Apparently Riot has some problem with women: nasty behind-the-scenes stuff

[Agema]

Here? No.

Well then, let's stick to the matter at hand.

As opposed to Saleune's insinuation/ad hominem that "you [Kerg] just want to keep the victims from fighting back?" and use of arbitary "sides?" That apparently there's one side of "oppressors" and one side of "oppressed?"

From various conversations over the years, Saelune seems to believe in intersectionality, which would mean there are networks of oppression in society such that one can be both oppressor and oppressed, with respect to different groups. Without necessarily endorsing the specific accusation here, the basic concept that people's inaction in the face of injustice is tacit condonement of that injustice is reasonable enough. If one does wish to bandy around accusation of tacit condonement however, it's surely going to irritate people and should be made with sufficient justification.

 

[Saelune]

Believe it or not, I do actually believe that racism, sexism, and homophobia are all reprehensible, even if I've never suffered from the first, and barely experienced the second and third. Just because I haven't experienced prejudice to the same extent as others doesn't mean I have a vested interest in maintaining said prejudice, nor that I can't sympathize with those who have. The problem with identity politics is that it can lead to a binary approach, the idea that anyone outside the identified group is an enemy.

Kerg also said this, and a lot of people say this, 'I don't like bigotry, but I don't like that other people actually complain and do something about it'. It is basically when people said 'All Lives Matter' in response to the Black Lives Matters movement, and in short, its bullshit, because it doesn't actually help anyone but the oppressors. If people who say 'All Lives Matter' in response to BLM really mean it, then why are they trying to distract from the abuse of black people?

Guess what! You worry about identity politics leading to a binary approach where anyone outside the identified group is the enemy? Well WE'RE ALREADY THERE! Just look at the Trump administration! We are so far beyond that point, but it is not gays and blacks and women causing the issues. It was not a gay person saying no to straight people buying cake, it was not a black person shooting a white person in their own home, and it wasn't a woman sexually abusing a enormous amount of male Olympic athletes.


Yeah, sometimes a gay person does something wrong, and sometimes a black person does something wrong, and considering women make up almost HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION despite being treated as a second class citizen, yeah sometimes they do something wrong, but pretending they do those wrongs as equally and as thoroughly and as grand a scale is just not true and not helping anyone.


You want to get mad when a woman sexually abuses a man? Great, you should, and they should be punished too, but to pretend that men are not the ones in the most powerful positions abusing the most amount of people in the most damaging of ways, all to deny the validity of a movement to oppose sexual abuse is just unfair and unhelpful. And hell, men are often victims of that same patriarchy.


I did not always believe this, I did not always understand this. Seriously, I used to disagree with this, but now here I am saying it myself, fighting for women's rights is fighting for men's rights too.

 

[Saelune]

If you think that's a ludicrous prospect, then congratulations, we agree, but if the world is some giant binary of "us vs. them," of "opressors vs. oppressed," where everyone has to fit into one of those two categories, then that doesn't leave much wriggle room.

The 'Us vs Them' is 'People who oppose bigotry vs people who do not'.


It is not divided by gender or race. There are black people and gay people on the pro-bigotry side unfortunately. And there are plenty of straight white Christian men on the same side as me, opposing bigotry.

 

[McElroy]

snip

I think the problem Hawki is describing is similar to what I've seen even on these forums sometimes (long ago, when there were more users). That if you have not experienced these problems yourself and have to rely on statistics and/or anecdotes for your information, your only acceptable course of action is to "acknowledge the problem" and leave. That's quite an incentive to stop caring about "minority rights" and focus your time to an "egalitarian" effort (or just nothing at all). After all, only the latter offers any chance to do anything.

 

[Saelune]

snip

I think the problem Hawki is describing is similar to what I've seen even on these forums sometimes (long ago, when there were more users). That if you have not experienced these problems yourself and have to rely on statistics and/or anecdotes for your information, your only acceptable course of action is to "acknowledge the problem" and leave. That's quite an incentive to stop caring about "minority rights" and focus your time to an "egalitarian" effort (or just nothing at all). After all, only the latter offers any chance to do anything.

