Philosophy Now Forum

One of the most beloved words of the PCturd lobby is 'minority'--after 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism'.
Yet, according to the PC, everyone is the same, there is no such thing as 'race', there is no such thing as culture except 'human culture' blah blah...
Do these geniuses not see any contradictions in their spiel, or do they simply not give a damn? After all, being 'Correct' is everything to these morons, and logic and reason be damned. I mean, when you are the moral standard-bearer for the entire human (sorry, 'huperson') race then explainations and rational arguments are not required. Just flinging the 'r' word around (or 'x' and 'b' word) will suffice.
Why is there any such thing as an 'African American'? I would have thought that after AT LEAST 15 generations or so they would have the right to call themselves 'American' (probably more so than most) rather than the nonsensical 'African ....'. We are all African if you go back far enough.
If we are 'all the same', then how can there be 'minorities'?
According to the dictionary:
diverse
/dʌɪˈvəːs,ˈdʌɪvəːs/
adjective
showing a great deal of variety; very different.
Don't even get me started on the absurd 'person of colour' crap. Are 'white' people transparent?
Why would anyone be a 'proud 'person of colour' (or even stupider, 'proud woman 'of colour' ')? Why on earth would someone be 'proud' of the amount of melanin they have in their skin (apparently 'white' people have none)? Or proud of both the amount of melanin PLUS their sex? How racist and sexist could anyone be? It's about as bloody stupid as being 'proud' of the fact that you like having a romp with a certain kind of person.


Those racist PC turds certainly have a lot to answer for (and they had better find a new word to fling around and destroy the meaning of, because if there are no 'races', then how can there be any 'racism'?)




Avert your eyes at this horror if you are prone to fainting:

It is all a PC game. Though admittedly some people take it quite seriously.

But as an outsider it is fun to watch, it's a bit like watching gridiron played with a balloon; entertaining but ultimately pointless.

But not harmless.
Not sure what you mean by 'outsider'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:35 am But not harmless.

Isn't that the point?

Language builds mental categories. Categories become rigid and socially accepted and they turn into silly tick-boxes on government documents like "race" and "gender". Leads to harmful social outcomes when people don't fit in the pre-defined boxes.

The first verse in the PC manual is "Altering language alters categorical thought".

But more so - when ticking one box over another entitles you to different social privileges, wouldn't you tick the box that benefits you most?
As far as the South African government is concerned - I am a "black female". On paper anyway.

So I systemically benefit from Black Economic Empowerment and Feminism because my "race" and my "gender" are encoded in my ID number.
I also benefit from "The Patriarchy" because any system that doesn't determine my race/gender from my ID number can see that I am actually a white dude.

Fuck the poorly-designed system.

yep. 6th generation "European American" here - lol.

ya and no. I"m American, not European American.

there are European Americans - off the boat from Europe and living here in America, but i'm not one of them.

anymore than Black Americans are African Americans (they are Americans of course) - unless they are off the boat from African, which some are, but most are not, and so no.

as for "people of color" this showed up only about 5 yrs ago (and why? - everytime i hear it i hear "Colored people"). Last time i heard "colored people" was insulting since around 1970, why dredge up a praise so similar now as oh so inclusive?

my head spins over this nonsense.

for the record, most Black Americans prefer to be called Black American or American, over African American let along People of Color. "African American" as pushed in the 1980's- as more enlightened than "black" but it never got the majority usage in the real world (black community - where "Black" remained the term and remains today).

all this PC nonsense is terminology by white privileged college profs that never knew a black person nor lived in thier community.

just a bunch of asshat pozer ignoramous pecocks living off the ivory tower tit.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:05 pm One of the most beloved words of the PCturd lobby is 'minority'--after 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism'.
Yet, according to the PC, everyone is the same, there is no such thing as 'race', there is no such thing as culture except 'human culture' blah blah...

There is a mixture of points of views in the actual understanding here. The older or original fights against discrimination want 'equality' and argue this on the basis of people intrinsically being 'equal' ....but in MIND or POTENTIAL. Then there are those who later interpret that any change actually had not occurred and that the discrimination remains. These people deny 'equality' exists because they interpret some genetic class of people as OWNING some 'culture' based upon the past. Often when some initial protections are set up to permit outsiders platform they were previously denied, the next generation of these presume that the laws set up to protect should be perpetually applied to that class rather than as a mere temporary reparations.

I'm for the initial 'equality' type movements where they concern pre-biasing classes of people as being discriminated against based upon false genetic associations to one's culture. Today's modern fight for "Multiculuralism (TM)" is made up of those who oppositely believe some genetic relationship is intrinsic to one's genetics. These are hypocritical positions that occur from within the same groups everywhere and cycles often by generation and condition changes.

I believe that "political correctness" in general belongs to those who think an 'etiquette' of behavior about expression is more important than the 'content' of the expression.

To resolve the confusion, I think it best to point out how those who classify some group as being required protection are illogically assigning some principle causal factor of a GENETIC condition to a correlated but unconnected and non-logical CULTURAL (or ENVIRONMENTAL) condition.

