Has anyone said social justice warriors and come across as reasonable?
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
You used to be able to say "Feminazi" or "stupid bitch". It's political correctness gone mad.
When asked if had consulted his father about the Iraq invasion Bush said 'No, I consulted a higher Father". That's reported in Bob Woodwards Plan of Attack.
For my sake I don't discuss this subject with her.
Some women think that's degrading. Shame on you.
I too hope you managed to stop this stupid woman from having her own opinion. Somethingsomething, ethics in gaming journalism.
The problem with this kind of sudden outrage at the treatment of poor, put upon men, is that woman have been subject to daft persecution like this - and significantly worse - for centuries, but now a few anecdotal examples can be provided that affect men, and suddenly that is a serious issue that needs to be rectified immediately. It tends to make your grasp of the situation look really small. It's like white people saying "It's cool black people, we've solved racism now, sorry it took so long, but can we start to focus on the really important issue of people being mean to us now?"
Which doesn't mean a man should've been sacked for saying dongle or anything, but it's hard to take people's outrage seriously when their focus in the wide and varied world of sexual discriminationton is on the tiny beginings of a risk to their own all powerful position. Most men's (as most white people's)* natural perception of the world is so skewed to their benefit that they don't even notice the privilages they've been privvy to, but wo betide some fecking woman should complain about her her lot...doesn't she know some man was sacked for saying dongle once? We've suffered too!
*I'm both, btw, which inevitably makes me a social justice warrior in some quarters.
The problem with this kind of sudden outrage at the treatment of poor, put upon men, is that woman have been subject to daft persecution like this - and significantly worse - for centuries, but now a few anecdotal examples can be provided that affect men, and suddenly that is a serious issue that needs to be rectified immediately. It tends to make your grasp of the situation look really small. It's like white people saying "It's cool black people, we've solved racism now, sorry it took so long, but can we start to focus on the really important issue of people being mean to us now?"
Which doesn't mean a man should've been sacked for saying dongle or anything, but it's hard to take people's outrage seriously when their focus in the wide and varied world of sexual discriminationton is on the tiny beginings of a risk to their own all powerful position. Most men's (as most white people's)* natural perception of the world is so skewed to their benefit that they don't even notice the privilages they've been privvy to, but wo betide some fecking woman should complain about her her lot...doesn't she know some man was sacked for saying dongle once? We've suffered too!
*I'm both, btw, which inevitably makes me a social justice warrior in some quarters.
Last edited:
Some people just have no idea about the plight of the white, middle class, middle aged man.
VIVA UKIPs.
VIVA UKIPs.
My comment was a sexual innuendo, by the way.
Hahahaha .. good point
Slurp.
Calm down. All you've successfully done here is ignore everything I've said and construct strawmen for you to knock down. lol.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
The above is a link to an article about the rise of student sensitivity and "trigger warnings" so students can choose not to learn things that may offend them, or remind them of their own traumatic experiences.
The above is a link to an article about the rise of student sensitivity and "trigger warnings" so students can choose not to learn things that may offend them, or remind them of their own traumatic experiences.
Last edited by a moderator:
Could have been a joke alluding to the very problem (true or not) discussed in this thread. I could certainly do something like that while drunkA great example of PC going over the top was a few weeks ago when I was walking and wearing my Union Jack t-shirt - some twat shouted "racist" out of his car window as he passed ... and he was white
Trigger warnings? God forbid they actually live in the real world.
Such a long article.
Could've used a trigger warning.
Could've used a trigger warning.
Very true, I'm sorry and I accept full responsibility for any trauma caused by the length of the article I linked to.
It taught me a new term "vindictive protectiveness" which is quite a good description of behaviour that occurs in some of the college examples and in some of the social media stuff too.
That's a terrific article. We certainly live in crazy times. That bit about law students getting "triggered" by rape law is just farcical.
This quote is great:
This quote is great:
I read an article recently that asked people to avoid the term "trigger warning" because it "evokes violent weaponry imagery".
We're fecked! They are our future leaders.....
Great article. Man am I glad I didn't have to go to University with such unbelievably sensitive souls. God help them out in the real world.
To be fair, some people just get a kick out of hollering from a moving car.A great example of PC going over the top was a few weeks ago when I was walking and wearing my Union Jack t-shirt - some twat shouted "racist" out of his car window as he passed ... and he was white
I know what you mean, but do us slightly older types trivialise this stuff because we are from a different era? In the 'Bond is the worst spy ever' thread I chuckled at the reference to his rather dubious 'that'll keep you in curry for a few weeks' comment when tipping an Indian and ditto when my sub-editor mate at my old mag suggested a headline of 'From raghead to riches' for a profile piece about a Sikh guy from a poor background who did well for himself in financial services. Not that I endorse these views and I have that getout clause of having an African/Asian wife etc...
He was only trying to piss of his boss tbf.
I saw this interesting quote from Anne Rice on the front page of reddit this morning.
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/3go2y1/anne_rice_i_think_we_are_facing_a_new_era_of/
Not to bombard people with links but I read this essay by Roxane Gay a while back on trigger warnings. She's a survivor of sexual assault and i think her view is the most nuanced I've seen on the issue.
http://therumpus.net/2012/08/the-illusion-of-safetythe-safety-of-illusion/
http://therumpus.net/2012/08/the-illusion-of-safetythe-safety-of-illusion/
There is a big difference between chuckling at a racist joke and the sort of censorship and walking on eggshells that's being described in the article.
