Discussion Political Correctness

[pebblesofsand]

It is a conversational trap.

Every time it is used, it is followed by the same logical fallacy that creates a no-win situation.

Any unfalsifiable statement or structure is inherently flawed in its construct. It gets employed as a kill-shot by people who don't understand the application of logical principles.

Again, can facts be hateful?

"It gets employed as a kill-shot by people who don't understand the application of logical principles."

And yet you do it yourself. Amazing!!!

 

[MUFKilda]

Again with the claim that answering the question has no moral judgement laced into it.

I ask again, can facts be hateful?

Empirical evidence i.e. fact based assertions cannot be hateful, no. By definition, empirically proven facts are not subject to value judgements. But such facts must be proven beyond possible doubt. Personal opinion isn't fact, even if it seems entirely logical to the individual. The entire subject of philosophy (beyond logic) is based those things which science cannot prove as facts. Even logic cannot be proven, as it is dependent upon pre-suppositions that cannot be proven in a laboratory.

 

[Noidenous]

"It gets employed as a kill-shot by people who don't understand the application of logical principles."

And yet you do it yourself. Amazing!!!

Hahaha.

Something threatening in the question, perhaps?

 

[Noidenous]

Empirical evidence i.e. fact based assertions cannot be hateful, no. But such facts must be proven beyond possible doubt. Personal opinion isn't fact, even if it seems entirely logical to the individual.

Is it hateful to conduct study that arrives at facts?

 

[MUFKilda]

Is it hateful to conduct study that arrives at facts?

No, provided the facts are empirical and can be replicated. Science does not make moral judgements. Ethics is the sphere of philosophy.

 

[Noidenous]

No, provided the facts are empirical and can be replicated. Science does not make moral judgements. Ethics is the sphere of philosophy.

'Hate Facts' - Yes, People Are Now Using That Term

The word “fact” serves its purpose much better when not preceded by lawyerly or political adjectives

www.intellectualtakeout.org

So there is no censorship of facts going on, and you can state that with credulity?

 

[MUFKilda]

'Hate Facts' - Yes, People Are Now Using That Term

The word “fact” serves its purpose much better when not preceded by lawyerly or political adjectives

www.intellectualtakeout.org

So there is no censorship of facts going on, and you can state that with credulity?

I have no idea. But again, how many people are you referring to? Don't get hung up on the extreme fringes. The vast, vast majority don't want to censor your thoughts; just the opposite, say whatever you think and let the discussion flow. Anyone who wants top censor ideas is potentially dangerous, yet, paradoxically, it seems you want to shut down those you think crazy., such as the tiny number of non-binary folk. Instead let their ideas be held up to scrutiny.

 

[Noidenous]

I have no idea. But again, how many people are you referring to? Don't get hung up on the extreme fringes. The vast, vast majority don't want to censor your thoughts; just the opposite, say whatever you think and let the discussion flow. Anyone who wants top censor ideas is potentially dangerous, yet, paradoxically, it seems you want to shut down those you think crazy., such as the tiny number of non-binary folk. Instead let their ideas be held up to scrutiny.

So what happens when you are letting conversation flow and someone interjects with an objection?

 

[jwikked]

Well, let me introduce you to Canada's bill C-16.

When what you call fringe belief becomes law, it is not a fringe belief anymore. You cannot keep pushing facts to the side because they hurt your feelings.

You haven't heard of the 'check your thinking' police in the UK? The non-crime hate-speech cases?

I’d forgotten about the UK Police cracking down on perceived thought crimes. How the UK got themselves to a point where the police would be policing something like that is simply insane.
Remember that strange fellow who taught his dog to do the Hitler salute? What he went through following that should NEVER occur in any country, let alone a western country (which I hold to a higher standard).

 

[MUFKilda]

So what happens when you are letting conversation flow and someone interjects with an objection?

That's called progress and the conversation continuing: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. You've read your Marx

 

[Noidenous]

I’d forgotten about the UK Police cracking down on perceived thought crimes. How the UK got themselves to a point where the police would be policing something like that is simply insane.
Remember that strange fellow who taught his dog to do the Hitler salute? What he went through following that should NEVER occur in any country, let alone a western country (which I hold to a higher standard).

Exactly. Forget the 800 pound fine, that he cannot get a job anywhere as a result is the real punishment.

That is where the political correctness advocates don't seem to draw a line. They just like to call it 'consequences for actions of speech' and consider it justified.

 

[Noidenous]

That's called progress and the conversation continuing: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. You've read your Marx

So what happens if someone is offended and that is the basis for their objection?

 

[MUFKilda]

So what happens if someone is offended?

Nothing. Why would it? You worry too much about the exchange of ideas, and even seem paranoid. Nobody is stopping you expressing an opinion and you won't be arrested; just be prepared to have that opinion scrutinised.

