All caught up with Man in the High Castle. Good show so far.
Ed is the real MVP.
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Forgive for not quoting--is hard to do for long quotes on mobile
Re chu: Then I don't know what the argument is, chu? What's bothersome about the original quote? Certainly trump supporters are motivated to rail against perceived acts of political correctness by airing their own racist or sexist opinions with gusto. I don't disagree.
My own thoughts: Whatever those important reasons are for being motivated to say it (my country is in decline, these other people are taking my country away from me, my unvarnished truth is more important than courtesy, the first amendment, freedom, everyone else is thinking it I'm just saying it, it's funny cos it's true, things were better before than they are now, etc), they short circuit common codes of decency and cause harm, regardless of whether one of THEM is even around to hear it. I think this view of PC run amok conflates self censorship--that little judgement that says perhaps this is not good to say--with oppressive censorship--these PEOPLE are SILENCING my VERY IMPORTANT OPINION, even if it hurts people for no reason.
But I feel like I've lost the thread of this tangent. I just wanted to post a striking and mildly condescending excerpt from the article because I liked the term "pointlessly hurtful" to describe the most fundamental social code, "don't be a dick"
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Forgive for not quoting--is hard to do for long quotes on mobile
Re chu: Then I don't know what the argument is, chu? What's bothersome about the original quote? Certainly trump supporters are motivated to rail against perceived acts of political correctness by airing their own racist or sexist opinions with gusto. I don't disagree.
My own thoughts: Whatever those important reasons are for being motivated to say it (my country is in decline, these other people are taking my country away from me, my unvarnished truth is more important than courtesy, the first amendment, freedom, everyone else is thinking it I'm just saying it, it's funny cos it's true, things were better before than they are now, etc), they short circuit common codes of decency and cause harm, regardless of whether one of THEM is even around to hear it. I think this view of PC run amok conflates self censorship--that little judgement that says perhaps this is not good to say--with oppressive censorship--these PEOPLE are SILENCING my VERY IMPORTANT OPINION, even if it hurts people for no reason.
But I feel like I've lost the thread of this tangent. I just wanted to post a striking and mildly condescending excerpt from the article because I liked the term "pointlessly hurtful" to describe the most fundamental social code, "don't be a dick"
i suspect u me and chu agree on all salient points and are just musing together on this great american holiday
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
i mean we disagree on whether my contempt for save-scumming fire emblemers is reasonable but that's hardly salient
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Forgive for not quoting--is hard to do for long quotes on mobile
Re chu: Then I don't know what the argument is, chu? What's bothersome about the original quote? Certainly trump supporters are motivated to rail against perceived acts of political correctness by airing their own racist or sexist opinions with gusto. I don't disagree.
My own thoughts: Whatever those important reasons are for being motivated to say it (my country is in decline, these other people are taking my country away from me, my unvarnished truth is more important than courtesy, the first amendment, freedom, everyone else is thinking it I'm just saying it, it's funny cos it's true, things were better before than they are now, etc), they short circuit common codes of decency and cause harm, regardless of whether one of THEM is even around to hear it. I think this view of PC run amok conflates self censorship--that little judgement that says perhaps this is not good to say--with oppressive censorship--these PEOPLE are SILENCING my VERY IMPORTANT OPINION, even if it hurts people for no reason.
But I feel like I've lost the thread of this tangent. I just wanted to post a striking and mildly condescending excerpt from the article because I liked the term "pointlessly hurtful" to describe the most fundamental social code, "don't be a dick"
i suspect u me and chu agree on all salient points and are just musing together on this great american holiday
Forgive for not quoting--is hard to do for long quotes on mobile
Re chu: Then I don't know what the argument is, chu? What's bothersome about the original quote? Certainly trump supporters are motivated to rail against perceived acts of political correctness by airing their own racist or sexist opinions with gusto. I don't disagree.
My own thoughts: Whatever those important reasons are for being motivated to say it (my country is in decline, these other people are taking my country away from me, my unvarnished truth is more important than courtesy, the first amendment, freedom, everyone else is thinking it I'm just saying it, it's funny cos it's true, things were better before than they are now, etc), they short circuit common codes of decency and cause harm, regardless of whether one of THEM is even around to hear it. I think this view of PC run amok conflates self censorship--that little judgement that says perhaps this is not good to say--with oppressive censorship--these PEOPLE are SILENCING my VERY IMPORTANT OPINION, even if it hurts people for no reason.
