Support NeoGAF

[thespot84]

How dare you say those words. Get the fuck outta here Fiction, you fuckin racist homophobic pig!

Spoiler

/s

I was going to get on Fiction's case about calling us 'people', which is clearly human-ist, and completely disrespectful of other sentient, concerned life-forms. (was that life-ist?)

 

[Kinyou]

I think part of it also has to do with how the media loves to jump on outrage stories. Like when a couple of people on twitter are upset about a rape scene in Game of thrones, does that really warrant a news story? I'd be surprised if there were actually more than 50 people who were seriously outraged.
I believe it makes the hardcore PC crowd look bigger than they are.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Again, this isn't specifically about identity, although identity being weaponized against people (in an inverted way) is one of the issues here. It's about not being able to argue in good faith- to not be critical of specifics without being accused of playing for the other team- to turn everything into a mutual expression of self-congratulatory outrage instead of a discussion and discourse that informs all involved.

I mean, I have these Facebook friends, and I just let them rant. They're younger people who think they know it all already, which is a thing that's been around forever. It doesn't stop me from having a positive influence on other things in my life.

 

[kirblar]

I mean, I have these Facebook friends, and I just let them rant. They're younger people who think they know it all already, which is a thing that's been around forever. It doesn't stop me from having a positive influence on other things in my life.

The issue becomes when these Facebook friends become the people in charge of organizations- groups on campus, political campaigning, etc, and keep the attitudes with them as they ascend the ranks. (There's a few in the thread who have mentioned being made uncomfortable with their interactions with those organizations at various points despite generally being democrats/liberals.)

 

[gerg]

I found all four of the (response) articles linked in the OP very interesting and highly relatable. Shock horror that the popularity of a medium which requires you to condense points into 140 characters (or fewer) should lead to reductive rhetorical devices!

Edit: The broad use of "the best way to be an ally is to shut up and listen" in particular frustrates me. On the one hand, I appreciate the place of frustration those arguments come from, and the importance (in any respectful discourse) both of giving the other person the space to articulate their beliefs, and also of taking those thoughts in the best possible faith. On the other hand, I think the fact that too many people passively accept (the conditions of) the media they enjoy is a problem unto itself. It would seem to me to be better to encourage people to more sceptical, and not less. Ultimately, saying "shut up and listen" is often a way of shutting down discussion and understanding, and not encouraging it.

 

[MHWilliams]

I think part of it also has to do with how the media loves to jump on outrage stories. Like when a couple of people on twitter are upset about a rape scene in Game of thrones, does that really warrant a news story? I'd be surprised if there were actually more than 50 people who were seriously outraged.
I believe it makes the hardcore PC crowd look bigger than they are.

But many times, it's not even outrage. In your specific example, there were a great deal of people who asked why the scene was shot in that manner that differed from the book? How did the changes affect the relationship between the characters? And yes, "I did not like those change or that scene" probably existed in some form.

Again, speaking of scope here, there's an equal backlash that takes any discussion or criticism as outrage, PC, or an attack. It's not. It's just speech.

And many times when I hear about PC or "outrage culture" its a shorthand for "I don't want to hear feedback, commentary, or criticism from those voices."

 

[Rest]

That woman wasn't excused.She was sentenced to three years probation.



This is what I'm talking about. That is largely an outlier, one that society clearly said was bad. It is a thing that happened and she was punished.

I didn't say she was excused, but from the article:

Speaking to police after the altercation, Miller-Young told them that the images of the fetuses had “triggered” her and violated her “personal right to go to work and not be in harm.” A Facebook group called “UCSB Microaggressions” declared themselves “in solidarity” with Miller-Young and urged the campus “to provide as much support as possible.”

By the prevailing standards of the American criminal-justice system, Miller-Young had engaged in vandalism, battery, and robbery. By the logic of the p.c. movement, she was the victim of a trigger and had acted in the righteous cause of social justice. Her colleagues across the country wrote letters to the sentencing judge pleading for leniency. Jennifer Morgan, an NYU professor, blamed the anti-­abortion protesters for instigating the confrontation through their exercise of free speech. “Miller-Young’s actions should be mitigated both by her history as an educator as well as by her conviction that the [anti-abortion] images were an assault on her students,” Morgan wrote. Again, the mere expression of opposing ideas, in the form of a poster, is presented as a threatening act.

