|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 14:00:00 GMT
Not irrelevant at all. Especially since it's in response to something you brought up:
All of that is incorrect and disproven by history.
And again, it happened based on off the cuff comments.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 14:21:18 GMT
Not irrelevant at all. Especially since it's in response to something you brought up: All of that is incorrect and disproven by history. And again, it happened based on off the cuff comments. I just explicitly typed what it wasn't relevant to, right? Did I type (re what it's not relevant to) what you quoted above? Didn't I just type "it's irrelevant to the fact that believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments." Are you saying that it is relevant to the fact that believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments?
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 14:34:51 GMT
That's a good example of, as I said earlier, "playing the victim to conjured boogymen." What you're talking about is merely negative public reaction to unpopular statements, stances or acts, off-the-cuff or otherwise, which - as I also pointed out - is nothing new. To cite an example of "decades past," John Lennon remarked in a 1966 interview that The Beatles had become "more popular than Jesus," resulting in a weeks-long firestorm (including literal bonfires upon which Beatles albums and promotional paraphernalia were tossed) consisting of outraged editorials, radio blacklisting and even death threats, ultimately culminating in the group's decision to retire from touring. That very remark became an element of Chapman's motive for Lennon's assassination. Fourteen years earlier, Charles Chaplin, on route to London for the premiere of Limelight, was barred from re-entry to the U.S. pursuant to an order by the Attorney General, as a reaction to his outspoken opposition to HUAC activities and trials of accused communists. Two years before that, Ingrid Bergman was denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate - called “a powerful influence for evil” who “had perpetrated an assault upon the institution of marriage” - after she left her husband for director Roberto Rossellini. These are a few of the most notorious examples of what would now be called "politically correct" ostracization. Or rather, would, if they didn't reflect what are recognized in today's climate as conservative views. That's the ironic insidiousness of gasket-blowing on the right over "PC," and typical of the cynicism of accusing others of one's own behaviors, as mikef6 's post on Page 1 correctly observes, and of which reaction by them to Michelle Wolf's WH Correspondents' Dinner routine is a recent example. And more irony: at its beginnings, all "political correctness" sought to do was "change our culture," in the interest of making it more civilized and kind. So let's deny that there is such a thing as political correctness and then finally summarize what it's trying to do? At any rate, I explained to you the sorts of things I want people to be able to say that they're prevented from saying. That's all you initially wanted to know, isn't it? Why attempt to keep arguing about it by changing the goalposts continually, first by noting that people will try to effectively prevent people from saying those things (yeah, no shit, but that's my problem with it and it has no impact on what I want people to be able to say); then by trying to argue that my problem isn't actually with PC/SJW culture (yes it is--my problem is people wanting to control other people in that way, to be able to control what they say, for example, by pressuring companies to can them via threat of lost patronage); then by attempting to point out that either it's nothing new (so what? If it were nothing new that wouldn't imply that I don't have a problem with it) or by attempting to deny that it exists in the first place (while comically then summarizing what it's trying to do)? I spite of these mis-characterizations of my statements (supposedly denying there's such a thing as political correctness, for example), I thought what we were doing was having a conversation on the topic. If that's not what you were interested in after replying to my initial query, you needn't have responded to my own reply. Other replies just upthread have addressed some of your objections (to "pre-PC" examples of what you had claimed never happened, for instance, about which you then moved your own goalposts into red-baiting territory), but if you're disinterested in further discussion, I can accept that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 14:38:50 GMT
