Political Correctness

  • Thread starter lbsf1
  • 2,889 comments
  • 150,458 views
I mean, I kinda feel sorry for them.
sad cry GIF

That's what Horowitz argued in the Times piece I linked to (and what he may have told his publishers before rewriting).
A publisher rendering its services conditionally, which is to say on the condition that it approves of the material it's asked to publish, is a wholly appropriate consequence...no matter the basis for not approving of material it's asked to publish.

An author should get this and not be a whiny bitch.

Edit: I'm noting here your having chosen to not address my remarks regarding your feeling of having been oppressed.
 
Last edited:
A publisher rendering its services conditionally, which is to say on the condition that it approves of the material it's asked to publish, is a wholly appropriate consequence...no matter the basis for not approving of material it's asked to publish.

An author should get this and not be a whiny bitch.
He's not arguing or whining against their right and ability to do this, but taking issue with their decision, and what it means for writers in future.

I think I can get away with a few more words from the article:

It’s not about cancellation, it’s not about anger, it is about the fear that all creative people must now feel if they’re going to dare to write. I believe that writers should not be cowed, we should not be made to do things because we’re so scared of starting a storm on Twitter.
Edit: I'm noting here your having chosen to not address my remarks regarding your feeling of having been oppressed.
My personal feeling? I'm glad to be free in my mind now, which has come through personal development.
 
Last edited:
He's not arguing or whining against their right to do this, but taking issue with their decision, and what it means for writers in future.
What it means for writers in the future is what it has always meant for writers: publishers exercise discretion and the service isn't something to be expected. It doesn't go any deeper than that.
I think I can get away with a few more words from the article:
It’s not about cancellation, it’s not about anger, it is about the fear that all creative people must now feel if they’re going to dare to write. I believe that writers should not be cowed, we should not be made to do things because we’re so scared of starting a storm on Twitter.
Yeah, that's whining. He hasn't been made to do anything. There's an audience for this fake oppression, however, and "The Times" understands this and has availed its platform to him so that it may enjoy the spoils of giving that audience what it wants.
My personal feeling? I'm glad to be free in my mind now, which has come through personal development.
Now you've acknowledged and responded to my remarks without having addressed them. Alas, that's also not something to be expected.
 
What it means for writers in the future is what it has always meant for writers: publishers exercise discretion and the service isn't something to be expected. It doesn't go any deeper than that.
It's always meant that - I don't think he is disputing that. What he's alarmed at, however, is what's now considered acceptable by children's publishers, and wishes that it was left up to the public. I think he's entitled to have a whine at that.
He hasn't been made to do anything.
thats-true-kramer.gif


Well, yeah, he could have gone a different route whereby it was out in the open uncensored....but he's an established author, and so wouldn't have as much trouble of finding an audience as up and comers/lesser known authors may do. By publishers adopting this more restrictive attitude, how much does it limit exposure to the public and thereby dictating what can become part of mainstream culture.
Now you've acknowledged and responded to my remarks without having addressed them. Alas, that's also not something to be expected.
I'm not sure I understand. I've said many "un-PC" things here and in real life and dealt with the consequences, being proven right in some instances and wrong in others. Would I define political correctness differently than I have before? Probably.

EDIT: I think conservatives need to evaluate what they mean before they use terms like "PC", "woke" and "cancel culture" (and especially realise the latter isn't the exclusive domain of "the left") and there isn't some big conspiracy against them
 
Last edited:
So if I put myself as having no political views other than all politicians are corrupt and manipulative liars, how will my theoretical university be punished?
You'll all be put into "re-education camps" until you learn the correct view - that politicians are saintly beings made of beauty and light, and all goodness flows directly from their buttholes.

Not entirely sure if /s.
 

Florida diploma holder here.

So as long as there's no multiple choice questions, I would be confident in spelling out exactly which piece of their human anatomy can be used to describe a situation and/or unfortunate event in which a cranium can not concurrently occupy at the same time, due to the laws of inertia.

Either that, or just merge the FL of Florida into a convenient swastika-shaped symbol to save us the trouble and also conserve space as well as ink or toner.

As most students and corporate donors are paying for these schools to stay open, the current banner of a miasmic heaven masquerading as a political body can clam up. Cease acting as if it's defraying everyone's expenses and quit being that drunken chowderhead at the dinner table. They don't have to invite carnival barkers for your amusement and distraction.
 
Last edited:
Other types aren't politicians, they're terrorists out to destroy your country, undermine your values, kill God and sexually assault your pets.
Some of them do it in the name of God. Whatever God that is...
 
Newsmax bends to the woke mob. Cancels Lara Logan. For shame, Newsmax. For shame.


The fat bitch anchor, whoever the **** he is, pumping the brakes when Lara gets into the WEF blood libel is the ****ing funniest ****.
 
Last edited:
According to the caption his name is Eric Bollocks or something similar.
 
