Political Correctness

[KSaiyu]

Not to me and and I suspect it doesn't to other readers either, you're wrong in my opinion.

I think mustafur means the slippery slope has already begun. Where do we intend to draw the line?

 

[mustafur]

I think mustafur means the slippery slope has already begun. Where do we intend to draw the line?

That's exactly what I meant, im surprised it went by that many people.

Whilst I think it is wrong to discriminate, I respect the right of choice with ones business more.

Discrimination will still exist as the law doesn't cover all, but making special provisions for a few can lead to even more.

Discrimination is a Social issue not a Law issue.

 

[huskeR32]

I think mustafur means the slippery slope has already begun. Where do we intend to draw the line?

That's exactly what I meant, im surprised it went by that many people.

I see a single issue, one that is naturally the topic of a lot of conversation lately, because in the last few years we've reached a tipping point where a majority of Americans support gay marriage.*

To view it instead as evidence that we're sliding down a "slippery slope" seems, to me, a bit paranoid, and very telling of your biases. Maybe that's just me, but I certainly don't look around and see compelling evidence of a wide-scale loss of freedom of speech.


*I limited that statement to Americans because I've only seen the polling of that question here.

 

[Eric Demory]

To view it instead as evidence that we're sliding down a "slippery slope" seems, to me, a bit paranoid, and very telling of your biases. Maybe that's just me, but I certainly don't look around and see compelling evidence of a wide-scale loss of freedom of speech.

It's not exactly a loss of freedom of speech. It's cringed butthole groups who can't deal with opposing opinions or jokes that humor their race, religion, beliefs, etc., that make it feel as if we have lost our freedom of speech.

 

[mustafur]

I see a single issue, one that is naturally the topic of a lot of conversation lately, because in the last few years we've reached a tipping point where a majority of Americans support gay marriage.*

To view it instead as evidence that we're sliding down a "slippery slope" seems, to me, a bit paranoid, and very telling of your biases. Maybe that's just me, but I certainly don't look around and see compelling evidence of a wide-scale loss of freedom of speech.


*I limited that statement to Americans because I've only seen the polling of that question here.

What does gay marriage have to do with the right of choice to serve?

Unless you somehow think im Anti-Gay by simply suggesting people deserve the right of choice despite how backwards or socially unacceptable their ideology is(within respect for life and liberty).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Discrimination is a Social issue not a Law issue.

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) so I constantly mark you down in my class and you end up failing a course that you could easily have passed with another tutor.

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) and, because I live next door to you (imagine that!?) I'm able to stand in my garden and loudly speak on your defects to all comers.

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) so I walk past your mortally-dangerous asthma attack because I'm late for my bus.

How does society fix that?

 

[mustafur]

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) so I constantly mark you down in my class and you end up failing a course that you could easily have passed with another tutor.

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) and, because I live next door to you (imagine that!?) I'm able to stand in my garden and loudly speak on your defects to all comers.

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) so I walk past your mortally-dangerous asthma attack because I'm late for my bus.

How does society fix that?

Like it normally does, with other people.


Law changes have always happened after it's already Socially acceptable or close to it regarding social issues, as the nature of democracy is constructed in such a way.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Like it normally does, with other people.

Which means what?

 

[mustafur]

Which means what?

What makes a society?

People.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What makes a society?

People.

Thank you for that, Professor Libestraum. I was asking how you fix the problems I described "with people", rather a vague answer.

 

[mustafur]

Thank you for that, Professor Libestraum. I was asking how you fix the problems I described "with people", rather a vague answer.

Well if they are Socially unacceptable then they solve themselves no?

A Teacher that where to say and do that, would be fired even if their was no laws regarding it or the school itself would be ridicule of society.

A person to make loud sounds for a period of time actually would be in breach of other laws, Liberty can certainly be effected by excess sound.

And walking past someone who is a life threating situation a duty of care should exist if something can be done, but if not then that person can live with the social ramifications that decision creates by leaving the person.

This is atleast going by what would happen in a Typical 1st world country in 2015.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well if they are Socially unacceptable then they solve themselves no?

No.

A Teacher that where to say and do that, would be fired even if their was no laws regarding it or the school itself would be ridicule of society.

Really, who would listen to you? And the school needs a rule to dismiss a staff-member, I'd put that one on the side of legislation rather than society.

A person to make loud sounds for a period of time actually would be in breach of other laws, Liberty can certainly be effected by excess sound.

So I just need to keep my voice level, no problem. Your recourse was legal though.

And walking past someone who is a life threating situation a duty of care should exist if something can be done, but if not then that person can live with the social ramifications that decision creates by leaving the person.

So if society doesn't see me leave you for dead there are no ramifications other than a legislated duty of care, that's effectively what you're saying.

Your argument seems very confused.

 

[mustafur]

No.

