The Vagina Monologues are pretty awful, though. They're feminist only in the barest, most simple way, and feature a 13-year-old girl beaming about how she loved being raped.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Not A Very PC Thing to Say (Jonathan Chait NYMag piece)
- Thread starter kirblar
- Start date
- Status
The Vagina Monologues are pretty awful, though. They're feminist only in the barest, most simple way, and feature a 13-year-old girl beaming about how she loved being raped.
Ah, so if a bunch of people disagree with me, I should grovel at their feet, beg for forgiveness, and promise never say anything contentious again. Sounds great.
What if I don't think I'm wrong? What then? Should I still sacrifice myself to the majority opinion gods out of fear of harsher criticism?
excelsiorlef
Member
Definitely problematic, though I note that one was changed to 16 (which isn't really better just mentioning it for factual notation), it's still pretty fucked up. Sad that it's basically one of the only feminist plays that gets any traction.
entremet
Member
What is it, 30 or 40 years old? That's probably the reason. Baby's first feminist play.
excelsiorlef
Member
First performed in 1996.
freeofgreed
Member
If someone calls you a racist or sexist first thing you should do is self evaluate and wonder why they called you that. If you disagree, then you can still continue debating with them. I don't know why so many people seem to think that if they are called a racist/sexist that they aren't allowed to keep talking. No one's stopping you. I don't really call out members as racist (usually people from articles) but even if I did, I'd do it not to silence them but because I genuinely think they are one. And even if I did do it because of the former, it's not like I could stop you from talking so it shouldn't even matter.
I agree that dogpilling is an inevitable part of posting in a forum that's why I am talking about how to react to it and not how to prevent it.
P.H. Perinax
Neo Member
I tune out when people use jargon as an excuse for not making a coherent argument.
When people use terms like "triggering", "microaggressions", and "toxic masculinity", I feel like they are said by people who know the definitions, for people who already know the definitions. Spending a few words explaining what those terms represent can ease a lot of misunderstandings before they start.
Which leads to my main point; when you make a statement about one particular topic or another, you have to ask yourself, "who am I talking to?" Are you just reaffirming something that your in-group already knows, or are trying to get a fence-sitter to see some common ground. I see too much of the former (thank your twitter) and not enough of the latter.
Awhile ago I commented on a gamergate thread that there was nothing inherently bad about places like 4chan, where everyone knew the rules and chose to be there, it looks like the same has to said for places like tumblr. It's fine in your own personal spaces but you have to remember when you leave that space, you are going into the world where not everyone thinks the way you do, and act accordingly.
The point is that it's not just an issue of being 'called out'.
The rallying cry for those who wish to shout down opposing ideas but not be seen to be limiting free speech is that "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". And that's true and right. But it's used as a shield to take actions that lead to exclusion of people and ideas, which leads to self-censorship and the watering down of discourse. It's never been easier to mobilise opposition to speech you don't agree with. Social media means that something said can spread in minutes, and widespread opposition and slander can occur in within hours. And it can happen to an innocuous remark taken out of its context because for some reason everyone has decided the best method of mass discussion is a platform that only allows you 140 characters to express your thoughts. And so when that is a possible outcome from even the slightest break from the accepted idea amongst the PC crowd, people say nothing instead.
freeofgreed
Member
Strong reading comprehension there. My post was clearly for people who know what they posted was wrong. If you don't think what you said was wrong, then....keep posting? Like I said a million times already you can say whatever you want just be prepared to be called out on it if people disagree.
So what is your solution then? To censor all those "SJW twitter mobs"? That's just an unfortunate side effect of having freedom of speech and I don't know how you can limit that without limiting freedom of speech.
freeofgreed
Member
Edit: Sorry double post.
CornBurrito
Member
Wait... What?
Uh...it appears I read you're post right. You said:
Which is exactly what I was talking about when I said
I mean, if I don't think I'm being dumb or am in the wrong, it sounds you you are saying that I'm supposed to own up to not being part of the majority opinion and try to "learn" from my "mistake".
I suppose it's fair that I may have misunderstood your post, but you you have to admit your phrasing was very different than what you just posted.
freeofgreed
Member
Read my whole post and the post I responded to.
I think it's pretty clear that I was talking only about people who know what they posted was wrong, but just to clarify I was only talking about posters who know what they posted was wrong.
Of course not. Why would I want to censor them? How would you even do that? Ban certain hashtags?
freeofgreed
Member
Then I don't get what you're arguing against? Douchebags on the internet? yeah that sucks but I fail to see what that has to do with being PC.
