Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And there you go proving my point. I’m not a huge fan of most PC, and certainly not a fan of the high and mighty shame campaign that most PC efforts are made under, but the actual impact of PC on people’s lives is reasonably close to irrelevant. And yet it gets mentioned constantly, and with great emotion. You describe it as a demand to ban any sort of speech or art that could potentially offend any party… that’s past hyperbole and in the realm of wild fantasy.

I should write a book about it.

 sebster wrote:
The ‘outrage’ over that shirt totalled to about a 1,000 twitter posts. That’s it. There’s about 3 billion people with internet access, and a whopping total of 1,000 of them were bothered by that shirt. In response to the tweets of 1,000 people, there was I don’t know how many op-ed pieces written, and read by millions, all decrying that PC and/or feminism had gone too far, all failing to mention that it was a tiny number of people who were bothered by the shirt.

I have never met a person, on-line or in person, who heard about that stupid shirt scandal through the original complaints. Everyone I know heard about it through one of the articles written pointing out how stupid the original complaints were.

Years later, that silly bit of internet nonsense gets mentioned by you as an example of someone being taken down by a rabid mob. Because the worry over PC just nothing to do with reality.

Why did you use outrage in inverted commas? Are you trying to score sarcasm points? It's undeniable he caught flak, and it's undeniable he made a tearful apology to the likes of the perpetually offended.

Also where are you getting the 1,000 twitter posts only from. Because I've tried to gauge how many tweets there are and it's an inexact science, so please, share your methods. Unless you picked up the 1,000 figure from an article, in which case share it.

Get your facts straight, fella. Anecdotal evidence isn't facts.

Taylor drew rather pointed, and appropriate, criticism for that shirt, which he specifically chose to wear that day, for a number of reasons, not least of which being is that it's a fairly dunder-headed move for appearing in public in.

However, the idea that this was some rabid mob is... extremely misleading, or that Dr. Taylor was drummed out of the business and lives the life of a pariah.

After all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taylor_(scientist) wrote:While giving a televised status update on the Rosetta space craft, Taylor wore a shirt depicting scantily-clad cartoon women with firearms.[13][14][15] Taylor's decision to wear the shirt to a press conference drew criticism from a number of commentators,[16][17] who saw a reflection of a culture where women are unwelcome in scientific fields.[15] Others, including Boris Johnson,[18] Julie Bindel[19] and Tim Stanley,[20] saw the complaints about the shirt as absurd and ridiculous. Richard Dawkins said on Twitter: "Do not blame feminism for the pompous idiots whining about a Rosetta scientist’s shirt. True feminism is bigger and better than that". Taylor later made a public apology, saying: "The shirt I wore this week – I made a big mistake, and I offended many people. And I'm very sorry about this".[21][22][23] Some writers expressed appreciation for Taylor's apology.[22][24] Shortly after the controversy broke, a campaign was set up on the crowdfund website Indiegogo, by a woman of the account name Julie M,[25] with the objective of raising $3,000 to buy Taylor a gift, as a token of the public's appreciation for the work that he and the team had done, and also as a means of apology on behalf of the journalists who had berated him in the press.[26] By the time the campaign closed a total of $24,003 had been raised, of which $23,000 was donated to UNAWE at Taylor's request, the remainder going towards a plaque commemorating the mission.[25][27]

If Matt Taylor is the shining example of "PC run amok"... well, that's not a hill I would choose to die on.

 Psienesis wrote:
However, the idea that this was some rabid mob is... extremely misleading, or that Dr. Taylor was drummed out of the business and lives the life of a pariah.

I didn't claim he was drummed out of the business, I think he's kept his head down after the bruhaha. As for "rabid mob" being misleading. . .

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/dr-matt-taylor-apologises-for-sexist-shirt-worn-after-rosetta-comment-landing/story-fn5fsgyc-1227125394120

The shirt prompted a massive backlash on Twitter, with critics saying it was an insult to women in science.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt

The scientist who caused a furore by wearing a sexist shirt as he gave a progress report on the Rosetta mission on Wednesday has made an emotional apology for his “big mistake”

It's undeniable that he was attacked, starting with Chris Plante's article on the Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress

So who's being misleading? I wouldn't die on that hill either

Have to confess though, my favourite PC moment was the misfire by Feministing when they tried to claim the song 'Royals' was racist, leading to a similar backlash
http://feministing.com/2013/10/03/wow-that-lorde-song-royals-is-racist/
http://feministing.com/2013/10/10/a-little-more-on-lorde-royals-and-racism/

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
When that Robertson duck guy said all that stupid gak, the first I heard about it was when people were complaining about the people complaining about what he said.