Relevant sections bolded. It's a problem that people asked for her to be excused. Those people are the minority, I understand, but if their stance were followed it wouldn't lead to any benefit for society or individuals.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But many times, it's not even outrage. In your specific example, there were a great deal of people who asked why the scene was shot in that manner that differed from the book? How did the changes affect the relationship between the characters? And yes, "I did not like those change or that scene" probably existed in some form.

Again, speaking of scope here, there's an equal backlash that takes any discussion or criticism as outrage, PC, or an attack. It's not. It's just speech.

And many times when I hear about PC or "outrage culture" its a shorthand for "I don't want to hear feedback, commentary, or criticism from those voices."

That's what it is almost exclusively and Chait exemplifies it.

He comes from the New Republic literati scene where white ivy league (I think chait went to Michgan but the point stands) got to debate ideas amongst themselves and mainly got criticisms from themselves. But most of these criticisms were realively light. They belonged and still belong to a group which has shared common experiences and fundamental assumptions about the world.

With the advent of wide media in the 90s (when Cable and the Internet started spreading academia around a lot more) you had new people voicing their opinions in the public sphere, noticeably this is when Political Correctness becomes a conservative critique against those on the left that challenge their authority. Recently more women and minorities have started to find a voice and are even challenging the lefts dogmas and assumptions which has them on the receiving end of criticisms. They now are in the old conservatives position and have generally reacted the same to challenges to their authority and world views, with victimization and complaints that those that disagree are trying to silence them.

In reality they still hold giant sway, aren't at risk from actual action in most situations (referring to chait and big writters who express this stuff) but now have to see that people disagree and find that horrible, that people think they might be wrong or morally wrong.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Damn you people always get offended over the stupidest shit.


/s


I honestly think a lot of the outrage you see on places like tumblrinaction is sarcastic. At least I hope it is. I consider myself very liberal, feminist, and PC. I actually have PTSD, and have talked in the past about the usefulness of trigger warnings on things like rape, torture, and extreme violence. But not going to stop using the word stupid or dumb to describe things, and I'm not going to put a trigger warning when I talk about side walks.

My grandfather was killed by a sidewalk right in front of me! You piece of garbage! Go back to your privilaged views scumbag!

Yeah I agree with certain trigger warnings, rape, torture, animal abuse, et. cetera, but I thought most of that was covered with NSFW/NSFL tags on the webs. I agree with the OP article in some ways, the situations described within showed bullying in the worst way possible and didn't paint a nice picture, and the immediate shutdown on arguements. Going, wah wahon the mansplaining, on dumb (the horror) stuff and is on actual mansplaining issues. Also tone policing? Seriously? The only place where tone policing should happen is in an Academia context. Anaway, that article was just whining to me lol.

/rant

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Recently more women and minorities have started to find a voice and are even challenging the lefts dogmas and assumptions which has them on the receiving end of criticisms. They now are in the old conservatives position and have generally reacted the same to challenges to their authority and world views, with victimization and complaints that those that disagree are trying to silence them.

This is the most interesting part of this to me.

 

[MHWilliams]

That's what it is almost exclusively and Chait exemplifies it.

He comes from the New Republic literati scene where white ivy league (I think chait went to Michgan but the point stands) got to debate ideas amongst themselves and mainly got criticisms from themselves. But most of these criticisms were realively light. They belonged and still belong to a group which has shared common experiences and fundamental assumptions about the world.

With the advent of wide media in the 90s (when Cable and the Internet started spreading academia around a lot more) you had new people voicing their opinions in the public sphere, noticeably this is when Political Correctness becomes a conservative critique against those on the left that challenge their authority. Recently more women and minorities have started to find a voice and are even challenging the lefts dogmas and assumptions which has them on the receiving end of criticisms. They now are in the old conservatives position and have generally reacted the same to challenges to their authority and world views, with victimization and complaints that those that disagree are trying to silence them.

In reality they still hold giant sway, aren't at risk from actual action in most situations (referring to chait and big writters who express this stuff) but now have to see that people disagree and find that horrible, that people think they might be wrong or morally wrong.

Indeed, that was part of the point I made before.

