Political Correctness

[HenrySwanson]

Great. Social media platform exercises right to revoke posting privileges.

You've also abstained from actually explaining how any of this is "political correctness". Just admit you can't because it doesn't exist as you allege.

Wait, you said you didn't believe other prominent forums didn't ban based on that yet I showed it to be the case

If you look at where The Simpsons is now compared to what it was when it originally began, it starts to make more sense. The characters were/are all some sort of negative stereotype, Homer the fat lazy slob, Marge the nagging housewife, Lisa the nerd, Bart the destructive rebel, Flanders, Skinner, Moe, Chief Wiggum, and so on and so on.

And while the stereotyping let us see those characters in the people around us (as stereotyping does), The Simpsons was also very clever in that for the first ten seasons or so it had the characters mostly trying to be better people despite the stereotypes. Take Apu; workaholic immigrant at a convenience store. Also, a committed vegan with a whole episode that goes into that, someone who is lined up for an arranged marriage and all the difficulty that entails, the struggle of an immigrant to be accepted by their community and make their way to being a citizen, and that's just what I remember from twenty years ago when I actually watched the show.

Modern Simpsons is much less character and story driven and much more wacky and mean. In such a show there's no moral backbone to a stereotyped character like Apu, nothing positive to balance him out and make him appear like a real human. He's gone from being a believable person to a true caricature, and when the caricature gets mean then people (probably rightly) start to take offense. And it's awfully easy to make mean-spirited jokes about a caricature like Apu.

I don't doubt that people have been criticising Apu since day one, but I think that early Simpsons had valid things to say with the character despite any negative aspects. I'm not sure that The Simpsons in 2020 can say the same. Stereotyping characters is part of comedy, but it should always serve a purpose other than simply punching down.

 

[TexRex]

Wait, you said you didn't believe other prominent forums didn't ban based on that yet I showed it to be the case

Is...is this a question?

 

[MatskiMonk]

If you look at where The Simpsons is now compared to what it was when it originally began, it starts to make more sense. The characters were/are all some sort of negative stereotype, Homer the fat lazy slob, Marge the nagging housewife, Lisa the nerd, Bart the destructive rebel, Flanders, Skinner, Moe, Chief Wiggum, and so on and so on.

And while the stereotyping let us see those characters in the people around us (as stereotyping does), The Simpsons was also very clever in that for the first ten seasons or so it had the characters mostly trying to be better people despite the stereotypes. Take Apu; workaholic immigrant at a convenience store. Also, a committed vegan with a whole episode that goes into that, someone who is lined up for an arranged marriage and all the difficulty that entails, the struggle of an immigrant to be accepted by their community and make their way to being a citizen, and that's just what I remember from twenty years ago when I actually watched the show.

Modern Simpsons is much less character and story driven and much more wacky and mean. In such a show there's no moral backbone to a stereotyped character like Apu, nothing positive to balance him out and make him appear like a real human. He's gone from being a believable person to a true caricature, and when the caricature gets mean then people (probably rightly) start to take offense. And it's awfully easy to make mean-spirited jokes about a caricature like Apu.

I don't doubt that people have been criticising Apu since day one, but I think that early Simpsons had valid things to say with the character despite any negative aspects. I'm not sure that The Simpsons in 2020 can say the same. Stereotyping characters is part of comedy, but it should always serve a purpose other than simply punching down.

This is probably a fair point. Thinking about it, I probably haven't seen the Simpsons in 10 years, and even then it probably wasn't up to date episodes.

It's sad if what you say is true though... I mean I thought it had become little more than a Simpsons pastiche itself, but I hadn't realised they'd taken it down to that level.

 

[PeterJB]

It used to mock popular culture, now it glorifies it.

 

[Danoff]

Video is long, but excellent.

 

[mustafur]

If Simpsons kept to original Writing direction of mocking popular culture from the start instead of embracing it, there wouldn't be an issue. Now who even knows what the direction of the show is?? and having obvious racial Sterotypes without having the counter culture angle it used to have just comes off as soft racism.

As far as im concerned the show lasted way too long in its current form anyway to be in this position, the show has effectively been in Zombie mode since the early 2000s and somehow survived because some TV executives forgot to cancel it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Is...is this a question?

