Political correctness

[actionhero112]

I'm going to disagree with that, not because I'm an ass, but because I find a problem with your analogy. I find that hard to believe, and while this may be my 3am logic, here goes nothing.

I find that the words that are racial slurs are only denoted as such because of the weight people give to them. So anyone who would listen to the news, hear the word nigger and then use it to demean and insult someone was probably going to do it anyways. For instance, I assume you know what the word means, and probably would not use it to hurt someone else.

Is there really any harm in that knowledge? Also I doubt anyone would use the word nigger on TV even if it was allowed, because of its inherent insulting connotation. So while I do have a problem with people saying it on television because of its demeaning nature, I don't have a problem with it being exposed to people. Because, cliche'd as it is, KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

Also I wasn't trying to have a laugh in the last post. Except in the Sasquatch bit. I laughed there. You caught me.

I'm tired, so you will have to excuse my lack of elevated grammar, vocabulary and whatnot.

Basically I find that knowledge never hurts people, only what people decide to do with that knowledge does. And that depends on the person, not the knowledge. For instance, I would not have a problem with 'Nigger is a racial slur against people of colour.' But I would have a problem with the white news anchor going up to the black weather man and saying 'You are a nigger, and all the negative connotation it implies.'

 

[Butterfree]

The problem with the word 'nigger' being used on television is that there is a huge class of people who are made very uncomfortable by it thanks to its history of being used in an oppressive manner. It's not that it might lead people to simply learn the word.

I'm all for political correctness when it means striving for equality and not making people uncomfortable or marginalized. Not quite as hot on it when it simply strives not to offend people, because being offended is really a pretty harmless feeling in itself. If people were offended by Baa Baa Black Sheep, I can't really take that very seriously, but if Baa Baa Black Sheep led to black kids being bullied or marginalized, that's a real problem that needs to be addressed.

It weirds me out a bit that apparently Egalia doesn't feature any books with heterosexual couples; ultimately the reality is that most people are heterosexual and if the kids grow up seeing that most people are heterosexual everywhere but kindergarten, I can't shake the suspicion that the lesson they take away from it will just be that Egalia is a weird place where things are different from reality, which really doesn't appear like it would help much. Surely representing things in approximately realistic proportions will make them most accepting of the actual realistic proportions.

 

[Harlequin]

It weirds me out a bit that apparently Egalia doesn't feature any books with heterosexual couples; ultimately the reality is that most people are heterosexual and if the kids grow up seeing that most people are heterosexual everywhere but kindergarten, I can't shake the suspicion that the lesson they take away from it will just be that Egalia is a weird place where things are different from reality, which really doesn't appear like it would help much. Surely representing things in approximately realistic proportions will make them most accepting of the actual realistic proportions.

I have an issue with this, too. I don't see how it's at all bad to include heterosexual couples in stories because the reality is that most of these children will grow up to be heterosexual, and just because a couple has a cisman and ciswoman doesn't mean it can't say something positive about gender roles or stereotypes!

What about a story where the woman is the breadwinner and the man stays at home? There are all sorts of things you can do and it kind of makes me feel weird that they're not including any books about heterosexual couples. It's just kind of odd.

 

[Minish]

Wait, where are you getting that from? I... don't see anything about there being no books about heterosexual couples? I've seen this story around a lot, and I've never gotten that impression.

Nearly all the children’s books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no “Snow White,” “Cinderella” or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.

Do you mean that bit, maybe? I guess maybe that could seem like that's all the books deal with, but it seems to me that they 'deal with' those types of families as opposed to other children's books that don't. Like, there are all types of couples featured rather than just heterosexual. Have I completely missed something?? It seems like it'd go completely against Egalia's aim to not include heterosexual couples anywhere anyway.

I find that the words that are racial slurs are only denoted as such because of the weight people give to them.

No, it's because they have immense historical context. If a word has been used for a very long time to marginalise and control a group of people, then it has power far beyond a dictionary definition or negative connotations. You're completely oversimplifying.

 

[Butterfree]

Do you mean that bit, maybe? I guess maybe that could seem like that's all the books deal with, but it seems to me that they 'deal with' those types of families as opposed to other children's books that don't. Like, there are all types of couples featured rather than just heterosexual. Have I completely missed something?? It seems like it'd go completely against Egalia's aim to not include heterosexual couples anywhere anyway.

Oh, that would make sense. I read it the other way but that would definitely rhyme better with the stated goals of Egalia.