Which is not to say, like the Slate article points out, that there's aren't issues within discussions of these topics. That there aren't those who take it to extremes. But they are not the sum totality or the majority of those discussing topics, even online.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The common refrain from many that "I agree with your views but not your actions" is tone policing and is a pretty horrible tactic and generally gives the vibe you don't agree with said views.

It says, "I'll ally with you in your quest, but only if it doesn't make me look bad and have adverse effects on my social standing"

We're all guilty of it to some extent but it exemplifies people like Chait and the old New Republic. And its a big part of the "straight white male" critique. Many people are simply pointing out that there are a lot of straight white "liberal" males who claim to side with groups in their quest for justice and eqaulity but back out at the same time seek to maintain and use the benefits of their straightness, whiteness and maleness. They're not saying that your opinion has no value but simply that you can't use the very thing they're seeking to undermine (the white hetero-normative male-centered) as a kind of authority. Its poorly expressed but the idea isn't white males are awful.

 

[crooked spin]

Sorta related to Chait (he just left this magazine), this is the cover story of the first issue of the NEW New Republic:

 

[agrajag]

It's as if the original article was written about a particular cross section of NeoGAF.

 

[RockTurtle]

great article OP! really resonates a lot with some of the thoughts i've been having about the current atmosphere even as a minority.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sorta related to Chait (he just left this magazine), this is the cover story of the first issue of the NEW New Republic:

Link to article which I think should be added to the OP.

Since while they don't mention each other they seem to be speaking on the same thing
and this paragraphy kinds gets at it

Every magazine is aimed at imaginary readers, an idealized sense of the people leafing through the pages. Perhaps the core problem with Peretz’s New Republic was that the imaginary readers were unquestionably white. It was hard to imagine black readers picking up the magazine, let alone dreaming of writing for it, unless, like The New Republic contributor Walter Williams, they were readers who thought the Confederacy had some merit.

WIth social media you aren't speaking to your audience, your speaking to everyone


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120884/new-republics-legacy-

 

[Kinyou]

But many times, it's not even outrage. In your specific example, there were a great deal of people who asked why the scene was shot in that manner that differed from the book? How did the changes affect the relationship between the characters? And yes, "I did not like those change or that scene" probably existed in some form.

Again, speaking of scope here, there's an equal backlash that takes any discussion or criticism as outrage, PC, or an attack. It's not. It's just speech.

And many times when I hear about PC or "outrage culture" its a shorthand for "I don't want to hear feedback, commentary, or criticism from those voices."

That simply depends on your definition of outrage. Many people who sound upset amounts to outrage to me. Outrage and "it's just speech" isn't a contradiction

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Or maybe not. The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement’s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement’s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. “It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism] — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.” Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, “Everyone is so scared to speak right now.

This describes exactly how I feel. I find myself repulsed by movements that I philosophically agree with, simply because of their absolutist terms and the desire to tear down anybody they oppose. Which is particularly tough, because these movements aren't even a "they" with a cohesive view most of the time, but rather whoever's having the shittiest day and wants to take it out on somebody on the internet.

It's not worth the energy to argue with, and it can be socially dangerous to even side with, because somebody looking to score points will happily tear another down for not agreeing in the 'right' way. Even this forum has become toxic with it the past year or two. It just makes me want to steer clear of the whole poisonous soup.

 

[Gotchaye]

I liked Sanchez's piece a lot, and he gets at some things I've worried about re: conversations among liberals.

But yeah, the progressive left has a problem with this. It's not just a problem with the progressive left, but, well, I expect this from people I mostly disagree with. When conservatives are huge jerks about disagreement it just confirms my prejudices. I don't think this tendency is a distinctively left-wing failing, and I think Chait is mostly wrong when he singles out left-wing speech policing as a philosophical threat to liberalism.

Part of the problem is that, when it comes down to it, liberalism just ain't that popular. Lots of people, however they label themselves, are very willing to adopt rules that boil down to "it's okay only so long as you're on my side". Epistemic humility is not a widespread virtue.

Part of the problem is that people are very bad at figuring out whether someone is participating in good faith and whether someone is negligently ignorant. It's very tempting to dismiss disagreement as the result of bad faith. This is a particular problem for the progressive left because a lot of disagreement is the result of bad faith, as others in this thread have said. It's very frustrating to deal with unambiguous jerks and the negligently ignorant all the time. Sometimes people who aren't jerks and who are non-negligently ignorant get caught in the crossfire. It's reasonable to worry about wolves in sheep's clothing - they're real. But it's all too easy to start shooting sheep on sight.