I said:

"Bans for expressing certain opinions on other forums, like Resetera are (I've seen people banned for stating they voted for the Conservative Party with the reason given as "supporting bigotry")"

You said:

"I don't believe you.

You'll need to show evidence of this in order to use it as evidence for whatever argument you're attempting to make. As it stands, it's purely anecdotal."

My argument isn't that PC is just a governmental thing, it permeates through society - sometimes including forces designed to protect us, as seen with the grooming scandals.

 

[TexRex]

I said:

"Bans for expressing certain opinions on other forums, like Resetera are (I've seen people banned for stating they voted for the Conservative Party with the reason given as "supporting bigotry")"

You said:

"I don't believe you.

You'll need to show evidence of this in order to use it as evidence for whatever argument you're attempting to make. As it stands, it's purely anecdotal."

You also said:

"No, those are rules for common decency."

To which I replied:

"What's the difference?"

You then dodged the question. I posit that you did so because putting too fine a point on what constitutes "political correctness" endangers your ability to invoke the ambiguous bogeyman as you wish.

---

What I didn't believe was that the action you alleged took place as you alleged it took place actually did, and I didn't believe it (still don't; those who allege inappropriate action by governing bodies have a tendency to omit context that supports the notion that the action was appropriate) because you have demonstrated a propensity to utilize deceitful tactics in discussion, and I don't think you above outright lies. Whether I believe it or not doesn't actually matter, though, because a private company exercised its right to refuse service at its discretion.

My argument isn't that PC is just a governmental thing, it permeates through society - sometimes including forces designed to protect us, as seen with the grooming scandals.

That would be the effect of a supposed normative agenda that you allege exists (reductio ad Stalinum); an allegation that you have thus far been unable/unwilling to substantiate.

It doesn't exist.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You also said:

"No, those are rules for common decency."

To which I replied:

"What's the difference?"

You then dodged the question. I posit that you did so because putting too fine a point on what constitutes "political correctness" endangers your ability to invoke the ambiguous bogeyman as you wish.

A plain example would be the one I provided - the difference between here and resetera

What I didn't believe was that the action you alleged took place as you alleged it took place actually did, and I didn't believe it (still don't; those who allege inappropriate action by governing bodies have a tendency to omit context that supports the notion that the action was appropriate) because you have demonstrated a propensity to utilize deceitful tactics in discussion, and I don't think you above outright lies. Whether I believe it or not doesn't actually matter, though, because a private company exercised its right to refuse service at its discretion.

But I provided the proof...

That would be the effect of a supposed normative agenda that you allege exists (reductio ad Stalinum); an allegation that you have thus far been unable/unwilling to substantiate.

It doesn't exist.

So when it is proven that authorities didn't act when children are systematically raped in part because of fears of racism what do you call it?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So when it is proven that authorities didn't act when children are systematically raped in part because of fears of racism what do you call it?

It hasn't been proven, there's your problem. It wasn't "political correctness" that caused the problems in the scandals you like to mention just as it wasn't the cause of the problem in the grooming scandals where thousands of white conservative men and women raped and abused adults and children over many years, the cause is an utter systemic failure of the institutions.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It hasn't been proven, there's your problem. It wasn't "political correctness" that caused the problems in the scandals you like to mention just as it wasn't the cause of the problem in the grooming scandals where thousands of white conservative men and women raped and abused adults and children over many years, the cause is an utter systemic failure of the institutions.

What?! The IOPC upheld a complaint made by a father in rotherham about a police officer saying these things to a victims father!

The report into operation augusta explicitly says the use of proactive tactics was influenced by the fear of being seen as racist.

I have no idea what you guys need to admit PC is a real thing, it's genuinely scary....

Also what do you mean by the "thousands of white conservative men and women" raping scandals? The Catholic abuses?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What?! The IOPC upheld a complaint made by a father in rotherham about a police officer saying these things to a victims father!

Source? The only IOPC source I can find says that the officer could not be identified, but that's from several days ago so could be out of date.

The report into operation augusta explicitly says the use of proactive tactics was influenced by the fear of being seen as racist.

No it doesn't, which para/page are you looking at?

