How do we solve the problem of political correctness?

File: 49 KB, 620x315, warning-no-deadlift-gym-rules.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue May 5 14:52:14 2015 No.6499069 [Reply] [Original]

How do we solve the problem of political correctness?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 14:55:30 2015 No.6499082 >>6499069 What's the problem, exactly?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 14:57:52 2015 No.6499094 >>6499082 Not him, but pc prevents honest discourse, which is the linchpin of intellectual progress.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 14:59:33 2015 No.6499105 >>6499082 PC is very problematic

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:00:06 2015 No.6499111 >>6499094 I've never encountered PC trash in literature. Stick to the Western Canon and you'll get the opposite of PC.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:01:18 2015 No.6499118 we solve the issue by reporting threads like this

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:01:39 2015 No.6499123 >>6499082 Political correctness is the problem. It's a sort of soft fascism that prevents the free flow of ideas.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:02:12 2015 No.6499126

As far as I can tell, political correctness is a /pol/ boogeyman perpetrated by the actions taken by a tiny subset of institutions; actions which themselves were taken as a way to bolster minorities and maligned peoples against what were in turn anti-minority boogeymen.

It's spooks fighting spooks, and the warzone is the Twitter feeds of uneducated dolts.

Who the hell wants to take part in that, let alone try to "solve" it?

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:02:23 2015 No.6499128

>>6499094
you
>>6499069
and you are behaving in a very problematic way which has triggered >>6499082's memory about how much he does and does not know. It is very insensitive. For the sake of >>6499082's well being I advise you to sit silently as I discuss the only way.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:03:39 2015 No.6499133 File: 60 KB, 498x668, 1418861046060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] print out hardcore scat porn and leave it at local playgrounds overnight t. political uncorrect expert

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:03:39 2015 No.6499134 >>6499111 This. Great artists have always been reactionary. Even the Marxists will admit to this. Only the influx of Gawker DYER posters think otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:04:20 2015 No.6499139 >>6499082 -The substitution of facts and reason with emotion, especially in such a way that shuts down dissent. -Ludicrous restrictions on the arts (often by a small minority) -Micromanagement of human communication (again, usually by a small minority)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:07:13 2015 No.6499152 >>6499134 >I'm completely unfamiliar with American literature

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:08:28 2015 No.6499160

>>6499126
>As far as I can tell, political correctness is a /pol/ boogeyman
You do realize that many prominent intellectuals have been speaking out about the dangers of political correctness?

It baffles the way some people with a straight face try to argue against those arguing against political correctness by denying its existence.

>The finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:08:59 2015 No.6499163 >>6499152 >I'm completely unfamiliar with American literature

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:10:50 2015 No.6499171

>>6499111
You're probably right, but my point still stands. I'm all for routing out injustice, but when important topics or viewpoints are glossed over because of fear of offence or an assumption that "privileged" individuals have nothing important to say, humanity collectively loses intellectually.

Even if the western canon isn't filled with this stuff, mainstream political discourse is.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:11:36 2015 No.6499175 >/pol >/pol >/pol >/pol >/pol

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:11:53 2015 No.6499178 >>6499152 >im completely unfamiliar with American literature

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:12:21 2015 No.6499180 File: 239 KB, 1200x1381, stalin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499139 Wow, that sounds very familiar.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:14:14 2015 No.6499192 >>6499134 >>6499163 >>6499178 >Who is Henry David Thoreau >Who is Emily Dickinson >Who is Nathaniel Hawthorne >Who is Mark Twain >Who is Kate Chopin

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:15:13 2015 No.6499194 >>6499192 This pleb actually mentioned Kate Chopin Trashman.jpg Faggot Pleb

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:15:22 2015 No.6499198 >>6499152 >iM cOMpleTElY UnfAmiLiAR WitH aMERicAn LItERatUrE

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:16:39 2015 No.6499201 But did you ever stop and think that it's called political correctness because it's what's correct?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:17:11 2015 No.6499206 Here's a good introduction and explanation of trigger warnings, political correctness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC7Ii1I8wx0

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:18:38 2015 No.6499210 FYI since I mentioned Gawker captcha suddenly couldn't connect on /lit/ for a few minutes while it was still working on all the other boards. Does the mention of Gawker mods get you temporarily silenced?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:22:51 2015 No.6499228 File: 365 KB, 2000x1087, 1430793056133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499201

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:23:49 2015 No.6499232

Political correctness in itself isn't bad, it's simply being taken to a certain extreme nowadays. Anything and everything is bad when taken far enough in a certain direction. "Political correctness" is thrown about as this societal ill self-imposed by the people wherein they will censor themselves and stifle the freeflow of ideas but it's not: it's common courtesy, and that's it.

As I said above, it can go too far, look at the Rothertham rapes, where none of the culprits were so much as investigated because of the native Anglo society not wanting to "offend." But there is a massive difference between saying "gangs of primarily Pakistani immigrants have been commiting sistematic rape of hundreds of underage girls" and "THEM PAKIS BE RAPING ALL THE WHITE WOMEN" and not under any circumstance should the first be equated with the latter, which seems to be happening a lot nowadays but it can't be blamed on the very concept of political correctness.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:24:17 2015 No.6499234 >>6499206 trite and expected

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:24:18 2015 No.6499235 File: 103 KB, 549x280, plsleave.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >How do we solve the problem of political correctness? >political triggered

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:24:31 2015 No.6499238 >>6499194 >>6499198 >Who is Charles Dickens >Who is Langston Hughes >Who is Walt Whitman >Who is Harper Lee >Who is Earnest Hemmingway >Who is John Steinbeck >Who is Steven King >Who is Kurt Vonnegut

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:26:33 2015 No.6499252 >>6499192 Women and overrated hacks :^)

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:26:45 2015 No.6499253

for the most part, holding horribly offensive views (given cultural context) has always been taboo

there are now more ways to express those views (twitter, reddit, 4chan, etc.) so there are a larger range of views being expressed, and more that fall outside of the 'acceptable' boundaries

that doesn't mean the boundaries have changed; approximately the same range of views are still considered acceptable

charges of 'PC' are a gun that only shoots left; note how we do not say it is 'politically incorrect' to call right-wingers racist; despite the fact that this offends people it's 'politically correctness run amok' because the left does it and the right dislikes it

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:27:06 2015 No.6499255

>>6499139
>The substitution of facts and reason with emotion

Don't really recognise this. Can you give a few examples?

>Ludicrous restrictions on the arts (often by a small minority)
>Micromanagement of human communication (again, usually by a small minority)

These puzzle me a bit. Whither this small minority's power?

I mean, to me, 'political correctness' is a negotiated system of reference where people are discouraged from using terms that certain people find needlessly hurtful. Since the terms themselves are largely unimportant, it seems pointless to argue about them, so I generally just go with whatever label I was last told is preferred.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:28:30 2015 No.6499266 >>6499238 >American How about you try learning to read before trying to act smart.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:29:02 2015 No.6499269 >>6499238 You have basic as fuck taste in American literature. It's embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:29:27 2015 No.6499274 >>6499266 >>6499269 How about you back up claims with substance instead of shitposting?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:29:43 2015 No.6499275 >>6499238 >Charles Dickens

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:29:55 2015 No.6499276 >>6499253 What a concise, vacuous argument. Your decision to disconnect it from reality gives the great impression that you are correct despite not saying anything of real substance.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:30:41 2015 No.6499280 >>6499192 >>6499238 Tell me how you distill a progressive politics out of Thoreau and Dickinson?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:31:06 2015 No.6499281 >>6499274 >Charles Dickens >American

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:31:36 2015 No.6499287 File: 36 KB, 540x376, (30).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499276 O SHIT

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:31:41 2015 No.6499288 >>6499238 > Steven King > Steven > great Gawker confirmed for DYER.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:32:15 2015 No.6499291 >>6499126 Huh? There are eminent professors that speak out about this problem at today's universities.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:32:20 2015 No.6499293 >>6499274 Listen, faggot, my justification for you basic ass taste is basically the two posts wherein your namedrop basic ass writers. Get better taste, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:33:20 2015 No.6499297 >>6499238 I didn't know Charles Dickens was American! I did know that he was progressive. Thanks, Gawker! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_work_of_Charles_Dickens

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:33:49 2015 No.6499301 >>6499276 i dunno, if you disagree with it say why

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:34:56 2015 No.6499303

>>6499281
>>6499275

>>6499134
>Great artists have always been reactionary.

The first guy to reply posited the American canon as prima facie fatal to the above claim. That doesn't restrict either the original claim or refutations of it to the American canon. tl;dr - we all know Dickens was Dutch, now relax.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:35:11 2015 No.6499305

>>6499238
> In 1868, alluding to the then-uneducated condition of the black population in America, Dickens railed against "the melancholy absurdity of giving these people votes", which "at any rate at present, would glare out of every roll of their eyes, chuckle in their mouths, and bump in their heads."

Sounds like /pol/ to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:35:58 2015 No.6499307 >>6499291 >eminent professors >>6499126 >tiny subset of institutions

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:36:08 2015 No.6499309 >>6499134 lol

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:36:37 2015 No.6499311 Wtf does gawker have to do with this?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:37:45 2015 No.6499315 >>6499305 >>6499297 just because an author from 200 years ago was racist doesn't make him a reactionary or right wing

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:38:01 2015 No.6499316

>>6499192
Nathanial Hawthorne, known bigot.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/97175

"I have not, as you suggest, the slightest sympathy for the slaves; or, at least, not half as much as for the laboring whites, who, I believe, are ten times worse off than the Southern negroes.” - Nathaniel Hawthorne

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:38:50 2015 No.6499322 File: 2.50 MB, 320x240, 1429669876636.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499238 >steven king

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:38:55 2015 No.6499323 >>6499305 It's all relative. Today's progressives are tomorrow's bitter old cranks. >>6499311 The same thing reddit and tumblr have to do with everything they're invoked in the name of mocking.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:39:51 2015 No.6499326 >>6499323 Oh gotcha. I thought you guys were discussing some recent article in gawker.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:40:29 2015 No.6499328 >>6499315 Just to point out that you have nothing to back up your claims that American literature "greats" were progressive.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:42:21 2015 No.6499335

>>6499275
Thoreau was an outspoken abolitionist and a near anarchist.

Emily Dickenson was a women's rights activist.

Neither were remotely close to being Reactionary

>>6499297
He wrote in English and visited America many times, though I have read Oliver Twist so I'm pretty embarrassed for not realizing.

He absolutely was progressive for his time though. In 1850 not wanting to extend voting rights to ethnic minorities wasn't that "reactionary"

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dickens/life_critic.html

>>6499316
He was a bigot but he was still an economic liberal who believed in Democracy and limited government

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:43:12 2015 No.6499341 >>6499328 Not him, but the original claim was that "Great artists have always been reactionary" which is wrong and silly. Squabbling over this or that single artist is a waste of time, even in a timewasting thread like this.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:43:23 2015 No.6499344 >>6499335 Meant to quote >>6499280

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:43:39 2015 No.6499346

>>6499253

>charges of 'PC' are a gun that only shoots left

Fucking this. You never hear anyone talking about how Harvard canceled a Black Mass that was to be held on campus, or how Catholic universities don't allow pro choice or pro gay marriage speakers.

The people I know who get all flustered about "muh censorship" are usually tactless morons. They could express the exact same ideas with minimal backlash, but instead they choose to be overtly hostile. A little more sensitivity would have little or no negative impact on the discourse.

Also, telling the PC crowd to shut up is just another iteration of the same thing: trying to silence views you dislike.

There's a reason the 1st Amendment has a state action requirement.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:43:45 2015 No.6499347

>>6499323
> It's all relative. Today's progressives are tomorrow's bitter old cranks.

So then you can't make a claim saying they weren't reactionary, because "it's all relative."

You've been hoisted by your own petard, to borrow a phrase from a famous reactionary playwright.

Gawker argumentation won't stand a chance in face of THE. WESTERN. CANON.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:43:48 2015 No.6499348 this issue will surely be settled once we agree on the political views of great American authors

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:43:50 2015 No.6499349 >>6499335 Ignore this basic bitch

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:43:53 2015 No.6499350

>>6499328
those aren't my claims. but if you don't think whitman was fairly progressive you are pretty much just deluding yourself.

but honestly, the truth is that great writers are neither "reactionary" nor "progressive." politics don't have much to do with it. whitman's poetry has a conception of love that often involves dudes kissing and sleeping together, and often preaches the equality of everyone. that's his imaginative poetic viewpoint, it doesn't need to have anything to do with politics. dante, milton, etc. are the same thing from other angles.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:45:19 2015 No.6499359 >>6499349 >I'm too lazy to google search to back up my position so I'm just going to resort to ad hominem

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:46:18 2015 No.6499362 >>6499359 I already called you out on your basic ass taste in American literature

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:47:03 2015 No.6499364 I always viewed political correctness as a deterrent of confrontation as an effort to keep peace afloat.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:47:22 2015 No.6499365

>>6499347
>So then you can't make a claim saying they weren't reactionary,

Actually, I just did, to whit:
>>6499323
>Today's progressives

I didn't read the rest of your post, since it proceeds on a laughably wrongheaded conceit of umbrella terms like 'progressive' as possessing a persistent identity and unaltering set of goals and principles, in direct contrast to the claim I've made.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:48:39 2015 No.6499371

>>6499341
> it's wrong and silly

You expect to win debates like this? Back up your claim with some kind of substance, even a turd.

>>6499335
> Thoreau was progressive
Have you read Civil Disobedience? He's adamantly against a "tyranny of the majority." Not being a vitriolic racist doesn't mean you're not reactionary. He wanted to return to the politics of the ancient Greeks. Again, you don't read.

> Emily Dickenson was a women's rights activist.
It's Dickinson, you retard. And she wasn't an activist, she was a recluse. Maybe she protested from inside her bedroom. Idiot.

Go back to Gawker.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:48:43 2015 No.6499372

>>6499301
>>6499253
>for the most part, holding horribly offensive views (given cultural context) has always been taboo
Relativistic BS. Here you use a lot of fancy words to say "In some places you can't say certain things"
>there are now more ways to express those views (twitter, reddit, 4chan, etc.) so there are a larger range of views being expressed, and more that fall outside of the 'acceptable' boundaries
Unsubstantiated claim. Further we can hypothesize and theorise on both sides of the fence here. I could make the claim that there have always been a large range of views expressed and that an equal number of fallen outside "acceptable" boundaries, just that before the advent of the internet they weren't recorded as they are now. You have already provided the alternative side of the fence, but I suppose we could push it further. The ability of the internet to connect people has allowed what used to be an extremely small number of fringe believers (a claim that is also unsubstantiated) to congregate and, in their echo chambers, spiral further and further from the norm, meaning that comparatively there were nowhere near the number of fringe views as there are now. The latter, however, faces a stauncher argument, I only present it as an illustration of the point that when we're arguing off unsubstantiated claims we can really just make anything up.