Sure, but the thing to realise is that because we mostly hear about these complaints through secondary sources we rarely have any decent idea of the number of people who are actually complaining about this. So in both cases we just kind of assume there’s millions of people complaining about, because why else would it be news? What people don’t realise is that actual size or relevance of an issue has very little to do with whether it gets reported.

But whereas millions of people complained, and tens or hundreds of millions more agreed with the complaints about the Duck Dynasty guy, there was a grand total of 1,000 tweets about the guy with the loud shirt. The first was an actual thing, the latter just fething wasn’t.

And yet both get reported, the public assumes complaints about both are more or less equal in size, and the anti-PC crowd remembers the loud shirt thing forever, despite the story being ‘scientist wears ugly shirt, very small number of far left dingbats make bigger deal of ugly shirt than scientist’s achievements’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Loudmouth opinionated jerks on the internet belonging to certain groups have always tried to shout down every other group that they don't agree with. The "PC" crowd is not the only one, they weren't the first, and they won't be the last.

That was a great post. Really well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
...and to be fair, while I hardly thought it was something to get that angry over it was pretty unprofessional. I couldn't wear that shirt to work and I work in an office that's fine with people coming in T-Shirts and flip-flops. Really who could wear that shirt to work and not get in trouble for it, I can't really think of anyone. Secondly the stupid shirt was ugly as gak, it was too busy and prints like that just don't belong on shirts with buttons.

Sure, the shirt was ugly, and arguably unprofessional depending on the expectations of his workplace (science labs seem to sometimes have a whole lot of leeway about that stuff).

But the ugliness of the shirt is the business of him, and his wife who let him leave the house dressed like that. And the unprofessionalism of the shirt is between him and his employer.

And, apparently, it was also the business of about 1,000 people on twitter. And once 1,000 people on twitter complained about something, the whole world had to know.

 sebster wrote:
But whereas millions of people complained, and tens or hundreds of millions more agreed with the complaints about the Duck Dynasty guy, there was a grand total of 1,000 tweets about the guy with the loud shirt. The first was an actual thing, the latter just fething wasn’t.

Proof of your numbers? Because if we're throwing around crazy numbers, I'll say there were trillions of people that complained about the loud shirt. Literally everyone born or due to be born.

Whereas only two (2) people complained about the Duck Dynasty guy, and did half a tweet between them.

 sebster wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
When that Robertson duck guy said all that stupid gak, the first I heard about it was when people were complaining about the people complaining about what he said.

Sure, but the thing to realise is that because we mostly hear about these complaints through secondary sources we rarely have any decent idea of the number of people who are actually complaining about this. So in both cases we just kind of assume there’s millions of people complaining about, because why else would it be news? What people don’t realise is that actual size or relevance of an issue has very little to do with whether it gets reported.

But whereas millions of people complained, and tens or hundreds of millions more agreed with the complaints about the Duck Dynasty guy, there was a grand total of 1,000 tweets about the guy with the loud shirt. The first was an actual thing, the latter just fething wasn’t.

And yet both get reported, the public assumes complaints about both are more or less equal in size, and the anti-PC crowd remembers the loud shirt thing forever, despite the story being ‘scientist wears ugly shirt, very small number of far left dingbats make bigger deal of ugly shirt than scientist’s achievements’.

I'm commenting more on the irony of the the anti-PC shouting being louder than the PC shouting while complaining about how loud the PC shouting is.

Case in point: the initial complaint regarding Roberson's GQ interview was relatively small (and primarily coming from GLAAD) compared to the backlash his suspension created, which included a Facebook page with 1.5 million likes and numerous comments from national politicians supporting him, all in less than a week. On top of that, A&E reneged on his suspension (he was suspended on December 19 and reinstated on December 27) almost immediately. Still, this didn't stop the anti-PC from shouting about how terrible the PC crowd was and it effectively drowned the PC crowd's shouting out.

Much like the Taylor ordeal, the backlash over the backlash was stronger, which is the way it usually seems to play out.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Why did you use outrage in inverted commas? Are you trying to score sarcasm points? It's undeniable he caught flak, and it's undeniable he made a tearful apology to the likes of the perpetually offended.

Because the level of outrage was vastly overstated, by people with an interest in vastly overstating the level of interest. I thought that was obvious, but I guess in future I'll try to be more clear.

Also where are you getting the 1,000 twitter posts only from. Because I've tried to gauge how many tweets there are and it's an inexact science, so please, share your methods. Unless you picked up the 1,000 figure from an article, in which case share it.