Which would be fine except I don't think many of these people ARE focusing on 'egalitarian effort'.

 

[RaikuFA]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

 

[Saelune]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

 

[Hawki]

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.

There's a world of difference between being expected to respect others and political correctness.

Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do?

Again, there's a difference between being polite and politically correct.

Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property?

Don't think many people actually think that. But in the Western world, both of these things are forbidden by law - the oppression of today is nowhere near as bad as it was in the past. No-one today faces the same oppression that people once did.

Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

Not that I use "that's gay" as a slur myself, and have no desire to, but disliking the slur isn't the same thing as being PC.

Suppose someone says "that's gay." The "polite response" would be along the lines of ignoring it, or if you have to, saying something like "please don't use that language" or "seriously?!"

The politically correct response would be something along the lines of banning the slur and/or punishing anyone who uses the slur.

Political correctness may have good intentions, but you get more flies with honey than vinegar. And as cliche as it is, there's also the idea of freedom of speech.

To appropriate a line, I'd frown on anyone who uses "that's gay" as a slur, or terms like "******" or "*****." But I'd defend their right to say it.

Edit: I should also specify that "anti-PC culture" can be just as irritating as PC, as it tends to equate any form of politeness or criticism as being "PC."

 

[Satinavian]

So for instance (a drop in the ocean of studies, STEM related):

https://www.nature.com/articles/387341a0
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl-0000022.pdf

But that is the thing, isn't it ?

Yes, science does try to study those things. But the studies don't paint a clear picture, instead they produce wildly differing results. And the experiments are narrowly focussed with results hardly universal. I mean it is probably not coincidence that you linked both studies showing bias to hiring women and bias to hiring men in STEM.

So far science does not really know where the vast male majority in STEM comes from. That doesn't mean that there are no ideas, but none of those is even remotely proven.

In the absence of those clear causes people tend to pick one that matches their preconception and argue based on that.

 

[Erttheking]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

So acting professionally in the workplace is PC now?

 

[Agema]

But that is the thing, isn't it ?

Yes, science does try to study those things. But the studies don't paint a clear picture, instead they produce wildly differing results. And the experiments are narrowly focussed with results hardly universal. I mean it is probably not coincidence that you linked both studies showing bias to hiring women and bias to hiring men in STEM.

So far science does not really know where the vast male majority in STEM comes from. That doesn't mean that there are no ideas, but none of those is even remotely proven.

In the absence of those clear causes people tend to pick one that matches their preconception and argue based on that.

Indeed, research often produces results less clear than we might like.

Nevertheless, even without proof there is often "balance of evidence" which can be sufficient to base policy upon. Secondly, it can depend on how wide or narrow a picture we take; evidence might be overwhelming in a very small and specific area, even if unclear in the big picture. A hiring practice can be identified that reduces bias without us needing to know or care who is being disadvantaged. And so on.

Mostly, it just pains me that people want to shout about how much they believe in equal opportunities yadda yadda yadda, but evidently have little or no knowledge of what is going on in the real world of employment out there. What does that mean for the credibility of their opinions?

 

[Satinavian]

Nevertheless, even without proof there is often "balance of evidence" which can be sufficient to base policy upon. Secondly, it can depend on how wide or narrow a picture we take; evidence might be overwhelming in a very small and specific area, even if unclear in the big picture. A hiring practice can be identified that reduces bias without us needing to know or care who is being disadvantaged. And so on.

A hiring practice that is proven to reduce bias should be adopted. And yes, i have read about many instances where this was done. Usually after the proof that it really reduces bias everyone is pro adoption. An example would be several orchestras switching making it impossible for interviewers to see the prospective musicians and decide only by hearing. Was a huge success. Was introduced after blind studies with lots of participants. Even people previously stating that decades of personal experience showed that men were just better at certain instrument just took the result of the blind hearings and admitted to have been wrong.