But I feel like I've lost the thread of this tangent. I just wanted to post a striking and mildly condescending excerpt from the article because I liked the term "pointlessly hurtful" to describe the most fundamental social code, "don't be a dick"
i suspect u me and chu agree on all salient points and are just musing together on this great american holiday
I think so too
So...
I guess we have sex now?
*sweats*
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Forgive for not quoting--is hard to do for long quotes on mobile
Re chu: Then I don't know what the argument is, chu? What's bothersome about the original quote? Certainly trump supporters are motivated to rail against perceived acts of political correctness by airing their own racist or sexist opinions with gusto. I don't disagree.
My own thoughts: Whatever those important reasons are for being motivated to say it (my country is in decline, these other people are taking my country away from me, my unvarnished truth is more important than courtesy, the first amendment, freedom, everyone else is thinking it I'm just saying it, it's funny cos it's true, things were better before than they are now, etc), they short circuit common codes of decency and cause harm, regardless of whether one of THEM is even around to hear it. I think this view of PC run amok conflates self censorship--that little judgement that says perhaps this is not good to say--with oppressive censorship--these PEOPLE are SILENCING my VERY IMPORTANT OPINION, even if it hurts people for no reason.
But I feel like I've lost the thread of this tangent. I just wanted to post a striking and mildly condescending excerpt from the article because I liked the term "pointlessly hurtful" to describe the most fundamental social code, "don't be a dick"
i suspect u me and chu agree on all salient points and are just musing together on this great american holiday
I think so too
So...
I guess we have sex now?
sigh
fine, i'll get up
+2
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
Organichu on
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
But chu there's still a step between considering a "bad thought" totally moral and direct and opening ones mouth to say it, hence "pointlessly hurtful"--even if you're right it benefits no one to say it and only causes harm
so i guess the thought i have is why it is important for them to say it. i don't have a perfect answer, but most of the responses i've seen from people online are basically 'because they're assholes', or whatever.
most of the time when i want to say something but bite my tongue because it could be upsetting to people, i don't really care very much about saying the thing. exercising self-restraint, discipline, 'empathy' is easy in these cases. it's not a big sacrifice. but for so many of these people concerned with 'telling it how it is', it is important to them to say that thing. why is it so important to them for their shout in the wind to be heard? how did a relatively prosperous, safe, enfranchised group of people come to feel like their truth was being shouted down or censored effectively by the media or the intelligentsia or whatever?
it seems important to me in terms of healing this country but i don't have a good answer really, and all the ones i hear from my librul peers are incredibly contemptuous and reductive
And the "are you worth speaking to as a human being" standard is a misreading, that's not the conclusion being drawn here. The whole point of the article is speaking to people who have no compunction about airing their resolute disdain for immigrants stealing their jobs, without turning to the camera with a bombastic "these people! I know! Right!". This one bit is one of several observations and the authors own reaction to it (again, you can criticize as too broad and toothless, but I found it succinct and descriptive of the most basic reason to treat people with respect)
sry i hadn't read the article yet, doing now- that part was just me responding to mrmr, not the content of the piece
At some point contempt is appropriate? I'm totally willing to put it aside to try to figure out how we work with large sections of the country that don't know anything about the world, but in the absence of an agreement to focus on that for a few minutes I don't think there's anything wrong with saying contemptuous, reductive things
probably there is something wrong with believing them though so once again i sit the fence
I feel like Brexit is a really tempting example to turn to because it's so clearly based on a lack of knowledge and lack of understanding
It gives John Oliver some funny fuel but there's some meat on the bone of what people googled the day after, and of course Farage and Johnson not running for pm is also revelatory
I get that just shouting at trump people and being mean doesn't help, but what does, when they're wrong about everything they think about the world? How do you start bridging that gap? Really tempting to give up and just be mean about them in private.
also fuck you chrome, revelatory is totally a word
This is kind of my core problem with the "oh, America has drifted into two separate camps" narrative from that essay.
It's certainly true sometimes, my mom is a good example of the liberal version of the Fox News watcher, and she drives me nuts.
But generally speaking the American left hasn't drifted anywhere, they're the ones who are still reading the New York Times and watching CNN and engages with the world with at least a respect for the idea of facts. The American mainstream left hasn't radicalized, except in the sense that they're now more open and embracing of different cultural and racial groups.