Here's the original tweet, look at the number of re-tweets.

Get your facts straight, fella. Anecdotal evidence isn't facts.

fething seriously? You actually raised the Matt Taylor thing. And then you complain about anecdotal evidence. fething wow.

Anyhow, if the hoopla over Matt Taylor doesn't finally get you to understand how overblown the PC thing well then there's no fething hope for you at all. The story, in it's most scandalous and horrible, is that a stupid twitter thing made a man upset enough that he cried, and then went back to be a scientist.

That's not good, but in this thread we have people comparing PC to totalitarianism. It's been called the scourge of the post-modern world. If you actually can't see how deranged that is, well holy gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I didn't claim he was drummed out of the business, I think he's kept his head down after the bruhaha.

Dude, he's a working scientist. He wasn't exactly keeping his head up before the shirt nonsense.

Was this only a twitter thing? Because I have never heard of it before now. Granted, I try to keep my head in the sand with the inter webs.other than dakka and a few news sites and film sites. But everything else is pretty much--I see you, I talk to you. The PC stuff (unless I have to take an online hour and a half course like I did today for title IX regulations) is pretty much non existent in my daily life.

 sebster wrote:
Here's the original tweet, look at the number of re-tweets.

You based the '1,000 twitter posts' on the number of re-tweets on a single tweet? Really?

My apologies, I thought you had actual data. That's on me.

That's not good, but in this thread we have people comparing PC to totalitarianism. It's been called the scourge of the post-modern world. If you actually can't see how deranged that is, well holy gak.

Can you quote where I compared PC to totalitarianism?

If you want to go back, you can see my original point was that rabid mobs are to be feared by everyone, regardless of intent. You went off on a tangent, because the rabid mob was smaller than other rabid mobs, and then made up numbers.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Here's the original tweet, look at the number of re-tweets.

You based the '1,000 twitter posts' on the number of re-tweets on a single tweet? Really?

My apologies, I thought you had actual data. That's on me.

That's not good, but in this thread we have people comparing PC to totalitarianism. It's been called the scourge of the post-modern world. If you actually can't see how deranged that is, well holy gak.

Can you quote where I compared PC to totalitarianism?

If you want to go back, you can see my original point was that rabid mobs are to be feared by everyone, regardless of intent. You went off on a tangent, because the rabid mob was smaller than other rabid mobs, and then made up numbers.

That's not the way tweeting works? Please tell me about how important the twitter tweety tweets and retweets are to your life. I want to understand the youth. Wait. If it involves tweeting, no, I don't. But you can only respond in twelve characters--go!

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's not the way tweeting works? Please tell me about how important the twitter tweety tweets and retweets are to your life. I want to understand the youth. Wait. If it involves tweeting, no, I don't. But you can only respond in twelve characters--go!

Sure, I'll happily explain twitter to you, old timer.

A Tweet is one (1) message. Re-Tweets are other people repeating that Tweet. Someone who writes a Tweet is a Twit.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's not the way tweeting works? Please tell me about how important the twitter tweety tweets and retweets are to your life. I want to understand the youth. Wait. If it involves tweeting, no, I don't. But you can only respond in twelve characters--go!

Sure, I'll happily explain twitter to you, old timer.

A Tweet is one (1) message. Re-Tweets are other people repeating that Tweet. Someone who writes a Tweet is a Twit.

You forgot the hashtag, how will I find it? So the people who used Twitter to magnify the importance of someone who had some problem with someone because of a t-shirt because of a tweeter who had some problem with it is a twit. Got it. Thanks. I think. Not an old timer here, just old enough to recognize the transience of twitter. And to realize that sometimes complex thoughts take more then 128 characters to express. See Kareem Abdul Jabbar 's well reasoned discussion and Trump's twitter response for an example. I would link it but I want to see if the youngsters can find newspapers online anymore.

Pfft, next you'll say MySpace is a fad

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Pfft, next you'll say MySpace is a fad

Edit: a correct response from someone who speaks in twitter language.. .Point made, but did you read the article? Or, do you not need to because #knoyldgisfrdmmys? Wait, that was insensitive and politically incorrect of me? I should change it before the the totalitarian police catch up with me. Because I would hate it if my totalitarian regime would take away my twitters because of PC correctness. #totalirarianism am I doing it right? Is the movement for free speech starting yet?

