I don’t know what to do, you guys

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/29/i-dont-know-what-to-do-you-guys/

by Balgair • 11 years ago

152 204 11 years ago

Wizards of the Coast posted a story today that featured a transgender character. I thought, and continue to think, it was a shit story. I've no experience with WOTC's writing, and I don't know if shit is the norm for their fluff, but nothing about the story engaged me, and the one 'interesting' piece was heavy handed; Oh, no, a sexist orc is literally a pig to the trans character and then put in his place! For that, it seemed like everyone I know who plays videogames or card games had posted it to facebook.

I don't know why I'm supposed to care. A demographic with a tiny tiny minority is getting represented? A few years back, being indistinguishable was the highest compliment you could pay a trans person. Now, it seems anything they do is 'brave' and you have to constantly praise how 'proud' you are of their transition, even if they become an utterly unlikable person with it. In my world, you try to build the best world you can by lifting everyone up, not by stacking praise where least praise is warranted out of some form of 'equality'.

Maybe if WOTC had made us like the character first I'd care. Maybe if it had been a bombshell, or something quietly unacknowledged, but it took two paragraphs before it was clear where this one was going. Maybe it was just spoilers; The subset of people who had posted it and their praise told me exactly what the moral was. Maybe if it were treated as just another trait; a birthmark, a minor disability, a past struggle worked through. Maybe then I'd care.

PhasmaFelis2• 11 years ago

...Okay. Maybe you could submit that story and post a comment to it, instead of hijacking this story's comments?

GauntletWizard2• 11 years ago

I'm sorry; was the connection not clear enough for you? Politics of the left wing are increasingly about keeping up appearances and out-dogmaing one another, scaring off potential allies and self-praise on spurious grounds. I can't make saidsame rant on facebook, because the people who salivated over the story would tear me to shreds, and I really don't want to deal with that today, or ever.

derefr• 11 years ago

To leftist politics, and the "social justice" movement in particular: separate the bullies from the revolutionaries. Shun the bullies; don't let them use your name. Then we'll stop being afraid of the name, and of the revolutionaries.

hammerdr3• 11 years ago

This is easy to beat: just go to the source. If there's a howling white man going on about injustice and how he's going to tell you about the struggles of women of color, First Nations and Imperialism.. ignore that person. Go talk to a (well.. several, actually) woman of color, member of a First Nation or a nation ravaged by European and/or American imperialism.

"But what can I do as a white man/white women/generally privileged person?" - Amplify. Your voice unjustly carries more weight than that of other people. If you can be the "Retweeters" of Social Justice, you'll be doing a lot of good. Just be sure to retweet the people with firsthand knowledge.

jacobolus• 11 years ago

It’s absurd to claim that white men can’t ever under any circumstances have anything to say about the struggles of other people, but there are certainly people who make such a claim.

As one example, my father, an anthropologist/historian in his 60s who spent his whole career and life befriending, interviewing, translating, and writing about indigenous rural peasants in southern Mexico, and probably knows as much or more about their history and circumstances as anyone alive (in an intellectual sense, if not precisely as lived personal experience, since he was never himself a destitute peasant) was told by a 30-year-old recent Ph.D from a well-off family (who had literally never worked a job outside academia, and spent her entire life living in rich US suburbs) that he had no right to comment on the circumstances of indigenous rural peasants, “the subaltern” to use her term, because he he was a privileged member of the hegemonic class, whereas she could, as a Latina.

vacri6• 11 years ago

So, I hung out on a forum called 'stuff white people do' for a while. I wanted to find out more about racism, and the forum host was white, along with the denizens being a mixed group (I didn't want to stick my nose into a place where it wasn't wanted).

Anyway, this exact thing you suggest was something that they explicitly had articles against. "PoC are tired of being asked about their experiences. Go read a book first, don't ask them". I was scolded by the host for suggesting that "asking people as a first resort over picking up a book" was a human thing, not a white thing born of privilege, and I was scolded for it. Several of the PoC in the forum were quite clear on how they felt (poorly) about being asked of their experience by people not familiar with it.

Until I hit that site, I thought 'white apologism' was a myth. But boy, if you self-identified as white and didn't meekly talk cap-in-hand about how you sucked, you were berated. My favourite post was where the moderator asked what could be done to improve the site, and myself (white male) and an asian female said the same thing (both dispassionately): that we felt we held different opinions to the mainstream of the site, and it was difficult to be heard. She had a number of users encouraging her to post more and feel welcome. I got read the riot act and was nearly banned from the site.

It's very much worth noting I did learn a lot from some of the users that site, and I certainly wouldn't tar others in the field from my experiences there, but boy, arseholes can come from all directions. Some of the users were actually interested in discussion and I did learn a lot from those (one of whom was the woman above), but the moderator was an utter moron. I felt sad because these are important issues, and that moderator and his ilk were more interested in shriving guilt and hand-wringing than finding equitable solutions.

Anyway, long waffle short: not all people of colour appreciate being asked about their experiences by well-meaning naifs.

javert• 11 years ago

This comment is incredibly racist, not to mention problematic on several other counts.

Racism is the view that the content of your mind is determined by your race. The Nazis believed that, and so does the person I am responding to.

Interestingly, Marx said something very similar: that the content of your mind is determined by your class. This is why large swathes of people have to be either wiped out or "re-educated" in Marxist countries.

smacktoward2• 11 years ago

Funny, that's the exact advice I would give to #GamerGate.

scrollaway• 11 years ago

I'd like to direct you to a comment I wrote a few days ago about the ridiculous amount of bullying on both sides of the pathetically pointless conflict.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8943256

dethstar2• 11 years ago

Thing is, when you feel bullied, why is that? Is it because people are trying to tackle issues that benefit you? Trying to get you to not be certain way simply for the sake/respect of others that are not like you? Is it because theyre being unnecesarily rude?

I can comprehend how someone being rude leaves a bad taste, but it seems to me like most of the time bully is anyone who doesnt agree with you.

Kalium10• 11 years ago

Often, the bully is someone who gets off on the feeling of power. That's what defines a bully, not that they disagree with you.

reitzensteinm• 11 years ago

For what its worth, I know many people in our (broad) community with views similar to my own that I consider asshole bullies. People seem to turn a blind eye to - or even encourage - all sorts of nastiness from those they like or agree with.

It's uncharitable to assume that the parent's experience stems from his or her own shortcomings.

jdp23• 11 years ago

Angus Johnson has a reply at http://studentactivism.net/2015/01/29/stop-whining-freddie-d... ... Freddie deBoer makes a brief appearance in the comments. I gather the two of them don't care for each other.

