The PC brigade isn't "liberal", just insane

[Puspawarna]

I am, in the American sense of the word, a good liberal. But just as decent conservative values have been twisted into craziness by the likes of Donald Trump and his followers, we liberals too have something rotten at our core we need to disavow: the insanity of political correctness.

Here are three examples - a couple of famous ones, and one that was recently relayed to me by my son, who has just gone off to college.

1) Writer Lionel Shriver spoke at the Brisbane Writers Festival recently. Her speech fought back against those who think that writing about the viewpoint of anyone of a different background than the writer's is "cultural appropriation." As she wrote about it later:

Briefly, my address maintained that fiction writers should be allowed to write fiction — thus should not let concerns about “cultural appropriation†constrain our creation of characters from different backgrounds than our own. I defended fiction as a vital vehicle for empathy. If we have permission to write only about our own personal experience, there is no fiction, but only memoir. Honestly, my thesis seemed so self-evident that I’d worried the speech would be bland.
Nope — not in the topsy-turvy universe of identity politics. The festival immediately disavowed the address, though the organizers had approved the thrust of the talk in advance. A “Right of Reply†session was hastily organized. When, days later, The Guardian ran the speech, social media went ballistic. Mainstream articles followed suit. I plan on printing out The New Republic’s “Lionel Shriver Shouldn’t Write About Minorities†and taping it above my desk as a chiding reminder.

2) Last year Yale University issued a caution to students about dressing up for Halloween in ways that might be considered offensive. A lecturer by the name of Erika Christakis wrote a wonderfully thoughtful email questioning, in highly respectful terms that acknowledged the legitimacy of differing points of view, whether this was a good approach. She and her husband (also a Yale staffer) ultimately ended up resigning thanks in part to the brouhaha captured in this youtube video in which one student in particular shrieks that it is his job to make a "safe space" for students. Gee, I would have though that the job of a Yale professor was to make students THINK, and to expose them to new ideas, but obviously I'm wrong. (You can read the full story here.)

3) My third example is less dramatic, but more personal. Recently my son, a freshman at Haverford College near Philadelphia, went through freshman orientation. Part of the activities included a hypnotist, who as part of his routine to put people to "sleep" asked them to imagine that they were speeding, then stopped by police, then they resisted, and then they were tasered -- at the moment when he walked them through the imaginary tasering, they would fall into a hypnotic state. This resulted in the Dean of Students writing an apology to all the freshmen for "normalizing police violence" and assuring them that the hypnotist would be banned from campus from that point onward.

Well, I do think the hypnotist's story line was tasteless, in light of the fact that police are killing citizens just about every day now, it seems. I don't think a private word with the hypnotist, asking him to change his routine before his next performance on campus, would have been amiss. But banning him and apologizing to the students?

Apparently millennials - the American ones, anyway - really are the speshul snowflakes their parents raised them to believe that they are. Well, not my son. I hope he is exposed to lots and lots of ideas he doesn't necessarily agree with, and I hope he is forced to defend his views and challenge - on an intellectual basis, not a whiny "you can't say that cuz you hurt my widdle feewings' basis - the views he disagrees with.

 

[fastpitch17]

Hofstra University added to the mess during the last debate on their campus.

Hofstra University is hosting the first 2016 presidential debate on Monday night and has a sign up for another event on campus meant to give students a “Trigger Warning” about potentially sensitive material they may encounter.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/trigger-warning-sign-up-hofstra-university-debate/

 

[sumyunggai]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/26/clemson-says-harambe-memes-are-racist-contribute-rape-culture/

 

[Puspawarna]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/26/clemson-says-harambe-memes-are-racist-contribute-rape-culture/

That's one of the weirdest stories yet. Assuming we all want to avoid "rape culture," shouldn't we get an explanation of how the Harambe image promotes rape culture, so that we can understand the reasoning and avoid making similar mistakes in the future? Just saying "you can't show this image and no, we won't explain why even though there is not obvious reason why the image is offensive" doesn't help anyone, not even the people they are (however misguidedly) trying to protect.

 

[Dan]

There's a definite shift in public opinion, or at least on university campuses, toward an ideology and attending language of inclusion that is perversely exclusive.

When I was younger the focus on inclusion was directed at neutrality. We were expected to cultivate an attitude of color blindness, that we judge people for their personal characteristics and not their collective identity. Today it's a polar opposite, to be color blind is de classe. Failure to acknowledge someone's identity and failure to notice any "microaggressions" (a term so nebulous as to truly include any perceived offense) now places you in the uncomfortable position of being considered a bigot.

And this can be extended to any sort of characteristic or identity. The problem with the Left as a big tent is that it tends to eat itself. Gay men are getting lambasted for "appropriating" the language and mannerisms of black women, extreme feminists attack transgender people for not being "womyn born womyn," black people are accused of stealing native dress as "Mardi Gras indians" and so on. It's a modern liberal auto-de-fe, a blame game of accusatory snipes designed to crush the opposition into submission.

