on college campuses isn’t paying attention, or worse, is woefully ignorant. The more frightening prospect is that they are willfully ignorant. But then, we are talking about the Political Left, so....


Here's the thing. If such PC activity is so rampant, the author should be able to cite several recent verifiable examples.

Reading critically, he doesn't. Why is that?

Because everyone knows…


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 12:14:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Today has a perfect example to which a response from FD would be illuminating. Just a simple answer as to side chosen would satisfy my curiosity.

A or B.

Roseanne Barr just lost her new gig today. ABC says their ethics caused them to cancel Barr's show, despite its huge numbers and money, because she tweeted a racially charged tweet. She said Valerie Jarrett, who is African-American and born in Iran, is like the "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby." First she had tweeted a politically charged tweet linking Chelsea Clinton to liberal donor George Soros. Jarrett was Obama's senior advisor. (Obama and Hillary. The Right is obsessed with jealousy and can't leave them behind.)

Trump supporters are supporting Barr, saying, "It was only a joke. They are just trying to get rid of Trump with political correctness." (How those two ideas are connected, heaven knows. Barr has vocally supported Trump and he her. But Ironically he still has his job in spite of his attacks.) They also used words I can't repeat here linking ABC and Liberals. Edited - Barr was not sorry at all. She just retweeted a photoshopped image of Whoopi Goldberg with a violent picture about Trump on her t-shirt with a message about Left hypocrisy comparing Barr and Goldberg. The correct photo of Goldberg's t-shirt message has been shown millions of times to refute this sickening deliberate attempt by the Right to discredit Whoopi. And now they try to use it again in a different context.

My argument - Yeah she had her right to say what she did. Freedom of speech. ABC had the right to fire her. Freedom of Consequence. She did this to herself. She can come back and tweet all the racist comments she wants. Who's stopping her freedom of speech? She can tweet the mean spirited vulgarity of her show ad infinitum. Or she can spit or grab her crotch again while singing the national anthem (- but it's ok because she wasn't kneeling). In 2013 Barr compared US National Security Advisor Susan Rice to an ape in a later deleted tweet. Barr said what she wanted to say. She was not misquoted. She was not misunderstood. She wrote it herself. Nobody stopped her or interfered with her freedom of speech. ABC is right to show how the normalization of racism can be stopped.

Even Breitbart sides with ABC. Barr's tweet "...is a blatantly racist act"... justified ABC’s decision..." Her talent agency cancelled her. Some Tweeters would like to see her residuals looked at as well. I feel sorry for the other actors and crew. She cost THEM their jobs too.

And don't you just love it when somebody screws up and pretends it is only a bad joke as a weak insincere apology only because of backlash? That's exactly what she said. Some joke!

Freedom of speech! Yay! Except of course for Michelle Wolf because that smokey eye joke was just way out of line. Kathy Griffin had death threats for her "bad joke" against Trump. But death threats are par for the Political Right. They are not objective. This means they never "see" themselves. Plus "Deflection & Misdirection" is the GOP playbook of McConnell et al. All traits seen right here in this thread. (Just reciprocating - with the truth, FD. Decided to start fighting fire with fire. :) )

FD, did YOU grumble about Wolf or Griffin? You know from my word choices here which side I'm on re today's example - A is for ABC. ✅

B is for Barr. So which side of the Barr saga are you on, FounDit? A or B?


The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
philips daughter
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 1:40:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
FounDit, I figure I’m around your age, over 60, I’m a native Texan and I understand you live in Austin. Like you, I’m never going to quit saying mankind instead of humankind. But it doesn’t offend me and I really agree with the humankind crowd. I’m very much a feminist in as much I beleve in the good of women upon the world. But, I was raised in Texas and that’s just the way I grew up, saying mankind, assuming it meant the same as humankind. I too was brainwashed by forced patriotism by way of saying “the pledge” every morning of my 12 years public school. I still put my hand on my heart and sing the National Anthem. Even though I am becoming aware of the programming that has gone on to lead people to think like you. The difference between us is that I’m not offfended when a black football player takes a knee. It makes me cry to see unarmed black children shot down like dogs. No one would have to say Black Lives Matter if they did. I don’t know you and I can only assume what motivates you so, I try not to make this about you. I disagree with every racist thing you say and until you change I don’t wish to argue with you. Because if you really are a Texan like you say, then we will never agree. You are a white Texan and I’m not, but my ancestry says my heritage in this country is native, my children are Mexican. And if you think we are going anywhere, think again. There hasn’t been one American war that our blood wasn’t poured out. You brought your disease and violence to this country. But I’m only assuming you are the kind of person I imagine because there many of you and you have power and money and as we Texans say, “You don’t think you stink.” But those things you say do.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:00:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559
I might as well start at the beginning, and work my way down.

leonAzul wrote:
FounDit wrote:


While leonAzul *gags* at the fact that it was printed in the National Review. Horrors! And it doesn’t matter if what the professor did is true or not. No, no. What matters is that it was reported by, quote: “A freelance agent provocateur”. He doesn’t say how he knows this as a fact. I'm left to assume it is his own personal characterization, much like that directed at me.