But reducing bias is not the same thing as shifting percentages. If you change the process only to get workers who resemble the overall population better, you don't have necessarily reduced bias. You just have shifted the numbers and might even have introduced more bias.
That is because job applications nearly never match the overall population. All other things equal, if the distribution of the people you hire matches the distribution of the applicants, then you have least bias.
But wait, there is still the possibility of prior bias and/ or discrimination to influence which people even try to apply. But you can't really change your recruitment process to counter that.

 

[RaikuFA]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

 

[Saelune]

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.

There's a world of difference between being expected to respect others and political correctness.

Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do?

Again, there's a difference between being polite and politically correct.

Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property?

Don't think many people actually think that. But in the Western world, both of these things are forbidden by law - the oppression of today is nowhere near as bad as it was in the past. No-one today faces the same oppression that people once did.

Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

Not that I use "that's gay" as a slur myself, and have no desire to, but disliking the slur isn't the same thing as being PC.

Suppose someone says "that's gay." The "polite response" would be along the lines of ignoring it, or if you have to, saying something like "please don't use that language" or "seriously?!"

The politically correct response would be something along the lines of banning the slur and/or punishing anyone who uses the slur.

Political correctness may have good intentions, but you get more flies with honey than vinegar. And as cliche as it is, there's also the idea of freedom of speech.

To appropriate a line, I'd frown on anyone who uses "that's gay" as a slur, or terms like "******" or "*****." But I'd defend their right to say it.

Edit: I should also specify that "anti-PC culture" can be just as irritating as PC, as it tends to equate any form of politeness or criticism as being "PC."

The difference is that anti-PC people who want to abuse and oppress others have twisted people into thinking there is a difference, but there isn't. PC culture is about respecting others, anti-PC culture is about tricking people into thinking it isn't.


They sure act like they think that. People so burdened by people fighting for gay/black/women/minority rights and bitching how they now cant enjoy anything apparently.


Yes, disliking the slur is the same as being PC. The polite response is not as effective as it should be. I know, I have given it many many many times. Sure, sometimes it works, but not always. Certainly not enough.


Having rules and enforcing them is kind of important for society to function. If people would just stop being offensive and bigoted, we would not need to make and enforce rules to quell that.


Freedom of speech is about being able to openly criticize those in power without fear of reprisal. It is NOT ABOUT PROTECTING HATE SPEECH! And most people who use it to defend hate speech do not support freedom of speech, because they tend to flip out when others use so called freedom of speech to criticize them. And freedom of speech doesn't exist the way these people claim it does, or else we could yell 'bomb' in a public setting without getting in trouble.


Fuck politeness. How about people being more polite about not saying offensive shit? Before the gay rights movement actually gained any steam, they tried being polite and not offending anyone's 'moral sensibilities', and no one gave a fuck. It wasnt until they started fighting back against the police raidng their bars and being 'loud and proud' and in everyone's face did anyone care.


Politeness is meekness.


You should not defend the right for people to say the N-word. Certainly not the people who would use it to attack blacks.


Anti-PC culture is 100000x worse than PC culture cause it is oppression culture.

 

[Saelune]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

 

[RaikuFA]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

 

[Hawki]

The difference is that anti-PC people who want to abuse and oppress others have twisted people into thinking there is a difference, but there isn't.

I've just explained the difference.

PC culture is about respecting others, anti-PC culture is about tricking people into thinking it isn't.

Again, see above.

They sure act like they think that. People so burdened by people fighting for gay/black/women/minority rights and bitching how they now cant enjoy anything apparently.

Fighting for one doesn't preclude the other.

Or, when Mark Knight drew Serena Williams, did he deserve death threats for it?

Yes, disliking the slur is the same as being PC.

No, it isn't. I've already explained the difference, saying "nuh uh" isn't a response.

