Political Correctness
- Thread starter lbsf1
- 2,919 comments
- 170,485 views
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Well it's a commentary on a platform mainly used by these groups of new, so while it may not be a great way of stating idealized info or thought on loose evidence, there isn't any real way to confirm one way or the other. It's new territory, I could say to you the same way, how is anyone so quick to say this isn't objective or the case when there is no case study or even simple study.
When many people who claim to be of BLM are taking to twitter for example talking about racist cops, rigged politics and so on does it become enough. I find it a decent source because of the way groups like this operate, they're not colluding simply in the streets, but rather permeating the net to spread ideals. If it weren't for that I'd easily agree with you, unless someone is going to various BLM protests on the streets, how are they to know. The problem is when you have people talking on the net and spreading the negative aspects of their group and media not helping, the normal person on the outside will take it for face value.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,402
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The inference from your post was that they hadn't addressed this, as such a source showing the addressing it isn't subjective.
Of which the exact same thing can be said of any group, my question is why differing standards are applied dependent on what that group is.
Is it valid to do this to anyone who has an issue with potentially disproportionate police violence, yet not to anyone who has an issue with liberal ideology?
A conservative doesn't and shouldn't automatically get linked to the far right and neo Nazis, in the same way that anyone who think people shouldn't be treated differently based on gender shouldn't automatically get linked to rabid feminists who call for men to be discriminated against.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I apply this solely to BLM, and their way of conveying a message. I don't care about SJW because SJW could be anyone is and is a broad term. So general comments on SJW are as you said too inconclusive to be objective.
When I compare BLM to former groups of recent history like the tea party movement or the occupy groups, I don't agree. Those others were actual protest groups of showing up in person and voicing an issue with public service/government. BLM seems to do this on my outlets, but in a way that is provocative and at time violent, they've chanted more of a Malcom X nation of islam look on black rights, then a non-violent civil disobedience of MLK. That's why I take issue as someone of the same background (as if it really matters) and why others may as well.
People as I recall took vast issues with the Tea Party movement just the same as this. So I fail to see your point, it's poignant cause it's relevant to the now, if people want to be fickle in memory I can't speak for them, but from my view point it's the same either way just different ideology. The issue also that some people seem to not note is the call for this almost Jim Crow level of racism that seems to be going around, because police supposedly want to use Black men as living targets. It's hard to approach such volatile thought, especially as a non-black.
Yet it does, and we come full circle, as I said in the election thread, perhaps a shorter leash should be given to media. However, that'd go against the first amendment and my personal belief in it. So it's a hard balancing act to me, when does a group become so disruptive that it stops being with in their right? I don't feel that BLM or any other group are the direct cause, but the media that churns the issue to keep having something to broadcast. I agree with you at the end of the day neither should happen, it actually destroys discourse of a positive nature, and turns it into a divided nation many see it as currently.
- 2,858
- Australia
"Crusade" was used only as an acknowledgement that I could appear to be harping on about it, after a few similarly themed posts recently. Certainly not a statement of intent.
Actually it's interesting to have this conversation bobbing in and out of the other one, as "the death of the SJW movements" or rather, what they could be, doesn't/didn't need to happen. Those "movements" made themselves the enemy, by pitching people that didn't share their preferences as the enemy. The "you have the right to a voice if your voice speaks as mine" attitude is rife in my opinion, and others were always destined to rise up against it. I think it being based on preferences and not principle is what sullies it, and what drags it away from a consistent logic that could be respected, even if not actually accepted, by the other side. Preferences vs principles? If one is not willing to extrapolate a proposed principle to it's logical end, without interruption, it remains topical and preferential.
A convenient hop, skip, jump, and sidestep around Islamic ways when otherwise trumpeting about female equality would be a common realisation of this. Of course "Freedom is having a gun, but don't be gay around my kids or I'll shoot you with it" hardly paints the other side as any better. Another example - people spouting about the "principle" of why video game violence is not a problem for society, then are all at sea when asked if paedophilia in a video game should be no issue. Gay marriage is "Yay!!" based on principle, but intrafamilial marriage is "Yuck, how dare you!!?". I could go on.