>that doesn't mean the boundaries have changed; approximately the same range of views are still considered acceptable
You're claiming two contradictory things here. First you claim that the boundaries of what is unacceptable haven't changed, that the same things have always been unacceptable. Yet this is known to be untrue as many beliefs which used to be progressive in their time are now considered obvious and basic (granting the right to vote to various disenfranchised peoples as an example). Then in the second clause you admit that it has been shifted, but the same range of views (as in some unspecified, unmeasured distance or number) has remained the same. This again is unsubstantiated and I would argue would not be borne out by any attempt at examination in history. History has always seemed a spiraling pendulum, appearing as a circle, yet progressing beyond what it once was, as it swings from one side to the other. We went from the age of kings and feudal lords to the strongest proponents of democracy and constitutions, to fascist dictators and authoritarian regimes, to the defenders of freedom and liberty. Where the pendulum currently lays is up for debate. But the fact remains that there has never been any equal number of views being considered acceptable.
>charges of 'PC' are a gun that only shoots left; note how we do not say it is 'politically incorrect' to call right-wingers racist; despite the fact that this offends people it's 'politically correctness run amok' because the left does it and the right dislikes it
1/2

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:49:40 2015 No.6499376 >>6499359 >continuing to reply C'mon, dude.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:49:53 2015 No.6499377

>>6499372
>charges of 'PC' are a gun that only shoots left; note how we do not say it is 'politically incorrect' to call right-wingers racist; despite the fact that this offends people it's 'politically correctness run amok' because the left does it and the right dislikes it
Rather than respond to concrete examples, you'd rather just phrase it as an attack on one side by the other. You just want to present one side as the oppressed and the other as oppressor, rather than concede that both sides grapple and adapt to what the other is doing. No one side is dominant over the other, despite what they both say. As others in this thread have stated there are professors in universities who have begun to speak out against PC run amok, some left, some right. It is a problem that affects both sides.
2/2

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:50:53 2015 No.6499383 >>6499365 > loses the debate > tries to damage control with "I didn't read your post, also define the word "define" haha got'cha there!" Go back to leaking porn tapes or whatever it is you "progressives" do.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 15:51:12 2015 No.6499385 >>6499376 >defending someone with terrible taste in American literature >>>/r/books/

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:55:52 2015 No.6499402

>>6499255
>Don't really recognise this. Can you give a few examples?
It's become impossible to discuss differences between groups, especially if the claim can be interpreted as being bad for the "oppressed" group. So, for example, when Sam Harris points out facts about Islam or Muslims, facts that are crucial to our understanding of violence perpetuated by extremists, he is treated as a racist or a bigot by much of the media.

Feminist sloganeering that has perpetuated rape hysteria is another one, as well as their insistence that claims of rape by women be accepted, regardless of how much they cause your bullshit meter to go off. Don't ever look at the facts. Don't ever question. This is the sole reason why people felt compelled to take something like the UVA hoax seriously. Feminism has blocked people from looking at anything involving rape rationally.

>These puzzle me a bit. Whither this small minority's power?
The small minority's power basically comes down to using their persistence and status to ruin someone's reputation. Most prominent men don't want to be accused of being sexist, so they would avoid doing anything that would piss off feminists, despite the fact they don't represent a large portion of society. The average person wasn't offended at all by the two guys from The Avengers jokingly, sarcastically, calling Black Widow a "whore," but as soon as the Twitter Feminist Machine caught wind of it and attacked, they apologized. Feminism has developed significance within the gaming media despite the fact that the vast majority of gamers couldn't give a damn about it and it's having a tangible impact on video games--just because the gaming media has decided feminism is the way to go.

The question isn't simply whether or not something is "needlessly hurtful." (especially when it's so strongly a matter of opinion and can be (and is being) stretched to suppress dissent). The question is whether or not there is a net good in putting in the effort to police the things people express, in the way that social justice warriors do. It is not. It creates a society in which no one can express anything and intellectual progress is stifled.

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:57:52 2015 No.6499410

>>6499371
>You expect to win debates like this?

Define 'win'. Do you mean: Do I have some expectation that this discussion will end with you typing something along the lines of: Yes, that person was definitely a great artist and also definitely not a reactionary, case closed? No. No, I do not have any such expectation.

Nevertheless, if only for form's sake, I'll offer Sartre (refused the Nobel for literature), Victor Hugo, Emile Zola - will that do?

Anonymous Tue May 5 15:59:23 2015 No.6499418

>>6499372
>>6499377
this is pretty bad, I see why you didn't want to actually type out your argument originally

I was not saying that the same views were unacceptable, just that the size of the range of acceptable views was about the same. (vocally considering transgender mentally unstable is on its way out, as considering them normal is on its way in; size of the range remains the same as one broadly unaccepted view becomes the broadly accepted one.)

and I'm not arguing with quantitative observations, just qualitative ones. you can make up hypotheticals and pretend you believe them, but it's pretty easy to observe what I'm talking about. in 1980 if you wanted to find someone with a complicated scientific justification for deep racism, you had to search them out in person. now you can find that view with a google search. the ease of finding the recorded views is exactly the point: it's a lot easier for an anti-racist crusader today to yell at someone online; that person wouldn't have been tweeting in 1985.

I think you missed the point about left and right. can you give me an example of something that leftists are not allowed to say due to PC culture?

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:00:17 2015 No.6499421

>>6499377
>concrete examples

I actually asked for a few of these earlier and got no response. It would be nice to know exactly what we're talking about here (if only to avoid some embarrassing 'Obamacare versus Affordable Care Act' snafu where people are all riled up about "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" but are actually bang alongside whatever specifically is rustling your jimmies.

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:02:23 2015 No.6499433

>>6499410
> Sartre
puke, retard who idolized a Nazi without even understanding his work. Life a "progressive" life by sexually abusing girls with his anti-marriage life-long girlfriend.

> Hugo
Not quite first-rate.
> Zola
He wrote period pieces. Which is all progressives are really capable of doing.

Like I said before, Marxists didn't even like Zola.

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:07:40 2015 No.6499467
File: 2.83 MB, 300x183, urgaylol.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6499383
>asserts persistent identity of innately relative term
>doesn't understand the sentences explaining that this is an error
>shrugs
>continues shitposting

Enjoy yourself.

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:15:14 2015 No.6499493

>>6499402
>So, for example, when Sam Harris points out facts about Islam

Sam Harris' account of Islamism is obsessively monocausal. People aren't 'preventing' Harris from 'pointing out facts about Islam', they're disagreeing with his account of the problems presented by radical Islam. Evidence: I am aware of Sam Harris' views on the matter and so are you. Nothing has been rendered 'impossible'.

>rape hysteria

There's a touch of rape hysteria hysteria, frankly. Remember that Rolling Stone article? Remember its retraction? Yeah. That's the system *working*, man, not the system broken.

As for the rest, well, I'm sorry if people don't like it when you air your hunches on the matter (n.b. your "bullshit meter" does not produce output either belonging to or relevant to the world of 'facts', it's vital you not forget that).

>The average person wasn't offended at all by the two guys from The Avengers jokingly, sarcastically, calling Black Widow a "whore," but as soon as the Twitter Feminist Machine caught wind of it and attacked, they apologized.

Renner has since made remarks indicating he's not in the least sorry (that, too, was evidently possible). I don't regard the issue as moral but I do think it made him seem childish.

>The question isn't simply whether or not something is "needlessly hurtful."

It is when the label is all we're talking about. I regard the label as unimportant and thus regard preserving extant labels as unimportant. What more can I say?

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:16:11 2015 No.6499499

>>6499418
>I was not saying that the same views were unacceptable, just that the size of the range of acceptable views was about the same.
Except you directly contradicted yourself earlier (as I pointed out)
>there are a larger range of views being expressed, and more that fall outside of the 'acceptable' boundaries
You try to portray this as some strange shape that is expanding while it also retains the same dimensions and slides along a scale of progressivism. It is inherently contradictory.
>I'm not arguing with quantitative observations, just qualitative ones
You're speaking subjectively and acting as though you're presenting objective fact. That's intellectually dishonest.

>can you give me an example of something that leftists are not allowed to say due to PC culture
The same things that rightists aren't allowed to say. Laci green was attacked by her fellows for using the word tranny years ago in a video (as an admittedly poor example off the top of my head). Historically, the crime of not being revolutionary enough has always hung over radical movements, be it in Stalin's Purge or Robespierre's Terror. You're not allowed to step outside the party line, no matter what side you're on.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:16:40 2015 No.6499504 >>6499433 >h-he's not a great artist! an' an' an' neither am HE! or HIM! Thank you for conforming to my expectations with absolute perfection.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:19:00 2015 No.6499515 >>6499499 >You're speaking subjectively and acting as though you're presenting objective fact. Not him, but mate? You don't get to talk shit about this. I know because my bullshit meter said so.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:26:28 2015 No.6499536 >>6499499 the acceptable range is the same size as it used to be, the expressed range is larger. this is super easy to follow and I can't figure out why you keep missing what I'm saying

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:35:34 2015 No.6499561

>>6499493
Sam Harris has been accused of being a bigot and expressing "hate speech." Under any other context calling something "hate speech" might be hyperbolic but mostly benign. The problem is that the far left progressive using these words also believe that "hate speech" is unfree and people should be punished, legally, for expressing it. Either way, the problem exists because rather than having his claims refuted, they're trying to smear him. They're creating a chilling effect in which people who have similar views will be reasonably put off from expressing them. This is at the heart of the problem of political correctness.

The Rolling Stone incident was only retracted after legitimate journalists did investigation to poke the biggest holes possible in the story and the tactics of the author. The problem is that people actually believed in the nonsense in the first place, first off, the second is that this Jackie person is still being treated as some kind of victim despite not only there being no proof she was raped, but there being proof she straight up lied about everything. This default "believe the 'victim'" nonsense that feminists are pushing is at the hart of the problem of political correctness: rejection of reason and logic in favor of emotion.

>It is when the label is all we're talking about.
Again, it's not that simple. Let's say that the problem was only that people's feelings were hurt. In the interest of liberty, they still wouldn't have much legitimacy in the way they want to police the expression of others. The complexity comes in in that we have to also consider the effect of their policing. You're not just ridding the world of speech that "needlessly" hurts people's feelings. You're potentially ridding the world of speech that very well could and should hurt people's feelings. Even worse, you're ridding the world of only speech that you find offensive for any arbitrary reason. There's no check in place to prevent people from stretching the definition of 'offensive' as far as necessary to suppress dissent. That's exactly what's going on college campuses right now, why Christina Hoff Sommers has to have security to prevent wild feminazis from attacking her. If we care about freedom of speech, we're going to have to accept that it will include speech we don't like. Simple as that.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:40:40 2015 No.6499584 >>6499069 >no deadlifts Fucking WHY.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:41:17 2015 No.6499588 >>6499126 >>6499255 Yer not so smert are ya boy Or are you gettin paid

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:42:54 2015 No.6499595 >>6499584 Planet Fitness basically markets itself as a gym for casuals who don't want to be be intimidated or made to feel insecure. So they ban deadlifts as well as a bunch of other nonsense.

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:43:12 2015 No.6499599

In short what's wrong with political correctness is that under it, it no longer becomes an issues of saying the correct or incorrect thing, but an issue of saying the right KIND of thing. Whether a statement is true or not becomes irrelevant, what is more important is whether or not the statement fits with the accepted narrative and is not said in a way that implicitly goes against the accepted narrative. This is 100% absolutely how mainstream liberal discourse works right now.

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:45:39 2015 No.6499617

>>6499561
>The problem is that the far left progressive using these words also believe that "hate speech" is unfree and people should be punished, legally, for expressing it.

I think Harris is in fact a bigot, but I don't believe his words merit action of the sort you're talking about. Probably there are people who think so, but I've not come across any.

>The Rolling Stone incident was only retracted after legitimate journalists did investigation to poke the biggest holes possible in the story

Dude, this is WHAT HAPPENS when a story gets retracted. The qualifier 'only' is entirely superfluous.

>This default "believe the 'victim'" nonsense that feminists are pushing is at the hart of the problem of political correctness: rejection of reason and logic in favor of emotion.

What if I could offer you a reasonable argument that a default approach of provisionally believing the victim is usually correct for those who don't wield judicial power? Because this is in fact my approach and I assure you that 'emotion' has very little to do with it.

>Again, it's not that simple

None of what follows is relevant to what I've been talking about (labels). Can you make this more concrete, please?

>>6499588

I am getting paid, actually. There's a top-secret cabal of gay Jewish communists who pay minimum wage to humanities undergrads just to argue with /pol/ on non-/pol/ boards. Because that's how big of a deal /pol/ is.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:46:30 2015 No.6499622 Look fuckers we all know why PC is bad, that's not the discussion. If you don't know, get out. You are too late, fuck you. The rest of you spags, what the fuck do you have any ideas or what

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:47:57 2015 No.6499631 >>6499622 >Look fuckers we all know why PC is bad It seems fiendishly difficult to express, though, doesn't it?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:48:03 2015 No.6499632 File: 14 KB, 210x210, 1385911379219.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499617

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:49:06 2015 No.6499636 File: 110 KB, 625x626, 1383196817968.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499631

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:49:29 2015 No.6499640 >>6499632 Nice meme

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:52:50 2015 No.6499657 >>6499631 No, it's easy to express. PC subordinates truth, reason and good-faith debate to slavish adherence to an established narrative and hysterically demonizing anyone who event hints at going against it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:58:40 2015 No.6499687 >>6499082 spooks

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:58:43 2015 No.6499688

>>6499657

I feel like I've been, broadly speaking, defending the notion of PC ITT and I'm reasonably sure I haven't demonised anyone, hysterically or otherwise. I feel like I've also been debating in good faith.

So where is your God now, if you know what I mean?

Anonymous Tue May 5 16:58:51 2015 No.6499689

>>6499617
>Dude, this is WHAT HAPPENS when a story gets retracted.
If Jackie was smart enough to pick a date and frat where there actually was a party and Erdely was smart enough to question some of the people accused, the facts otherwise could remain exactly the same and that article would have been the start of sweeping changes across university campuses nationwide. We were saved solely by their ineptitude. The story taken by itself was already ridiculous, but was being touted as truth across media outlets.

>What if I could offer you a reasonable argument that a default approach of provisionally believing the victim is usually correct for those who don't wield judicial power? Because this is in fact my approach and I assure you that 'emotion' has very little to do with it.
Try me.

>None of what follows is relevant to what I've been talking about (labels). Can you make this more concrete, please?
Please, put on your thinking cap. In policing something, you have to decide not only whether a crime has been committed, but also whether or not your policing of the crime will result in unintended damages. My point is that there is no reasonable way for SJWs to get their utopia without undermining ideas like the free marketplace of ideas and artistic freedom.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 16:59:34 2015 No.6499695 >>6499657 >PC subordinates truth, reason and good-faith debate The truth and reason being..?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:13:30 2015 No.6499778 >>6499069 I find that the best way to combat PC fascism is to become a hard target and completely ignore it. It only works against the weak.

Anonymous Tue May 5 17:14:30 2015 No.6499783
File: 177 KB, 989x1029, 070912_155721_Zdzislaw-Beksinski-23.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Ohkay fuck then I guess I'll start. But I predict Agent Smith will be back with a buddy when I will not interact with him.

Is this not /lit/? Can we no longer not feed it, like all the other subnormal boards? Don't feed it. Let it lumber off to under its bridge with the hobos and the other trolls.

I really have no idea on how to get to grips with it, PC. People are under it's spell, it's disorientingly disappointing when even the most intelligent of friends or family will not consider some ideas. They are off-limits, some ideas are. A few of them will actually experience cognitive dissonance as soon as I broach a subject not sanctified by one or another sanctified insititution, be it TV, an ordained priest of popular science or something else. Now now, don't get me wrong, I'm for science (it's a method innit), and I am for many things. I will consider any idea, any thought, any deception. Seldom do I get to know with any certainty. The great and wonderful whore Life and her strict master, Truth, has for a time been keeping me in a kinbaku leash and will not allow me to hold anything. Labels mean less to me than they did once and labels certainly do not mean the same thing as to other individuals whom I watch, disgusted. Disgusted by their inability to think of some thing or another, because of this or that Power Label.

There seem to be pre-programmed spiels where one word evokes another pre-set opposite concept, in perfect balance they cancel the thought out.
I am sorry, this is the best I had right now, but I really am concerned.

Anonymous Tue May 5 17:15:52 2015 No.6499788

Same way you do anything--forget about illusions like money and job security and sacrifice yourself for the cause. If you want something for society as a whole, don't be surprised when, by protecting your own individual interests too doggedly, you fail to attain it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:18:27 2015 No.6499804 >>6499280 i mean thoreau was progressive for the time he was in favor of abolition, secularism, and ignoring unjust laws which were relatively radical concepts for the time

Anonymous Tue May 5 17:19:01 2015 No.6499806

>>6499689
>If Jackie was smart enough to pick a date and frat where there actually was a party and Erdely was smart enough to question some of the people accused, the facts otherwise could remain exactly the same and that article would have been the start of sweeping changes across university campuses nationwide. We were saved solely by their ineptitude. The story taken by itself was already ridiculous, but was being touted as truth across media outlets.

Again, this is the system working, not the system broken.

>Try me.