Last edited:
m76
This image is hilarious. But not for the reasons you think. It tries to label those against political correctness as racists and sexists (so the usual stuff), but it actually confirms that political correctness is censorship. The woke still can't meme.
Welcome to Popper's Paradox. People can say whatever odious **** they like, but that doesn't mean everyone has to tolerate it.
 
Last edited:
This exchange came to mind when people such as @m76 take this line.

We've spent the entire thread trying to pin the jelly to the wall that is the constantly shifting definition of PC. I'm not surprised that the meaning of woke has proved to be similarly nebulous and am glad that Rakie refuses to be similarly fooled.
 
Last edited:
“You’re censoring me from being an asshole! Reeeee!”

:P
And therein lies the fundamental issue. Double think. Censorship is censorship regardless of whether i agree with the speech being censored. But somehow those in support of political correctness cannot think in three dimensions and think censorship is fine as long as they disagree with what's being censored. But as soon as the worm turns they are crying the end of democracy, or worse.

Just because I support someone's rights to say stupid ideas, doesn't mean I agree with those ideas. On the contrary stupid ideas needs to be publicly debunked, and not suppressed and hidden where they are left unchallenged.

Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons doesn't work, it will only make those holding the bad ideas even more determined in their zeal when they realize they have been lied to. This doesn't make their bad ideas any more valid, but it makes their convictions rock solid.

This is why I do not support any form of censorship or silencing speech, outside of calls for harassment and violence. Mind you I remember PC people being fine with calls for violence as long as it was directed at people they didn't like. So who is really being an asshole here?

Political correctness is the enemy of progress, because it tries to use soft language to make problems look less severe, or even try to present them as virtues. But it never actually addresses the problem, or helps those suffering from the problem in any way shape or form. It is just the tool of first world people to normalize the suffering of the less fortunate.

Haven't you noticed that it is never the cripple who campaigns for calling them differently abled? It is always people with no disabilities, who feel bad about other people having disabilities, so they invented new 'politically correct' terminology to make themselves sleep better, without actually doing anything to help a single disabled person.
 
Last edited:
m76
Haven't you noticed that it is never the cripple who campaigns for calling them differently abled? It is always people with no disabilities, who feel bad about other people having disabilities, so they invented new 'politically correct' terminology to make themselves sleep better, without actually doing anything to help a single disabled person.
As an autistic person I'm going to do three things here.

The first is to remind you that the AUP is quite clear on the use of abusive terms.

The second is to tell you that you are 100% wrong,.

The third is to point out that your engaging in the tactics of the ablist, of the bigot, so don't try speaking for people such as myself. Don't try and use us to justify your intolerance, own being an asshole yourself.
 
Last edited:
We've spent the entire thread trying to pin the jelly to the wall that is the constantly shifting definition of PC. I'm not surprised that the meaning of woke has proved to be similarly nebulous and am glad that Rakie refuses to be similarly fooled.
There are plenty of people among conservative talking heads who will label anything they dislike as woke.

The definition of woke is very simple: saturated with identity politics, or engaging in identity politics if we are talking about a woke person and not a media product.

And identity politics is of course passing judgement based on intrinsic group identities. Mind you racism identity politics as well.
 
As an autistic person I'm going to do three things here.
Of course, paint yourself as the victim and instantly everything you say becomes gospel? That's not how it works. I'm very much on the spectrum and I could list my other disabilities too, but I do not because it does not make my points stronger or weaker. It is not the win all arguments card you think it is.
The first is to remind you that the AUP is quite clear on the use of abusive terms.
What was it about political correctness is not censorship, it is people who censor themselves out of fear? So how is that now? I used that term to drive home a point, which you still managed to completely ignore. This is why I hate to debate on the internet, people will find a way to weasel out of any argument by pretending it didn't exist.

I also think abusive terms is a misnomer. A word in of itself cannot be abusive, it is the intent behind the word that matters. You can disparage and abuse someone without using any "banned" terms if that was your intent.
The second is to tell you that you are 100% wrong,.
Tell me where and how am I wrong, otherwise this is just simply being in denial. You might as well just have posted "REEEEEE"
The third is to point out that your engaging in the tactics of the ablist, of the bigot, so don't try speaking for people sure as myself. Don't try and use us to justify your intolerance, own being an asshole yourself.
I didn't think we would devolve to name calling so quickly. Believing that soft language does nothing to improve anyone's quality of life is not me being a bigot. Well unless being prejudiced against PC culture is being a bigot. The only thing I'm intolerant towards is wishing away the problem, which political correctness is doing.

Ableism is discrimination. I haven't even touched on any subject where I somehow could've discriminated. I didn't say wheelchair bound people are worse at math, or anything akin to that.
 
m76
Just because I support someone's rights to say stupid ideas, doesn't mean I agree with those ideas. On the contrary stupid ideas needs to be publicly debunked, and not suppressed and hidden where they are left unchallenged.
Nope.

They do get challenged, but more often than not, the person being challenged refuses to see where they're wrong. Half the time, the idea being espoused isn't something to be "challenged"; it's someone just being a colossal ass thinking they can say heinous things without backlash & use "censorship" as a retort when the majority tell them to stop or go away.

