Is political correctness stifling debate?

[DemonTim]

I initially thought this was an open letter linked on Twitter not a character reference to a judge.

Turns out it was an actual submission.

Who the hell writes that crap? Telling a judge what "rape" and "rapist" mean? Making out this is just a bit of a mistake by a saintly boy.

"He would never ever rape and even if he did it doesn't make him a rapist."

A bit much to drop the band, but that letter is rank bile.

Nope was a character reference that was released in the media.

She's an idiot for writing it, bias and emotion probably played their part. My only issue is the morons petitioning her band be removed from bills because of it. It's saying "I don't like your opinion on this matter, so you should not be able to work".

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Don't make it another left vs right crap fest.

Internet activism is rubbish, people complain online about serious issues, because it's easy (for the most part). Not from an actual attempt to change things.

You seem to just be responding to things that aren't said now. I think we are done

I'm responding to the thread. I know that you aren't buying into the political correctness side of it, but I'm looking at where the anger might be coming from and I think it is because people look at the political discussions of the day and see one side overwhelmingly playing unfair. Your assessment that people "only care" because of media, or "pretend they care", or don't make "an actual attempt to change things" (but you're annoyed that it is now having "real world impacts"?)... All that is unfair and disrespectful generalisation. We agree that we don't like the targeting of an individual, and especially the targeting of their livelihood. That has become more common with the information available online. But it isn't being done because it's 'easy'. It's because people are angry, and a lot of that anger is from people repetitively dismissing their opinions.

If you don't think all that is related to the "left vs right crap fest" then you haven't read the thread back far enough. 95% of the time when "political correctness" is brought up it is just a complaint about "lefty" politics. The complainants often write "lefty PC crap" to make it easier to tell. I've tried many times to try and actually work out what people are complaining about without the complaints about 'the left' or 'right' and it's been very difficult. I've been told that "political correctness" has changed definition to mean 'lefty' politics. Now it's looking like some people think it relates to internet outrage culture.

You don't like Internet activism and that seems irrational. The internet is the key medium for the foreseeable future and you've already stated you think activism is important. It has already developed from clicking 'like' into something more active and it will continue to develop.

 

[DemonTim]

I'm responding to the thread. I know that you aren't buying into the political correctness side of it, but I'm looking at where the anger might be coming from and I think it is because people look at the political discussions of the day and see one side overwhelmingly playing unfair. Your assessment that people "only care" because of media, or "pretend they care", or don't make "an actual attempt to change things" (but you're annoyed that it is now having "real world impacts"?)... All that is unfair and disrespectful generalisation. We agree that we don't like the targeting of an individual, and especially the targeting of their livelihood. That has become more common with the information available online. But it isn't being done because it's 'easy'. It's because people are angry, and a lot of that anger is from people repetitively dismissing their opinions.

If you don't think all that is related to the "left vs right crap fest" then you haven't read the thread back far enough. 95% of the time when "political correctness" is brought up it is just a complaint about "lefty" politics. The complainants often write "lefty PC crap" to make it easier to tell. I've tried many times to try and actually work out what people are complaining about without the complaints about 'the left' or 'right' and it's been very difficult. I've been told that "political correctness" has changed definition to mean 'lefty' politics. Now it's looking like some people think it relates to internet outrage culture.

You don't like Internet activism and that seems irrational. The internet is the key medium for the foreseeable future and you've already stated you think activism is important. It has already developed from clicking 'like' into something more active and it will continue to develop.

I'm annoyed because of real world impacts on the individual, not impacts on whatever cause they are targeting. So you think these people targeted this womans opinion of a rapist, because they're angry that their opinion of rape repetitively being dismissed? Despite MSM, the public, and the entire internet being against what she said?

It's the same from both sides the "right" throw around crap like PC, the "left" throw around the word bigot when it's not applicable.

I don't like internet activism in it's current state, because it's still just about clicking like, shouting people down, attacking the individual. Where has it developed from just clicking like? Facebook etc are filled with the "share if you want to help this child", or random people targeting individuals who disagree with them. Where are these examples of it becoming something more?

