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.

Thoughts?

http://bigthink.com/videos/slavoj-zizek-political-correctness-is-fake

Slavoj Žižek doesn't buy into political correctness. In fact, it frightens him. The famed philosopher and social critic describes political correctness as a tacit form of totalitarianism, an act of coercion built upon the premise that "I know better than you what you really want." This isn't to say that people should be allowed to go around treating others poorly, but Žižek argues that employing coercion and scare tactics to instill a state of forced behavior completely missed the point. To Žižek, the kinds of obscenity targeted by political correctness are much more effective at breeding a sense of shared solidarity than most alternatives.

Please don't just include a link in the OP. Text added, video available at link, motyak

But what would the so-called post-modern non-authoritarian father do? I know because I experienced it. He would have said something like this, "You know how much your grandmother loves you, but nonetheless I’m not forcing you to visit her. You should only visit her if you freely decide to do it." Now every child knows that beneath the appearance of free choice there is a much stronger pressure in this second message.

Wow, that is so true.

PC is evil. But we already knew that, didn't we? PC doesn't take away any issues, it just beats it down until it can no longer be contained, at which point it will come squirting out in a shower of trouble.

And since PC is rather one-sided, I always wondered if it doesn't actually add to the division and antagonism. I think I agree with this guy very much.
Besides from that, I wonder how '[see forum posting rules]' or 'negroe' is any more offensive than 'black' considering it means exactly the same thing. African-Americans seems much more offensive, because it implies they are not true Americans. I guess it won't be long before you guys will have to search for yet another new word to refer to your dark-skinned countrymen.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But what would the so-called post-modern non-authoritarian father do? I know because I experienced it. He would have said something like this, "You know how much your grandmother loves you, but nonetheless I’m not forcing you to visit her. You should only visit her if you freely decide to do it." Now every child knows that beneath the appearance of free choice there is a much stronger pressure in this second message.

Wow, that is so true.

PC is evil. But we already knew that, didn't we? PC doesn't take away any issues, it just beats it down until it can no longer be contained, at which point it will come squirting out in a shower of trouble.

And since PC is rather one-sided, I always wondered if it doesn't actually add to the division and antagonism. I think I agree with this guy very much.
Besides from that, I wonder how '[see forum posting rules]' or 'negroe' is any more offensive than 'black' considering it means exactly the same thing. African-Americans seems much more offensive, because it implies they are not true Americans. I guess it won't be long before you guys will have to search for yet another new word to refer to your dark-skinned countrymen.

I'm agreeing with Zizek and Iron_Captain here. PC rhetoric does create barriers under the auspices of inclusiveness, and can be VERY underhandedly manipulative. I have a colleague who is adept at it, and I've seen people agreeing with him against their better judgement. Not that his argument has superlative value, only that he mires people in moral quandaries. That's dangerous.

Ironically oppressive for somebody who preaches inclusiveness.
What are your thought OP?

Thanks for posting this.

I've always found African-American to be such a weird term. If someone went to America a slave, and was freed 200 years ago, and started their own family, are they not simply American? Why the weird emphasis on their ancient ancestral heritage? If I managed to become an American citizen, would my future children be English-American, or American?

 -Shrike- wrote:
I've always found African-American to be such a weird term. If someone went to America a slave, and was freed 200 years ago, and started their own family, are they not simply American? Why the weird emphasis on their ancient ancestral heritage? If I managed to become an American citizen, would my future children be English-American, or American?

Why does half of the US suddenly become "Irish-American" on Saint Paddy's Day?

It's because Americans want to claim a culture that isn't just fast-food joints and WalMart, NASCAR and professional sports. As far as the use of "Black" goes? Even native-born Africans residing in Africa use the term. It's simply a descriptor in English. There is, however, a distinction made (by Africans) between African Blacks and American Blacks, at least in my experience, and I've worked with a rather large number of people from Somalia, South Africa, and Nairobi. I won't pretend to understand the nuances of the distinction, or what led to it, but it's most certainly there.

The famed philosopher and social critic describes political correctness as a tacit form of totalitarianism

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Thoughts?

I think that word does not mean what he thinks it means.

Ouze wrote:

The famed philosopher and social critic describes political correctness as a tacit form of totalitarianism

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Thoughts?

