1. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,425
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia

    Let's have a serious talk about political correctness

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Oscar Leigh, Aug 27, 2016.

    Okay, so often political correctness comes up in other threads, and it can be quite consuming, not very fair to the OP. So let's discuss it since it's such a big discussion point. I'm going to pose a series of questions and we can look at the advantages and flaws of various protection measures and maybe we can even reach some resolutions about this important issue.
    To start with, banning and safe spaces.

    Question 1: Should people like Trump be banned from other western countries as is currently being discussed in Australia and England? Is there harm potential great enough or is this oversensitivity?

    Question 2: What exactly do safe spaces entail and how strong should they be? Is what they target a legitimate problem or not?

    Personally, I think we shouldn't ban people like Trump unless they become vilifying. In Australia we have a Anti-Racial Vilification Law, and it's got pretty high bar criteria. Not many people are arrested for it. I would like this criteria to be applied to other groups, no-one should publicly vilify a group or indeed person or organisation. But anything without enough reasonable responsibility for incitement should be fine. I don't like Trump and I don't like his ideas but I don't think he's bad enough, or taken seriously enough, that we can't handle his comments.
    I also think safe spaces should only follow a policy that in certain areas specific and direct hatred towards people on race, gender etc. If you go somewhere clearly labelled as where gay people like to hang out and start screaming "faggots!" that's inappropriate, and places already have similar behavioural standards for other nudity or obscene drunkenness etc for a long time. However, holding an anti-gay stance or whatever should not count, saying "I'm against gay marriage!" is not hatred, and that goes into denying service for personal demographics, not inappropriate behaviour. It's the same as banning, target the genuine harm, and just laugh your way through more harmless forms of hatred because it's pretty stupid stuff.
    What do people think?
     
  2. Link the Writer
    Offline

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,210
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    I think the reason behind that is that both England and Australia (as far as I know) don't want to look like they're condoning Trump's ideals by allowing him to step foot onto their respective soils. While perhaps outright banning might be an overreaction, I can kind of see the rationale behind it. They don't want him (and folks like him) spreading the hate and possibly affecting young minds to joining in on the hate.

    Well, if they can provide a safe haven for the persecuted so they don't have to worry about getting shat upon metaphorically for whatever they are, then why not? Everyone deserves to be safe and secured.
     
    I.A. By the Barn and Oscar Leigh like this.
  3. Cave Troll
    Offline

    Cave Troll Bite the bullet, do your own thing. Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,776
    Likes Received:
    2,403
    Location:
    Where cushions are comfy, and straps hold firm.
    1. Trump is kind of a jackass, so what's new?

    2. Those liberal overly sensitive pansies in universities need to grow a thicker skin. It is kinda the law to offend and be offended. Freedom of speech doesn't translate to being limited by the notion that one might get offended over what another says. Ergo if you want to talk smack about one group, but get offended when they dish it back, then I recommend moving to China or NK. Someplace where they will tell you what you can and can't say. It should take more than a few minor phrases to traumatize the poor SJW/Fainting Couch Feminists. Either there is freedom of speech, or there is censorship of speech. There is no in between, and there should be no place to hide from a few strong words or phrases. Adults should act like freaking adults, not children.
     
    Oscar Leigh and Link the Writer like this.
  4. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,425
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia
    Um, I do think we can regulate things in an in-between manner. But yes, I don't want people to protected from offense. More the stuff that could be considered verbally abusive.
     
  5. Cave Troll
    Offline

    Cave Troll Bite the bullet, do your own thing. Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,776
    Likes Received:
    2,403
    Location:
    Where cushions are comfy, and straps hold firm.
    From what I understand as horrible as it is hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Only thing that is not is threats. So technically abusive language is by odd virtue protected under free speech. You do realize how many people would be sitting a cell for saying some pretty hurtful things to another, right? There would be a total of maybe a point of a point of a point of a point of a percentage of the population allowed to roam free, and be at opposite corners of the earth. To be fair abusive language is not proper for society, but what is the alternative?