I have no idea what you guys need to admit PC is a real thing, it's genuinely scary....

PC often exists in the minds of bigots who are scared of their hills being attacked. It isn't a real thing.

Also what do you mean by the "thousands of white conservative men and women" raping scandals? The Catholic abuses?

Church scandals, not sure why you'd pick on the Caddies specifically.

 

[baldgye]

PC often exists in the minds of bigots who are scared of their hills being attacked.

Which, in of itself is beautiful in its irony...

 

[HenrySwanson]

I....erm....This is insane! You can't say that because the senior officer wasn't found that it didn't occur - that goes against the judgment!

The Church's inability to deal with sexual assault was due to the structures and power within the Church. That doesn't mean PC culture wasn't to blame for the mismanagement of Pakistani grooming scandals..

 

[TenEightyOne]

I....erm....This is insane! You can't say that because the senior officer wasn't found that it didn't occur - that goes against the judgment!

Cool, where's the judgement?

Edit: further to this it seems the complaint is contained within Operation Linden, the IOPC investigation into the Rotherham failings. It hasn't been published yet although some people have seen early parts and have then given interviews to The Daily Mail and the Murdoch rags (Sun, Times).

 

[HenrySwanson]

The upholding of the complaint. I'm not talking about a court decision here..

 

[TenEightyOne]

The upholding of the complaint. I'm not talking about a court decision here..

A decision which hasn't been formally released yet. The reason you're unable to discuss the detail is because you've only got leaks in the Telegraph, Mail and SunTimes so far. Perhaps we should examine the actual Linden findings when they're released as an actual source?

 

[TexRex]

A plain example would be the one I provided - the difference between here and resetera

Providing examples that you indicate illustrate the difference between the two doesn't actually define the difference between the two. What's more, the two aren't as different as you allege.

You cited Wiki as providing a definition for political correctness to which you subscribe.

Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is a term used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.

You also alleged a normative agenda ("...but I'd also add that it seeks to create a certain narrative and ostracizes those that don't attempt to follow it") and claimed to have seen this supposed normative agenda in effect via revocation of a user's web forum posting priveleges for violation of "pc" standards.

You say that GTPlanet is different because the rules that are in effect here are for "common decency".

Your use of any public services (collectively, the “forums”) hosted by GTPlanet and its affiliate sites indicates your acceptance of the GTPlanet Privacy Policy, those terms found on the registration page and in the Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”). The AUP can be modified at any time, and your continued use of the forums indicates your acceptance of the modified terms.

By using these forums, you agree to the following:

...

• You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

The allegation that "political correctness" is employed in the normative sense--which is to say that threat of revocation of privileges forces individuals to acquiesce to "PC"--surely extends to GTPlanet as demonstrated by the above.

There is no actual difference, is there? If it exists in one instance, it exists in the other. Or, more likely, it doesn't actually exist in either.

But I provided the proof...

But did you? You linked to a post on another forum, and in that post was what appears to be a screenshot of a post on another forum. Here's a screenshot of the linked post:

In this post, the user makes an allegation against what appears to be the other forum's moderation, but provides no evidence to support that allegation. The only thing really shown is what the user alleges is "the same ban message" at the top of the banned user's post. It appears to be a post, rather than the particular post that prompted the ban, and that would make sense because surely a post that warrants revocation of a user's posting privileges would be removed from public view.

We can witness a similar situation right here on this forum.

What I've shown above is the last publicly viewable post from a user that was later banned. From it, you can't reasonably determine what actually prompted the ban--that offending material was likely removed from public view--all you can discern from the post is that the user quoted another user, posted some links, presumably quoted part of said links, and said some things...oh yeah, and that the user was banned.

So when it is proven that authorities didn't act when children are systematically raped in part because of fears of racism what do you call it?

What an absurd hypothetical, which is so obviously steeped in your preferred narrative.

I mean...if that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have occurred, I suppose I'd call it negligence based on misguided belief and, well...probably racism, because it demonstrates preferential treatment toward a specific group; race shouldn't influence response from law enforcement.

I can't wait to see how much of this you dodge because any effort to actually elaborate on your position will demonstrate you don't actually have a position.