I'm sure the guy who made the "raghead to riches" comment wouldn't dream of standing in front of a large audience and making a "joke" like that, yet he probably felt comfortable enough in your company to try a risky pun in the knowledge that you'd accept it as a cheeky pun, rather than an offensive slur on the man in question.
Now imagine addressing a room full of people and trying to describe the Indian chap and his rise to wealth without being able to mention that he's from a poor background because that might trigger the less advantaged in the audience. That's the sort of absurdity that's creeping in to some institutions.
Good to have a survivors perspective on the ideas of trigger warnings. The list of situations which trigger a response in her just shows that its impossible to fully protect yourself in the real world. Colleges are too insular and to me, giving warnings on works of fiction is just depleting your ability to deal with these situations when you encounter them in your post college life.
That's the main thrust of her article, to be fair. Triggers are too many and varied to ever be avoided succesfully so what's the point in trying?
I do disagree with some of her concluding paras though.
That's addressed quite well in The Atlantic article above. We can't function in a society where anyone can decide they find anything offensive and must not be challenged on the basis that offence can only ever be defined by the person taking offence. That way madness lies.
Shes not saying "anyone" though. She's advocating for the correct use of trigger warnings and that in some cases they can be helpful and whether they are should be decided by people who are affected.
There's two different issues here.
Giving trigger warnings is one issue but we're also hearing about educators being forced to avoid including potential triggers in course-work.
The fomer is potentially reasonable (although how the hell does any lecturer know what is and is not a potential trigger for a diverse cohort of students?) but the latter is utter madness (IMO) and does seem to be happening.
To me that was a covering-her-arse statement in anticipation of the counter arguements she would get (rather than absolutely say no trigger warnings are needed) and lo and behold, someone pipes in saying that people with PTSD will suffer set backs hence triggers are needed (essentially missing the whole point of the article).
She doesn't advocate the latter though.
On a side note I'll make the point that I've attended three universities over the past eight years and none of these issues have come up outside the odd discussion. Methinks it's a bit of a beat up about some extremists.
My opinion is that yes it has in some cases and in some quarters but I think it's impossible to define all of society, the Internet or even universities as too PC as for every case of someone wanting the entire curriculum changed because the book contains things that upset them there are cases of rape victims being ignored. Assuming that the extreme examples are the norm leads both 'sides' to become more and more detached from the actual reality which leads to weird Internet arguments between people who say the other is a 'Feminazi' and the other is misogynist even if they just disagree.
In general, I think things are probably too PC but I can see why some would want us (us being people who aren't activists for anything) to err on the side of caution due to the extreme cases we see sometimes. Though I do resent the way they often try and get us to do it (i.e. through the use of complaining rather than just convincing).
In general, I think things are probably too PC but I can see why some would want us (us being people who aren't activists for anything) to err on the side of caution due to the extreme cases we see sometimes. Though I do resent the way they often try and get us to do it (i.e. through the use of complaining rather than just convincing).
Nothing wrong with political correctness in general, but I sometimes get the impression that certain people go out of their way to be offended at the slightest thing and use it to their advantage, or to push their own agendas. This is why we can't have nice things
You also get situations where people seemingly hide behind worthwhile causes despite being misguided and potentially bigoted and ruin potentially good work. Like the woman that looks like Noel Fielding from Goldsmiths University who hosted an equality event on the proviso that you're not white and/or male.
She explained that she can't be a racist though, because she's from an ethnic minority background
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/goldsmiths-university-diversity-officer-in-racism-row-i-cant-be-racist-because-im-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10243202.html
I've heard that argument made before. I instantly assume that anyone who makes that argument has either a hidden agenda or is actually prejudiced themselves. It annoys me that often these people see others using certain words as oppressive and offensive (I read a comment describing the word lame as "an ableist slur") and we must avoid them but they can't be racist/sexist because of their race/gender.
Good point. That is something that bothers me. This might be slightly off topic but it does bother me that certain topics are deemed to be off limits to me simply because I can't/haven't directly experienced them. It's a ridiculous line of argument that is used too often and rarely challenged (sensibly) to avoid offending overly sensitive people.
Doesn't get much better than the student conference where delegates were encouraged to use jazz hands to signify applause in case the noise of clapping was a trigger to some attendees. This actually happened.
And they were mocked. Rightfully. It's not going to cause censorship of clapping.
Indeed. If the apex of political correctness going mad is "something a bit silly happens" then...cool.
I mean, it isn't, but if it was.
I mean, it isn't, but if it was.
Some of the examples in the Atlantic article...Christ
For sure. Although it's a nicely absurdist illustration of the ludicrously over-sensitive mindset that seems to have been allowed to permeate student culture these days.
The fact the request for jazz hands instead of clapping was taken seriously - even for a moment - is mind-blowing. That Atlantic article is full of loads more examples, with much more serious consequences.
Come on. Again, this clearly isn't a widespread issue. How many times has anyone witnessed any of these things in the flesh, or met any of these types of people?
I've seen a ton of "these types of people" on Twitter but never met anyone personally. Of course, it's almost 20 years since I was in University.
The article we've been discussing over the last page or so has a lot of concrete examples. So this is definitely a thing.