Political Correctness

[novcze]

Social Justice Warriors - why Universities became crazy and how to fight back - Jonathan Haidt

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business.



👍

 

[LeMansAid]

Can't believe they only condemned Steve Martin for shamelessly calling Carrie Fisher "beautiful", and completely missed the micro-aggressions implicit within the "witty and bright" remark.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Can't believe they only condemned Steve Martin for shamelessly calling Carrie Fisher "beautiful", and completely missed the micro-aggressions implicit within the "witty and bright" remark.

Yeah I've been banned on other forums for commenting on a woman's beauty

 

[Imari]

Can't believe they only condemned Steve Martin for shamelessly calling Carrie Fisher "beautiful", and completely missed the micro-aggressions implicit within the "witty and bright" remark.

I long for the day where we can compliment someone's appearance and they don't take it as an attempt to get into their pants, or implying that they're only valuable for their looks, or a backhanded put down of everyone else, or evidence of the dominance of the patriarchy, or whatever else they want to take offence to.

Some people are nice to look at. It's fine to be able to say that, IMO. Carrie Fisher was particularly nice to look at.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Apparently, at least one of the Swiss Cantons didn't get the memo on how to be politically correct in the 21st century

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/11/leftwing-vegan-denied-swiss-passport-shes-annoying/
Link to original article in German.

A left wing Dutch vegan who has lived in Switzerland since she was a child has been denied a Swiss passport because locals in her adoptive town find her too annoying. Nancy Holten, 42, is a self-described animal rights activist who has campaigned against the Swiss tradition of cow bells, calling them cruel. Despite living in the country since the age of eight, and speaking fluent Swiss German, local residents vetoed her application of citizenship, saying they were “fed up” with her challenging their traditions.

Aargauer Zeitung says that as well as cow bells, she has also campaigned against other Swiss traditions including hunting, pig racing, and even loud church bells. Local politician Tanja Suter said Ms. Holten had a “big mouth” and she does not deserve a Swiss passport “if she irritates us and does not respect our traditions”. Ms Holten herself admits: “I think I spoke my mind too often, and I say it out too loud.” Under Switzerland’s highly decentralised constitution, local towns and regions grant citizenship rather than the central government, and some give citizens a vote on who gets a passport.

 

[McLaren]

Can't believe they only condemned Steve Martin for shamelessly calling Carrie Fisher "beautiful", and completely missed the micro-aggressions implicit within the "witty and bright" remark.

That was a classic Steve Martin joke that was clean & respectful of her.

It's like they don't know he's a comedian.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Chuck Todd of NBC, openly admitting that political correctness tainted their coverage of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election cycle. Emphasis mine.

NBC’s Chuck Todd confessed that he and others in the mainstream news media played down just how despised Hillary Clinton was in the heartland due to the fear of appearing “sexist.” What’s more, he admitted, the mainstream media failed to “tell the stories of all Americans.” “Where I think political correctness got in the way of what we all knew as reporters and didn’t fully deliver was how hated the Clintons were in the heartland,” the “Meet the Press” host admitted Thursday to former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer in a interview for the “1947” podcast.

“And I think it was a fear of, ‘Oh, is it going to look like it’s sexist, anti-woman if we say that?’” he added, pointing out that on the hustings he saw numerous “Hillary for Prison” signs adorning the front yards of rural America. “I think we underplayed it a little bit out of political correctness fears,” Mr. Todd said. “No member of the press corps wants to look like they’re singling out a group and making a group feel bad, right, whatever that [group] is.

Just let this part sink in:

“No member of the press corps wants to look like they’re singling out a group and making a group feel bad, right, whatever that [group] is."

I wonder how long before he says he was misquoted, misspoke or misunderstood.

 

[xyloscissor]

Just let this part sink in:

I thought feminists wanted equality. Did anyone really believe this 'heartland' would support Clinton? Maybe if you aren't from there or ever been there, maybe. We fly flags on the porch, we have bibles on our coffee tables, and guns on the wall. It could be JFK was the only modern democrat supported by those people labeled as such, but see the irony in all of it?

We were singled out by being ignored, what about our special snowflake rights?

 

[xyloscissor]

I'm not so sure of the source here but this is just plain stupid.

A teacher who displayed the Confederate flag to middle schoolers in his history class was forced to retire amid concerns that he was displaying a symbol of hate.