In ten years we'll see a PC counter revolution where to offend is king once again.

 

[Bad_azz]

I just think we should all be able to take responsibility for our own actions and stop seeking to slap blame on others all the time- seems to me that some societies have got really sick in the core and it is all magnified and spread around like a nasty virus through social media.

I am all in favour of showing respect to others for their beliefs and culture and so on & so forth BUT at the end of the day thinking for ourselves and being able to defend our points of view and actions helps us to grow as humans and evolve in a (hopefully) better way.
We really should try not to be overtly offensive but then it comes down to intent- the tendency where offence is given is to jump on the offender and dish out punitive consequences- ideally I would prefer that questions are asked first:
A:Wow what you said really pissed me off
B:Oh, why?
A:Because xyz and abc

B: ooh, yeah- you have a point there, I hadn't thought of that- I apologise & will deffo bear that in mind, it might not change my views entirely though because I have xyz /abc reason to have the views I have too.
A: oh yeah, you have a point too, I will try not to take your comments personally

let's call it being able to communicate effectively.

 

[Puspawarna]

failure to notice any "microaggressions" (a term so nebulous as to truly include any perceived offense) now places you in the uncomfortable position of being considered a bigot. .

The whole "microaggression" terminology is weird. The word suggests that there are these tiny, almost invisible forms of racism (or sexism, or whatever) that we must be on guard against. And the fact that they are "micro" allows people to see them wherever they want, because hey, they are just better at seeing small things than anyone who doesn't see them, I guess.

Now, when I read actual definitions of "microagression" they tend to be fairly reasonable - very few examples are over the top.(*) But they are also nothing special that has suddenly been discovered as a more subtle understanding of discrimination. As a female, I assure you I was the target of "microaggression" decades ago, and I didn't need a special word to notice. Here are two of my favorite examples:

1) When I assumed the Executive Director position of a virtually 100% male membership organization, one of my first tasks was to sort out the books, which my predecessor had left in a confusing mess. I did my best to sort it out, but had some questions, and so asked the treasurer of the board if he had any insights. He began his answer with, "Now, I know math is hard for you..."

2) When I left the position nearly four years later, I gathered CVs of potential replacements. The one with the best credentials was the only male applicant, and every person who had ever held the job had been female. I spoke on the phone to the organization's president; he was leaning toward another candidate. I explained why I thought the male candidate was strongest. The president answered me "oh no, we don't want him, he's male - he'll just leave as soon as he finds a real job."

Now, I'm sure both of those ridiculous stories would serve as great examples of "microaggression," but I just don't see the need for the term. To me that's just plain old, garden variety sexism that deserves to be called out - without any need to make up a fancy name that makes me sound like more of a victim than I consider myself to be.

*Although I can only roll my eyes at the idea that the phrase "you guys" is a microaggression - bullshit. If we're going to play THAT game, then here's my move: you are microagressing me by refusing to acknowledge my cultural heritage, which is Northeast American Preppie. In this culture, "you guys" has been a gender-neutral term for decades; I grew up using it to refer to all my all-female groups of friends, and I assure you it had no gender connotations whatsover. (If you refuse to believe me, that just proves you aren't listening to me, adding to your microaggressions against me.) By insisting that it is a sexist term, you are asserting that the culture of the Southern American Belle (where they say "you gals" instead of "you guys" and have traditionally made a gender distinction) is inherently superior to mine. I AM OFFENDED, GODDAMMIT! YOU ARE OPPRESSING ME!!!

 

[Bad_azz]

...

1) When I assumed the Executive Director position of a virtually 100% male membership organization, one of my first tasks was to sort out the books, which my predecessor had left in a confusing mess. I did my best to sort it out, but had some questions, and so asked the treasurer of the board if he had any insights. He began his answer with, "Now, I know math is hard for you..."

...
Now, I'm sure both of those ridiculous stories would serve as great examples of "microaggression," but I just don't see the need for the term. To me that's just plain old, garden variety sexism that deserves to be called out - without any need to make up a fancy name that makes me sound like more of a victim than I consider myself to be.

*Although I can only roll my eyes at the idea that the phrase "you guys" is a microaggression - bullshit. If we're going to play THAT game, then here's my move: you are microagressing me by refusing to acknowledge my cultural heritage, which is Northeast American Preppie. In this culture, "you guys" has been a gender-neutral term for decades; I grew up using it to refer to all my all-female groups of friends, and I assure you it had no gender connotations whatsover. (If you refuse to believe me, that just proves you aren't listening to me, adding to your microaggressions against me.) By insisting that it is a sexist term, you are asserting that the culture of the Southern American Belle (where they say "you gals" instead of "you guys" and have traditionally made a gender distinction) is inherently superior to mine. I AM OFFENDED, GODDAMMIT!