 

[opaltiger]

Can we please stop talking about censorship? It's hardly ever a matter of "this is offensive, we want to ban it", but of "this is offensive, we would like you to stop doing it".

most of these children will grow up to be heterosexual

Ah! But how do you know that, absent a heteronormative childhood, that is necessarily true?

 

[Saith]

(Via censorship)

 

[opaltiger]

(Via censorship)

No, via you understanding why it's offensive and agreeing to stop doing it because you're a reasonable person. Could you maybe try and stop demonising the practice of making people feel comfortable?

 

[Tarvos]

Problem with being a bit sensitive about people's feelings is that a) plenty of us have the empathy of a green beanstalk (aka somewhere close to zero). I know myself that empathy isn't one of my strong suits (so it could possibly be that a lot of us are acting offensively when we have no idea we are!). Furthermore, if someone uses an offensive word, context matters. I agree wholeheartedly with what Butterfree said.

 

[Harlequin]

Can we please stop talking about censorship? It's hardly ever a matter of "this is offensive, we want to ban it", but of "this is offensive, we would like you to stop doing it".



Ah! But how do you know that, absent a heteronormative childhood, that is necessarily true?

It's probable, isn't it? I had a heteronormative childhood and I grew up gay. I guess it depends on whether you subscribe to a heavily nature-based view of sexuality or nurture-based, I guess.

 

[Butterfree]

It's pretty undeniable that animals are evolutionarily designed to copulate heterosexually, so it's really rather natural to think upbringing isn't the only thing making most individuals attracted to the other sex. :/

 

[opaltiger]

It's pretty undeniable that animals are evolutionarily designed to copulate heterosexually, so it's really rather natural to think upbringing isn't the only thing making most individuals attracted to the other sex. :/

Saying that animals are "evolutionary designed to copulate heterosexually" is a gross simplification. Our two closest relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, have homosexual sex all the time. In the case of bonobos it might even be more frequent than heterosexual sex.

 

[Phantom]

Saying that animals are "evolutionary designed to copulate heterosexually" is a gross simplification. Our two closest relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, have homosexual sex all the time. In the case of bonobos it might even be more frequent than heterosexual sex.

I don't need that image opal, thanks.

 

[Hiikaru]

Eh, this sort of thing makes me feel sick. Like, literally.
I know that insults and ting are wrong, but I also know that censorship is wrong.
I can just never figure out which is more wrong.

Doesn't it seem pretty clear-cut? If the insults are hurting people more than the censorship would hurt them, no more of that insult, and if the censorship is hurting people more than the insult is, then no more of that censorship? Like maybe the government sometimes gets its feelings hurt or gets frustrated at all the mean things people say about it (okay pretend for a second that that's a thing that can happen), but people really need to be able to express their views about the government! And then the mean word for black people is hurting lots of people a lot, and people will get along just fine without it (as far as I know there is no argument for why it's important beyond "free speech means I'm allowed to be a jerk and I really really want to be a jerk so just let it be allowed!" so unless you have one), so that's possibly something that could stand to be censored. It's not always perfectly clear which way is worse, but it's figureoutable. If there's a disagreement with that logic I'd like to know so I could think about it more, but I don't know of a disagreement.

If there's a place where it's important to use, like if someone is discussing an old book, or reporting the news about people who were using it in a mean way or something, that can be exempt from the censorship - it isn't all or nothing, even though people think so.

People should have freedom for their actions, too, but that doesn't mean we should let murder be a thing. We shouldn't even let stabbing people really hard and then paying for their hospital bills be a thing even though no one dies from that and even if you could heal it so perfectly that there was no scar left. If you wouldn't argue with that, well, what's really that different about physical pain versus emotional pain, besides that the former tends to cause damage that's more readily apparent at a glance?

Freedom of speech does not mean it's okay to say whatever you want. There are lots of times where it's limited.

Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. [...] Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? [...] Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence? [...] Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? [...] Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests?

Do you think it should be okay for people to use their free speech to create dangerous situations? Do you think people should be allowed to use it to make violence happen? Do you think people should be able participate in libel and slander? Do you think people should be able to use their free speech to conflict with someone's other rights? (my dad likes to say "you have the right to swing your arm around, but that right ends where my nose begins") Do you think sexual harassment should be protected speech? Do you think people should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire? If any of those limitations on free speech make sense to you, and you agree that at least one of the limitations should exist, then what's special about that limitation that isn't present in censoring hurtful words?

Those mean words hurt people really badly. Do you disagree that there's a lot of hurt from the words? Because that's a different issue entirely than if you think hurting people is okay as long as you, personally, are doing what you want. Why is freedom of speech so important (and you're only losing those hateful words, not anything that's actually important to express) that it's better for people to feel miserable and painful than for people not to be able to say some words? Shouldn't someone have the right to not run into words that make them feel really, really hurt? Isn't that an important right, too?