 

[xyloscissor]

mmh K.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Obvious parody is obvious. How many women do you know who are called "Kermit"?

 

[Encyclopedia]

I get the feeling a lot of these sort of things are parodies.

 

[xyloscissor]

I get the feeling a lot of these sort of things are parodies.

I always wonder where they come from as well 👍

I thought of it more as humor than something to get me worked up over.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not so sure of the source here but this is just plain stupid.

A teacher who displayed the Confederate flag to middle schoolers in his history class was forced to retire amid concerns that he was displaying a symbol of hate.

Context counts for a lot in these situations and I wonder whether his earlier definition of equality as "once you hang one black person, you've got to hang them all" played any part in his departure from the school.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Context counts for a lot in these situations and I wonder whether his earlier definition of equality as "once you hang one black person, you've got to hang them all" played any part in his departure from the school.

Of which is given per the remarks you cited in the paragraph below in the article:

He made the statement in context of Southerners who were required by law to treat individuals from outside their states the same way they treated their own black residents. In the investigation, Hart told school administrators that Southerners would often reply with glib remarks about “equality” when other Americans took them to task over racial discrimination.

 

[UKMikey]

Of which is given per the remarks you cited in the paragraph below in the article:

What is less clear from the article is that the statement was made to a class of thirteen year olds with only one African-American student. He now has another teacher. Interestingly his dad said he didn't care about context and was mad about the content.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mes-fire-using-lynching-example-equality.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Context counts for a lot in these situations and I wonder whether his earlier definition of equality as "once you hang one black person, you've got to hang them all" played any part in his departure from the school.

As someone that is of African American descent...I'm quite confused. When I see the title, and read what you quoted I'd have been mad if it weren't for the fact I decided to read the article. I think this is a massive example of what the article states at the end, hypersensitivity because of a culture who wants to have this forced idea of everyone is right or everything said should be said in a sugar coated manner.

This is the real world, and people will learn that there were many harsher things said and done in that day. Also if I heard that line in the University setting I'd find it quite normal, so I'm confused how this is so callous and racial that students were put in harm. Should we not teach students that Jews were equated to rodents and thus purged as such during WW2 for fear we may be labeled anti-Semites? Should we ignore history that is unkind to our culture, race, class, personal constitution, dogmas and such because it doesn't seem "nice"? I think not, and I think a real authoritarian society is one that forces and stifles people's free speech

It looks like the statement was made to a class of thirteen year olds with only one African-American student. He now has another teacher. Interestingly his mum said she didn't care about context and was mad about the content.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mes-fire-using-lynching-example-equality.html

So as I just figured in my last post, "I don't need my son learning about facts and history..."

Yes cause the ignorance is bliss, is quite the idea. One step closer to that same society seen in the Giver.

 

[UKMikey]

This is the real world, and people will learn that there were many harsher things said and done in that day. Also if I heard that line in the University setting I'd find it quite normal, so I'm confused how this is so callous and racial that students were put in harm. Should we not teach students that Jews were equated to rodents and thus purged as such during WW2 for fear we may be labeled anti-Semites? Should we ignore history that is unkind to our culture, race, class, personal constitution, dogmas and such because it doesn't seem "nice"? I think not, and I think a real authoritarian society is one that forces and stifles people's free speech.

OK, but I think there's a big difference between thirteen year old kids and university students. Hopefully any controversial or provocative statements are presented in a neutral fashion in their historical context and not just thrown out as an isolated statement. If so the school should take that into account when dealing with parental complaints.

So as I just figured in my last post, "I don't need my son learning about facts and history..."

Yes cause the ignorance is bliss, is quite the idea. One step closer to that same society seen in the Giver.

I don't see how that's the case when he was moved to a different history class with a different teacher at his own request.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

OK, but I think there's a big difference between thirteen year old kids and university students. Hopefully the history is presented in a neutral fashion in its historical context and not just thrown out as an isolated statement. If so the school should take that into account when dealing with parental complaints.

Which I figured you'd say, but here is the problem with that, he is introducing a real thing to students that happened and if student's and their parents are irritated by this then that perpetuates to later life. If this mindset wins, then those who join higher education later have a more likely chance to carry that viewpoint from early on. It's already a problem at Universities on a growing scale.