 

[HenrySwanson]

A decision which hasn't been formally released yet. The reason you're unable to discuss the detail is because you've only got leaks in the Telegraph, Mail and SunTimes so far. Perhaps we should examine the actual Linden findings when they're released as an actual source?

Ehhh, I dunno. We're not trusting the paper of record's sources now?

Providing examples that you indicate illustrate the difference between the two doesn't actually define the difference between the two. What's more, the two aren't as different as you allege.

You cited Wiki as providing a definition for political correctness to which you subscribe.


You also alleged a normative agenda ("...but I'd also add that it seeks to create a certain narrative and ostracizes those that don't attempt to follow it") and claimed to have seen this supposed normative agenda in effect via revocation of a user's web forum posting priveleges for violation of "pc" standards.

You say that GTPlanet is different because the rules that are in effect here are for "common decency".


The allegation that "political correctness" is employed in the normative sense--which is to say that threat of revocation of privileges forces individuals to acquiesce to "PC"--surely extends to GTPlanet as demonstrated by the above.

The AUP is a basis to treat others with respect. Resetera is an example of when it goes too far (PC). I'm not sure why you need another definition?

There is no actual difference, is there? If it exists in one instance, it exists in the other. Or, more likely, it doesn't actually exist in either.

It doesn't exist as set out in the AUP, but does in Reseteras moderation.

But did you? You linked to a post on another forum, and in that post was what appears to be a screenshot of a post on another forum. Here's a screenshot of the linked post:

View attachment 885716

In this post, the user makes an allegation against what appears to be the other forum's moderation, but provides no evidence to support that allegation. The only thing really shown is what the user alleges is "the same ban message" at the top of the banned user's post. It appears to be a post, rather than the particular post that prompted the ban, and that would make sense because surely a post that warrants revocation of a user's posting privileges would be removed from public view.

We can witness a similar situation right here on this forum.

View attachment 885718

What I've shown above is the last publicly viewable post from a user that was later banned. From it, you can't reasonably determine what actually prompted the ban--that offending material was likely removed from public view--all you can discern from the post is that the user quoted another user, posted some links, presumably quoted part of said links, and said some things...oh yeah, and that the user was banned.

The ban message on resetera is given for the post, and so is different to how bans are handled here.

Because of the over PC nature of the forum, another site has a bot that picks up automatically when bans are given and the posts that they were banned for. In the example given, here is the proof:
https://resetera.kiwifarms.net/post/27324675

What an absurd hypothetical, which is so obviously steeped in your preferred narrative.

I mean...if that could be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have occurred, I suppose I'd call it negligence based on misguided belief and, well...probably racism, because it demonstrates preferential treatment toward a specific group; race shouldn't influence response from law enforcement.

I can't wait to see how much of this you dodge because any effort to actually elaborate on your position will demonstrate you don't actually have a position.

Why is it absurd.

Are you saying authorities didn't fail to act because of fears of racism....? Is that not PC?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Regarding political correctness, again, if you haven’t been closely following Canadian politics for the last at least 5 years, maybe don’t speak on it.

Or maybe do. Political correctness doesn't exist so it's hard to know what particular accusations you're levelling.

Our railroad industry just got shut down

Not true. Source required.

because of political correctness

Doesn't exist. Source required.

so spare me your TYT

Translation required.

anti-conservative talking points lol.

It's hard to get to the actual fact of what you're saying... liberals are politically "correct" (doesn't exist but you've bought into that myth) so conservatives are incorrect in the practice of politics? But then you support them? I is confuse.

 

[twitcher]

Or maybe do. Political correctness doesn't exist so it's hard to know what particular accusations you're levelling.



Not true. Source required.



Doesn't exist. Source required.



Translation required.



It's hard to get to the actual fact of what you're saying... liberals are politically "correct" (doesn't exist but you've bought into that myth) so conservatives are incorrect in the practice of politics? But then you support them? I is confuse.

Through January and February, the native protests managed to shut down entire sections of Canadian railroad, and were allowed to do so because of political correctness. Again, you want to read up on these wet’suwet’en protests, you can do the googling yourself.

