Political Correctness

[Vexer6]

Someone being offended by something doesn't automatically mean they are pulling a "card"(I groan whenever I hear a white person using the term "race card", it just makes them sound very ignorant and racist).

I've heard of plenty of people justifying wrong actions like sending Anita death and rape threats because they claim to be standing up for free speech, when really all they're doing is promoting bigotry, hatred and misogyny.

[scotland]

I'm going to take a controversial stance here and say that I think it's good, and a normal sign of society becoming more accepting of differences.

If by 'it' you mean the labeling, the shaming, and the blacklisting that we see, then no, 'it' is decidedly not good. Shaming is not the path of society becoming more accepting of differences, its the path of a society trying to look like its becoming more accepting by browbeating its members into accepting the party line, and never openly questioning it. Its like a Stepford community, where the outside is all manicured lawns and prep schools, but underneath is all repressed feelings and anger.

We need discussion, conversation, investigation, understanding, community...instead of ostracism and marginalizing. We need to give people the liberty of working through their feelings and emotions, and time to grow. We need to be accepting of people who have a different opinion, within reason. That should go both ways. There are issues that are so deep seated we need to learn how to get along with people of the opposite track, or 'it' will lead to a whole lot of ugly.

If you want a society to become more accepting of difference, we need to be able to talk about them without all the instant judgment, instant offense, instant rush to the penalty phase for saying something uncomfortable.

[Hardcore Sadism]

People from all walks of life pull a 'card', it's usually from a misunderstanding of ethics and etiquette. Like, if you grown up you were told to address people as "Sir" or "Ma'am". You don't say "Okay dude" or "Whatever lady" if you want to come off as professional or sociable in a work environment. Same for disciplinary environments. You don't use your race, gender, or disability to justify a foul mouth or selfish viewpoint.

But if it's a bad lapse of judgement you do not have a right to be a hypocritical leech and single groups out either. Regardless if Snarkeesian was a guy or girl I'd equally hold them accountable. This whole gamer gate would have a clear and cut focus if Anita didn't scramble the signals. Also why take a stand against corrupt media if you don't put Hollywood and Political television stations into the equation? There's much more to dirty news than just video games, you know.

[Vexer6]

Well I don't entirely agree with that, some opinions are just flat out wrong and should be treated as much, like people who believe all black people are "thugs" and should be shot(even if they are unarmed and harming no one), or those that believe all gay people are child molesters(or that being gay is a "choice" when it so obviously is not), or those that believe women who dress a certain way "deserve" to get raped, etc. Those opinions are hateful and dangerous and people like that absolutely should be shamed and blacklisted, as promoting that kind of hatred accomplishes absolutely nothing positive whatsoever.

I think the world would be a much better place without hateful bigoted assholes like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

[ESauce]

I'm going to take a controversial stance here and say that I think it's good, and a normal sign of society becoming more accepting of differences.

If by 'it' you mean the labeling, the shaming, and the blacklisting that we see, then no, 'it' is decidedly not good. Shaming is not the path of society becoming more accepting of differences, its the path of a society trying to look like its becoming more accepting by browbeating its members into accepting the party line, and never openly questioning it. Its like a Stepford community, where the outside is all manicured lawns and prep schools, but underneath is all repressed feelings and anger.

We need discussion, conversation, investigation, understanding, community...instead of ostracism and marginalizing. We need to give people the liberty of working through their feelings and emotions, and time to grow. We need to be accepting of people who have a different opinion, within reason. That should go both ways. There are issues that are so deep seated we need to learn how to get along with people of the opposite track, or 'it' will lead to a whole lot of ugly.

If you want a society to become more accepting of difference, we need to be able to talk about them without all the instant judgment, instant offense, instant rush to the penalty phase for saying something uncomfortable.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I wasn't trying to say we don't need discussion. However there is a fine line between letting people discuss and work through their feelings and accepting discrimination. Is it up for debate whether or not it's okay for woman to be stoned or burned in the middle East for not wearing a veil? I don't think so, and I'm not going to accept people thinking it is just because their religion taught them it's right.

You have extremes on both ends. On one side there are ultra PC people who think a dirty joke is evil, and on the other side you have people trying to defend blatant racism, sexism or homophobia under the guise of freedom of religion. There's a good middle ground somewhere.

