Are You Tired of Political Correctness Yet? Here, Maybe This Will Help...

Dr. Watson, I presume? :-)

I can see why one wouldn't wish to refer to human kind or to humanity as 'man,' but what is "common sense" about denying, glossing over or obfuscating the fact that the human species is comprised of two genders? Just add a slash between she and he--e.g., s/he.

That's a long conversation.

I'm with Watson on this one.

Everybody's with Dr. Watson. :-)

Yes it is.

It's inherently contradictory, really. How can we support the most personal forms of individuality while setting standards for something so personal as the words one uses. And that's before we even touch on the "feelings" aspect in all this. Sorry to say, no on is entitled to a world where their feelings are never hurt and their positions are never challenged. What a ludicrous notion.

I think you're right, ForkNdaRoad.

There is no way to ensure that no one ever gets hurt.

We react to things in different ways according to our values and interpretations.

However, when psychologists study human behaviour, they find certain consistent themes of reaction. By studying how some people get it right and are successful in their relationships and comparing it with the behaviours that lead to unwanted results, they have been able to work out what works well and why.

No method is foolproof, but some work exceptionally well about 98% of the time.

I'm particularly keen on the communication principles of Marshal B Rosenberg. I think he was an absolute genius in helping to generate better understanding and conflict resolution. Eduard de Bono is another but with a completely different set of equally good thinking tools.

I favour the principle, "first do no harm." If I make a mistake I admit it and do my best to make amends and not repeat it.

If I make a mistake I admit it and do my best to make amends and not repeat it.

Problem is, these methods are being used to punish people, not simply to study human interaction. Furthermore, there can be no true study where people must fear thought-based retaliation.

I abhor bigotry, but it isn't a crime. It's wildly irrational, but not criminal. I fail to see how setting an equally irrational standard, which will lead only to further ostracism, is honestly the best we can do to foster an academic environment that recognizes all rights... Even when those rights are used in ways we dislike.

Bazinga!!

The really scary part is that this has to be re-re-re-explained every ten years or so.

I think in a way you are right.

But my thinking is conflicted.

On the one hand, it is good to know what people honestly think, feel and value.

On the other hand, bigotry has a way of multiplying into criminal and genocidal behaviour.

The problem as I see it is, how do we allow freedom of speech and expression, and at the same time disallow the types of speech and behaviour which lead to the hideous atrocities of history.

Apart from what you or I would do in normal social situations to shun such behaviors, we don't 'disallow' anything.  Let the people who harbor such ill beliefs/opinions speak.  That way we know who they are and can disassociate ourselves from them.  Suppress their right to speak and you drive them underground where they'll wreak all manner of havoc.

I don't have (much of) a problem with private individuals and organizations (voluntary associations) disallowing whatever they wish, but the moment we get government involved everybody's rights are threatened. (I say I don't have much of a problem with private censorship, but I obviously don't think it's a good idea to punish people forever--unless your objective is to create a pariah class who will never cease trying to 'get even' for the way you've treated them.)

And as regards that parenthetical point I'm genuinely surprised that secret organizations haven't formed on college campuses to answer language tyrants in rather 'non-conventional' ways.

Threats are not free speech, they are a form of coercion which is already illegal. Acts of violence, too, are already illegal. 

Going to be awful hard to argue that words, even bigotted ones, will somehow make acceptable acts that are already illegal without injecting a s!ippery slope... In which case I would point out that some of the very first limitations enacted by most genocidal regimes, throughout human history, were directly related to speech and behavior.

Further... Free speech isn't purposed to protect only acceptable speech, it is purposed to protect speech considered offensive or hurtful.

Exactly, association is also a right.

Fair point, Fork.

We could add to that that slander is illegal too.

I'd like to bring up the question of Nazism, (groan, I know people hate it when the topic gets raised) because it came to power legally and democratically. Would or could this have been possible of Mein Kampf and the mass distribution of hate speech had been impossible?

Or, alternatively, are we focusing too much on symptoms of a problem rather than cause?

Somehow, an undercurrent of racism which had been ever present in Europe and had caused numerous pogroms across the centuries, was able to erupt into mass genocide when the economic conditions were ripe for people to want scapegoats.

Studies of racism show that it rises significantly whenever there are too few jobs and becomes most virulent where people feel that their livelihood or positions are threatened.

