Escaping the Echo Chamber

[elengil]

Yes, but again you're defending the extreme, rather than the middle ground. For instance, what did you think of the Tommy Tiernan clip above? Offensive?

No, I didn't find it offensive. He wasn't being mean about people with Down's Syndrome. If anything, he was opening people's eyes to the fact that they're not that different from any of us.

It wasn't really my brand of humor but I agree, he was, if anything, humanizing them rather than dehumanizing them.

I'm a middle class middle aged Irishman. Do I get protected because I'm from a country that was oppressed for 800 years, or do I not, cause I'm white and comfortably off?

I really have to wonder if you're being genuine with that question. Point of fact, no one is protected. No. One. Comedians can still get up on stage and say and make fun of whoever and whatever they want. The audience, likewise, will decide if they want to listen to what this particular comedian has to say or not. But there is no police that is literally arresting a comedian for making certain jokes. At least, Trump hasn't managed to figure out a way to do that yet.

You are confusing 'being allowed to' with 'receiving no public response against'. No matter how many people speak out against it, it still isn't against the law to be offensive. But those people are going to eventually face some kind of consequence socially for their points of view. You can be angry at society for not wanting to kick the already downtrodden, but I'm really not sure what you'd be hoping to achieve with that.

Sure, some countries do imprison people for saying the wrong things about the wrong people - and those wrong things and wrong people are almost always criticisms of those in power. It's never illegal to be cruel to the marginalized, you notice.

[Alatar]

I think I addressed this in my last post which you may have cross-posted. The issue is not that Big Brother and the Thought Police are literally locking people up, but that driving these mindsets underground is unhealthy and results in backlash like Trump and Brexit.

[elengil]

I think I addressed this in my last post which you may have cross-posted. The issue is not that Big Brother and the Thought Police are literally locking people up, but that driving these mindsets underground is unhealthy and results in backlash like Trump and Brexit.

I don't think having people be openly racist is really the solution either, do you? I don't remember a time when ignoring a problem was a fundamental part of it going away. Would adding in Irish-slur jokes make the situation better? No?

I agree that some mindsets can be driven underground until someone or something comes along to make those people suddenly feel that they are 'allowed' to express those mindsets - but I don't think that the solution to that is to simply be okay with them expressing those mindsets in the first place. Because then what? Hope they realize on their own that such views are damaging? They seem to be very okay with that part of it. We've had enough history of what happens when these kinds of damaging views rage unchecked.

Liberalism may be it's own worst enemy but it is not thee worst enemy.

[yovargas]

Part of the hope, I think, is that even if shutting up bigots just changes them from open bigots to secret bigots, perhaps being more careful and thoughtful about what we say can prevent new bigots from being formed, specially in the younger generations. That's always a big thing on the front of my mind with this stuff, the hope that future generations aren't even aware of many of our stupid stereotypes and prejudices, much like I wasn't aware that the stereotype of stingy Scotts was at all a thing. Perhaps that's a naive hope but how else can you change a culture?

[Alatar]

I have no idea, but its an interesting discussion and one that I think is more nuanced than "shut up everyone who offends us".

[yovargas]

Does "encourage people to avoid spreading harmful ideas" seem more palatable to you?

[Alatar]

I guess the question becomes, "who is the arbiter of what is harmful". And I don't believe that title should go to whoever shouts loudest. I notice that all the arguments being held up tend to be extremes like racism. If you make fun of (or laugh along with) a trait of a specific subset of people is that indefensible? There's a comic who does a parody of the most liberal, vegan character ever that pokes fun at the tropes of a certain type of liberal. Its not racist, but its certainly poking fun at a demographic. Should we be up in arms about that also? What about the Black man who tells jokes about black people that reinforce harmful stereotypes? Is it ok if it's Chris Rock, but not ok if it's Robin Williams?

Lets be blunt here, I've already had vague and not so vague allegations (in other threads) that I'm a racist and misogynist simply for questioning whether we should step back from this constant political correctness. I am neither, but throwing slurs and labels around is a great way to shut down debate.

[yovargas]

You said yourself that there are things that you do think are inappropriate. Are you able to answer why?

I've said before that I think the focus should be on "harm" instead of "offense" because if real harm is being done, you should be able to demonstrate or explain that harm to another reasonable human. If a person says "please don't say things like that because they offend me".....ok, I guess? But if a person says "please don't say things like that because it marginalizes me and people like me", a reasonable person can then ask, "how does that cause marginalization?" and potentially get a meaningful answer. And if the answer makes sense and the listener actually cares about not marginalizing people, they've learned something and hopefully improve their behavior.