The polite response is not as effective as it should be. I know, I have given it many many many times. Sure, sometimes it works, but not always. Certainly not enough.

Having rules and enforcing them is kind of important for society to function. If people would just stop being offensive and bigoted, we would not need to make and enforce rules to quell that.

Saleune, there's plenty that you've said here, and on other threads, that are offensive. Maybe the rules should be "enforced" as well?

Freedom of speech is about being able to openly criticize those in power without fear of reprisal.

Nup.

Free speech: "The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty."

The right to criticize and share opinion shouldn't be reserved to only those in power.

It is NOT ABOUT PROTECTING HATE SPEECH!

Hate speech: "Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

Problem is, people tend to equate one for the other.

And freedom of speech doesn't exist the way these people claim it does, or else we could yell 'bomb' in a public setting without getting in trouble.

Again, different scenario - that's a public hazard with definitive possible outcomes.

Punishment for yelling out "bomb!" in a public setting shouldn't be the same for saying "that's so gay." The former has definitive negative consequences that put other people's lives at risk. The latter, at the worst, hurts feelings. Better that neither are said, but one is far worse.

Think it's also worth noting that the term "gay" has changed over time - the original definition simply meant "happy." Now, it means something else. That isn't inherently a bad thing (languages change over time), but while I'd prefer it if people didn't use "that's so gay" to describe something (when language already allows for phrases like "that sucks" for instance), I'd rather not police language.

Fuck politeness. How about people being more polite about not saying offensive shit?

Says "fuck politness."

Says "how about people being more polite?" in the next sentence.

Um...

Before the gay rights movement actually gained any steam, they tried being polite and not offending anyone's 'moral sensibilities', and no one gave a fuck. It wasnt until they started fighting back against the police raidng their bars and being 'loud and proud' and in everyone's face did anyone care.

You...do realize that this is kind of sinking your own point, right? That "loud and proud" is an example of free expression and the right to protest?

So, what, some people should be allowed to protest and some shouldn't? Certainly the gay rights movement was addressing more genuine grieviances than, say, Charlotsville, but there's everything else between and outside that.

You should not defend the right for people to say the N-word.

Sorry, but I will.

Would I prefer the word not be used? Yes. Do I find the use of the word despicable? Yes (in most cases - obviously context matters). Do I believe this should be a "banned word" and any utterance of it subjected to automatic punishment? No.

Anti-PC culture is 100000x worse than PC culture cause it is oppression culture.

So, off the top of my head, shows like South Park, Red vs. Blue, the Simpsons, and Family Guy are all part of "oppression culture" because they make fun of political correctness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8M2tg2RkIQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YouCsxnnMLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__l6alNQsnI

I'd reduce that figure by quite a few zeroes as well, especially since there isn't one "anti-PC culture." Or, there is, just different shades and levels of it.

The person who pokes fun at political correctness isn't the same person who wants to use slurs as a weapon because of prejudice.

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

In seriousness, you okay?

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

I wouldn't go that far though. The average person is more resilient to offence than many would say.

I'll use a personal example that happened a matter of days ago. While at work, I had a woman come in. Using an extremely bridged form of conversation, it went like:

Woman: "Do you have any books in Macedonian?"

Me: "No, but we have some in Greek. Is that okay?"

Woman: "No" (looks a bit perturbed)

Me, internal monologue: Shit, don't know why I said that. I know Macedonia and Greece have a lot of issues right now, issues that I can't comment on, and, huh, guess among them is a difference in language. That was a bit ignorant of me.

Me, external speech: "Oh, sorry."

Woman: "That's alright."

Like I said, extremely abridged. I managed to find some Macedonian books for her, she thanked me, and left. Afterwards, I checked up on it, and discovered that Macedonian is a Slavic language while Greek is Indo-European in origin. So, there isn't necessarily any overlap between the two languages.