So returning to sexually PC language, the question could be asked, do men in general feel threatened by women coming closer to social and economic equality? And if so, why? What do men feel they might lose?

Wot!?  You mean individuals have the right to discriminate/segregate as they wish?! 

I hear Amazon is having a sale on flame-retardant suits this week. Better stock up while the stocking's good. :-)

First, Nazism didn't spring up in anything even remotely resembling a legal process.  It was one result of a coup against the Wiemar Republic and voting (the majority of Germans were initially opposed to national socialism) was all but pointless. It was initiated by one of history's foremost example of a black ops/false flag attack.  Google 'Reichstag fire.'

Second, You're right about the correlation between a perceived scarcity of resources (e.g., jobs) and an ensuing exacerbation or flare-up of racist/isolationist tendencies.  That's what makes socialism so dangerous.  It cannot come to fruition in a time of robust economic growth and sociopolitical stability, so it must FOMENT such discord in order to set its sinister roots.

Third, like any other cultural subgroup, men only feel threatened when economic circumstances deteriorate to the point where they cannot fend for themselves or their families.  The same is true of any other subgroup be they men, women, African Americans, gays, etc.

Thanks. I agree with Nimitz above though, there's nothing barring us from openly disavowing / disassociating ourselves from such people. And we can always use our speech to constantly challenge them on it.

I think in the end, that will prove a more powerful force of change than even law.

Speech that is constrained by the qualifiers of "tactful and polite" is not "free".

There's a lot in what you say.

Ostracism works best if practised by everyone each making their own decision. Since we are a social species and very few are able to survive completely alone in the wilderness, disassociating can have a powerful effect.

Facing up to someone to point out what behaviour is unwelcome and why can be a lot more difficult. Fine when the other is open to listening and finding solutions. Exceptionally difficult when they are not.

Being surrounded by a consistent social pressure from many individuals can probably help, though I'm never sure by how much. Who was it who said, "evil prospers when good people do nothing."

And then suddenly it gets to the issue of who or what is good, and who are the arbiters - since any one group can be mistaken and not know it.

I think of good as that which enhances the well-being of life - and I take life to include all life and ecosystems on the planet, not just humans or individuals. But there would certainly be others who disagree with me.

Excellent post!

And no, there will probably never be a perfect human system of social regulation, but government interference is, has never been and never will be the answer.  At best such interference is redundant: i.e., replicates what we already do ourselves.  All government can do--if it must do anything--is keep the way clear for people to express themselves--including displeasure at/with those who espouse repugnant views.  Eventually, opprobrium will have the necessary effect.

As for checks and balances, history demonstrates that such systems of social regulation are self-policing. Extremity is eventually met with equivalent demonstrations of opprobrium--e.g., vigilante justice/lynching.

Double checked the history and you were right.

I accept your points here.

But I think we will always differ in our political views. If all anarchists also supported the ethic of non-harm and unconditional love for life - and if all people could live that way - I could accept it.

But I see human nature as too fallible - and despite the fact that no government can ever solve all the problems, I think on the whole, a good government produces fair results - and there are quite a few of those around the world. I will always be about 20% left of the current centrepoint, and 100% more green.

Are you, by chance, a fan of Bertrand Russell? I only ask because your above comments bring him to mind. In "A Free Man's Worship" he very eloquently defines "good." Since you strike me as a listener, I won't spoil it... Just in case you've never read it and if not, you should. I suspect you'd enjoy it immensely. 

I enjoy conversing with you and agree :)

     "Double checked the history and you were right.

I accept your points here."

:-)

     "But I think we will always differ in our political views. If all anarchists also supported the ethic of non-harm and unconditional love for life - and if all people could live that way - I could accept it."

Strictly speaking, I'm not an anarchist.  I'm an anarcho-libertarian.  In essence that means I believe in the least government possible.  Or to quote one of my long deceased compatriots: "that which governs best governs least."

That said, you're correct: given human nature SOME government will always be necessary.  The trick is to remember from one generation to the next why government must be kept in a tight harness.  Government is much like fire: it's a helpful servant under a pot of stew, but if it gets much bigger than that...

Scott Peck used the words 'good' and 'love' almost interchangeably, and he touched on the same general theme. "Love: the willingness to extend [or sacrifice a portion of] one's self for the benefit of another's growth."

And you're right about the pleasure of conversing with Hartfire. She's one of only two people on here with whom I almost always disagree--but am able to do so cordially. :-)