You're being very vague, so if you'd like to explain more, then that would be nice!

(also! not trying to argue that hate speech should definitely be banned by law, but that people don't have an inherent and important right to use their words to hurt others)

Problem with being a bit sensitive about people's feelings is that a) plenty of us have the empathy of a green beanstalk (aka somewhere close to zero). I know myself that empathy isn't one of my strong suits (so it could possibly be that a lot of us are acting offensively when we have no idea we are!). Furthermore, if someone uses an offensive word, context matters. I agree wholeheartedly with what Butterfree said.

That makes it more difficult to cut out doing mean things, but it's still not impossible! If someone's expecting others to be psychic or to be really good at remembering when something is mean or going to hurt others, they're wrong! Sometimes hurts happen by mistake, and that's sad, but it's not fair to blame people for mistakes when they're trying their best! Even if someone has a hard time with empathy (or even if someone had no empathy but then ey probably wouldn't make any effort), it's still a thing that someone can go "um can you not do that ow ow ow" and the beanstalk can say "um oops I'll try!"

If a person is so devoid of empathy that they don't care if others are hurt, or maybe even like hurting them, then that's different. But if they don't want to hurt others, they can always keep trying their best!

 

[Saith]

Honestly Im a bit of an absolutist
That sounds like its just an excuse but I do feel physically ill kinda like having butterflies in your stomach when it comes to this sort of thing
I figure that a rule or a law has to be able to survive at its logical end point in order to be valid Its just how I think
Saying that x is okay in some situations but not others or y is valid until a certain point just doesnt do anything for me because youre admitting theres something inherently wrong with x or y
If youre treating it as the lesser of two evils then sure I can get behind that but if so at least admit that yes its shit but at least its better than the alternative
Then again I dont much feel sympathy for those who get hurt by insults i just dont believe that words can hurt unless theyre specifically designed solely t attack you

Case in point Im Welsh and yet the term Sheep Shagger doesnt insult me at all
Note that this is a word that not only has been used fo oppression or whatever but also because well its inherently negative mate
It doesnt insult me because in all honsty its just too impersonal just like nigger or cunt or whatever

Along with this theres contex too
Calling people anything that could insult them isnt objectively bad
My best mate went out in blackface for Halloween because he got the colors mixed up for a mime costume peopl calld him a dopey twat and a bunch of other shit but it was all in good fun
When my partner is being all romantic and cuddly I might call him or her a sappy cunt
its judt well context

I realise my opinions are probably gonna piss some people off but fuck it

I just anna stress that Im not saying its okay to insult people or whatnot and Id never say something to offend someone anyway but just because Id choose not t hurt somebody it doesnt mean I dont need the choice
There are so many belief systems based around the ideas of freewill
Hell there are loads that are focussed on doing th right thing because youre a good person not because your forced to
Taking away yor choice even in such a small matter is taking away your humanity

 

[Tarvos]

That makes it more difficult to cut out doing mean things, but it's still not impossible! If someone's expecting others to be psychic or to be really good at remembering when something is mean or going to hurt others, they're wrong! Sometimes hurts happen by mistake, and that's sad, but it's not fair to blame people for mistakes when they're trying their best! Even if someone has a hard time with empathy (or even if someone had no empathy but then ey probably wouldn't make any effort), it's still a thing that someone can go "um can you not do that ow ow ow" and the beanstalk can say "um oops I'll try!"

If a person is so devoid of empathy that they don't care if others are hurt, or maybe even like hurting them, then that's different. But if they don't want to hurt others, they can always keep trying their best!

Intention isn't everything. I wish we could solve everything just because we intended to be right, but that's sadly not how life works. Consequences of actions matter. They always do and always will. I don't think soldiers intend to destroy people's lives, but it's their job. It's the consequences of what they do. I agree it's a mitigating factor, but if you don't know and you mortally insult someone, it still is going to suck for you.

The latter category you mention is called a sociopath...Mercifully those people are rare.

 

[opaltiger]

Saying that x is okay in some situations but not others or y is valid until a certain point just doesnt do anything for me because youre admitting theres something inherently wrong with x or y

Only if you think (as you say you do) that there can be something inherently wrong with a thing. It strikes me as strange that you call yourself an absolutist, then talk about how context can be a mitigating factor. Surely if you're an absolutist things are wrong (or right) in any context?

