Political Correctness and Social Justice Warriors

[Orion]

Uh, how do "those people" endanger anyone? lol If what you're trying to say is that people won't pay attention to real discrimination because some people talk about things like the depiction of women on TV, for example, that's BS. Those same people wouldn't pay attention to "real" discrimination anyway.

That's only barely related to what I was talking about. What I meant was that it's easier to gather people to a cause when you make a clear effort to keep that cause reasonable and guided by good faith, good evidence and good arguments.

We see it in both conservative and progressive circles, but really it's a commonality of all ideological authoritarians: skepticism of the narrative is a threat, not an opportunity for reflection; facts counter to preconceived notion were assembled in a bias manner and dismissed out of hand, rather than being addressed on their own merits or flaws; and more.

But I'll give you an example of what I mean when trying to draw a distinction between actual activists and 'SJW's.

Have you seen or heard of people who adopt ludicrous personal pronouns to match a similarly bizarre choice of gender, such as a plant or a cloud? Or those who claim that gender dysphoria isn't needed in order to be considered transgender? Or the ones who champion the de-medicalisation of dysphoria as one of the best ways to help trans people?

Maybe the number of people who hold all of these views is very small (though they do seem to have a a degree of concurrency), any one of these views is not only not helpful to the cause of aiding transgender individuals, but can hurt it very easily.

Absurd pronouns and genders make a mockery of those who just want to be referred to by their preferred reasonable pronouns. I'm not talking about zhe/xhe (or similar attempts at non-binary gender-related pronouns) or similarly non-binary or neutral genders. I'm talking about people who consider their gender to be a plant or a cloud because they happened to note some symbolic similarities they share with these things, and who want to be referred to as 'plantself' instead of himself.

Imagine someone who's opposed to trans people because of the rampant misinformation about them within conservative circles, or someone who hasn't made up their mind but is willing to listen. They come across a person such as this, maybe in person, maybe as the writer or subject of an article, maybe on Tumblr. What do they think when they see someone labelleing themselves as trans but also 'plant-kin demi-girl'?

They are dismissed as delusional, attention-seeking or both. But more than that, they will extend that same derision to actual transgender individuals, because they share a feature with these types of people we might call 'special snowflakes' (more on that later): They both claim to fall outside of the gender they were assigned at birth. So someone just wanting to feel special, or believing gender has anything to do with personality or interests, has the potential to bring more ridicule upon trans people thanks to guilt-by-association or to dissuade potential allies.

The trans label exists to describe those whose biological sex and gender do not match up, which results in gender dysphoria. Being transgender and having dysphoria are inherently linked - I've yet to see any decent evidence or arguments that make sense that say otherwise. While in the strictest sense, the trans label only has to do with dysphoria, it is linked to so much more: the ridicule, discrimination and worse that can come from stepping outside your standard gender presentation, trying to be referred to by the correct pronouns, the hassle and even dangers that come with trying to transition, and more.

Trans is not a label for people who will never have to actually deal with that shit, but I see pretty regularly people who want the definition to be expanded. Difference of severity aside, it's as ludicrous and as pitiful as people who say a man can rape a woman 'with his eyes' or other such absurdities. No, rape refers to a particular kind of act. Trans refers to a particular kind of people.

The effort to address privilege and oppression has had a subtle bleed-over into attaching negative connotations to being straight, white, cis and/or male. Frame it as you will - trans is fine, cis is bad; or straight is fine but gay is better. This is not a 'poor cis white male me' argument I'm about to make, rather I'm just reflecting on emerging but still unhelpful attitudes.

An unintentional side effect of this is that possessing one or more of these minority traits, you can gain a certain level or social or progressive credit within certain circles. Even slightly, it becomes better to have these additional minority traits attached to you than to not have them, if you're in progressive circles.

You have ill-informed young people who view being cisgendered as blasé, but being trans has these connotations of nobility or even goodness through suffering attached to it. Maybe Billy is comfortably a boy (so far as dysphoria is concerned) but he's never really felt attached to the fact he was a boy (his parents didn't care about teaching him to be macho, maybe), or thought about it that much (cis being perceived as a kind of default). But then Billy also sees there are these trans people who are very attached to their what their gender is, and feel strongly about it.

