Political Correctness

  • Thread starter lbsf1
  • 2,919 comments
  • 170,388 views
"A difference" was exactly what I said was insufficient.
Why is it insufficient? Isn't that what we're looking at
Danoff
Why does it matter? And again, this is something that changes over time... which time period is correct?
Why wouldn't the public opinion on what constitutes intelligence matter?

Danoff
Why? Why does one's MCAT score constitute intelligence?
I'm not too familiar with the MCAT but I would wager it correlates well with intelligence as does our tests for medical school applications in the UK. If it didn't, why does it seem to match exactly, in terms of ranking:

- Base measurements of brain connectivity
- IQ levels
- Harvard acceptance rates

Danoff
Well I'm glad you're moving in the right direction at least. :)
I think we can do better than IQ tests, but as a crude measure I see no problem with them.
 
Why is it insufficient? Isn't that what we're looking at

I thought we were looking for something meaningful. Everyone's brain has a difference... such as different DNA.

Why wouldn't the public opinion on what constitutes intelligence matter?

...because it changes? That's one of the things I keep bringing up. Also banding together a large group of people doesn't make any of them or all of them more correct.

I'm not too familiar with the MCAT but I would wager it correlates well with intelligence as does our tests for medical school applications in the UK. If it didn't, why does it seem to match exactly, in terms of ranking:

- Base measurements of brain connectivity
- IQ levels
- Harvard acceptance rates

A couple of those are somewhat incestuous. Why does it correspond to Harvard acceptance rates (which is not a surrogate for intelligence)? Because Harvard uses the MCAT. Why does it correlate with IQ levels (which is not a surrogate for intelligence), because it borrows some of the same testing principles.

Base measurements of brain connectivity.. well.. if you think that's a good surrogate for intelligence, why do we need the MCAT? Just argue that brain connectivity is intelligence and that measurements of brain connectivity is a measure of intelligence. Forget the MCAT.

I think we can do better than IQ tests, but as a crude measure I see no problem with them.

Except for the one that has been systematically pointed out to you in this thread which is that they test a tiny subset of what can be considered intelligence.
 
So if we asked the general public - who do you believe to be more intelligent: the average cleaner or the average neurosurgeon, you would consider the results redundant??

I'd expect them to make a decision showing prejudice for "average" class and earnings while completely discounting the different kinds of intelligence that may exist. That's pretty much the whole point regarding the problems with intelligence testing that simply reinforces prejudicial expectation - on that basis you should be able to answer your question by simply looking back through the thread.
 
Mr. Ratner, teacher of Arthur Read (an 8-year-old aardvark and title character of a children's show on PBS), has tied the knot with his same-sex partner...well former Trump administration high-level aide and now right-wing radio host Sebastian Gorka has a problem with it.

He's not alone, of course; more than 18,000 people have signed a cyber petition through Christian group OneMillionMoms in an effort to have the episode (and any others with such "vulgarity" on display) permanently pulled.

The latter has claimed numerous other "victories", such as the cancellation of ABC's Once Upon A Time after it demonstrated supposed political correctness in featuring a...*gasp*...lesbian couple.

enhanced-9123-1456226166-5.png
 
Is it politically correct to relabeled all this "2SLGBTQQIA" to just pansexual?
Also, yes. I think it is fair to place the burden on the State. It's one of the responsibilities of the state to see to the welfare of all of its citizens, not just majority subsets. If rapes, murders and abductions are affecting that community more than any other, they absolutely should be looking into causation, correlation and all the other "ations".
 
Last edited:
I put it here because is it right to put so much of the blame on the state for a particular section of the population's problems?

What an odd question - there's no suggestion in your link that the state are carrying out these crimes so why would they be blamed?

I see the state's responsibility to be a full consideration of this information (and why it's taken so long to be collated by somebody) to ensure the maximum possible safety for all citizens and the apprehension of criminals who breach such safety.

Is it politically correct to relabeled all this "2SLGBTQQIA" to just pansexual?

Political correctness doesn't exist, so do what you like within the terms of the forum. I don't see that being against the terms (caveat: I'm not a mod). I'd say that confusing sexuality and gender wouldn't be helpful, they aren't the same thing.
 