The separation in politics hasn't come from a mutual drift apart, it's come almost entirely from a descent into hucksterism and demagoguery on the right. There is no equal but opposite version of Trump on the left. Nor a left's Cruz or Carson. The left isn't catering towards conspiracy theorists. The left spent its primary season arguing about what changes could be meaningfully passed to help the most amount of people. The right spent its primary promising to burn down everything. The left doesn't have candidates who are blatantly running direct mail fundraising campaigns to personally enrich themselves, nor do their political commentators invest in gold-selling companies and then spend episodes promoting gold-buying pyramid schemes.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+6
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
I think this is p easy to merge with the quote though. The author said
"Above all, Trump supporters are “not politically correct,” which, as far as I can tell, means that they have a particular aversion to that psychological moment when, having thought something, you decide that it is not a good thought, and might pointlessly hurt someone’s feelings, and therefore decline to say it."
You're explaining (I think, stop me if I get it wrong) that in your experience they never decide something would pointlessly hurt someone's feelings, they always believe there's a point, even if it's formless and indirect, we need a climate where people saying what they want is sufficient point to hurt someone's feelings. That seems to agree with the quote that they have an aversion to that psychological moment - they make the moment definitionally impossible because you can never pointlessly hurt someone's feelings if saying what you want to say is never pointless.
But chu there's still a step between considering a "bad thought" totally moral and direct and opening ones mouth to say it, hence "pointlessly hurtful"--even if you're right it benefits no one to say it and only causes harm
so i guess the thought i have is why it is important for them to say it. i don't have a perfect answer, but most of the responses i've seen from people online are basically 'because they're assholes', or whatever.
most of the time when i want to say something but bite my tongue because it could be upsetting to people, i don't really care very much about saying the thing. exercising self-restraint, discipline, 'empathy' is easy in these cases. it's not a big sacrifice. but for so many of these people concerned with 'telling it how it is', it is important to them to say that thing. why is it so important to them for their shout in the wind to be heard? how did a relatively prosperous, safe, enfranchised group of people come to feel like their truth was being shouted down or censored effectively by the media or the intelligentsia or whatever?
it seems important to me in terms of healing this country but i don't have a good answer really, and all the ones i hear from my librul peers are incredibly contemptuous and reductive
And the "are you worth speaking to as a human being" standard is a misreading, that's not the conclusion being drawn here. The whole point of the article is speaking to people who have no compunction about airing their resolute disdain for immigrants stealing their jobs, without turning to the camera with a bombastic "these people! I know! Right!". This one bit is one of several observations and the authors own reaction to it (again, you can criticize as too broad and toothless, but I found it succinct and descriptive of the most basic reason to treat people with respect)
sry i hadn't read the article yet, doing now- that part was just me responding to mrmr, not the content of the piece
At some point contempt is appropriate? I'm totally willing to put it aside to try to figure out how we work with large sections of the country that don't know anything about the world, but in the absence of an agreement to focus on that for a few minutes I don't think there's anything wrong with saying contemptuous, reductive things
probably there is something wrong with believing them though so once again i sit the fence
I feel like Brexit is a really tempting example to turn to because it's so clearly based on a lack of knowledge and lack of understanding
It gives John Oliver some funny fuel but there's some meat on the bone of what people googled the day after, and of course Farage and Johnson not running for pm is also revelatory
I get that just shouting at trump people and being mean doesn't help, but what does, when they're wrong about everything they think about the world? How do you start bridging that gap? Really tempting to give up and just be mean about them in private.
also fuck you chrome, revelatory is totally a word
This is kind of my core problem with the "oh, America has drifted into two separate camps" narrative from that essay.
It's certainly true sometimes, my mom is a good example of the liberal version of the Fox News watcher, and she drives me nuts.
But generally speaking the American left hasn't drifted anywhere, they're the ones who are still reading the New York Times and watching CNN and engages with the world with at least a respect for the idea of facts. The American mainstream left hasn't radicalized, except in the sense that they're now more open and embracing of different cultural and racial groups.
The separation in politics hasn't come from a mutual drift apart, it's come almost entirely from a descent into hucksterism and demagoguery on the right. There is no equal but opposite version of Trump on the left. Nor a left's Cruz or Carson. The left isn't catering towards conspiracy theorists. The left spent its primary season arguing about what changes could be meaningfully passed to help the most amount of people. The right spent its primary promising to burn down everything. The left doesn't have candidates who are blatantly running direct mail fundraising campaigns to personally enrich themselves, nor do their political commentators invest in gold-selling companies and then spend episodes promoting gold-buying pyramid schemes.
