- 2,910
- United Kingdom
Political Correctness
- Thread starter lbsf1
- 2,919 comments
- 170,434 views
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
It's all debatable. All of it. Some of it is more debatable than other things, but all of it is debatable, including your boycott of the sponsors of the Qatar World Cup. The less debatable your position is, the more social pushback you're going to get. But it has to remain legal to discuss all of it because all of it is debatable. Legal, but not necessarily popular.
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
I don't think people are debating the legality of it, rather what the effects are on reasoned debate (among other things, some more important) because of the shift in just how much pushback there is. Whether that shift is a result of the rise of social media or a change in society (or a combination of both), I'm not sure, but my interest lies in the consequences.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
Actually there is a lot of debate about the legality of it. Especially regarding speech on social media. But beyond that, what remedy would you propose for social pushback that you consider to be over the top? Social pushback against the social pushback? That's fine, it's all part of the social implications of speech.
Last edited:
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
I don't think you can have a remedy for it, hence why I laugh at conservative attempts to have platforms that don't have "cancel culture". I believe we need a more organic response to it - a realisation that we've taken a wrong turn somewhere in the past few decades and an effort to give each other space to speak our minds. What that realistically would look like would probably be as you termed it, a "social pushback against the social pushback" and, yes, would be part of the social implications of speech just as the original opposition is. I guess I want to see people be courteous but not be hamstrung by the fear of offending people but know that it's something you can't legislate towards. Anonymity definitely helps in this goal, as I'm aware some of my posts could have been seen to be offensive to some groups but with my real name only known to the moderators I felt free to engage in discussions, some of which have challenged my views, and these posts could have helped numerous others too. It's a big reason why I'm against proposals to verify social media accounts.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
The increase in social pushback comes from increased social awareness fueled in part by the internet and all things social media. It's funny that you should advocate that we give people room to speak their minds in this particular atmosphere, which is one in which the stakes are unusually high, and the implications of political opinions are so critical. Social tolerance for political opinions (which is all opinon, and sometimes fact these days), has dropped remarkably as people have become better informed. On the left, awareness of the plight of certain groups to be accepted or even tolerated has caused people to push back against narratives they see as causing real harm in people's lives. And I see that point. One might be obliviously spouting transphobic stuff thinking they're doing no real harm, but they're causing real problems to real people, and when folks see that, they want to act.
Conversely, we see the same kind of reaction to misinformation. When someone falsely claims that the election was stolen, people think real harm is occurring and they want to act, and so they storm the capitol to hang the vice president.
I see too much real harm in even small levels of bigotry to get motivated to stop people from boycotting or pushing back. If you want me to get on board with a pushback to the pushback movement, I think what we could all use is a bit of a reality check. How certain are we that the information we're acting on is real. Before we take action, we need to make certain that we're not being mislead. Because it happens easily and quickly. And that little bit of research will slow people's roll when it comes to outrage (if you can get them to do it). People are lazy, they won't do the legwork to deeply investigate these issues, so if you can convince them it's absolutely necessary, they'll fight fewer social justice battles.
Last edited:
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
Yes, there are bad faith actors, but you don't have to venture far to find legitimate examples.
If you look at surveys/studies you can see that a large proportion of respondents across the political spectrum (as much as 80%) believe it to be a problem. Something has people spooked and wary to engage which could all be the result of a very effective bogeyman, and the hyping up of it by conservatives, in which case it is a seriously impressive feat (it could even be a result of people wanting to assert their status).
---------
A book has come out by Michael Knowles about political correctness and there's a good review of it here. According to the review, Knowles argues that free speech should have limits, which seems a weird take for a conservative yet some posters here called it that this was the way American conservatism was heading - and judging by the number of endorsements the book has from the usual suspects on its Amazon page I'm inclined to agree.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
...then what's the problem?
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
- 437
- Merseyside
- merseyxshore
The way I think of these things is this: can you identify a time, or even a year, when things were better for everyone in a social sense? I’m guessing probably not. That’s because progress is working (too slowly, but still).
