You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
6

[–] sneakybells 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

But she has a point. What if I said chinks were sneaky and once everyone got mad at me I said, its this damn pc culture that cant handle the truth? This isnt black and white, we have varying degrees of nuance and youre just washing over it.

1
1

[–] jph 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

You say "chinks are sneaky".

I say "that's a dumb opinion. I don't agree."

You continue to spout on stuff I don't agree with. Cool. I don't want to associate with you anymore. I think your opinions are misguided, untrue and you portray your experiences in a way that helps me neither expand my world view or empathy.

I stop associating with you all together.

You find someone new to talk about how "chinks are sneaky"

They do the same thing as me. They stop associating with you because they don't like the way you spout your stupid ass opinions.

How long does it take for you to examine your beliefs and maybe go "uhh hey everyone thinks I have asshole beliefs.....maybe I do?".

If you don't like someone's opinion you are fucking free to tell them. They're allowed to fucking have it though. You're free to not associate with them AND EVEN TELL THEM WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH THEM. Crazy concept huh?

When you just start censoring opinions because you don't agree with them you're not enabling any change, you're just creating a new problem because that censored person will feel wronged.

Quick edit: If they eventually start finding people who share their opinions good for them....but if multiple people share the same opinion it isn't an invalid opinion anymore. You might feel it is. The people who share the opinion don't though. My point is this. Society can regulate itself damn well. It starts with EVERYONE holding themselves accountable though.

0
0

[–] sneakybells 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ok but the point is, sometimes people that rail against PC culture can be racist and they're just using it as an easy way of writing it off and saying it's people's political correctness that wont let them acknowledge the truth. That's what she was saying.

0
0

[–] Mishima 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Thank you for your reply. I understand your concern but those of us against PC-culture are not against fighting racism. Let me try an explain my problems with PC-culture (problems especially corossive during an election year) The issue with your sentence "Chinks are sneaky" is that it uses both a racial slur (Chinks) + a generalizarion ("they are sneaky" ie. potentially actual racism). Let's divde these up:

(1) Slur + Gen = "Chinks are sneaky." (not PC + racist)

(2) No Slur + Gen - "Chinese Americans are sneaky." (PC but still racist!)

(3) Slur + Fact = "20% of Chinks lie on their income tax." (Not PC + verifiable fact [which I just made up btw])

(4) No Slur + Fact = "20% of Chinese Americans lie on their income tax" (PC + verifiable fact)

Your example is a #1 type situation. My problems with PC cultture are:

->In a #3 situation, discussion of the fact is completly sidestepped by uproar over the use of the slur. (you can critize the use of the slur, but you should still then move back to the "real" discussion, ie ADDRESS the verifiable fact). At this point, I believe the uproar is artificially inflated specifically to avoid addressing the fact - PC culture enables this tactic.

-> Nowadays, even #4 is going to cause an uproar. This is absurd and again sabotages the discussion - PC culture enables this tactic.

-> Ironically, #2 type statements fly by under the radar all the time even though these are potentially actually racist statements. I suspect it is because they don't offer any susbtance so there is no constructive discussion to de-rail, and the PC-language gives just enough licence for the PC warriors to ignore it.

->#1 will force the PC-warriors to react because of the slur, but I suspect they will quickly run out of steam on that one earlier than a #3 or a #4, again because there is no constructive discussion to de-rail.

->BTW, I still don't think #1 or #2 should be censored, simply ignored or called out (since what is actually considered a generalization is also debatable....), but my big beef with PC-culture is that it rountinly targets situation #3 and #4 and successfully blunts important discussions.

So even if you still disagree, I hope that you at least understand that some of us see PC-culture simply as a superficial moral code that is used as a political weapon to invalidate ideas or people. Maybe we realized what it was before you because we have been on the receiving end of this weapon, which exposed it fallacies and purpose to us...

Edit: Spelling is a manufactured weapon against the white man.

0
0

[–] sneakybells 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That depends on what you consider "PC culture" is. If you really think those stereotypes exist, like most racists do, then your perception of what "PC culture" is going to be a lot broader than what we normally consider "PC culture," it's relative is what I'm saying.