So let's deny that there is such a thing as political correctness and then finally summarize what it's trying to do? At any rate, I explained to you the sorts of things I want people to be able to say that they're prevented from saying. That's all you initially wanted to know, isn't it? Why attempt to keep arguing about it by changing the goalposts continually, first by noting that people will try to effectively prevent people from saying those things (yeah, no shit, but that's my problem with it and it has no impact on what I want people to be able to say); then by trying to argue that my problem isn't actually with PC/SJW culture (yes it is--my problem is people wanting to control other people in that way, to be able to control what they say, for example, by pressuring companies to can them via threat of lost patronage); then by attempting to point out that either it's nothing new (so what? If it were nothing new that wouldn't imply that I don't have a problem with it) or by attempting to deny that it exists in the first place (while comically then summarizing what it's trying to do)? I spite of these mis-characterizations of my statements (supposedly denying there's such a thing as political correctness, for example), I thought what we were doing was having a conversation on the topic. If that's not what you were interested in after replying to my initial query, you needn't have responded to my own reply. Other replies just upthread have addressed some of your objections (to "pre-PC" examples of what you had claimed never happened, for instance, about which you then moved your own goalposts into red-baiting territory), but if you're disinterested in further discussion, I can accept that. The "other example" isn't an example, it's a conflation due to some combination of not liking criticism of PC culture and simply wanting to argue. I hate arguing for its own sake. That's one reason that my answers tend to get shorter the more someone argues with me. A discussion I'd be fine with, but in my opinion that would be friendly, not disputational. It would also evidence that you're interested in my views per se --being curious about them, wanting to understand them as I do--simply because they're my views.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 15:00:35 GMT
I spite of these mis-characterizations of my statements (supposedly denying there's such a thing as political correctness, for example), I thought what we were doing was having a conversation on the topic. If that's not what you were interested in after replying to my initial query, you needn't have responded to my own reply. Other replies just upthread have addressed some of your objections (to "pre-PC" examples of what you had claimed never happened, for instance, about which you then moved your own goalposts into red-baiting territory), but if you're disinterested in further discussion, I can accept that. The "other example" isn't an example, it's a conflation due to some combination of not liking criticism of PC culture and simply wanting to argue. I hate arguing for its own sake. That's one reason that my answers tend to get shorter the more someone argues with me. A discussion I'd be fine with, but in my opinion that would be friendly, not disputational. Those aren't my motives, I assure you. Have I been unfriendly? I'd shudder to think that mere opposing viewpoints would constitute such. I do, however, have little taste for discussions that devolve into discussions of the discussion, which are wastes of everyone's time...or, if you like, are "arguing for its own sake."
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 15:09:57 GMT
Not irrelevant at all. Especially since it's in response to something you brought up: All of that is incorrect and disproven by history. And again, it happened based on off the cuff comments. I just explicitly typed what it wasn't relevant to, right? Did I type (re what it's not relevant to) what you quoted above? Didn't I just type "it's irrelevant to the fact that believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments." You're trying to derail the topic. It's not going to work. Please do not do that.
As I've said, (several times), it's all based on people reacting to off-the-cuff comments. Which proves that PC culture didn't create that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 15:14:25 GMT
The "other example" isn't an example, it's a conflation due to some combination of not liking criticism of PC culture and simply wanting to argue. I hate arguing for its own sake. That's one reason that my answers tend to get shorter the more someone argues with me. A discussion I'd be fine with, but in my opinion that would be friendly, not disputational. Those aren't my motives, I assure you. Have I been unfriendly? I'd shudder to think that mere opposing viewpoints would constitute such. I do, however, have little taste for discussions that devolve into discussions of the discussion, which are wastes of everyone's time...or, if you like, are "arguing for its own sake." To me, you were only coming across as wanting to argue, especially since you kept shifting the focus (to something else to argue about) every time. At any rate, so you accept that there's such a thing as PC, and you got some details about the sorts of things that people want others to be able to say but that PCism discourages. So that should help you understand the objections in the future, no?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 15:15:58 GMT
I just explicitly typed what it wasn't relevant to, right? Did I type (re what it's not relevant to) what you quoted above? Didn't I just type "it's irrelevant to the fact that believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments." You're trying to derail the topic. It's not going to work. Please do not do that.
As I've said, (several times), it's all based on people reacting to off-the-cuff comments. Which proves that PC culture didn't create that. Trying to derail--not at all. "Y is based on x" isn't the same as "Y is x" is it?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 15:24:09 GMT
You're trying to derail the topic. It's not going to work. Please do not do that.