I think that word does not mean what he thinks it means.

Care to explain your point? Or at least which word is being misused? Because all of them seem to mean what I, at least, think they mean in those sentences.

Totalitarianism is a system in which the people hold very little to no control, such as a dictatorship. Political correctness is social pressure that is generated from the people, and perpetuated by media institutions. It's almost totally the opposite of totalitarianism. TLDR people aren't being prosecuted or sanctioned by the state for saying things that aren't politically correct and if you want to criticize it you should probably make anti-groupthink arguments.

 Psienesis wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I've always found African-American to be such a weird term. If someone went to America a slave, and was freed 200 years ago, and started their own family, are they not simply American? Why the weird emphasis on their ancient ancestral heritage? If I managed to become an American citizen, would my future children be English-American, or American?

Why does half of the US suddenly become "Irish-American" on Saint Paddy's Day?

I don't know, that's an interesting question, especially in light of the fact that there are more Americans with German ancestry than any other ethnic group.

"Political correctness" is a term mostly used as a term by people who want to be racist, homophobic or sexist to attack people who criticise them. Yes, there are people who are overly sensitive, but my experience has been that there is far more of a problem with people being upset when society deams their views wrong.

Being white and male I can't speak with much authority on how much racism and sexism still exist (although I have seen examples of both), but what I do know about is disability. I have seen people attack political correctness for not being able to use terms like "cripple" and "spastic", both very offensive terms, which were in common use not that long ago. Also, much of the issue seems to be in the minds of the media. Like complaining about "Health and safety". Except "Political correctness" is not a law or regulation, there are no bounds to it, just a word to describe treating people appropriately, or an excuse when it is taken it to far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I've always found African-American to be such a weird term. If someone went to America a slave, and was freed 200 years ago, and started their own family, are they not simply American? Why the weird emphasis on their ancient ancestral heritage? If I managed to become an American citizen, would my future children be English-American, or American?

African American started, as far as I know, because the term "black" had very negative connotations in the U.S. Until very recently. Don't forget segregation was still in force in parts of the U.S. within living memory. "No Blacks" "no coloured" and "whites only" signs would have been a common sight to some people when they were young. Hence the civil rights movement wanting another term for self identification. One that was not focused on skin colour but on heratige.

 Steve steveson wrote:
African American started, as far as I know, because the term "black" had very negative connotations in the U.S. Until very recently. Don't forget segregation was still in force in parts of the U.S. within living memory. "No Blacks" "no coloured" and "whites only" signs would have been a common sight to some people when they were young. Hence the civil rights movement wanting another term for self identification. One that was not focused on skin colour but on heratige.

The US wasn't the only place



So was African-British ever a thing?

Ouze wrote:
Totalitarianism is a system in which the people hold very little to no control, such as a dictatorship. Political correctness is social pressure that is generated from the people, and perpetuated by media institutions. It's almost totally the opposite of totalitarianism. TLDR people aren't being prosecuted or sanctioned by the state for saying things that aren't politically correct and if you want to criticize it you should probably make anti-groupthink arguments.

Yet totalitarian regimes will collapse given lack of support. All are also controlled by a small cadre of people, who often rose to power with popular support (Looking at you, Communists and Nazis). So, while the small group at the top controls things, they require the silent support or tolerance of the masses. They also have a tendency to unite people by demonizing a specific demographic (Jews/the Bourgeois).

Now, look at political correctness. You have a small group of vocal Social Justice Warriors leading the push (Check: Party). These are tacitly supported by the masses ("I'm not racist/sexist/ableist/etc., so I support this group!). They have a demonized group (White Males).

So, I think that yes, this is a perfectly acceptable comparison to make.

Duh.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
You have a small group of vocal Social Justice Warriors leading the push

Not being cool to call minorities racial slurs or referring to the handicapped offensively has been around long before the term 'social justice warrior' was created and turned into a way to try and shut down conversations.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
These are tacitly supported by the masses ("I'm not racist/sexist/ableist/etc., so I support this group!).

If anything you have it backwards; the masses have determined that it is a bad idea, not the other way around.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
They have a demonized group (White Males).