You make the claim that people don't become internet activists because it's easy, they do it because the system won't listen, and that they target the individual, because the system won't listen. So is it a never ending cycle? The system won't listen, so they turn to internet activism, and the system doesn't listen, so they target the individual, and the system doesn't listen, so they become angry and start all over again? Where are these benefits of internet activism in it's current state?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I'm annoyed because of real world impacts on the individual, not impacts on whatever cause they are targeting. So you think these people targeted this womans opinion of a rapist, because they're angry that their opinion of rape repetitively being dismissed? Despite MSM, the public, and the entire internet being against what she said?

It's the same from both sides the "right" throw around crap like PC, the "left" throw around the word bigot when it's not applicable.

I don't like internet activism in it's current state, because it's still just about clicking like, shouting people down, attacking the individual. Where has it developed from just clicking like? Facebook etc are filled with the "share if you want to help this child", or random people targeting individuals who disagree with them. Where are these examples of it becoming something more?

You make the claim that people don't become internet activists because it's easy, they do it because the system won't listen, and that they target the individual, because the system won't listen. So is it a never ending cycle? The system won't listen, so they turn to internet activism, and the system doesn't listen, so they target the individual, and the system doesn't listen, so they become angry and start all over again? Where are these benefits of internet activism in it's current state?

No, it develops as people try things and get feedback. Shaming individuals will lessen in terms of media impact. Most people find it distasteful. It will still happen (as it happened prior to the Internet) but people will ignore it. Those clubs didn't have to take the band off their line-ups, but obviously there was enough attention and people contacting them that they made the business decision to act. Without the media attention in the future it may not happen the same way. There will also be blowback from people asking why they are targeting individuals rather than the system.

But, yes, otherwise I do think the targeting of her is to do with the lack of progress in terms of victim-blaming. It remains a very common aspect of society. There would also, of course, be an element of outrage culture and people jumping onboard because they're bored, but the majority of people would really care about it. You say that "MSM, the public, and the entire internet" are "against what she said" but we both know that isn't true, and we both know that the only reason it is being covered in the MSM so widely is because of the social media impact of the case. I've also seen posts about the case pointing out the way a black child shot dead while buying snacks is presented in a hoody in the media, while the rapist in this case is shown in academic gown. It's about building activism over the unfair aspects of media presentation and legal outcomes. It is far from perfect, but I do think people learn from it, even if slower than you would like. This is having more effect that dry discussions of the same injustice on PBS or whatever.

All of that is a development from the Kony/Make Povery History era of clicking 'like' and thinking 'job done'. The fact FB is filled with clickbait isn't indicative of activism, it's indicative of FB algorithms and people trying to harvest data, and some of the old-style clicktavism [trump]and some, I assume,[/trump] of the newer style of online activism. Things are changing, and I don't think the system will continue to not listen as you suggest. The widespread attention for this case builds on previous cases, and builds the general political case for change. Politicians often pay more attention to popular topics.

 

[bad setanta]

but obviously there was enough attention and people contacting them that they made the business decision to act.

I'm willing to wager they would've made that decision with or without people contacting them which is quite sad. After all image trumps everything these days including the right to offend which is a critical element of free speech. The more limits we place on anything but popular speech even if it's stupid and wrong the further we move from a free society now surely you'd have to agree with this?
On your second statement, is it really a business decision? That gets them off the hook nicely doesn't it. Do they really think no one will show up if her band performs?
Or are they doing this because they are cowed into making what they believe a moral decision even before any pressure even materialises. I'm not convinced it's a business decision.
Now in no way am I defending what she said or saying she shouldn't be immune from criticism for her statement. Just her right to say it without consequence.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I'm willing to wager they would've made that decision with or without people contacting them which is quite sad. After all image trumps everything these days including the right to offend which is a critical element of free speech. The more limits we place on anything but popular speech even if it's stupid and wrong the further we move from a free society now surely you'd have to agree with this?

No limits have been placed on free speech. I don't think they would've made the decision without people contacting them.

On your second statement, is it really a business decision? That gets them off the hook nicely doesn't it.