 

[Valhelm]

Wait... What?

Trying to find the quote, it turns out that the victim was aged-up to 16, and the reference to a "good rape" was removed. But she's still underage and is basically drug-raped.

 

[bonercop]

I'm more partial to this take.(sorry if it's been posted already, skimming the tread it doesn't seem to have been posted)

TL;DR "political correctness" at its absolute worst -- even when it is unfairly applied by an overzealous activist -- is mildly annoying. Painting that as the ~greatest philosophical threat~ is frankly insulting when people actually do get silenced through faulty institutions or hate mobs(see: gamergate's constant harassment of outspoken women in the gaming industry for a topical example) .

 

[Poodlestrike]

The common refrain from many that "I agree with your views but not your actions" is tone policing and is a pretty horrible tactic and generally gives the vibe you don't agree with said views.

It says, "I'll ally with you in your quest, but only if it doesn't make me look bad and have adverse effects on my social standing"

We're all guilty of it to some extent but it exemplifies people like Chait and the old New Republic. And its a big part of the "straight white male" critique. Many people are simply pointing out that there are a lot of straight white "liberal" males who claim to side with groups in their quest for justice and eqaulity but back out at the same time seek to maintain and use the benefits of their straightness, whiteness and maleness. They're not saying that your opinion has no value but simply that you can't use the very thing they're seeking to undermine (the white hetero-normative male-centered) as a kind of authority. Its poorly expressed but the idea isn't white males are awful.

That's an extraordinarily small minded way to look at it. Even setting aside extreme cases, people saying "don't shoot the message" doesn't make them insincere supporters of a cause.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's an extraordinarily small minded way to look at it. Even setting aside extreme cases, people saying "don't shoot the message" doesn't make them insincere supporters of a cause.

I do think there are times when you can use that statement seriously. but its use is so often used a a distancing tool when someone really doesn't support the view (or at least the proposed or inevitably solution to the problem)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm more partial to this take.(sorry if it's been posted already, skimming the tread it doesn't seem to have been posted)

TL;DR "political correctness" at its absolute worst -- even when it is unfairly applied by an overzealous activist -- is mildly annoying. Painting that as the ~greatest philosophical threat~ is frankly insulting when people actually do get silenced through faulty institutions or hate mobs(see: gamergate's constant harassment of outspoken women in the gaming industry for a topical example) .

I liked this tweet as well

https://twitter.com/max_read/status/560083397289455616

at some point the role of an editor has to be to sit down with a writer and say "you are too obsessed with twitter." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html …

 

[Poodlestrike]

I do think there are times when you can use that statement seriously. but its use is so often used a a distancing tool when someone really doesn't support the view (or at least the proposed or inevitably solution to the problem)

Uh... yeah. You can agree there's a problem and disagree on the means of fixing it. Demanding 100% agreement isn't helpful.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Demanding 100% agreement isn't helpful.

Which perspective are you writing this from in your example, though?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Which perspective are you writing this from in your example, though?

I'm not sure I follow.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Uh... yeah. You can agree there's a problem and disagree on the means of fixing it. Demanding 100% agreement isn't helpful.

I don't think that's what I'm saying at all.

You don't need to agree but the common need to distance, publicly and loudly, seems more like ass covering than disagreement.

There are interal debates that happen all the time among these groups but when people that are like drive by supporters claim to support the group but balk at any threat to their status it seems like its not principled disagreement.

Using a civil rights example its understable that MLK disagreed with militant groups but white people who don't do much, come in and lecture black people on being more like MLK and less like the Black Panthers it comes off as insincere.

 

[GorillaJu]

Trying to find the quote, it turns out that the victim was aged-up to 16, and the reference to a "good rape" was removed. But she's still underage and is basically drug-raped.

This strikes me as a perfect example of the desire to be offended outweighing good-faith acceptance. I understood the Little Coochi Snorcher that Could to be a story about a girl whose terrible upbringing made her a willing victim, not that "some rape is okay." We're supposed to pity her for the warped perspective she acquires, not to empathize with her for feeling happy about her experience (though some degree of catharsis is inherent as well, which increases the complexity of the issue).

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I'm not sure I follow.