It is the nature of the publication, if you are at all familiar with it, to encourage "op ed" pieces from writers who are not regularly employed by them.
Irrelevant to the point. Did the professor distribute a handout labeld "White Privilege" or not? The answer is, yes, she did. Who reports it is of no consequence.

FounDit wrote:

He characterizes my questioning of the validity of the professor’s actions and handout as “bottomless demagoguery at its most insipid, the dogs barking at every tweet of the whistle, salivating with pavlovian certitude, and the band playing "Hail to the Cheek"!”
Really? Wow. I'll bet if you check the TFD thesaurus you might be able to find a few more synonyms to string together. This is so comical. Thanks for the laugh.

Please read critically. I characterized his article as such, and then parodied it.
Yep, you are correct. I jumped the shark there and in reading quickly, assumed you meant that for me. I apologize for the mistaken attribution to you.

FounDit wrote:

He then goes on to say there are many “thoughtful” essays on the issue, but doesn’t say exactly why my questioning isn’t one of those “thoughtful” essays, and thus admitting that he knows Political Correctness does exist. Apparently, my questioning of the Progressive Left isn't considered "thoughtful" (oh, well). He merely attacks with the demagoguery he accuses me of using. Yet all I did was describe what Political Correctness itself consists of, and used one of its positions as an example. What you see here is exactly how Political Correctness works. If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.

Please read critically. I questioned your choice of "source material", not your position nor your expression thereof.
And again, the source is irrelevant as it has been reported in many places. I just happened to see this one and used it. The OP, however, is not about who reports on something, but the subject itself, which was Political Correctness and and example of it.

What you see here is how critical thinking works. Where there is a body of work and a preponderance of evidence, it is usually safe to draw conclusions. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Pease check a dictionary. "Demagoguery" is similar to a populism that appeals to the lowest most general fears of a population rather than considering its best interests.
Well, I just checked Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Vocabulary.com, The Free Dictionary, Cambridge English Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary. None of them mention "Demagoguery" as appealing to the "lowest" general fears of a population. Most say it refers to an appeal to emotions and prejudices. Whether these are the "lowest" is simply a matter of opinion, and you have stated yours.

I say that is exactly what Political Correctness does with this "White Privilege" paper. Please feel free to discuss the topic from an objective point of view as much as is possible. That was what I intended to do.

FounDit wrote:

Anyone who is unaware of the facts of Political Correctness and its use on college campuses isn’t paying attention, or worse, is woefully ignorant. The more frightening prospect is that they are willfully ignorant. But then, we are talking about the Political Left, so....


Here's the thing. If such PC activity is so rampant, the author should be able to cite several recent verifiable examples.

Reading critically, he doesn't. Why is that?

Because everyone knows…
So had I referenced two or three sources, you wouldn't have taken issue with my OP? Would that have made my OP more true; and the fact I used only one reference means what — that Political Correctness doesn't exist here? C'mon leon.

Next up: Hope123



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:15:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559
Hope123,

Okay. On the Roseanne Barr subject: I've never really liked her. I watched her show a few times in the early years and didn't find it all that funny. Didn't like her husband, Tom Arnold, and still don't. Didn't watch her new show when it came on, and had no interest to do so. Hated what she did to the National Anthem, and thought her tweet was offensive and an example of the kind of things that should not be said about anyone.

I have no idea who Michelle Wolf is, or what she may have said, and don't care. I think Kathy Griffin is an idiot who went even farther than Roseanne, and would have said the same thing about anyone who does that to any our Presidents, but I never took to the internet or social media (I have no Facebook or Twitter accts) to complain about either one of them. That was completely out of the bounds of good taste and manners.

However, she does have the right to free speech, just as Roseanne does. So does Colin Kaepernick. So do the rest of us, and if we find offensive what these people do, we have the right and privilege to say so on social media and/or with our pocketbooks. I don't advocate boycotts, but I do advocate for the right to refuse to watch, promote, or support them, or the businesses they work for, if I find their antics offensive, or see them supported in their bad manners by the businesses they work for.

So I vote for "A".


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 3:45:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559
philips daughter wrote:
FounDit, I figure I’m around your age, over 60, I’m a native Texan and I understand you live in Austin. No, I live near the border. I have family members living north of Austin, however.

Like you, I’m never going to quit saying mankind instead of humankind. But it doesn’t offend me and I really agree with the humankind crowd. I’m very much a feminist in as much I beleve in the good of women upon the world. But, I was raised in Texas and that’s just the way I grew up, saying mankind, assuming it meant the same as humankind. I too was brainwashed by forced patriotism by way of saying “the pledge” every morning of my 12 years public school. I still put my hand on my heart and sing the National Anthem. Even though I am becoming aware of the programming that has gone on to lead people to think like you That would be the "forced" patriotism you spoke of, except I don't find it a bad thing for the people of a country to pledge an allegiance to it, especially one that honors freedom and tries to improve the lives of not only its own people, but others around the world also, even if done imperfectly.