How so?

Really, who would listen to you? And the school needs a rule to dismiss a staff-member, I'd put that one on the side of legislation rather than society.

so your saying todays Social standards would change in the click of a finger by having a law removed?

So I just need to keep my voice level, no problem. Your recourse was legal though.

To a level that doesn't effect liberty, sound abuse aimed at a person can also arguably effect liberty(life and liberty at one's property must always be protected and able to protect).

So if society doesn't see me leave you for dead there are no ramifications other than a legislated duty of care, that's effectively what you're saying.

Your argument seems very confused.

Well technically it's a dilemma that can't be proven, without testimony of said individual regardless if its legal or not.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) so I constantly mark you down in my class and you end up failing a course that you could easily have passed with another tutor.

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) and, because I live next door to you (imagine that!?) I'm able to stand in my garden and loudly speak on your defects to all comers.

I don't like you because (insert physical or social attribute here) so I walk past your mortally-dangerous asthma attack because I'm late for my bus.

How does society fix that?

I like you because you're like me (insert physical or social attribute here) and end up passing you in my course when you didn't deserve it.

I like you because you are like me (insert physical or social attribute here) and I'm loudly able to stand in my garden and speak loudly about how much I like you to all comers annoying the hell out of my neighbours because they work hard and just want to enjoy their own gardens in peace and quiet.

I like you because you are like me (insert physical or social attribute here) so I try to help with your mortally dangerious asthma attack even though I'm late for my bus, and not only do I do the wrong thing and kill you, but I get fired as well.

I think we need new legislation to cover all the possibilities.

 

[KSaiyu]

Imagine the nightclub owners refusing entry to groups of guys to keep the girl count high....

Sexual discrimination!!

 

[huskeR32]

What does gay marriage have to do with the right of choice to serve?

It was one of the two things KSaiyu mentioned in this post, and it's been in the news a few times recently here in the states*, so I figured it was a good vehicle for the discussion.

*Read up on Sweet Cakes by Melissa, or Memories Pizza, if you're curious. And for the record, even though I disagree with the choices those businesses made, I also find the behavior they faced to be abhorrent as well.

 

[LeMansAid]

Law changes have always happened after it's already Socially acceptable or close to it regarding social issues, as the nature of democracy is constructed in such a way.

A big statement. A very big statement, that I don't agree with.

Does culture feed law, or law feed culture? I think that both happen. Sometimes an individual can "get the job done" despite having far from majority support. Without enshrinement in law, a culture can easily slump back to where it once was though. Some of the things that Don Dunstan managed to enshrine while premier of South Australia would have been rather against the grain of the majority of the population at the time, and it's worth reflecting on how much more suffering there may have been in our world since, if he and others like him were not able to put the figurative pick in the ice and anchor a progressive attitude with law. The climb, and subsequent libertarian partying on at the top of the mountain, does/will owe a great debt to a few of the not un-aptly named...... liberals.

From wiki....

A reformist, Dunstan brought profound change to South Australian society. His socially progressive administration saw Aboriginal land rights recognised, homosexuality decriminalised, the first female judge appointed, the first non-British governor, Sir Mark Oliphant, and later, the first indigenous governor Sir Douglas Nicholls. He enacted consumer protection laws, reformed and expanded the public education and health systems, abolished the death penalty, relaxed censorship and drinking laws, created a ministry for the environment, enacted anti-discrimination law, and implemented electoral reforms such as the overhaul of theLegislative Council of parliament, lowered the voting age to 18, enacted universal suffrage, and completely abolishedmalapportionment, changes which gave him a less hostile parliament and allowed him to enact his reforms.

 

[mustafur]

A big statement. A very big statement, that I don't agree with.

Does culture feed law, or law feed culture? I think that both happen. Sometimes an individual can "get the job done" despite having far from majority support. Without enshrinement in law, a culture can easily slump back to where it once was though. Some of the things that Don Dunstan managed to enshrine while premier of South Australia would have been rather against the grain of the majority population at the time, and it's worth reflecting on how much more suffering there may have been in our world since, if he and others like him were not able to put the figurative pick in the ice and anchor a progressive attitude with law. The climb, and subsequent libertarian partying on at the top of the mountain, does/will owe a great debt to a few of the not un-aptly named...... liberals.

From wiki....

And where does it suggest that people did not want these changes.

 

[LeMansAid]

And where does it suggest that people did not want these changes.

I'm sure that some, maybe even many, did. Though, I reckon that on some issues at least, the majority either would not have actively supported, or would have opposed the law changes. But how about you first back up your near absolute claim, presented as fact, before worrying yourself with my opinion.

Ironic, what and how you're arguing here, given the interaction we had in the America thread not too long ago, starting at post #6345 - https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/america-the-official-thread.54029/page-212.