We need some spadework here on 'rape accusation'; in the minority scenario sadly depicted as the norm in the media, where a woman in a public place emerges from an alley with torn clothes and a bleeding, sperm-filled vagina, this is not what I'm considering a 'rape accusation' - a 'rape accusation' for my purposes is a claim made by a woman regarding an event in the past involving a named perpetrator - cool?

We need further spadework on 'belief'. It's common to distinguish between 'belief' (an internal state where a given proposition is regarded as corresponding with reality) and 'acceptance' (a behaviour pattern consistent with a belief). My proposal is that acceptance of a rape accusation is usually correct for those who don't hold judicial power.

Reasonable estimates of false rape accusations top out at something like 8% (I stress: this is where they TOP OUT, it's unlikely that the rate is in fact this high). But let's go to Crazytown and pretend it's a hard 50%: that exactly half of all rape accusations are in fact false.

Now we game this scenario out - we construct a payoff matrix. We need to consider the implications of a claim's being accepted or not accepted in the cases where it is true and it is false. So:

Accepted and true => Investigation of rape committed by rapist.
Accepted and false => Investigation of false claim
Dismissed and true => Non-investigation of rape committed by rapist
Dismissed and false => Non-investigation of false claim

The matrix is imperfect - both the low conviction rate for accused rapists and the possibility of dismissal resulting in prosecution of false claims are unaccounted for - but as a first approximation, even now it seems to me to clearly demand a default acceptance in all but the most egregiously implausible scenarios.

So now what do we do? We ITERATE this motherfucker, that's what. Because the majority of acquaintance and date rapes are committed by serial offenders - did you know that? Few seem to - there seems to be this pervasive sense that the actions in question are a) basically reasonable and b) fairly evenly distributed among the population. Not so: http://www.usfk.mil/usfk/Uploads/SAPR/SAPRMod17_UndetectedRapist.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Now, game it out the further. A majority of those individuals in the third scenario - Dismissed and True - are serial offenders. Dismissal of one claim of rape is therefore tantamount to enabling any subsequent rapes.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:19:09 2015 No.6499808 truly the most pressing issue of our time, all those white boys in trouble

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:20:01 2015 No.6499811 >>6499695 NIGGERS I mean, obviously.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:21:55 2015 No.6499823 File: 84 KB, 1200x1200, 1429553224054.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499595 What a load of ressentiment bullshit

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:24:23 2015 No.6499839 >>6499808 It makes me physically ill that people as stupid, careless, dishonest, intellectually lazy and hyperpolitical as you exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:24:40 2015 No.6499840 >>6499069 Mods are ded

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:24:51 2015 No.6499841 sure is /pol/ in here

Anonymous Tue May 5 17:27:44 2015 No.6499858

>>6499806
>It's common to distinguish between 'belief' (an internal state where a given proposition is regarded as corresponding with reality) and 'acceptance' (a behaviour pattern consistent with a belief).
The public doesn't seem to make that difference, nor do PC pressure groups.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:28:18 2015 No.6499864 File: 24 KB, 640x480, jesustakingapiss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499839 >It makes me physically ill DUDE you better not think about hairballs floating in pink lemonade man you might blow chunks lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:29:57 2015 No.6499876 >>6499858 It doesn't matter if they do or not, since acceptance is defined as behaviour consistent with belief, remember? The external outcome of acceptance is identical to belief. Calm yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:30:01 2015 No.6499877 >>6499128 >you This. >>6499094 M8, if you can't see the problem then you're brainwashed and you should probably do something about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:31:32 2015 No.6499888 >>6499175 is this the >back to pol ebin meme i've hear of? It kills every argument apparently, just like political correctness. How does it feel to contribute to the decay of the West anon?

Anonymous Tue May 5 17:31:43 2015 No.6499891
File: 746 KB, 3000x1993, 1267522853_femjoy_113795_007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This was painful but I went throught the thread and tried to sift out the relevant stuff.

Also don't interact with the obvious derailing agents. They are so inept and crude I am actually starting to seriously consider them to be working for the gov't :)

The problem:
>>6499123
>>6499139
>>6499206
>>6499160
>>6499687
>>6499687
>>6499687
>>6499180
>>6499657

The Solutions:
>>6499111
>>6499192
>>6499206
>>6499371
>>6499657
>>6499778
>>6499133

>>6499839
Yep :(

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:35:40 2015 No.6499924 File: 545 KB, 4992x3328, 1386735241967.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499783 >>6499891

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:36:27 2015 No.6499928 >>6499876 Then why did you bother making that distinction to begin with? >Calm yourself. And where's this coming from? (is this what they call "passive-aggresive" behaviour? not very commendable)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 17:37:09 2015 No.6499931 File: 76 KB, 625x626, 1382978982715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499928

Anonymous Tue May 5 17:39:35 2015 No.6499947

>>6499928
>Then why did you bother making that distinction to begin with?

Because I don't regard belief-states as arising from volitional acts, whereas acceptance obviously does (where we assume volitional acts are possible). So 'acceptance' can be negotiated fairly easily, but 'belief' cannot.

Anonymous Tue May 5 17:46:24 2015 No.6499983
File: 255 KB, 676x972, Carl_Schmitt___Nomos.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Let's get some books going. Anyone know of books pertaining to this subject matter?
In another thread someone mentioned Carl Schmitt and there's quite a lot of his stuff on libgen org or liben in. The Nomos of the Earth looked interesting to me.

Anonymous Tue May 5 18:03:57 2015 No.6500079

>>6499806
Your post is based on a false dichotomy, and you didn't in anyway prove that it is somehow beneficial to society for people to set aside reason, facts, and the principle of innocence until proven guilty when presented with the possibility that a woman has been raped.

It is not simply a matter of accepting or dismissing, there's also the seldom used "wait until there's more information before coming to a conclusion." Also whether or not society dismisses or accepts a rape claim has nothing to do with how the justice system is supposed to handle it. They are completely independent, so it's possible for society to dismiss a rape claim yet it still be investigated and found to be truthful.

You don't seem to understand or care about the consequences of a society in which we assume that someone who claims they are raped is telling the truth. First off when you talk about the current false rape accusation statistics (your 8% figure is nonsense by the way, but that's beyond the point), you don't consider the possibility that that those numbers will change (in the disadvantaged to the accused) as soon as you tell people they are able to get away with lying about someone with no consequence. More importantly, it means, in theory, anyone could accuse anyone of rape, which is obviously ridiculous and unproductive. In practice, as we see with how feminism approaches it or just how society has historically approached it, it really comes down to how sympathetic the alleged victim is. This just adds another layer of irrationality to the issue and creates two classes of victims: ones who will be believed because of superficial reasons, and ones that won't. So for instance men accusing someone of rape doesn't net the same reaction as a woman accusing man of rape, and a woman accusing a man of rape doesn't net the same reaction as a child accusing a man of rape. A black woman during the early 20th century accusing a white man of rape certainly didn't net the same reaction as a white woman accusing a black man of rape.

So to sum up, there are two approaches: believe everyone when they claim rape and make everyone a rapist or believe an arbitrary class of people who apparently never lie or are mistaken. Both are ridiculous. There is no intellectual way to approach this idea of setting aside fundamental principles in gaining truth. It is, at its core, unintellectual, and you haven't proven otherwise to me.

The thing is rape is a bad thing to do to someone, so as a society we are required to react negatively towards those who do it, and the greater the negative reaction we have towards it, the greater the importance that we get as many facts as possible before making the decision to brand someone as having committed that crime. Feminists don't want that. Feminists want a society in which women can accuse men of rape without there being any standard for doing so.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 18:16:08 2015 No.6500154 >>6499232 Fucking fantastic post.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 18:16:54 2015 No.6500156 File: 177 KB, 1366x768, 1430864214372.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499069 test

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 18:17:14 2015 No.6500157 >>6499082 Political correctness.

Anonymous Tue May 5 18:18:37 2015 No.6500161

>>6500079
>Your post is based on a false dichotomy

No, it's not. You accept a claim or you do not accept a claim. You are not taking into account my express distinction between belief and acceptance.

>you didn't in anyway prove that it is somehow beneficial to society for people to set aside reason, facts

Dude, I'm arguing from reason based on facts. You don't get to keep whacking that rhetorical gong. Engage with the reasoning presented.

>the principle of innocence until proven guilty

This isn't relevant. It's a legal principle correctly governing criminal trials. It has the same weight in this discussion as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; you and I are both perfectly within our rights and often correct to interpret silence as an admission of wrongdoing; courts are correctly restrained in their ability to do so.

>Also whether or not society dismisses or accepts a rape claim has nothing to do with how the justice system is supposed to handle it. They are completely independent, so it's possible for society to dismiss a rape claim yet it still be investigated and found to be truthful.

They're not completely independent - public outcry is often a factor in bringing a case to bear.

>you don't consider the possibility that that those numbers will change (in the disadvantaged to the accused) as soon as you tell people they are able to get away with lying about someone with no consequence

If the numbers change, the calculus remains the same and the conclusion changes. Simple. I don't understand what part of 'We should provisionally accept - and therefore investigate - rape accusations' leads you to some notion that false accusers would therefore never be exposed. They can be and they are. Investigations only facilitate that.

>More importantly, it means, in theory, anyone could accuse anyone of rape, which is obviously ridiculous and unproductive.

Dude, anyone CAN accuse anyone of rape. You raped me. See?

>So to sum up, there are two approaches: believe everyone when they claim rape and make everyone a rapist

No, you're ignoring the investigative aspect. And again you're conflating acceptance and belief.

>There is no intellectual way to approach this idea of setting aside fundamental principles in gaining truth.

I'm not setting aside 'fundamental principles'. You just keep saying that I am without offering anything substantive to back it.

>Feminists want a society in which women can accuse men of rape without there being any standard for doing so.

Then rejoice feminists! Paradise is anon.

C'mon, man, address the meat. Address the matrix and its implications (and remember that it was presented on the assumption that fully half of all accusations are false).

Anonymous Tue May 5 19:19:58 2015 No.6500442

>>6500161
No, you don't just accept or dismiss a claim. That's your false dichotomy. "I don't know" is a valid answer to the question of the truthfulness of a claim.

You're not using reason and facts, not to their maximum, at least, if you can't see the flaws in the society you're proposing.

The principle of innocence until proven guilty is not just a legal principle. It is based on a general philosophical principle, the idea that you need to supply evidence for a claim you submit. We don't necessarily have the same standards as a formal trial, but there are standards nonetheless. The legal protection against self-incrimination is completely different because it acts only as a way to prevent corruption in the legal system. It's not based directly on a general philosophical principle we apply to all truth-seeking endeavors.

No, in practice it's not completely independent. Police and courts often approach crimes in a certain way based on public pressure, but it is independent enough that it represents a flaw in your argument.

> ...leads you to some notion that false accusers would therefore never be exposed
There is no reason to presume guilt (which is what you assume when you accept a rape accuser is telling the truth). Investigating a claim doesn't require any acceptance of its truth. And the truth would not necessarily be exposed. It is very difficult to prove that someone lied, especially with many he/said she said rape cases. Often there's simply not enough evidence to go either way, and they shouldn't believe--or accept--anyway either.

>Dude, anyone CAN accuse anyone of rape. You raped me. See?
Yes, anyone can because an accusation unto itself doesn't hold weight. It's obviously a ridiculous accusation since we have no idea who each other are. The problem is you're advocating for a society in which you could accuse me of rape and have that be treated as truthful despite no reason to believe it to be.

>I'm not setting aside 'fundamental principles'. You just keep saying that I am without offering anything substantive to back it.
If you don't believe you're setting aside fundamental principles, it must be the case you've done a terrible job at expressing what you believe the case to be. Remember, this thread of discussion started when I asked you to tell me why it is justifiable to follow the feminist doctrine of assuming that a rape accuser is telling the truth.

How I believe it should be: someone accuses someone of rape, that claim should be investigated, and a conclusion should be drawn based on the evidence. If there is no evidence proving the accused has committed rape, they should not be treated as having committed rape. An accusation alone is worthless. Evidence is all that matters, and this is the case whether it is being judged in the legal system or court of public opinion.

Now explain how this is out of step with what you believe.

Anonymous Tue May 5 19:39:08 2015 No.6500514

Political correctness is such a blatantly flawed idea I don't know why we still obey it in this day and age.

It is literally an assumption that our current views (political, social, etc..) are objectively right and challenging them should not be allowed.

Everything should be challenged, everything should be questioned. It is simply how we learn and grow. I dont know how academics can sit there and say, "gee guys, I think we have everything right, lets ban people from opposing these views"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 19:45:41 2015 No.6500538 >>6500514 >everything should be questioned. Why?

Anonymous Tue May 5 19:49:14 2015 No.6500551

>>6500538
Do you really think it is realistic that, at this stage in human history, we have everything figured out?

Anyone would agree that no idea is perfect. It's logically impossible. This means that, effectively, every idea is wrong in some say. By questioning we find out what is wrong and improve and continue the neverending journey to perfection.

Anonymous Tue May 5 19:54:03 2015 No.6500571

>>6500442
>No, you don't just accept or dismiss a claim. That's your false dichotomy. "I don't know" is a valid answer to the question of the truthfulness of a claim.

Dude. Last time here: Acceptance is behaviour consistent with regarding a proposition as true. If we behave consistently with believing a claim, we must investigate the claim, because we must gather evidence for trial. If we behave inconsistently with such, we may as well do nothing. Acceptance is entirely consistent with "I don't know" - do you understand that? Do you understand how what you're saying is STILL conflating belief with acceptance?

>You're not using reason and facts, not to their maximum, at least, if you can't see the flaws in the society you're proposing.

I can't see them until you do more than vaguely allude to their existence. I am using reason and facts to a far greater extent than you have been so far, that much is certain.

>The principle of innocence until proven guilty is not just a legal principle.

Yes, it is (rest of paragraph ignored as negated by the preceding). Consider civil suits, where IUPG is specifically ignored. Consider your daily life, where you - yes, you - constantly make decisions based on a bare preponderance of probability, with reasonable doubts just wandering all over the place.

>it is independent enough that it represents a flaw in your argument.

Quantify this or unequivocally retract it. No excuses.

>There is no reason to presume guilt (which is what you assume when you accept a rape accuser is telling the truth).

Conflating belief with acceptance; disregarded (you are going to need to get this right or you will just be wasting both our time).

>Investigating a claim doesn't require any acceptance of its truth. And the truth would not necessarily be exposed. It is very difficult to prove that someone lied, especially with many he/said she said rape cases. Often there's simply not enough evidence to go either way, and they shouldn't believe--or accept--anyway either.

The truth IS not necessarily exposed; nirvana fallacy. The rest of your concerns are negated by my qualifier - there from the start - that this is a principle that should be adhered to only by those who do not wield judicial power. Where there is reasonable doubt, I'm fine with an acquittal.

>The problem is you're advocating for a society in which you could accuse me of rape and have that be treated as truthful despite no reason to believe it to be.

I could tell people that a stranger I've never been in the same room as raped me. Do you think that might count as an "egregiously implausible" claim? I do - next, please.

1/2

Anonymous Tue May 5 19:55:04 2015 No.6500575

>>6500571
>If you don't believe you're setting aside fundamental principles, it must be the case you've done a terrible job at expressing what you believe the case to be.

Aside from "innocent until proven guilty", which is a fundamental principle EXCLUSIVELY of a formalised process excluded from consideration when the discussion began, you have yet to specify a fundamental principle that I'm disregarding. The ball is squarely in your court and has been from the moment you accused me of this. The ball has not yet left your court.

>How I believe it should be: someone accuses someone of rape, that claim should be investigated, and a conclusion should be drawn based on the evidence. If there is no evidence proving the accused has committed rape, they should not be treated as having committed rape. An accusation alone is worthless. Evidence is all that matters, and this is the case whether it is being judged in the legal system or court of public opinion.
>Now explain how this is out of step with what you believe.

What you've described is not inconsistent with what I'm saying - if someone is accused of rape, that claim should absolutely be investigated. That is behaviour consistent with belief of the accuser as previously explained.