I think you're reaching, or rather that the author would agree with you and any nod in the direction of "both sides are the same" was unintentional on his part. Switch the narrative to "half of america has drifted into a new camp" or something.
edit: not unintentional, upon reflection, but i don't think he's making the argument you're arguing against, he's just being careful not to make either argument
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
I think this is p easy to merge with the quote though. The author said
"Above all, Trump supporters are “not politically correct,” which, as far as I can tell, means that they have a particular aversion to that psychological moment when, having thought something, you decide that it is not a good thought, and might pointlessly hurt someone’s feelings, and therefore decline to say it."
You're explaining (I think, stop me if I get it wrong) that in your experience they never decide something would pointlessly hurt someone's feelings, they always believe there's a point, even if it's formless and indirect, we need a climate where people saying what they want is sufficient point to hurt someone's feelings. That seems to agree with the quote that they have an aversion to that psychological moment - they make the moment definitionally impossible because you can never pointlessly hurt someone's feelings if saying what you want to say is never pointless.
i don't think the writer was going there but since they both arrive at the same destination, the distinction is trivial to me so we don't have any meaningful points of disagreement remaining
+2
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
tho i should add that the mechanism by which we arrive does matter for like, the congeniality of the conversation- my interpretation means they have an overinflated sense of self-importance, or whatever. the author's (even artfully stated) interpretation, which i think is more common, sounds more substantially critically of their character. i'd rather hang out with someone who mistakenly thinks they're doing something important and noble or whatever, vs someone who just couldn't give a shit about how other people feel.
my position, as always, is resolutely kind and thoughtful
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
Ah I see. I disagree with this perspective because the authenticity of their convictions doesnt strike me as particularly compelling, and neither does it negate the value of societal decency. I mean, certainly relevant in a dissection of their motivations and possible construction of a counter argument, but it doesn't necessarily strengthen the logical link between "this is right" and "this is something i should say" (emotional link is another thing altogether).
And perhaps it's because I'm a liberal partisan hack but giving deference to this notion that prejudiced and resentful feelings and speech is valid on the same level because they're authentically felt is fairly insulting to the opposing views of people who are on the receiving end of this kind of "politically incorrect" speech, and who similarly feel authentically harmed by it. These interests--anti-PC and pro-PC--are not compatible except for some arguments we can have about degrees of acceptable sensitivity, but on the scale we are seeing from current trump supporters I don't think that invalidated this mutually exclusive relationship. So on some level one side's aggrievement, however sincerely felt, is more important than the other. And given the supremacy of racist and sexist assumptions for the vast majority of human and even just American history it feels particularly risible to give special credence to a vehement appeal to continue spouting horseshit under the veil of unimpeachable truth just because the people who feel those things feel them with outsized intensity.
So I don't really think that "pointlessly hurtful" is excessively trivializing the legitimacy of their comments. I think it accurately frames the harmful consequences of thoughtlessly airing their opinions on the "important" basis that it's just right to do so, which is itself a trivial pursuit (media and entertainment, please) of that fleeting little feeling of social triumph at a terrible cost to others
But like I said I'm a filthy SJW otherkin fuckstain and I wipe my ass with the American flag on a near daily basis God bless
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
tho i should add that the mechanism by which we arrive does matter for like, the congeniality of the conversation- my interpretation means they have an overinflated sense of self-importance, or whatever. the author's (even artfully stated) interpretation, which i think is more common, sounds more substantially critically of their character. i'd rather hang out with someone who mistakenly thinks they're doing something important and noble or whatever, vs someone who just couldn't give a shit about how other people feel.
my position, as always, is resolutely kind and thoughtful
we've probably beaten the horse to death at this point
what you see as kind and thoughtful phrasing bothers me because it feels like you're abstracting away the harm they do, but we've established that it's just phrasing
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
I think this is p easy to merge with the quote though. The author said
"Above all, Trump supporters are “not politically correct,” which, as far as I can tell, means that they have a particular aversion to that psychological moment when, having thought something, you decide that it is not a good thought, and might pointlessly hurt someone’s feelings, and therefore decline to say it."
You're explaining (I think, stop me if I get it wrong) that in your experience they never decide something would pointlessly hurt someone's feelings, they always believe there's a point, even if it's formless and indirect, we need a climate where people saying what they want is sufficient point to hurt someone's feelings. That seems to agree with the quote that they have an aversion to that psychological moment - they make the moment definitionally impossible because you can never pointlessly hurt someone's feelings if saying what you want to say is never pointless.