PS - just about everyone is a little racist and mysoginist. These conversations would be better if people weren't so, well, sensitive when that was pointed out.

[elengil]

I have no idea, but its an interesting discussion and one that I think is more nuanced than "shut up everyone who offends us".

This is not directed at you, but I have seen many people express the opinion that while they think liberals are all about "shut up everyone who offends us", they think liberals need to shut up because they offend them.

My question is, where is your line between the person who says something harmful and the person who says 'that is harmful'? Because it sounds as if you are wishing the latter to be silent and the former to speak whatever they wish.

What is political correctness but to say we should treat everyone with respect? Why is that something to deliberately distance yourself from? Why is a society moving towards greater common courtesy to everyone something to be shunned?

[Alatar]

My question is, where is your line between the person who says something harmful and the person who says 'that is harmful'? Because it sounds as if you are wishing the latter to be silent and the former to speak whatever they wish.

I've answered several times that I really don't know, but that the answer is somewhere in the middle not at either extreme

What is political correctness but to say we should treat everyone with respect? Why is that something to deliberately distance yourself from? Why is a society moving towards greater common courtesy to everyone something to be shunned?

Here we go again. You're framing this in such a way as to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with extreme political correctness doesn't want to treat people with respect, and doesn't believe in common courtesy.

From Wikipedia:
The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted

So, to be as clear as I possibly can.

1. I believe in treating people with respect and common courtesy
2. I believe in using language, policies or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.
3. I believe that many of these current issues are excessive and unwarranted
4. I don't have a precise definition of where I believe the line between common courtesy end excessive political correctness lies, but I have a gut feeling for when its been crossed that may be different to yours.
5. I strongly believe that comedy is one of the most important bastions of free speech and should be protected as such
6. I know that we are not being politically censored, but the upshot is the same for a comic who can't get a gig because s/he has been blacklisted.
7. I believe that the massive swing to extremes is just as prevalent on the left as the right, and both sides seem to think they're actually the moderates.

[elengil]

What is political correctness but to say we should treat everyone with respect? Why is that something to deliberately distance yourself from? Why is a society moving towards greater common courtesy to everyone something to be shunned?

Here we go again. You're framing this in such a way as to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with extreme political correctness doesn't want to treat people with respect, and doesn't believe in common courtesy.

And you're assuming that I am arguing from an extreme position. Why do you always get to frame other people's argument as being the extreme while yours must be the middle-ground by contrast? You never answered my questioning that last time, either.

What makes my position objectively the extreme and yours objectively the middle-ground?

[Primula Baggins]

My question is, where is your line between the person who says something harmful and the person who says 'that is harmful'? Because it sounds as if you are wishing the latter to be silent and the former to speak whatever they wish.

I've answered several times that I really don't know, but that the answer is somewhere in the middle not at either extreme

Your position, then, is that people should be quiet and allow themselves to be harmed by hurtful speech some of the time so that people who like to speak hurtfully are only inconvenienced some of the time.

An activity that hurts people should be tolerated half the time in exchange for excusing those people from the pain of being hurt half of the time? I don't see the equivalence here, I really don't.

[Alatar]

Sorry, thats just absurd Prim and I think you know it. I'm not about to engage with a strawman as blatant as that.

I'll come back to discuss this further Elengil, but I'm away for the next few days. Suffice it to say that I've tried to answer as honestly as I can. The reason I believe your position to be the extreme rather than mine is because I'm advocating for a middle ground, whereas you are stating that all Political Correctness should be given legitimacy, and anything that is not is an attack on common courtesy. I think that's pretty extreme, no?

[Primula Baggins]

That wasn’t a straw man, Alatar; that was pointing out what was at stake for both sides on this issue. The stakes simply aren’t equal, and I don’t see how the “right” to tell hurtful jokes outweighs other people’s actual right to be at peace in their personal and social lives.

[elengil]

Sorry, thats just absurd Prim and I think you know it. I'm not about to engage with a strawman as blatant as that.

I'll come back to discuss this further Elengil, but I'm away for the next few days. Suffice it to say that I've tried to answer as honestly as I can. The reason I believe your position to be the extreme rather than mine is because I'm advocating for a middle ground, whereas you are stating that all Political Correctness should be given legitimacy, and anything that is not is an attack on common courtesy. I think that's pretty extreme, no?

I have said no such thing. I didn't even mention the term, you did. You think you are advocating the middle ground because you believe your stance is the middle ground. That isn't really offering any objective evidence of such.

I think it's much more extreme to condone harm, even if you think you are being moderate by saying it's only some harm you condone. Is that not rather extreme?