Only the really sensitive white males that see any encroachment on their power as 'demonetization'. If you continually treat a small section of the internet as the truth, either way, then you are bound to have some problems with the issue.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
So, I think that yes, this is a perfectly acceptable comparison to make.

All you have to do is fundamentally misunderstand the issue and suddenly it works.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
You have a small group of vocal Social Justice Warriors leading the push

Not being cool to call minorities racial slurs or referring to the handicapped offensively has been around long before the term 'social justice warrior' was created and turned into a way to try and shut down conversations.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
These are tacitly supported by the masses ("I'm not racist/sexist/ableist/etc., so I support this group!).

If anything you have it backwards; the masses have determined that it is a bad idea, not the other way around.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
They have a demonized group (White Males).

Only the really sensitive white males that see any encroachment on their power as 'demonetization'. If you continually treat a small section of the internet as the truth, either way, then you are bound to have some problems with the issue.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
So, I think that yes, this is a perfectly acceptable comparison to make.

All you have to do is fundamentally misunderstand the issue and suddenly it works.

I shall make no assertion as to the absolute truth of any of these claims. I merely observe that they may be drawn in a rough sense at least. As such, discarding a claim that "Political correctness is subtle totalitarianism", because you think they are using totalitarianism wrong, would be imprudent. Instead, if we have any self-awareness, we should acknowledge that a tenuous comparison can be drawn, and examine if it goes deeper. Once examined, we may accept or reject it as desired.

To play Devils advocate:

1) I have seen SJW used less to shut down conversation than as a label for a group of highly aggressive, privileged proponents of political correctness. At the same time, I hear people on the opposite side try to shut down or derail the debate by relying on the latest in Buzzwords, insisting on using rarely heard alternate pronouns (such as "Zir"), or just flat out state "You are either with us or a racist/misogynist/rape apologist". Now, "Social Justice Warrior" could be used as a label of "Ignore that person", but I've also had people tell me that, as a straight, white, cis, not-Irish, middle-class male that I cannot talk about issues unless I'm agreeing with someone who isn't one of those things. What I'm saying is, sophists on both sides of an issue will try to use labels to shut it down.

2) I rarely see people get called Social Justice Warriors for saying "Don't call homosexuals [About six words I can't get through Dakkas swear filter]". Instead, I see it latch on to people who insist that we say cis-gender in conversations unrelated to transexual issues, get offended when you say "they" instead of "zir", flip when it is even suggested that poorer communities may have internal problems that cannot be magically solved from the outside, and sue for harassment when someone says that they overreacted to some splinter of the whole Gammergate affair.

3) I assume that by bad idea you mean racism, sexism and homophobia, and not Political correctness? I honestly think that you give the mob too much credit.

4) Throughout history, the average white male didn't have much power. Quite often, what we see as privilege (for example, men working in the field of their choosing) was at the time seen as a duty (having to pay for a wife and children). Quite often, the power advantages belonged to the Wealthy Landowners, who just happened to be white men for most of European history.

The devil doesn't need an advocate.

I read through the transcript and what I took away was that he thinks making "un-PC" jokes brings people together. The part that should have been there, but wasn't, is that un-PC jokes mainly bring people together when they don't invoke existing oppressions. If you're on an equal field, sure, that sort of thing can be good-natured. If you're not then it doesn't work in the same way, because the joke of one of the participants is empowered by a huge heap of actual oppression.

Also, I'm pretty sure mutual insults aren't the only, or surest, way to build rapport with people.

 Ahtman wrote:
Not being cool to call minorities racial slurs or referring to the handicapped offensively has been around long before the term 'social justice warrior' was created and turned into a way to try and shut down conversations.

I think it was more coined to refer to people like this or the genius that brought this complaint.

I think the latter is exactly the sort of thing the author is talking about. It's an attempt at backdoor censorship, an attempt to chill speech one doesn't like, because it doesn't fit with one's sociopolitical views. Is it becoming more common? I've noticed more stories about it lately, and I don't like it.

The crusade many people want to have against this vague PC thing is quite ridiculous. The term is so vague to be almost entirely meaningless, and its impact in almost all cases is nothing more than a brief, albeit sanctimonious lecture. At its absolute worst, we have a handful of ostracised people, and a couple of people pressured out of jobs. This is not good, but it's nothing compared to what institutionalised poverty and racism does to people, let alone compared to the oppressive regimes of the world.

