Political Correctness

[TRGTspecialist]

but I'm guessing that it's also genuinely dismissive of the opposing view.

Nah, nothing to do with either for/opposing views, I'm more being dismissive of the portrayal of this story, which seems to suffer the same issue that I believe has arisen with the majority of stories posted in this thread - that once you delve beneath the surface, you find some misleading/outright false details, and the story turns out, conveniently, to not be as outrageous as was made out to be.............

Not to do this thread down too much though; its quality still ranks comfortably ahead of the Aliens and Conspiracy Theories threads.

I also find it interesting that numerous reports on this move state that "conservatives" are perturbed by the removal of the scales. The removal of the scales is disempowering. Supporting the move is the conservative/regressive side of the argument.

Questioning the reaction to the removal is not the same as supporting the removal, and it's not either/or.

The removal of the scales is disempowering.

I know you're more of, for lack of a better phrase, a purist on these ideas than me (don't mean that as an insult!), so whilst I see what you're getting at...........I'm not onboard. They're chuffing scales. Removing them would be about as disempowering to me as if my uni had removed free printing services (the cost would've probably worked out to be the same).

If the person responsible for the decision made it unilaterally, does that make it less politically correct?

Yes, there's a clear difference between the manager for fitness and wellbeing making a decision because he thinks it will promote fitness and wellbeing (whether it does or not is another matter), and him being forced to by a minority of TRIGGERED SJW students. And it appears Heatstreet agree here, otherwise I doubt they would have slipped that change in..............

It also matters in that we have the usual mocking of those pesky SJWs........but there's no evidence presented that the ones that forced this removal actually exist. The only mention at all of scales triggering students, is from, well, one student! Could they not have at least found an Instagram post about it too?

 

[LeMansAid]

I know you're more of, for lack of a better phrase, a purist on these ideas than me (don't mean that as an insult!), so whilst I see what you're getting at...........I'm not onboard. They're chuffing scales. Removing them would be about as disempowering to me as if my uni had removed free printing services (the cost would've probably worked out to be the same).

The disempowering part is the implied message that these young adults cannot be trusted to be mature enough to use this particular tool wisely. It's presuming mental and emotional inadequacy.

It may sound silly to some, but that maturity is definitely required, and going younger and younger I'd be more and more inclined to share concern in regards to vulnerability - but at the average university age, I think that the danger model should have reversed, and that hiding potentially challenging phenomena from people at that point in life should be seen as doing them a disservice in the area of vulnerability.

Leaving them exposed to the dreaded scales is not muscling in "tough love", it's showing belief in them - and that's a progressive attitude.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The disempowering part is the implied message that these young adults cannot be trusted to be mature enough to use this particular tool wisely. It's presuming mental and emotional inadequacy.

I guess, but "not using tools wisely/positively/in an optimal manner" is something I'd wager is shared by most, if not all, humans - so I'm not sure this can be highlighted as a "young people on their long march to maturity" thing. I imagine that this story, and the reactions to it, would largely be the same if it had happened in an adult gym.

But I think I see why we're reacting differently to this story - you seem to be approaching it from the perspective that the manager has done something to protect vulnerable young people from some reality they should arguably be facing. I don't blame you for looking at it that way, given that's how the story was portrayed - and from that perspective I don't disagree with the points you're making. But the evidence for that isn't there - instead it points to, as @TenEightyOne says, the manager judging that scales are not relevant for guaging fitness, he has taken a decision to reflect that, and, presumably, effect a change in mindset. And whether you agree or disgree with that judgement, the point is it's a very different perspective to "this challenging thing must be hidden from these people that can't be trusted".

 

[LeMansAid]

But I think I see why we're reacting differently to this story - you seem to be approaching it from the perspective that the manager has done something to protect vulnerable young people from some reality they should arguably be facing. I don't blame you for looking at it that way, given that's how the story was portrayed - and from that perspective I don't disagree with the points you're making. But the evidence for that isn't there - instead it points to, as @TenEightyOne says, the manager judging that scales are not relevant for guaging fitness, he has taken a decision to reflect that, and, presumably, effect a change in mindset. And whether you agree or disgree with that judgement, the point is it's a very different perspective to "this challenging thing must be hidden from these people that can't be trusted".

Whether the challenge at hand is surviving looking at scales, or avoiding the trap of thinking that they measure fitness, doesn't really matter. Either way, actively removing them sends the message that it can be presumed that students can't properly manage their presence.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I guess, but "not using tools wisely/positively/in an optimal manner" is something I'd wager is shared by most, if not all, humans - so I'm not sure this can be highlighted as a "young people on their long march to maturity" thing. I imagine that this story, and the reactions to it, would largely be the same if it had happened in an adult gym.

