fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3348 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3348 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Dr. Who]

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Babylon 5, Susan/Talia]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[Neverending Story]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

[Maximilian Dood and Benny]

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILERS for Avatar: the Last Airbender/Legend of Korra]

__________________________________________________

15. [SPOILERS for Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle]

__________________________________________________

16. [SPOILERS for The 100]

__________________________________________________

17. [SPOILERS for Legacy of the Force]

__________________________________________________

18. [SPOILERS for Halo 5]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #478.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But I dont see the difference in principle. You didn't talk about morally reprehensible. You talked about feelings. If a private college were to discipline its students for performing a minstrel show using University resources they would be controlling behavior based on feelings. What's the differenxedifference?

There is no difference in principle. Both are cultural appropriation in the strictest sense.

So where do we draw the line? Who decides what's acceptable and what's not? I can understand that progressives feel we will never progress if we don't challenge social mores, and I think those challenges are necessary and beneficial as long as they don't impinge on other people's liberties. But can you understand that the PC backlash is made of people who feel that every minute detail of society is being challenged ad nauseum, until they're afraid to speak or act at all? I can understand that marginalized groups feel they must take extreme measures to be heard because their voices have been and continue to be indubitably silenced. Can you understand that people generally do not respond well to ultimatums or demands? Or are we doomed to continue as we have been, each playing hardball and making no concessions to each other, until the fear and contempt between us all is irreparable?

DA

+1000000 This is an excellent comment.

No, I do recognize all of that, but from my point of view that's a problem with the implementation and the popular dispersal of political correctness, not a fundamental flaw. Do you see what I mean? I get all that but I'm still basically convinced that political correctness as an attempt at a more formally inclusive language and culture makes sense. And I don't think the appropriate response or the thoughtful response to the issues you raise here is a broad-based attack on political correctness, and certainly not a personal attack on people who believe in it, which is what you see all too often including in this thread.

And I don't think the appropriate response or the thoughtful response to the issues you raise here is a broad-based attack on political correctness, and certainly not a personal attack on people who believe in it, which is what you see all too often including in this thread.

You've got to be kidding me.

I really don't know how to respond to your complete and willful ignorance of the childish debate tactics, the dismissiveness, the name-calling rants, and the general refusal by the PC proponents in this thread to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue. I don't know how to to engage with you if you are not capable of recognizing this double standard.

The idea that this debate was carried out in an above board way on either side is ludicrous. From the way that the OP was written it was clear that this was not going to be a serious discussion. It was clearly a leading way of writing this thread trying to create controversy. Of course people responded to that the way they did. I think, if the OP had been written differently, and been more upfront about the point it wanted to make, instead of being the kind of veiled insinuation that we see all the time, people would have responded differently. But the way that OP was written was by no means a good way of starting a reasonable dialogue. If you wanted a dialogue you should have tried to start one by actually saying something.

I mean, like, of course everyone here agrees that if the story happened as reported, that it was wrong of the college. I think literally everyone would agree that there are frustrating people on the SJW side who are dumb idiots and that college students are often dumb. But what people are responding to is the implication they read into it that these things are cause to dismiss the entire social justice movement, made in a very frustrating way.

So yeah. If you want to make a serious critique of social justice, make one. If you're going to take stupid potshots, people are going to respond the way they are.

[ SECRET POST #3348 ]

Re: The struggle is real.

Re: The struggle is real.

Re: The struggle is real.

Re: The struggle is real.

Re: The struggle is real.

Re: The struggle is real.