So my question would be, is teaching kids about hung black people and enslaved humans and the horrible nature that comes with it at a pg or pg-13 level not right for 13 year old? Should that not be shown to growing minds until they go to College? What about those that decide not to, should the be forced to be ignorant of the history despite how ugly? At fourteen I learned some pretty nasty things about Manifest Destiny that Id never known prior and some of the derogatory and faith based reasoned Natives were killed and forced from home. I also learned that it was considered genocide by some historians. So is that wrong to teach people's kids due to how negatives some Americans may perceive the reflection America is put in?

I don't see how that's the case when he was moved to a different history class with a different teacher at his own request.

You just said and the article implies that the content is a problem...

 

[UKMikey]

Which I figured you'd say, but here is the problem with that, he is introducing a real thing to students that happened and if student's and their parents are irritated by this then that perpetuates to later life. If this mindset wins, then those who join higher education later have a more likely chance to carry that viewpoint from early on. It's already a problem at Universities on a growing scale.

So my question would be, is teaching kids about hung black people and enslaved humans and the horrible nature that comes with it at a pg or pg-13 level not right for 13 year old? Should that not be shown to growing minds until they go to College? What about those that decide not to, should the be forced to be ignorant of the history despite how ugly? At fourteen I learned some pretty nasty things about Manifest Destiny that Id never known prior and some of the derogatory and faith based reasoned Natives were killed and forced from home. I also learned that it was considered genocide by some historians. So is that wrong to teach people's kids due to how negatives some Americans may perceive the reflection America is put in?

I hope students can tell the difference between someone quoting someone else and someone directing something at them. That's the only thing I think should be emphasised when presenting these remarks to high schoolers. If not for them, then to prevent their parents from making misguided complaints.

You just said and the article implies that the content is a problem...

Since he's still learning history I can only surmise that the content objected to was the content of the phrase, not the entire history course.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I hope students can tell the difference between someone quoting someone else and someone directing something at them. That's the only thing I think should be emphasised when presenting these remarks to high schoolers. If not for them, then to prevent their parents from making misguided complaints.

It reads as if a misguided complaint later on justified by a previous complaint. I guess at the end of the day it should be simply stated that the Civil War happened due to Slavery the end. Never any true understanding, but at least no one will get offend by that simplicity...I'd hope.

Since he's still learning history I can only surmise that the content objected to was the content of the phrase, not the entire history course.

Obviously, not sure you understood my point then, I even say that it seems like a mentality of not wanting their child to learn that line of history. Everything other than the harsh subjugation of blacks is fine though.

 

[UKMikey]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 You're right, I don't understand your point. The article only says he's in a different history class. It doesn't say he's not allowed to learn about slavery.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 You're right, I don't understand your point. The article only says he's in a different history class. It doesn't say he's not allowed to learn about slavery.

Never said he wasn't, I said from what you said and the implication that the impression is there should be some option. I don't think their should be if that is the case.

 

[UKMikey]

Never said he wasn't, I said from what you said and the implication that the impression is there should be some option. I don't think their should be if that is the case.

Nothing in the article or the way things played out really suggests that there's any kind of mentality of not wanting their kid to learn. Even less about the article I read suggests that some kind of blanket ban on learning about the unpleasant aspects of slavery, or some kind of PC-led sanitisation of the curriculum is about to occur.

As long as the teacher sticks to the core syllabus there's no reason why a dissatisfied student or parent shouldn't ask to change teachers if they aren't happy with the one they have.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Nothing in the article or the way things played out really suggests that there's any kind of mentality of not wanting their kid to learn. Even less about the article I read suggests that some kind of blanket ban on learning about the unpleasant aspects of slavery, or some kind of PC-led sanitisation of the curriculum is about to occur.

Never said there was a blanket ban, you're reading way too much into my post. I simply said from what you said and what I read it seems that the content of slavery wasn't liked. And I said that while it's unpleasant it is history and there are awful things that come about when learning it. If people can't learn it without being offended then why bother to intellectually expand. Might as well home school a child and teach them yourself thus filtering how insensitive some of the material may be presented.

As long as the teacher sticks to the core syllabus there's no reason why a dissatisfied student or parent shouldn't ask to change teachers if they aren't happy with the one they have.