So Billy thinks to himself, even though he's never experienced dysphoria in his life, Maybe I'm trans too. Billy's probably not going to get very far in any attempts to transition to a girl, but just that little idea - that being trans isn't inherently related to experiencing dysphoria - has unhelpful knock-on effects that can mess with people's sense of self, or even their very body, if someone labouring under this notion knows what lies to tell the psychiatrist and doctors.

And the whole medicalisation of the trans issue. Whether it's hormones or surgery or psychiatric help, trans people need medical help to alleviate their condition. But some people have taken the attitude that because there's stigma associated with mental illnesses, we should stop thinking of being trans as a medical condition so that it has less stigma associate to it. It's absurd, but it's a big point of discussion about how to deal with or help trans people. The right move would obviously be to de-stigmatise mental illnesses.

But gender dysphoria needs to be treated as a medical/mental issue so that it can get treated through the right channels. So that government programs, health insurance, charities and more can help as much as possible. If gender dysphoria isn't a medical condition, then how do you go about getting it treated? Wishful thinking? Do you just buy hormones online from god-knows-where, and move down to Mexico or Thailand where sex reassignment surgery is cheaper? Hell no.

I find most people that use words like PC Police, SJWs, Feminazis, etc. are usually self-centered (and largely white, straight male--I know, I'm shocked, too). They're just as much a part of the problem.

Another issue is the term means very different things depending on who you ask. If you ask a bigoted conservative, then they'd characterise just about anyone left of them as those terms. Ask a moderate and they'd probably talk about the more extreme left-authoritarian as that. Ask progressives who value skepticism, intellectual honesty and a degree of freedom and you're pretty close to what I think SJWs are. This same mixing-up also happens with the word 'gender' too. A lot of groups have very different ideas of what it means and what its relationship to sex, identity and gender roles is.

That being said, I can't think of a time in recent memory where I used the term 'feminazi' even ironically, or 'pc' as a buzzword for that matter. You gotta interact with actual people and ideas to have a useful discussion, and unfortunately the utility these phrases might have used to have - as a neat shorthand for complex ides and groups - has been lost by the fact that they mean different things to different groups.

 

[VoidGear.]

Filling an office with half black people and half white people is not equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is not taking into account the person's race when deciding who to hire.

That's one of the reasons I seriously believe the female quota is NOT a good thing the way it is now. It's not going to change the problem at hand - that people tend to hire men because they believe they're better workers - at ALL.
What we have to change is the way we think about "those people". No matter if it's women, black people or anyone else. Forcing ourselves to hire them but still believing in diversities between their and others' ability to work is neither nice or politically correct. It's simply hypocritical.

 

[Sephiroth0812]

That's one of the reasons I seriously believe the female quota is NOT a good thing the way it is now. It's not going to change the problem at hand - that people tend to hire men because they believe they're better workers - at ALL.
What we have to change is the way we think about "those people". No matter if it's women, black people or anyone else. Forcing ourselves to hire them but still believing in diversities between their and others' ability to work is neither nice or politically correct. It's simply hypocritical.

Exactly.
On top of it also comes that with those quotas in place there will be inevitably the "you're only here because of the forced quota"-statements coming around since in order to meet these quota, some people/companies might be forced to ignore actual better abilities and the better suitable person because of said quota.
That totally misses the point and doesn't help the actual goal and intention.

It is in most of these cases the general way of thinking that needs to be changed but alas considering how stubborn and a creature of habit many parts of humanity are this will take lots of time and it is also imperative that it is done step by step.
If it is tried to be enforced all at once and with "the crowbar" so to speak as some of the extreme SJWs apparently want to do it is not only logical but also to be expected that resistance and rejection intensifies even more since it may also "scare away"/overwelm more of the moderate "conservatives" who could probably eventually be persuaded to gradually change/adapt their views when given enough time.

When comparing today's situation with i.e. the 1950s or the 18th/19th century one can't deny that progress has been made despite it being obvious that it is still not enough and that there are setbacks, especially with the undeniable resurgence in more staunch conservative and/or right-wing views and policies around the whole western world (i.e. Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in USA, Marine Le Pen in France, AfD and Pegida in Germany, Orbán in Hungary, Hofer in Austria, Erdogan in Turkey etc.).
That there has been some progress in all those fields is also evident by the fact that the shrieking and hatemongering especially of religious nutjobs (and no, they are not only Muslims!) is getting ever louder.