I don't see why it gets them off the hook? If you are concerned about the ramifications of social pressure then to me it is more impactful if it is a business decision, rather than a moral decision. Societal pressure has been applied due to an unpopular opinion. Someone making a business decision is reflecting that the opinion is widely unpopular. Whereas if a person makes a moral decision that doesn't reflect on anything but their own thinking. It is not that different to the cake shop who didn't want to serve gay people, although in this case it is not dealing with a supplier, rather than customers.

Or are they doing this because they are cowed into making what they believe a moral decision even before any pressure even materialises. I'm not convinced it's a business decision.

People aren't "cowed" into moral decisions. Morals are morals. If you mean that they're making a PR maneuver because they don't want to look immoral even if they're unconvinced by the argument, then that is a business decision because they believe enough of their clientele value that moral image. I suppose they might be cowed if it becomes about their personal image, and this sort of public shaming may lead to that, so you'd have a point there. I'm not sure if there are examples of that happening?

Now in no way am I defending what she said or saying she shouldn't be immune from criticism for her statement. Just her right to say it without consequence.

I think that's a contradiction, but I'll assume you mean "without financial consequence". It's a tough call on that, because the society of the last 35 years has taught us that the free market is meant to be the primary shaper of our world. Applying financial pressure is powerful. People tweeting that she was wrong to say what she said may not have much cut-through, but having her and her bandmembers annoyed at cancelled gigs will obviously impact her greatly. It would make more sense to wait and see what her response was to the criticism before hitting her financially, but certainly for activists looking to make headway you can see how they might be looking in the first instance how they can apply financial pressure given how much claptrap, binery arguments, and echo-chambers dominate 'discussion' these days, with little progress being made.

I'm sure someone can look into this particular case more than we have, but they may have been looking for a way to apply pressure and lacked avenues before stumbling across this girl and her band. It's pretty lame. But it's hard to deny her comments weren't ignorant or incendiary or both.

A fair few of us in this thread say we want less anger in online discussions (although some people come across like they only really dislike it from certain people), but in my time on BF there doesn't appear to be any desire from some groups to remove the spite or anger from their comments. They might start off trying to sound reasonable but quickly resort to labels when challenged. There is no reason to think being called racist/sexist/homophobic or whatever is any different to being called lazy/dole-bludger/traitor/lefty/etc. but you can talk about the accuracy of the former labels generally without getting angry, while the latter labels tend to get doled out no matter what response gets made. Of course that could be my own bias, or the bias of a male-dominated forum where people appear drawn to contentious topics and 'telling it like it is' rather than the drier Aus Politics policy stuff I often talk about.

I don't really know if all that makes sense as a whole. The angry internet is a bit of a focus of mine. I can't believe how shallow political discussion has gotten over the last 7-8 years. I think it's a bad sign, but hope it's temporary.

 

[bad setanta]

I don't really know if all that makes sense as a whole

Sure does and it's very insightful, although I disagree on some key points a different reasoned perspective is most welcome.

 

[bad setanta]

No limits have been placed on free speech

I would tend to draw the limits a little bit narrower, while it clearly isn't an overt attack on free speech. It would have to qualify as discouragement to speak your mind if someone is no platformed for it no matter how wrong they are.
Take the case of David Irving with the Austrians placing him in prison (Making him a martyr to some idiots) and his books being banned in many countries. Wasn't it better and more effective for him to be shredded by his peers namely Richard Evans who did much more to discredit Irving than throwing him in jail or banning his books ever did.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I would tend to draw the limits a little bit narrower, while it clearly isn't an overt attack on free speech. It would have to qualify as discouragement to speak your mind if someone is no platformed for it no matter how wrong they are.
Take the case of David Irving with the Austrians placing him in prison (Making him a martyr to some idiots) and his books being banned in many countries. Wasn't it better and more effective for him to be shredded by his peers namely Richard Evans who did much more to discredit Irving than throwing him in jail or banning his books ever did.

My instinct is always to allow free speech. If it's a dumb and out in the open, you can easily destroy its credibility. Otherwise it's online & mostly unregulated.