Back specifically to those under the SJW moniker - I think that what started out as a justified cull of wrongs saw people ultimately embrace the thrill of the hunt, and exhibit the behaviour of stirring up nests of "enemies" not to make a positive change, but to satiate their blood lust and have a figurative head to hang on their wall. Furthering the metaphor though sees them actually killing those that should deserve protection under their supposed justice mantra, and I think that inconsistency is the true "evil" in their actions.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 2,858
- Australia
That includes the protection of Islam/Muslims, yes?
Got that one covered I see, but what about the protection of Scientology/Scientologists? Did/would you oppose Nick Xenophon's call for a Parliamentary Inquiry into Scientology?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I'm not sure what your point is. I am, however, quite sure that it's an attempt to embarrass me, and I am equally sure that tomorrow you will argue the opposite point for the sake of embarrassing somebody else. So there's not really any point responding to you.
- 2,858
- Australia
Just trying to help you in being fashion forward. Championing the rights of Scientologists may well be the next big thing.
You step so carefully. It's almost as if your views aren't truly your own, but merely copy/pasted from a chosen archetype - and when something isn't covered in the "manual"...... it's goodnight, John boy.
....Nah, surely not.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,402
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The point I was quoting (which wasn't yourself) was a very specific claim that was, objectively shown to be incorrect.
I don't disagree that may well be the reality, but I've not yet seen that shown to be objectively the case. Do some of them do it? Yes they most certainly do. Do the majority do it and is that done under the direction of the group itself? That I'm yet to be convinced of.
Personally I don't agree that the same level of issue was taken with the Tea Party at all, but I also disagree that BLM (as in the core organisation) claim that the police as a whole are using black men as living targets. I've already posted a link that shows them specifically saying that is not the case.
Oh I agree 100% that its a hard balancing act indeed.
To a degree the media will get away with what it does in part because it would seem a large number of people don't seem to either know how to, or even understand why critical evaluation of what is presented to them is important.
I can only respond to the words you use, an age old problem with the internet, context is hard to convey at time.
I totally agree that its an issue on both sides of any political or ideological divide, however I personally have only ever seen the 'SJW' terms used as a pejorative against liberals.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
So generalizations are fine as long as they come from you or are directed at the right side of the political spectrum. Got it:tup:👍
When racism became politically correct:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/form...ed-white-people-leading-the-democratic-party/
Last edited:
- 11,637
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
Today I learned Obama is white.
Although if the stories are true, Kenya would consider him that.Do the Democrats have any orange people on their ranks? They could promote one for leader now that Trump has given said minority a voice.
EDIT: I also love how the article included a really great pic of her disgusted expression. Not the first time I've seen that exact look on an SJW's face
- 4,992
- Nowhere special
- SweetLilPoppet
- SweetLilPoppet
diverse = not white, basically.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Orange is the New White - HBO January 2017Today I learned Obama is white.
Do the Democrats have any orange people on their ranks? They could promote one for leader now that Trump has given said minority a voice.
EDIT: I also love how the article included a really great pic of her disgusted expression. Not the first time I've seen that exact look on an SJW's face
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
That's fine but I think you get that I was going at this in a more general manner, on the objectivity of the subject as a whole.
I haven't seen one way or the other, I don't know who or what to believe because even the group itself doesn't know it's direction as a mass. And yes their are more violent almost black panther, Nation of Islam types with in, can one label the group as a whole or even majority? No I don't think so, but I do think it is a growing issue. And as I say further down it's because there are certain people of fame who give it reason to grow.
Tea Party was hated for being racists, disruptive, basically rednecks (they weren't there were multi-cultures of right wing, conservative, libertarian background fighting for a break). There was violence at protest/rallies, and there was yet again media making it seem worse or better (depending on the outlet) than it actually was. Then there were the people of youtube who'd try to get to the bottom of it, and they too weren't all that subjective at times. To me I don't see much of a difference other than now one is a mainstay and the other is trying to become one.
No as a core perhaps not, but the more famous that agree with BLM do say this. And yet again that's the problem, you have big names either actors, rappers, famous intellects (perhaps) saying this rhetoric in some manner. What does the masses on either side of this issue start to think. If it means coming out in a serious effort saying as a group they don't agree with it so be it. Yeah but I agree with @Dotini on that portion, it's hard to believe the bias when it comes from the source. Sure at some degree you have to say "okay I believe you but now I'm holding you to it"
The issue and main point is they're not doing a good job holding their supposed members to this, there seems to be a portion of people that want peaceful discourse and perhaps see it as the way MLK did, then there is a group saying this is are army to fight the oppressive forces of America. I don't see how you accomplish anything with such a divide, and really other than the "Ferguson" effect and now that of Baltimore, what traction is there?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Fixed that for you.