So why the fuss and bother? What would cause a philosopher who's pretty well respected, in Marxist circles anyway, to compare PC to a real and vast evil like totalitarianism? What would cause a poster here in this thread to claim that it's all about demonising white males and comparing them to the oppression suffered by the Jews? Why such ridiculous hyperbole?

I think the answer is pretty simple - we need something to crusade against, and crusading against real evils is not easy, and sometimes really scary. For instance, we all hate that slavery still exists, but there’s nothing we can actually do about that gives us a real feeling of meaning. And then if we come across something where we can make a difference, then there’s generally a real risk for doing the right thing. Faced with possible repercussions, either personal, material or physical, most of us don’t act like heroes, we go along to get along.

But at the same time, we all want the dream of bravely standing up for our principles. So the best way to reconcile our dream of heroism with the realities of how we actually live, we make little fantasies of standing up against something benign, maybe even something that doesn’t really exist. People signed shared that stupid Kony thing, because they got to feel like they were standing up against evil, without actually having to be heroic. Standing up against PC is the same. You can tell a crude joke to your mates, and when everyone laughs you can pat each other on the back for being so politically incorrect.

The funny thing is, I think much the same dynamic actually produces the worst parts of PC. The people on the internet that raise a whole lot of fuss and get corporations to fire executives who gave money to anti-gay marriage causes are basically doing the same thing. They’re making themselves out to be heroes by taking on a risk free crusade.

So why the fuss and bother? What would cause a philosopher who's pretty well respected, in Marxist circles anyway, to compare PC to a real and vast evil like totalitarianism?

The masses in pursuit of political correctness demand a ban on any sort of art/speech (or establishment of a strict criteria that "artist" needs to follow) that could potentially offend any party, re-write of historical events to fit in the idea of present day political correctness. The government surrenders to the pressure.

 Knight wrote:
The masses in pursuit of political correctness demand a ban on any sort of art/speech (or establishment of a strict criteria that "artist" needs to follow) that could potentially offend any party, re-write of historical events to fit in the idea of present day political correctness. The government surrenders to the pressure.

So the government answers to the people's wishes? Definitely sounds like totalitarianism to me. Right out of the ol' Kim Jong-un playbook right there.

 Ouze wrote:
So the government answers to the people's wishes? Definitely sounds like totalitarianism to me. Right out of the ol' Kim Jong-un playbook right there.

You're assuming Zizek was talking about the government being the ones in control. I've not had a chance to watch the video yet, but from what I've read here, and my own understanding of all this, it seems like he is suggesting that the groups pushing political correctness on everyone are the oppressors in this sense

And that takes us back to the beginning of the thread. Political correctness - whatever that means - isn't pushed with force of law. No one gets arrested, at least in the US, for unpopular speech. It's driven by social pressures.

When some prominent duck hillbilly makes an idiotic comment about the gays, and the public has an outcry and then stupid duck hillbilly guy loses his show or his endorsements for camouflage buttplugs or what have you, that is power coming from the masses. Not driven from the top regardless of the wishes of everyone.

Again, the will of the masses being instituted either officially or unofficially is pretty much the polar opposite of totalitarianism.

Ultimately, it's pretty hard to discuss this because the concept of "politically correct" is so vague and undefined.

Is it the masses? Or is a vocal minority? As he said in the video with the joke with the deaf bloke, one interfering bystander got involved and pushed her view. In the articles linked above it was one or two people pushing their view

So no one else present had any agency whatsoever?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
African American started, as far as I know, because the term "black" had very negative connotations in the U.S. Until very recently. Don't forget segregation was still in force in parts of the U.S. within living memory. "No Blacks" "no coloured" and "whites only" signs would have been a common sight to some people when they were young. Hence the civil rights movement wanting another term for self identification. One that was not focused on skin colour but on heratige.

The US wasn't the only place



So was African-British ever a thing?