Forget all the bullshit I vomited in my previous post and listen to puppies instead
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
Ah I see. I disagree with this perspective because the authenticity of their convictions doesnt strike me as particularly compelling, and neither does it negate the value of societal decency. I mean, certainly relevant in a dissection of their motivations and possible construction of a counter argument, but it doesn't necessarily strengthen the logical link between "this is right" and "this is something i should say" (emotional link is another thing altogether).
And perhaps it's because I'm a liberal partisan hack but giving deference to this notion that prejudiced and resentful feelings and speech is valid on the same level because they're authentically felt is fairly insulting to the opposing views of people who are on the receiving end of this kind of "politically incorrect" speech, and who similarly feel authentically harmed by it. These interests--anti-PC and pro-PC--are not compatible except for some arguments we can have about degrees of acceptable sensitivity, but on the scale we are seeing from current trump supporters I don't think that invalidated this mutually exclusive relationship. So on some level one side's aggrievement, however sincerely felt, is more important than the other. And given the supremacy of racist and sexist assumptions for the vast majority of human and even just American history it feels particularly risible to give special credence to a vehement appeal to continue spouting horseshit under the veil of unimpeachable truth just because the people who feel those things feel them with outsized intensity.
So I don't really think that "pointlessly hurtful" is excessively trivializing the legitimacy of their comments. I think it accurately frames the harmful consequences of thoughtlessly airing their opinions on the "important" basis that it's just right to do so, which is itself a trivial pursuit (media and entertainment, please) of that fleeting little feeling of social triumph at a terrible cost to others
But like I said I'm a filthy SJW otherkin fuckstain and I wipe my ass with the American flag on a near daily basis God bless
well, we pretty much agree. i'm not saying their defense is a valid one- i just got the impression that when the author said pointless, it wasn't followed by a 'in my opinion'. i'm carving out the fact that it's important to them only in an academic, abstract sense- maybe in 50 years sociologists will figure out a way to bridge social chasms by exploring the causes of behavior like this. i'm perfectly comfortable calling them ridiculous and harmful today, and saying they don't permit the speakers any sort of rhetorical equivalence.
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
I think this is p easy to merge with the quote though. The author said
"Above all, Trump supporters are “not politically correct,” which, as far as I can tell, means that they have a particular aversion to that psychological moment when, having thought something, you decide that it is not a good thought, and might pointlessly hurt someone’s feelings, and therefore decline to say it."
You're explaining (I think, stop me if I get it wrong) that in your experience they never decide something would pointlessly hurt someone's feelings, they always believe there's a point, even if it's formless and indirect, we need a climate where people saying what they want is sufficient point to hurt someone's feelings. That seems to agree with the quote that they have an aversion to that psychological moment - they make the moment definitionally impossible because you can never pointlessly hurt someone's feelings if saying what you want to say is never pointless.
Forget all the bullshit I vomited in my previous post and listen to puppies instead
life advice
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
Ah I see. I disagree with this perspective because the authenticity of their convictions doesnt strike me as particularly compelling, and neither does it negate the value of societal decency. I mean, certainly relevant in a dissection of their motivations and possible construction of a counter argument, but it doesn't necessarily strengthen the logical link between "this is right" and "this is something i should say" (emotional link is another thing altogether).
And perhaps it's because I'm a liberal partisan hack but giving deference to this notion that prejudiced and resentful feelings and speech is valid on the same level because they're authentically felt is fairly insulting to the opposing views of people who are on the receiving end of this kind of "politically incorrect" speech, and who similarly feel authentically harmed by it. These interests--anti-PC and pro-PC--are not compatible except for some arguments we can have about degrees of acceptable sensitivity, but on the scale we are seeing from current trump supporters I don't think that invalidated this mutually exclusive relationship. So on some level one side's aggrievement, however sincerely felt, is more important than the other. And given the supremacy of racist and sexist assumptions for the vast majority of human and even just American history it feels particularly risible to give special credence to a vehement appeal to continue spouting horseshit under the veil of unimpeachable truth just because the people who feel those things feel them with outsized intensity.