Tone policing is an argument device used to change the other person's behavior into something agreeable, but you seem to be taking issue with the responses to it rather than the policing itself. It's a bit chicken or the egg if you feel "demanding 100% agreement isn't helpful."

 

[bonercop]

I liked this tweet as well

https://twitter.com/max_read/status/560083397289455616

more hot takes!

twitter is the best. really i love how much pushback there is to an article like this with a white guy saying "political correctness' gone mad!!!". you wouldn't see this a couple years back.

 

[Infinite]

I do think there are times when you can use that statement seriously. but its use is so often used a a distancing tool when someone really doesn't support the view (or at least the proposed or inevitably solution to the problem)

Yeah an extension of this is when hey dismiss emotion as and reframe everything as a debate. So annoying

 

[NYCmetsfan]

more hot takes!

twitter is the best. really i love how much pushback there is to an article like this with a white guy saying "political correctness' gone mad!!!". you wouldn't see this a couple years back.

Which is exactly what spurs these reactions from people who never experienced them

also another take which I can't believe I agree with. Greenwald's:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/28/petulant-entitlement-syndrome-journalists/

Yeah an extension of this is when hey dismiss emotion as and reframe everything as a debate. So annoying

Are you talking about when people criticize someone for being 'too emotional' about and issue and their rationality and detachment gives them some special insight?

Because that's like the textbook example of tone policing.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I don't think that's what I'm saying at all.

You don't need to agree but the common need to distance, publicly and loudly, seems more like ass covering than disagreement.

There are interal debates that happen all the time among these groups but when people that are like drive by supporters claim to support the group but balk at any threat to their status it seems like its not principled disagreement.

Using a civil rights example its understable that MLK disagreed with militant groups but white people who don't do much, come in and lecture black people on being more like MLK and less like the Black Panthers it comes off as insincere.

You say insincere, I say practically-minded. One of those groups got shit done. One did not.

Tone policing is an argument device used to change the other person's behavior into something agreeable, but you seem to be taking issue with the responses to it rather than the policing itself. It's a bit chicken or the egg if you feel "demanding 100% agreement isn't helpful."

I guess I disagree on multiple fronts, then. I think that an argument is only effective if it falls on ears willing to listen, and the first step to finding a willing audience is, yes, tone. Act contemptuous towards the other party, for instance (note that I'm not accusing you or anyone in this thread of acting in such a manner, mind), and it doesn't actually matter how right you are, you've lost any chance of furthering your cause. It's a practical concern, which is admittedly moot on the internet where people will project whatever tone they please onto a block of text.

Now, that's actually secondary to the point I was trying to make, which wasn't actually about tone policing. I can, to use a deliberately absurd/extreme example, agree that... I dunno, frosting on chocolate cake should be mint flavored without agreeing that we should bomb people who prefer vanilla. Or, to take it back to a more relevant example, that we should push for equal rights and fair representation for the transgender community without starting a twitter campaign against people who misspeak.

 

[Bold One]

These articles kind of hit home why I pretty much stopped interacting on gaf. I'm very liberal, but I've found it to be more pleasant to talk games/movies with conservatives, who I disagree with politically, than I do progressives. Personally the war on pop culture is just to exhausting for a working stiff, I'll take the dumbass who cracks the occasional wetback joke over the person rallying the troops on the latest game/movie/tweet.

I have to agree with this, discussing certain issues on gaf has led me to believe there is some sort of competition amongst certain members to see who can be loudest, most obnoxious progressive lunatic.

 

[kirblar]

Which is exactly what spurs these reactions from people who never experienced them

also another take which I can't believe I agree with. Greenwald's:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/28/petulant-entitlement-syndrome-journalists/

These responses are almost singularly focused on Chait himself (and his status as a white guy/intellectual/journalist) instead of his writing. To me, that's actually a symptom of what's going on here and brought up in the original article and some of the followups- it's the focus on identity over the content of what someone's saying.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You say insecure, I say practically-minded. One of those groups got shit done. One did not..

Well I don't mean to litigate that issues because it sidetracks from the point, which is the person who is called out for tone policing isn't doing it out of practicality but rather protecting their own interests.

The men who decry women for being to emotional or bitchy in feminist critiques are perhaps a better example.