[The URL's a good examples of "perils of permalinks": the post is now titled "A reply to Freddie deBoer" and he mentions in an update that "The original title of this piece was more obnoxious than was necessary. I’ve changed it" ... but not the link.]

joe_the_user• 11 years ago

Yeah,

deBoer's post speaks to a culture of not knowing the right language, of general intemperance and how poor and working class actually wind-up more likely to be victims of it because they are less likely to know the game even if the game itself is intended to protect them.

ageek123• 11 years ago

The Chait article should be required reading.

zerocrates• 11 years ago

The author spends a lot of time decrying Chait, his article, and his views, but seems to end up in a pretty similar place.

Other than the fact that deBoer has scrupulously chosen to only call out white authors, this article seems to "scold" its subjects for their tactics just the same as Chait's did. What's the basis for the great distinction between the two that's the basis for the first and last paragraphs? That Chait is a "centrist Democrat" instead of "more left wing"?

Kalium10• 11 years ago

The author needs to be seen to hate Chait in order to be taken seriously by the intended audience.

Lazare• 11 years ago

I think the short of it is that deBoer believes he has a valid point, but believes that there's is a likelihood that his intended audience will just ignore him. He's trying to insulate himself from that outcome by several tactics: The elaborate denunciation of Chait, the careful choosing of targets, the stressing of his credentials and history.

If deBoer could be honest, he'd probably say "WTF is wrong with you? Chait was correct, and excommunicating him for saying correct-but-uncomfortable things is fundamentally unhelpful and illiberal". But he can't say that, because the same process will excommunicate him too, so we get this instead. Not that it'll help; for some of the more extreme types, it's probably enough that Chait quoted deBoer approvingly in his article.

(You'll notice that while he mouths the pro forma denunciations of Chait, he never really specifies where he thinks Chait got it wrong.)

mrxd2• 11 years ago

What's the basis for the great distinction between the two

Chait thinks that traditional liberal values of free speech and free thought are threatened by political correctness. DeBoer thinks that anti-oppression movements are undermining themselves by alienating their own members.

They both see political correctness as harmful, but are very different in every other way.

millstone• 11 years ago

I think this is the referenced Chait article: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-t...

hn_politics_thr• 11 years ago

This is an incredible piece. Highly recommended.

stolio5• 11 years ago

I spent about ten years being an "ally" to feminism, to the LGBT community, to minorities, etc.

And then my views drifted ever so slightly from the tried and true party lines. One day I said I thought it was wrong that Brandon Eich was forced out of Mozilla, I said I thought it was wrong the way he was treated. Immediately the decade spent arguing for gay rights and marriage equality disappeared and I became a bigot, the enemy.

One day I said it seemed clear that there is in fact a biological aspect to gender. The decade spent arguing for feminist politics disappeared, and I became a sexist. Just like that.

I've lost friends, old friends over these things. My politics are still left of center but I've learned not to open my mouth around the social justice set because to them I'm a sexist/bigot/racist/etc. It's amazing just how small a step out of line you have to take before the group tries to collectively shame you into seeing the light. It's amazing that shame has become a central tool for trying to create positive social change.

indlebe• 11 years ago

Who are you sharing your views with that you are experiencing so much judgement, etc?

Are these comments on your blog, or real life friends, or both?

politics are still left of centre

The whole left-right thing is really a false dichotomy. It sounds to me like you associated/associate with extremists of political correctness.

I hold some very progressive ideologies, but I have never faced ridicule if I don't "tow the line" as you are experiencing. But then again I don't blog or share my views that publicly.

Kalium10• 11 years ago

Who are you sharing your views with that you are experiencing so much judgement, etc?

You'd be surprised. I left the Bay for a handful of years, and when I came back half of my friends had become political radicals. There is no lack of people who will react badly if you don't share their views in detail.

xtrumanx3• 11 years ago

How about right here at HN? Earlier this week someone commented on using shame as a tool for "positive change".

I once wrote a comment on a thread here on HN but after considering past reactions of HN of similar comments, I didn't bother submitting the comment and closed the tab instead.

I don't necessarily care about karma but I use it as a way to figure out what kind of stuff the community wants to hears from me. When I get downvoted I make a mental note to keep such opinions to myself next time. I rather have some of my comments be visible than have them greyed out or dead.

vacri6• 11 years ago

It's worth remembering that one advantage right-side politics have is that they are passionate for the status quo. Left-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement; it's much easier for lefties to disagree about what kind of change they want, than for righties to disagree about how they want things to stay the same...

deciplex5• 11 years ago

I wonder if this is a reaction to Republican party politics of the last 20 years or so? They seem to speak with a single voice, even if that voice is usually saying stupid, hateful, regressive things. That they march in such lockstep is probably their greatest asset as a party, and I really don't know if it's something to be emulated or not (leaning toward 'not', though).

yummyfajitas6• 11 years ago

This is an odd view. Right wing politics in the US claims to lean toward reducing/dismantling SS and the welfare state, radically changing immigration and education policy. (In reality they are prevented from doing this, of course.) In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.

vellum• 11 years ago

Each side has their own circular firing squad. Examples: Republicans sniping at each other and calling each other a RINO (Republican In Name Only), the Tea Party primarying mainstream politicians for not being conservative enough, etc.

declan• 11 years ago

I could just as easily write:

"It's worth remembering that one disadvantage left-side politics have is that they are defending the status quo, and mounting such a defense is trench warfare, not a campaign that captures the hearts and minds of the next generation. By comparison, right-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement. But because the right is so far away from achieving its goals, the passions inside the movement aren't as heated. Also, the right tends to be suspicious of political correctness and ideological litmus tests."

I suspect if you hung around Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, etc. for a while, you'd find that they want to overturn the status quo on taxes (perhaps a flat tax), government spending (reduce significantly), third-tier government agencies not mentioned in the Constitution (abolish), abortion (overturn Roe v. Wade), obscenity and indecency (remember the horror called the Communications Decency Act?), religion (erode church/state barrier), United Nations (get U.S. out, or reduce dues), federal regulations (dramatically roll back), Obamacare (repeal), Second Amendment (enforce RTKBA post-Heller), voter ID, marriage, home schooling (defend), public schools (vouchers), and so on.

Look at the 1968 Democratic Party platform. It talked about Head Start, Upward Bound, more federal spending on education, Medicare expansion, creating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, more regulation of industry, increasing Social Security spending, etc. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29604]. It's been nearly half a century since then, and all those policies have been enshrined into law; the question today is not whether to eliminate them, but how much budgets will increase year-over-year.

Liberalism has won the culture war as well, as both conservatives and liberals have acknowledged for quite some time: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/14/1291965/-Liberalism... http://theweek.com/articles/469079/culture-war-over-conserva...

soup10• 11 years ago

most people are idiots, right or left, we're all stupid together!

forgingahead• 11 years ago

"The Revolution devours its children"

javajosh3• 11 years ago

I feel ya. I'm a staunch gay rights advocate, even fought prop 8, but I still thought Eich was treated unfairly. A man shouldn't lose his job because of his political views, just like he shouldn't lose it for being, say, transgendered. Needless to say, this is a nuanced position, and some people simply don't have the capacity for nuance, sadly.

solipsism5• 11 years ago

It sounds like you're saying yours is the nuanced position and anyone disagreeing with you does so out of inability to grasp the nuance. Is that how you really feel?

electronvolt2• 11 years ago

Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way?