What you have left out is what I was talking about when I mentioned this - the general attitude towards rape accusers in society. A climate of express skepticism - skepticism to which, by the way, accusers of theft, assault, breach of contract, trespassing etc are frankly not subjected - is conducive to a culture of silence. Either we accept that rape is greatly underreported or we accept that women enjoy lying on anonymous surveys for no discernible gain. I know which seems more plausible to me.

So - a hypothetical. What if it were proven to you that the course of action you recommend would discourage, let's say, 66% of rape victims from coming forward? Would that change your mind? Is there a number of rape victims reluctant to face your skepticism that might prompt you to change your attitude?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 19:57:06 2015 No.6500587 >>6500551 Why do you seek truth? Why perfection?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 19:57:34 2015 No.6500589 >>6500551 Anon, I was making a joke.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 19:59:25 2015 No.6500599 >>6500589 Don't question his autism.

Anonymous Tue May 5 19:59:43 2015 No.6500600

>>6500589
Sorry, not always obvious in these threads

>>6500587
The best answer I could give is simply, why not?

Unless we want to delve into human purpose and meaning of life etc then we are free to find our own meaning. Seeking improvement in all facets of life is at least a logical notion of purpose.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:01:03 2015 No.6500605 >>6500442 >>6500571 >>6500575 I have to go to sleep now and I have work in the morning, but don't let that discourage you from replying. I'll bump it before I leave for work and will reply when I get back, always assuming it's still there.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:04:50 2015 No.6500638 >>6499346 >how Harvard canceled a Black Mass >rational satanism >not left

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:12:34 2015 No.6500674 >>6499371 >He's adamantly against a "tyranny of the majority." A common anarchist position, nothing reactionary here.

Anonymous Tue May 5 20:20:53 2015 No.6500726

After reading so much about the history of free speech in American it is hard for me see “political correctness” as a unique or even new phenomenon and one could easily argue that we have a great deal more freedom of thought then we did 50 years ago.

In “A Preface to Politics” Walter Lippmann talks about how most people think things are censored to protect people like bankers when in reality nine out of ten works he had seen suppressed or significantly edited were because they were afraid they would offend certain prejudices of the public. State and local governments found all types of ways to suppress speech from the Cracker party in Georgia that had people arrested at sporting events for bad talking them to the battle of Athens when citizens engaged in armed rebellion against the local government oppression. When you have guys like the author of “Can Asians Think” gloating about how Singapore, a city state that allows only a state owned press and whose leaders have used the law to crush dissent by forcing dissenters to do things like pay enormous fines or flee in some cases has more freedom in thought then the West because their minds aren't “chained by political correctness” its becomes hard to see it as little more than a slur term.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:21:11 2015 No.6500729 File: 8 KB, 184x184, 0daae72707163639e3fa616597f58776e2f83e2e_full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499069 How do we exorcise this from the spirit of the American left?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:30:20 2015 No.6500777 >>6499371 Thoureau was a anarchist, you fucking dolt. I thought you faggots had to study Thoureau in high school, dude is pretty much hailed as a anarchist by absolutely everyone.

Anonymous Tue May 5 20:33:03 2015 No.6500787

>>6499346

Catholic Universities don't pretend to be neutral, they are open about where they stand.

Secular institutions are supposed to neutral. And Pc kids will complain how they are being 'oppressed' and 'silenced' when they control thru discourse and are legitimately silencing their opponents.

Anonymous Tue May 5 20:36:59 2015 No.6500810

>>6500726
I don't think anyone would argue that the concept of avoiding offending people is anything unique to this era, but the way in which people try and avoid offense is most certainly different, if only because of the media age we live in. Maybe it's different because in the past the idea was that you didn't want to offend the majority, but the feminists and social justice warriors, the linchpins of PC culture, actively get offended for the minority. You can correct me on this, but my suspicion is that this brand of political correctness wasn't the kind of "political correctness" that was practiced before the latter part of the 20th century.

Also, when you consider that we have more freedom of expression than we've ever had, it becomes even more concerning when you have people trying to restrict it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:41:02 2015 No.6500825 >>6500787 >Secular institutions are supposed to neutral. Secular does not mean neutral and from what I have seen colleges were never neutral in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:43:27 2015 No.6500833 >>6500825 Just because colleges arent neutral doesnt mean they shoultnt be. Most would agree that they want colleges to be neutral. The only ones who wouldnt agree are the ones who are already devout lefties.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 20:45:52 2015 No.6500845 >>6500729 Start basing the movement on the working class rather than middle class liberals.

Anonymous Tue May 5 20:54:36 2015 No.6500881

>>6500810
>this brand of political correctness wasn't the kind of "political correctness" that was practiced before the latter part of the 20th century.

Thats true as before one had to fear being killed you or having your property destroyed. The new political correctness is weaker than the old because of things like people have easier access to different types of media. From what I've seen about the political ignorance of the public few understand the justifications for free speech or the ideology of it. It is a hard right to defend because it tends to piss off everybody across the spectrum so you get the "I believe in free speech but..." type thinking which new PC types tap into.

Anonymous Tue May 5 21:11:14 2015 No.6500970

>>6500833
>Most would agree that they want colleges to be neutral.
And I think it would be mostly an empty agreement as every person I've talked to about the subject do not really desire neutrality once you go in depth about it. The problem with the concept of neutrality as it can be used to hide or disguise certain biases or tendencies because people don't think it through all the way.

Anonymous Tue May 5 21:56:55 2015 No.6501169
File: 580 KB, 1600x1226, machiapepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6499069
These kind of obstacles are a good thing. Now we have political correctness to circumvent, back in the day it was the Church and such. This means that people have to be creative to navigate all these social expectations and have to express subversive opinions in very indirect, complex and cleverly worded ways, preferably in a manner that allows for deniability.

This makes people smart, in the same way that living among court intrigues makes you much more socially intelligent than living among plain speaking plebs without secret ambitions.

Tiptoeing around taboos and social mores just makes you a greater rhetorician. Especially if you know how to exploit these matters according to your own interest.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 22:28:16 2015 No.6501273 >>6499094 >pc prevents honest discourse, which is the linchpin of intellectual progress. Most accusations of political correctness are guilty of this and count as a form of political correctness in themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 22:32:56 2015 No.6501292 Political correctness is a bogeyman meme that exists only in the minds of assholes with persecution complexes

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 22:41:58 2015 No.6501325 ITT: doublethink

Anonymous Tue May 5 22:46:45 2015 No.6501348

>Well, I think that folks of this ethnicity face a lot of prejudice because blah blah placeholder text, and folks of this orientation are disadvantaged because yadda yadda lorem ipsum, and furthermore--
>I'm gonna have to stop you right there. You're being really politically correct, and it's kind of a drain on our fun. You're being a bleeding heart liberal, and that's not how it is. In fact, you're the racist because you're talking about race, so let's just drop it.

Often, opponents of political correctness say they oppose it because being PC stifles honest discourse in favor of not hurting anyone's feelings. However, in this example, who is the one that is doing the stifling? It's the second guy. Most accusations of PCness like this example are psychological projection. He's hindering difficult discussion because he's afraid of having his feelings hurt by the chance of being called a bigot. Whether or not he is is up for discussion, he just wants to nip that possibility in the bud. Christ, even black people handle being called a nigger better than these types do being called a racist.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 23:01:24 2015 No.6501389 >>6501348 Yeah, that's what people fail to see. Political correctness is still a problem, it's just a problem that's in no way unique to the left.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 23:24:58 2015 No.6501497 >>6499105 The most toxic threat toward free-speech.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 23:25:33 2015 No.6501500 >I am getting paid, actually. There's a top-secret cabal of gay Jewish communists who pay minimum wage to humanities undergrads just to argue with /pol/ on non-/pol/ boards. HowToJoinPlz.png

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:29:48 2015 No.6501524

>>6501169
>People searching for knowledge should act like they're in a scheming court.

This is why the humanities is shit. It's full of white people saying they shouldn't have their jobs because they're white. Thank you for correctly identifying the disease. And they, like you, probably believe that everyone should act like super sneaky theorists like them.

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:37:50 2015 No.6501560

I fail to see why this is a problem.

A bunch of lefties got mad at something you said? Boohoo. I hope your feelings aren't hurt too bad! Maybe in a few weeks you can summon up the courage to engage in polem- I mean, intellectual discourse once again!

Some women downvoted your post? It's censorship! You're oppressed!

In all seriousness, I rarely voice my political views among my family, because they just get flustered and hurl ad hominems at me. Is that "political correctness"? Is freedom of speech stifled? Oh wait, nope, it's only "political correctness" when the identity politics crowd tells you to shut up. When everyone else tells you to shut up, that's just life, and it's considered normal.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 23:40:48 2015 No.6501573 >>6501560 Its a problem because certain groups of people can say whatever they want and have no consequences and other groups cannot. Just because your views place you on the side that can say whatever they want doesn't make it a non-issue

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:50:16 2015 No.6501620

>>6499402

>The question is whether or not there is a net good in putting the effort to police the things people express, in the way that social justice warriors do.

I wasn't aware that Tumblr users had police powers. Do they have secret prisons where they throw dissidents and conservatives? Are books being burned? Blogs shut down? Journalists murdered?

Because it seems to me that all these SJWs do is express their own opinions. Many of their opinions may be unreasonable, sure. They disagree with you, and tell you to shut up. But maybe instead of saying "No you shut up!", we should address their substantive arguments.

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:50:22 2015 No.6501621

>>6501573
>Its a problem because certain groups of people can say whatever they want and have no consequences and other groups cannot.

When has this ever not been the case, though? Do you imagine it will ever not be the case?

And if it's just that you like some of the groups that "cannot" say "whatever they want", well, so what? Like, why do I care?

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:51:02 2015 No.6501625

>>6500571
Either your reasoning is out of whack or you're using words odd ways to obscure a point. Investigation of a claim implies nothing about your belief in or "acceptance" of it. Your investigation of a claim only implies you believe there's a probability it's true.

The presumption of innocence is not "ignored" in civil suits. The burden of proof simply lower. You are never presumed "guilty" at any level of American law on an official level. It's both unethical and illegal.

The idea that a claim needs to supported by evidence is always important when the goal is to find truth.

Let's get real: your whole "belief vs. acceptance" talk is absolute bull. After looking at it further, I now realize you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and were apparently just making up a theory as you went along (you were supposed to prove that people should take rape accusers at their word, which you apparently forgot). To accept something as true IS to believe it. Acceptance in the context of belief refers to a mental state, not a behavior.

If someone makes an accusation of rape, unless there is evidence to show a rape occurred it should not be believed. It should not be "accepted." You investigate until you find proof it did or didn't happen and all the other relevant details. It's as simple as that.

The only difference between an individual in a courtroom deciding on a case and an individual outside it deciding on it is the former has a higher burden of proof. What you appear to be suggesting is that, in fact, burden of proof is reversed in favor of the accuser, when it comes to rape, for everyone but the person in the courtroom, which is nonsense.

>>6500575
The fundamental principle your disregarding is that if someone makes a claim evidence needs to be shown for it to believed. This is what Western society since the Enlightenment has been based upon. It is based upon that because it is the best way to find truth, whether it is a truth of nature or a truth of criminal case. Again, this is the basis for the idea of innocent until proven guilty in modern jurisprudence, so it's not irrelevant at all. The point is that the presumption of innocence is based on a general philosophical principle, a necessary point when you're fallaciously claiming that we should disregard something because it's a matter of law.

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:52:03 2015 No.6501628

>>6500575
Rape accusations absolutely should be treated with skepticism, more so than any other of the crimes you listed in most contexts. What you fail to understand, and apparently most feminists also, is that the only reason rape accusations are treated skeptically (to a higher degree than most accusations in most contexts) by many is that a) sexual crime against women and children is considered especially horrible and b) it is difficult to prove in many cases. What follows from a) and b) is that the mere accusation alone can destroy a man's life. Unless you think women don't lie, are never mentally ill, or can't be downright mistaken, there is no justification for lowering the burden of proof from an intellectual perspective.

If a woman makes an accusation of rape, she shouldn't be treated as a liar (and usually isn't by neutral observers, including the police), but she shouldn't assumed to be a victim either, at least not until there's evidence. Not from the law's perspective and not from society's perspective. I'm fine with the existence of rape counselors and rape crisis centers and things of that nature, and I don't see much harm in them personally assuming victimhood when they're dealing with people, but they're not there to find proof. They're there to comfort genuine victims, even if the cost is to sometimes get people who are not really victims. The job of the law and obligation of society when it comes to this, however, is to decide what's truthful, and the method's of "survivor's advocates" and the like, even well-intentioned, have no business in a truth-seeking endeavor--in fact, they're antithetical to it.

> What if it were proven to you that the course of action you recommend would discourage, let's say, 66% of rape victims from coming forward?
I don't know what you mean. The law should not be changed in a way that disadvantages the accused, regardless of the amount of victims who fail to come forward as a result. Society should be skeptical in general. If you want to increase the amount victims who come forward, you do it through a means that doesn't compromise fundamental truth-seeking principles.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 5 23:52:19 2015 No.6501629 People like to moralize. It gives them a sense of power.

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:55:49 2015 No.6501649

>>6501573

What, exactly, are the consequences of having a bunch of bloggers criticize you?

I attend one of the most lefty educational institutions imaginable. I have many conservative friends who complain about the "PC culture." But the most I've ever seen happen is that they've voiced their views, and been yelled at in response. Nobody has been kicked out of school, nobody has been materially punished.

Anonymous Tue May 5 23:57:05 2015 No.6501657

>>6501348
Except that isn't how objections to political correctness go, ever. You created a complete strawman.

Objections to political correctness almost always occur after someone has been attacked or reprimanded for doing something non-PC. That is where the accusations of stifling debate and honest discourse come from.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:01:29 2015 No.6501670 File: 47 KB, 583x416, rhetoric.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6501524 Rhetoric rules all, my friend.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:03:13 2015 No.6501676 File: 34 KB, 374x514, zizek-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Pretty simple: smash capitalism.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:05:11 2015 No.6501681

>>6501657

If you're referring to consequences that people face in the private sector, then who cares? Of course you must face private consequences for your speech. If you tell your boss he's incompetent, you may get fired, even if it's true. If you advocate pedophilia, you may be ostracized, regardless of the merits of your argument.

Face it: not all speech is equally valued, and not all speech is appropriate in every context. The only question is where to draw those lines. Maybe the SJWs are drawing those lines in the wrong places. But arguing for "free speech" doesn't advance the argument at all.

Freedom of speech is a legal right, which forbids the state from limiting your speech. It does not generally apply to the private sector, and it never has. Even at universities there are things you cannot say without negative consequences, and there always have been. Maybe we should have a constructive debate about where those lines should be drawn, rather than poking at "PC" strawmen.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:06:58 2015 No.6501688 >>6499069 >implying PC is a problem

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:09:01 2015 No.6501696 >>6499069 >168 replies and 19 images omitted. Click here to view.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:09:31 2015 No.6501698
File: 2.49 MB, 2738x1658, 1430862203898.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Friendly reminder that that the SJW rise to infamy started around the time Occupy Wall Street began falling apart. Reeks of COINTELPRO to high heaven. Every time you equate SJWs with the *actual* left, you're doing what the establishment wants.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:10:38 2015 No.6501704

>>6501620
If the PC crowd were just "expressing their opinions" there wouldn't be a genuine fear of upsetting them. PC backlash wouldn't exist.

The power of SJWs is the power to ruin reputations (through accusations of bigotry). They use their persistence, status (white women), and overrepresentation in new media and certain social media outlets to obscure true consensuses and spread propaganda. Most prominent white figures dread being accused of being sexist (if male), racist, homophobic, etc. and those that don't and dare express the wrong opinion on a certain topic will almost always be regulated to the right wing (about the only exception is comedians, and even then there's a limit).

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:13:08 2015 No.6501715

>>6501698
The middle class liberals at universities were fielding this shit for years, I think it's more a case of the internet just making it terminal. Now it's a full blown fad. It will endure for a while, but it can't help but end. It's too open to ridicule and parody for intelligent people to not start turning against it on a large scale.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:16:28 2015 No.6501724

>>6501625
>Either your reasoning is out of whack or you're using words odd ways to obscure a point. Investigation of a claim implies nothing about your belief in or "acceptance" of it. Your investigation of a claim only implies you believe there's a probability it's true.