I find it hilarious that groups willingly identify microaggressions, "micro" being key, and aware of this still seek aggressive retribution.
Good thing GAF is a safe place where the cast of Mortal Kombat is always quick to the scene to call out straight white men with one-line posts.
Good thing GAF is a safe place where the cast of Mortal Kombat is always quick to the scene to call out straight white men with one-line posts.
Same. I find myself very liberal, but I don't touch a lot of topics nowadays because of this. I'm not going to risk it.
freeofgreed
Member
Risk what? People disagreeing with you?
No
No, people like this guy ^ accusing me of being something I'm not. I'd rather bow out of the conversation so I don't get hit by friendly fire.
MHWilliams
Member
Really? Shady XV just came out.
Again, people need to have a realistic scope for this kind of thing.
Risk what? EDIT: And what effect does that have on you? Do those statement follow you into the rest of your life?
megamerican
Member
Eh I most associate Tipper Gore with the movement against gangster rap in the early 90s.
I will give Chait credit for writing this. He knew the backlash he was gonna get. It's also good it's coming from someone like him and not a Breitbart type source.
freeofgreed
Member
So people disagreeing with you essentially? You only proved the point I made in that OP even more with you're comment. If you don't like what I have to say than debate with me.
Edit: I love how people keep saying the whole PC crowd is censoring them when it seems like more of a case of people censoring themselves because they're afraid of what others have to say about their statements.
stufte
Member
It's too risky to answer this.
MHWilliams
Member
I'm unsure how. I can hazard some guesses, but most tend to involve threats. But if either of you don't want to answer, that's entirely your prerogative. EDIT: I gotcha. I certainly wasn't angry or anything, just figured you were being serious and you had your own reasons.
Separately, I just want to add that people should remember many of these people who you feel don't have reasoned discussions online deal with the things you fear here in their daily lives. The labeling, the prejudice, the discrimination, in all aspects of the world they move through. Their careers, their dealings with government and the law, their very health care. So when they are online, no, they frequently aren't willing to be calm and respectful to ideas that continue to marginalize and demean them.
I was being tongue in cheek dude it wasn't even me you were originally talking to.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
It's pretty common on GAF to see the word "outrage," "offended," or something similar first used in a thread by anti-PC people to say PC people are saying they're outraged or offended at things.
This sort of anti-PC talk is often just an easy way to try to shut down opinions one doesn't want to think about, which is interesting since it's the PC people being accused of squelching discourse.
This sort of anti-PC talk is often just an easy way to try to shut down opinions one doesn't want to think about, which is interesting since it's the PC people being accused of squelching discourse.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm not them, but for my part I tend to avoid those issues not because I'm "afraid" of people disagreeing with me. Indeed, I relish it.
I avoid those issues because I got sick and fucking tired of getting called a variety of terrible names for an awkward turn of phrase or a poorly worded position, or being told that my arguments aren't valid not because of anything I said, but because I'm white/male/straight. It gets old.
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.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Read the article, agree with it. One thing that I'd add about "triggers" and such: There's no progress to be made in telling people to stop "triggering" each other, the progress is in educating those who can be "triggered" about better outlets for and ways to process their strong emotions. If the individuals are made stronger, the whole will be stronger.
That's funny, considering that's something he actually describes in his article.
That's funny, considering that's something he actually describes in his article.
Are you debating the fact that you're straight, white and male?
MHWilliams
Member
As Mumei says, that's not the idea of trigger warnings. The idea is to allow those people the chance to randomly avoid these topics outside of controlled situations with the help of a professional. That's the point of aversion therapy that many miss. Like letting someone who suffers from war-related PTSD know that there will be fireworks present at an event.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Not generally, lol.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Can you show me where this is being done? I understand where the sentiment comes from that straight white men are being shut out of discussions, but in my experience it's happening when straight white men are trying to take over and make conversations about themselves when it's inappropriate. I haven't seen it used as a blanket dismissal outside of college-aged kids misunderstanding the point and being brats. I've never felt I didn't have a voice within liberal movements.
freeofgreed
Member
Like I said before if you made a mistake or worded something wrong just say that and people will back off, don't get defensive as it will only get worse. Also I'm seriously think about making a thread about the whole white/male/straight thing since a lot of people really miss the intent behind that.
Please read DeBoer's follow-up I put into the OP. This isn't a staw-man. (Nor is it unique to the liberal wing, but social media/echo chambers are very much becoming more visible.)
Poodlestrike
Banned
If they listen. These things have a way of picking people up and carrying them way past the point of reason. And I get that! I do. These are big issues that people have a lot of personal involvement in. But this incredible latent hostility a lot of people exude is just exhausting to be around.