TYT is “The Young Turk”, a progressive YouTube news channel named after the Armenian genocide that didn’t happen. But again, you could figure this out on your own with some googling. It’s not my job to do emotional labor for you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Through January and February, the native protests managed to shut down entire sections of Canadian railroad, and were allowed to do so because of political correctness.

Political correctness doesn't exist, I'm not sure why you think it does.

What does exist is a colony on top of lands owned by existing occupants. For the most part these matters have been settled by military and government force, reading between the lines of your post this is a situation that you find acceptable providing you're on the 'winning side'. That's how colonialism works, of course.

TYT is “The Young Turk”, a progressive YouTube news channel

It looks like an op-ed channel after a quick look, but if you think that's news then you're free to hold that opinion. Opinions are different from facts:

named after the Armenian genocide that didn’t happen

That's how colonialism works, of course.

Combatting colonialism is presumably one of the imaginary "politically correct" things that triggers colonialists so easily. They need safe spaces!

 

[twitcher]

Political correctness doesn't exist, I'm not sure why you think it does.

What does exist is a colony on top of lands owned by existing occupants. For the most part these matters have been settled by military and government force, reading between the lines of your post this is a situation that you find acceptable providing you're on the 'winning side'. That's how colonialism works, of course.

Your reading between the lines would be wrong.

What I find unacceptable is that a minority of unelected people from one band (along with bad actors from foreign countries) are able to bring the entire country to its knees, against the rule of law, when a majority of wet’suwet’en people and all other natives bands along the proposed route are in favour of the pipe line.

The only reason these protesters have been able to go as far as they have been, is because of the double standard that has been created in Canada where different people have different rights, which is a result of political correctness.

And if you want to get into this whole colonialism thing, why are white and middle eastern Canadians so keen to have millions of people from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East move here? If we’re trying to appease colonialism, then us white folk should be moving back to Europe, America should be left to the aboriginal peoples, and “climate refugees” should go seek refuge somewhere else.

Canadian liberals are no less colonial than anyone else, they’re just focused on resettling Canada with a different demographic of people than before. But make no mistake, other than using them to push their agenda, the liberals don’t care about the natives.

It looks like an op-ed channel after a quick look, but if you think that's news then you're free to hold that opinion. Opinions are different from facts:

Op-Ed, like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, etc. I agree.

The bit about the Armenian genocide not happening is a TYT joke, as the show is named after the regime who committed the atrocity, but the hosts of the show (Cenk and Anna) have publicly said that they don’t believe it happened.

 

[Biggles]

And if you want to get into this whole colonialism thing, why are white and middle eastern Canadians so keen to have millions of people from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East move here? If we’re trying to appease colonialism, then us white folk should be moving back to Europe, America should be left to the aboriginal peoples, and “climate refugees” should go seek refuge somewhere else.

Canadian liberals are no less colonial than anyone else, they’re just focused on resettling Canada with a different demographic of people than before. But make no mistake, other than using them to push their agenda, the liberals don’t care about the natives.

What are you talking about? Everybody living in Canada without indigenous roots is "colonial". Canadian liberals aren't "focused on settling Canada with a different demographic of people than before". They are encouraging immigration to maintain population levels faced with a declining birth rate & an aging population. Far fewer immigrants from Britain & western Europe are interested in coming here than in the past, which is why the demographic is changing.

Moving millions of "white folk" back to Europe is not a realistic policy & is not advocated by liberals at all.

I'm not sure what you think "appeasing colonialism" means, but feeling responsible for the injustices perpetrated on indigenous peoples in the past & trying to improve the living situation of hundreds of thousands of living Canadian citizens of indigenous ancestry in the present, seems like a concrete & reasonable goal. I'm not sure what "agenda' you think is being pushed by the liberals?

 

[twitcher]

What are you talking about? Everybody living in Canada without indigenous roots is "colonial". Canadian liberals aren't "focused on settling Canada with a different demographic of people than before". They are encouraging immigration to maintain population levels faced with a declining birth rate & an aging population. Far fewer immigrants from Britain & western Europe are interested in coming here than in the past, which is why the demographic is changing.

Moving millions of "white folk" back to Europe is not a realistic policy & is not advocated by liberals at all.