Or the policing of OWS rhetoric (which I was guilty of), or the comments about blacks needed to protest better about #blacklivesmatter

 

[Poodlestrike]

Well I don't mean to litigate that issues because it sidetracks from the point, which is the person who is called out for tone policing isn't doing it out of practicality but rather protecting their own interests.

The men who decry women for being to emotional or bitchy in feminist critiques are perhaps a better example.

Or the policing of OWS rhetoric (which I was guilty of), or the comments about blacks needed to protest better about #blacklivesmatter

I'm not sure what that is, but my elementary school was called OWS, so that earned a double take

As to the greater point: I agree with you about the men who decry women as being bitchy or overly emotional; those guys are just full of it. Ditto the "why do they have to protest on my way to work" crowd, though a lot of them are probably just temporarily selfish rather than genuinely insincere. However, you're equating that to basically everybody who takes issue with the way a message is being conveyed or a cause is being pursued. Or at least, you're assuming that everybody who's called out for tone policing is actually insincere, which is uncomfortably close to "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

These responses are almost singularly focused on Chait himself (and his status as a white guy/intellectual/journalist) instead of his writing. To me, that's actually a symptom of what's going on here and brought up in the original article and some of the followups- it's the focus on identity over the content of what someone's saying.

Because his article is very self focused and you can't really divorce the two, Chait has a history of this (His back and forth with TNC on race and america)

He constantly lack humility and humbleness and speaks from an unearned place of understanding and importance, people take him specifically to task for that.

But you can't diverse that from the fact that most PC critiques come from and inherently are conservative arguments against a movement that threatens their standing. They're 80% of the time from dudes and 90% from white males. The fact that people want to somehow ignore that by claiming that his social standing is not relevant are taking away one of the most important problems these articles are looking to tackle. You can't just say identity is off-limits.

I'm not sure what that is, but my elementary school was called OWS, so that earned a double take

As to the greater point: I agree with you about the men who decry women as being bitchy or overly emotional; those guys are just full of it. Ditto the "why do they have to protest on my way to work" crowd, though a lot of them are probably just temporarily selfish rather than genuinely insincere. However, you're equating that to basically everybody who takes issue with the way a message is being conveyed or a cause is being pursued. Or at least, you're assuming that everybody who's called out for tone policing is actually insincere, which is uncomfortably close to "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

I bad mouth your school all the time
In all seriousness its Occupy Wall Street.

If people remember manos he was the epitome of this (I was a lurker back then)

I don't think I was doing that, it perhapse was worded poorly.

That being said on issues of social equality when speaking from a position of privilage and certain social standings there is going to be assumptions about your bad faith. People don't take Romney seriously with his new found love of talking about inequality, similarly people who have a suspicious history of criticism certain groups while claiming to be on their side (chait and New Republic writers like Sullivan) aren't going to get the benifit of the doubt, and why should they. The assumption that we need to view everybody equally in regards to their good faith on an artgumen just seems like its useful for protecting the very people who are most guilty of the things that need calling out.

 

[Kimawolf]

Indeed.

I largely agree with Chait's article. I ascribe ideologically to liberalism because I want to see everyone's voice raised up to equal weight. But it seems that a large part of that movement acts in a way that seeks to counteract past injustice with a cultural regime that reduces and dismisses the ideas of the historically dominant - Straight White Men.

But the only people who are affected by that kind of thing are liberals anyway. Illiberal Straight White Men will keep on not giving a shit.



Like I say, I signed up to liberalism to advance it's message of optimism and positivity. But these days I see so little of that in the movements and so much anger, pedantism and joylessness. The message that emerges is... well it's almost masturbatory in its insular self gratification.

More and more I'm losing trust that the loudest voices actually want to make the world a better place.

Modern liberalism adopted the same tricks and conversation tactics conservatives used on them for 50 years. Now its all about demonization, shaming and screaming, no more open forum for discussion, its a agree with me or else, that's it. And if you don't, i'll make sure everyone knows you're a "whatever is the evil catchword for the day". They don't realize half the time they sound like the right, just with different views.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I bad mouth your school all the time
In all seriousness its Occupy Wall Street.

If people remember manos he was the epitome of this (I was a lurker back then)

Ahhh, yeah. Well, I guess that plays into my "tone police as a practical matter" thing. Occupy has largely faded from the public consciousness except as a half-remembered joke, largely due to their laughable ineffectiveness. The drum circles, the hand signs... wow, it's all coming back.