And while I do understand the intent behind the straight/white/male thing (I lack the same level of experiential background as they do on issues of sexuality/race/sex), I think that an outright dismissal isn't neither productive nor... I'm struggling to find a better way of putting this, but it's remarkably anti-liberal.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
I'm not talking about warnings or a lack of them. The story about the woman taking the sign and destroying it is ridiculous. Being excused for bad behavior because you were supposedly "triggered" isn't okay. Allowing people to do things like that doesn't help society be more inclusive or make anyone's life better.
If she really had some uncontrollable reaction, then the best thing that we as a conscientious society can do for her is help her heal and learn to use constructive outlets for her emotions, not just let a person like that do whatever they want because they didn't like something the saw or heard. As I said, we need to help people become stronger, not allow them to continue to suffer, if they're actually suffering.
freeofgreed
Member
I get that, but again that seems to be a problem with just assholes in general and isn't directly tied to the notion of PC.
Also with the whole White male thing, when people ask you that, it isn't to dismiss you. it's simply to make you think about why you have a certain opinion on something. For example in the "are you happy with the diversity in games" thread. Alot of people said the were, and a lot of people responded by asking if they were white. The reason they asked wasn't to shut them up, it was to make them understand that they're probably fine with the amount of diversity in games because it's currently skewed in their favor.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I don't think it's a strawman. I've definitely seen it for myself, too. However, I think the feeling that white men are being shut out comes from a place of confusion rather than actually being shut out or marginalized. You can see it in DeBoer's writing that he doesn't know what to do or what to say. I feel like we're now in a place where I have to contend with the same sort of "prove yourself" thinking that minorities and women have had to deal with whenever speaking up for something their whole lives.
I agree that more conversations need to take place on how white guys can participate in liberal movements that aren't about them, but I can also appreciate the weariness with having to have that conversation with us seemingly all the time.
So there's a lot of interesting discussion going on (thanks OP for including so many articles <3), but I wanted to zero in on two things coming from the perspective of a disabled person (I'm starting to feel like that token disabled person of OT but oh well!!):
Firstly, Chait's paragraph on "triggers" was painful to read. I've been in too many departments of Boston Children's to count, and the majority of them use the word trigger frequently. I have several incurable medical conditions that all trigger each other, and it gets to the point that I'll go to one doctor and they'll say, "sorry, but we can't do anything until this other doctor gets their crap together because every time we fix you up this other condition triggers you again." And no matter what department it is, the consensus is AVOID TRIGGERS.
Of course, that doesn't mean avoiding treatment. I do exposure therapy for my panic attacks and OCD. I do physical therapy for my chronic pain and autonomic dysfunction. For some medical conditions, my treatments have to make me worse before I get better, triggers be damned.
However, what Chait is arguing in the way he uses that analysis is that other people get to decide when and how you experience triggers, and that's what will make you "better." For people with anxiety disorders, that would be the equivalent of tying me to a truck while I'm sleeping and driving off, forcing me to exercise before I even know what's happening. Great therapy, huh?
Anxiety and trauma can't be avoided or left alone, but when and how people are exposed to their triggers is up to them and their doctors, not strangers who act like they're doing something good for you because being considerate in public spaces is hard.
I've come up for an explanation for why people are so adverse to the concept of warnings. See, initially I was confused because people were totally okay with dictating to me how I should deal with my migraines and chronic pain: "try this diet!" "sleep more!" "have you exercised? maybe yoga fad #226 would help," "you drink too much coke, that's why." In other words, these people were unknowingly telling me to avoid certain triggers. And yet, when it comes to people with anxiety disorders or epileptic seizures, trigger or content warning is a ridiculous thing. Why?
There's one key difference: triggers for pain are mostly excludable. What someone else eats, how someone else sleeps, or how much exercise one gets pertain to them and them only. Now think about a graphic depiction of rape told in public with no warning in advance. You can't make some people hear it and some people not without telling them beforehand, so in this instance it's non-excludable. The thing about non-excludable triggers is that it's up to the people around the affected person to change their behavior, even just so that it excludes that person.
In society, we put it on disabled and mentally ill people to internalize their disabilities as much as possible. The people who own $20,000 medical equipment so they can ~overcome their disabilities~ are "inspirational." Those of us who are poor, who need accommodations, who need government assistance, are treated with contempt. People who tell me to just change what I eat, how I live, do so because they don't want to deal with my disability (though a few are well-intentioned but misguided). If I act like able-bodied people no matter how much I'm not, I'm "fine," but acknowledging the ways in which society is not built for me brings trouble, a lot of trouble. The message is clear: overcome your disabilities, don't try to overcome society.