People/Organisations waving around the bible/talmud/whatever "holy text" they have and insisting that it should have significant bearing and influence on legislation and universal worldly state law when these have to be secular in order for true freedom of religion to work (it means that you are allowed to freely follow your religion privately and without impairing the life of followers of other faiths or no faith at all) are no better than extremists like the Taliban, ISIS or Al-Qaida are with Islam.

 

[Elysium]

Orion: I can't really see any of your points as serious endangerments, since any harm caused would come from the person who is walking away with the false impression of an issue and/or assumption about how all members of some group they don't understand must be like because of their own inadequacies. I'd actually go further and say that anyone who would stop with that false impression without looking more into the issue are deliberately latching onto crazies in order to insulate their opinion, allowing them to easily dismiss anyone/anything they don't like as crazy, wrong, or delusional. As far as this:

The effort to address privilege and oppression has had a subtle bleed-over into attaching negative connotations to being straight, white, cis and/or male. Frame it as you will - trans is fine, cis is bad; or straight is fine but gay is better. This is not a 'poor cis white male me' argument I'm about to make, rather I'm just reflecting on emerging but still unhelpful attitudes.

An unintentional side effect of this is that possessing one or more of these minority traits, you can gain a certain level or social or progressive credit within certain circles. Even slightly, it becomes better to have these additional minority traits attached to you than to not have them, if you're in progressive circles.

You have ill-informed young people who view being cisgendered as blasé, but being trans has these connotations of nobility or even goodness through suffering attached to it

This would also be a personal failing on the part of any one individual's perception. If someone sees a person as more "noble" or "good" because they are a member of a minority group or shows that person more deference because they are a minority, it's only an example of positive stereotypes at work (ie, the person is being racist/sexist/etc.; othering is destructive regardless of whether it's positive or negative).

The only people who would frame this as being an argument that straight, white men are "bad" are those who don't want to acknowledge the privilege some groups have over others. Acknowledging the benefits you may have versus someone who does not have them doesn't mean you are "bad" and that person is "good"; that's a childish, dualistic take-away from the argument. Again, this would be a personal failing on the part of one individual (immaturity, lack of understanding, etc.), not a larger issue of feral tumblr posters "endangering" people. One person (or 10 or 100) does not poison an entire mindset. It's like saying you read one feminist review that (you felt) was unfair, and therefore you decide all feminism must be evil and stupid because of that one critic/review. Judging an entire group on one individual's behavior is really just a reflection of a person's larger issue of general ignorance and lack of empathy, whether it's about an individual who is disadvantaged as a member of a minority group or about some "social justice warrior" talking about the disadvantages of being in a minority group.

 

[Chuman]

guys i found the solution to deal with SJWs

 

[Orion]

Orion: I can't really see any of your points as serious endangerments,

Really? Did you straight up skip over the de-medicalisation issue? If dysphoria isn't something to be treated with medical help, it immediately becomes harder for trans people to transition, not easier. Since it's not a medical issue, your health insurance has no reason to cover it. Instead of a life-affirming procedure and usually life-changing procedure, transitioning just becomes another elective alteration like plastic surgery.

Medical issues become rife with danger when professional tools and knowledge aren't readily available. When you lack the tools to properly measure your hormone levels or the new doses you need for transitioning, the chances of messing something up skyrocket, and the stories of people who de-transition because they didn't think things through are sad and terrifying. We enable that to happen more easily if we decide that the route to treating dysphoria isn't the same as other medical/mental conditions.

This would also be a personal failing on the part of any one individual's perception. If someone sees a person as more "noble" or "good" because they are a member of a minority group or shows that person more deference because they are a minority, it's only an example of positive stereotypes at work (ie, the person is being racist/sexist/etc.; othering is destructive regardless of whether it's positive or negative).

But that's the thing, these aren't just attitudes that exist because of perception and that's that. They exist because they are also being spoken and propogated. Sure, the likes of Buzzfeed, Huffington Post and the new Daily Show pass it off with a level of satirical absurdity that deflects from the sincerity of those derisive beliefs, but they are still there. Moreover, they are present (though not prevalent) in more mainstream, actually-printed and -published newspapers and their sites.

The only people who would frame this as being an argument that straight, white men are "bad" are those who don't want to acknowledge the privilege some groups have over others. Acknowledging the benefits you may have versus someone who does not have them doesn't mean you are "bad" and that person is "good"; that's a childish, dualistic take-away from the argument.