Are you ok? Because your edits are getting, well. . . I've seen less slippery slopes

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Are you ok? Because your edits are getting, well. . . I've seen less slippery slopes

Yeah, a bit drunk here. But I think the point was made. No? Typing is for the birds. Sometimes we old timers like to make sure we gots all the grammars and ideas right before we sends it out to the interwebs.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Are you ok? Because your edits are getting, well. . . I've seen less slippery slopes

Yeah, a bit drunk here. But I think the point was made. No? Typing is for the birds. Sometimes we old timers like to make sure we gots all the grammars and ideas right.

I'm happy to concede the point to drunk Alf

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Are you ok? Because your edits are getting, well. . . I've seen less slippery slopes

Yeah, a bit drunk here. But I think the point was made. No? Typing is for the birds. Sometimes we old timers like to make sure we gots all the grammars and ideas right.

I'm happy to concede the point to drunk Alf

The hairy fingers do sometimes get in the way. Edit: how do I add those funny ork symbols, ha!

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
You based the '1,000 twitter posts' on the number of re-tweets on a single tweet? Really?

That's the original tweet that started the whole thing. Which I already explained to you.

Can you quote where I compared PC to totalitarianism?

Are you all people now? We have reached the singularity, and VorpalBunny74 is all, and all is VorpalBunny74!

Anyhow, as a reading tip, if someone is talking to you, and they mention something done by ‘people’, they don’t mean you.

If you want to go back, you can see my original point was that rabid mobs are to be feared by everyone, regardless of intent. You went off on a tangent, because the rabid mob was smaller than other rabid mobs

No, my point was that PC is vastly overstated, and nothing compared to the real issues of the world. The fact that one of the most famous PC cases is one guy having a gak week before getting back to life as normal is evidence of my point.

and then made up numbers.

Wow. So you just don't give a feth, huh? Just gonna make your own reality.

 sebster wrote:
That's the original tweet that started the whole thing. Which I already explained to you.

Really?

 sebster wrote:
The ‘outrage’ over that shirt totalled to about a 1,000 twitter posts. That’s it.

So this was the entirety of the outrage, one tweet that was retweeted 1,000 times? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Are you all people now? We have reached the singularity, and VorpalBunny74 is all, and all is VorpalBunny74!

Oh no, I was pointing out you're taking your frustrations with other forum posters on me - thanks for proving my point

No, my point was that PC is vastly overstated, and nothing compared to the real issues of the world. The fact that one of the most famous PC cases is one guy having a gak week before getting back to life as normal is evidence of my point.

One of the most famous PC cases? Did I claim that? It seems you're reaching.

Wow. So you just don't give a feth, huh? Just gonna make your own reality.

You claimed:

 sebster wrote:
But whereas millions of people complained, and tens or hundreds of millions more agreed with the complaints about the Duck Dynasty guy, there was a grand total of 1,000 tweets about the guy with the loud shirt.

You still haven't produced any evidence of your numbers. If you don't have a source, just admit you made the numbers up

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Really?

Yes. She was the tech reporter at the event that posted a picture of the shirt. In her tweet. Which I've shown you.

Oh no, I was pointing out you're taking your frustrations with other forum posters on me - thanks for proving my point

You're not making any sense now. What frustration, with who? Go read my original post, it's exactly what I'm saying to you now. I said that for some reason some people want to make PC to be a lot more than it is, claiming all sorts of crazy nonsense about it. Then you and a few other posters proceded to claim all sorts of crazy nonsense about it. And I said see - there's some of that crazy nonsense.

Then you confused yourself with all people that have been, or ever will be. It's really been quite a strange thread.

One of the most famous PC cases? Did I claim that? It seems you're reaching.

feth if I know. You must have picked it for some reason.

You still haven't produced any evidence of your numbers. If you don't have a source, just admit you made the numbers up

I've given you the fething tweet. There's a picture right there. Holy gak man.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Was this only a twitter thing? Because I have never heard of it before now. Granted, I try to keep my head in the sand with the inter webs.other than dakka and a few news sites and film sites. But everything else is pretty much--I see you, I talk to you. The PC stuff (unless I have to take an online hour and a half course like I did today for title IX regulations) is pretty much non existent in my daily life.

A lot of things are only Twitter things, but the mainstream media sometimes pick them up and run a story because social media is supposed to be a big thing, whereas in reality it is mostly inhabited by PR and Marketing types, and people who haven't got enough work or a proper hobby to do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of things are only Twitter things, but the mainstream media sometimes pick them up and run a story because social media is supposed to be a big thing.

"Hey everybody! What colour do you see this shirt? Is it blue and black, or is it sexist and degrading to women?"

 sebster wrote:
Yes. She was the tech reporter at the event that posted a picture of the shirt. In her tweet. Which I've shown you.