What, then, happens if you can't? This is the crux of what it's like to be a person who needs warnings.
There is great discussion to be had about how much society should accommodate people like this beforehand. For example, what zones should be free of fragrances or other common allergens? How should we ensure people have all the relevant information they need to know about the media and other products they consume? No matter what, it's probably impossible to create a fair system for people like this, but what can we do and what should we be expected to do?
These are all important questions to answer, but we can't fairly answer them until people understand what it means to be a person affected by elements of society that are currently not excluded.
Oh, whoops, that's a super big wall of text, so I'll just save the other point for next time, lol.
Firstly, Chait's paragraph on "triggers" was painful to read. I've been in too many departments of Boston Children's to count, and the majority of them use the word trigger frequently. I have several incurable medical conditions that all trigger each other, and it gets to the point that I'll go to one doctor and they'll say, "sorry, but we can't do anything until this other doctor gets their crap together because every time we fix you up this other condition triggers you again." And no matter what department it is, the consensus is AVOID TRIGGERS.
Of course, that doesn't mean avoiding treatment. I do exposure therapy for my panic attacks and OCD. I do physical therapy for my chronic pain and autonomic dysfunction. For some medical conditions, my treatments have to make me worse before I get better, triggers be damned.
However, what Chait is arguing in the way he uses that analysis is that other people get to decide when and how you experience triggers, and that's what will make you "better." For people with anxiety disorders, that would be the equivalent of tying me to a truck while I'm sleeping and driving off, forcing me to exercise before I even know what's happening. Great therapy, huh?
Anxiety and trauma can't be avoided or left alone, but when and how people are exposed to their triggers is up to them and their doctors, not strangers who act like they're doing something good for you because being considerate in public spaces is hard.
I've come up for an explanation for why people are so adverse to the concept of warnings. See, initially I was confused because people were totally okay with dictating to me how I should deal with my migraines and chronic pain: "try this diet!" "sleep more!" "have you exercised? maybe yoga fad #226 would help," "you drink too much coke, that's why." In other words, these people were unknowingly telling me to avoid certain triggers. And yet, when it comes to people with anxiety disorders or epileptic seizures, trigger or content warning is a ridiculous thing. Why?
There's one key difference: triggers for pain are mostly excludable. What someone else eats, how someone else sleeps, or how much exercise one gets pertain to them and them only. Now think about a graphic depiction of rape told in public with no warning in advance. You can't make some people hear it and some people not without telling them beforehand, so in this instance it's non-excludable. The thing about non-excludable triggers is that it's up to the people around the affected person to change their behavior, even just so that it excludes that person.
In society, we put it on disabled and mentally ill people to internalize their disabilities as much as possible. The people who own $20,000 medical equipment so they can ~overcome their disabilities~ are "inspirational." Those of us who are poor, who need accommodations, who need government assistance, are treated with contempt. People who tell me to just change what I eat, how I live, do so because they don't want to deal with my disability (though a few are well-intentioned but misguided). If I act like able-bodied people no matter how much I'm not, I'm "fine," but acknowledging the ways in which society is not built for me brings trouble, a lot of trouble. The message is clear: overcome your disabilities, don't try to overcome society.
What, then, happens if you can't? This is the crux of what it's like to be a person who needs warnings.
There is great discussion to be had about how much society should accommodate people like this beforehand. For example, what zones should be free of fragrances or other common allergens? How should we ensure people have all the relevant information they need to know about the media and other products they consume? No matter what, it's probably impossible to create a fair system for people like this, but what can we do and what should we be expected to do?
These are all important questions to answer, but we can't fairly answer them until people understand what it means to be a person affected by elements of society that are currently not excluded.
Oh, whoops, that's a super big wall of text, so I'll just save the other point for next time, lol.
MHWilliams
Member
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.
DeBoer's statement was largely, "People of privilege are being assholes and that turns people off from helping others" He even makes a point that it's rarely those marginalized who are making these statements. It's college students, who as others have admitted before, tend to go HAM.
No one is talking about "White Men" being shut out as a class. It's an issue where opinions that deviate from the norm aren't allowed to be tolerated, and an issue of some people having the very real idea that personal identity translates to direct unquestionable authority when speaking about an issue pertaining to that subgroup. (White Straight Cisgender Male just happens to be the one that ticks all the "majority" boxes at once.)