The difference between us is that I’m not offfended when a black football player takes a knee. It makes me cry to see unarmed black children shot down like dogs. No one would have to say Black Lives Matter if they did. I don’t know you and I can only assume what motivates you so, I try not to make this about you. I disagree with every racist thing you say and until you change I don’t wish to argue with you. I am offended when someone disrespects the flag or the anthem because they are symbols that have substance; they stand for something; they stand for a country founded on freedom; a country that is trying to achieve that for all its citizens. We aren't there yet, and never will be, because we humans aren't perfect, but you don't spit in the face of someone who wants to try. If he has a complaint, fine. He has the right to voice it, but in my view, he does not have the right to disrespect the whole country and everyone in it. There is a time and place for proper dissent.

No one wants to see children, or anyone else, shot down in the street like dogs, but to accuse every police officer of racism and bias, to accuse them of wanting to shoot down people like dogs, is demagoguery at its worst, and IMO, should not be tolerated by any decent human being.

You say you don't want to make this about me, but then you accuse me of racism. That registers as illogical foolishness in my world. I've written here on the forum before that I believe in only one race — the human race. I don't see color as a basis for defining people as being of a different "race". On the last census form, I objected to the governments' asking me my "race", and wrote "human". They sent someone to my door to look at my skin tone and determine my "race".

Because if you really are a Texan like you say, then we will never agree. You are a white Texan and I’m not, but my ancestry says my heritage in this country is native, my children are Mexican.
I say I'm white, but I have no idea of who got with whom over the years since my ancestors came here. I grew up in the Appalachia area near the Cherokee reservation. Many family members say we are part Native American. I don't know, and don't care. I am who I am. Who my ancestors were is irrelevant.

Like you, I have family members (grandchildren) who are Hispanic with relatives who came from Mexico. I have absolutely no problem with that, or them. The only people I want to leave are the ones who break our laws and come here illegally. If I have to obey the laws of our country, so should they if they want to live here.

And if you think we are going anywhere, think again. There hasn’t been one American war that our blood wasn’t poured out. You brought your disease and violence to this country. Well, I didn't but my ancestors may have, depending on how long they've been here, and I have no idea how long that may have been.

But I’m only assuming you are the kind of person I imagine because there many of you and you have power and money and as we Texans say, “You don’t think you stink.” But those things you say do.
Well, I'm sorry you think that, but there isn't anything I can do about what you choose to think. And you think I have power and money? You don't know me at all. But you mean because I'm "white".

Well, here again, you project the racism I pointed to in my OP. Because you see me as "white", I belong to a group, all of which have power and money. That is as offensive as what Kathy Griffin or Roseanne did. You have just judged and condemned without knowing anything, really. It is just this kind of thing that prevents us from having reasonable discussions.

I'm not angry, just saddened that you have chosen to take this approach, rather than dialogue. I do wish you well, however.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 4:19:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123,

Okay. On the Roseanne Barr subject: I've never really liked her. I watched her show a few times in the early years and didn't find it all that funny. Didn't like her husband, Tom Arnold, and still don't. Didn't watch her new show when it came on, and had no interest to do so. Hated what she did to the National Anthem, and thought her tweet was offensive and an example of the kind of things that should not be said about anyone.

I have no idea who Michelle Wolf is, or what she may have said, and don't care. I think Kathy Griffin is an idiot who went even farther than Roseanne, and would have said the same thing about anyone who does that to any our Presidents, but I never took to the internet or social media (I have no Facebook or Twitter accts) to complain about either one of them. That was completely out of the bounds of good taste and manners.

However, she does have the right to free speech, just as Roseanne does. So does Colin Kaepernick. So do the rest of us, and if we find offensive what these people do, we have the right and privilege to say so on social media and/or with our pocketbooks. I don't advocate boycotts, but I do advocate for the right to refuse to watch, promote, or support them, or the businesses they work for, if I find their antics offensive, or see them supported in their bad manners by the businesses they work for.

So I vote for "A".


:) Applause I appreciate your direct response. I'm glad you made clear the difference between the thread topic and what Barr said.

I defend the right to freedom of speech to the nth degree, same as you do. It is the basis of democracy. And as we've both said, the speaker has to realize that the rest of us may not like it and there could be serious consequences, especially if you are in the public eye. I don't do boycotts or protests either and use my pocketbook unless I really want their product. (For instance, Tim Hortons, our national icon bought out by US Burger King :(, has been in trouble lately with Canadians for taking back benefits when the govt raised the minimum wage law for employees. Some boycotted it. I rarely eat out but my husband likes their coffee and food.) And even in our private lives we have to accept that our relationships are based on what we do and say.

I've never watched even one episode of Barr. I've seen pix of Arnold so I know who he is but nothing about him. But "birds of feather"...
Same as you, we prefer class to crass.

Michelle Wolf is a comedian who roundly roasted everybody - the media, and members of both parties - at the recent press dinner. I did not find her funny but the room laughed because they were "in" jokes. Yet the only flack she got was from the Right about attacking Sandra Huckabee's appearance because they didn't get the joke. And Huckabee sat stone faced. But it was not about appearance at all. I don't like what roasts have become since Dean Martin et al used to have fun but weren't nasty to each other.