That's patently false. Efforts to expose and educate about privilege and oppression need not at all lead to mocking of the feelings of or issues faced by people who are white, straight, cis and/or male, but that's what has happened. You have actual academics who try to engage with these topics usefully, and then you have predominantly-online 'white male tears' types who could actually be doing something helpful if they could engage with the topic in good faith, which they don't.

Again, this would be a personal failing on the part of one individual (immaturity, lack of understanding, etc.), not a larger issue of feral tumblr posters "endangering" people. One person (or 10 or 100) does not poison an entire mindset. It's like saying you read one feminist review that (you felt) was unfair, and therefore you decide all feminism must be evil and stupid because of that one critic/review. Judging an entire group on one individual's behavior is really just a reflection of a person's larger issue of general ignorance and lack of empathy, whether it's about an individual who is disadvantaged as a member of a minority group or about some "social justice warrior" talking about the disadvantages of being in a minority group.

I feel like you've attached so much to the point about informing or 'converting' the misinformed or neutral that you've forgotten my wider point. Whether or not a whole movement can be judged based on the thoughts and actions of an individual is absurd but also irrelevant. When you claim to be part of a movement or an ideology, you are also a spokesperson for it.

To be a good ally, or progressive, or activist, you have to use that soapbox responsibly, and think critically and skeptically about what you're saying and the implications it has. That's why these feel-good, broaden-the-definition notions about being transgender are not only not helpful, but missing out on the potential to actually do good.

 

[Elysium]

That's patently false.

To you? Because I don't think so.

Well, I could get into a back and forth that goes for two pages and waste my time reading and writing paragraphs (again) that won't change your mind or mine, so I'm just going to save the time and say I don't agree with anything you're saying and what's the point of arguing.

 

[Orion]

To you? Because I don't think so.

Then where has the casual disdain for issues that affect non-minority people come from? Why "lol white ppl amirite" instead of effective discourse? Why "lmao male tears" instead of actual engagement with issues affecting men?

I'd like to think I've explained my position pretty well, and similarly I've laid out why I don't accept yours. We can't both be right, so who has the fundamental flaw in their arguments, or is acting off of bogus 'evidence'?

This is exactly the sort of thing that 'SJW's are notorious for: The assumption of bad-faith arguments coming from the opposition. That those on the opposite side have already and permanently made up their mind, or are some kind of lost cause.

You know why I'm having this argument? Because I care about these topics, and through actually engaging with people who disagree, I can improve my own perspective, either by overcoming oppositional debate or facing overwhelming evidence or arguments and adjusting my view.

Even this conversation is good for those coming from the outside, because they get to see both perspectives. More interestingly, they get to see two different perspectives within the same ideological leaning. I'm assuming you're a progressive, I definitely am.

There was a thread a few years back, it went on for pages and pages, but it boiled down to the fact of someone who was basically a sociopathic religious nut who believed that nothing had any meaning because under the atheistic perspective there was no afterlife, nothing would last forever, and so it was all pointless. Thus in an atheistic world, everything is okay and permitted and fine - rape, murder, genocide - and so the atheistic perspective was wrong for these atrocities.

I don't think we ever convinced the OP to change his mind, but that wasn't a discussion that was had in private. Sure, KHI isn't a big YouTube channel or an online newspaper or a popular page on Facebook, but that was still a discussion happening in public. Time wasted or no, it benefited not only the people who were taking part, but also merely those watching, and especially those who were undecided on the issue, or who may have been swayed to believe otherwise.

There is value to this discussion, and I think you're doing everyone a disservice by deciding to cut it off early before (I believe) reaching a point where you can be reasonably sure that someone is some kind of 'lost cause'.

 

[Xblade13]

The more I hear about this, the more angry and disappointed I feel in the entire human race. I just don't get why people can't simply be nice to others. I for one couldn't care less if the person I'm talking to a guy, girl, trans, black, white, you name it.... And I would enjoy the conversation no matter what.

I've never really understood why that happened in the first place. I get upset every time I hear that people are fighting, dying, and hating each other over something that shouldn't even have existed in the first place.

Maybe it'd be better for humanity if everyone had their eyes blinded, voices made in a neutral pitch, and gender-defining body parts removed so that nobody would have the ability to know another person's gender, race, etc. Would that help? Jeezus, that's horrendous, and says a lot for our species as a whole.