We had segregation to a much lesser extent and for a much shorter time, but the term Afro-Caribbean is probably equivalent. Another major difference being that most people chose to come to the UK. Very few people came to the UK as slaves, most came by choice in the 60s and 70s, from our ex colonies, so the issues were very different in the UK, as was the self identification.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Thoughts?

http://bigthink.com/videos/slavoj-zizek-political-correctness-is-fake

Slavoj Žižek doesn't buy into political correctness. In fact, it frightens him. The famed philosopher and social critic describes political correctness as a tacit form of totalitarianism, an act of coercion built upon the premise that "I know better than you what you really want." This isn't to say that people should be allowed to go around treating others poorly, but Žižek argues that employing coercion and scare tactics to instill a state of forced behavior completely missed the point. To Žižek, the kinds of obscenity targeted by political correctness are much more effective at breeding a sense of shared solidarity than most alternatives.

Please don't just include a link in the OP. Text added, video available at link, motyak

I have been saying this for years.

PC is not only a societal evil, I will go further, it is often intentional cultivated as to its end as a means of social control.

 Ahtman wrote:
Not being cool to call minorities racial slurs or referring to the handicapped offensively has been around long before the term 'social justice warrior' was created and turned into a way to try and shut down conversations.

But that's not what they do.

"Don't use racial slurs" morphed into "White people are all racists, and POC can never be racist. Ever!"
"Don't refer to the handicapped offensively" morphed into "Don't ever use words like 'blind', 'stupid', 'slow', 'idiot' at any point in conversation because that's ableist!"

And it applies to just about anything SJW's bang on about.

"Don't dilute the cultures of other people" morphed into "Eating Italian food is cultural appropriation! Only eat your own culture's food!"
"Perhaps we should allow others to share their own experiences" morphed into "If you're not a woman/black/trans/whatever you cannot ever speak about women's/black/trans issues. Ever!"
"We should respect people's sexual preference" morphed into "I'm a polyamorous demisexual*! Making up words is FUN!"
"Transexuals are people too, and we should treat them with respect!" morphed into "I'm a demiboy dragonkin and how dare you try to tell me that I'm not part wolf!"
"Have a positive attitude towards your body" morphed into "I'm 400 pounds and I'm fething beautiful! How dare you fat shame me for eating my 7th Big Mac in a row!"


... and on and on it goes. And that's before we even get into the reclassification of "sexual harassment" to include things such as brushing past someone by accident, or the fabrication of gendered terms to describe completely mundane things ("manspreading", etc.).

It's another form of extremism, only rather than being Bible-thumping anti-abortionists "MAH GUN RIGHTS!" nut-cases or Allahu Akbar human bombs, it is instead women with odd coloured hair and stupid piercing screaming "1 in 5" and "The patriarchy!".


*Yes, I know that's contradictory.

Nothing you said contradicts that the idiots who go that route are an extremist minority, nor that they created the idea of being PC. They just seem louder because people talk about thier idiocy more often and generally that is what the internet does: it gives small groups a megaphone. Their may be an issue of entitlement among some thinking they are never allowed to be offended but that isn't the same as political correctness, which both ends of the spectrum are trying hard to reclassify for their own ends.

 Ahtman wrote:
Nothing you said contradicts that the idiots who go that route are an extremist minority, nor that they created the idea of being PC. They just seem louder because people talk about thier idiocy more often and generally that is what the internet does: it gives small groups a megaphone. Their may be an issue of entitlement among some thinking they are never allowed to be offended but that isn't the same as political correctness, which both ends of the spectrum are trying hard to reclassify for their own ends.

Yea most of the time the backlash towards someone like a comedian or artist is often short lived as well. Those people and the internet in general have a short attention span.

PC is the biggest bane we have in post-modern societies and is the most dangerous threat to freedom of speech.

PC in itself is very important, but the problem is what people make out of it. In many cases, people oppress others / their respective opinions by claiming a violation of PC and an offense when in fact there is none. RE: tumblr. If PC makes you feel uncomfortable about a joke in modern media such as video games, then PC has gone too far and threatens freedom of speech. PC should make people be aware of problematic behavior, right now, it's making people turn away from discussing said thing altogether - which is a terrible idea and goes against everything freedom stands for. People are afraid to speak out and people who abuse PC never learn to deal with problems which leads to them being even more pitiful than they were before.

In the end, most PC issues nowadays would be better solved by just throwing a "Deal with it" at people's faces.