The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 7:45:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, are you and Leon even talking about the same webpage? The teacher story was in Red Alert/Daily Caller not the National Review which was the link on the OP that Leon was discussing.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/jordan-peterson-kanye-west-challenge-political-correctness/

I skimmed above story to refresh my memory - what stood out is that the goal of fighting against "political correctness" is "authenticity and disruption".

That's the goal? I don't know Peterson nor the book, but if Trump and Roseanne and Kanye West are examples of authenticity count me out. What Trump and Barr do is NOT authentic. Surely they are not representative of who Americans are. I am sorry as I know you don't like to hear it, but I cannot respect your current president. I respect the office but the resident has to earn respect and he does not in any way represent that word nor the office. And both of them certainly do cause disruption - something the whole world could do with a lot less of these days.

From above article "Google and Facebook have also felt the backlash from censoring non-woke voices. Conversely, the success of American Sniper, Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson, and Roseanne has revealed the size of the audience willing to abandon the poses of political correctness for authenticity and disruption."

You say there are other articles about PC so how about posting some other webpages from mainstream sources? I just think you need some better examples with all the facts rather than just slanted or spun headlines if you want to get us to understand the anger against trying to be more inclusive in language and in other areas.

The only one I agreed with at first was that voters should definitely be identified - face exposed to polling officer, a photo ID, and card from the government that has verified your status. That only needs to be done once. On reflection, I change my mind and say that governments not requiring that by law is not political correctness - it's backward, stupid, and can lead to voter fraud. We voted today with our polling card and driver's licence or Health card, both photo IDs, or any other photo ID. Actually there was a whole list of acceptable proof of identification. If people are too poor to drive and have no healthcare, then get a federal ID card for everybody. How can it be that a country such as the US does not require voters to be identified first. I was amazed first time I heard about it.

The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 8:03:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I have to go do some work soon instead of procrastinating by writing on here. :)

Because a couple of times you have mentioned this example was not addressed, I really just started out to write the following about the teacher and WP but now think I should put it into a separate post as a separate topic because I got waylaid after I read your other responses to Leon, FD. At the end of this post I added two edited earlier posts of mine with quotes from Drago just as proof it was discussed. What you mean that we didn't address it is that we didn't agree with your "yes or no" did she hand it out POV?

Please, read this and say that there is a possibility that Drago I could be right and that it was not all a black and white situation when you don't know all the facts of the story.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/professor-threatens-punishment-for-stereotypes-after-issuing-checklist-stereotyping-white-people/

One of Amanda Zunner-Keating's goals as a teacher was to help students understand human diversity. I wanted to find the actual title of the paper she handed out but could find only the one alt-right website reporting on the link above.

What did she say as she handed out the paper? Was her paper called "Let's Discuss How White Privilege is Misleading". Or "Should White People Be Annoyed with The WP Concept?" Or even just "White Privilege" which does not tell us anything. You assume from the questions it was de facto "WP is true so feel guilty". I don't know but don't dispute that she handed out the paper. But the facts go beyond your lawyer's question of "yes or no" did she hand out a paper? Making an assumption without ALL the facts is always risky. You needed the lesson plan in her Daybook.

A lesson plan and questioning can direct students to many conclusions and all kinds of materials can be used to stimulate discussion. Think of all the literature we studied that was controversial but was used to make us think.

The ONE complaint from several classrooms of students was about a conservative student FEELING he couldn't express his conservative views enough. He said, "I can’t help the feeling that I’ll be punished if I voice my conservative views… I wouldn’t be surprised if she thought all conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots. I know my viewpoints aren’t welcome here,” he concluded. That statement is the exact opposite to her stated goals and the passion shown in her outside activities.

Well grow up, young man, own your feelings - they might even be wrong - discuss it in class, and take the risk, instead of whining to a news site about restrictions she put in her classroom about how people are to be treated. What did you want to say that was against her principles that look pretty good to me? You might have been pleasantly surprised how the discussion turned out.

I don't have the all the facts either so do not adamantly assume my view is correct. But since all those other students saw nothing wrong after the class, I suspect, only suspect, my thinking is correct.

:::

Rest just posted as proof it was addressed by Drago and me but dismissed.

[quote=Hope123]Drag0nspeaker wrote: And I see it needs to be repeated:

The "White Privilege Checklist" was handed out showing the stereotyped attitudes non-whites (and some whites) have about whites. It serves as an example of stereotyping and shows that discrimination is not just anti-black/brown.

The rules do not specify that they only apply to whites stereotyping blacks or Christians stereotyping other religions - they just mention 'any stereotyping'.



What did you just try to do to a professor even after being told the facts by Drago as to what the paper was to accomplish? Instead you substitute your own conjecture and opinion that it was to make white kids feel guilty when in fact it was exactly the opposite...Edited - The prof was teaching kids to think critically - a worthy goal of education. You are trying to make an incorrect case for shutting down the discussion that makes that possible. ..supporting an alt right paper that was trying to use a disgruntled student's complaint to smear an illustrious prof to make a political statement when the facts are the exact opposite to your accusation. "That dog don't hunt".