At that point my heritage would have kicked in (the only girl growing up in the midst of a big brother and older male cousins and being bullied for being a girl)... and I would not have got the job and would not have had any thoughts to fancy words or micro-aggression
cos I would have turned round and said "I am sure you understand , because not being a wanker is hard for you it seems..."

 

[William King]

That's one of the weirdest stories yet. Assuming we all want to avoid "rape culture," shouldn't we get an explanation of how the Harambe image promotes rape culture, so that we can understand the reasoning and avoid making similar mistakes in the future? Just saying "you can't show this image and no, we won't explain why even though there is not obvious reason why the image is offensive" doesn't help anyone, not even the people they are (however misguidedly) trying to protect.

No idea....

 

[Puspawarna]

No idea....

C'mon, Mr. Ape. You're holding out on us. You MUST know what this is about!!!

 

[Scooterindo]

If you fight a black man in the UK and call him a nigger whilst attacking or defending yourself its a racist attack, if you fight a black man in the UK and he calls you a white cunt whilst attacking or defending himself - its just a fight.

 

[Puspawarna]

If you fight a black man in the UK and call him a nigger whilst attacking or defending yourself its a racist attack, if you fight a black man in the UK and he calls you a white cunt whilst attacking or defending himself - its just a fight.

Now we are getting into the topic of hate speech - a legitimate discussion, to be sure, but not exactly what I was talking about. And I can't speak to the UK, but I do understand why in the US, if someone is brought up on charges of assault, there can be additional charges brought for "hate crimes" if there is evidence that, for example, a person was tortured because of their sexual orientation. It's society's way of demonstrating that beating someone up because they are gay is wrong.

Anyway, I'm not talking about degrees of punishment for physical attacks; I'm talking about whether IDEAS should be censored from ever being discussed. Establishing rules of civility for such discussion is not unreasonable. Keeping the discussion from happening at all - THAT'S unreasonable.

 

[kimdub]

Anyway, I'm not talking about degrees of punishment for physical attacks; I'm talking about whether IDEAS should be censored from ever being discussed. Establishing rules of civility for such discussion is not unreasonable. Keeping the discussion from happening at all - THAT'S unreasonable.

I am probably as conservative as you are liberal, but this is one area in which we totally agree.

But I disagree with your original premise that PC is not liberal. Quite possible I am blinded by my conservative ideology, so I hope you can give me examples of Conservative PC thinking.

 

[Nimbus]

Fortunately some universities are beginning to realize the absurdity of treating grown adults like children who need "safe space", to shelter them from the big bad world.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/49153...freshmen-it-does-not-support-trigger-warnings

 

[Terry MacArsey]

That's one of the weirdest stories yet. Assuming we all want to avoid "rape culture," shouldn't we get an explanation of how the Harambe image promotes rape culture, so that we can understand the reasoning and avoid making similar mistakes in the future? Just saying "you can't show this image and no, we won't explain why even though there is not obvious reason why the image is offensive" doesn't help anyone, not even the people they are (however misguidedly) trying to protect.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29...-harambe-jokes-fomenting-racism-rape-culture/

 

[jstar]

I can imagine the sensitivity with Harambe also being a name for the African community on a campus. But even if the gorilla were still alive, that could have been an issue when the zoo decided on the name for the animal?!

But rape culture? I guess that link was all triggered by a single (bad) joke?

 

[Puspawarna]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29...-harambe-jokes-fomenting-racism-rape-culture/

That article was almost unreadable, it was so biased. I didn't learn anything from it except that "The Federalist" is more interested in spewing right-wing nonsense than it is in telling a sensible, fact-based narrative. (Not that the left isn't capable of the same nutty tactics; it is.)

 

[sumyunggai]

If you fight a black man in the UK and call him a nigger whilst attacking or defending yourself its a racist attack, if you fight a black man in the UK and he calls you a white cunt whilst attacking or defending himself - its just a fight.

That's not actually true, both can be treated as racially motivated in law

However, the difference in the UK/US is that there is a tendency to ASSUME racial motivation, even where there is none.

E.g., the BBC, who use local Muslim Indonesian writers in Indonesia, wrote up the story of a Muslim woman in New York being 'set on fire', as more proof of Westerners hatred of Muslims. Except it later turned out that there were two other victims on the same day who weren't Muslim, so it was just a crazy guy.

'Muslim attacked', or 'black guy attacked' is made a big deal

Of course in Indonesia it doesn't work like that, and when Chinese people get attacked, as in Tanjung Balai recently, for complaining about mosque noise, it's blithely written up in the press as 'provokasi' so that the Chinese are to blame for Muslims attacking them.