Yeah, it's just not possible that you've failed to understand me, right? I've laid out the distinction between belief and acceptance too many times already. You can go back and re-read them, I'm done explaining something that simple. One final clue: If you're engaging me on this point, and you find yourself using the word 'believe', you've gone wrong again.

>The presumption of innocence is not "ignored" in civil suits.

Yes, it is - civil suits determine liability, not guilt. Next.

>Let's get real

Oh, honey, LET'S.

>your whole "belief vs. acceptance" talk is absolute bull. After looking at it further, I now realize you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and were apparently just making up a theory as you went along

http://www.helsinki.fi/tint/tuomela/materials/accept.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.5
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/01/dale-tuggy-pays-me-a-visit-belief-versus-acceptance.html

It's utterly standard, dude. I can't begin to describe how profoundly embarrassed you should feel at your inability to grasp this (as well as your apparent failure to understand that these are just defined terms for the purposes of a specific argument - you aren't required to permanently change your vocabulary). This is almost on the level of accusing someone of 'making up' compatibilism or something (it's not nearly that bad, but I mean, JESUS).

>You investigate until you find proof it did

I've repeatedly described exactly this as entailed by 'acceptance'. I've argued that it's contingent on acceptance, which you haven't troubled to dispute, presumably because fictitious, made-up BULLPOOPY like 'acceptance' (or, perhaps, "contingency" - who fucking knows?) isn't worth your valuable time.

>The only difference between an individual in a courtroom deciding on a case and an individual outside it deciding on it is the former has a higher burden of proof.

No, an individual in a courtroom etc has the State-backed ability to inflict violence. This is, to be sure, precisely why the higher burden of proof exists, but to ignore the cause of the higher burden is to ignore its other implications.

>What you appear to be suggesting is that, in fact, burden of proof is reversed in favor of the accuser, when it comes to rape

What part of "claims should be investigated" suggests this? Are you hallucinating?

>The fundamental principle your disregarding is that if someone makes a claim evidence needs to be shown for it to believed.

Well, I literally facepalmed.

I swear I'd actually be mad at this point if /pol/ weren't so dern cute whenever they save up a few ten-dollar words and take a shot at the big time.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:22:51 2015 No.6501742

>>6501681
Freedom of speech is not "just a legal right." It's a general liberal principle that goes beyond law. The legal protection we have from government censorship does not negate the importance of free speech on a philosophical level. People who are hostile towards it, especially if they have social power, are nearly as dangerous as government censorship.

The problem with SJW is a matter of tactics. Actively trying (especially when you have the power) to ruin someone's reputation because they said something you disagree with rather than showing why they're wrong is unethical. And just as they have the legal protections to do it, I have the legal protection to critique them.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:23:04 2015 No.6501744

>>6501698

>accusations of bigotry
>new media
>certain social media outlets
>spread propaganda
>accused

Gee, that all sounds like speech to me. Are you trying to restrict free speech?

You talk about how a minority of leftists exert their power to make everyone else fall in line with their ideology, at least nominally. That sounds familiar... In the U.S., even if you're a centrist fiscal conservative, you have to pay lip service to the religious right if you want to get elected in most places. At the very least, you can't express any negative views of Christianity. If you do, you do it at your peril; there are many places where it may cost you your job.

Is that considered an aspect of "political correctness"? If not, what's the difference?

It's all just politics, and it is not a new phenomenon. People just don't like SJW identity politics. Maybe with good reason. But the "political correctness" line of reasoning is asinine.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:24:25 2015 No.6501749 >>6499316 He was right though. The slave of a wealthy master had it very very nice compared to a dirt scratching white laborer.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:26:31 2015 No.6501756

>>6501628
>Rape accusations absolutely should be treated with skepticism, more so than any other of the crimes you listed in most contexts.

Wait. We should be more skeptical because the crime is more serious? That don't fly, hoss.

And I don't know where this business about 'society' determining the truth of things is coming from. 'Society' doesn't perform the investigation; it merely spectates and comments. My opinions and attitudes are not and should not be subject to the same strictures as either an investigator or an adjudicator. This is really simple stuff.

As for the lying women etc - you face a paradox here. For an accusation to be false generally requires that the accuser be lying, right? Thus to treat rape accusations with *particular* skepticism is to indicate prejudice towards the newly accused false accuser - and you've been at such great pains to emphasise the terrible impact of a false accusation that you seem to be back at square one (this, by the way, is where the incredible usefulness of the belief/acceptance distinction may begin to become apparent).

>I don't know what you mean. The law should not be changed

Well, clearly you don't know what I mean, since I haven't suggested changing the law anywhere ITT.

You should do yourself a favour and read up on the experiences of women trying to bring forward rape complaints. Seriously, go forth and google. See what's out there.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:28:01 2015 No.6501760 File: 37 KB, 400x533, Alexander-the-Great.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] As with many other things, antiquity holds the remedy for what ails modernity.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:28:55 2015 No.6501763

>>6501742

>And just as they have the legal protections to do it, I have the legal protection to critique them.

Exactly, so what's the problem? That they're winning? That might very well be a problem, but it has nothing to do with political correctness or free speech.

And, as I've argued elsewhere, SJWs aren't the only ones who try to limit free speech. I think just about everyone does it. American conservative media outlets frequently try to "shame" liberals for their statements. They encourage boycotts of institutions and individuals who express certain views.

Don't get me wrong, I find all of this distasteful, on both sides. But it isn't new, and it isn't unique to one side of the political spectrum. There are very, very few people who actually feel strongly about the quality of the discourse. Most people think they're right about everything, and just want everyone else to shut up.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:29:03 2015 No.6501764 File: 609 KB, 821x480, muh social construct.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499082 It interferes with the progress of science, for one thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 00:29:10 2015 No.6501765 >>6501704 >If the PC crowd were just "expressing their opinions" there wouldn't be a genuine fear of upsetting them. PC backlash wouldn't exist. thought I accidentally clicked /v/ for a moment

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:44:43 2015 No.6501823

>>6501628

"Society" isn't held to the same strictures as the legal system, either. If I hear that a guy I know has been accused of a crime, I will take into account a ton of information about him that would not be admissible in a court of law. It would be unprecedented to require civil society to exercise the same type of judgment that we require of the state.

In any case, all of this is beside the point the other anon was making. Call it what you will, "acceptance," "belief," whatever, if someone tells me they were the victim of a crime, I will usually take them at their word unless I have evidence to the contrary. I will not feel required to investigate the veracity of that claim. And, frankly, if I hear that someone is accused of a serious crime, I will probably think less of the, lacking any other information.

Now, if I actually had power over the accused, like the ability to fire them, I would certainly be more cautious, and attempt to investigate the veracity of the accusation. But to hold private actors to the same standard as the state is ridiculous, in any context.

As for individual state actors, I don't see why it's so fucking difficult to say "I believe you," for the sake of comforting someone, while privately withholding judgment until the investigation has taken place. And in every case, the accusation itself should be taken seriously. I think you're underestimating the amount of discretion law officers have in deciding whether or not to even investigate a claim, and how often that discretion has been misused.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:50:04 2015 No.6501838

>>6501764

From a review: "[Wade] writes that declining interest rates in England from the years 1400 to 1850 “indicate that people were becoming less impulsive, more patient, and more willing to save” and attributes this to “the far-reaching genetic consequences” of rich people having more children, on average, than poor people, so that “the values of the upper middle class” were “infused into lower economic classes and throughout society.”"

Is that a fair representation of one of his arguments? Because if so, that is embarrassing.

Anonymous Wed May 6 00:59:37 2015 No.6501872

>>6501724
So I was wrong about one thing. It wasn't a concept pulled out of your ass. So what? You completely failed to lay out the distinction in a way that was clear and, more importantly, failed to link it to your argument effectively. You come off as an undergrad who caught wind of the concept during a lecture recently and have been waiting all week to use it on /lit/.

My interests in philosophy are very specific and I'm admittedly casual in terms of knowledge. You are being outclassed by me because I'm a mathematician. I philosophize all the time on my own.

Alright, let's get back to the discussion:

Based on what you've provided, I'm still unconvinced by this "belief and acceptance" distinction. "Acceptance" is either being used as an intensified form of "belief" or in the manner of "assumption." It's either not a real distinction or a meaningless one.

Good example of why I'm only mildly interested in philosophy. Circlejerking over semantics is not fruitful.

Anyway, even still, when applied to the argument you're making we still see the problem. We have no reason to "accept," or "assume" (which is all it really means in this context), that a rape accusation is correct, in the way that a scientist might assume, for the same of investigating a hypothesis, that a particular theory is correct. You have failed to show the value in doing such a thing. We assume ("accept") innocence on part of the accused until evidence is shown with good reason, reasons I've already gone into.

I'm not /pol/. I'm one of the most liberal (a true liberal) people you'll ever meet which is why I'm fervently opposed to SJW nonsense that undermines fundamental liberal principles.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 01:06:42 2015 No.6501889 >>6501764 >studies about intelligence >based on races >taking them seriously You should probably learn a little about how studies are made.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 01:09:41 2015 No.6501893 >>6501872 >a true liberal i hope, in passing, that you're not using that in the sense of libertarian

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:18:17 2015 No.6501918
File: 94 KB, 1350x653, fuck off poltard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6501872
>So I was wrong about one thing. It wasn't a concept pulled out of your ass. So what?

So you look like a massive tool? I mean, let's not forget, this was after you had "looked at it further", right (I mean, further! FURTHER! Like, after examining the concept MORE CLOSELY than you had up to that point, you THEN concluded it was something I'd made up - to what purpose, who can say; you presumably hadn't looked far enough to puzzle that out)?

>You are being outclassed by me

Oh, honey child.

>It's either not a real distinction or a meaningless one.

At its simplest, it's a distinction between a mental state and a behaviour pattern. You're a mathematician? OK, when you're playing poker and you're deciding whether to call a large raise, you figure the pot odds, correct? Say you have a live inside straight with two cards to come (~11:1 odds). Say your pot odds are 12:1 - this dictates a call, even though 11:1 is a shitty proposition. There's no way you *believe* you're going to hit your straight, right? But because the pot odds dictate that calling is profitable in the long term, you call - despite not believing that you'll hit your straight. That's acceptance.

>We have no reason to "accept," or "assume" (which is all it really means in this context), that a rape accusation is correct, in the way that a scientist might assume, for the same of investigating a hypothesis, that a particular theory is correct. You have failed to show the value in doing such a thing. We assume ("accept") innocence on part of the accused until evidence is shown with good reason, reasons I've already gone into.

The 'reasons' you've 'gone into' are completely - let me emphasise - COMPLETELY irrelevant. This has already been explained, by me and at least one other person, and all you have done is ignore what's been said to you and repeat yourself.

You keep talking about this as though we were discussing a trial. We're not. The structure and rules of a trial are thus wholly irrelevant. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

>I'm not /pol/.

Pic related.

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:20:32 2015 No.6501929

>>6501756
Actually it does fly, not in the way I was intending it too, but it does happen to. We would want to treat a case in which someone could get the death penalty much more sensitively than a case where maybe someone gets a year in prison.

Though that's not really what I was saying. You simplified it to create a straw man. The crime is not simply more serious (in fact, murder is more serious than rape), it is considered especially bad. In prison, you'd much rather be the guy that killed a man than the guy who raped a little girl. Thus the mere accusation of rape can make a man a pariah, and a large segment of society will despise him, regardless of how the facts come out. This gives the accusation of a sex crime a lot of power, much more power than accusations of almost any other crime, where hard and/or strong circumstantial evidence is generally necessary to bring compel someone in both the legal court and court of public opinion, and even then doesn't drop the general opinion of them to the extent of a sex crime. So because of the power of that accusation from a woman and because it's so difficult to prove, we damn well should be skeptical of it.

I fail to see your paradox. You're going to have to explain it again. The skepticism arises because of the power of the accusation. It's easier to get something out of a false rape accusation, or the threat of one, than it is for most other crimes. That is a rational reason for being more skeptical of the claim of rape. Also it's not as if we're talking about everyone reacts in a particular fashion. It's one group of people reacting to the way other people act. The skeptics have to be skeptical because they know they lynchmob will be there otherwise. So the best thing feminists can do about reducing skepticism in rape accusations is reducing the power of a rape accusation.

The anecdotes aren't important. It's nonsense. In general, women who put forth rape accusations are not treated poorly. it is a myth perpetuated by feminists to get the legislation changes they want, just like the wage gap myth, or 1 in 5, or sexism in tech.

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:26:07 2015 No.6501952

>>6501763
It doesn't matter if only SJWs do it. What matters is that SJWs are the ones with power doing it. This is one of the cases where power actually matters. If you're using your power to suppress dissent and control the flow of information you are a problem.

It has everything to do with political correctness because it is the basis of SJW actions.

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:33:08 2015 No.6501968

>>6501872

> We have no reason to "accept," or "assume" (which is all it really means in this context), that a rape accusation is correct, in the way that a scientist might assume, for the same of investigating a hypothesis, that a particular theory is correct. You have failed to show the value in doing such a thing.

I'm not the guy you've been debating, but you clearly have no idea how the justice system operates. In the U.S., the police have significant discretion in deciding whether to even investigate a claim. Plus, on a human level, there are numerous cases of incredibly insensitive treatment of rape victims at the hands of the police - the very people who are supposed to be protecting them.

Trust me, I understand that there are significant evidentiary difficulties involved in prosecuting rape cases. But given the severity of the crime, the police should, at the very least, take the accusation seriously. This doesn't mean that they must accept the accusation as true, and no one has said that they should. And in any case, it doesn't matter; it's not like the police can permanently imprison anyone anyway. Burdens of proof, innocence until proven guilty - all of that comes into play in the courts. All the police need is probable cause, which is a very low standard.

The idea that police should be more skeptical of accusations of serious crimes is totally perverse, given that police have discretion on whether to investigate, make an arrest, etc. I would argue to the contrary - police have an imperative to investigate more serious crimes, even when they have less initial evidence.

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:34:31 2015 No.6501971

>>6501929
>I fail to see your paradox. You're going to have to explain it again.

1) Being accused of rape is extremely serious, so we should be highly skeptical of rape accusations.
2) If we are highly skeptical of rape accusations - more so than of other accusations - then we are more likely to conclude that a rape accuser is lying than we are to conclude the same of other accusers.
3) Being accused of falsely accusing someone of rape is extremely serious, so we should be highly skeptical of accusations of false accusation...

Etc. You can finish the loop yourself, I'm sure.

Lady here, for example, up and killed herself after the CPS declined to file charges and the guy she accused filed a private prosecution against her.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/06/call-crown-prosecutors-account-suicide-alleged-rape-victim

And so did this lady, just from the stress of cross-examination: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/10/frances-andrade-killed-herself-lying

Serious as cancer, no?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 01:36:46 2015 No.6501974 why isn't this thread closed

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:42:08 2015 No.6501986

>>6501968
Every accusation should be taken seriously. That's beyond the point.

Police have discretion because they have to for the sake of efficiency. There aren't enough police officers to fully investigate every claim of every crime that comes in. You can change the law so they assume every single claim of rape is as valid as the next regardless of what common sense tells them, but then you'll just end up with even less rapists being caught.

>There are numerous cases of incredibly insensitive treatment of rape victims at the hands of the police
Yes, anecdotes. I remain wholly unconvinced that police officers are on average more insensitive to rape accusers than they are to anyone else. In fact I am certain they are more sensitive. The interpretation of "insensitive treatment" often extended to simply not acting like a rape crisis counselor when that's not their job. It is pure feminist propaganda.

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:43:21 2015 No.6501990

>>6501952

>What matters is that SJWs are the ones with power doing it.

That simply isn't true. Conservatives attack people all the time for the things they say, often to great effect. It all depends on the context. And at the end of the day, like you said, it's about power. You might be mad that SJWs are in power in certain circles (though certainly not in American society writ large), but that has nothing to do with "free speech." Conservatives do the exact same thing when they're in power.