I have mixed feelings over the way he was treated, but your argument actually seems the opposite of nuanced: the blanket claim that someone should never be fired for their political views (particularly, from a public position where their politics could have an effect on the company they represent both on internal culture and on externalities like boycotts), no matter how repugnant their politics are, seems pretty reductive.

ytturbed• 11 years ago

shame has become a central tool for trying to create positive social change

Yet it doesn't. It creates fear and reduces communication. The motive for shaming people, for trying to make people feel guilty, is to increase the power of the one who does the shaming. To cement their position in the in-group. Because deep inside they feel weak and powerless.

Whereas truly good people make you feel stronger and they inspire you by their example of virtue.

mercer4• 11 years ago

And by reducing communication, it reduces the chances of people changing their beliefs. It might even strengthen their existing beliefs. And that goes for both sides of the argument, so you better make sure you're right before you start jumping on others for their 'wrong' beliefs.

I consider it an important goal to be as patient and open to communication as possible with others, and politely decline communication (or friendship) only when it's clear that there is nothing to be done, and that our views are too far apart.

Often I've failed at that. I've had my moments where someone's views were so offensive to me that I could not stay calm and continue conversing, but I consider that my failing, and something to work on. And to some extent I accept that I have my limits.

One of the reasons I take this approach, is that I've been utterly wrong in my beliefs in the past (conservative Christian, bible-belt style). Or rather, I think I was utterly wrong. And yet I was the same 'rational' person I am now.

Another reason is that I've spent most of my life being around wildly different people and cultures and belief systems. And the one thing it made me realize is that most people are not 'evil' in their beliefs, but that they either 1) never really thought about them much, or 2) made a fundamental error at some point of the process.

For example, it was only when I started reading 'republican' blogs that I started to understand and to a degree even appreciate their point of view on many things. Understanding the religious elements in this dynamic made this a bit easier too.

Perhaps the problem the author describes is a result of people living in very 'homogenous' surroundings, and as a result perhaps they never learned how to disagree in a civil way, or respect someone's views even though they disagree with them.

JackFr• 11 years ago

From Darkness at Noon:

“Why did you execute Bogrov?”

“Why? Because of the submarine question,” said Ivanov. “It concerned the problem of tonnage – an old quarrel, the beginnings of which must be familiar to you.

“Bogrov advocated the construction of submarines of large tonnage and a long range of action. The Party is in favour of small submarines with a short range. You can build three times as many small submarines for your money as big ones. Both parties had valid technical arguments. The experts made a big display of technical sketches and algebraic formulae; but the actual problem lay in quite a different sphere. Big submarines mean: a policy of aggression, to further world revolution. Small submarines mean: coastal defense – that is, self-defense and postponement of world revolution. The latter is the point of view of No. 1, and the Party.

“Bogrov had a strong following in the Admiralty and amongst the officers of the old guard. It would not have been enough to put him out of the way; he also had to be discredited. A trial was projected to unmask the partisans of big tonnage as saboteurs and traitors. We had already brought several little engineers to the point of being willing to confess publicly to whatever we liked. But Bogrov wouldn’t play the game. He declaimed up to the very end of big tonnage and world revolution. He was two decades behind the times. He would not understand that the times are against us, that Europe is passing a wave and must wait until we are lifted by the next. In a public trial he would only have created confusion amongst the people. There was no other way possible than to liquidate him administratively.

B-Con• 11 years ago

I believe that most people agree the Left tends to attract idealists. While that has advantages, it also has disadvantages. Many extreme viewpoints are born out of what people wish were true and nothing else. If you dare say something that doesn't fully support their perfect picture ideal, you're a hostile combatant to them.

Definitely a lot of idealists who could stand to mature some.

mkr-hn7• 11 years ago

I believe that most people agree the Left tends to attract idealists.

No more than any other leaning.

qnaal• 11 years ago

I wonder what about that community caused it to evolve like that

nostrademons2• 11 years ago

Hypothesis:

When people are powerless for a long period of time, all they learn is the "language" of power, and every issue is cast as a life-or-death struggle where you are either with them or against them. When such people are close to attaining power, actually achieving it is the only thing that matters to them. They often become just as dogmatic oppressors as the people they fought against. It takes time to learn higher-level "languages" like empathy, or justice, or reasoned argument, and typically these skills can only be learned in a situation where you have a certain baseline of personal power. And so you get see-saw effects where the groups on top change but nothing is ever more just about the society.

I can see this dynamic with certain Hacker News personalities who've been in powerless positions in the past and hence frame every comment as an us vs. them struggle, and it also explains the political history of numerous countries (eg. Russia, Rwanda, Israel/Palestine) in the modern era. It's a very common theme in arts & literature as well, eg. 1984, The Hunger Games, The Who ("Won't get fooled again"), South Park.

mercer4• 11 years ago

I suspect a big part of it is being in an echo-chamber of people who have almost the exact same set of beliefs, which are then contrasted with the more extreme opposite beliefs. This creates a rather simplistic (and therefore desirable) us vs. them dynamic.

I've experienced this as conservative christian, and I only realized how black and white my world-view had become once I 'got out'.

I could be wrong though. I generally avoid these 'communities' for the reason the author describes.

angersock6• 11 years ago

One of the most annoying places to be right now is to have sympathies with both sides of these issues and to try to discuss things rationally and evenly.

Simple example:

I've got two good friends, one of them on one side of the GamerGate nonsense, and one on the other. I have to be very careful chatting with them, because while they each separately are very articulate and reasoned in their arguments, I cannot even pretend to identify with any of the other side without risking very strongly being labeled and shut out of further discussion.

You'd think you could get these people to agree to sit down and calmly hear each other out, maybe critique each other's positions, and perhaps agree to disagree--but no.

No, instead one side will immediately feel like they are being judged and condescended to and set up for mocking, and the other will feel that they are probably tempting a campaign of harassment and stalking and abuse. Neither can talk openly and freely because they assume that the other person, once flagged as the opposition, will be doing everything disingenuously. One cannot have reasoned discussions in such an environment.

And if you do agree with the people who are either side of GamerGate? You're either siding with people who use threats and really sloppy language ("SJW" as a catchall for any goddamn thing that even is remotely related, good or bad), or siding with people who bully and pander and conduct successful mass-media campaigns belittling their opponents. Like, nobody deserves to win this.

The thing that's most annoying to me, though, is that one side you can kind of reason with, because you slowly wittle away the crazy into an admission that "Well, yeah, we should treat them with some class, I guess. Death threats aren't actually okay."

