Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by spidergoat, Jul 29, 2016.
That isn't the same. Religious colleges follow religious doctrines: free speech does not apply.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Wow. That pretty much says it.
Are you sure about that?
When The The wins the election, will you still think him a whiner and a loser?
They say we should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it -- but the people who in fact live by this principle don't seem to do very well in life.
Does free speech apply, ever?
Every organization, religious or not, follows some kind of policy, some kind of doctrine. Ergo, free speech does not apply.
You are at Sciforums, right?
Social Darwinism and the competitive nature of life are topics, for example, which are not PC and cannot be discussed at forums like these.
They are not written, that's part of political correctness.
You learn what those rules and limits are when people have a go at you, accusing you of all sorts of lowly things, and especially when they ascribe to you words you didn't say and deeds you didn't do.
There is a power hierarchy in human society. Typically, those higher up can get away with things that those below can't. It is this way, that a speech code is being enforced -- and it is unequally enforced, of course.
In interactions between people from different strata of the hierarchy, this applies: Those below must follow the code, or they sink lower; those above get even further above by not following the code. Either way, the code is being enforced.
You know I wasn't thinking of Sanders, but the other one, the one with the triumphant name.
This article is long, but it is really good and I encourage people to read it, particularly if you are unaware of the breadth of today's PC. An important facet of the issue is that beyond just burying unpopular thought and teaching people to avoid critical thinking, this modern PC is psychologically harmful.
Most colleges are supposed to be places where free speech and critical thinking are encouraged, yes.
Academia is notorious for political correctness and power games.
There is a very great difference between a college's 1) refusing to allow somebody like Condoleeza Rice the privilege of a college podium to speak, and 2) refusing to allow the content of what would have been her speech to be said by anyone, or her writings appear in the libraries, or her arguments to be expressed and considered on the campus.
Only the latter would be suppression of the "politically incorrect", the persecution of thought and speech. The former is instead the social rejection of a morally or ethically abhorrent person.
Likewise when a newscaster cannot use the word "torture" to describe the interrogation techniques of Abu Ghraib and Bagram and Gitmo, or factually describe the history and purpose of such practices. Or when political analysts on all major venues describe certain economic ideas as "socialist", but refuse - actually refuse - to allow the description of others as "capitalist".
And that direction of suppression of terms and observations goes back much farther and to far greater public effect than the comparative trivialities of what is called "PC" nowdays.
This is something the liberals have been warning about for many years now, especially in the aftermath of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the immediate rise of Rush Limbaugh and his many followers, Fox News and its startling influence on the major media's presentation of news.
If you are worried about censorship in the US, start with the big and influential and common and significant examples, that affect all our lives. It may be that you will find the more trivial "politically correct" stuff is taken care of in the process, as well.
The denigration of angry people as screamers and whiners had better be accurate - because if there isn't any actual screaming or whining going on, denigrating level-headed and sober argument as such probably reveals some legitimacy in that anger.
The argument can be made that it is psychologically harmful only for the weak, in which case, it is the weak that are the problem, not PC.
So, how is this different from all other social hierarchical structures? Power is power - it changes hands once in a while, but never changes its nature. The weak have no voice, ever.
It's not the weak who whine about what they call political correctness, though, is it? It's the formerly privileged, who hate losing the power to oppress. The way Christian churches are complaining about losing the freedom of religion to foist its morality on other people.
Bosses make policy; blasphemy is punishable by stoning; lese majeste is a crime; organs of sedition are shut down; whistle-blowers are jailed; children should be seen and not heard; don't rock the boat... etc.
It's just another cultural fashion, interpreted differently by each institution and individual. If enough people don't want it, it will go away.
In other words, they're exercising their free speech and you don't like it any more than they liked what you said. Is there any legal constraint to prevent your defending verbally against false allegations ? If not, all the power they have is to hurt your feelings and reputation. How is that different from the power you demand to hurt their feelings and reputation?
And yet both have been discussed here - and most of the discussions have not infringed on the area that PC considerations cover.
Prejudice is both common and acceptable; it's how many people make decisions (like "I had a lousy Chevy; I'm never going to buy another one.") The subset of prejudice called bigotry - not so much. Note that you still have the freedom to speak any way you like - and others have the freedom to describe your speech as they see it.
I haven't seen those discussions, while I myself have recently been kicked around here for bringing up Social Darwinism etc.
You seem optimistic!
If I take the legal route, I will lose in the long term, even if I win in court.
LOL. You have a vivid imagination.
See, I'm the kind of person who never gets road rage and never feels offended. For the simple reason that I observed that it is cognitively expensive to do so. If nothing else, I'll stub my toe while I feel offended. This pisses me off, I feel like a loser.
How do other people manage to be both angry and have full control over their vehicle, or their life, for that matter? That must be some mighty skill, because I don't have it. Of course, if we visit sites for recycling old cars, there's plenty of cars that were trashed in collisions, and probably not just a few of them because their drivers didn't manage to both be angry and have control of their car. Similar for all those people with stomach ulcers, high blood pressure etc. etc.
The thing is: We live in a society where being nice makes you a loser. So now what?
I can't imagine a statement more self-evidently false.
No we don't. Society can't make you anything.
You are only a loser if you let someone else set the goalposts.
(How do you define loser/winner? Wealth? Underlings? Power?)
It's the sort of thing I have actually been told by right-wingers.
Uh. Per society's standards, you are a loser if you're nice.
What a boy scout attitude!
It's not mine to define.
That does not make it true.
I don't know why you think this. Lots of people will tell you lots of things to get you to see their way.
Whst defines you is who you know yourself to be, not what other people think.
You say tht like it's a bad thing.
Yes. It really really is.
You and you alone define what success is for you. Do not let society convince you otherwise. You'll find yourself wearing the latest sneakers, the trendiest fashions, seeking the hottest careeer, the
slimmest trophy wife - all the while cosndiering suicide for not being able to live up to it.
Society doesn't even speak for itself. It has no collective voice; there is only the voice of many individuals.
Separate names with a comma.