I'd love to live in a world where the right win out and that's that. All a cause should need is to be just.

Sadly, we don't live in that world, and PR matters.

 

[JesseEwiak]

You say insincere, I say practically-minded. One of those groups got shit done. One did not.

The Black Panthers helped MLK be seen as a reasonable moderate, instead of an insane black person. The same way that part of the reason FDR was able to get so many liberal things through during the New Deal is because actual socialistic revolutions in America were an actual possibility.

Without extremists, moderate become tarred as extremists by the opposition. Ask Barack Obama about it.

Modern liberalism adopted the same tricks and conversation tactics conservatives used on them for 50 years. Now its all about demonization, shaming and screaming, no more open forum for discussion, its a agree with me or else, that's it. And if you don't, i'll make sure everyone knows you're a "whatever is the evil catchword for the day". They don't realize half the time they sound like the right, just with different views.

No, actually, the problem is more and more actual non-straight white guys are getting in the conversation and saying things that make those straight white guys uncomfortable. The problem is, even ten years ago, the conservation was largely straight white guys talking too each other and the fact that the conservation has expanded, is a good thing, not a bad thing. If black people talking about the actual racism they face daily or gay people talking about the homophobia they feel daily or women talking about the sexism they deal with deal makes people uncomfortable, so be it.

 

[lil]

Damn you people always get offended over the stupidest shit.


/s


I honestly think a lot of the outrage you see on places like tumblrinaction is sarcastic. At least I hope it is. I consider myself very liberal, feminist, and PC. I actually have PTSD, and have talked in the past about the usefulness of trigger warnings on things like rape, torture, and extreme violence. But not going to stop using the word stupid or dumb to describe things, and I'm not going to put a trigger warning when I talk about side walks.

tbqh, 'dumb' was originally used to describe people who are unable to speak. Over time, it also came to mean lacking intelligence, beginning in Germany I think, so there is a legitimate reason people think it has an ableist connotation: it conflates ability to speak with lack of intelligence when this is not the case.

It's sad to me that basically the only thing people see of ableism when they go on sites like tumblr is a list of words. Ableism is so much more than that. But it also saddens me when I see people, even in this thread, dismiss those ableist connotations. Ultimately, this isn't about these hard lines of a word being totally bad or good, should or shouldn't, it's about having a dialogue about how these systems of oppression are rooted in our society, be it through our language, government, architecture, education, violence, anything really. I really like what AWP had to say about it:

Our goal with the Ableist Word Profile is to explore language, and the way in which language usage can subconsciously reinforce ableism. Indeed, the very structure of the English language reflects social attitudes about disability, and English language users are, therefore, steeped in these attitudes. We hope that all our readers can agree that the reason ableist language is so strong is because it is rooted in ideas about disability, and the value of people with disabilities, and prevailing conceptualization of disability.

While a lot of these posts are intended to get people thinking about word usage, they are not intended to dictate the language that individuals use. Only you can decide what language you use, but you should do so in full awareness of the impact that your language has. Ultimately, the person you need to be accountable to is yourself, not us.

(The rest of this post isn't at all directed at you Fiction, just bigger trends that are on topic <3)

And I think that's in step with what these articles are talking about, these nuanced ideas and discussions being reduced two two-dimensional caricatures.

And it especially sucks because I've been on the other side, too, with extremism! There are great feminist/womanist bloggers who make amazing and unique points about gender, race, sexuality, identity, but will call people sexist or assume they're straight white men for bringing up disability. I even saw it a bit with GooberGate and autism, unfortunately. Like someone said earlier, you were either pro- or anti- but some people were flat out being jerks and it felt like, what could you do about it?

It's weird, because some people think I'm an extremist for talking about this stuff, and others think I'm an oppressive jerk trying to bring women down and I'm like??? I'm female??? Sometimes I feel so spent and done with this stuff because you have to talk about the popular stuff, you have to make feminism and social justice sexy and easy for everyone and you can't, and I just wanna eschew this whole thing.