But I think I see why we're reacting differently to this story - you seem to be approaching it from the perspective that the manager has done something to protect vulnerable young people from some reality they should arguably be facing. I don't blame you for looking at it that way, given that's how the story was portrayed - and from that perspective I don't disagree with the points you're making. But the evidence for that isn't there - instead it points to, as @TenEightyOne says, the manager judging that scales are not relevant for guaging fitness, he has taken a decision to reflect that, and, presumably, effect a change in mindset. And whether you agree or disgree with that judgement, the point is it's a very different perspective to "this challenging thing must be hidden from these people that can't be trusted".

It's all fruit from the same poisoned tree whether the scale was removed as a reactionary response or to effect a change in mindset. We're talking about a University Athletic Facility here, not a weight loss clinic. I am regularly at the local college athletic facility and 95% of the people I see there are fit and athletic and not there to lose tons of excess body fat and potentially be triggered by a weigh scale. They might be in the middle of a bulk though and would like to measure their progress, or trying to make weight for a wrestling competition. Or they might be in the midst of a cut after a bulk. Many, I suspect, don't use the scale on any regular basis. Any way you slice it the removal of the scale is likely catering to a tiny, tiny minority and really does nothing to accomplish the stated goal of changing the mindset around weight loss. How about teaching the kids a new mindset instead of removing a useful tool from the facility? A novel idea I know, teaching the kids.

 

[Imari]

I find it amusing that people are talking about university students as kids.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I find it amusing that people are talking about university students as kids.

It's all relative. Those doing it though are old farts.

 

[Imari]

It's all relative. Those doing it though are old farts.

I guess. I'm getting a bit farty myself. I just try to remind myself that younger people can think just as well as i can.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I guess. I'm getting a bit farty myself. I just try to remind myself that younger people can think just as well as i can.

If that's the case they wouldn't need to be tricked into learning about overall health and wellness by having the weigh scales removed.

 

[UKMikey]

As far as I can see it remains to be seen whether this is actually political correctness or simply a gym owner doing something silly.

 

[Imari]

If that's the case they wouldn't need to be tricked into learning about overall health and wellness by having the weigh scales removed.

They don't. Apart from a couple of special snowflakes who were apparently triggered, but 🤬 those guys. If someone is triggered by a set of scales I'm amazed they make it out of the bedroom door in the morning. I'm sure that somewhere there is someone with a legitimate disorder for that, but even that person probably wouldn't argue for removing them.

There's being considerate towards other people's problems, but there's also growing the 🤬 up and realising that the entire world doesn't revolve around your precious ultrafeminist prize-winning cupcake self.

I suspect in my disdain I'm somewhat mixing my metaphors, but the hell with it.

I'm on board with the idea that it could just be the gym owner being an idiot. I suppose that's preferable. That's only one idiot, as opposed to many idiots convincing another idiot that a set of scales were detrimental to a gym.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Whether the challenge at hand is surviving looking at scales, or avoiding the trap of thinking that they measure fitness, doesn't really matter. Either way, actively removing them sends the message that it can be presumed that students can't properly manage their presence.

But then you could say that about pretty much anything you would do to actively effect a change. Does advertising a product send the message you think people are too stupid to realise how good it is by themselves? Does me discussing with you mean I presume you're too immature to figure it all out on your own? I sorta see the point but it doesn't seem very meaningful.

It's all fruit from the same poisoned tree whether the scale was removed as a reactionary response or to effect a change in mindset.

Well most of my argument in that post was they are not the same at all...........just saying it doesn't make it true.

Any way you slice it the removal of the scale is likely catering to a tiny, tiny minority

And most of my arguments in the posts before that was there is no evidence for this.........again, you just saying it doesn't make it true.

I am regularly at the local college athletic facility and 95% of the people I see there are fit and athletic and not there to lose tons of excess body fat and potentially be triggered by a weigh scale. They might be in the middle of a bulk though and would like to measure their progress, or trying to make weight for a wrestling competition. Or they might be in the midst of a cut after a bulk. Many, I suspect, don't use the scale on any regular basis.

Ah ha, a post arguing it was a bad idea to achieve what the manager wanted vs. the manager's argument it was a good idea to achieve what they wanted.........maybe this story really could be unrelated to snowflakes, kids, vulnerability/immaturity, pandering to a minority, or "PC!!!!!"?

Nah, couldn't be.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well most of my argument in that post was they are not the same at all...........just saying it doesn't make it true.

Saying it isn't the same doesn't make it true either. IMO the root of it is political correctness which, to me, makes it the same no matter which party instigated the change.

And most of my arguments in the posts before that was there is no evidence for this.........again, you just saying it doesn't make it true.

See above.

Ah ha, a post arguing it was a bad idea to achieve what the manager wanted vs. the manager's argument it was a good idea to achieve what they wanted.........maybe this story really could be unrelated to snowflakes, kids, vulnerability/immaturity, pandering to a minority, or "PC!!!!!"?
Nah, couldn't be.