The other side, though, has made central to its position a sort of victimhood, and that is a position very hard to navigate somebody out of. And so, even if you try and work on things, they'll acknowledge a small portion of why the other side has its issues, and then immediately revert to "But, think of the fear and the suffering and blah blah blah".

And it's annoying, because if you try to stand on that side and argue back with the jerks making deaththreats and doxxing and doing nasty shit, you look over your shoulder to see your allies and they're automartyring and being downright mean and just clearly not acting in any sort of productive way.

And if you're on the other side and trying to support the nerds who are getting picked on and made fun of and made out to be manchildren and whatnot? Your allies are busy calling in bomb threats and making the most puerile gestures and getting so damned emotional in their trolling they losing sight of the big picture--and playing right into the hands of their opponents.

It's just so goddamn frustrating.

The exact same thing plays out in politics: one side will make fun of and harass the other side, and that side will continually play the abused and purge anybody who doesn't fall in with them.

And between the two of them, there's simply no place for anybody who doesn't want to look like a buffoon or an opportunistic victim.

deciplex5• 11 years ago

My reaction to Gamergate was to continue playing video games and to continue not reading 'Games Journalism' because I already knew it was payola garbage. As for your friends my suggestion would be to discuss other shared interests. It's possible - even common - for both 'sides' of an issue to be way off the mark.

mkr-hn7• 11 years ago

One of the most annoying places to be right now is to have sympathies with both sides of these issues and to try to discuss things rationally and evenly.

I was once labeled an "MRA" for suggesting sexual assault (or worse) and IPV statistics might be more balanced between different genders if the data collection efforts weren't skewed so far toward a single gender.

I used to be a lot more idealistic, but ideologues broke me of that faulty thinking.

Meekro• 11 years ago

I know what you mean! I've been a supporter of gay marriage for my whole life. But when the Brendan Eich thing happened, I was stunned. The "good" side of this fight was acting more evil than the "evil" side. What terrified me most was reading the ArsTechnica forum and seeing the majority cheering for his downfall, and totally ignoring the dangerous precedent that a person could be fired for donating to the wrong ballot proposition.

I tried arguing that allowing people to get fired for their political activity, even if that activity is misguided, is far more dangerous to democracy and society than Prop 8 ever was. I was slammed and downvoted waaaaay into the negatives.

That event really changed my outlook on social liberalism.

jsprogrammer2• 11 years ago

Brendan.

Wasn't fired; resigned, but could have stayed on.

Everyone has the right to choose their leader (if they even want one).

lern_too_spel6• 11 years ago

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve.

Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your time as enthusiastically to that organization knowing what its head has done? Would you be a little more likely to donate your time elsewhere instead, even if just to feel less uncomfortable around your black friends? Now imagine that most of the people who volunteer for this organization hold progressive views and have the same decision to make. It's not hard to see that this appointment could threaten the continued existence of the organization.

Now replace blacks with gays, bus position with marriage (which, I'm sure you agree, is a far worse restriction), and she with he.

girvo2• 11 years ago

Crucifying someone publicly and professionally for their political views when their job has little to do with them just doesn't sit right for me, even if I find his views on gay marriage deplorable.

We used to fire people from their jobs (and worse) because they were gay. What happened to Brendan isn't too different, and the result is the same: removing someone from their job because of something that has little to do with their ability to do it...

Edit: they're not exactly the same, of course. I just find their too close for comfort. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to death your right to say it"? When did the side of the political spectrum I agree with become okay with thoughtcrime and censorship? Brendan's case is slightly less sympathetic for me than others, but it's an issue I've seen time and time again, and it's what the OP is talking about.

nostrademons2• 11 years ago

You can turn this argument around too, though.

Imagine that you own a bus company in the South in the 1950s. You personally believe that blacks should have every right that whites have, including the ability to sit up front. However, if you passed that policy on your busses, all your white ridership would refuse to buy tickets. Your bus drivers would quit. Your shareholders would fire you. And it's all for naught anyway, because your customers would go to competing bus lines with bigoted owners who hire all your employees away. So you make blacks go to the back of the bus, just like everyone else.

Does this mean Rosa Parks was incredibly naive?

On a pragmatic level, you're right - companies are under constraints imposed by their stakeholders. But if you're talking moral philosophy or what is right, it's not enough to make arguments based on what everybody else believes. You need to be able to come up with some distinction that holds even if you swap white to black to gay. Are people entitled to their jobs, regardless of their race? Are they entitled to their views? Are they entitled to make political contributions? What are the basic rights that we choose to protect for our citizenry, regardless of the specific form that their expression takes?

Part of what made the Brendan Eich issue so problematic for a lot of people is that upholding his right to hold his own personal and political views is not inherently contradictory with upholding the rights of gay Mozilla employees & community members to have a safe working environment. He had publicly promised to uphold Mozilla's existing non-discriminatory and LGBT-friendly policies, and to prevent his personal views from interfering with his duties at Mozilla.

wwweston• 11 years ago

If the issue with Eich was supposed to be about whether or not he was inclined to lead an inclusive Mozilla apparently looked to as a standard bearer not only for open/progressive technical values but open/progressive social values... who's more incredible naive?

The person who considers Eich's political donation to Prop 8 as a conclusive indicator he couldn't do that?

Or the person who considers his long history there as a more relevant, legible, and likely conclusive signal about how he would have run the Mozilla he helped build?

(Also, when people are constructing these ostensibly parallel hypotheticals, why does some equivalent of the latter always seem to get left out?)

stolio5• 11 years ago

If you think I haven't heard this argument multiple times you're very wrong. It's well known in certain circles that this is the _correct_ view of the situation and you're not the first to graciously assume I simply haven't been exposed to it.

On this point we disagree, and my post is about what happens when we disagree, that it's not OK for me to disagree. That it's wrong, fundamentally wrong, so wrong it can only be due to stupidity or bigotry on my part.

Really I just have different views of what it means to be inclusive.

In the past 25 years I've seen an absolutely huge amount of compromise coming from mainstream America and the Christians especially when it comes to the LGBT community. I don't think it's too much to ask that when Eich was sitting there waiting at the negotiating table that the LGBT community would at least show up and try to find a compromise.

This wasn't a Bible-thumper screaming "you're all going to hell!!!" It was the CEO of a very important Open Source project saying "Let's sit down and talk, I'm willing to put in the time and energy to work this out." But the torches had been lit, the pitchforks sharpened, and the rest is history.

smacktoward2• 11 years ago

I don't think it's an accident that all three of his examples involve college students. I saw plenty of examples of this type of aggressive ideological policing in various political groups I was involved in when I was college. I have seen exactly zero in nearly twenty years of being involved with and working in left-wing politics after graduation.