And besides, do you really believe that speech is being suppressed? In the age of the Internet, such a claim is laughable. Maybe broadcast media fails to represent all views, but what else is new? Jesus Christ, there's even a tenured faculty member at Northwestern who denies the Holocaust.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Wed May 6 01:46:19 2015 No.6501999 >>6499094 Intellectual "progress" has always served the dominant ideology, and those who strayed from that were censured. Look at fucking Galileo and Darwin.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 01:47:21 2015 No.6502001 >>6501986 >In fact I am certain they are more sensitive. #feelings #trustyourgutbro There was some very large talk coming from you about 'reason' and 'facts' not too long ago. Fallen to the wayside, have they?

Anonymous Wed May 6 01:58:39 2015 No.6502016

>>6501986

>That's beyond the point.

So what exactly are we debating here? No one in this threat has advocated lowering the burden of proof required for a rape conviction. The discussion has focused on accusations, which are initially made to the police.

>Yes, anecdotes

In the UK, in at least one precinct, we have more than anecdotes. We have an investigative report by the government: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Southwark_Sapphire_Units_local_practices_for_the_reporting_and_investigation_of_sexual_offences_july2008_sept2009.PDF

In the U.S., within the military, we have the same: http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/16/dod-military-sexual-assault-investigations-are-inefficient

In the rest of the U.S., you're right, data is incomplete. State police departments are decentralized, and privacy concerns make the collection of data difficult. But we do know that there is a vast backlog of rape kits that have yet to be tested, indicating an underinvestment of resources into investigating a crime that rates just below murder under the common law.

I don't even know why I'm arguing with you, though. Your mention of "feminist propaganda" shows just how out of touch with the real world you are.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 01:59:30 2015 No.6502018 File: 115 KB, 318x282, 1328999468487.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >there will never be a button you can press to send all marxists to Pluto

Anonymous Wed May 6 02:00:46 2015 No.6502022

>>6499082

this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

>Members of the British-Pakistani community condemned both the sexual abuse and that it had been covered up for fear of "giving oxygen" to racism.[7] The leader of Rotherham Borough Council, Roger Stone, resigned, as did the council's Chief Executive, Martin Kimber, and the director of children's services, Joyce Thacker. Shaun Wright, the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for South Yorkshire who had been a Labour councillor in charge of child safety at the council, stood down on 16 September, after initially refusing demands that he should do so.[8] The Home Secretary, Theresa May, blamed the failure of the authorities in Rotherham on "institutionalised political correctness",[9] and Denis MacShane, the former MP for Rotherham during the period covered by the report, admitted that he had been "guilty of doing too little" to investigate the extent of the sex crimes being committed in his constituency.[10]

Anonymous Wed May 6 02:05:32 2015 No.6502029

>>6501971
No, you aren't more likely to conclude that someone is lying. That's not skepticism. Skepticism is just not assuming something is true and requiring a certain quantity of facts before belief. It is not the belief that something is untrue and it doesn't necessarily mean the threshold for determining that someone is lying is any different. The point is that within a skeptic framework a rape accusation supported with little evidence is less likely to be believed. It should be that way. The stakes are higher. We're not talking about criminal law, where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt for all accusations.

Again, you're giving anecdotes.. And not only are you given anecdotes, you're giving poor anecdotes. Having someone who made an accusation of a crime on the stand is not poorly treating them. It is standard treatment for anyone who makes a crime. You want rape accusers to not have to do everything that any other person making a criminal complaint against another would, yet you also want to complain that rape accusers aren't treated in society like accusers of any other crime. Which is it?

Anonymous Wed May 6 02:14:13 2015 No.6502050

>>6501990
It has everything to do with free speech. It doesn't matter who's restricting it. Within their own circles the right certainly has its own brand of "political correctness" to police one another. The big difference with the left is they have much more media control. Everyone is subjected to leftist political correctness.

Speech is being suppressed. Art is being censored and required to go through a progressive filter. This is clearly the case. That you can go on /pol/ and yell NIGGER doesn't change what's happening in mainstream society.

Anonymous Wed May 6 02:20:05 2015 No.6502065

>>6499346
No one here is telling the pc crowd to shut up. Hell, they can talk louder for all I care. It's when they claim unlawful violation of rights because of something someone said that 'triggered' that I know things have gone too far. How can you honestly sit there and tell me it hasn't gone too far when you hear about bake sales with higher priced food for boys than girls to drive home the (contested)) point of the sex wage gap in the U.S.? It's supposed to be a lesson? Oh, dope, let me just lynch some gays so that people know what it's like to like in a decently large portion of the world, or let me cut off a middle eastern person's head on camera so that we as a society can understand better what's going on in Iraq/Syria right now.

The bake sale:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6925692

Anonymous Wed May 6 02:42:13 2015 No.6502108

>>6501971
>3) Being accused of falsely accusing someone of rape is extremely serious, so we should be highly >>6501756
skeptical of accusations of false accusation...

3 does not follow from 1, because skepticism of a rape claim doesn't require believing someone maliciously accused someone of rape, therefore its not serious. Skepticism of a claim never requires knowing someone's intentions.

The same mistake here:

>As for the lying women etc - you face a paradox here.

By confusing a false rape accusation with a lying woman.

>For an accusation to be false generally requires that the accuser be lying, right?

No. Maybe they're unclear of the definition of rape because of repeated and constant attempts at redefinitions by feminists and now SJWs.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 02:50:25 2015 No.6502124 >>6502108 rape is defined by the FBI as non-consensual sexual intercourse. we don't need any finer breakdown than that

Anonymous Wed May 6 03:18:14 2015 No.6502176

>>6502124
First, that's not relevant to the point of skepticism.

Second, the FBI doesn't investigate most rapes in the US, so their definition doesn't really matter. Some states don't even have a crime known as 'rape', precisely because of moral panic surrounding it helps no one.

Third, the FBI's definition I assume you're referring to is for the collection of statistics, not prosecuting crime. Rape stats are all shit. Every researcher has different definitions and this fucks any discussion of it up because people try to treat all the numbers the same.

Fourth, the FBI changes their definition too, so may cause confusions themselves.

Fifth, that's not even the complete definition they use for stat collection.

Sixth, using that definition you just made up, a rape is still contingent on how one determines consent, which is not only another point of disagreement, but can change significantly based on the culture you grew up in.

Seventh, rape is a social construct. Some people consider farting on someone to be rape. Would you advocate we take fart rape accusations seriously?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 03:23:21 2015 No.6502195 >>6502176 *precisely because the moral panic helps no one but feminists and SJWs.

Anonymous Wed May 6 03:26:08 2015 No.6502200

>>6502065
>How can you honestly sit there and tell me it hasn't gone too far when you hear about bake sales with higher priced food for boys than girls to drive home the (contested)) point of the sex wage gap in the U.S.?

I don't call that a example of going to far. Unlike the other examples nobody is being physically harmed and I see it falling under freedom of expression. A better example would be how SJWs have tried to prevent people from speaking by heckling on campus.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 03:30:29 2015 No.6502204 >>6502176 >rape is a social construct lel I didn't know social constructs could result in imprisonment and pregnancy a better question is what rape statistics the feminist cabal would like to see. 0 percent and they'd all be out of a job

Anonymous Wed May 6 04:54:39 2015 No.6502376

>>6502029
>No, you aren't more likely to conclude that someone is lying.

Is it true or not that most false accusers are lying? Because that's all you need.

>Again, you're giving anecdotes.

Technically they're data points, actually, unless you're suggesting they don't reflect actual events.

>Having someone who made an accusation of a crime on the stand is not poorly treating them.

Did I say it was? And yet it seems far less plausible to me that a complainant in an assault case would top themselves after an aggressive cross-examination. Hence, as we can see, the seriousness of a charge of false accusation (the defendant was convicted, to spare you any embarrassment in case you decide to LOOK FURTHER into the matter). Quod erat demonstrandum.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 04:56:52 2015 No.6502380 >>6502065 >WAAAAH DE BAKE SALE WAAAAAAH Jesus fucking Christ, get your shit together, you fucking baby.

Anonymous Wed May 6 05:05:14 2015 No.6502393

>>6502108
>3 does not follow from 1

3 is not required follow from 1, it's required to follow from 2.

You are actually not, in any sense, 'a mathematician', are you? Ask me how I knew!

>Maybe they're unclear of the definition of rape because of repeated and constant attempts at redefinitions by feminists and now SJWs.
>First off when you talk about the current false rape accusation statistics (your 8% figure is nonsense by the way, but that's beyond the point)

Mmhmm, yeah, nah. You let the mask slip a little too much early on in the game (that'll happen when you can't stop furiously masturbating to the sound of your left hand typing 'feminist propaganda' over and over. The circle holds, sorry chief.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 05:26:23 2015 No.6502426 >>6499094 >will to truth lol. absolute faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 05:58:38 2015 No.6502517 >>6501649 People have lost their jobs (private company can do what it wants I know, yet private companies also cant fire minorities or cant refuse to serve gays?) and people have been removed from lectures.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 09:29:50 2015 No.6502970 >>6502517 >yet private companies also cant fire minorities No they can still easily get away with firing minorities or anybody they don't like because there are a plethora of reasons they can give and filing a suit against a company can be costly.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 09:35:28 2015 No.6502992 >>6501621 > its fine, guys, it was always like this Thank god!

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 10:05:42 2015 No.6503067 >institutionally solving the problem of political correctness >retaining freedom of speech on both a principle level and on a legal level Pick one.

Anonymous Wed May 6 10:31:49 2015 No.6503134

>The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.
>Herbert Kohl, "Uncommon Differences", The Lion and the Unicorn Journal

Which is funny, because today I see more political dogmatists using the term "politically correct" to disparage moderate egalitarians. Did a complete 180.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 10:57:58 2015 No.6503214 >>6499069 it's not problem it's a madness knowledge and open debate we need more i think

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 16:02:16 2015 No.6504241 File: 70 KB, 674x685, 1430942195045.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499069 Stop letting retards hijack the left.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 16:06:04 2015 No.6504262 File: 1.22 MB, 1724x1633, 1422701754230.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6504241 Also, remove Identitarians.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 16:10:01 2015 No.6504280 >>6504262 agreed, people who think theyre ponies on line are as bad as neonazis

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 16:16:58 2015 No.6504320 File: 21 KB, 596x245, 1421264496348.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6504280 >revleft

Anonymous Wed May 6 16:29:58 2015 No.6504378

>>6501971
>In notes left for her family she described her overwhelming fear of giving evidence as a motive for taking her life.

I don't want to be /pol9k/ and say that this is definitely what happened, but don't you think it's plausible that she killed herself BECAUSE she was lying and was now busted? Again, not saying this is surely the truth, but it could be.

Anonymous Wed May 6 16:37:09 2015 No.6504417

>>6499082
Political correctness is a comfortable tool for the establishment. It shifts actual problems to semantic ones. If there's racial tension in a country, instead of actually confronting and discussing the issues that cause it (hard and expensive), PC proponents try to demonize the words people use (easy and cheap). So you end up with news reporters that need to say "the n-word" instead of "nigger", for example. It portrays arbitrary, fetishized formality as respect, which is completely unacceptable. The ultimate irony is that this type of behaviour only reinforces differences between classes/genders/races/whatever.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 16:55:28 2015 No.6504506 >>6504320 Well, are they? Not such an easy question to answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 16:57:11 2015 No.6504515 File: 154 KB, 1248x413, 1421264131282.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6504506 What relation do video games have to production?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 16:59:34 2015 No.6504527 >>6504515 That's what I'M trying to figure out!

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 17:00:34 2015 No.6504531 >>6504506 They're both a joke

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 17:01:13 2015 No.6504533 File: 158 KB, 1265x440, 1430438631952.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499069 Promote class consciousness, identity politic fanatics will be exposed naturally.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 17:07:42 2015 No.6504562 >>6504533 that cap is interesting but it seems imprecise about the entering of women in "the workforce" in the industrial revolution. they entered as soon as it started and they were workers, not only clerks.

Anonymous Wed May 6 18:13:11 2015 No.6504767

>>6502393
A false rape accusation won't get you thrown out of a McDonalds. It's not as serious, by an order of magnitude less. Your implications about character and endearing amerifat colloquialisms aside.

Rape, ever since it acquired its modern definition has always been plagued by establishing consent. The solution is simple: fuck bitches in public or in front of friends. If the state mandates all sex must take place in orgies the public can regulate its own behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 18:38:48 2015 No.6504844 >>6504767 I say the state must stay out of it. I'm for a laissez-coucher sexconomy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 19:54:08 2015 No.6505114 File: 87 KB, 750x563, stormniggers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Political Correctness is a buzzword used by mentally challenged individuals who get pissy when people expect them to behave instead of acting like chimps.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 20:11:56 2015 No.6505171 >>6501999 > Look at fucking Galileo and Darwin. This is a complete myth though.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 20:17:38 2015 No.6505191 File: 546 KB, 850x1276, 1391457828207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6499069 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc

Anonymous Wed May 6 20:18:31 2015 No.6505195
File: 9 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6505171
The kind of people who say "Actually Galileo wasn't censored for his science. He was just a dick!" are the same kind of people who say "Actually, the Civil War wasn't about slavery."

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 20:21:31 2015 No.6505209 >>6504844 Laissez-choucher sexconomy leads to great gaps in sexual welfare which in turn leads to revolt and violence. See Elliot Rodger.

Anonymous Wed May 6 20:21:52 2015 No.6505213
File: 36 KB, 356x438, 1424549231801.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6499069
just because you're either a)too ignorant or b)too young to understand that until very recently overt discrimination existed structurally and culturally against minority and marginalized groups on a massive scale, and that discrimination hasn't remotely disappeared but has found much better ways of masking itself, this whole thread is proof of why we need political correctness.

pic unrelated

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 20:25:58 2015 No.6505229 >>6501999 When the fuck was Darwin censured?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 20:27:07 2015 No.6505236 >>6505229 he censured himself because he was a christfag.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 20:27:22 2015 No.6505237 >>6501764 >progress of science >being locked into STEMlord logical positivist teleologies >anno domini 2015

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 20:28:54 2015 No.6505241 >>6505236 Read a book - his wife was an ardent Christian, he was agnostic/atheist He didn't censor himself, never.

Anonymous Wed May 6 21:07:49 2015 No.6505413

>How do we solve the problem of political correctness?

By teaching people to be courteous. Also, >muh honest discourse What's honest about being able to say things like nigger and chink? When people talk against political correctness, they generally only use it when their politics are being threatened. Very few people want true freedom of speech, no, what people want are nothing more than political echo chambers.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 21:11:06 2015 No.6505425 >>6505209 Nah man the invisible cunt will regulate the market. Trust me.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 21:13:15 2015 No.6505436 >>6505413 >Very few people want true freedom of speech So I guess I'm a minority. Stop oppressing me you niggerchink.

Anonymous Wed May 6 21:19:54 2015 No.6505462

>>6505241
>He didn't censor himself, never.

Looks like you need to read a book.

We should also note that Darwin's statement about a Creator breathing life into one or a few organisms did not really reflect his private views. We know this, because later in his correspondence he expressed regret about including this statement, explaining that he had added it to deflect criticism of his theory.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/did_darwin_believe_in_god.html#ixzz3ZPZ2EF9V

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 21:32:48 2015 No.6505514 >>6505436 It is human nature that truly oppresses you, never forget that.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 22:30:47 2015 No.6505763 File: 426 KB, 498x432, muh human nature.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6505514 I'm gonna write a really hot piece on human nature for the huffpost. #YesAllHumanNatures

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 22:41:31 2015 No.6505795 It is a problem that pops up every 20 years or so. Last time it happened was around the 1980's. What usually happens is that the people pushing PC ideals push it too far and end up looking silly as fuck to normal people and then it sort of dies out.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 22:55:48 2015 No.6505845 >>6505763 That picture is fantastic

>>	Anonymous Wed May 6 23:17:09 2015 No.6505914 >>6505436 That's not what he said at all though.

