The Age of outrage

[YmirGF]

individuals should be able to say or do whatever they want and not get criticism for it.

I am so triggered by this....

*dives to nearest safe space*
*curls up into a ball*
*starts sucking thumb*

 

[icehorse]

Okay, so is it going to be defined as suppression of free speech now to set up the standard of humanity and rights, and argue that people ought to care when they make others feel worthless and mentally torment them? Is that about the size of it? Because to me that is right-wing typically Christians patting evil on the back, when they claim to oppose it. I offer as a counter point that modern society only finds 'PC' so offensive because of the extreme idea of individual that's been pushed- that in lieu of responsibility to one another like an actual society, individuals should be able to say or do whatever they want and not get criticism for it.

It's one thing to attack an individual, it's quite another to attack an idea. In general, folks who torment individuals ought to be marginalized.

But attacking ideas MUST be fair game - no holds barred.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Both political parties are beholden...

Political parties don't dictate my moral compass.

 

[Vee]

When the state gives college to citizens for free then they can determine what students should be forced to listen to and allow on campuses. Is that fair enough? I paid for college. I shouldn't have gotten a say about the services I paid for?

You certainly should, and so should all others students who paid as much as you, to be fair with everyone.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

But attacking ideas MUST be fair game - no holds barred

How do we differentiate between people and ideas? Especially if one side thinks a thing part of a person, while the other side thinks it a mere idea?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You certainly should, and so should all others students who paid as much as you, to be fair with everyone.

Glad you agree because the overwhelming majority of students do not want right wing speakers on campus. Charlottesville might have offered a good idea as to why.

 

[Vee]

Glad you agree because the overwhelming majority of students do not want right wing speakers on campus. Charlottesville might have offered a good idea as to why.

I'm not familiar with the details of Charlottesville, but maybe people need to learn to communicate with each other better so that ideas can be exchanged in a productive way that will lead to a better educated society.

 

[Mindmaster]

Political parties don't dictate my moral compass.

Ditto, and I'm not _insert your demon here_ I'm just me. I agree with certain things, disagree with others, and give less than a single crap about "party lines".

 

[icehorse]

How do we differentiate between people and ideas? Especially if one side thinks a thing part of a person, while the other side thinks it a mere idea?

I'm sorry if I'm missing some nuance here? Whenever a person "thinks" or "believes" a thing, that's an idea. Ideas can be discarded or revised. But a person's physical being is not so changeable. If you are black, you are black. If you are a woman, you are a woman. If you're 6' 2", you're 6' 2". A person should not be tormented for those things that they cannot change.

But ideas - even closely held ideas - are another story.

Now I understand that people often come to identify with their ideas. For example they might say "I'm a Muslim" or "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a Democrat". And that belief system often becomes very important to some individuals. But seriously, too bad. All of the identification examples I just gave are merely ideas, and ALL of them can be discarded.

For example, I think that in general Abrahamic scripture is reprehensible. And I am more than happy to criticize people who take stock in it. I MUST be able to make such criticisms. It's essential to human rights that I'm allowed to do so. I'm a secularist among other things, and people who don't want me to criticize their religion don't understand that the secularist is their best ally.

 

[Stevicus]

Okay, so is it going to be defined as suppression of free speech now to set up the standard of humanity and rights, and argue that people ought to care when they make others feel worthless and mentally torment them? Is that about the size of it? Because to me that is right-wing typically Christians patting evil on the back, when they claim to oppose it. I offer as a counter point that modern society only finds 'PC' so offensive because of the extreme idea of individual that's been pushed- that in lieu of responsibility to one another like an actual society, individuals should be able to say or do whatever they want and not get criticism for it.