[Vexer6]

That is complete and utter nonsense, Anita did not "scramble the signals" for GG at all, the signal was screwed up to begin with since the whole movement was started by that misogynist piece of s**t piece Adam Baldwin after he attacked Zoe Quinn For no reason, and people immediately latched on to the movement, merely using it as en excuse to attack women and minorities.

I don't see how Hollywood is "corrupt media", that whole "most people in hollywood are on the left" thing is largely a myth.

People are not "using" their race, gender, or sexuality to "justify foul mouths" or "selfish" viewpoints(how can a viewpoint be selfish BTW? That just sounds ridiculous), that is completely asinine an untrue, so no people are not "pulling cards" simply for calling out stuff that offends.

[Hardcore Sadism]

People are not "using" their race, gender, or sexuality to "justify foul mouths" or "selfish" viewpoints(how can a viewpoint be selfish BTW? That just sounds ridiculous), that is completely asinine an untrue, so no people are not "pulling cards" simply for calling out stuff that offends.

You have extremes on both ends. On one side there are ultra PC people who think a dirty joke is evil, and on the other side you have people trying to defend blatant racism, sexism or homophobia under the guise of freedom of religion. There's a good middle ground somewhere.

This was my point. But go ahead and disagree with it if it's "utter nonsense" (like everything not your word of mouth).

[scotland]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I wasn't trying to say we don't need discussion. However there is a fine line between letting people discuss and work through their feelings and accepting discrimination. Is it up for debate whether or not it's okay for woman to be stoned or burned in the middle East for not wearing a veil? You have extremes on both ends. On one side there are ultra PC people who think a dirty joke is evil, and on the other side you have people trying to defend blatant racism, sexism or homophobia under the guise of freedom of religion. There's a good middle ground somewhere.

Of course things that are extreme, like Vexer or you mention, are not tolerated. We don't suffer Holocaust deniers their opinions, or pedophiles their opinions. No one is saying we tolerate the tiny minority of people with highly offensive opinions.

Yet, it doesn't take an extreme position to get shamed. Most of us probably hold an opinion or three we keep down out of the daylight. Saying "The best male mathematicians are usually better than the best female mathematicians" is hardly saying we should stone women, but it got Larry Summer's labeled and shamed. Or saying that "I want every volunteer firefighter to be a male" or "I would prefer my Magic the Gathering tournament to be an all male tournament" is again, not exactly enlightened, but its not advocating stoning.

So, its precisely in that 'good middle ground' that the damage is being done by leaping to labels, making people defensive, pigeon holing them as irrelevant and backwards and uncivilized.

[ESauce]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I wasn't trying to say we don't need discussion. However there is a fine line between letting people discuss and work through their feelings and accepting discrimination. Is it up for debate whether or not it's okay for woman to be stoned or burned in the middle East for not wearing a veil? You have extremes on both ends. On one side there are ultra PC people who think a dirty joke is evil, and on the other side you have people trying to defend blatant racism, sexism or homophobia under the guise of freedom of religion. There's a good middle ground somewhere.

Of course things that are extreme, like Vexer or you mention, are not tolerated. We don't suffer Holocaust deniers their opinions, or pedophiles their opinions. No one is saying we tolerate the tiny minority of people with highly offensive opinions.

Yet, it doesn't take an extreme position to get shamed. Most of us probably hold an opinion or three we keep down out of the daylight. Saying "The best male mathematicians are usually better than the best female mathematicians" is hardly saying we should stone women, but it got Larry Summer's labeled and shamed. Or saying that "I want every volunteer firefighter to be a male" or "I would prefer my Magic the Gathering tournament to be an all male tournament" is again, not exactly enlightened, but its not advocating stoning.

So, its precisely in that 'good middle ground' that the damage is being done by leaping to labels, making people defensive, pigeon holing them as irrelevant and backwards and uncivilized.

I know no one is saying that we should defend those extremists, but what I'm trying to say is, where do we draw the line? Is it majority rules? In that case over 50% of the country is fine with gay marriage, so is it okay to criticize people who disagree?

And I think what you're calling labelling, shaming, and making people defensive is actually just discussion. I sure don't agree with everything an ultra feminist says, but I encourage it to be said anyway.

[ESauce]

Another quick thought about the business side of this. If your business is being hurt because of what you perceive as PC people being offended by something you say, that means you have offended enough people to impact your business! (sort of begging the question a bit I know) So maybe what you're viewing as PC is actually the new norm. And if it's not actually hurting your business, maybe you just have an issue with needing to please everyone.