[/quote]

Hope123 wrote:
FD, if you want to discuss "white privilege" generally, fine. We can do so.

But to dismiss without proof Drago's research about one teacher and try to use another group's views to prove what one specific teacher was using it for is not even logical. Brick wall

That's like saying because several people have stolen a donut, everybody, no exceptions, must have stolen a donut.

Tell me you were there in that classroom with that teacher, that she used the paper to make white children feel guilty and not to show that whites can be discriminated against too, and I'll consider your argument that she was using it to divide rather than unite...Because good teachers teach. They have their children's welfare at heart. They try to boost self esteem, not make them feel guilty. Even teachers in the US. Some of them buy materials for their classrooms out of their own pockets in the US and Canada and in other countries too.


The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
Romany
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2018 12:12:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,219
Neurons: 44,063
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Hope -

the one thing thAt five posters brought up but which the digression into biAsed sources, & teAchers, & A disgruntled student succesfully shut down, wAs FD's unforgivAble comments About everyone being brought "down" to the level of people who wore born with dArker pigment thAn he.

The 'diversion' thing is A Trump trope which we see every dAy working so wonderfully well for him thAt of course his supporters set it As their own defAult mode.

It's been stAted on more thAn one occAsion thAt FD doesn't reAd All your "rAnts". Obviously, hAving lAbelled them As such - rAther thAn exhAustively well-reseArched, sincere,& objective seArches for true fActs - he is Absolved from reAding them At All."RAnting" is the province of the mentAlly unstAble; hystericAl women, & unhinged bigots (or the Alcoholic!).

He nAiled his colours to the mAst for everyone to see; didn't retrAct, Apologise,or even explAin. Of course he won't even give A pAssing thought to whAt you so cArefully present. From A rAcist point of view he is right & you Are wrong - And there's nothing wrong with providing "proof" of thAt from equAlly rAcist sources.Or indeed,from A rAciAlly bigoted President.

He's not listening: turn the light off And leAve the room, girl.There's so much wonder & joy in the world to spend time on!
leonAzul
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2018 12:17:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,405
Neurons: 26,728
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
FounDit wrote:
I might as well start at the beginning, and work my way down.


So had I referenced two or three sources, you wouldn't have taken issue with my OP? Would that have made my OP more true; and the fact I used only one reference means what — that Political Correctness doesn't exist here? C'mon leon.

Next up: Hope123


You're not even trying.

What I said is that the article you have used to introduce the topic has little to do with what you apparently want to talk about. That article, by title and what content there is, discusses the shift in the PC avant garde from the alumni of prestigious universities of eighty years ago to today's award-winning entertainers.

Conversation is difficult when the person who starts it doesn't stay on-topic. Is it your intention to discuss that article or something else?




"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2018 3:21:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Romany,

Do you really think anyone who has read this thread has forgotten what FD said about levels of people based on colour? Those are words that cannot be unsaid and they create a whole new perspective that will be tucked back and remembered with each interaction.

I am not letting the topic go because I am tired of the Populist movement around the world being blamed on Political Correctness and trying to make Liberals own it. This was started by the media around the world and by Tuna and FD and others the day after the US election. And Brexit.

The Populist movement is in reality a push back against inclusion and diversity. Liberals try to get policies such as minimum wage raises and labour laws to help the workers, so there have to be other reasons why Populists vote against themselves. I've said before the Bathroom Bill was the last straw in the US for those who felt threatened by people who differ from themselves. FD talks about the pendulum - well the pendulum was that since they had diversity with a man with half black blood in him as president they had to go to the exact opposite direction to a white man whose discriminatory practices were there to be seen from his earliest days, well taught by his father. And a bully to boot. And thus that pendulum swung from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Liberals are only trying to help those less fortunate or those minorities who are discriminated against. The motivation to pushback against what Conservatives call PC, manufacturing examples, is to obscure the good Liberals are trying to do. People can decide for themselves what the characters are of those who are against helping others.

I write for readers of the forum, not for any one person. I can recognize deflection. I can recognize the spin with whole stories being condensed to one word. I recognize how taking words out of context is used politically. Why I even had my words taken out of context by Listening to try to make me look unsympathetic twice. I don't really care if FD (or anyone) responds to my posts or not.

I write in political threads to help expose Trump supporters on the extreme Right who have been captured by ideology so that they are no longer able to commit to reasonable debate.

The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2018 8:37:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559
Well, I tried. I had hoped for an interesting discussion on the topic of Political Correctness, but I see it isn't possible.

As an example of how my words are twisted to say things I didn't say, I give you this from Romany:

"the one thing thAt five posters brought up but which the digression into biAsed sources, & teAchers, & A disgruntled student succesfully shut down, wAs FD's unforgivAble comments About everyone being brought "down" to the level of people who wore born with dArker pigment thAn he."

I never said any such thing. What I did was question the definition of "equality" by the so-called Social Justice Warriors in our society.