 

[GYODX]

At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach &#8220;trigger warnings&#8221; to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate &#8220;microaggressions,&#8221; or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses. Stanford recently canceled a performance of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson after protests by Native American students. UCLA students staged a sit-in to protest microaggressions such as when a professor corrected a student&#8217;s decision to spell the word indigenous with an uppercase I &#8212; one example of many &#8220;perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies.&#8221; A theater group at Mount Holyoke College recently announced it would no longer put on The Vagina Monologues in part because the material excludes women without vaginas. These sorts of episodes now hardly even qualify as exceptional.

Jesus Christ, are things really that bad? I didn't think this sort of ridiculousness happened outside of places like Tumblr and Twitter.

Because his article is very self focused and you can't really divorce the two

Actually, you can. It's called not engaging in ad-hominem arguments.

I am Hispanic, and to me it is ridiculous that I could argue the exact same points as Chait and it is automatically assumed that what I'm saying is more valid simply because it is not coming from a White person.

And yes, I do notice that I am afforded the same sort of leeway here on Neogaf.

 

[appaws]

Part of the problem is that people are very bad at figuring out whether someone is participating in good faith and whether someone is negligently ignorant. It's very tempting to dismiss disagreement as the result of bad faith. This is a particular problem for the progressive left because a lot of disagreement is the result of bad faith, as others in this thread have said. It's very frustrating to deal with unambiguous jerks and the negligently ignorant all the time. Sometimes people who aren't jerks and who are non-negligently ignorant get caught in the crossfire. It's reasonable to worry about wolves in sheep's clothing - they're real. But it's all too easy to start shooting sheep on sight.

I would say the problem would be making the distinction between who is disagreeing in good faith and who is "negligently ignorant." Even the fact of drawing a distinction like that assumes that those who are "negligently ignorant" are somehow deserving of being excluded from a conversation. In practice, "negligently ignorant" would mean "a person who disagrees with me."

 

[Poodlestrike]

The Black Panthers helped MLK be seen as a reasonable moderate, instead of an insane black person. The same way that part of the reason FDR was able to get so many liberal things through during the New Deal is because actual socialistic revolutions in America were an actual possibility.

Without extremists, moderate become tarred as extremists by the opposition. Ask Barack Obama about it.

Hmm. That's an interesting argument. Do you have any sources on the FDR thing? I'd been under the impression that was more a function of his extremely effective use of connections and the bully pulpit. If anything, I'd have expected the memories of the Red Scare to be more of a hindrance than an aid. Ditto MLK; my first thought is that a comparison to more extreme elements would be a net negative rather than a positive.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You say insincere, I say practically-minded. One of those groups got shit done. One did not.

Are you seriously saying the Black Panthers got nothing done, or are you speaking of militant groups in general? What are you basing this thought on?

Just start with this: http://web.stanford.edu/group/blackpanthers/programs.shtml

 

[Poodlestrike]

Are you seriously saying the Black Panthers got nothing done? You should really do some research here. What are you basing this thought on?

Just start with this: http://web.stanford.edu/group/blackpanthers/programs.shtml

When I say "get shit done," I'm using it in the colloquial sense. The Black Panthers had a number of beneficial programs, but MLK's movement got the Civil Rights Act passed. It's a question of scale.

You're right, though, on further reflection I don't know much about them. Will do more research, thanks for the link.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Hmm. That's an interesting argument. Do you have any sources on the FDR thing? I'd been under the impression that was more a function of his extremely effective use of connections and the bully pulpit. If anything, I'd have expected the memories of the Red Scare to be more of a hindrance than an aid. Ditto MLK; my first thought is that a comparison to more extreme elements would be a net negative rather than a positive.

Here's a Hoover Institute (irony ftw) from all the way back in 2001. Also, you have to realize that part of the Red Scare was because it was becoming popular. Debs had gotten millions of votes for President while sitting in jail.

http://www.hoover.org/research/how-fdr-saved-capitalism

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Actually, you can. It's called not engaging in ad-hominem arguments.

I am Hispanic, and to me it is ridiculous that I could argue the exact same points as Chait and it is automatically assumed that what I'm saying is more valid simply because it is not coming from a White person.

And yes, I do notice that I am afforded the same sort of leeway here on Neogaf.

You can engage the indenity of an author without it being an ad hominem.

And yes you being Hispanic, chait being white informs where one is coming from. I think you'd be wrong about people thinking its more vaild. Look at whenever Hermain Cain or Ben Carson's open their mouths about racism and the push back they get. They're black but people don't think their views are automatically 'more vaild'