What an odd question - there's no suggestion in your link that the state are carrying out these crimes so why would they be blamed?

I see the state's responsibility to be a full consideration of this information (and why it's taken so long to be collated by somebody) to ensure the maximum possible safety for all citizens and the apprehension of criminals who breach such safety.



Political correctness doesn't exist, so do what you like within the terms of the forum. I don't see that being against the terms (caveat: I'm not a mod). I'd say that confusing sexuality and gender wouldn't be helpful, they aren't the same thing.
I mean... they started it by mixing gay, lesbian, bi and queer with trans, 2 spirit and intersexual.
 
I mean... they started it by mixing gay, lesbian, bi and queer with trans, 2 spirit and intersexual.

I'm not sure "they" (whoever that is) were mixing everyone to one type, it's merely a term to define a group that can involve many kinds of person. No force is being used on you to ensure that you use it.
 
I mean... they started it by mixing gay, lesbian, bi and queer with trans, 2 spirit and intersexual.

I'm not sure "they" (whoever that is) were mixing everyone to one type, it's merely a term to define a group that can involve many kinds of person. No force is being used on you to ensure that you use it.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say "not heterosexual"?
 
What an odd question - there's no suggestion in your link that the state are carrying out these crimes so why would they be blamed?

I see the state's responsibility to be a full consideration of this information (and why it's taken so long to be collated by somebody) to ensure the maximum possible safety for all citizens and the apprehension of criminals who breach such safety.
I think this sums up what I'm getting at best:

In the end, the commissioners concluded that the murders and disappearances are the product of a Canadian society that has eroded the rights of Indigenous women.

The “genocide has been empowered by colonial structures, evidenced notably by the Indian Act, the Sixties Scoop, residential schools, and breaches of human and Inuit, Métis and First Nations rights, leading directly to the current increased rates of violence, death, and suicide of Indigenous populations,” says the report.

I don't know enough about those parts of Canadian society to know how much of a causative factor they are but I was thinking, if we're using comparisons, would we call it "genocide" if the London knifiing epidemic or Chicago shooting problems continued for a significant period of time? Or the consequences of the opioid epidemic in America (and similar problem starting to be seen in UK)?

Just looking at this for example, you can see why the authors may find the state and its laws culpable.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be easier to just say "not heterosexual"?

It seems obvious that the answer is "no" because that requires a presumption of fixed sexuality at one end (or both ends) of the term. It would also ignore the fact that transgender people can be heterosexual.
 
It seems obvious that the answer is "no" because that requires a presumption of fixed sexuality at one end (or both ends) of the term. It would also ignore the fact that transgender people can be heterosexual.

I missed that transgender people were being included in this... sexuality description. That completely screws everything up, because it doesn't belong.

How about this one: "people that think they are different"


Edit:

To avoid being misunderstood, I of course acknowledge that transgender people could be covered by a description of sexuality. What I mean above is that transgender as a group label (and any other gender-based group label) doesn't belong mixed with group labels for sexuality. That way we can get to what folks seem to want which is hetero and non-hetero. And then gender seems to have its own grouping of labels already.
 
I missed that transgender people were being included in this... sexuality description. That completely screws everything up, because it doesn't belong.

How about this one: "people that think they are different"

Well that includes me. Maybe you too? :D
 
Well that includes me. Maybe you too? :D

Good point. Can't have that can we? Once you let Dan into a club it's not cool anymore, as evidenced by the Libertarians.

Now that I think about it, the "T" on LBGT got added a long time ago (and I remember having an issue with it then too). These folks clearly need to bring some rigor to their organizational structure. Kick the "T" out of the group and call it hetero/non-hetero, and then we can have a separate group for trans/non-trans. I know cis is often used for non-trans, which I guess is fine but unnecessary.

So you can be trans/hetero, non-trans/hetero, trans/non-hetero, and non-trans/non-hetero. We could even get super fun with it and call it TH, NTH, TNH, and NTNH.