(Which isn't to say it never happens, I'm sure it does, just that it's not the epidemic it would appear to be if you look solely at politics as she is practiced on campus.)

There's an old saying to the effect that campus politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low. When you get out in the real world and realize politics requires more than making statements -- that it requires building movements, and you need lots of people in order to build movements that make a difference -- you learn fast to either live with people who are mostly on your side, even if they disagree with you here and there, or you content yourself with writing blog manifestos.

scilro• 11 years ago

I was just thinking that a lot of this might be college kids having a better handle on their politics than their social norms.

Animats• 11 years ago

"Academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so low." - Henry Kissinger. He'd both been on the Harvard faculty and was Secretary of State, so he knew.

The real trouble with the political correctness thing about sex is that it's a distraction from the real political issues - money, and who gets how much. Most of what government does and can do is about money. The US right has its own problems with sex, but it's a distraction there, too: "God, guns, and gays". None of which the U.S. Government can do much about.

Occupy ran into this. Occupy leaves behind one lasting achievement - the identification of "the 1%" as a problem. They never had a coherent agenda. Basic truth about dealing with political leaders - don't ask them to solve your problem. The most that will get you is a study. You must have all the homework done up to the "sign here" point. Ask any lobbyist.

Thought for today: should people be paid more than they are worth as purely economic units? If not, should incomes go down as automation gets better?

sparkzilla2• 11 years ago

Occupy leaves behind one lasting achievement - the identification of "the 1%" as a problem.

As long as the 1% doesn't include Steve Jobs.

mercer4• 11 years ago

Occupy ran into this. Occupy leaves behind one lasting achievement - the identification of "the 1%" as a problem. They never had a coherent agenda.

Small correction: From what I understand Occupy didn't have a coherent agenda by design. The initiators of the movement had other goals, and were relatively successful by their own measures (and I agree, to an extent).

swatow2• 11 years ago

But he wasn't talking about campus politics per se, but the college scene in general. The policing is not so vicious because the stakes are low, but because there is real doubt about whether people are "racist" or "sexist". I think you experience in left wing politics is due to the fact that you all already had "cred" and so weren't subject to the same level of scrutiny.

TrevorJ• 11 years ago

I think it's human nature to more vigorously defend your viewpoint if A: You feel would be strongly effected if it turned out to be false and B: You are somewhat unsure of the validity of your claim.

To me, this explains at least partially why the college age is one where you see this sort of strong rejection of anyone who disagrees. Many college students will have only recently laid any real claim to their own fully formed world view, and they don't have very much personal experience to back it up. Their world view also tends to be very wrapped up in self identity.

All in all, I think this leads to a more vigorous rejection of differing opinions in some cases.

kelnos6• 11 years ago

I see this outside academia, definitely. I don't participate in political groups, but I see these debates among friends and acquaintances, on the internet, and in the workplace, even (usually in relation to diversity initiatives).

The overwhelming message I hear (not that anyone ever says it explicitly) is: "you either believe everything we say, or you're against us". It's gotten to the point that I (as a white male) have a lot of fear of speaking out when it comes to these matters, to the point where often I just keep my mouth shut. Not saying there aren't times when I should be keeping my mouth shut. But I do feel like I have some useful things to say, but I'm afraid to say them.

geofft2• 11 years ago

Like it does for a lot of things, I think feminism has its own lingo for this very problem, and it's called the lack of "101 spaces" -- as in spaces where you're learning "Feminism 101", or "Anti-racism 101", or whatever, spaces where the sort of basic questions that would be inappropriate in a graduate-level class are welcome and expected.

A lot of activists are trying to effect some actual social change. That requires not staying on the basics forever, just as if you're writing papers on operating system design, you won't be spending much time explaining what pointers are. Even in a classroom, a graduate-level class on operating systems isn't a place where you'll be taken seriously if you complain that pointers are needlessly confusing. But it would be a mistake to conclude that coherently explaining pointers isn't important, just because nobody working on OS design seems to do it, or that the student wasn't earnest in finding pointers needlessly confusing. In fact it is absolutely fundamental that pointers are taught well and students be taken seriously when they express confusion -- but it is precisely because it is fundamental that it needs to be in a separate place.

I have seen two good forms of "101 spaces", though. One is quietly listening in upperclassman spaces, the Internet's venerable rule to "lurk moar". You won't understand everything at once; you certainly won't pick up the lingo, and you probably won't understand several of the conclusions. But in an era with internet search, you can slowly work on figuring out what people have found out, just as it's possible to catch up to the state of research by just reading papers and trying to figure out what they mean.

The other is friends, people who have been through the 101 class but also personally know you're acting in good faith. If you say something that's innocently wrong to them, they'll know it's innocently wrong, and not malicious, badgering a tired point, concern trolling, etc. In turn, of course, listen to what they have to say.

But besides those, there's certainly a lack, and for various reasons, a lot of people may not find internet-lurking their style of learning, or may not have sufficiently knowledgeable friends to go bother. It would be a good thing for the world to see more. But unfortunately, the responsibility to create them cannot be on the shoulders of the activists. If you think teaching at a research university is ever half-hearted, imagine what it would be like if the researchers weren't paid to teach, weren't expected to teach at all, and were, often, trying to fit in research in their spare time after another full-time job.

im3w1l3• 11 years ago

There is one point at which your analogy to pointers breaks down. After having studied pointers, you will never be in a position to disagree. But you could come away from a class on feminism 101 disagreeing with many things.

Dylan168077• 11 years ago

I've seen plenty of people disagree on whether pointers are a good idea.

Even better, should pointers be nullable?

vijayboyapati• 11 years ago

This post, which definitely resonates with me and my experience in Silicon Valley and in Seattle, surrounded by very leftist politics, reminds me a lot of Mencius Moldbug's brilliant piece "Technology, communism and the Brown Scare":

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...

powera• 11 years ago

I know I'm going to get downvoted for this comment, but: what the literal fuck? That article seems to only be a borderline incoherent mix of various claims of racism, anti-communism, pro-communism, and anti-semitism directed at nobody in particular.

If anybody can make any actual sense of the point of the article, please say so?

defen• 11 years ago

You can't just jump into a late-stage Moldbug article like that. He's very...talmudic, perhaps, is a good word. You have to read all his stuff from the beginning, which is probably too much for anyone to do at this time.

electronvolt2• 11 years ago

From my experience at one of the elite public universities:

Something I noticed as a student who spent time around activists (I wouldn't say I am one--I fundamentally agree with many pretty far-left social and economic ideas but I didn't participate in marches/action and was only occasionally involved in their official groups) was that there were sometimes people who used left wing politics and the language of intersectional feminism as a bludgeon to silence any critics and generally prove their superiority. Some groups were kind of dominated by this type of person, and others weren't--it certainly wasn't universal.