It is hard not to feel some satisfaction, however, when a douche like that 'pick-up artist' was kicked out of the country. And if it all went ahead, is it not also a kind of 'free speech' to protest that? And then is it OK for people to publicise the blokes who were going to attend those 'lectures' because the protesters would be seeing who was entering anyway and there would be legitimate reasons for women to want to avoid those blokes?

It kind of feels like where things overlap with privacy we would want to draw a line. And perhaps that guy is a bad example as he was basically on a 'profits of crime' type thing. His ideas of pseudo-choking women in that context is assault so I guess he was promoting breaking the law and is trying to make money from it. But then if a rapper raps about rape and is barred, he also is trying to make money but would of course say it was fiction and artistic expression, not promotion of rape.

It's a blurry line and the fact that anyone visiting here is a guest makes it easy for a government to just say 'invite withdrawn'. I know Irving is nuts, but there is definitely an argument that says suggesting the holocaust was made up is essentially calling a bunch of people liars and conspirators and that would incite hate. I don't think we would accept someone coming here to teach people how to make bombs, so where do you draw the line? I think some people who advocate for free speech are as airy fairy as the people who say a major recidivist criminal deserves a chance at rehabilitation. There are legitimate dangers in the world and there are basic facts we can rely upon when assessing people's intentions.

 

[bad setanta]

t is hard not to feel some satisfaction, however, when a douche like that 'pick-up artist' was kicked out of the country. And if it all went ahead, is it not also a kind of 'free speech' to protest that? And then is it OK for people to publicise the blokes who were going to attend those 'lectures' because the protesters would be seeing who was entering anyway and there would be legitimate reasons for women to want to avoid those blokes?

Yeah for sure his intentions were pretty clear to incite hatred and violence and he had a proven track record of it... to protest that would've been a moral duty ... total agreement there. Your next point to publicise the attendee's is a good one and I cant answer it being more a privacy and law issue I wouldn't know enough to comment.

 

[fleabitten]

The venues where the band was supposed to play were threatened with protests (which would have ruined their event and turned away many potential customers that did actually want to come and see the bands). I don't think it really tells the story to call it a "business decision" to remove them. Business-wise, they weren't really given a choice. It was either drop the band and be allowed to do business, or keep them on the bill and host a protest instead.

 

[Todman]

Bill Leak is not just a great and fearless cartoonist. He can also write - and, again, without fear:


Political correctness has been thriving in the Islamic world since the seventh century. Not even the smuggest, most self-righteous social justice warrior in Australia today could hold a candle to Mohammed, who made the anti-guy guy David Morrison look like Rodney Rude. Mohammed occasionally smiled but would never display his tonsils, though one of his disciples once did report excitedly that he “indeed saw the Messenger of Allah laugh till his front teeth were exposed”.

He also advised his followers not to laugh because “laughing too much deadens the heart” and warned them off joking by saying: “A man may say something to make his companions laugh, and he will fall into Hell as far as the Pleiades because of it.” In other words, the reward for anyone telling jokes and making his mates laugh was to spend eternity burning in the fires of hell.

If you want to crack a gag at an Islamist open mic night you’ve got to make sure you stick within the guidelines as laid down in the Koran and Hadith. And that means “for humour to be in accordance with Islam, the joke should not insult anyone, should not frighten anyone, should be within the limits of Islamic tolerance, should tell the truth, should not be offensive, should not contain un-Islamic material or promote immorality or indecency”.

Sound familiar?

If you substitute PC for Islam in that set of rules you’ve got the rules governing humour as laid down by the progressive Left in the democracies of the modern world. Right there, in a nutshell. Except you’d have to leave out the one that demands you tell the truth because the primary purpose of PC is the avoidance of it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Bill Leak is not just a great and fearless cartoonist. He can also write - and, again, without fear:


Political correctness has been thriving in the Islamic world since the seventh century. Not even the smuggest, most self-righteous social justice warrior in Australia today could hold a candle to Mohammed, who made the anti-guy guy David Morrison look like Rodney Rude. Mohammed occasionally smiled but would never display his tonsils, though one of his disciples once did report excitedly that he “indeed saw the Messenger of Allah laugh till his front teeth were exposed”.