You seem to have a penchant for making factual claims that you can't back up. Factual claims that are in conflict with each other, depending on the matter at hand, no less.

 

[mustafur]

I'm sure that some, maybe even many, did. Though, I reckon that on some issues at least, the majority either would not have actively supported, or would have opposed the law changes. But how about you first back up your near absolute claim, presented as fact, before worrying yourself with my opinion.

Ironic, what and how you're arguing here, given the interaction we had in the America thread not too long ago, starting at post #6345 - https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/america-the-official-thread.54029/page-212.

You seem to have a penchant for making factual claims that you can't back up. Factual claims that are in conflict with each other, depending on the matter at hand, no less.

Note: I didn't say all Law changes.

I was talking about changes in Society attitudes happened before those changes then impact law, in democratic 1st world countries.

If it happened before the whole process risks itself out of law as it would be in conflict with the current attitude which in turn would not actually count if you think about it.

 

[KSaiyu]

To view it instead as evidence that we're sliding down a "slippery slope" seems, to me, a bit paranoid, and very telling of your biases. Maybe that's just me, but I certainly don't look around and see compelling evidence of a wide-scale loss of freedom of speech

Paranoid you say.

You'll understand if I don't want Western countries committing cultural suicide like Sweden, where it is now a crime to speak ill of immigrants (probably a few people's idea of paradise - if I was caught posting these opinions I would be a criminal).

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4972/sweden-free-speech

Farewell Sweden, we hardly knew ye.

-----------

My question is if this isn't a slippery slop, where do we draw the line?

 

[KSaiyu]

Another victory for the PC brigade as Nobel laureate Tim Hunt resigns after his comments on women. It seems shunning the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and killing debate on race and intelligence wasn't good enough. Maybe we can prosecute the next scientist who dares speak his mind with views that are crimes against the thought police. That'll teach em!

 

[Dotini]

Secret laws, secretly legislated, enforced by secret supranational courts and secret executions in a fascist velvet glove democracy. We get what we deserve.

 

[Liquid]

@KSaiyu

Are these examples of political correctness whereby a judicial intervention, an actual political dictate, forced him to resign or these examples of idiots who said something stupid and found out a lot of people disagreed with him, and those people put pressure on them like one ought to with free speech?

Perhaps he'll think "Oh bugger, maybe I shouldn't run my mouth like a jabroni" next time.

 

[Famine]

Secret laws, secretly legislated, enforced by secret supranational courts and secret executions in a fascist velvet glove democracy. We get what we deserve.

None of which applies here, given that this was a silly man who said a silly thing to a room full of journalists who reported the silly things he said to their outlets, causing the silly man to tender his resignation from the private institution for which he worked as the silly thing he said was against their code of conduct.

No laws, legislation, courts or indeed executions were harmed in the making of this tale of silliness.

 

[Dotini]

Didn't @Famine make some recent mournful remarks about the state of free speech?

 

[Famine]

Didn't @Famine make some recent mournful remarks about the state of free speech?

Yes. Again that doesn't apply here, so you're two for two in terms of posts relevant to this particular case.

 

[KSaiyu]

@KSaiyu

Are these examples of political correctness whereby a judicial intervention, an actual political dictate, forced him to resign or these examples of idiots who said something stupid and found out a lot of people disagreed with him, and those people put pressure on them like one ought to with free speech?

Perhaps he'll think "Oh bugger, maybe I shouldn't run my mouth like a jabroni" next time.

Aha, but is it free speech? Say anything contrary and you're hounded out. Still want to say that is freedom?

Watson didn't stay long enough to back up his argument.
Hunt has been forced out before his views can be challenged beyond the reactionary chants of "SEXIST!"

Remember also that numeous commentators in 2007 were calling for Watson to be investigated for breaching hate laws. Imagine if this occured in 2015. If you've been following my posts in the other thread about foreign medical graduates, would I be free to investigate my hypothesis that they are a danger to patients? Yes they were both silly men, but were they wrong?

 

[mustafur]

Aha, but is it free speech? Say anything contrary and you're hounded out. Still want to say that is freedom?

Watson didn't stay long enough to back up his argument.
Hunt has been forced out before his views can be challenged beyond the reactionary chants of "SEXIST!"

Remember also that numeous commentators in 2007 were calling for Watson to be investigated for breaching hate laws. Imagine if this occured in 2015. If you've been following my posts in the other thread about foreign medical graduates, would I be free to investigate my hypothesis that they are a danger to patients?

That's social censorship, if you want to live in a society this is what happens.

 

[DK]

If I was a woman thinking of entering biochemistry, people like Tim Hunt would make me think twice about doing so by portraying the sciences as a "man's world" and that there would be many people like him who would be impossible to work with. Could you imagine if he made similarly disparaging comments about ethnic minorities?