I said, "So "White Privilege" says “you’re special because you’re white.” But that is both illogical and inherently racist itself. I don't think people who use the term understand the implication of it, which is to somehow bring all white people down to the level of people of color. [emphasis added]

Is this what is meant by "equality" from the "Social Justice Warriors" of our society; that we are all to [be] brought down to the lowest level we can find, or that someone may have delineated for all of us? Who has the authority to do that, and why should we listen to anyone who suggests such a thing?"


If whites are so privileged, wouldn't it be better to lift everyone else up to that level?


So I'm actually advocating lifting everyone up to an equal level. But that idea seems to be beyond the comprehension of some here. When my listeners aren't capable of holding rational thoughts in their heads, or make an effort to understand what they hear, no dialogue can take place.

The only idea Romany got correct is this one: it's time to turn off the light and leave the room. An intelligent conversation can't be had. So I'm doing just that. *click*


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Absinthius
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 3:33:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
FounDit wrote:
So I'm actually advocating lifting everyone up to an equal level. But that idea seems to be beyond the comprehension of some here. When my listeners aren't capable of holding rational thoughts in their heads, or make an effort to understand what they hear, no dialogue can take place.


Your idea is noble, in a way. But don't you realize the implication of your phrasing? The phrasing that you advocate lifting anyone up to a level (or even your dissatisfaction of bringing people down a level) implies you think there are different levels of people that have inherently different values. Combining the fact that you use these phrases in the context of a discussion on 'race', you can't really be surprised that you see racism being brought up on that. Any nuance you add on top doesn't really dig you out of that hole.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Y111
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:13:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 209
Neurons: 1,024
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Absinthius wrote:
The phrasing that you advocate lifting anyone up to a level (or even your dissatisfaction of bringing people down a level) implies you think there are different levels of people that have inherently different values.

I think he meant a level of privilege, not a level of value. To me it seems quite obvious.

FounDit wrote:
If whites are so privileged, wouldn't it be better to lift everyone else up to that level?

Absinthius
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 6:40:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 360
Neurons: 23,113
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Y111 wrote:
I think he meant a level of privilege, not a level of value. To me it seems quite obvious.


FounDit wrote:
If whites are so privileged, wouldn't it be better to lift everyone else up to that level?

Sure, I can see your interpretation making sense for this one.

FounDit wrote:
which is to somehow bring all white people down to the level of people of color.

For this one, I can't really find a way to interpret as being just about priviledge, this seems to me just to be a very unsavory sentiment.

Now, just to be clear. From what I have read so far, I don't think that the second quote from FounDit reflects his personal beliefs. But I do think that on a topic that is already so sensitive to discuss, a phrase like this functions almost like a lightning rod. The following posts attest to that. Point only being that the language we choose to use directly impacts whether and how a discussion subsequently develops. So perhaps FounDit can address this point directly in order to get the discussion into a less finger-pointy direction.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 6:53:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,657
Neurons: 404,512
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
TFD on social intelligence:


Social intelligence is the capability to effectively navigate and negotiate complex social relationships and environments. Social scientist Ross Honeywill believes social intelligence is an aggregated measure of self- and social-awareness, evolved social beliefs and attitudes, and a capacity and appetite to manage complex social change. Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey believes that it is social intelligence, rather than quantitative intelligence, that defines humans.

The original definition by Edward Thorndike in 1920 is "the ability to understand and manage men and women and girls, to act wisely in human relations". It is equivalent to interpersonal intelligence, one of the types of intelligence identified in Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, and closely related to theory of mind

...

Hypothesis

The social intelligence hypothesis states that social intelligence, that is, complex socialization such as politics, romance, family relationships, quarrels, collaboration, reciprocity, and altruism, was the driving force in developing the size of human brains and today provides our ability to use those large brains in complex social circumstances. That is, it was the demands of living together that drove our need for intelligence generally.


I think political correctness is part of this social behaviour.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 3:00:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Y111 wrote: I think he meant a level of privilege, not a level of value.

I thought of that Y111. But since to that point the existence of white privilege was even denied, how could it refer to privilege rather than value? The word "special" also confused the issue. Add three more words and the ambiguity Drago mentioned is gone. A response by FD right there to Drago would have cleared up exactly what he meant.

So "White Privilege" says “you’re special because you’re white.” But that is both illogical and inherently racist itself. I don't think people who use the term understand the implication of it, which is to somehow bring all white people down to the level of people of color. in terms of privilege

The written word is far more easily misinterpreted than the spoken word, and nobody likes that. Since FD says that is not what he meant, I'll believe him.

However, this example which is personal to FD and examples I didn't like where my character was questioned by taking words out of context, should make all of us more careful with famous people or politicians, not to use spin to further a certain POV, or to fixate on a phrase with the whole meaning obscured (Deplorables by the Republicans comes to mind), to take words out of context, or to assume the motivations of a teacher handing out a paper.


The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
Romany
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 3:19:26 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,219
Neurons: 44,063
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
JJ,

I think you have a point there. It's one of the reasons the stricture not discuss "sex, religion or politics" at the table was once pretty strictly enforced. It's bad for the digestion!
FounDit
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:52:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559
Absinthius wrote:
Y111 wrote:
I think he meant a level of privilege, not a level of value. To me it seems quite obvious.