So I don't really think that "pointlessly hurtful" is excessively trivializing the legitimacy of their comments. I think it accurately frames the harmful consequences of thoughtlessly airing their opinions on the "important" basis that it's just right to do so, which is itself a trivial pursuit (media and entertainment, please) of that fleeting little feeling of social triumph at a terrible cost to others
But like I said I'm a filthy SJW otherkin fuckstain and I wipe my ass with the American flag on a near daily basis God bless
well, we pretty much agree. i'm not saying their defense is a valid one- i just got the impression that when the author said pointless, it wasn't followed by a 'in my opinion'. i'm carving out the fact that it's important to them only in an academic, abstract sense- maybe in 50 years sociologists will figure out a way to bridge social chasms by exploring the causes of behavior like this. i'm perfectly comfortable calling them ridiculous and harmful today, and saying they don't permit the speakers any sort of rhetorical equivalence.
Ok. Well. Hugs all round then
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
Ah I see. I disagree with this perspective because the authenticity of their convictions doesnt strike me as particularly compelling, and neither does it negate the value of societal decency. I mean, certainly relevant in a dissection of their motivations and possible construction of a counter argument, but it doesn't necessarily strengthen the logical link between "this is right" and "this is something i should say" (emotional link is another thing altogether).
And perhaps it's because I'm a liberal partisan hack but giving deference to this notion that prejudiced and resentful feelings and speech is valid on the same level because they're authentically felt is fairly insulting to the opposing views of people who are on the receiving end of this kind of "politically incorrect" speech, and who similarly feel authentically harmed by it. These interests--anti-PC and pro-PC--are not compatible except for some arguments we can have about degrees of acceptable sensitivity, but on the scale we are seeing from current trump supporters I don't think that invalidated this mutually exclusive relationship. So on some level one side's aggrievement, however sincerely felt, is more important than the other. And given the supremacy of racist and sexist assumptions for the vast majority of human and even just American history it feels particularly risible to give special credence to a vehement appeal to continue spouting horseshit under the veil of unimpeachable truth just because the people who feel those things feel them with outsized intensity.
So I don't really think that "pointlessly hurtful" is excessively trivializing the legitimacy of their comments. I think it accurately frames the harmful consequences of thoughtlessly airing their opinions on the "important" basis that it's just right to do so, which is itself a trivial pursuit (media and entertainment, please) of that fleeting little feeling of social triumph at a terrible cost to others
But like I said I'm a filthy SJW otherkin fuckstain and I wipe my ass with the American flag on a near daily basis God bless
well, we pretty much agree. i'm not saying their defense is a valid one- i just got the impression that when the author said pointless, it wasn't followed by a 'in my opinion'. i'm carving out the fact that it's important to them only in an academic, abstract sense- maybe in 50 years sociologists will figure out a way to bridge social chasms by exploring the causes of behavior like this. i'm perfectly comfortable calling them ridiculous and harmful today, and saying they don't permit the speakers any sort of rhetorical equivalence.
It doesn't seem like whether their words are pointless is a matter of opinion. I'm pretty comfortable jumping from "chu finds their point formless and inexplicable" to "their point is formless and inexplicable" in this particular case.
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
hakkes: i guess my issue with that quote is the idea of these things being pointlessly hurtful. we see them as pointless but they are pointed and meaningful to these people. shouting that the liberal media is too soft on mexicans is a thing they feel needs to be said in order to 'stop pussyfooting around and deal with the problem', or whatever. it's formless and i don't see a direct line from --> saying something insensitive and to-the-wind --> a better country. but it seems like they think establishing a climate where people say what they want is necessary for... what, tough solutions? idk.
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
Ah I see. I disagree with this perspective because the authenticity of their convictions doesnt strike me as particularly compelling, and neither does it negate the value of societal decency. I mean, certainly relevant in a dissection of their motivations and possible construction of a counter argument, but it doesn't necessarily strengthen the logical link between "this is right" and "this is something i should say" (emotional link is another thing altogether).
And perhaps it's because I'm a liberal partisan hack but giving deference to this notion that prejudiced and resentful feelings and speech is valid on the same level because they're authentically felt is fairly insulting to the opposing views of people who are on the receiving end of this kind of "politically incorrect" speech, and who similarly feel authentically harmed by it. These interests--anti-PC and pro-PC--are not compatible except for some arguments we can have about degrees of acceptable sensitivity, but on the scale we are seeing from current trump supporters I don't think that invalidated this mutually exclusive relationship. So on some level one side's aggrievement, however sincerely felt, is more important than the other. And given the supremacy of racist and sexist assumptions for the vast majority of human and even just American history it feels particularly risible to give special credence to a vehement appeal to continue spouting horseshit under the veil of unimpeachable truth just because the people who feel those things feel them with outsized intensity.