Edit:

I'd be an NTHINTJ btw.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be easier to just say "not heterosexual"?
Not hetero sounds pretty exclusionary. Pansexualon the other hands sounds quite inclusive.
I think this sums up what I'm getting at best:

In the end, the commissioners concluded that the murders and disappearances are the product of a Canadian society that has eroded the rights of Indigenous women.

The “genocide has been empowered by colonial structures, evidenced notably by the Indian Act, the Sixties Scoop, residential schools, and breaches of human and Inuit, Métis and First Nations rights, leading directly to the current increased rates of violence, death, and suicide of Indigenous populations,” says the report.

I don't know enough about those parts of Canadian society to know how much of a causative factor they are but I was thinking, if we're using comparisons, would we call it "genocide" if the London knifiing epidemic or Chicago shooting problems continued for a significant period of time? Or the consequences of the opioid epidemic in America (and similar problem starting to be seen in UK)?

Just looking at this for example, you can see why the authors may find the state and its laws culpable.
Ehh, I dont think those what abouts stack up equally with what the report found. I am not well versed in the London stabbings. However, the violence in Chicago is most gang related. And the opioid epidemic is personal choice that harms the one making the choice.
The prime difference is that in the case of natives it's not gang on gang or personal choice, its gov policy, actions and events that are emboldening citizens of a different race/class/subsect/etc to attack a very specific category of person.
 
VBR
I've despised PC for as long as I can remember
To your mind, just what is "political correctness"? What is the aim of its proponents and how does it accomplish that? What do you despise about it?
 
VBR
I've despised PC for as long as I can remember, & have also found it a source of amusement at times. However, after digging a bit deeper recently I found some articles on its origins...interesting stuff...

https://thepolicy.us/cultural-marxi...ical-correctness-ffb89c6ef4f1?gi=70b5f7ef36a9

https://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

I suspect the sources may be a tad biased...

"many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas"

...so forgive me if I treat it as such.

I mean, are you actually aware that you just directly linked to an anti-Semitic source?

"How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish"

And that's without trawling through the anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic and sexist crap that is the comments section on the Lind piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Lind#Criticism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
 
Last edited:
VBR
I've despised PC for as long as I can remember, & have also found it a source of amusement at times. However, after digging a bit deeper recently I found some articles on its origins...interesting stuff...

https://thepolicy.us/cultural-marxi...ical-correctness-ffb89c6ef4f1?gi=70b5f7ef36a9

https://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
.

"These kids then became adults and got out into the real world, and learned very quickly that they weren’t as special and as entitled as they thought."

Which generation is entitled?? :dunce:

1mqkvmg2p7v21.jpg
 
I suspect the sources may be a tad biased...

"many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas"

...so forgive me if I treat it as such.

Everyone has their biases, including you & me. Seeing as I'm not personally familiar with the situation being described & discussed regarding US college campuses back then, I'd rather refrain from making a judgement about that. Maybe he was exaggerating, maybe he wasn't. Then again, he's a politician & they're inclined to do that sometimes irrespective of whatever right-wing/left-wing bias they may have. So, no need for forgiveness on that point.


I mean, are you actually aware that you just directly linked to an anti-Semitic source?

"How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish"

I disagree. I linked to a conservative source, not an anti-Semitic one as you've claimed. Regarding the quote you made, & that alone; there is nothing inherently racist about stating that a group of Jewish people are Jewish. In fact, the sentence after that, which you omitted, reveals the reason why he may have mentioned it;

"The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City."

Marxism is a political ideology, not a racial one. However, the fact that the members of the school were both Marxist & Jewish, adds context & gives gravitas to Mr Lind's statement that it was 'not surprising' they fled the country after the Nazis shut down the institute (given the fascists' genocidal tendencies).


And that's without trawling through the anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic and sexist crap that is the comments section on the Lind piece.

As someone who gets offensive comments yourself on YouTube, I think you might find it unfair if someone mentioned them in a critique of your content as if they had any bearing on the matter. This is a red herring fallacy. Also, using it as an opportunity to spew out a slew of pejorative labels which in the minds of people reading your reply associates them with the false claim of anti-Semitism above, could be construed as an appeal to emotion fallacy as well due to the emotive nature of such buzzwords. Even if true, it's still a red herring & thus irrelevant.