He also advised his followers not to laugh because “laughing too much deadens the heart” and warned them off joking by saying: “A man may say something to make his companions laugh, and he will fall into Hell as far as the Pleiades because of it.” In other words, the reward for anyone telling jokes and making his mates laugh was to spend eternity burning in the fires of hell.

If you want to crack a gag at an Islamist open mic night you’ve got to make sure you stick within the guidelines as laid down in the Koran and Hadith. And that means “for humour to be in accordance with Islam, the joke should not insult anyone, should not frighten anyone, should be within the limits of Islamic tolerance, should tell the truth, should not be offensive, should not contain un-Islamic material or promote immorality or indecency”.

Sound familiar?

If you substitute PC for Islam in that set of rules you’ve got the rules governing humour as laid down by the progressive Left in the democracies of the modern world. Right there, in a nutshell. Except you’d have to leave out the one that demands you tell the truth because the primary purpose of PC is the avoidance of it.

Uh oh. Looks like Todman just claimed anyone who tells a joke that is not the truth or that insults someone, therefore can't be PC or Islamic.

The amount of people who would fit this bill is so small, that he's killed all the anti-PC threads and anti-Islam threads in one go. Bam.

 

[medusala]

People aren't "cowed" into moral decisions. Morals are morals.

Whose morality though? I would have zero issue at all at a shopkeeper refusing to serve a gay couple as per your example. I see no morality whatsoever in being told whom to do business with due to government whim. Sure its a pain not to get let in to a bar for no reason at all by the door bitch but its hardly the end of the world.

However, I am fairly there are others who wouldn't agree with that.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Whose morality though? I would have zero issue at all at a shopkeeper refusing to serve a gay couple as per your example. I see no morality whatsoever in being told whom to do business with due to government whim. Sure its a pain not to get let in to a bar for no reason at all by the door bitch but its hardly the end of the world.

However, I am fairly there are others who wouldn't agree with that.

I can see that libertarian POV, but it essentially allows Jim Crow.

 

[medusala]

I can see that libertarian POV, but it essentially allows Jim Crow.

I don't think anyone would argue it should extent to public facilities.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I don't think anyone would argue it should extent to public facilities.

But these laws included private business that were used by the public.

Would you allow a cafe to reject customers based on race/religion etc?

 

[Power Raid]

But these laws included private business that were used by the public.

Would you allow a cafe to reject customers based on race/religion etc?

I think we all hate that idea but in reality it does happen and the worst culprit here and around the world is government. some justified and others just popularist policy.

 

[medusala]

Would you allow a cafe to reject customers based on race/religion etc?

Yep I would have zero issue with that. Just as I would have no issue with a gay nightclub refusing entry to straight blokes. I remember that being a bit of an issue in London for a while as straight women would go to gay clubs so as not to get hassled by blokes. Then straight blokes cottoned on to this and starting turning up which didn't go down well.

As PR says, in reality these things happen both in the private and public sphere (ie quotas, positive discrimination etc)

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Whose morality though? I would have zero issue at all at a shopkeeper refusing to serve a gay couple as per your example. I see no morality whatsoever in being told whom to do business with due to government whim. Sure its a pain not to get let in to a bar for no reason at all by the door bitch but its hardly the end of the world.

However, I am fairly there are others who wouldn't agree with that.

The same morals exist more or less, the extent and nature in which those morals are applied is the issue. People's cultural practices or attitudes aren't themselves morals for mine.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Bill Leak is not just a great and fearless cartoonist. He can also write - and, again, without fear:


Political correctness has been thriving in the Islamic world since the seventh century. Not even the smuggest, most self-righteous social justice warrior in Australia today could hold a candle to Mohammed, who made the anti-guy guy David Morrison look like Rodney Rude. Mohammed occasionally smiled but would never display his tonsils, though one of his disciples once did report excitedly that he “indeed saw the Messenger of Allah laugh till his front teeth were exposed”.

He also advised his followers not to laugh because “laughing too much deadens the heart” and warned them off joking by saying: “A man may say something to make his companions laugh, and he will fall into Hell as far as the Pleiades because of it.” In other words, the reward for anyone telling jokes and making his mates laugh was to spend eternity burning in the fires of hell.