>>	Anomalous Thu May 7 00:36:52 2015 No.6506162 By making everything is the same as everything all the time

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 01:22:30 2015 No.6506282 >>6504378 Oh, that's definitely possible, of course. I'm just establishing that the charge of false accusation is indeed serious, so for my purposes it doesn't matter whether she was lying or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 01:32:01 2015 No.6506309 File: 7 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 01:44:00 2015 No.6506324 >>6505763 lolol

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 01:51:42 2015 No.6506334 how is this thread not locked

>>	Lawyer Thu May 7 03:56:01 2015 No.6506634 >>6506334 How are you still alive?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 04:18:13 2015 No.6506708 >>6505213 back to /r/socialism, faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 04:56:32 2015 No.6506780 >>6499133 Thing is that the un-pcs that wants freedums for speech are only and only using that freedum to incite against niggers and muslims. Fuck, if they wanted to be true martyrs for free speech, then they would hand out cheeze.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 06:14:28 2015 No.6506941 File: 180 KB, 1536x2048, EG-15-02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6501889 so race doesn't affect intelligence at all?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 06:24:39 2015 No.6506956 >>6505213 evidence of subversive evil old white man ruining everyones lives please >essentially a boogeyman

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 06:33:48 2015 No.6506967 >>6499069 >>6499082 >>6499094 >>6499126 >>6499175 https://youtu.be/m7JmVwMNq4c

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 06:58:55 2015 No.6507011 Anyone whose actions are persuaded by the rhetoric of others needs to examine their beliefs.

Anonymous Thu May 7 07:07:03 2015 No.6507040

I find it really interesting that some are denying the existence of the tyranny of political correctness on the basis that "journalists aren't being murdered," and "your property isn't being damaged." So obviously there is no REAL censorship going on, because REAL censorship has violent consequences.

Never in my life have I ever seen anybody trying to back a claim to political correctness with violence. In real life, most of the time, if you have somebody that really values being politically correct come into contact with someone who doesn't value being politically correct, the former will typically just go silent and shoot mean, judging looks at the latter.

This is nowhere near censorship on the grand or violent scale most people imagine censorship happening on, but that doesn't make this kind of censorship go away. We're groslly underestimating the power of this emotion-based censorship. Normal people still FEEL BAD when they hurt other peoples' feelings. Normal people still FEEL BAD when people judge them for things they've said. But these really lithe, almost childish concerns can still be incredibly oppressive, leading many to simply stay silent in order not to hurt or be judged.

We need to take this into serious consideration when discussing censorship, because currently we're paying almost no attention to it at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 09:53:32 2015 No.6507405 >>6507011 i think youre just delusional we need information from other people to progress

Anonymous Thu May 7 10:37:49 2015 No.6507486

>>6507040
>So obviously there is no REAL censorship going on, because REAL censorship has violent consequences.

Well, yes. Exactly. That's what 'censorship' entails - coercion.

What's bizarre to me is that you go on to attack 'political correctness' (whatever you mean by that) on the grounds that people who are subjected to this "emotion-based censorship" 'feel bad'.

Can you make this more concrete, give a few examples, maybe? Because aside from the fact that there's a cottage industry built on gleefully defying the conventions of what could be broadly called 'PC discourse' (cf Katie Hopkins, Jeremy Clarkson, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly et al) I can only recall seeing people 'feel bad' when told they've violated some norm when they already subscribe to the notion in question (Benedict Cumberbatch's recent 'coloured' brouhaha comes to mind). I can't think of any cases of people 'feeling bad' when told that some actual opinion they hold (as opposed to some phrasing they've used) is proscribed. To my mind, such people tend to complain loudly, rather than remain silent, and to become angry, rather than nursing some sort of anguish.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 10:44:47 2015 No.6507500 >>6507486 Not him but ostracization is probably a better term.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 11:05:03 2015 No.6507548 >>6507500 OK, but ostracism of whom?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 11:08:48 2015 No.6507558 >be me, 270+ replies >non-lit thread >on /lit/ >all up against the yellow ribbon >untouched >feelsgoodman >select all sandwiches

>>	The cats Thu May 7 11:12:13 2015 No.6507567 How come gay people can shut down a bakery but I have to pay full price on ladies night "Everyone might get laid" can't possibly be a legal precedant.

Anonymous Thu May 7 11:35:30 2015 No.6507619

>>6507040

But now you've just revealed how stupid this whole debate is. Conservatives say shit, and a minority group feels bad. So they yell at conservatives, and conservatives feel bad. Now the conservatives are yelling back at them about "PC" and trying to make them feel bad in return, ad nauseum.

This is why it's silly to discuss "freedom of speech" outside the context of state action. There have always been social norms regulating speech, and there always will be. Voicing unpopular ideas will make you unpopular. That alone is not enough to "stifle the discourse."

Anonymous Thu May 7 12:24:39 2015 No.6507789

>>6507619
Freedom of speech outside the context of state action remains important because restrictions enforced by society or segments of it often has similar effects to those of the state. Free expression as a liberal idea is based on the promotion of liberty and a free marketplace of ideas. It doesn't take the government to stifle that.

You're being naive or intellectually dishonest when you try to simplify the issue as "people voicing unpopular opinions becoming unpopular." It's one thing to object to someone's opinion on something. It's another to, as SJWs do, use your power to actively threaten reputation, as well as other things, to prevent the dissemination of ideas they disagree with. It's unethical. It doesn't matter if it's legal.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 12:30:22 2015 No.6507803 >>6507567 >I have to pay full price on ladies night Desperate and ugly losers like yourself go to bars anyway. Ladies night is a ploy to get women to attend so it's not just a bunch of fat guys fron Wilmette.

Anonymous Thu May 7 12:43:52 2015 No.6507831

>>6507789
>It's another to, as SJWs do, use your power to actively threaten reputation, as well as other things, to prevent the dissemination of ideas they disagree with.

It's impossible for non-State actors to do this, and in reality, post-internet, it's more or less impossible for the State, too. The State can't even get a firm grip on child porn, for fuck's sake.

What you do see is lobbying to discourage certain institutions from providing a platform for ideas considered to be objectionable. The idea that this 'prevents dissemination' of those ideas is laughable, honestly.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of no-platforming for several reasons, but that doesn't make this objection to it any less absurd and outdated. A hundred years ago it would have been a serious issue, in theory at least. Now? Julien Leblanc gets denied a UK work visa, so his talk is cancelled. Result? A bunch of mainstream newspapers print the story, thus ensuring that millions of people who'd never heard of him before now do. How many thousands of them google him? Did his website get shut down because the UK wouldn't let him talk there? Nah. There are no critics in his game, only volunteer publicists (the Streisand effect is only one reason I don't support knee-jerk no-platforming, but it's an excellent reason to reject the hand-wringing line you're pushing here).

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 12:47:28 2015 No.6507843 >>6507558 it worked for a while >select all pasta >pic of soba >surely not >but yes >mfw

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:06:30 2015 No.6507900

>>6507486
>>6507619

I apologize if this comes across as an ad hominem, but do you ever go outside? You must be either totally blind or just incredibly well adjusted socially in order never to have experienced for yourself the pain of being exiled for holding some unpopular belief, or at least have seen someone been exiled.

I cannot give you any specific examples from pop culture, but what does that matter anyway? I can tell you it's happened to me several times and to people I've known as well. Are my anecdotes any weaker because my conflicts are not widely publicized and between two celebrities?

I shall give you a couple of examples from my own experience, the only experience I have to offer, and you can ruminate upon whether they substantiate my position at all.

During the first semester of my senior year in high school, a sophomore let it slip that she was bisexual. After uttering these words, she grasped the air before her, as if desperately attempting to catch the words before they reached my ears. Curious, I asked her why she felt uncomfortable revealing this fact about herself around me. She claimed she heard from an acquaintance that I "hated feminists," and so she assumed I was a reactionary pedant with social attitudes reminiscent of the eighteenth century. I laughed as I tried to explain to her that I have never dated a "straight" girl. I have dated bisexual, asexual, and straight up homosexual girls before, but, as it turns out, never one that was just plain old heterosexual. And for the record, I don't "hate feminists."

I suppose this rumor originated from my lack of fear in challenging "feminism" when "feminism" makes absolutely absurd claims. Once upon a time I had a conversation with a female peer in which she asserted men and women are exactly the same biologically, and any behavioral disparities are the result of social constructs. When pressed, she admitted males have a slight biological advantage in physical strength, but otherwise, the two sexes are biologically exactly the same. At this point, I could not help but object, because without at least the recognition of the diverse biological differences between men and women, the entire field of medicine would be wildly inaccurate. Furthermore, literally hundreds of researchers in the field of behavioral psychology dedicate their entire careers to studying the biological influences of gender on behavior. To make radically incorrect claims is not feminism. It's ignorance. But because she made this ludicrous, unevidenced claim under the banner of "feminism," and I had the gall to object, I was instantly labelled a sexist and a bigot. Had she been waving any other flag my objections would be perceived as perfectly logical, but "feminism" cannot be assaulted without serious social consequences.

(1/2)

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:07:57 2015 No.6507909

>>6507486
>>6507619

Once upon a time I went to a collegiate summer camp full of rednecks and hillbillies to study agriculture and economics. One of the economics lessons included a sermon by a conservative professor about the dangers of the minimum wage. He believed it should be abolished, or at least significantly lower. I objected to say that perhaps raising the minimum wage, as many European countries have done, would do more to combat economic disparity. He literally laughed at me and I was shot glares by all the other students. Because I said the minimum wage ought to be raised, I was literally pushed around by my peers, of few of the guys had a "talk" with me later in the dorms, and the other students complained about me until I was sent to the administrator's office to discuss my behavior and whether I needed to be sent home.

Most memorably and most egregiously, I made a professional teacher lose her cool, begin to cry, and storm out of the classroom. How could I possibly have achieved this? I objected to doing a Black History Month project on the grounds that segregating historic figures on the basis of race would only perpetuate a racially segregationist pathology. Basically, I believe people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. We will never transition from a racist society to a non-racist society until we stop seeing in black and white. I mean, duh. Martin Luther King is rolling in his grave right now. But because my teacher could not handle this, I had to explain to a panel of administrators that, no, I am not a racist, but I do happen to believe that attaching significance to skin color is racist. And even after I convinced them I'm not a new age nazi, I still had to deal with the literal hate letters I received from my peers, some letters including over a dozen signatures at the bottom, for expressing my views.

Impersonally, I've had friends inadvertently cause severe and irreparable damage to their friendships by saying things as benign as "I would like to marry a housewife," or "I feel uncomfortable when [MTF transgender] tries to hit on me."

Tell me, how is any of this NOT censorship? Because nobody has guns? Nobody is FORCIBLY preventing us from expressing any of our views, but they do ensure that expressing these benign views comes with serious anxiety, great emotional distress, and severe social ostracism. Because of my bad experiences in the past (and what I've seen happen to friends around me in real life), I have been totally shut up, and I cannot even imagine saying anything I truly believe if it even bears the slightest social or political connotation.

This is happening all around you and you cannot see it. Why? How?

(2/2)

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 13:25:10 2015 No.6507981 >>6502065 if it doesn't make you laugh how many people got mad about that bake sale you don't know what it feels like to be alive

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:36:57 2015 No.6508025

>>6507909
>Tell me, how is any of this NOT censorship?

Because of the meaning of the word 'censorship', dude. 'Censorship' does not entail saying mean things about those who express a given idea. 'Censorship' means official proscription of that idea's expression.

Your anecdotes are: I met a small-minded person once and she said a mean thing when I disagreed with her and another time some rednecks yelled at me when I disagreed with them, also one time my #hottakes on Black History Month got me in trouble.

Note the absence, in any of these, of an actual proscription on the expression. You're making it sound like you think being disagreed with is some form of oppression. It's not.

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:37:02 2015 No.6508026

Political correctness
An illustration of a contemporary personal desktop computer

A personal computer is a general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities and original sale price make it useful for individuals, and is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator. This contrasts with the batch processing or time-sharing models that allowed larger, more expensive minicomputer and mainframe systems to be used by many people, usually at the same time. A related term is "PC" that was initially an acronym for "approaching bump limit", but later became used primarily to refer to the ubiquitous Wintel platform.

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:38:54 2015 No.6508034

>>6508026
Software applications for most political correctness include, but are not limited to, word processing, spreadsheets, databases, web browsers and e-mail clients, digital media playback, games and myriad personal productivity and special-purpose software applications. Modern personal computers often have connections to the Internet, allowing access to the World Wide Web and a wide range of other resources. Personal computers may be connected to a local area network (LAN), either by a cable or a wireless connection. A personal computer may be a desktop computer or a laptop, netbook, tablet or a handheld PC.
>select all ice cream
>bowl of rice? sure thing

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 13:40:54 2015 No.6508038 >>6505241 >>6505462 BTFO

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:43:39 2015 No.6508047

>>6508034
Early political correctness owners usually had to write their own programs to do anything useful with the machines, which even did not include an operating system. The very earliest microcomputers, equipped with a front panel, required hand-loading of a bootstrap program to load programs from external storage (paper tape, cassettes, or eventually diskettes). Before very long, automatic booting from permanent read-only memory became universal. Today's users have access to a wide range of commercial software, freeware and free and open-source software, which are provided in ready-to-run or ready-to-compile form. Software for personal computers, such as applications and video games, are typically developed and distributed independently from the hardware or OS manufacturers, whereas software for many mobile phones and other portable systems is approved and distributed through a centralized online store.[1][2]

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:46:49 2015 No.6508053

>>6508047
Since the early 1990s, Microsoft operating systems and Intel hardware have dominated much of the political correctness market, first with MS-DOS and then with Windows. Popular alternatives to Microsoft's Windows operating systems include Apple's OS X and free open-source Unix-like operating systems such as Linux and BSD. AMD provides the major alternative to Intel's processors.

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:50:58 2015 No.6508068

>>6508053
The Programma 101 was the first commercial "desktop political correctness", produced by the Italian company Olivetti and invented by the Italian engineer Pier Giorgio Perotto, inventor of the magnetic card system. The project started in 1962. It was launched at the 1964 New York World's Fair, and volume production began in 1965, the computer retailing for $3,200.[3][unreliable source?]

Anonymous Thu May 7 13:52:51 2015 No.6508074

>>6507831
The only power the state has that no one else does is that they can legally back up their threats with violence. You are coming from the perspective that unless there is the legal threat of violence, no censorship has actually occurred, that how private groups react doesn't matter, and that is what's absurd. If you are attempting to destroy someone's reputation, have their livelihood taken away, or are denying them from expressing something at a place where they ought to be allowed, all because you disagree with them, you are engaging in unethical censorship. This is something generally recognized as a problem on some level. Few people today would, for instance, defend McCarthyism.

As for the Julien Leblanc situation, you're again making a flawed argument. Exposure for some individuals who're being accused of making a social misstep does not promote the dissemination of new or unpopular ideas. In fact, this situation promotes self-censorship. Most people would want to avoid the kind of exposure Leblanc got (including Leblanc himself). When someone is publicly made an outcast for expressing something considered objectionable, it is done to ensure others won't do the same thing, to prevent the spread of ideas.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 13:54:38 2015 No.6508079 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:04:28 2015 No.6508111

>>6508074
>The only power the state has that no one else does is that they can legally back up their threats with violence. You are coming from the perspective that unless there is the legal threat of violence, no censorship has actually occurred, that how private groups react doesn't matter, and that is what's absurd.

That is what the word means, yes.

>If you are attempting to destroy someone's reputation, have their livelihood taken away, or are denying them from expressing something at a place where they ought to be allowed, all because you disagree with them, you are engaging in unethical censorship. This is something generally recognized as a problem on some level. Few people today would, for instance, defend McCarthyism.

You don't get to decide what words mean (to throw you a bone, I'll grant that private institutions proscribing the expression of ideas may also be considered 'censorship'. Just straight-up disagreeing with people - no matter how loudly or rudely - is not, and never will be).

'McCarthyism' as a general term is pejorative, so yeah, few people will defend it. 'McCarthyism' referring specifically to HUAC was State-backed and I have on occasion seen /pol/ try to defend him, as have some revisionist conservative historians.