FounDit wrote:
If whites are so privileged, wouldn't it be better to lift everyone else up to that level?

Sure, I can see your interpretation making sense for this one.

FounDit wrote:
which is to somehow bring all white people down to the level of people of color.

For this one, I can't really find a way to interpret as being just about priviledge, this seems to me just to be a very unsavory sentiment.

Now, just to be clear. From what I have read so far, I don't think that the second quote from FounDit reflects his personal beliefs. But I do think that on a topic that is already so sensitive to discuss, a phrase like this functions almost like a lightning rod. The following posts attest to that. Point only being that the language we choose to use directly impacts whether and how a discussion subsequently develops. So perhaps FounDit can address this point directly in order to get the discussion into a less finger-pointy direction.


I greatly appreciate the fact that you chose to ask questions rather than make assumptions and cast insults based on those assumptions. Rather than answer you question directly, I would ask that you read carefully what I wrote and ask yourself, "Is FounDit saying there are levels of people, and that they can be raised or lowered, or is he ascribing that kind of thinking to people who advocate for "White Privilege"?

Thanks also, to Y111 and Jyrkkä Jätkä for your reasonable responses. It is true, Absinthius, that this is a sensitive topic. For exactly that reason, it should be incumbent on all of us who participate to ask questions if something isn't clear, not automatically jump to conclusions about the poster's motives. That is how an intelligent conversation/discussion is conducted.

As another example illustrates, political discourse here in the U.S. has degenerated into something vile. Another professor, one who describes himself as a Liberal (meaning the political Left here), was driven off campus and out of his job by a mob of students for not adhering to their demands for behavior as defined by "race".

Evergreen students demand professor resign

Such was, and is, the level of acrimony, that he feared for the safety of himself and his family.

The point of all this is to illustrate how insidious and vile politics can become when one ideology takes root and seeks to dominate the whole of a society. It's a very dangerous thing, and I think too many people don't realize what they are doing when they give in to blindly following social memes.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Friday, June 1, 2018 8:44:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
My post is really off topic as it is about racism/protests rather than political correctness. But since the subject was broached, what is done to teach young university students who wander off track might be interesting to some.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/06/05/college-closed-for-third-day-concerned-about-threat-after-protests-over-race/?utm_term=.9717c400cb1b

Statement from the Evergreen board is on the above link. Maybe there are other sources but but I don't see in these where Weinstein lost his job, and it was reported he was not physically threatened nor told to conduct classes off campus. I can't verify that didn't happen. Edited : still can't find any statement he would lose his job although those students demanded it, but I did find that Bret Weinstein has filed paperwork indicating that the professor plans to sue The Evergreen State College in Olympia for $3.5 million.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article163629628.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/education/article163629628.html#storylink=cpy

The students were told their actions were indefensible but several staff have pledged to work together to try to improve race relations on campus. Sounds as if there might be a racism problem there and students are not just protesting for the sake of protesting. The board says of their 4500 students there were only a few involved in indefensible actions. And there will be consequences for them. "Intellectual inquiry, freedom of expression, tolerance and inclusiveness are core tenets of Evergreen’s philosophy and approach to education."

Universities are where movements often start. Sometimes the young get it right; sometimes they don't. They are learning, and evolving to become adults. The Evergreen example is about protest against racism with perhaps some over zealousness and an inability to see that demanding actions is not the same as voluntary approval of the Day of Absence which has gone on for decades. An inability to see both sides of a picture.

::::
Photos -

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2014/nov/15/berkeley-a-history-of-disobedience-in-pictures

The more things change the more they stay the same. We're still talking about the same issues all over the world as we were in the sixties.

https://historyplex.com/counterculture-of-1960s

Counterculture - "It was a cultural movement that initiated in the United States and United Kingdom, around 1956, but spread across the world by 1974. The movement however, gained momentum from the years 1965 to 72...There were many issues that were brought before the world, such as; racial segregation, freedom of speech, environmentalism, orthodoxy, traditional marriages, feminism, minority rights for women, handicapped, orphans, socially neglected and sensitive issues like sexual openness and homosexuality."

http://americanarchive.org/exhibits/first-amendment/protests-60s-70s

http://americanarchive.org/exhibits/first-amendment/protests-80s-andbeyond


The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2018 3:08:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 951
Neurons: 460,427
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
If whites are so privileged, wouldn't it be better to lift everyone else up to that level?

So I'm actually advocating lifting everyone up to an equal level.


Welcome, FounDit, so glad you could join us.
I'm glad to see you have a bit of a "leftist" and "social justice warrior" streak in you after all!

You and I don't consume the same media, but I suggest you sample some of mine. It sounds like you might like it! They're often dismissed as leftists or social justice warriors, but really, what they want is equal rights for everyone. And they use terms like "political correctness" and "white privilege" to point things out, not to judge, and to give stepping stones to create a better society.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2018 5:56:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 469
Neurons: 2,443
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
FounDit wrote:

The point of all this is to illustrate how insidious and vile politics can become when one ideology takes root and seeks to dominate the whole of a society. It's a very dangerous thing, and I think too many people don't realize what they are doing when they give in to blindly following social memes.