That's the point the comic touched on, and you missed it because you clearly have a warped view of what political correctness means.
 
m76
Of course, paint yourself as the victim and instantly everything you say becomes gospel? That's not how it works. I'm very much on the spectrum and I could list my other disabilities too, but I do not because it does not make my points stronger or weaker. It is not the win all arguments card you think it is.
Well you didn't read that well at all.
m76
What was it about political correctness is not censorship, it is people who censor themselves out of fear? So how is that now? I used that term to drive home a point, which you still managed to completely ignore. This is why I hate to debate on the internet, people will find a way to weasel out of any argument by pretending it didn't exist.

I also think abusive terms is a misnomer. A word in of itself cannot be abusive, it is the intent behind the word that matters. You can disparage and abuse someone without using any "banned" terms if that was your intent.
Not the reason why we have an AUP here, one that you agreed to follow when you joined.
m76
Tell me where and how am I wrong, otherwise this is just simply being in denial. You might as well just have posted "REEEEEE"
You made an factual claim, all it requires is 1 person that doesn't meet your absolute claim to demonstrate its wrong.
m76
I didn't think we would devolve to name calling so quickly. Believing that soft language does nothing to improve anyone's quality of life is not me being a bigot. Well unless being prejudiced against PC culture is being a bigot. The only thing I'm intolerant towards is wishing away the problem, which political correctness is doing.
No, you using slurs makes you a bigot.
m76
Ableism is discrimination. I haven't even touched on any subject where I somehow could've discriminated. I didn't say wheelchair bound people are worse at math, or anything akin to that.
No you used an ablist slur, breaking the AUP you agreed to follow when you joined.
 
m76
And therein lies the fundamental issue. Double think. Censorship is censorship

Except when it's being done by a private individual/organization like twitter, at which point it is not censorship and exits this conversation.

m76
This is why I do not support any form of censorship or silencing speech

Any form of silencing speech? Wow. I'm really happy that my kids' Netflix account doesn't give them access to porn. So, I'm not with you there.

m76
Political correctness is the enemy of progress, because it tries to use soft language to make problems look less severe, or even try to present them as virtues. But it never actually addresses the problem, or helps those suffering from the problem in any way shape or form. It is just the tool of first world people to normalize the suffering of the less fortunate.

No. Political correctness is a movement to get people to stop intentionally or accidentally being jerks to each other. It uses social pressure to get you to think about others before you open your mouth.
 
m76
It tries to label those against political correctness as racists and sexists (so the usual stuff), but it actually confirms that political correctness is censorship.
It actually doesn't. There is no censorship in one referring to another, appopriately or otherwise, as racist and sexist ("the usual stuff"). I tend to not unless it's explicit and I try to suggest others exercise the same kind of discretion, but it's still just speech. When it's not subject to legitimate state action, it's free speech. WhY dO yOu HaTe FrEe SpEeCh?!

This is how "political correctness" (BOO!!!) has been thrust into contemporary parlance. It's the result of an irrational bitchfit in which conservative pundits and pansies try to attribute to private expression, originally on college campuses, the notion of state suppression of-- and penalty for--supposed disfavored private expression. Those who invoke it frequently allege, as you have, a supposed normative agenda.

m76
Political correctness is the enemy of progress, because it tries to use soft language to make problems look less severe, or even try to present them as virtues. But it never actually addresses the problem, or helps those suffering from the problem in any way shape or form. It is just the tool of first world people to normalize the suffering of the less fortunate.
Spider Man Lol GIF


God damn.
Except when it's being done by a private individual/organization like twitter, at which point it is not censorship and exits this conversation.
Yup, though there's basically no chance of this one accepting that. Grievance has a distinct edge over reason, or to be more blunt, the bitchfit feels much too good to break out of it.
Political correctness is a movement to get people to stop intentionally or accidentally being jerks to each other. It uses social pressure to get you to think about others before you open your mouth.
I think this still gives the invocation too much power. Is there such a movement? Maybe. "Movement" seems, to me, to suggest there's a new enlightenment, but I think for the most part people have tended this direction but legitimate authority gave a minority a right to treat people as less than what they are based on some disfavored characteristic.

Also, while it's certainly an appropriate word, I fear "pressure" (referring to the free exercise of rights such as speech and association) is a nod to this particular grievance.

Anyway...

lol. lmao.

FglhRkbWYAEIFh4
 
Looks like this thread has undergone an attempted "normal"-isation overnight.

"Haven't you noticed that it is never the ****** who campaigns for them being called African-American?"

Give me a ****ing break.

Anti-"woke"ists like to peddle the myth that disadvantaged groups prefer slurs as a whole. When members of those groups actually show up to point out that no, this isn't the case, they're criticised for being anti-ableist as if politeness and consideration for others is somehow prejudiced against their intolerance. To me this sounds like entitlement writ large.

robin-hood-poor.gif

"Please sir, may I have a tiny crumb of oppression?"
 
Last edited:
Back