You've shown me one tweet, and claimed that's the whole of the outrage. I've provided two articles from (according to Google News) 4,024 articles, although the link is dead.

Simply put, I don't believe you.

You're not making any sense now. What frustration, with who? Go read my original post, it's exactly what I'm saying to you now. I said that for some reason some people want to make PC to be a lot more than it is, claiming all sorts of crazy nonsense about it. Then you and a few other posters proceded to claim all sorts of crazy nonsense about it. And I said see - there's some of that crazy nonsense.

What did I claim about PC? Now you're just making things up. The only thing I said about PC in this thread was to link to two Feministing articles, and say they're my favourite PC moments. You're wrestling shadows.

I've given you the fething tweet. There's a picture right there. Holy gak man.

I was poking fun at your unsourced millions of billions exaggeration for the Duck Dynasty numbers, not the incorrect 1,000 of tweets figure

Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka.
Reds8n

If I recall corctly that shirt was presented to him by his woman collegaue. She definetly didn't see it as sexist and inapropriate.

Perhaps it was a cunning trap.

Today I learned that the WBC must have thousands upon thousands of active members because that is how many articles there are in the Internet about them.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
You've shown me one tweet, and claimed that's the whole of the outrage. I've provided two articles from (according to Google News) 4,024 articles, although the link is dead.

That tweet, with it's whopping 1,000 retweets was the basis for which the whole narrative of 'people are angry over this guys shirt came from'. Which launched countless articles. Well, apparently 4,000 articles, so I guess it isn't that countless.

But it gets weird when you just assume that every one of those articles was also complaining about the shirt, and not complaining about the complaint.

Nothing scientific, but every article I saw in a major publication was actually an anti-PC complaint, making a big deal about the vast army of 1,000 re-tweets complaining about the shirt, albeit failing to point out that the apparent reaction against the shirt was a whopping 1,000 retweets.

Simply put, I don't believe you.

Believe what? What are you talking about?

I was poking fun at your unsourced millions of billions exaggeration for the Duck Dynasty numbers, not the incorrect 1,000 of tweets figure

You say talk about unsourced exaggeration, and at the same time wildly exaggerate the number I gave. And do it to make some kind of argument about professing doubt that the Duck Dynasty thing was a big deal. Which is both ridiculous, and nothing to do with nothing.

Is this some kind of weird joke? If it is, then I guess you got me, because I never suspected you were just being silly all this time. I still don't get the punchline, though.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
That's the original tweet that started the whole thing. Which I already explained to you.

Really?

 sebster wrote:
The ‘outrage’ over that shirt totalled to about a 1,000 twitter posts. That’s it.

So this was the entirety of the outrage, one tweet that was retweeted 1,000 times? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Are you all people now? We have reached the singularity, and VorpalBunny74 is all, and all is VorpalBunny74!

Oh no, I was pointing out you're taking your frustrations with other forum posters on me - thanks for proving my point

No, my point was that PC is vastly overstated, and nothing compared to the real issues of the world. The fact that one of the most famous PC cases is one guy having a gak week before getting back to life as normal is evidence of my point.

One of the most famous PC cases? Did I claim that? It seems you're reaching.

Wow. So you just don't give a feth, huh? Just gonna make your own reality.

You claimed:

 sebster wrote:
But whereas millions of people complained, and tens or hundreds of millions more agreed with the complaints about the Duck Dynasty guy, there was a grand total of 1,000 tweets about the guy with the loud shirt.

You still haven't produced any evidence of your numbers. If you don't have a source, just admit you made the numbers up

Evidence that further outrage at Matt Taylor's shirt is now required, because the evidence we have indicates that 1132 people (Original + retweets) cared enough to comment about it/share said comment on Twitter.

The Duck Dynasty thing?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/ wrote:The NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson."

That took me 3.2 seconds to find (according to Google). However...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/showbiz/duck-dynasty-suspension/ wrote:But by early Thursday night, more than 70,000 people had signed a change.org petition calling for A&E to bring Robertson back. Similarly, the Facebook page "Bring Back Phil Robertson" had more than 190,000 "likes" by Thursday night.

So we have two groups with a vested interest in being in front of such incidents writing a letter to A&E, with potentially 200k+ people supporting Roberts.

This seems like the "PC" crowd was not the main source of noise in this event. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to find any numbers on the people who reported being "outraged" by Robertson's comments, and extremely easy to find reports from numerous companies where the pro-Robertson crowd weighed in and changed their stance.