If you want to crack a gag at an Islamist open mic night you’ve got to make sure you stick within the guidelines as laid down in the Koran and Hadith. And that means “for humour to be in accordance with Islam, the joke should not insult anyone, should not frighten anyone, should be within the limits of Islamic tolerance, should tell the truth, should not be offensive, should not contain un-Islamic material or promote immorality or indecency”.

Sound familiar?

If you substitute PC for Islam in that set of rules you’ve got the rules governing humour as laid down by the progressive Left in the democracies of the modern world. Right there, in a nutshell. Except you’d have to leave out the one that demands you tell the truth because the primary purpose of PC is the avoidance of it.

It's a cute comparison. I like to substitute politically correct for orthodox, which more or less means the "right opinion".

A lot of the most aggressive SJW's in that respect are rule orientated conservatives not similar to racial American libertarians or religious zealots.


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Max zero]

My instinct is always to allow free speech. If it's a dumb and out in the open, you can easily destroy its credibility. Otherwise it's online & mostly unregulated.

It is hard not to feel some satisfaction, however, when a douche like that 'pick-up artist' was kicked out of the country. And if it all went ahead, is it not also a kind of 'free speech' to protest that? And then is it OK for people to publicise the blokes who were going to attend those 'lectures' because the protesters would be seeing who was entering anyway and there would be legitimate reasons for women to want to avoid those blokes?

It kind of feels like where things overlap with privacy we would want to draw a line. And perhaps that guy is a bad example as he was basically on a 'profits of crime' type thing. His ideas of pseudo-choking women in that context is assault so I guess he was promoting breaking the law and is trying to make money from it. But then if a rapper raps about rape and is barred, he also is trying to make money but would of course say it was fiction and artistic expression, not promotion of rape.

It's a blurry line and the fact that anyone visiting here is a guest makes it easy for a government to just say 'invite withdrawn'. I know Irving is nuts, but there is definitely an argument that says suggesting the holocaust was made up is essentially calling a bunch of people liars and conspirators and that would incite hate. I don't think we would accept someone coming here to teach people how to make bombs, so where do you draw the line? I think some people who advocate for free speech are as airy fairy as the people who say a major recidivist criminal deserves a chance at rehabilitation. There are legitimate dangers in the world and there are basic facts we can rely upon when assessing people's intentions.

But do you only feel that way because you personally disagreed with his views? It's easy to supportive of free speech when it's speech you agree with, the real test is when you don't agree with it.

In this very post you decry some of those who advocate for free speech as 'airy fairy' but then justify you own censorship because you can construe (rather tenuously) their comments as promoting violence. By your reasoning you could make a case for just about any Islamic cleric to be barred from entering the country.

 

[Max zero]

But these laws included private business that were used by the public.

Would you allow a cafe to reject customers based on race/religion etc?

I am not Meds but I can't see why not.

Yes it's horrible but if someone wants to isolate themselves like that why shouldn't they? No doubt they would suffer significant economic and social costs but should they suffer legal consequences for choosing not to associate with a particular group of people?

Do you really want to associate (in the cafe's case it would even be economic support) with someone who you disagree that strongly with anyway?

 

[Gough]

So offended by people that they withdraw their goods, and services. And they reckon it's the so called PC crowd that need to harden up. I wonder how many homophobes I've served?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

But do you only feel that way because you personally disagreed with his views? It's easy to supportive of free speech when it's speech you agree with, the real test is when you don't agree with it.

In this very post you decry some of those who advocate for free speech as 'airy fairy' but then justify you own censorship because you can construe (rather tenuously) their comments as promoting violence. By your reasoning you could make a case for just about any Islamic cleric to be barred from entering the country.

I think my post was clear about where issues get blurry. Most people draw the line at when someone is advocating violence or serious law-breaking dangerous to individuals (rather than, say, threatening a nation state or institution). There is nothing tenuous in saying that an individual promoting grasping women in nightclubs by the throat (and even demonstrating it as a 'pick up tactic') is promoting violence. If you think otherwise, then you don't understand society.