So, to anyone reading this, ask yourself - am I a anti-Macedonian bigot who's willfully ignorant of the history and culture of the Macedonian people and their relationship with Greece? Or, did I make an honest mistake, that the woman realized was an honest mistake, corrected the mistake, and educated myself not to make the mistake again?

PC, in its worst form, would assume the former. Politeness, in its best form, allows for the latter.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

I know the feeling too.

 

[RaikuFA]

I?ve just become numb to all of the PC culture stuff. I know a lot others I know of have too.

If you think that is a burden, imagine what is like to be condemned for being gay, black or female, I mean that has only been happening for most of human history, but being expected to respect others really is a cross to bear.


Really though, please, think about this for a moment, why does it trouble you so much to have people expect you to think about what you say and do? Why do people think that makes them more oppressed than people who have been forbidden to marry another, or be treated as literal property? Why is someone saying 'Don't use 'that's gay' as a slur' so much worse than just ya know, not using gay as a slur? Why is taking a moment to think if something you say or do is going to be really uncomfortable or upsetting for someone else so difficult?

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

This kind of proves my point. Maybe use that feeling to empathize instead?


'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression'

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

I know the feeling too.

BIG. FUCKING. MEATY. MOOD.

 

[Saelune]

The difference is that anti-PC people who want to abuse and oppress others have twisted people into thinking there is a difference, but there isn't.

I've just explained the difference.

PC culture is about respecting others, anti-PC culture is about tricking people into thinking it isn't.

Again, see above.

They sure act like they think that. People so burdened by people fighting for gay/black/women/minority rights and bitching how they now cant enjoy anything apparently.

Fighting for one doesn't preclude the other.

Or, when Mark Knight drew Serena Williams, did he deserve death threats for it?

Yes, disliking the slur is the same as being PC.

No, it isn't. I've already explained the difference, saying "nuh uh" isn't a response.

The polite response is not as effective as it should be. I know, I have given it many many many times. Sure, sometimes it works, but not always. Certainly not enough.

Having rules and enforcing them is kind of important for society to function. If people would just stop being offensive and bigoted, we would not need to make and enforce rules to quell that.

Saleune, there's plenty that you've said here, and on other threads, that are offensive. Maybe the rules should be "enforced" as well?

Freedom of speech is about being able to openly criticize those in power without fear of reprisal.

Nup.

Free speech: "The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty."

The right to criticize and share opinion shouldn't be reserved to only those in power.

It is NOT ABOUT PROTECTING HATE SPEECH!

Hate speech: "Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

Problem is, people tend to equate one for the other.

And freedom of speech doesn't exist the way these people claim it does, or else we could yell 'bomb' in a public setting without getting in trouble.

Again, different scenario - that's a public hazard with definitive possible outcomes.

Punishment for yelling out "bomb!" in a public setting shouldn't be the same for saying "that's so gay." The former has definitive negative consequences that put other people's lives at risk. The latter, at the worst, hurts feelings. Better that neither are said, but one is far worse.

Think it's also worth noting that the term "gay" has changed over time - the original definition simply meant "happy." Now, it means something else. That isn't inherently a bad thing (languages change over time), but while I'd prefer it if people didn't use "that's so gay" to describe something (when language already allows for phrases like "that sucks" for instance), I'd rather not police language.

Fuck politeness. How about people being more polite about not saying offensive shit?

Says "fuck politness."

Says "how about people being more polite?" in the next sentence.

Um...

Before the gay rights movement actually gained any steam, they tried being polite and not offending anyone's 'moral sensibilities', and no one gave a fuck. It wasnt until they started fighting back against the police raidng their bars and being 'loud and proud' and in everyone's face did anyone care.

You...do realize that this is kind of sinking your own point, right? That "loud and proud" is an example of free expression and the right to protest?

So, what, some people should be allowed to protest and some shouldn't? Certainly the gay rights movement was addressing more genuine grieviances than, say, Charlotsville, but there's everything else between and outside that.