As I've said, (several times), it's all based on people reacting to off-the-cuff comments. Which proves that PC culture didn't create that. Trying to derail--not at all. "Y is based on x" isn't the same as "Y is x" is it? Which wasn't your argument. You claimed "Y never happened before X." History shows it in fact did.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 15:25:45 GMT
Trying to derail--not at all. "Y is based on x" isn't the same as "Y is x" is it? Which wasn't your argument. You claimed "Y never happened before X." History shows it in fact did. Do you have some sort of categorical objection to agreeing with me about anything? Do you agree that "Y is based on x" isn't the same as "Y is x"?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 15:33:42 GMT
Which wasn't your argument. You claimed "Y never happened before X." History shows it in fact did. Do you have some sort of categorical objection to agreeing with me about anything?Do you agree that "Y is based on x" isn't the same as "Y is x"? No more than your desire to change the topic. I don't agree with anything that is making a faulty premise. I'm not saying "Y is X." That seems to be your stance. Or misinterpretation at least. I'm saying Y and X are based on Z (Z here being off the cuff comments, which you've been focusing on). Ergo, people having their lives and livelihoods ruined because of off-the-cuff comments happened during McCarthyism, decades before PC culture, a situation you claimed had never happened before. I can quote you again, if you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 15:37:03 GMT
Do you have some sort of categorical objection to agreeing with me about anything?Do you agree that "Y is based on x" isn't the same as "Y is x"? No more than your desire to change the topic. I don't agree with anything that is making a faulty premise. I'm not saying "Y is X." That seems to be your stance. Or misinterpretation at least. I'm saying Y and X are based on Z (Z here being off the cuff comments, which you've been focusing on). Ergo, people having their lives and livelihoods ruined because of off-the-cuff comments happened during McCarthyism, decades before PC culture, a situation you claimed had never happened before. I can quote you again, if you'd like. Why would I have a conversation with you if you can't agree on anything? No matter what I'd say, you'd never agree. And especially if we can't agree on something very simple, it's not going to work to discuss something more complex. I want to see if we can agree on even one thing first--that is, so that you explicitly say that you agree. Let's try this: is your username here PreachCaleb? I'd say it is. Do you agree that it is? Can you explicitly say that you agree with me about that?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 15:39:39 GMT
No more than your desire to change the topic. I don't agree with anything that is making a faulty premise. I'm not saying "Y is X." That seems to be your stance. Or misinterpretation at least. I'm saying Y and X are based on Z (Z here being off the cuff comments, which you've been focusing on). Ergo, people having their lives and livelihoods ruined because of off-the-cuff comments happened during McCarthyism, decades before PC culture, a situation you claimed had never happened before. I can quote you again, if you'd like. Why would I have a conversation with you if you can't agree on anything? No matter what I'd say, you'd never agree. And especially if we can't agree on something very simple, it's not going to work to discuss something more complex. I want to see if we can agree to even one thing first--that is, so that you explicitly say that you agree. Let's try this: is your username here PreachCaleb? I'm sorry, so your only reason for engaging in conversations with people is to convince them to bow to you and agree with whatever you say? Sorry, that's not how things work, especially if what you're saying is faulty. As for my username, just look on over to the left. The answers are there. You don't need reaffirmation.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 15:43:07 GMT
Why would I have a conversation with you if you can't agree on anything? No matter what I'd say, you'd never agree. And especially if we can't agree on something very simple, it's not going to work to discuss something more complex. I want to see if we can agree to even one thing first--that is, so that you explicitly say that you agree. Let's try this: is your username here PreachCaleb? I'm sorry, so your only reason for engaging in conversations with people is to convince them to bow to you and agree with whatever you say? Sorry, that's not how things work, especially if what you're saying is faulty. As for my username, just look on over to the left. The answers are there. You don't need reaffirmation. I wouldn't actually consider something a conversation if the person I'm interacting with can't explicitly agree with me about anything, no matter how simple it is. Why would you expect someone to engage in a conversation with you when you apparently have some hang-up, some categorical (or OCD or whatever it is) objection about explicitly agreeing with them about anything?