    IMHO, I would rather somebody say some horrible stuff to me, than run amok with an AK any day. So speak what ever you like under the rule of law, under a morally corrupt and bankrupt society. Otherwise they will vent their mental stresses in more destructive ways, if they are forced to pander to a minority of softies that can't just ignore the meanies. It ain't personal unless it is from someone close to you. Then it just hurts. :(

    Personally I find the notion of having safe spaces for people who can't handle the mere mention of certain words or phrases out of fear that they may have some scary magic power to become real, is at the very least an insult to people who have been through real trauma. Though those that have lived through the nightmares don't dwell on them. They learn to get on with their lives as best they can. Not freak out at the utterance of something that has no bearing on them or their well being. So I don't really give a damn that some spoiled little rich kid craps their pants at the mere mention of the word rape. The odds of it actually happening are far to low to even consider it harmful or likely to happen at all.

    So bow to none lest you be walked upon by those that wish to decide for you. That is when you start to lose what freedom you have left to be stolen.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  6. 123456789
    Online

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    Political correctness was probably a good thing, and it still can be. However, we've become distracted and divided over things like gender, race, sexuality, religion, when the truest, biggest divider and truest delineation of inequality, is class.

    A black straight queen has more in common with a white gay king than she does with a black, straight, single mother working at Wal Mart.


    Do you want to know what is an offensive term? Landlord.
     
  7. matwoolf
    Offline

    matwoolf Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,301
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Location:
    Brighton Heights
    Thank you, thank you @123456789

    [​IMG]
     
    Oscar Leigh, Cave Troll and 123456789 like this.
  8. KaTrian
    Offline

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,566
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Location:
    The Great Swamp
    Is this a serious question? Ban Trump from a country because of his opinions, his habit of running his mouth?

    The idea is to give an in-group a break from an out-group that they find hostile. This can be a legitimate concern, imo. If you have certain challenges in your life, it's understandable you'd want to talk about them with people who've been there as well, and who are past having to be explained what that thing x is about or who give you a break if you go overboard with a rant because they know you most likely aren't really planning to kill all men, but this is how you feel because a man once hurt you. An out-group might overreact and accuse you of hate speech or misandry (I know this is far-fetched, but I'm exaggerating to make a point) and you just can't deal with that bs at that point and you start to feel "unsafe."

    The way I see safe spaces:
    This is blacks only --> now we can talk about black people stuff without having to muzzle ourselves
    This is women only --> now we can talk about women stuff without having to muzzle ourselves
    This is gays only --> now we can talk about gay stuff without having to muzzle ourselves

    However: a lecture is not a safe space. University cafeteria is not a safe space. A work place is not a safe space. This forum is not a safe space. Etc. etc.

    But yeah, this is how I've come to understand safe spaces.
     
    Cave Troll, matwoolf and Oscar Leigh like this.
  9. Oscar Leigh
    Offline

    Oscar Leigh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,425
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Australia
    So, you wouldn't support the petitions to ban Trump for countries?
     
  10. KaTrian
    Offline

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,566
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Location:
    The Great Swamp
    No, that's insane. I don't think they're banning Kim-Jong un, Saparmurat Niyazov, Alexander Lukashenko, Salman of Saudi-Arabia or Vladimir Putin from entering, say Australia, so banning Trump seems hypocritical to say the least.
     
    Oscar Leigh and Link the Writer like this.
  11. X Equestris
    Offline

    X Equestris Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    As much as I loathe the man, I think the idea of banning him is absurd when there are actual leaders who've done far worse things than Trump has said. China censors its media, makes dissidents "disappear", and oppresses its religious population. Is there anyone talking about banning their President or other high ranking officials? I doubt it. You can look at the Saudis for another example. Despite all the horrible things they're doing, they've got a seat on an advisory panel to the United Nations Human Rights Council. I don't see talk of banning members of their royal family, though I could be wrong.