- 4,992
- Nowhere special
- SweetLilPoppet
- SweetLilPoppet
I'm not voicing my own opinion. Look at @Johnnypenso's quote from the article
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
If, as is clear in the context, the subject is racial and ethnic diversity then you're quite right. What of it?
Would you say that an entirely white leadership is appropriate when representing a large, diverse group in an eponymously democratic context?
- 4,992
- Nowhere special
- SweetLilPoppet
- SweetLilPoppet
I couldn't care if it was all black or all white. People should be in their positions because they are good at their job, not because of their colour.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
"Should be" isn't the same as "are". It's all too easy to unconsciously discriminate and then claim that the most qualified person has the job.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Surely that perpetuates the authorised heritage discourse that can be so difficult to swallow for the unrepresented?
- 4,992
- Nowhere special
- SweetLilPoppet
- SweetLilPoppet
As opposed to consciously discriminating and giving jobs out based solely on colour to 'balance things out'. That is somehow better?
I think this idea of unconscious discrimination only really applies to genuinely racist people anyway. I highly doubt There's enough of those around to impact on an overall outcome such as who is in a political party or not.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
What a stupid question, the leadership being white gives us no information on how effectively they represent the people, so how can we answer the question?
You'll be surprised to hear that a lot of people find it quite easy not being racist, I for one put no effort into it at all.
From what I can tell, authorised heritage discourse is some sort of archaeological definition of heritage that talks about aesthetically pleasing objects/sites, etc, such as Stonehenge, and how such things should be protected for future generations, and nothing to do with race, so your question doesn't seem to make much sense, care to elaborate?
- 2,858
- Australia
I'd say subconsciously, but yeah, I think that there are already multiple forces at play putting less effective and sub-standard people in jobs. Prioritising say the best women or best black people for a time period of adjustment would probably reap better results than the status quo with it's biases and underhanded dealings does anyway. In short, we'd probably be better off with a transparent and well intentioned "jobs for the girls" scenario than the corrupt and covert "jobs for the boys" deal we now have.
It's now tomorrow. I haven't yet, and don't plan on reversing my outlook. The thought occurs to me though that a decent chunk of the discord you're involved in here could be averted with consistency. Be it consistency with the application of generalisations, or consistency towards the protection of religions and their followers. Though I can't be entirely sure on the latter because you didn't actually answer my question. But if you separate the two religions of Islam and Scientology in the ways I suspect you might, it would be you embarrassing yourself, not me embarrassing you. I'm simply asking the question.
There are less "boogie men" than you think, I reckon. You annoy the hell out of me to be frank - but I don't let that affect my views, or whether or not I answer any of your questions. I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking hypocrisy, and I really don't care who's attached to the hypocrisy.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
If that's the context you want to use it in... yes it is. That context doesn't have to be narrowed to physical heritage though. Laurajane Smith and the Burra Charter are two good reads that spring to mind, both delve into physical culture after a good examination of the effects of authorised discourse.
That's more the management aspect. Authors in that subject will use AHD as an introduction to their thinking in many cases but that doesn't mean that AHD is an exclusive factor to such enterprises.
As I hope you can see it has everything to do with culture and, more importantly, who gets to define it for whom.
The problem with hiding unconscious or institutional traditions of discrimination or cultural instruction are manifold.
Yes, absolutely. If one unconsciously acts in a racist way then one is still racist. My grandma, a church-school teacher, was a terrible racist, didn't like "darkies". That's Victorian-era institutionalised racism for you. Quite difficult for her when my sister turned out to be one and could eat without having to use her feet.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Which has nothing to do with this as far as I can tell;
This has nothing to do with defining culture or hiding institutional discrimination, it's simply stating that a persons race has no bearing on their ability to do a job. (Which is for the most part true, there's probably the odd exception)
Would you care to give your answer to your own question? I fail to see how it can be answered yes or no without someone being a racist.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 11,637
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
But Muslims don't, especially at countries where they're the majority? Nope, no way.