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 15:45:21 GMT
Those aren't my motives, I assure you. Have I been unfriendly? I'd shudder to think that mere opposing viewpoints would constitute such. I do, however, have little taste for discussions that devolve into discussions of the discussion, which are wastes of everyone's time...or, if you like, are "arguing for its own sake." To me, you were only coming across as wanting to argue, especially since you kept shifting the focus (to something else to argue about) every time. All of my earlier posts are still right where I left them, in their original wording, for all to see and from which they may make their own observations about what I did or didn't say. Oh, I understand the objections; I simply find them invalid, as I explained in my first reply to you about "freedom from responsibility." It's still a two-way street: when public figures put forth provocative or unpopular viewpoints, it's unreasonable to expect they'd be excused from the effects of public - or even corporate - disapproval, to which all those opposed are as entitled as the public figures are to those viewpoints. As some of the examples I've cited demonstrate, t'was ever thus.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 15:47:44 GMT
To me, you were only coming across as wanting to argue, especially since you kept shifting the focus (to something else to argue about) every time. All of my earlier posts are still right where I left them, in their original wording, for all to see and from which they may make their own observations about what I did or didn't say. Oh, I understand the objections; I simply find them invalid, as I explained in my first reply to you about "freedom from responsibility." It's still a two-way street: when public figures put forth provocative or unpopular viewpoints, it's unreasonable to expect they'd be excused from the effects of public - or even corporate - disapproval, to which all those opposed are as entitled as the public figures are to those viewpoints. As some of the examples I've cited demonstrate, t'was ever thus. In your view, what determines whether any particular reactions to any actions (not just speech, but anything) are reasonable or valid? In other words, do you have some generalized principle(s) for that?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 15:48:07 GMT
That's not the definition of a conversation. What you're looking for is a consensus that what you say is correct.
A conversation is any exchange of information. Agreement is not inherent. We've been having a conversation all throughout this thread. Trying to make me agree with something faulty is your hangup, not mine.
Just to be clear: I don't need you to agree with anything I say for us to have a conversation. As this conversation has proven.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 15:51:16 GMT
That's not the definition of a conversation. What you're looking for is a consensus that what you say is correct. A conversation is any exchange of information. Agreement is not inherent. We've been having a conversation all throughout this thread. Trying to make me agree with something faulty is your hangup, not mine. Just to be clear: I don't need you to agree with anything I say for us to have a conversation. As this conversation has proven. As I said, I'm telling you what I consider a conversation. You don't have to use the term the same way. That's the way I use it. I'm not looking for a consensus that what I say is correct. But I'm also not looking for interaction with someone who can't explicitly agree to anything regardless of how simple and non-controversial it is. When the latter's the case, it's going to be impossible to systemically go through any sort of reasoned argument with the person in question, because they'll categorically disagree with everything. To me that's pointless. I'm not interested in arguing for argument's sake. No visits to the Argument Clinic for me, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 15:59:20 GMT
I know, but that's not what a conversation is. Whether you consider it or not, we've been having a conversation this whole time. Personal definitions don't change actual definitions.
And again, you can't make people agree with you just because you want them to.
In any case, but on topic: PC culture did not create ruining people's lives based on something they said. McCarthyism did that decades before. And that's just in the past 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 16:02:26 GMT
I know, but that's not what a conversation is. Whether you consider it or not, we've been having a conversation this whole time. Personal definitions don't change actual definitions. And again, you can't make people agree with you just because you want them to. In any case, but on topic: PC culture did not create ruining people's lives based on something they said. McCarthyism did that decades before. And that's just in the past 100 years. No such thing as "actual definitions" contra "personal definitions" in my view. It's not a matter of "making people agree." It's a matter of whether they're capable of and willing to admit that they agree when they do. Not interested in anything you have to say unless we can explicitly agree on something. That's all I'm going to talk about until we can do that.
|
|