I don't have any problem with what the manager is trying to achieve. There is no single path to achieving a healthy weight and physical fitness. The more options people have to reach their objectives the better. Removing one of those options is a major step backwards IMO, especially when the tool being removed is a core measuring device in weight, health and fitness for many people on that journey.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Saying it isn't the same doesn't make it true either. IMO the root of it is political correctness which, to me, makes it the same no matter which party instigated the change.

That's the problem with making an evidence-less judgement call. Sometimes you get it wrong.

The head of Athletics Fitness for the University has removed the fitness scales from the fitness gym. That wasn't in response to a complaint or request in any respect of the scales. There are primary sources for that. The timeline of the secondary sources clearly shows the first complaint and reference to "triggering" occuring some time after his original action.

We can reasonably surmise therefore that his judgement was based on his own experience, maybe the experience as an Olympic coach, for example. If you're in charge of a gym with output targets for sportswomen/men then it's your job to provide the most productive environment possible. If the coach decides that too many athletes are concentrating on weight and not on actual fitness (an entirely different measure) then it seems a sensible move, imo.

There are no presented facts so far that show the scales removal to either be inappropriate for an athletics fitness program or due to complaints. I note your presumption though.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's the problem with making an evidence-less judgement call. Sometimes you get it wrong.

The head of Athletics Fitness for the University has removed the fitness scales from the fitness gym. That wasn't in response to a complaint or request in any respect of the scales. There are primary sources for that. The timeline of the secondary sources clearly shows the first complaint and reference to "triggering" occuring some time after his original action.

We can reasonably surmise therefore that his judgement was based on his own experience, maybe the experience as an Olympic coach, for example. If you're in charge of a gym with output targets for sportswomen/men then it's your job to provide the most productive environment possible. If the coach decides that too many athletes are concentrating on weight and not on actual fitness (an entirely different measure) then it seems a sensible move, imo.

There are no presented facts so far that show the scales removal to either be inappropriate for an athletics fitness program or due to complaints. I note your presumption though.

So all you have to do to convince people to focus on fitness is remove scales and suddenly they wont care about their weight and instead of spending all their gym time in line for the scales they'll hit the free weights like Arnold. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So all you have to do to convince people to focus on fitness is remove scales and suddenly they wont care about their weight and instead of spending all their gym time in line for the scales they'll hit the free weights like Arnold. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

You continue to misread texts either accidentally or entirely wilfully - you're reading your own meaning into a post that says something very different.

You're also continuing to conflate muscle-bulking with fitness, the two can be far removed for some athletes. Ultimately you continue to imply that you know how to fulfil his athletics programme better than he does. My guess, based on his CV, is that really you don't.

At least we were able to establish that the decision was taken by a qualified athletics manager on the merit of his own judgement rather than through interference from those pesky SJWs.

 

[BobK]

Every time I've been involved in a physical fitness evaluation my weight was measured and recorded. So the doctors/clinicians were doing it wrong?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Every time I've been involved in a physical fitness evaluation my weight was measured and recorded. So the doctors/clinicians were doing it wrong?

That's a medical check by a doctor - you'd expect all parameters to be included, I get a weight check when I see the gym-fuhrer every two months. If the doctor's checking your weight every time you exercise and using it as a measure of fitness then arguably they're doing it wrong... but I suspect that isn't the case.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You continue to misread texts either accidentally or entirely wilfully - you're reading your own meaning into a post that says something very different.

You're also continuing to conflate muscle-bulking with fitness, the two can be far removed for some athletes. Ultimately you continue to imply that you know how to fulfil his athletics programme better than he does. My guess, based on his CV, is that really you don't.

At least we were able to establish that the decision was taken by a qualified athletics manager on the merit of his own judgement rather than through interference from those pesky SJWs.

Uness you can read his mind I don't think anything has been established at all in terms of the motivations of the manager who made the decision. Speaking of assumptions, hitting the free weights like Arnold is paying respect to his legendary levels of stamina and dedication in the gym, not about bulking up. And working with free weights isn't always about bulking up but it's a common misconception.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Uness you can read his mind I don't think anything has been established at all in terms of the motivations of the manager who made the decision.

Whether or not you choose to accept it his statement stands, surely? I found his statement to be quite clear about his motivation.

Speaking of assumptions, hitting the free weights like Arnold is paying respect to his legendary levels of stamina and dedication in the gym, not about bulking up. And working with free weights isn't always about bulking up but it's a common misconception.

Ooookay. I don't even know Arnold, I presume he's someone you're aware of. I take on board your comments about that common misconception and shall make a mental note to attempt to avoid making that error. My previous answer was based on another misconception: that you'd read and understood the athletics coach's words on the subject.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Whether or not you choose to accept it his statement stands, surely? I found his statement to be quite clear.