So I don't really think that "pointlessly hurtful" is excessively trivializing the legitimacy of their comments. I think it accurately frames the harmful consequences of thoughtlessly airing their opinions on the "important" basis that it's just right to do so, which is itself a trivial pursuit (media and entertainment, please) of that fleeting little feeling of social triumph at a terrible cost to others
But like I said I'm a filthy SJW otherkin fuckstain and I wipe my ass with the American flag on a near daily basis God bless
well, we pretty much agree. i'm not saying their defense is a valid one- i just got the impression that when the author said pointless, it wasn't followed by a 'in my opinion'. i'm carving out the fact that it's important to them only in an academic, abstract sense- maybe in 50 years sociologists will figure out a way to bridge social chasms by exploring the causes of behavior like this. i'm perfectly comfortable calling them ridiculous and harmful today, and saying they don't permit the speakers any sort of rhetorical equivalence.
It doesn't seem like whether their words are pointless is a matter of opinion. I'm pretty comfortable jumping from "chu finds their point formless and inexplicable" to "their point is formless and inexplicable" in this particular case.
the point of contest isn't whether they're pointless- it's whether they, the people against 'PC' speech, agree.
i think they're pointless. i'm comfortable saying they are pointless, and leaving out the 'in my opinion'. but for the point i'm trying to explore, it's important to highlight that not all parties agree with what i see as a trivial truth.
Posts
your face is never the answer
edit: rafiki's p cool tho
Ed is the real MVP.
Re chu: Then I don't know what the argument is, chu? What's bothersome about the original quote? Certainly trump supporters are motivated to rail against perceived acts of political correctness by airing their own racist or sexist opinions with gusto. I don't disagree.
My own thoughts: Whatever those important reasons are for being motivated to say it (my country is in decline, these other people are taking my country away from me, my unvarnished truth is more important than courtesy, the first amendment, freedom, everyone else is thinking it I'm just saying it, it's funny cos it's true, things were better before than they are now, etc), they short circuit common codes of decency and cause harm, regardless of whether one of THEM is even around to hear it. I think this view of PC run amok conflates self censorship--that little judgement that says perhaps this is not good to say--with oppressive censorship--these PEOPLE are SILENCING my VERY IMPORTANT OPINION, even if it hurts people for no reason.
But I feel like I've lost the thread of this tangent. I just wanted to post a striking and mildly condescending excerpt from the article because I liked the term "pointlessly hurtful" to describe the most fundamental social code, "don't be a dick"
NNID: Hakkekage
i suspect u me and chu agree on all salient points and are just musing together on this great american holiday
I think so too
So...
I guess we have sex now?
NNID: Hakkekage
*sweats*
You piece of shit I'll snap off your dick bet you wish you could restart and try again now
NNID: Hakkekage
sigh
fine, i'll get up
but the central argument about political correctness- let me say what i want even if it hurts people, why say this unimportant thing when it will hurt people?- seems to trivially believe in the unimportance of their comments. it's like the war on christmas, or whatever. however ridiculous or contrived, these christians think that if every christian 'fights back' and puts up a star or whatever, that will collectively drive us to a better environment. every time someone buys a gun is an expression of freedom, every time someone does this it 'restores the climate' or whatever.
I miss u too poopies
I gotta say the whole Colorado crew (and Colorado transplants and ex pats), you guys. I like you. Is there something in the water
NNID: Hakkekage
Love juice
there's something in the water everywhere else
think how great you could be if you drank pure mountain water and not concrete jungle water
This is kind of my core problem with the "oh, America has drifted into two separate camps" narrative from that essay.
It's certainly true sometimes, my mom is a good example of the liberal version of the Fox News watcher, and she drives me nuts.
But generally speaking the American left hasn't drifted anywhere, they're the ones who are still reading the New York Times and watching CNN and engages with the world with at least a respect for the idea of facts. The American mainstream left hasn't radicalized, except in the sense that they're now more open and embracing of different cultural and racial groups.
The separation in politics hasn't come from a mutual drift apart, it's come almost entirely from a descent into hucksterism and demagoguery on the right. There is no equal but opposite version of Trump on the left. Nor a left's Cruz or Carson. The left isn't catering towards conspiracy theorists. The left spent its primary season arguing about what changes could be meaningfully passed to help the most amount of people. The right spent its primary promising to burn down everything. The left doesn't have candidates who are blatantly running direct mail fundraising campaigns to personally enrich themselves, nor do their political commentators invest in gold-selling companies and then spend episodes promoting gold-buying pyramid schemes.