For instance, in any community anywhere in any time, there will always exist some genetic plurality of people who are impoverished. People advocating for the genetic-class (like 'women') who happen to have a coinciding common environmental condition (like 'those who get paid less than others of the same job description') often falsely interpret the problem as DUE to discrimination against the genetic class when it may be something accidental (like that the reason anybody might be discriminated upon for job pay may be related more to one's degree of assertiveness in asking for a raise.)

I know that the size and physcial strength of a person, for instance, is a sincere genetic factor that might bias one from becoming a lumberjack because the job requires phyical strength to be competent. If a stat were taken about how many women to men work as lumberjacks, this will definitely show that men are clearly biased in favor of being hired over women. There are certainly those who hire who might interpret women as a genetic-class who should not be hired regardless of qualifications. But the logical reality supercedes the tendency of the bias to be about discrimination against women in general. Rather, women as a genetic class are MORE often smaller than the average male. AND the cause is just as much DUE to how women themselves preferentially select their male partners as being required to BE bigger and stronger. Thus, the problem wouldn't be about men biasing women due to their sex but about the hiring pre-requisite of strength and size AND that if any sexual biases occur, the problem has to be pointed towards the fair contribution of both sexes to any change needed.

Counter examples also help to point out the irrationality. For the women-for-equal-pay issue, you can look at the 'entry level' jobs rather than the CEO positions to show that bias favors women and against men as a class.

I like pointing out the fact that men are more represented in prisons than men. So if 'equality' were to be a logical consideration of the problem of violent crime, we could place more women in prison to make up for the imbalance or release as many men in jail to map to the number of women!!

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:36 am The older or original fights against discrimination want 'equality' and argue this on the basis of people intrinsically being 'equal' ....but in MIND or POTENTIAL.

No, neither of these works as a criterion, Scott.

In "mind", people are not equal. Nor are they equal in "potential". The handicapped, the young and very old, the differentiated in IQ, and so on, are observably not "equal," and cannot by any means be made so. If equality is the goal, it will have to be explained on the basis of something that does not change -- something a baby had, and an old man has, something a genius has and a mentally-handicapped person has, something the able bodied and the disabled have, and so on.

What would that be?

Worse than that, all efforts to render intrinsically unequal people equal will turn out to be wildly unjust. We will have to cripple the abled, impair the intellectually strong, restrict the capable, and prize away every advantage from those who have one...in the name of equality...since we cannot make things happen the other way.

And that looks bad for society as a whole, since advantaged people happen to make most of the advances we all enjoy. It's the smart who invent, the athletically gifted who achieve in that realm, the courageous who lead, the talented who rise, and the creative who produce our arts. None of that is equally doled out, so we have a problem.

I believe that "political correctness" in general belongs to those who think an 'etiquette' of behavior about expression is more important than the 'content' of the expression.

Not just than "the content", Scott, than the facts. People who are politically correct prefer an ideology to reality.

Counter examples also help to point out the irrationality. For the women-for-equal-pay issue, you can look at the 'entry level' jobs rather than the CEO positions to show that bias favors women and against men as a class.

There is no wage gap, Scott: not if you calculate on an hours-for-pay, job-for-job basis. The differential in women's wages is entirely produced by their choices...on average, they work fewer hours, in jobs that are less hazardous and demanding. On average, they make different lifestyle choices, such as prioritizing family over career. This makes it inevitable that on average, women as a whole earn less than men...but it's nothing to do with discrimination. Rather, the only way to change it is to deprive women of their choices, and force them to be CEO's instead of stay-at-home mothers, or to go into engineering instead of nursing and teaching.

I like pointing out the fact that men are more represented in prisons than men. So if 'equality' were to be a logical consideration of the problem of violent crime, we could place more women in prison to make up for the imbalance or release as many men in jail to map to the number of women!!

Good point. I notice that women's rights talkers never complain when women have advantages over men...such as in the fact that nowadays over 60% of the people in colleges and universities are women. They don't insist that we introduce quotas to get us back to 50%, do they?

But back to the equality issue generally. For some people, it's a matter of "being nice." Some people have less, and they'd like to see them get more. Fair enough. But for all too many today, the equality game is actually a game of envy, spite, and ill-will: "somebody has more than I do, and I'm going to hate them and pull them down until they are as low and miserable as me...and I'm not going to quit until they are."

It comes down to compassion v competition.

Compassion boils down to, “If humans are all equal, I must treat everyone the way I feel I should be treated.”

Competition can be reduced to, “If humans are all equal, all others must be able to gain as much as I have.”

Each side doubts the sincerity of the other. Each is a valid sentiment on its own, but together quite contradictory.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:55 pm It comes down to compassion v competition.

This is the belief that Jonathan Haigt's recent book brings into doubt.

Leftists always think that Conservatives are "uncompassionate," and that they are the "compassionate ones." But they're not. There's a way of being a Leftists that hurts people in the name of equality.

One way is when equality-advocacy gets taken over by what Nietzsche called "ressentiment," meaning a poisonous hatred of all those who have an advantage. It's spite, in the name of equality. Then, they call people "oppressors," and justify hatred toward them: "Go punch a Nazi," they say. Or they say, "The 1% is exploiting us all, and must be pulled down" -- ignoring, all the while, that every person who makes over $32,000 a year is a member of the world's 1%!