If I had accepted his statement at face value I wouldn't have posted the link to begin with.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If I had accepted his statement at face value I wouldn't have posted the link to begin with.

As you didn't post the link to begin with (both the links you posted were to erroneous stories about the removal) then, logically, you accepted his statement. Unless you think they were better sources than the university source that was posted later on?

One of your links was admittedly mostly-funny but isn't a good source by any standards.

The second headlined with a totally, demonstrably false premise: college removes scales after students protest. We've already established that that premise is utter bollocks.

 

[huskeR32]

If I had accepted his statement at face value I wouldn't have posted the link to begin with.

Why don't you accept his statement at face value?

 

[LeMansAid]

I know you're more of, for lack of a better phrase, a purist on these ideas than me

They're chuffing scales.

I sorta see the point but it doesn't seem very meaningful.

I've begun thinking that you may see my approach to this as perhaps merely academic. That it's mostly based on an idealist principle, and not grounded in what works "where the rubber hits the road". I would have to agree..... to an extent.

I look at it as..... Principle - Micro Effect - Macro Effect. Principle is really not worth much at all on it's own, and it would be easy to favour micro effect over it. There's every chance that a removal of the scales could result in some sort of reduction in the unwise use of scales. I would call that a micro effect. Thing is, I believe that more often, principle and macro effect will align. That's macro in time span, and/or macro in subject matter.

What can perhaps at a cursory glance look like a view limited to mere principle, and not considering real life workings, can actually be engaging both principle and macro effect at the same time. Everything counts, and they're not just "chuffing scales", and I'm adamant that my point is not lacking in meaning. There are greater things at play here. Hidden behind the "glamorous" and popular items (like guns and drugs) that dominate the discourse pertaining to freedom, and not having people "protected from themselves", are mundane things like scales. They matter, because of the macro effect, and they matter because they keep our consistency in check (I don't know how many people I've come across that argue "coz freedom" for guns, but support bans on drugs).

It's unhealthy to have people think that they're not responsible for their own actions, and that there will always be a guardian to guide them, and a "safety net" to catch them. They're the things that spring from false victimhood. Like when drug producers/dealers are pegged as the scum of the Earth, with drug users being their hapless "victims". Now, which way should we go on that? Attempt to remove their ability to buy drugs, or tell them that they are simply responsible for their own choices?

Me man, Ten, has a good point here.....

If you're in charge of a gym with output targets for sportswomen/men then it's your job to provide the most productive environment possible. If the coach decides that too many athletes are concentrating on weight and not on actual fitness (an entirely different measure) then it seems a sensible move, imo.

A good angle on it, that would suggest that it wasn't really political correctness in this case. As to whether or not it could be considered a wise move?..... It might benefit his job KPIs or something, but in the grander scheme of things, I don't think it's doing students any favours.

I think that where and when possible, macro effect should trump micro effect in considering how much of the world and it's challenges to censor.

 

[Carbonox]

I guess this is the closest to a "social justice thread", so here goes nothing.

The wrong type of art made by someone of the wrong race shouldn't just be banned, but destroyed too. In other news, she's still oblivious to the implications of this type of demand.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I guess this is the closest to a "social justice thread", so here goes nothing.

The wrong type of art made by someone of the wrong race shouldn't just be banned, but destroyed too. In other news, she's still oblivious to the implications of this type of demand.

She's entitled to her opinion. Fortunately I'm also entitled to mine - she should probably **** off.

Normalising censorship is not the way to challenge publication of opinion.

 

[stonesfan129]

Everyone is entitled to their first amendment rights. Liberty and justice for all right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Everyone is entitled to their first amendment rights. Liberty and justice for all right?

Within obvious boundaries, yes. In this case that first amendment right is held by the curator/museum - the artist's right is suspended. That works in exactly the same way as your first amendment right being suspended on this forum in favour of the site owner (the final publisher-in-context).

 

[BobK]

I guess this is the closest to a "social justice thread", so here goes nothing.

The wrong type of art made by someone of the wrong race shouldn't just be banned, but destroyed too. In other news, she's still oblivious to the implications of this type of demand.

One thing is certain: that woman is incredibly racist.

 

[UKMikey]

She's entitled to her opinion. Fortunately I'm also entitled to mine - she should probably **** off.

Normalising censorship is not the way to challenge publication of opinion.

Her petition has thirty signatories and this number is probably reduced further by Black's insistence on discounting signatures from white people () so I think she's far from being an arm of the all pervasive PC-gorn-mad conspiracy and more representative of a minority of mad people caught up in extreme identity politics.

I wonder what happens if you turn up to look at the painting. Do you have to sort of peek around that protester or would he hold his arms up?