These links were appreciated, as it's always wise to consider both sides of an argument. However, upon closer examination, I found that there is no actual evidence given. Specifically, I can find no links to anything that Mr Lind has ever said or wrote which support their claims. There are many contrary opinions from what appear to be left-leaning journalists & other individuals, & the sources link to yet even more contrary opinions. There are also quotes from alt-right sources peppered throughout, & the sheer number of times Mr Lind's position is referred to as a 'conspiracy theory' smacks of nothing more than a fallacy of assertion. Anyone can edit wiki articles & unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, the internet is not the source of all truth!

To find out exactly what the Frankfurt School wrote on the subject would be a massive undertaking seeing as they were active over such a long period, & produced huge amounts of literary content. I'd rather listen to the experts in the field who dedicate their lives to studying such matters like JP for instance, & then make my own mind up. His talk on PC & Postmodernism below is quite interesting...


 
VBR
Everyone has their biases, including you & me. Seeing as I'm not personally familiar with the situation being described & discussed regarding US college campuses back then, I'd rather refrain from making a judgement about that. Maybe he was exaggerating, maybe he wasn't. Then again, he's a politician & they're inclined to do that sometimes irrespective of whatever right-wing/left-wing bias they may have. So, no need for forgiveness on that point.




I disagree. I linked to a conservative source, not an anti-Semitic one as you've claimed. Regarding the quote you made, & that alone; there is nothing inherently racist about stating that a group of Jewish people are Jewish. In fact, the sentence after that, which you omitted, reveals the reason why he may have mentioned it;

"The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City."

Marxism is a political ideology, not a racial one. However, the fact that the members of the school were both Marxist & Jewish, adds context & gives gravitas to Mr Lind's statement that it was 'not surprising' they fled the country after the Nazis shut down the institute (given the fascists' genocidal tendencies).




As someone who gets offensive comments yourself on YouTube, I think you might find it unfair if someone mentioned them in a critique of your content as if they had any bearing on the matter. This is a red herring fallacy. Also, using it as an opportunity to spew out a slew of pejorative labels which in the minds of people reading your reply associates them with the false claim of anti-Semitism above, could be construed as an appeal to emotion fallacy as well due to the emotive nature of such buzzwords. Even if true, it's still a red herring & thus irrelevant.




These links were appreciated, as it's always wise to consider both sides of an argument. However, upon closer examination, I found that there is no actual evidence given. Specifically, I can find no links to anything that Mr Lind has ever said or wrote which support their claims. There are many contrary opinions from what appear to be left-leaning journalists & other individuals, & the sources link to yet even more contrary opinions. There are also quotes from alt-right sources peppered throughout, & the sheer number of times Mr Lind's position is referred to as a 'conspiracy theory' smacks of nothing more than a fallacy of assertion. Anyone can edit wiki articles & unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, the internet is not the source of all truth!

To find out exactly what the Frankfurt School wrote on the subject would be a massive undertaking seeing as they were active over such a long period, & produced huge amounts of literary content. I'd rather listen to the experts in the field who dedicate their lives to studying such matters like JP for instance, & then make my own mind up. His talk on PC & Postmodernism below is quite interesting...



See's Jordan Peterson cited.....

..... backs away.

"this one's lost, red pilled..."
 
Last edited:
VBR
Maybe he was exaggerating, maybe he wasn't.

You really think so? You really think comparing a university in ANY even moderately free country to North Korea has any chance of being even slightly accurate?

VBR


Jordan Peterson is very controversial, and you'd honestly be better just making any points yourself rather than linking to him directly. For example, I won't watch his videos because some of the stuff he says is so awful that it's just an unpleasant experience. Maybe this isn't one of those, but he lost me some time ago.

I suspect that I'm not the only one. People are going to make judgments on the source about whether it's a productive use of their time when you're talking about a 27 minute video, and that's pretty fair. If there's relevant stuff in there, you can summarise it.
 
People still hold Jordan Peterson to some regard? His solution to preventing incel attacks was to force women to marry them! What an absolute clown.

Cambridge University probably rejected him by saying “We are not a clown college therefore you don’t belong here.”
 
Back