I'm not sure what you think "appeasing colonialism" means, but feeling responsible for the injustices perpetrated on indigenous peoples in the past & trying to improve the living situation of hundreds of thousands of living Canadian citizens of indigenous ancestry in the present, seems like a concrete & reasonable goal. I'm not sure what "agenda' you think is being pushed by the liberals?

First of all, “feeling responsible for the injustices of the past” is a load of hog wash. No one today is responsible for anything that happened before they were born. That’s a ridiculous, dangerous, and never ending game to play.

Second, liberals encouraging immigration, regardless of where people are coming from, is them perpetuating colonialism against the natives. Move a few million people to BC, guess what, we’re going to need to flood a couple river valleys to make hydro dams. What’s that, the river valley is native land? Uh oh.

Third, I never said moving whites to Europe was a liberal policy. I’m saying that if they were actually serious about reverting colonialism, they should be.

The “agenda” they’re pushing is that they are the only ones fighting for the natives (which, in the case of the pipeline protests, they’re actually fighting against the majority of natives who are in favour of the pipeline), and that by not voting liberal, you are voting against helping native peoples.

Native people in Canada have been treated terribly, by people from all walks of political life. Helping native people should not be a partisan issue, but it’s the liberal agenda to make it one.

 

[MaxAttack]

Hang on, when did we get to "political correctness doesn't exist"?

I mean, I'm pretty sure I've heard it talked about basically my entire life. I even remember people grumbling about it in the late 90s when I was basically an infant.

It exists, right, the notion that something might be done by government or a politician that's influenced by the wider political perception of that action than its true material impact. Right?

I know it's become the slap on sticker of disapproval for the right wing minded, but I think there's plenty of evidence that being politically correct is a real idea and thing that people think about or do.

When the hell did we get to "it doesn't exist"? Do we just want to relabel it? Let's call the nice things it achieved "progress" and "social justice", and the things it got in the way and caused problems we'll uh... We'll just say it never existed?

What?

It's health and safety gorn mad...

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hang on, when did we get to "political correctness doesn't exist"?

I mean, I'm pretty sure I've heard it talked about basically my entire life.

I'm pretty sure I've heard God being talked about all my life... and Father Christmas...

... but anyway ...

The phrase political correctness is, IMHO, pretty much worthless, since it has both objective and relative connotations and the two are frequently abused (mixed up) by people using the term to make or defend a point.

 

[MaxAttack]

I'm pretty sure I've heard God being talked about all my life... and Father Christmas...

... but anyway ...

The phrase political correctness is, IMHO, pretty much worthless, since it has both objective and relative connotations and the two are frequently abused (mixed up) by people using the term to make or defend a point.

Okay, that seems fair from where I sit, but misused isn't the same as "it doesn't exist". Feel like I missed a memo...

 

[TexRex]

Seems I missed this one.

The AUP is a basis to treat others with respect.

I agree.

Resetera is an example of when it goes too far (PC).

Where's the line? Why is it there?

I'm not sure why you need another definition?

"Another" implies you've given a definition that makes it clear how one of the examples is political correctness (BOO!!!) and the other is not.

What's more, I don't understand how one can allege a normative agenda by proponents of political correctness (BOO!!!)--such allegations are addressed in the Wikipedia article you cited as suitably defining political correctness (BOO!!!)--and not maintain that this site is party to that alleged agenda by using threat of revocation of posting privileges of those who violate site guidelines which prohibit attacks on any individual or group.

Could it be that there is no agenda of the sort?

But then how can one of the examples (Resetera) be said to be party to it and the other (GTPlanet) not?

The conclusion that is most obvious to me is that neither is party to such an agenda because no such agenda exists.

It doesn't exist as set out in the AUP, but does in Reseteras moderation.

How do you differentiate the two?

If I'm honest, it seems like you're trying to avoid using the pejorative against the site you're actively using because doing so may draw the ire of site administrators. That you refrain from such allegations against this site but cast them at others is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

The ban message on resetera is given for the post, and so is different to how bans are handled here.

Okay.

Because of the over PC nature of the forum, another site has a bot that picks up automatically when bans are given and the posts that they were banned for. In the example given, here is the proof:
https://resetera.kiwifarms.net/post/27324675

Whoa. Pump the brakes.