They're spouting hatred against themselves!

And how foolish is that?

Another is when unwise "compassion" leads us to extend or exacerbate a kind of human suffering in the name of "equality." An example would be when we refuse to help anyone afflicted with body-dysmorphic disorders, and instead pretend they're "equal" to people untroubled by mental illness. Or when people from the Developed World ship bundles of clothing to the Developing World for free, and thus destroy the local economy in the Developing World (in one case I know of, the 14 biggest clothing manufacturers in the nation, and all their employees, were put out of jobs by this practice.)

"Compassion" can be misguided and even cruel...especially when it becomes spiteful, and promotes jealousy, or self-satisfied, and does not regard the real-world consequences of what it does.

Meanwhile, competition can be very good. The reason that world poverty has been falling so rapidly recently is not due to thoughtless "compassion," but to the enabling of local businesses through microenterprise -- a little compassion and help, allowing people to compete.

So to bifurcate the problem this way is unwise. There are good and bad competitions, and good and bad compassions.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:55 pm It comes down to compassion v competition.

Bollocks. PCturds aren't compassionate, they are disingenuous, virtue-signalling phonies.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:08 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:55 pm It comes down to compassion v competition.

This is the belief that Jonathan Haigt's recent book brings into doubt.

Leftists always think that Conservatives are "uncompassionate," and that they are the "compassionate ones." But they're not. There's a way of being a Leftists that hurts people in the name of equality.

One way is when equality-advocacy gets taken over by what Nietzsche called "ressentiment," meaning a poisonous hatred of all those who have an advantage. It's spite, in the name of equality. Then, they call people "oppressors," and justify hatred toward them: "Go punch a Nazi," they say. Or they say, "The 1% is exploiting us all, and must be pulled down" -- ignoring, all the while, that every person who makes over $32,000 a year is a member of the world's 1%!

They're spouting hatred against themselves!

And how foolish is that?

Another is when unwise "compassion" leads us to extend or exacerbate a kind of human suffering in the name of "equality." An example would be when we refuse to help anyone afflicted with body-dysmorphic disorders, and instead pretend they're "equal" to people untroubled by mental illness. Or when people from the Developed World ship bundles of clothing to the Developing World for free, and thus destroy the local economy in the Developing World (in one case I know of, the 14 biggest clothing manufacturers in the nation, and all their employees, were put out of jobs by this practice.)

"Compassion" can be misguided and even cruel...especially when it becomes spiteful, and promotes jealousy, or self-satisfied, and does not regard the real-world consequences of what it does.

Meanwhile, competition can be very good. The reason that world poverty has been falling so rapidly recently is not due to thoughtless "compassion," but to the enabling of local businesses through microenterprise -- a little compassion and help, allowing people to compete.

So to bifurcate the problem this way is unwise. There are good and bad competitions, and good and bad compassions.

Why do you insist on using the the word 'leftists' to describe PCturds as if it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who doesn't vote 'conservatively' is automatically PC? They are separate concepts entirely. It's like saying that everyone who is 'conservative' is a Nazi. It's just ignorant, lazy and disturbing. Yank illiteracy is a creeping cancer that isn't just about a bad grammar and misspellings.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:56 pm Why do you insist on using the the word 'leftists' to describe PCturds as if it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who doesn't vote 'conservatively' is automatically PC? That's like saying that everyone who is 'conservative' is a Nazi.

PC-ness is (presently) a phenomenon of the Left. That might switch one day, but today, that's how it is.

It's the all the right-leaners that are arguing in favour of free speech. And that's the irony of it, because the correct term for an advocate of free speech is "classical liberal." Today, that means "conservative."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:02 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:56 pm Why do you insist on using the the word 'leftists' to describe PCturds as if it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who doesn't vote 'conservatively' is automatically PC? That's like saying that everyone who is 'conservative' is a Nazi.

PC-ness is (presently) a phenomenon of the Left. That might switch one day, but today, that's how it is.

So what? Nazis are 'right wing'. Does that make everyone who tends to vote Republican a nazi? It still doesn't make everyone who votes more to 'the left' Politically Correct. Obviously the term is beyond your understanding.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:02 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:56 pm Why do you insist on using the the word 'leftists' to describe PCturds as if it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who doesn't vote 'conservatively' is automatically PC? That's like saying that everyone who is 'conservative' is a Nazi.

PC-ness is (presently) a phenomenon of the Left. That might switch one day, but today, that's how it is.

It's the all the right-leaners that are arguing in favour of free speech. And that's the irony of it, because the correct term for an advocate of free speech is "classical liberal." Today, that means "conservative."

So what? It's still doesn't make everyone who votes more to 'the left' Politically Correct.

I never said it did. But it does make everyone who is PC "Left."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:08 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:55 pm It comes down to compassion v competition.

So to bifurcate the problem this way is unwise. There are good and bad competitions, and good and bad compassions.

Yes. There’s competition and there’s compassion. Each can be good. Each can be bad.