 

[Noidenous]

Nothing. Why would it? You worry too much about the exchange of ideas, and even seem paranoid. Nobody is stopping you expressing an opinion and you won't be arrested; just be prepared to have that opinion scrutinised.

So offense isn't enforceable by law?

 

[jwikked]

Exactly. Forget the 800 pound fine, that he cannot get a job anywhere as a result is the real punishment.

That is where the political correctness advocates don't seem to draw a line. They just like to call it 'consequences for actions of speech' and consider it justified.

The fine is irrelevant and only downplays the stress and unknowns that were playing out over a large period of time. You’re right to point out the ongoing issues for him, that is significant.
I hope Australia doesn’t head down that path. Dutton wants to bring in laws that will make it illegal not to hand your passwords over to police when asked. 5 years jail.

I’m so sick and tired of the complete overreach of the Government in eroding away our rights andwhat little privacy we have left.

 

[MUFKilda]

So offense isn't enforceable by law?

There are a million shades of grey. If I say something stupid on here e.g. men are always superior to women, then nothing happens to me. If I discriminate and contravene equal pay against a female employee, I get sanctioned, and rightly so. If I also cause offence by using sexually inappropriate and degrading comments to a woman in the workplace, I am subject to the law, and rightly so. It's about the balance of freedom to offend and freedom from offence.

If I offend you as a heterosexual male by paying you less than female and gay employees, is that okay?

 

[Noidenous]

There are a million shades of grey. If I say something stupid on here e.g. men are always superior to women, then nothing happens to me. If I discriminate and contravene equal pay against a female employee, I get sanctioned, and rightly so. If I also cause offence by using sexually inappropriate and degrading comments to a woman in the workplace, I am subject to the law, and rightly so. It's about the balance of freedom to offend and freedom from offence.

If I offend you as a heterosexual male by paying you less than female and gay employees, is that okay?

We are talking about speech and not overt action.

Can you be punished for the perception that you are being hateful?

 

[plugger66]

The fine is irrelevant and only downplays the stress and unknowns that were playing out over a large period of time. You’re right to point out the ongoing issues for him, that is significant.
I hope Australia doesn’t head down that path. Dutton wants to bring in laws that will make it illegal not to hand your passwords over to police when asked. 5 years jail.

I’m so sick and tired of the complete overreach of the Government in eroding away our rights andwhat little privacy we have left.

Is that fact? And just because some fool wants to bring in that law it doesn’t mean it happens. And when do you have to give passwords. When you murder someone which is fair enough or when you didn’t pay for chewy. Need a bit more than he wants your password or 5 years jail. Must say I’ve never really cared to much about privacy unless of course it’s for someone to do something illegal

 

[MUFKilda]

We are talking about speech and not overt action.

Can you be punished for the perception that you are being hateful?

Yes. If I stand outside a black person's house all day shouting racial slurs, or, if I stand outside a gay person's house all day shouting homophobic slurs, I should be stopped, absolutely. Their freedom FROM bigotry should override my freedom TO bigotry in such cases. There is always a balance: do we tilt the balance in favour of the perpetrator or the victim?

 

[Noidenous]

Yes. If I stand outside a black person's house all day shouting racial slurs, or, if I stand outside a gay person's house all day shouting homophobic slurs, I should be stopped, absolutely. Their freedom FROM bigotry should override my freedom TO bigotry in such cases. There is always a balance: do we tilt the balance in favour of the perpetrator or the victim?

Nice deflection.

What if someone perceives something as hateful, citing their offense as proof of victimhood?

What if they choose to encourage enforcement on speech as a political tool?

 

[gringo2011]

Private Site

This is funny because it's exactly the kind of over the top intellectualisation that the far left and academics get hammered for, written in their language. If you change the term social justice with the free market it would make you cry. For a guy who claims to be free of the propaganda the rest of us are caught up in you seem to be just the same but with an alternative set of ideas.

 

[plugger66]

This is like 20 questions but the person answering them can never give a right answer to the person asking them even if he actually agrees with what is said.

 

[MUFKilda]

Nice deflection.

What if someone perceives something as hateful and it is not so?

What if they choose to encourage enforcement on speech as a political tool?

There was no deflection, you asked about speech, yes? All of these things are a balance between freedom from and freedom to, and it's where the balance is drawn. That is where societies differ.

 

[MUFKilda]

This is like 20 questions but the person answering them can never give a right answer to the person asking them even if he actually agrees with what is said.

He just needs to say what he actually wants and spit it out.

 

[Noidenous]

This is funny because it's exactly the kind of over the top intellectualisation that the far left and academics get hammered for, written in their language. If you change the term social justice with the free market it would make you cry. For a guy who claims to be free of the propaganda the rest of us are caught up in you seem to be just the same but with an alternative set of ideas.

Nice try.

Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex Into Journals (Published 2018)

Three academics tested a theory about the intellectual integrity of peer-reviewed “grievance studies” by cooking up, and publishing, their own.

www.nytimes.com