The thing is, I saw similar things during my short time in a pretty right leaning debate club, just over different issues. Instead of not speaking the language of intersectional feminism, it was not speaking the language of right leaning economics, but the mechanisms seemed to be the same--an in-group who knew the language and biwords used it to enforce the group's shared values on those outside of that in-group who were interested in joining.

The realization that I had was really that there are people at every point of the political spectrum and in every philosophical movement who police orthodoxy and use it as an excuse to be disrespectful. It happens in the center as well: the people who see the far left and right as crazy demagogues and ignore/berate anyone who uses their language, regardless of their point.

The solution (for the left and the right groups) is probably to demand a certain basic amount of respect from and for other people in your movement. That doesn't mean "let them trample all over you," but instead "When someone seems genuinely interested in your movement, direct them to educational materials." In the cases given, the appropriate thing to do would probably have been to interrupt and explain either why something might be offensive or 'wrong', but defend the person being attacked not on the basis of what they said but on their personhood. And, of course, to not tolerate rabid orthodoxy at the expense of basic compassion for others.

As a side note I wouldn't conclude from this post or the occurrences that I saw that "political correctness" (of either the left or right variety) is totally out of hand or wrongheaded or invalid. As other commentators on the internet have pointed out, a lot of what gets labeled as "abusive leftist social-justice-warrior political correctness" is actually "treating people who are different from you with respect." If someone regularly says things like "Gays are terrible aberrations in the eyes of God" or "All Muslims aren't civilized", then it's fair to conclude that they probably do not respect Gays or Muslims as groups of people, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

meej• 11 years ago

Yes. Both sides of the political spectrum police language, and neither DeBoer or Chait seem to recognize this. Chait also says some things that seem to indicate that he wants to police language as well, just in a different way.

At one of the political blogs I read that have discussed Chait's piece, the commenters made the astute observation that Chait and now DeBoer are complaining about the wrong thing. The problem isn't "political correctness", it's tribalism.

Balgair• 11 years ago

I'm in grad school and this is also true of the sciences. I'll make a comment about how X is metaphor for Y, mostly as a way to solidify and arrange my brain to learn. For example: The Circle of Willis is a arterial structure in your brain that keeps blood moving even if there is a clot, I likened this to a set of resistors in parallel. Oh man, the looks... I felt like I had grown 10 heads. It's natural to me to want to tie things together, but for others, no way, you either have the language or you don't, the in words and shibboleths or nothing at all.

omegaham3• 11 years ago

I think one of the biggest problems with these types is that they associate opinions with morality. As in, if you hold uninformed / ignorant / bigoted opinions, you are automatically an evil person and should be treated accordingly.

Are some bigoted people evil? Sure. But I think that a lot of people hold various opinions because they just haven't thought about it too hard. They've just gone along with whatever they've been taught from childhood, and they're just kind of parroting their indoctrination. That doesn't make them bad.

Unfortunately, the SJW crowd (to be distinguished from the mostly rational leftist crowd) seems to have decided to elevate themselves based on their enlightenment. "I've devoted the time to make myself more informed, and that makes me a good person." With that black-and-white thinking comes the inverse - you're a bad person because you haven't devoted this time to make yourself more informed.

Such thinking immediately makes people bristle and walk off. Why would they volunteer for abuse? I don't talk to SJWs because it's ridiculous to be treated like subhuman filth for disagreeing with something that the other person treats as Gospel, especially when a huge amount of this material is hugely complicated and up for debate.

The guiding principle should be stop being an asshole. Instead, the SJW crowd resorts to yelling about "tone policing" and drives away people who would normally be allies.

Here's some food for thought. The black civil rights movement in the 60s and the gay rights movement today have enjoyed a lot of success because they emphasized their status as normal people. As soon as you get the kooks who excoriate people for any slight deviation from the One True Faith, you end up failing miserably.

nether• 11 years ago

The guiding principle should be stop being an asshole. Instead, the SJW crowd resorts to yelling about "tone policing" and drives away people who would normally be allies.
Here's some food for thought. The black civil rights movement in the 60s and the gay rights movement today have enjoyed a lot of success because they emphasized their status as normal people. As soon as you get the kooks who excoriate people for any slight deviation from the One True Faith, you end up failing miserably.

I've started to sympathize with Dr. Kaczynski's view of leftism being some ego-driven movement meant to satisfy one group's desire for power. He puts it bluntly:

Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

As it is with SJW's trying to "help" groups they believe to be marginalized.

Xcelerate2• 11 years ago

Sure. But I think that a lot of people hold various opinions because they just haven't thought about it too hard. They've just gone along with whatever they've been taught from childhood, and they're just kind of parroting their indoctrination. That doesn't make them bad.

It's funny you say this because I was discussing the exact same thing with a friend today. There's some views I have where previously I have been incredulous that anyone could support the opposite view -- "How can anyone possibly support something so horrible and wrong?" But then I think, is 50% of the population really be evil? No, of course not. That's ridiculous. I think most people have good intentions with what they believe, and if they have the opposite viewpoint on something that is important to you, it's not the case that they're evil people who just don't care about morality; it's far more likely that they truly think their viewpoint is moral and just.

omegaham3• 11 years ago

I think that this is a great point. It's far too common for people to think, "John is completely opposed to my beliefs. He's definitely not stupid, as I know from other conversations with him that he's thoughtful and sincere. Well, that leaves one option - he's a bad person."

Often, this results from taking the bad intentions of certain people who believe such things and applying them to the whole.

"You're for / against X program. There are people who are for / against X program because they have an immoral ulterior motive. Therefore, you have that ulterior motive too!"

This naturally leads to fingerpointing and yelling.

palmer_eldritch• 11 years ago

if you hold uninformed / ignorant / bigoted opinions, you are automatically an evil person and should be treated accordingly

One could argue that such an opinion is in fact short-sighted and bigoted...

mercer4• 11 years ago

I rather like this entry that goes into this 'paradox', and the concept in general: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration

kevinqualters• 11 years ago

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate"

tomlock• 11 years ago

I don't think queer-exclusive spaces should exist, and I'm queer, and extremely left wing. That opinion is unpopular in queer circles.

The flak I cop for that is nothing compared to the very real, quantified consequences for women trying to enter tech, or who are already in it. I think we should upvote more articles about that and less articles about this.

Pxtl• 11 years ago

Well said.

I find the internet social justice movement intensely annoying. They are, to be blunt, assholes.

But unfortunately, they're also right more often than not.

And dwelling on how disgustingly annoying the online social justice movement is instead of solving its problems is one facet of geek culture that is just somewhat pathetic.

vezzy-fnord• 11 years ago

You admit that the "online social justice movement" is dysfunctional, yet you put the onus on so-called "geek culture" to fix their problems for them? Why "geek culture" in particular, and is a notable subset of it already not involved with the former movement?

kelnos6• 11 years ago

And dwelling on how disgustingly annoying the online social justice movement is instead of solving its problems is one facet of geek culture that is just somewhat pathetic.