I'm not really sure what the solution can be... When someone in an office hires a black woman as a worker, for instance, they would be thought of as "filling a quota" to have diversity in the workplace, even if that black woman was more skilled than the 50 white males who also applied. On the other hand, if they didn't hire her, because she wasn't as desirable as someone else, they'd be called racist/sexist/whatever. No matter what combination of outcomes that is, there is no way to stop someone being angry.

 

[BlackOsprey]

Maybe it'd be better for humanity if everyone had their eyes blinded, voices made in a neutral pitch, and gender-defining body parts removed so that nobody would have the ability to know another person's gender, race, etc.

That's called the internet. Unless you decide to disclose any of that information, the only thing people will judge you by is your opinion and your word choice.

... Well, it doesn't stop assholes and trolls from throwing around insults indiscriminately, and people will still assume stuff about your ethnicity, etc. It's not perfect, but hey, nothing is.

 

[khluva010]

Personally, I'm all for equal rights. But I think people in this generation have gone absolutely batshit. Instead of being reasonable, and up for a intelligent discussion, these individuals, for the most part, resort to name-calling and childlike temper tantrums til they get what they want (Kinda like modern feminism - but that's a different topic... actually... Is it really?) . It's sad. It minimizes the actual issues at hand.

Indeed, this has become commonplace of the internet world, and it's the unfortunate side to it. Feminism has a very complicated history so I wouldn't label it as a modern day issue but once again without getting into it I can see your point.

No longer can you breathe an opinion that differs from what's "politically correct" without being Satan incarnate. I mean, just the other day I was called a "homotransphobic bigot' because I saidthe whole transgender bathroom thing was pretty much a non-issue. (Simply because of the fact that the majority of transsexuals have been using whatever bathroom they wanted for years - I mean seriously, no one really cared til this whole fiasco popped up.)

Well let's take a look at your statement here. Is the fact that no one in the mainstream media cared nor paid attention to this before make it a non-issue? This particular issue is one part of a bigger discussion that our trans community faces on a daily basis. The people of this community are tired of the injustice, which is why a lot of times when they speak out/remark in such an angered rhetoric it is because it affects them personally. They are tired of having to struggle everyday to have their voices simply be heard. Our members of the trans community who are speaking out about this is the only opinion that truly matters at the end of the day because this, what you call a non-issue, effects them the most out of anyone. It even effects those within our trans community who agree with your statement more so than anyone else who does not identify with the community personally or has gone through their experiences.

Everyone around the world should feel safe in the place/space they live in, and if they are speaking up and telling us that they do not, then we must really listen and do our own research and help each other out before we go around saying issues that don't directly affect you makes it a non-issue to everyone else. And you're going to get different opinions about the subject within their own community which is fine because at the end of the day, this is a serious issue for them.

But this example along with many is why I'm all for political correctness, sjws, whatever other names you have for those of us who want to speak out for issues/topics that affect marginalized groups which mostly involves minorities of any race, gender, sexual orientation, social/political class, age, and religion, which ultimately effects the entire human race, and even within these groups we run into more, deep rooted complications. As long as people keep civilized discussions, which their are such spaces that are doing this, you just have to seek out for them if you care or find a better circle of people around you willing to actually have the proper discussions about these issues which will hopefully lead to positive solutions for all our communities and finding that connection that evolves humanity instead of moving backwards.

 

[Crimson Jazz]

I really really REALLY REALLY hate the fact that the term "social justice warrior" has a very negative connotation to it. Especially on the internet. It's an honest to God insult to real activists who use social media as a platform to affect change.

 

[Chuman]

I really really REALLY REALLY hate the fact that the term "social justice warrior" has a very negative connotation to it. Especially on the internet. It's an honest to God insult to real activists who use social media as a platform to affect change.

two kinds of SJWs

1. the real kind
2. twelve year olds that are mad about steven universe

 

[Datomix]

Not so much an insult as it is separating SJWs from actual activists. Ya know, the actual activists that use facts and logic rather than SJWs that base everything on their hurt feelings and safe spaces.

 

[Blackrazor187]

Porikore (Japanse term for Politically correct and Yakuza in one sentenceポリコレやくざ” ) crybullies are completely insufferable and i just wanna play video games,read manga and watch anime and they should really get over themselves if you think everything in life is political it isn't its projection of their own miserable lives and making everyone as miserable as they are. My advice stay away from social media if you want peace and quiet from them.