I think one reason why people react against PC is because it's inconsistent and hypocritical. If society agrees on a standard of humanity and rights, and argues that it's wrong to make others feel worthless and mentally torment them, then it should be a consistent standard across the board, without regard to race, religion, national origin, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay, so is it going to be defined as suppression of free speech now to set up the standard of humanity and rights, and argue that people ought to care when they make others feel worthless and mentally torment them? Is that about the size of it? Because to me that is right-wing typically Christians patting evil on the back, when they claim to oppose it. I offer as a counter point that modern society only finds 'PC' so offensive because of the extreme idea of individual that's been pushed- that in lieu of responsibility to one another like an actual society, individuals should be able to say or do whatever they want and not get criticism for it.

In my experience, those who are the loudest and most fervently against "PC" are those who are most butt hurt over being called out for calling someone a ***.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sorry if I'm missing some nuance here? Whenever a person "thinks" or "believes" a thing, that's an idea. Ideas can be discarded or revised.

Most people would say homosexuals are homosexuals as a part of who they are. However, to many Conservative Christians, it is an idea and a choice they made and definitely not a part of them.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think one reason why people react against PC is because it's inconsistent and hypocritical. If society agrees on a standard of humanity and rights, and argues that it's wrong to make others feel worthless and mentally torment them, then it should be a consistent standard across the board, without regard to race, religion, national origin, etc.

Have an example of where you feel 'PC' is inconsistent? Bear in mind too, PC is not the left's term. We have no responsibility to arguing for it's meaning.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I'm not familiar with the details of Charlottesville

Essentially a bunch of white supremacists invaded the college campus and shouted Nazi chants, as well as attacks on Jews. A young woman was murdered for standing up against this vile inhumanity, and 45 concluded afterwards he's sure there were good people on both sides.

This happened in the United States in 2017. A citizen was murdered for standing up to Nazis, and our president brushed it aside.

 

[icehorse]

Most people would say homosexuals are homosexuals as a part of who they are. However, to many Conservative Christians, it is an idea and a choice they made and definitely not a part of them.

Boy does THIS ever deserve it's own thread.

Yes they do, and that's an idea of theirs that needs to be criticized very harshly. In other words this is a "belief" of some people, and as such it falls into the "fair game to criticize" category. (Which I know you know)

 

[icehorse]

Essentially a bunch of white supremacists invaded the college campus and shouted Nazi chants, as well as attacks on Jews. A young woman was murdered for standing up against this vile inhumanity, and 45 concluded afterwards he's sure there were good people on both sides.

This happened in the United States in 2017. A citizen was killed for standing up to Nazis, and our president brushed it aside.

And while I abhor Nazis, we MUST protect their rights to free speech.

 

[Stevicus]

Have an example of where you feel 'PC' is inconsistent?

"White Men Can't Jump"?

Bear in mind too, PC is not the left's term. We have no responsibility to arguing for it's meaning.

The first time I heard the term "political correctness" was in the mid 1980s, during the Reagan era, although I've heard that it actually dates back to the 1950s. I'm not entirely certain where the term originated or which side of the spectrum it came from.

 

[YmirGF]

It's one thing to attack an individual, it's quite another to attack an idea. In general, folks who torment individuals ought to be marginalized.

But attacking ideas MUST be fair game - no holds barred.

Unfortunately you really cannot suggest anything critical about Gender Studies, Intersectionality or a host of related sub-topics due to built in baffles and foils. For example, if you are white and are critical of Critical Race Theory you are immediately marginalized due to your latent white privilege that does not allow you to see the genius of the theory. If you do not buy into Gender Fluidity you cannot really argue with the authoritarians behind the idea due to latent cisgender prejudice. Likewise, one cannot argue against Intersectionality without being labeled as obstructionist (if they are being kind) or outright labeled as a racist supporting the white supremacist patriarchy.

 

[Vee]

Essentially a bunch of white supremacists invaded the college campus and shouted Nazi chants, as well as attacks on Jews. A young woman was murdered for standing up against this vile inhumanity, and 45 concluded afterwards he's sure there were good people on both sides.

This happened in the United States in 2017. A citizen was murdered for standing up to Nazis, and our president brushed it aside.

Why? What started something like that on a campus?

 

[Twilight Hue]

This thread deserves a safe space.

A free thread Zone.