I think the difference here is that many geeks are of the mindset that it should be "easy" for them to help, both in action and emotionally. Constantly being berated for "not helping exactly the right way" puts people in a foul mood. The bottom line is that there aren't many easy-to-see benefits for non-oppressed allies. Basically many geeks see it as the less-privileged asking them for help, with nothing really in it for them except constantly being taken to task for not being immediately perfectly sensitive to all the issues women and people of color face.

It's a little disingenuous to both vehemently assume, expect, and require that sensitivity while at the same time saying "there's no way you can possibly understand the struggles we face". Can't have it both ways.

graeme2• 11 years ago

Your point is good, but I think you've missed the argument.

The author wasn't saying that intersectionalism produces worse injustices than other parts of society.

The author was saying that intersectionalism marginalises itself and drives away allies by focussing on orthodoxy and using shame as a tool to change habits of speech.

This ties into the larger issues of gender reform in tech. A left wing that didn't actively repel those who speak slightly differently would be in a stronger position to change society.

kelnos6• 11 years ago

And that's it, exactly. As much as it would be nice if it weren't necessary, the less-privileged need allies in the form of the privileged to further the social justice movement. The tactics in place in many cases serve to drive away potential allies. You can bitch and moan about potential allies having it easy or having a "less difficult struggle", but the end result is the same: fewer allies.

mathattack• 11 years ago

What is intersectional politics?

beerbajay2• 11 years ago

"Intersectionality" is the observation that your status/lack-of-status in society is the result of not just single systems (black/white, rich/poor, native/immigrant, male/female, hetero/homo, cis/trans) but a combination of all of these.

So a specific person in a specific place is privileged/oppressed as the sum of the advantages/disadvantages provided by each of the identifiable systems. As an example, being a man is usually a net positive in terms of societal privileges, but being black at the same time? Being female is a disadvantage, but if you're also rich, you're still coming out ahead.

potatolicious• 11 years ago

That privilege (and the lack thereof) is a highly complex system that is more than the sum of its parts, and therefore cannot be easily separated and evaluated in isolation.

For example, while women are disadvantaged in our society in many ways, the ways in which this disadvantage works is remarkably different for black women and white women - or women from higher-class backgrounds vs. lower-class backgrounds.

Ditto, while "white men" are commonly perceived to be privileged, this privilege works differently (and to varying degrees) depending on if you're wealthy or poor, urban or suburban, jock or nerd, etc.

And the effect in totality is not the simple sum of all the properties of the individual. Therefore, attempts to separate the discussion of privilege and disadvantage into discrete "women/men" "rich/poor" "white/black" "straight/gay" variables is doomed to failure - the way an individual is treated in society is the complex intersection of many attributes of who they are.

A straight black woman faces different discrimination than a gay white woman, who faces different discrimination than a straight white poor woman - and the dynamics of the privileges they hold and lack cannot be simply isolated like an algebra equation.

throwaway383642• 11 years ago

I find it strange that there's a concern with political correctness on HN when the majority of "political" stories gets flagged to death. I guess this political story happens to fit the narrative. Talk about political correctness.

swatow2• 11 years ago

To the person who doesn't share the progressive political viewpoint, the flood of stories about diversity in tech, always written from a pro diversity viewpoint, is itself a form of political activism to be resisted.

throwaway383642• 11 years ago

The idea that your behavior is excusable because you're resisting something is a cornerstone of populism and the problem with political correctness in the first place.

Udo2• 11 years ago

Although a lot of people obviously disagree, I believe this should not be on HN. Both the examples raised in the article and the subject matter itself is bringing out the worst in the members of this community, for no good reason.

Blanket statements all around, personal attacks, strawmen galore, just-so anecdotes as moral fables, and for what? The kind of petty political polemics inevitably attracted by the topic do nothing to make HN a more interesting or pleasant forum.

To quote the submission guidelines:

  Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're 
  evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

It's hard to argue that the article somehow qualifies as describing an interesting or new phenomenon. It's a political opinion piece. (I'm not an American, so I like to think this view is non-partisan.)

xtrumanx3• 11 years ago

Let's face it; the submissions guidelines are a joke due to the first line:

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.

No matter the topic, anyone can bring up that line and effectively ends any question that the topic is fit for HN by claiming that they find it interesting.

Udo2• 11 years ago

Everything becomes a joke if you disrespect it enough. You have to make a conscious decision to add value instead of subtracting it.

dang2• 11 years ago

Can't agree with you there. The guidelines make it clear that "interesting" means intellectually interesting. That excludes many other kinds of interesting, like celebrity gossip (which is socially interesting) and more-heat-than-light politics.

The criteria may not be algorithmic but they're not arbitrary either.

dang2• 11 years ago

I've glanced through this thread and it doesn't seem nearly as bad as you say. In particular, I didn't see any personal attacks. If there are some, please email hn@ycombinator.com with links.

beerbajay2• 11 years ago

The Vox article[1] by Amanda Taub is substantially better than either the deBoer's or Chait's articles (an article, by the way, that deBoer seems to entirely miss the point of) in that it correctly identifies the term "political correctness" as _a thing people only ever complain about_; it's not a thing that "the left" wants.

people pushed out and marginalized in left-wing circles because
they didn’t use the proper set of social and class signals to
satisfy the world of intersectional politics.

This definitely happens, but not as some sort of organized strategy by "the left". It happens because "the left" on college campuses is made up of young people who are angry about the racist/sexist/classist/etc culture in which they have grown up, but have not yet learned to be diplomatic with and empathetic to people who are less informed.

The goal isn't for people to avoid certain terms, the goal is for people to not be assholes.

[1] http://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-d...

mrxd2• 11 years ago

This definitely happens, but not as some sort of organized strategy by "the left".

That's not true. It absolutely is an organized strategy by the left.

Anti-oppression activism is founded on social constructionist theories. These claim that bigotry and prejudice are subtly reproduced in society through language. So activists are scrupulous in cleansing their speech of any hint of prejudiced beliefs, no matter how minor, because they believe that if they can accomplish that, prejudice itself will disappear.

But people who aren't activists are also reproducing prejudice through their speech, so the problem becomes how can you get all of them to stop doing that too. The answer is to make it morally unacceptable. Minor phrases like "man up" turn into huge ethical lapses that are worthy of censure and shaming.

Not using those phrases become matters of empathy and not being an asshole towards unknown persons who are offended. But really, no one is offended, it's just a tactic for redefining linguistic norms.

AnthonyMouse• 11 years ago

That article was awful. She starts by claiming political correctness doesn't exist because we don't know what it means, so she defines it using a straw man definition and spends the rest of the article knocking it down.