I clicked your link and followed it to the original post (only a screenshot was presented previously), where I discovered that the individual who had been banned because of "political correctness" (BOO!!!) isn't actually banned at all.

That the individual is no longer banned--combined with the seemingly innocuous contents of the post that prompted the ban--makes me think it wasn't actually political correctness (BOO!!!) but vindictive moderation staff banning a user because of a political position; appropriately, the ban was not permanent. That's just not right and I'd hope that the individual responsible for the ban was looked at and reprimanded for their actions.

Seems like neither example warrants such an allegation.

Why is it absurd.

Are you saying authorities didn't fail to act because of fears of racism....? Is that not PC?

"I was scared of being called racist" is not a reasonable excuse for negligence. If my daughter was caught up in that scandal, I would not accept it as an excuse.

If an above-board investigation legitimately points to "ethnic" perpetrators, it'll stand up to accusations of racism. If it's not above-board and/or it doesn't legitimately point to "ethnic" perpetrators, it won't stand up to accusations of racism. If it stands up to those accusations, those accusations are then absurd.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Where's the line? Why is it there?

The line is the difference between a well moderated site based on mutual respect and one that's overly moderated with a strong influence of PC culture.

"Another" implies you've given a definition that makes it clear how one of the examples is political correctness (BOO!!!) and the other is not.

When talking about forums it's the freedom to post. This can clearly be seen in what posts are deemed ban worthy.

What's more, I don't understand how one can allege a normative agenda by proponents of political correctness (BOO!!!)--such allegations are addressed in the Wikipedia article you cited as suitably defining political correctness (BOO!!!)--and not maintain that this site is party to that alleged agenda by using threat of revocation of posting privileges of those who violate site guidelines which prohibit attacks on any individual or group.

You're asking me to define something that's, by its nature, fluid. It's easier to use examples rather than pigeonhole it into a definition.

Consider this thread. As you can see from the first page alone it's a graveyard of posters who voice thoughts against an agenda.

The difference is that I can post this banned opinion:

Personally I believe that if the athlete has gone through puberty as a male before they transitioned to female that they should not be allowed to compete with biological women its inherently unfair because they now have the skeletal and muscular structure of a man.

and agree with it here but can't at resetera.

That is the difference I'm trying to show, or as George Carlin succinctly put it:

If I'm honest, it seems like you're trying to avoid using the pejorative against the site you're actively using because doing so may draw the ire of site administrators. That you refrain from such allegations against this site but cast them at others is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

In other words, there is nuance. You can't say that because this site has rules based on respecting other users that it means it is politically correct.

Whoa. Pump the brakes.

I clicked your link and followed it to the original post (only a screenshot was presented previously), where I discovered that the individual who had been banned because of "political correctness" (BOO!!!) isn't actually banned at all.

View attachment 900645

That the individual is no longer banned--combined with the seemingly innocuous contents of the post that prompted the ban--makes me think it wasn't actually political correctness (BOO!!!) but vindictive moderation staff banning a user because of a political position; appropriately, the ban was not permanent. That's just not right and I'd hope that the individual responsible for the ban was looked at and reprimanded for their actions.

You have to understand the quirks of Resetera. That poster and others were banned with a (Duration pending) notification but this was rescinded after they were banned (also just to clarify you can be banned for a certain period of time rather than permanently, as seen in my link to the trans athlete thread). Resetera, and Neogaf before the great exodus are notorious for doing this.

"I was scared of being called racist" is not a reasonable excuse for negligence. If my daughter was caught up in that scandal, I would not accept it as an excuse.

If an above-board investigation legitimately points to "ethnic" perpetrators, it'll stand up to accusations of racism. If it's not above-board and/or it doesn't legitimately point to "ethnic" perpetrators, it won't stand up to accusations of racism. If it stands up to those accusations, those accusations are then absurd.

I'm confused, are you saying the investigations into predominantely Pakistani/Bangladishi abusers weren't above board?

EDIT: Oh I think I know what you're saying - that if it was a valid investigation then nothing (especially calls of racism) would have stopped it proceeding. I must say that's a pretty naive view of the world, and contradicted by the reports from people actually involved in the cases.