It doesn't come from confusionit comes from the frustration of having your opinions dismissed out of hand. The response on Gawker to Chait's article:
Is an example of something very different from someone simply disagreeing with your viewpoint. There shouldn't have to be a dialog on what it's appropriate for white men to talk about or how they can participate in political movements not about them. Anyone can talk about anything, anyone can be an ally of any cause.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Where aren't these opinions being tolerated, though? There are plenty of strong white male voices in feminism and the Black Lives Matter movements, which are the two leading liberal movements I think about in America right now. In my experience, white men are shut down when they come into the conversations with a feeling of authority, and they get rightly called out for that, which creates the confusion I mentioned in my previous post.
I know, right?
This is a problem with much of Chait's piece. We can agree that harassing people and damaging property is wrong no matter which "side" is engaging in this behaviour; however, some of the examples he brings up are not particularly examples of "tyrannous" political correctness and suppression of free speech, but are in fact people exercising their right to their own freedom of speech with healthy dissent and debate (protests, too, are an expression of free speech). It just so happens that Chait doesn't particularly like what they have to say. He also misrepresents several issues (for instance, as people have already noted, trigger/content warnings don't conflict with the idea that exposure to potential triggers is beneficial for people with PSTD - they instead allow those people to be forewarned and be exposed to triggers in a safe, controlled way of their own choosing instead).
I can only offer my experience as a white guy, but that's essentially what this boils down to.
It does seem that there exists a 'progressive olympics' (props to whoever that was) surrounding discussions of social inequality. It is my expectation, when encountering discussion on these subjects, that, half the time, contentious arguments will be met first with accusations of character defects. Those character defects may exist, and they may not, but the point I see stemming from this discussion, and my own opinion, is that insta-ad-hominem is a very good way to lose friends and alienate people.
I understand the frustrations on the left when someone counters by saying 'be more reasonable' and I acknowledge that mansplaining and tone policing are real phenomena. However, as someone concerned with equality and human rights I find my own frustrations in that I fundamentally disagree that these prescriptions for discourse are the right way to go about affecting change.
As acknowledged in a number of the response people, this PC problem is not as widespread as the Chait article claims. The majority of people are waking up, going to work, coming home, watching late night, and going to bed, never experiencing the PC Chait describes. But this is exactly the problem. Those people are the very people that need to be convinced that there is a problem before things can change.
Whether that majority is racist or not, let's assume they are or at least participate in it's institutional varieties, they don't like being called racist. I'm not concerned that their feelings are hurt, but I am concerned with their vote. Leadership is about an alignment of vision, rather than what I see as a culture of bullying. While I cannot say what proportion of the left engages in this, I can say that they are very vocal, and from the perspective of the rest of the world, the 'unconcerned majority', they represent the movement as a whole. To me this seems damaging, as this vocal group seems more occupied with scoring points by uncovering latent bigotry rather than growing their ranks through effective education, rehabilitation, and leadership.
It does seem that there exists a 'progressive olympics' (props to whoever that was) surrounding discussions of social inequality. It is my expectation, when encountering discussion on these subjects, that, half the time, contentious arguments will be met first with accusations of character defects. Those character defects may exist, and they may not, but the point I see stemming from this discussion, and my own opinion, is that insta-ad-hominem is a very good way to lose friends and alienate people.
I understand the frustrations on the left when someone counters by saying 'be more reasonable' and I acknowledge that mansplaining and tone policing are real phenomena. However, as someone concerned with equality and human rights I find my own frustrations in that I fundamentally disagree that these prescriptions for discourse are the right way to go about affecting change.
As acknowledged in a number of the response people, this PC problem is not as widespread as the Chait article claims. The majority of people are waking up, going to work, coming home, watching late night, and going to bed, never experiencing the PC Chait describes. But this is exactly the problem. Those people are the very people that need to be convinced that there is a problem before things can change.
Whether that majority is racist or not, let's assume they are or at least participate in it's institutional varieties, they don't like being called racist. I'm not concerned that their feelings are hurt, but I am concerned with their vote. Leadership is about an alignment of vision, rather than what I see as a culture of bullying. While I cannot say what proportion of the left engages in this, I can say that they are very vocal, and from the perspective of the rest of the world, the 'unconcerned majority', they represent the movement as a whole. To me this seems damaging, as this vocal group seems more occupied with scoring points by uncovering latent bigotry rather than growing their ranks through effective education, rehabilitation, and leadership.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
How dare you say those words. Get the fuck outta here Fiction, you fuckin racist homophobic pig!
/s
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.
- Status