I remember many moons ago when it became unacceptable to say certain homophobic words, for example. I’ve always considered myself pretty lefty, but even I remember feeling that this was “over the top” and “but that’s not what it means” etc etc. Now, of course I completely understand it, even if it felt like an overbearing thing at the time. These things always seem ‘extreme’ at first, but would I ever go back to people freely dropping the f-bomb? Absolutely not.
I remember many moons ago when it became unacceptable to say certain homophobic words, for example. I’ve always considered myself pretty lefty, but even I remember feeling that this was “over the top” and “but that’s not what it means” etc etc. Now, of course I completely understand it, even if it felt like an overbearing thing at the time. These things always seem ‘extreme’ at first, but would I ever go back to people freely dropping the f-bomb? Absolutely not.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
Self-censorship, you mean being polite?
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
Erm....I mean it is politeness coming partly as a result of not discussing certain topics that may cause offence. I think the big topic at the moment is discussions around the transgender community. Should people feel they have to self censor how they feel about certain controversial topics at the moment like participation in sports or gender self identifying laws?
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,054
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
If only that were the case.
However, there's no shortage of people willing to come out and define transgenderism as mental illness or "men in dresses". To them it's by no means a taboo subject, no matter how many may wish they had a right not to have their views questioned whether science is on their side or not.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
The big topic at the moment in the US is that (nearly) half of the US voted to end the US. My neighbors are basically openly supporting authoritarian oppression of my vote. And I kinda politely manage that in public, but it's deeply upsetting. I don't think anyone gets to complain about having to hold their tongue while I share public spaces with people who tried to end my country.
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,054
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Threader - Good threads every day
Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.
threader.app
Critical race theory battle invades school boards — with help from conservative groups
In towns nationwide, well-connected conservative activists, and Fox News, have ramped up the tension in fights over race and equity in schools.
Last edited:
- 437
- Merseyside
- merseyxshore
This is nuts. The right wing loves a boogeyman.Threader - Good threads every day
Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.
Critical race theory battle invades school boards — with help from conservative groups
In towns nationwide, well-connected conservative activists, and Fox News, have ramped up the tension in fights over race and equity in schools.www.nbcnews.com
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
A head of a Trust that posted a "racist" tweet has been sacked by the university where she had an advisory role. (WARNING: Contains the N-word)
She is now suing the university and hopes the case means black radicalism and critical race theory could be given protected belief status.
The target of the tweet is saying she shouldn't have been fired (he is a prominent critic of "cancel culture")
She is now suing the university and hopes the case means black radicalism and critical race theory could be given protected belief status.
The target of the tweet is saying she shouldn't have been fired (he is a prominent critic of "cancel culture")
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,054
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Nazi salute, insults hurled at chaotic Birmingham schools meeting over mask mandate
Police are investigating a man who flashed a Nazi salute and chanted “Heil Hitler” during a raucous Birmingham Board of Education meeting over a mask...
Last edited:
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
Has political correctness hampered the Prevent strategy?
But a new report from the Henry Jackson Society, a rightwing thinktank, says Prevent and Channel have lost focus on Islamist extremism, which accounted for 22% of Prevent referrals and 30% of Channel cases last year, while 90% of those on MI5’s watchlist of current and former suspects were Islamist.
The report’s author, Dr Rakib Ehsan, said there was “an all too real prospect of Islamist extremists who present a significant security risk not being sufficiently monitored by the public authorities”.
www.theguardian.com
But a new report from the Henry Jackson Society, a rightwing thinktank, says Prevent and Channel have lost focus on Islamist extremism, which accounted for 22% of Prevent referrals and 30% of Channel cases last year, while 90% of those on MI5’s watchlist of current and former suspects were Islamist.
The report’s author, Dr Rakib Ehsan, said there was “an all too real prospect of Islamist extremists who present a significant security risk not being sufficiently monitored by the public authorities”.
David Amess killing: suspect referred to Channel counter-terror scheme in 2014
Exclusive: Ali Harbi Ali received extensive support under government programme before case was closed
- 29,705
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
- 2,910
- United Kingdom
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,054
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I'm guessing there wasn't a rightwing thinktank ready to take up the cause.
