fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3628 ]

[ SECRET POST #3628 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3628 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

[Kenneth Branagh, Wallender]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for discussion of rape/torture (fics)]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #518.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - 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

Well-Intentioned Person: Hey, maybe we could be nicer to each other?

PC Reactionist: Are you calling me an arsehole?! I'm perfectly nice right now and everything is fine!! Stop pushing this on me! You're expecting me to change my behaviour a little bit - clearly this is like heating the water of a lobster tank a little bit and if I don't do something soon I'll be boiling alive!! Don't tell me I was rude!!

Nobody... *likes* being called on their behaviour, especially when they're being particularly awful. So pushback happens.

(I try to embrace the fact that sometimes I'm a bit of shithead and won't realise it until later. Takes some of the fuming indignation out of it.)

I saw someone call social justice just like....I want to say communism because 'it forces people to think the same!' ......... idk.

Well, it is Marxist in that it values the group over the individual.

I don't think it's authloritarian or Marxist to treat other people kindly and, if the other person raises a valid point, to listen to them and not act like a braying jackass when told that you've said or done is hurtful.

Of course that's not Marxist or authoritarian. What's authoritarian is DEMANDING that people treat other people kindly. People value their autonomy and push back against demands simply because they are demands.

NAYRT

I disagree that it's authoritarian to demand that people treat other people kindly. At the very least, using the word "authoritarian" in that sense is a usage which has no relation in particular to common usage.

Also, like. Acting like there's something novel or newly threatening about "demanding that people treat other people kindly" seems very strange to me. I would argue that the kind of impulse we're talking about here is an implicit part of most ideologies, or theories of moral justification, or politico-religious worldviews, or whatever you want to call them, and that finding a way to mediate that moral impulse in a complex society is something that we've been trying to do for a really long time now. It's really hard and it's a really complex argument and I just don't think that condemning that basic idea and acting like people are villains for serves any purpose whatsoever except your own moral superiority complex.

I mean, just to point out why this is so complex - the kind of moral condemnation you're leveling at people who want to demand that everyone treat other people kindly is itself an example of the thing you're condemning. This is precisely one of the reasons it's so hard - because everyone does actually think that certain things should be condemned.

"Also, like. Acting like there's something novel or newly threatening about "demanding that people treat other people kindly" seems very strange to me."

I think a difficulty in asking people to be nicer, is that it starts with the premise that they are not-nice right now.

No-one likes being called rude.

I think another part of the issue is that some views (racism, sexism, homo/trans/biphobia) are inherently not nice, and as such cause harm to others however they're expressed. These views are protected speech under the First Amendment, but this doesn't apply to businesses or corporate entities (i.e, Twitter), who can censor or fire people. What it means is that you can't be jailed for these views (unless a crime is committed with the views as a justification) or "disappeared" for them - which is how real authoritarians deal with dissent.

I think another part of the issue is that some views (racism, sexism, homo/trans/biphobia) are inherently not nice, and as such cause harm to others however they're expressed.

This actually gets at the heart of the problem: how do you determine what kind of views ought and ought not be tolerated? How do you make that distinction?

I mean, look. Most people think - and I would say there are various extremely strong arguments in favor of the idea - that there are some forms of views or expression that we should not tolerate as a part of our society and our political mainstream (understanding tolerance of differing views as being a part of freedom of speech distinct from the legal protections against government restriction of speech). To give an example of what I mean, it's that you may have the legal right to advance the view that drowning kittens is politically desirable, but a wide range of people would agree that such a view is not politically acceptable to them.

At the same time, it is extremely clear that there needs to be some degree of latitude given to differing views, because otherwise we all descend into religious wars and kill each other, as see for example Europe 1524-1648. So we need some kind of way to divide between things that we may disagree with, but still have to tolerate, and things that we consider outside the mainstream and intolerable. Unfortunately no one can figure out what the fuck the dividing line is. It's really fucking hard both to figure out what the standard should be, and to figure out how to apply it. Looking at the idea that some views are not nice, the question becomes, what does it mean to be not nice? And how do we determine which views are not nice? How do you determine what views constitute a threat? I mean, the reality of politics is that there are very few political questions that can't be construed in terms of threatening people's lives. So it's a really fucking hard question.

But the point I'm making here is, that's what we're basically arguing about here. Can we say with any degree of certainty that some points of view are not nice? And there's substantial disagreement. But you're quite right in pointing out that none of this has anything much to do with authoritarianism, which is why it'd be helpful if certain people would stop fucking screwing around with stupid interpretations and arguments.

While it's true that the difficulty you're pointing to exists, I would also reiterate that it's still not particularly unique to political correctness, in the way that the person we're talking to seems to want to imply.

Of course, the other side of it is that it isn't actually that surprising or hard to explain that some people oppose political correctness.

This is an abominably stupid and reductive argument. Please. Please, don't make arguments like this. Engage with ideas.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3628 ]

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?

Re: Where did "anti-PC" backlash come from?