    The message this seems to send is "if you put on a polite mask in public, we'll ignore your violations of human rights."

    Public safe spaces have always struck me as odd and in some cases counterproductive.

    Personally, though, I don't find these examples of political correctness near as aggravating as some ( like one schoolgirl in the UK who got in trouble for bringing a Wonder Woman lunchbox to school, because "superheroes solve problems with violence").
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  12. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    5,276
    Location:
    California, US
    Banning someone like Trump doesn't speak well for countries that value free exchange of ideas. It's something I could see from countries like China or Russia, but for western democratic countries it makes no sense. The best foil to someone like Trump isn't to shut him down and send his message below the radar (to the extent that's even possible), but to counter his bad ideas critically.
     
  13. Link the Writer
    Offline

    Link the Writer Flipping Out For A Good Story. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    11,210
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Location:
    Alabama, USA
    Exactly. Be the example on how to act in the face of bigotry.
     
    Oscar Leigh, Cave Troll and Steerpike like this.
  14. psychotick
    Offline

    psychotick Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi,

    As I understand it the petition to ban Trump was based on his statements being considered as hate speech. Personally I'd ban him on the basis that he's an arse - but that's just my opinion.

    So based on that the issue becomes for those concerned with rights, does the right to freedom of speech outweigh the right of individuals of whatever minority to live a life free of verbal persecution that may lead to incitement of violence? And speaking as a white male I can't actually testify to how greatly Trump's and people's like him, comments hurt. But I do know there's been violence at his rallies. That racially motivated attacks have occurred in part propelled by his invective. And on a distressing note, that kids have committed suicide because of cyber-bullying. And lets face it, what Trump is doing with his speech is a form of bullying.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
    Oscar Leigh and Cave Troll like this.
  15. Cave Troll
    Offline

    Cave Troll Bite the bullet, do your own thing. Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,776
    Likes Received:
    2,403
    Location:
    Where cushions are comfy, and straps hold firm.
    Though I have avoided (mainly because politics sucks) both Trump and Derp What does classified mean, share it with the woild?

    That said, there has been a fair amount of violent and 'verbal' malice when it comes to the average Rump supporter. (I think @psychotick will find my mockery of Trump in good humor :p). Anywho, back to my original thought on the matter, and most have already spoken about it before hand. At face value I agree that Rump needs to think a tiny bit longer before he speaks, as he seems to get the Rumpy's all riled up at his little conventions. Though can we really then not look across the aisle to Hillary 'Tratior Chode' Clinton and not find a softer form of negativity? Though when it comes down to the raw runoff, Mr. Rump is by far more an agitator when it comes to his little doofy followers.

    Who is option 3? Cause the first two should not be all a poor lad gets to choose from. If there is no third candidate then I will be forced to vote for Satan. At least I know I am going to get screwed over by an honest openly evil being that doesn't hold back, but rather wears it like an ugly suit for all to admire. :p
     
  16. Shattered Shields
    Offline

    Shattered Shields Gratsa!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    272
    Location:
    Athagora
    Oh I'd ban Trump alright. I'd put him on a damn raft and let him drift. I hope he never reaches land.

    As for safe spaces, I'm in favor of them. Simply because of the prospect that every person should have a safe space where they can get away from the world and it's humanity for awhile. Since it's human nature to apparently shit all over each other (metaphorically of course. The apes still haven't escaped this stage)(also that was a joke) then why shouldn't we have places where people can go and just sit, perhaps read a book. Enjoy the silence. Just to escape other people. And for the record, my idea of a safe space is like a little library set-up with books and nice chairs.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  17. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    5,276
    Location:
    California, US
    Those who would ban Trump are more like Trump than they'd probably like to believe. Trump is all about trying to shut down what he doesn't like or agree with.
     
    Oscar Leigh and Raven484 like this.
  18. Shattered Shields
    Offline

    Shattered Shields Gratsa!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    272
    Location:
    Athagora
    False, at least to me. Banning him from going to a place is a pretty clear cut statement of "you're a disgusting thing, go away". If Trump ever showed up on my porch, I'd send him away immediately, purely because of that reason. He says and stands for some things that are no good, that do no good, and probably will never do any good.
     