Case in point Im Welsh and yet the term Sheep Shagger doesnt insult me at all

Good for you. That doesn't mean other people aren't hurt by it.

Then again I dont much feel sympathy for those who get hurt by insults i just dont believe that words can hurt unless theyre specifically designed solely t attack you

Maybe you aren't hurt by insults. Is it really that difficult to conceive that others might be? You seem to be saying that if it doesn't hurt or insult you, then clearly it shouldn't hurt or insult anyone, and if it does they're not worth sympathising with. Which... I'm sorry, is kind of an awful thing to think. Do correct me if I'm interpreting wrong.

 

[Tarvos]

Not if it's an absolute rule that context always matters, opal...

 

[Cerberus87]

I'm of the opinion that derogatory words should NOT be used in any case. Of course, sometimes people take it a bit too far (my country has a history of prejudice against black people and to some black people even being called "black" is discrimination), but if you are using a derogatory word you WILL offend a person. Call me overweight and I might be fine with that, call me fat and I'll probably give you a sharp gaze.

 

[Hiikaru]

Intention isn't everything. I wish we could solve everything just because we intended to be right, but that's sadly not how life works. Consequences of actions matter. They always do and always will. I don't think soldiers intend to destroy people's lives, but it's their job. It's the consequences of what they do. I agree it's a mitigating factor, but if you don't know and you mortally insult someone, it still is going to suck for you.

The latter category you mention is called a sociopath...Mercifully those people are rare.

Right that's true :( But I don't mean to say that if someone tries their best that every action they take is automatically a good one or that people shouldn't be hurt by the actions of someone who's trying eir best! Just that because it's tough for people doesn't mean it's not a thing that's possible just that they'll have to try harder than people who find it less tough! Although I guess that doesn't really need to be said after all, anyway.

Honestly Im a bit of an absolutist
That sounds like its just an excuse but I do feel physically ill kinda like having butterflies in your stomach when it comes to this sort of thing
I figure that a rule or a law has to be able to survive at its logical end point in order to be valid Its just how I think
Saying that x is okay in some situations but not others or y is valid until a certain point just doesnt do anything for me because youre admitting theres something inherently wrong with x or y
If youre treating it as the lesser of two evils then sure I can get behind that but if so at least admit that yes its shit but at least its better than the alternative

"Logical end point" is silly - there's freedom of religion, and you could say the "logical end point" of that is to allow religions where people sacrifice others, but you can't just allow sacrificing people even though someone wants to do that. You could say the "logical end point" of having freedom of the press is that people should be able to use the press to lie and slander. People want same-sex marriage to be okay, and others say the "logical end point" of that is that people will marry dogs. Who gets to decide what the logical end point of a decision is? Free speech protects people so that they can do things like criticize the government without being beheaded or put in jail. Why is the logical endpoint of that "hey, people should be able to shout fire in a crowded theater, too!" (um you didn't say "yes obviously lying about a fire shouldn't be allowed" just "I'm an absolutist" so as far as I can tell I'm meant to understand that you think people should be allowed to make up fires? please provide a clear answer here)

I think it's bad if someone is prevented from saying a thing that's okay to say, sure! But I don't think it's bad if someone is prevented from saying a thing that's *not* okay to say, like shouting fire in a crowded theater. I'm not seeing anything hypocritical about that idea? It is not okay and can even cause people to die if you shout fire in a crowded theater (like if someone is trampled to death), so I don't see a problem with limiting free speech in that scenario. Do you think people should be allowed to cause that problem with no repercussions?

If shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire should be allowed, then, well, why is free speech so important that you can't even ban people from using speech to cause death? (I'm aware that that's a worst case scenario for calling fire, but it is a thing that can happen, and even if it doesn't, it's still a huge problem) Does something worse than the consequences of saying that happen if people are not allowed to say it?

If it shouldn't be allowed, then the question isn't whether or not banning a certain kind of speech is okay or not, but whether hate speech causes things bad enough to be banned, isn't it?

Also I guess it's like a thing that's lesser of two evils? Although I'm not sure there's really anything evil at all about keeping someone from shouting fire in a crowded theater - I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with banning that from being done - but, sure, I know that people need to have protected speech and that there *can* be a problem with banning it. I'm not convinced that there's anything evil about banning hate speech, either, because I don't really understand "but people need the choice to hurt others!" but if I agreed that that's an important choice, and also agreed that hate speech needed to be banned (I don't understand any reasons why it shouldn't be banned but it does seem possibly extreme I'm still thinking about it), then yes, that's a case of lesser of two evils!