You should not defend the right for people to say the N-word.

Sorry, but I will.

Would I prefer the word not be used? Yes. Do I find the use of the word despicable? Yes (in most cases - obviously context matters). Do I believe this should be a "banned word" and any utterance of it subjected to automatic punishment? No.

Anti-PC culture is 100000x worse than PC culture cause it is oppression culture.

So, off the top of my head, shows like South Park, Red vs. Blue, the Simpsons, and Family Guy are all part of "oppression culture" because they make fun of political correctness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8M2tg2RkIQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YouCsxnnMLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__l6alNQsnI

I'd reduce that figure by quite a few zeroes as well, especially since there isn't one "anti-PC culture." Or, there is, just different shades and levels of it.

The person who pokes fun at political correctness isn't the same person who wants to use slurs as a weapon because of prejudice.

HawkI said it better than my mentally challenged ass could. But I?ll add in that the current status of this culture tells me that my problems are insignificant no matter what they are because of my skin color, gender and/or sexual orientation.

In seriousness, you okay?

Or I?ll just continue doing what I do and not talk to anyone IRL. That?s what I was taught since I was a child. Don?t bother socializing for fear of offending someone and getting hurt again.

I wouldn't go that far though. The average person is more resilient to offence than many would say.

I'll use a personal example that happened a matter of days ago. While at work, I had a woman come in. Using an extremely bridged form of conversation, it went like:

Woman: "Do you have any books in Macedonian?"

Me: "No, but we have some in Greek. Is that okay?"

Woman: "No" (looks a bit perturbed)

Me, internal monologue: Shit, don't know why I said that. I know Macedonia and Greece have a lot of issues right now, issues that I can't comment on, and, huh, guess among them is a difference in language. That was a bit ignorant of me.

Me, external speech: "Oh, sorry."

Woman: "That's alright."

Like I said, extremely abridged. I managed to find some Macedonian books for her, she thanked me, and left. Afterwards, I checked up on it, and discovered that Macedonian is a Slavic language while Greek is Indo-European in origin. So, there isn't necessarily any overlap between the two languages.

So, to anyone reading this, ask yourself - am I a anti-Macedonian bigot who's willfully ignorant of the history and culture of the Macedonian people and their relationship with Greece? Or, did I make an honest mistake, that the woman realized was an honest mistake, corrected the mistake, and educated myself not to make the mistake again?

PC, in its worst form, would assume the former. Politeness, in its best form, allows for the latter.

I have also explained why you saying they are different is wrong. It was not just 'nuh uh'.


Tolerance of intolerance is the death of tolerance. Sure, I have offended plenty of people, but they are offended cause I think Nazism is wrong and think that rape is wrong and think that putting immigrant children in cages is wrong, and that making up lies is wrong. And because I think minding your words is wrong.


I do not think a blanket freedom to offend and say whatever people want is ok, doesn't mean I think we should all have our tongues cut out.


If that is freedom of speech, then tons of people who defend it are hypocrites. But then, most people who accuse others of being snowflakes are themselves snowflakes.


You are arguing to restrict speech. Either you don't want to restrict any speech, or you think it is ok to restrict some speech, in which case your entire defense falls flat.


Me saying fuck politeness then asking for politeness is me mocking the hypocrisy of being criticized for not being polite by people who literally defend offensive speech. I am pointing out the hypocrisy. I am sure you knew that and are grasping for straws.


My point is some speech should be restricted, that people do not deserve free reign to say ANYTHING THEY WANT. I do not think gay pride should be among the restricted speech. My defense doesnt rely on vast generalization, yours does.


If you think it is bad to do, then why defend it? That is illogical.


Some of the jokes they make are in-fact, shitty, and defend things they shouldnt. I like South Park sometimes, but the creators of it are so far up their own asses, and I assure you, I disagree with tons of their views. Sometimes they make good points, sometimes they dont.