I've deliberately stayed away from this discussion as I don't know (unfortunately!) the United States well enough to make grounded judgements. But this FounDit's point I do want to strongly support.

I think I have a right to do so because my own country lived under a system dominated by one ideology for most of the 20th century. (In fact, even now in the 21th century that story is not quite over yet, but that's another topic).

One negative aspect of it that probably can still be underestimated in the West for the West's lack of previous experience with it, is that once an ideology does take full control over a society, it effectively ceases to be an ideology and becomes merely an instrument whereby usually less competent people can supress relatively more competent. With obvious negative effects on the society.

E.g. there are two professors at a University. One is very good, another one is not so good but wants to take the job of the first one. He can't beat him on the professional grounds, so he is trying to attack his personality and his "ideological fitness to educate the future generation". And same in every enterprise and professional area, so very quickly this shit gets spewed all over the place. This is not what you want your country to become, believe me.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2018 8:54:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
FounDit wrote:

The point of all this is to illustrate how insidious and vile politics can become when one ideology takes root and seeks to dominate the whole of a society. It's a very dangerous thing, and I think too many people don't realize what they are doing when they give in to blindly following social memes.



I've deliberately stayed away from this discussion as I don't know (unfortunately!) the United States well enough to make grounded judgements. But this FounDit's point I do want to strongly support.

I think I have a right to do so because my own country lived under a system dominated by one ideology for most of the 20th century. (In fact, even now in the 21th century that story is not quite over yet, but that's another topic).

One negative aspect of it that probably can still be underestimated in the West for the West's lack of previous experience with it, is that once an ideology does take full control over a society, it effectively ceases to be an ideology and becomes merely an instrument whereby usually less competent people can supress relatively more competent. With obvious negative effects on the society.

E.g. there are two professors at a University. One is very good, another one is not so good but wants to take the job of the first one. He can't beat him on the professional grounds, so he is trying to attack his personality and his "ideological fitness to educate the future generation". And same in every enterprise and professional area, so very quickly this shit gets spewed all over the place. This is not what you want your country to become, believe me.


I agree with both FD's general statement and your warning, Kirill. Some day I'd like to read more from you about your country today, and what life is really like there. I've never visited.

In another thread the discussion is about "real memes" being like dangerous viruses infecting our minds and actions as if there is a parasite in our brains.

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst182175_The-Real-Memes.aspx

Since this particular thread is about Political Correctness (a meme manufactured by the Populists) that also became about White Privilege, I'm assuming FD is equating mainly those two ideas with the social memes he warns about.

I would add "Populism"(whatever that is) to that warning. And it's already too late to stop the spread of that in the US. It is threatening their constitution and democracy right now. Their president is bragging on Twitter that he is above the law! And his supporters are cheering him on. They love it. Other countries are also fighting the same disruptions.

We'll see what happens in Ontario in Thursday's election. One of the party leaders has no idea what he's doing and has no platform, but is reeling people in with rhetoric and promises. They want change at any cost. The two other leaders are competent government experienced women who are fighting but according to polls the best we can hope for is a minority givernment where he'll have to cooperate. A perfect example of your statement that I put into bold face.

The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
FounDit
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2018 10:57:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,284
Neurons: 49,559
An excellent point, Kirill Vorobyov. It is exactly this feature of our current political landscape that I wanted to reveal.

It is always dangerous when only one kind of thought is permitted. When voices that disagree are shut down, or shouted down, then freedom suffers. But I believe that is the goal of those who practice such things; they want tyranny, and we are dangerously close to having that goal achieved here when dissenters are not allowed to speak out.

But I have faith that we will overcome this current morass. We've already made significant progress in that regard. The constant wailing in our media signals that progress.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 12:16:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,061
Neurons: 46,361
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
An excellent point, Kirill Vorobyov. It is exactly this feature of our current political landscape that I wanted to reveal.

It is always dangerous when only one kind of thought is permitted. When voices that disagree are shut down, or shouted down, then freedom suffers. But I believe that is the goal of those who practice such things; they want tyranny, and we are dangerously close to having that goal achieved here when dissenters are not allowed to speak out.

Agreed - when the president and his press secretary rudely do not even allow the presidential press to finish their sentences, when the admin and the president's press secretary lie to the press and the American people, (he DID dictate Jr's letter his lawyers tell Mueller) when anything the press prints that is negative to the president is called "fake news" by him, when the reputable journalists are called all kinds of personal names for trying to do their job of keeping the government accountable, when their voices are shouted down, when only one news source is approved of by the president because they are favourable to him, then freedom and democracy suffer. Making the press impotent and establishing only one "legitimate" news source is the first step to dictatorship but Populists can't see that or just ignore it because the stock market is up. Attacking the media and the Department of Justice, and trying to coerce the DOJ instead of keeping it at arm's length, are far bigger problems than the manufactured political correctness red herring.

But I have faith that we will overcome this current morass. We've already made significant progress in that regard. The constant wailing in our media signals that progress.


The trouble with the world - the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.