Political correctness is responding to politically unpopular viewpoints with punishment and vitriol.

Her point seems to be that labeling things political correctness which are actually reasoned arguments is harmful to discourse. But even if some idiots are doing that, that still doesn't mean that "actual" political correctness (i.e. responding to politically unpopular viewpoints with punishment and vitriol instead of reasoned arguments) doesn't happen or isn't harmful to discourse.

FrankBlack• 11 years ago

I had a conversation today at work that was on an unrelated topic, yet still dealt with the difficulty of operating in the vortex of left-leaning politics. The main issue that drove me away from being active after many years in the fray was the blazing passion that came from many within the group (almost always young people) who wanted to emphasize their one-key issue over the broader message. Meaning, issues such as, environment, LGBT, animal rights, women, race, peace, etc. were more urgent as a particular issue than finding consensus for a broad range of issues as a unified political group. This splintering caused dissipation of unity, energy and resources. In the end, this behavior caused me to lose any motivation to work for the cause in any real "boots on the ground" way. I wasn't alone in that sentiment. This article echoes a bit of my feelings. I am not pointing fingers and saying this one is right and this one is wrong, I am just saddened because it seems so much energy is being used to attack those with whom we are allied or to preach to the converted just so we can hear our voices through a megaphone. If one was interested in making a particular group impotent, this strategy would appear to be quite effective.

hagan_das• 11 years ago

Many of the "social justice" crowd get off on the moral superiority they feel from engaging in rabid political correctness.

Unfortunately for them, moral superiority is by definition a positional good, a good whose value rapidly diminishes as PC concepts become increasingly mainstream. Thus they seek increasingly extreme levels of political correctness to signal their status as being above the common rabble.

SafariDevelop• 11 years ago

As Kristian wrote "Political Correctness is really just a special form of conspicuous consumption, leading to a zero-sum status race. The fact that PC fans are still constantly outraged, despite the fact that PC has never been so pervasive, would then just be a special form of the Easterlin Paradox" http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-economics-of-political-correc...

asgard1024• 11 years ago

There is nothing inherently leftist about feelings of moral superiority. It comes with various ideologies and is poisonous all the same. I can only recommend Altemey's excellent book on the topic. (By the way, my short definition is that if want to reduce social injustice and inequality, then you are a leftist.)

In fact, yesterday I just had a debate with my Czech coworkers (we work for an American company). In Europe, the ideology of "political correctness" is not so followed (and in fact many from minorities would find it plainly annoying), and in Czech Republic specifically is mostly ignored. Yet in many respects Europe could be considered more "leftist" (take employment law, for instance).

narrator• 11 years ago

I read "Why there is a culture war"[1] by John Fonte about 10 years back. It made the whole political correctness thing make perfect sense.

http://www.hoover.org/research/why-there-culture-war

noodly• 11 years ago

Don't say anything - they already chose what's best for them.

They left one of the bullshits camp and hopefully they will be more careful next time before they will try to associate with another.

People learn on mistakes.

Xcelerate2• 11 years ago

I absolutely detest the way some people "argue" and attempt to shame their opponent. Shaming doesn't work on me; it just pisses me off. As soon as someone begins attacking me as a person instead of my argument, I lose all patience with them and honestly start to view them as stupid and incapable of rational thought. The conversation on their end normally contains an implicit assumption that their viewpoint is automatically the correct one (no willingness to even hear other perspectives), and personal attack techniques include phrases like, "you are trolling" (even though half the US population shares the "troll" viewpoint), "the flaw in your argument is...", "unless you are a [something genetically immutable], your privileged white male opinion does not matter". Pull up the list of logical fallacies on Wikipedia and they hit almost every single one of them.

I have had calm, rational debates with people who have viewpoints that are completely opposite to mine. Both of us come away from the conversation feeling enlightened, and occasionally one of us changes our mind on an issue because of a persuasive argument. This is what a good debate should be like. But unfortunately, people who can debate like this are few and far between.

Far more often I just end up frustrated and leave the "debate" part way through. So many people get angry and emotional if you criticize their viewpoint, and I don't have the time or energy to deal with it. Although sometimes if I'm in a good mood, I will stir things up for entertainment: if I am listening to a debate between two people I know, and one of them is using shaming tactics and logical fallacies, I will join in on the conversation (if permitted) and automatically take the side against theirs, even if I have the exact same viewpoint that they do. Then I will tear their argument down the best way I know how (it's fun to argue against your own belief). And at the end I will reveal that my viewpoint was actually the same as theirs.

mdpm• 11 years ago

Moral absolutism is the killer. There is no set of 'right' that you can apply regardless of context, actors or situation. Attempting to create such mental shortcuts is the problem, and perpetuating any as _absolutely_ 'correct' is toxic, and detracts from any of the real issues, actual humans, or real world consequences of whatever is under discussion.

ritvars• 11 years ago

You don't know what to do? Don't be the same as you described - and stand up in these cases!

xlm17172• 11 years ago

I take it he doesn't agree that mentally beating an ideology into impressionable young minds is the way to turn people to the left-wing.

But it has worked so well so far!

davesque3• 11 years ago

I think this kind of hysteria is pretty common in politics (actually, my incidental use of the word "hysteria" is fitting if anyone remembers that whole controversy). I guess the author's argument is that this phenomenon is more pronounced on the left. Perhaps.

It reminds me of a time when a friend of mine got fired from his job at a private school in the eastern US for simply patting a female student on the back during class. You might wonder what the nature of this "patting" was, but I don't. He's just not the kind of person who would have done that in a creepy way. He was devastated, of course, having just been labeled in a somewhat official capacity as a sexual predator. It's too bad that this kind of thing happens.

baisong2• 11 years ago

This article perfectly demonstrates how talking about "PC" prevents good discussion about inclusion.

As it turns out, "PC" is a term developed to dismiss appeals to sensitivity and inclusion. And it's quite good at doing so!

So, if you care about sensitivity and inclusion, but focus on "PC", you're forced, like this author, to throw your hands up in defeat.

It's actually quite simple: if you realize that policing other's language is more often itself a form of exclusion/aggression, then you can clearly describe the scenarios the author relates as part of the problem, not as some failure of the only proposed solution to an unfathomable problem.

baisong2• 11 years ago

Here's the solution for these kinds of situations:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4ZKIeNnTBe2Q2ExQkJRcVNNYkl...

Search for "Responding to Micro-Aggression" for a step by step guide.

Kalium10• 11 years ago

The point the author is attempting to make is that a culture has been created where it is unacceptable to fail to be arbitrarily sensitive and inclusive. That this is used to bully and control people and does not allow for a diversity of opinions.

cafard• 11 years ago

Worth at least a quick browse in the bookstore: the essay "The Puritan and the Prig" in Marilynne Robinson's The Death of Adam.

I don’t know what to do, you guys

Related Stories