Then again I dont much feel sympathy for those who get hurt by insults i just dont believe that words can hurt unless theyre specifically designed solely t attack you

Case in point Im Welsh and yet the term Sheep Shagger doesnt insult me at all
Note that this is a word that not only has been used fo oppression or whatever but also because well its inherently negative mate
It doesnt insult me because in all honsty its just too impersonal just like nigger or cunt or whatever

Along with this theres contex too
Calling people anything that could insult them isnt objectively bad
My best mate went out in blackface for Halloween because he got the colors mixed up for a mime costume peopl calld him a dopey twat and a bunch of other shit but it was all in good fun
When my partner is being all romantic and cuddly I might call him or her a sappy cunt
its judt well context

You are not personally hurt by hate speech. You are not everyone. Other people get very hurt. Is that their fault? Should they just toughen up? You keep referring to words like that as "insults", but that's really not the right word. An insult can be something that's not inherently offensive, like you could insult someone by calling em a "bucket" or a "bottle of water" or a "fish". And someone could get hurt by that, but obviously they're not hurtful in general, and so we shouldn't ban people from talking about water or fish. But we're not talking about insults. We're talking about hate speech, which has a special name because it is not the same thing as an insult. Words that are hate speech carry negative connotations and are used to oppress groups of people and the word means that those people are bad and wrong. "Gay" isn't even a bad word on its own, but using it as a synonym for "stupid" means "gay people are stupid," and you can't change that by saying well you didn't mean it that way. Not because you're lying when you say you didn't mean it that way (most people probably are not lying), but because that's not the problem. It exists as a thing because someone really thought so, so it has all of those bad feelings attached to it, and it enforces the idea that homosexuality maybe is bad. It could potentially get away from having that bad stuff attached to it, because sometimes that happens to a word, but right now it's hurtful, and people don't want it to become a general insult! Words mean things and create ideas and feelings for people, and it isn't fair to say "oh, well, those people are just weak" because how are they meant to just turn off the hurt feeling? They don't have a switch on their chest that says "be hurt by hate speech."

Are there any things people can say that you are hurt by? Would you be hurt if someone hated you and made your name into an insulting thing to call someone and everyone knew that the word had come from you? Are you hurt when people call trans* people mean things?

Why do words have to be personally created to damage you in particular to be damaging? If someone goes around propagating the idea that girls can't, say, build, does that only hurt a girl if the person personally goes up to a girl and says "hey, you can't build"?

If you're just saying it around your friends and there's truly no way for it to spread (and you can definitely argue that sometimes it encourages people to think a certain way, or then the other party thinks that thing is always okay and uses it to hurt someone, or that someone pretends to be okay but is secretly hurt, or that it propagates bad ideas...), then no one's being hurt, and if it's really the case that no one is being hurt, then everything's okay. But you can't say that just because a thing doesn't hurt you or your friends that everyone else should just decide to stop being hurt by it.

I just anna stress that Im not saying its okay to insult people or whatnot and Id never say something to offend someone anyway but just because Id choose not t hurt somebody it doesnt mean I dont need the choice
There are so many belief systems based around the ideas of freewill
Hell there are loads that are focussed on doing th right thing because youre a good person not because your forced to
Taking away yor choice even in such a small matter is taking away your humanity

You are forced to not to kill people. You don't have that choice. If you make the choice anyway (well and get caught), you'll go to jail. Does that take away your humanity? Should people instead be allowed to kill whoever they want to? Because, hey, isn't it their choice?

Should a school be allowed to kick out black people for being black? Should people be allowed to blackmail others? Should people be allowed to steal? None of those are things you're allowed to do. Is that taking away people's humanity? If not, then how come this is a choice that makes people human? (and if so then what.)

Sometimes people just don't want to be good people, and you can't just leave them alone and hope everything goes well. It won't work.

I realise my opinions are probably gonna piss some people off but fuck it

Well, yeah, but the point of discussion should be for each side to understand each other. Lots of people don't understand your point of view, so you should ideally keep talking until that happens, and you don't understand lots of people's viewpoints, so ideally they should also keep talking until you understand. (Also ideally in the least offensive way possible without people trying to rip each other's throats out...) Sometimes people do want to change the other person's mind because they honestly believe that it's hurtful to others for a person to hold that point of view, but that's a bad ultimate goal because it can be too hard or impossible.

I honestly think it's a hurtful view to say people shouldn't be hurt by words when they just are! And you honestly think it's a hurtful view to say that choices should be taken away! (except more complicated but if I complicate it I'll end up making your view look evil instead)

But I don't understand and you don't understand! So now it's a discussion.