Teachers many times have a say on the syllabus so long as that syllabus works with what ever the state or city says students at that level should be learning. If the State/City says students should learn about the Civil War in U.S. history and it's up to the teacher to actively find a way to teach it so students take interest it's up to them. I recall back in the day we could dress up like Pilgrims and Native Americans...today's world that would probably be frowned upon for insensitivity due to the death of Natives by Colonists. However, it was a method to try and teach students in an interactive fashion. So I don't see how this is some derailment of teaching by posting up a Union and Confederate flag in what sounds like an activity to create learning.

 

[UKMikey]

I simply said from what you said and what I read it seems that the content of slavery wasn't liked. And I said that while it's unpleasant it is history and there are awful things that come about when learning it. If people can't learn it without being offended then why bother to intellectually expand. Might as well home school a child and teach them yourself thus filtering how insensitive some of the material may be presented.

This is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. I don't think it looks like the parents were objecting to the content of the course, just the content of the phrase regarding hanging all black people.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. I don't think it looks like the parents were objecting to the content of the course, just the content of the phrase regarding hanging all black people.

So they were opposed to a realistic view and commentary that south used during pre-emancipation America, it even shows why he said it. There is no reason to be offended other than taking something so seriously it loses it's original context. I mean gosh if parent's can't handle this, I'd hate to see what happens when these kids learn something really damning like the Dred Scott case that was a critical point toward the Civil War.

I'm annoyed by this because of how serious I see history, and people needing to take a step back and respect and learn what happened prior, no matter how ugly. If people want to be sensitive to it, then why once again openly allow your kids to go to public schools.

 

[UKMikey]

So they were opposed to a realistic view during pre-emancipation America, it even shows why he said it. There is no reason to be offended other than taking something so seriously it loses it's original context.

If the teacher was able to come back and say "I was presenting a realistic view of pre-emancipation America" then I don't see why he should have been disciplined. Objecting to one phrase out of a whole history course isn't evidence of being opposed to education.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If the teacher was able to come back and say "I was presenting a realistic view of pre-emancipation America" then I don't see why he should have been disciplined. Objecting to one phrase out of a whole history course isn't evidence of being opposed to education.

Once again, I never said they were opposed to the entire history course or education, if you can find where I say or imply this please repost it. I said they were opposed to this line of history being presented, clearly it wasn't cause enough to fire the teacher the first time. But they were kept on the radar and this was the tipping point, the fact that they highlight a previous instance shows they used it as part of the justification for firing him. I don't find that acceptable and I've yet to see a reason why it is.

The point I'm trying to make to you that you just dismiss because of the lack of information provided from the parent and district perspective, is that people finding issue twice in things that highlight race disparity in the past. To a point where the method of a teacher presenting it got them fired, thus they obviously take some kind of issue. That's an issue to me.

Now if it is revealed he was an actual racist or fan of Southern Slave owners and is trying to justify it to students, then he isn't fit to be a teacher.

 

[UKMikey]

Once again, I never said they were opposed to the entire history course or education, if you can find where I say or imply this please repost it. I said they were opposed to this line of history being presented, clearly it wasn't cause enough to fire the teacher the first time. But they were kept on the radar and this was the tipping point, the fact that they highlight a previous instance shows they used it as part of the justification for firing him. I don't find that acceptable and I've yet to see a reason why it is.

I never said you said they were opposed to the "entire" anything and you are similarly invited to point out where I said that. I'm just saying that the parents were opposed to the teacher using what they saw as racist language according to the text of their complaint and asked him to stop and for their kid to be removed. No censorship or attempt to sack the teacher was mentioned, nor did they seem to be against the child being educated about slavery.

The point I'm trying to make to you that you just dismiss because of the lack of information provided from the parent and district perspective, is that people finding issue twice in things that highlight race disparity in the past. To a point where the method of a teacher presenting it got them fired, thus they obviously take some kind of issue. That's an issue to me.

Now if it is revealed he was an actual racist or fan of Southern Slave owners and is trying to justify it to students, then he isn't fit to be a teacher.

Damned right I'm going to dismiss any conjecture if there's no evidence to back it up. It sounds to me that this history teacher had history of his own with the teaching staff though. Whether that's fair or not it influenced their decision to discipline him in the second incident.

If this is a thread about political correctness then I'm not sure whether the school staff were sacking the teacher because of PC or because he rubbed them up the wrong way. However there's nothing to suggest that the kid who moved classes is having his education harmed in any way by not being taught by this teacher and I'm outright dismissing the suggestion that it has.