I think this is p easy to merge with the quote though. The author said
You're explaining (I think, stop me if I get it wrong) that in your experience they never decide something would pointlessly hurt someone's feelings, they always believe there's a point, even if it's formless and indirect, we need a climate where people saying what they want is sufficient point to hurt someone's feelings. That seems to agree with the quote that they have an aversion to that psychological moment - they make the moment definitionally impossible because you can never pointlessly hurt someone's feelings if saying what you want to say is never pointless.
Democrats have no analogues for whats happening on the right
I think you're reaching, or rather that the author would agree with you and any nod in the direction of "both sides are the same" was unintentional on his part. Switch the narrative to "half of america has drifted into a new camp" or something.
edit: not unintentional, upon reflection, but i don't think he's making the argument you're arguing against, he's just being careful not to make either argument
i don't think the writer was going there but since they both arrive at the same destination, the distinction is trivial to me so we don't have any meaningful points of disagreement remaining
my position, as always, is resolutely kind and thoughtful
Lil Beefer x Blooby
A love story
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
SMH
Ah I see. I disagree with this perspective because the authenticity of their convictions doesnt strike me as particularly compelling, and neither does it negate the value of societal decency. I mean, certainly relevant in a dissection of their motivations and possible construction of a counter argument, but it doesn't necessarily strengthen the logical link between "this is right" and "this is something i should say" (emotional link is another thing altogether).
And perhaps it's because I'm a liberal partisan hack but giving deference to this notion that prejudiced and resentful feelings and speech is valid on the same level because they're authentically felt is fairly insulting to the opposing views of people who are on the receiving end of this kind of "politically incorrect" speech, and who similarly feel authentically harmed by it. These interests--anti-PC and pro-PC--are not compatible except for some arguments we can have about degrees of acceptable sensitivity, but on the scale we are seeing from current trump supporters I don't think that invalidated this mutually exclusive relationship. So on some level one side's aggrievement, however sincerely felt, is more important than the other. And given the supremacy of racist and sexist assumptions for the vast majority of human and even just American history it feels particularly risible to give special credence to a vehement appeal to continue spouting horseshit under the veil of unimpeachable truth just because the people who feel those things feel them with outsized intensity.
So I don't really think that "pointlessly hurtful" is excessively trivializing the legitimacy of their comments. I think it accurately frames the harmful consequences of thoughtlessly airing their opinions on the "important" basis that it's just right to do so, which is itself a trivial pursuit (media and entertainment, please) of that fleeting little feeling of social triumph at a terrible cost to others
But like I said I'm a filthy SJW otherkin fuckstain and I wipe my ass with the American flag on a near daily basis God bless
NNID: Hakkekage
we've probably beaten the horse to death at this point
what you see as kind and thoughtful phrasing bothers me because it feels like you're abstracting away the harm they do, but we've established that it's just phrasing
Forget all the bullshit I vomited in my previous post and listen to puppies instead
NNID: Hakkekage
well, we pretty much agree. i'm not saying their defense is a valid one- i just got the impression that when the author said pointless, it wasn't followed by a 'in my opinion'. i'm carving out the fact that it's important to them only in an academic, abstract sense- maybe in 50 years sociologists will figure out a way to bridge social chasms by exploring the causes of behavior like this. i'm perfectly comfortable calling them ridiculous and harmful today, and saying they don't permit the speakers any sort of rhetorical equivalence.
If eating trailmix off my belly and watching LP's is wrong, then maybe America didn't fight the war of 1812 for anything at all amengodbless
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
life advice
Ok. Well. Hugs all round then
NNID: Hakkekage
It doesn't seem like whether their words are pointless is a matter of opinion. I'm pretty comfortable jumping from "chu finds their point formless and inexplicable" to "their point is formless and inexplicable" in this particular case.
NNID: Hakkekage
Buncha verbose Founding Fathers + Mothers in here
straighten up that area now
what do you want to do with your life
I don't understand what you have against cats blowing razzies
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing
the point of contest isn't whether they're pointless- it's whether they, the people against 'PC' speech, agree.
i think they're pointless. i'm comfortable saying they are pointless, and leaving out the 'in my opinion'. but for the point i'm trying to explore, it's important to highlight that not all parties agree with what i see as a trivial truth.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OLcAGbXhWIVcl5IziVpG0eKFJS3xi_Sac9kYMkRFvD8/edit?usp=sharing