I feel the middle ground is that we aren't outlawing anything, no one is being arrested for their views. People can still march in the KKK for goodness sake. We had politicians literally running on a White Supremacist platform.

Extreme would be outlawing these points of view, but that is not happening. Society is increasingly asking for an end to things which cause people harm. Part of that is expressing disapproval of those who perpetuate harmful things - not stoning, not lynching, not arrest - people are using their free speech as a counter-point to other people's free speech.

That sounds very moderate, no?

Yes, it does mean that the segment of society which advocates or accepts this harm is going to be further marginalized. They are not being harmed, but their views are being rejected by the majority. They are being relegated to the fringe if they cannot moderate their extreme views. Since you advocate for the middle ground and not the extreme, I fail to understand how you can hold that these extreme views should be given greater weight in their freedom to be expressed than the freedom to express disapproval of these extreme views.

[River]

So it's occurred to me that "political correctness" is just a fancy way of saying "polite". I'm not sure why it's so unfashionable to just call things "polite", though perhaps the problem is that the opposite of "polite" is "rude" and no one likes to be told they are being rude. Except, of course, sometimes people are being rude. Sometimes they don't mean to be, and a correction is helpful to them. Sometimes, they made a conscious choice to be rude and, well, if you choose the behavior you deserve the reaction.

Anyway, if someone could tell us how to politely respond to rude jokes, I'd appreciate it.

[Primula Baggins]

That's a tough one, River, especially given that jokes like that used to be a social sorting mechanism, back when I was little; it was a way some adults I could not avoid used to ensure that they were surrounded only by people who agreed with them—or at least, that only those who agreed with them would feel comfortable speaking.

[elengil]

(I was going to make this an edit to my last post but realized it's probably too late so...)


Alatar,
It occurs to me your approach comes across as the little middle-ground guy who just wants to be able to tell jokes that were told for years without being told why they may hurt people, but is being ground into the dirt by the heel of the Great Liberal Machine that is grinding over the top of all those good-hearted tell-it-like-it-is down-to-earth folk who just want to live their lives.

It is a very interesting dichotomy you project in your replies, whether you intend to do so or not. You speak of Liberals as if they are a single conglomerate force, rather than simply the sum of individuals who strongly feel that that kind of 'jovial harm' that people think is harmless is nothing of the sort. They have a voice now whereas they didn't before. As has been stated already, these things were always harmful, but it is only recently that those being harmed had the voice to state it without themselves coming to physical harm or death.

You never treat Conservatives or the far Right as the same kind of singular group that you box the Left into.

[yovargas]

So it's occurred to me that "political correctness" is just a fancy way of saying "polite".

I don't think this is quite true, or if it is then at least it would be more accurate to say that the idea behind being "PC" is a more specific type of "politeness". As the Wikipedia article Al quoted above says, it is more "intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society". So if it is about being polite, then it's being polite about groups as opposed to towards individuals, which is kind of a different thing. It's much more impersonal for one. But also, it brings in group dynamics and whenever that happens, you start bringing in new problems like tribalism, mob mentality, ect, which make it much more complicated. It's tough stuff.


I hope you come back, Al. And I hope you don't feel too ganged up on. I enjoy these discussions and would like to continue them.

[River]

So it's occurred to me that "political correctness" is just a fancy way of saying "polite".

I don't think this is quite true, or if it is then at least it would be more accurate to say that the idea behind being "PC" is a more specific type of "politeness". As the Wikipedia article Al quoted above says, it is more "intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society". So if it is about being polite, then it's being polite about groups as opposed to towards individuals, which is kind of a different thing. It's much more impersonal for one. But also, it brings in group dynamics and whenever that happens, you start bringing in new problems like tribalism, mob mentality, ect, which make it much more complicated. It's tough stuff.

Meta-politeness then. Or maybe diplomacy?


A while back I had to teach my daughter about jokes that are not funny after she swiped a friend's Santa hat during a playdate and justified it as a joke. Except the little boy was in tears and needed a few minutes alone to collect himself. Hence the lesson: jokes that make people cry or feel bad are not funny. Is that an extreme position? And if a kindergartener can absorb that kind of lesson in five minutes flat and apologize to her wronged friend why do adults need to spend hours freaking out about why people can't just "take a joke" when the joke makes them feel bad? If you're making someone cry or cringe or get angry, it's a lousy joke. If you're making someone bored, it's a lousy joke. If you're making someone feel belittled or humiliated, it's a lousy joke. And you have a right to make lousy jokes...but you also have the responsibility to face the consequences.