  19. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    5,276
    Location:
    California, US
    Same mindset. Everyone who proposes banning other viewpoints always justifies it by claiming they're in the right.
     
    Oscar Leigh and Raven484 like this.
  20. Shattered Shields
    Offline

    Shattered Shields Gratsa!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    272
    Location:
    Athagora
    Since when have racist and hateful views ever been useful to anyone? Trump is an absolute waste of skin. His moral compass is so unbalanced the needle always points south.

    Speaking of banning, do you also disagree with bars having the right to throw out disruptive people? Or perhaps, should we use a more relevant example? If I did nothing but drop racial slurs and say all (insert group here) should die because they're horrid, then got banned from WF, would that be wrong?
     
  21. X Equestris
    Offline

    X Equestris Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Banning them merely makes it easier for free speech to be eroded. You can find people who are offended by everything and view disagreement as hateful, racist, bigoted, etc.

    Example time: on one forum's philosophy and religions subforum, a girl made a thread asking for advice. She'd decided she no longer believed in Islam, but went through the motions of belief anyway because she was terrified of her extremely conservative mother. Said mother was--according to the daughter--controlling (not letting the daughter live in a dorm on campus, tightly restricted her access to media, aggressively pushing marriage, this sort of thing), had had her circumsised as a child, and had apparently raised the threat of sending the girl back to Somalia over other matters. The daughter was extremely worried about her apostasy coming to light, since she believed her mother would send her back to Somalia (a place not too friendly to apostates, and one where honor killings are culturally accepted), or perhaps even murder her here. However, she was still conflicted over what to do, as aside from these points her mother treated her well.

    Most respondents to that thread suggested that, because of the danger, she should play along until she had the opportunity to leave, then never look back. But there was one poster--a Muslim girl that up until that point seemed fairly reasonable--who attacked this girl, asking how she could be so ungrateful to her mother and what her mother had done for her. Various posters, including myself, pointed out that the main reason her mother treated her well was because she fit the mold her mother desired for her. This poster immediately began decrying everyone who said that as Islamophobic. Never mind the fact that I and most of the others would say the same thing if a different religion was involved.

    You can see other examples of this behavior with people who write off Obama or Hillary Clinton's ideological opponents as "racist" or "sexist". Now imagine a government being able to ban and prosecute these opinions as "hate speech".

    Bars aren't governments. Neither are Internet forums.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2016
  22. Shattered Shields
    Offline

    Shattered Shields Gratsa!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    272
    Location:
    Athagora
    If a country wants to ban Trump, then why not? If I led a country I wouldn't let him in. Not to deny his free speech, but to make a statement that backwards attitudes like his aren't tolerable. He does more harm than he'll ever do good.
     
  23. 123456789
    Online

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Likes Received:
    3,086
    If you want to ban Trump, there are a lot of other people you should want to ban as well, including his opponent, who insults the intelligence of all demographics with her decades-long lying.
     
  24. psychotick
    Offline

    psychotick Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi,

    And suddenly we're back into American politics. This thread as I understand it is specifically about political correctness and Trump is mostly being mentioned because he is the pre-eminent example of political incorrectness in the world today. But I'd be perfectly happy to use the the KKK guy David Duke as an example instead if that would help.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  25. X Equestris
    Offline

    X Equestris Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    As long as you're fine with nations banning people you agree with because they find their rhetoric offensive, sure, why not.

    Funny thing is, and I mentioned this earlier, I don't see people calling for bans on officials representing nations with flagrant human rights violations. People who've been complicit in actions far more damaging than anything Trump has said. The fact that some people are more focused on Trump's words than the atrocities other world leaders hide behind polite masks is rather disturbing.
     
    Oscar Leigh, Raven484 and KaTrian like this.

Share This Page