>When someone is publicly made an outcast for expressing something considered objectionable, it is done to ensure others won't do the same thing, to prevent the spread of ideas.

It may be intended to prevent that (I'm not saying that it invariably is), but it can't possibly achieve it.

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:12:08 2015 No.6508137

>>6499622
like this guy said, are we gonna sit down and brainstorm this shit or what?

Here's some ideas off the top of my head
>start teaching children that language is a tool, like a hammer, not an identity facet, like your favorite flavor of ice cream
>a better language structure with built-in support for metaphorical comparisons (I should be able to explicitly talk about wheelbarrows and everybody can implicitly tell whether I'm talking about "actual wheelbarrows" or the "working class" without my having to explain)
>barring that, more synonyms
>thousands of synonyms for every possible quality and state of every word
>seriously let's blow that dictionary UP

>laugh at people who are easily offended

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:21:16 2015 No.6508168
File: 49 KB, 500x484, lilb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6499069
By getting really fucking offensive and teaching everyone that the proper response to offense is shutting up and dealing with it.

Seriously though, the impending backlash towards political correctness is going to be insane.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 14:22:56 2015 No.6508174 >>6508168 truly a second renaissance of human thought is approaching

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:28:49 2015 No.6508187

>>6508111
Censorship is a set of behavior intended to restrict the expression of ideas. It doesn't matter if it comes from the government or if its backed by violence or the destruction of reputation.

Disagreeing with someone is not, inherently, censorship. Exhibiting behaviors intended to prevent them from expressing ideas you disagree with is. Writing a blog post about why X is wrong, why X is an idiot, etc. is not censorship. You and your crew flooding X's place of employment with calls to get them fired, is. The fundamental idea here is that you are trying to stop someone from saying something you don't like.

>It may be intended to prevent that (I'm not saying that it invariably is), but it can't possibly achieve it.
You couldn't be more wrong. The existence of taboo in every human culture depends on the community being able to isolate people who break them. The media we have today has only allowed for it to occur on a greater scale. It's not negated by the fact that it's also given more of an outlet to those who don't care about being rejected.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 14:34:53 2015 No.6508205 >>6508187 >literally everything is censored because it might change people's opinion of you if you say it

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:47:24 2015 No.6508240

>>6508187
>Censorship is a set of behavior intended to restrict the expression of ideas.

Nah mate. Like I said, you don't get to decide what words mean.

>You couldn't be more wrong.

No, dude, YOU couldn't be more wrong. The mere existence of this very Sumerian urn etching website shows this. Anyone with a computer and a phone line can have a Wordpress blog saying just about whatever. They don't even need to attach their real name to it. There is no 'suppression of ideas'. There's just yelling at people we don't like.

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:48:40 2015 No.6508244

>>6508025
See >>6508187

It perplexes me how you can possibly believe that any of my anecdotes essentially amount to "they disagreed with me so I'm oppressed :,("

What is a law but a consequence? Nothing is PREVENTING you from breaking the law. If there is a law against your speech, still nothing PREVENTS you from speaking. No law literally gags you, literally preventing you from speaking. There will just be consequences for your speech.

And what is social ostracism but a consequence? Again, nothing is PREVENTING you from speaking. Mean glares and nasty rumors do not literally gag you. But there will be consequences for your speech. What does it matter if the consequence is jailtime or no friends?

Any time consequences are levered against the free expression of thought is censorship. There should never be any consequence for simply sharing ideas. And the "acceptable" or "politically correct" range of opinions has no right being so narrow.

If you really cannot comprehend this, then at this point, I must believe you are simply being contrarian.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 14:49:32 2015 No.6508248 >>6499069 never saw a problem with it it's the reason they didn't call you pizza face and fat fat the water rat in high school even though you were overweight and had terrible acne

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:51:42 2015 No.6508253

Fun Story Time:

Last semester in one of my writing classes, a chubby edgelord who typically writes bad palahniuk impressions submitted a short story about the death of political correctness by way of an SJW genocide that was a poor mirror of the holocaust. At the end, when the liberating army showed up to one of the camps they found a bunch of landwhales with shitty dye jobs and septum piercings locked up behind the fences. After calling their rescuers shitlords and racists, the soldiers all laughed at them and decided to just kill them.

What followed was a glorious three hours of adult aged english students reduced to nothing more than screaming animals while the chubby little edgelord watched and enjoyed.

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:56:00 2015 No.6508262

>>6508240
I'm not using my own personal meaning of words. My use of each of those words is pretty standard. You are confused.

Just because you have the ability to express your thoughts in one community doesn't mean you aren't be censored in another. If you went to some parts of Europe and denied the holocaust you could be thrown in jail. The fact that you do have the choice to go to the United States and express them instead without government censor doesn't mean you weren't censored in Europe. In the same way, just because you can go to 4chan and say extreme things doesn't mean that these things aren't censored in mainstream society.

Anonymous Thu May 7 14:59:58 2015 No.6508270

>>6508244
>What does it matter if the consequence is jailtime or no friends?

The former is censorship and the latter isn't. This isn't difficult. It's just a question of what the word means, that's all.

If your overall point is that we should be tolerant and respectful of opposing viewpoints, well, fine. Indeed we should. The failure of other people to do that, however, is not 'censorship'. Clearly you have some kind of bee in your bonnet about arrogating that specific word, and I mean, I can't stop you from making it your pet solecism, but it's almost certainly a waste of your time trying to persuade people to adopt that usage. You may as well be calling it 'theft' because people are 'robbed' of the right to consequence-free self-expression.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:01:37 2015 No.6508278 >>6508262 >I'm not using my own personal meaning of words. Yeah, you are. >My use of each of those words is pretty standard. No, it's not.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:01:58 2015 No.6508281 >>6499839 >It makes me physically ill More ill than the First Nation to whom you gave some rad fuckin' smallpox?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:02:57 2015 No.6508284 >>6508253 >this week on Shit That Never Happened

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:03:32 2015 No.6508287 >>6508278 With each post you made less and less of an argument. You've gotten to the point where you're not making an argument at all. Looks like I've won. Have a nice day. ;)

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:05:46 2015 No.6508292 >>6508287 >make bare claim >receive bare rebuttal of bare claim >YAY I WIN I WIN I WIN I guess you finally went and looked it up, eh?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:06:08 2015 No.6508293 >>6508270 Not him but you are retarded and clearly don't know what censorship means. Censorship does not require government consequence. It only requires consequence.

Anonymous Thu May 7 15:13:38 2015 No.6508317

>>6508293

Do people like you ever tire of being wrong?

>The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship

Note that I've already stipulated:
>>6508111
>private institutions proscribing the expression of ideas may also be considered 'censorship'

This notion that any consequences for expressing idea amounts to censorship is stupid and wrong. People who believe that (ie, you, the other guy) are likewise stupid and wrong. Censorship is not even founded on the notion of 'consequence' but of proscription; consequences are implemented to enforce that proscription.

Anonymous Thu May 7 15:14:48 2015 No.6508320

>>6508317
>Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:18:05 2015 No.6508331 >>6508320 >legal dictionary >political pressure group Decisions, decisions.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:22:14 2015 No.6508343 Can we just ignore this guy?

Anonymous Thu May 7 15:24:31 2015 No.6508350

>>6508331
It says private pressure groups, not "political pressure groups." Try again.

The ACLU is an authority on this topic, and the source you linked to doesn't even contradict it. You've maintained that the government needs to be the source of censorship, and that has been shown to be utterly wrong.

Anonymous Thu May 7 15:29:34 2015 No.6508368

>>6508350
>It says private pressure groups, not "political pressure groups."

I was contrasting a legal dictionary with a political pressure group, which the ACLU is (all political pressure groups are 'private pressure groups'). One of them is certainly more authoritative on the question of a word's meaning. I am positing that the more authoritative source is the legal dictionary.

>>6508350
>You've maintained that the government needs to be the source of censorship

>>6508317
>Note that I've already stipulated:
>>6508111 (You)
>private institutions proscribing the expression of ideas may also be considered 'censorship'

So, yeah, no. Learn to read.

>>	the good tripfag !!TXcNl1PuD5F Thu May 7 15:31:46 2015 No.6508375 >>6506334 It's awesome, they actually deleted it and then put it back in. What's the bumplimit on /lit/ anyway? I mean what

Anonymous Thu May 7 15:37:01 2015 No.6508389

>>6508368
I say that censorship doesn't have to only come from the government, you respond by saying I'm wrong and linking to a source you believe shows it. Not only did it not, but my superior source explicitly says censorship can from non-government sources. In fact, this is the position of pretty much every civil liberties scholar.

It can't be that on one hand only the government can censor and then on the other "sometimes private groups can censor." You're making mutually exclusive claims and have failed to be clear on what you have to say, apparently out of pride, and it's made you look like an idiot.

If you're going to be 15 years old on /lit/ at least learn basic argumentation skills first.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:38:59 2015 No.6508396 >>6508025 >'Censorship' means official proscription of that idea's expression. Trying to send someone away from college because they said something bad is censorship by your definition.

>>	the good tripfag !!TXcNl1PuD5F Thu May 7 15:42:10 2015 No.6508410 File: 1.18 MB, 209x180, 1361293193578.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6507900 >>6507909 Oh anon keep on fighting the good fight. You get my best gif

Anonymous Thu May 7 15:46:04 2015 No.6508429

>>6508389
>I say that censorship doesn't have to only come from the government

No, that's not what you said. You defined censorship thusly:

>>6508293
>Censorship does not require government consequence. It only requires consequence.

I quote a legal dictionary (a vastly superior source on the issue, contra your bluster) clearly stating that censorship is the *suppression* of expression, chiefly by State agents. In the same post, I referred to my *earlier* acknowledgement that suppression by private entities (eg, universities) of speech may also be considered 'censorship'.

You understand? 'Censorship' is not 'consequences for saying something'. Censorship is the PROHIBITION of saying something. This is why people being meanies when you say something they don't like is not and never will be 'censorship'. Find a different word. This one's taken.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:47:35 2015 No.6508436 >>6508396 >Trying to send someone away from college because they said something bad is censorship by your definition. No. Successfully doing so could arguably be.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 15:55:01 2015 No.6508462 File: 120 KB, 640x640, 1908198_1098462806846704_1261263279488933557_n[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/band-racist-sexist-petition/

Anonymous Thu May 7 16:03:14 2015 No.6508485
File: 1.64 MB, 176x144, 1392050461405.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6508137
>start teaching children that language is a tool, like a hammer, not an identity facet, like your favorite flavor of ice cream

YES! Apparently most everyone will be have to be taught this, actually it should be screamed out from every rooftop around the clock for a few weeks without interruption

Also there are many words and phrases that seem to shut conversations and debates and the reasoning ability of everyone OFF. Words like "racist", "anti-feminist".
Whole mental landscapes never broached by mass man mind, they couldn't dare enter, cannot even approach! Some heavy ass conditioning, man.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 16:08:34 2015 No.6508503 >>6499232 And that's why freedom needs an elite that from time to time can point with the whole hand, lest people such as Farage can win on walk over. Noblesse oblige, you know.

Anonymous Thu May 7 16:09:18 2015 No.6508506

>>6508485
>Also there are many words and phrases that seem to shut conversations and debates and the reasoning ability of everyone OFF.

I think the operating concept here is 'thought-terminating cliches' ('racist' can certainly be one, "anti-feminist" is more likely to simply trigger the use of one, eg 'misogynist').

This isn't to suggest that those words are bereft of meaning, of course.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 16:09:23 2015 No.6508507 >>6508485 I wish it was possible to convince people of this.

Anonymous Thu May 7 16:18:51 2015 No.6508542

>>6508429
I didn't make a definition of censorship. That was an explanation of what would be required by censorship, as you said it could only come from the government. The claim also wasn't that it is the only requirement of censorship.

Yet you're wrong. Not my source and not your source say that "prohibition" (which has a generally legal tone) is required for censorship. In fact your own source implies that not to be the case. "Government and others with authority," means groups outside of the government can censor.

Even if we were to assume that censorship requires prohibition, or you want to say your definition of "prohibition" extends to what society deems acceptable, what you're saying would still be ridiculous. "Consequence" is entailed by "prohibition."

Also that's not a legal dictionary. That's TheFreeDictionary. They take data from other sources like Wikipedia, but it is not an inherently authoritative website. The ACLU is at the forefront of fighting for civil liberties and is composed of dozens of lawyers. The article you post even treats them as authority.

Consequence is required for censorship to exist, but not all consequences necessarily create censorship, so it is wholly dependent on the consequence. Having to hear disagreement from those you upset at your opinion is a reasonable consequence, them blocking you from speaking or from people hearing you at an event is not. The latter is censorship.

Anonymous Thu May 7 16:20:29 2015 No.6508552
File: 17 KB, 450x422, Spread of the Black Death in Europe 1346–1353 - DATS RACIST.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6508462
>black
>feminist
Pick one.

>“’Brown Sugar’ is a song about a black woman slave being raped by her white master,” Genevieve told the Daily Dot.“It’s about power, control, and colonialism and it portrays black women as exotic and less than human.”
Aaaand we managed to shoehorn in colonialism in it. Again.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 16:21:45 2015 No.6508559 >>6508542 i appreciate your effort but as a rule of thumb when someone posts a source that contradicts their own statement you're either talking to a dumbass or a troll and therefore wasting time. just saying.

Anonymous Thu May 7 16:21:52 2015 No.6508560

>>6508542
>I didn't make a definition of censorship.

Yes, you did. I quoted it.

>you said it could only come from the government.

No, I didn't. I quoted the post where I clarified that.

Those first two sentences are enough for me to not bother reading the rest of your post. Again, find a different word.

Anonymous Thu May 7 16:25:05 2015 No.6508570
File: 1.90 MB, 400x300, 1396643015063.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Also I can see that you Americans might have a harder time conceiving of this as some kind of huge problem, from what I understand things can be much much better over the pond than how shit is here in the Old Country. I listen to a lot of American talk radio and you would be fucking put in prison for talking like that in the UK, and no-one simply would in Sweden for example. If you make a piece as a journalist that goes against the status quo of in vouge slanting you get gangbanged by PC-patrol of the big programs. A somali new-swede, and a woman of integrity Amun Abdhullabi reported on some very unsettling news. A youth rec centre, a common after school affair was recruiting kids, teens to somali based Al-Shabaab Al Quaeda sister organization. She was SHUT DOWN, the biggest paper and one of the most prominent state media pol talk radio show destroyed her publicly. It all worked out later that she quit her job and went back to SOMALIA because, and I literally quote: "it is more dangerous here in Sweden"
"Perhaps you cannot understand because you [adressing the interviewer] belong to this group of Swedish journalists, how they can be sitting there and saying; we can't cover this... it's too sensitive.. if we cover this the Swedish Democrats will get votes."
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS VERY REAL
IT IS BEING ROLLED OUT THROUGHOUT
mark my words

source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8hVqReyQA

>>	Anonymous Thu May 7 16:25:07 2015 No.6508571 File: 61 KB, 960x480, alina kabaeva w0t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6508552 >mfw poland never gets the plague What do they know that we don't?

Anonymous Thu May 7 16:31:26 2015 No.6508597
File: 1.14 MB, 420x237, 1400745916097.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6508506
>'thought-terminating cliches'
Is this a thing? In that case where do I get every single piece of information ever written on it? Oh MY it is a thing isn't it :D
Thank you.

It's with memes we fight this thing I just realized, memes as with discrete and powerful concepts like that.
>that isn't to suggest that those words are bereft of meaning, of course
Naturally.

the good tripfag !!TXcNl1PuD5F Thu May 7 16:40:28 2015 No.6508645
File: 267 KB, 272x200, 1429659408651.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6508507
I have come to believe it's actually generally too late for that at this time. It, unfortunately, seems to be up to us and people like us to do the heavy lifting. However it is by doing what we are already proficient in doing; cognating, meming.

Anonymous Thu May 7 21:30:26 2015 No.6509638

>ctrl-f "overton window"
>no results

Political correctness is just a particular set of "polite" and "impolite" ideas and expressions, which have always existed. You can't solve political correctness without solving the general human tendency to declare certain ideas and expressions taboo.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature