Political correctness (or not) on SFN

[Pangloss]

[edit]split from here[/edit]

 

Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning

 

So is your deductive reasoning, then. Halliburton is not an oil company, and its stock rise is due to the fast-track, bidless contracts they received from the Bush administration regarding the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, not the rising price of oil or the reopening of Iraqi oil production, neither of which benefit Halliburton in any way.

 

You would have been better served linking ExxonMobil stock. But then you can't just throw an ellipses after it and auto-link them to the Bush administration, huh?

 

This is what I mean by SFN political correctness, by the way. You can just scream "Hallburton!" and throw an ellipses on the end of a post and nobody on this board challenges your "argument" except for me. That is political correctness, bascule.

[Dak]

It's nothing to do with 'political correctness'. Any way, the important thing is that it does get challenged, not who/how many by.

 

To sort-of continue with that angle: if the war cost the US $1trillion in direct costs, then what was the direct (financial) income from the war? who profited, and by how much? e.g., iirc oil companies changed ownership from iraqi to US companies...

 

If nothing else, if the profit through tax is < $1trillion, it kinda rebukes the 'for the oil' argument (the simple 'so that the US government would financially profit from stealing the oil companies' version at least).

[Pangloss]

It's nothing to do with 'political correctness'. Any way, the important thing is that it does get challenged, not who/how many by.

 

I disagree on both counts. Political correctness is determined by a societal group. We have a societal group here, and it has tendencies and positions, some of which are accepted more than others. That doesn't mean that everyone here agrees on everything, or that we don't listen to people with other opinions, it just means that there's a generally accepted set of positions and arguments, and a wide gray boundary beyond which acceptability rapidly falls off.

 

People who post in that "outside" region aren't hated or kicked from the board, but they most certainly have to deal with a higher number of dissenting replies, some of which often use suprious reasoning and/or disrespect, which often goes undetected because we tend to focus on messages that we agree with (which is normal human behavior).

 

It is, in a pair of words, political correctness. And it overshadows our accomplishments here because it means that certain points of view -- points of view which may be completely valid -- receive poor treatment and disrespect, or perhaps just dismissal and lack of response, which is effectively the same thing. I'm not saying there should be a Mickey Mouse Roll Call every time someone posts something that people may not agree with but can't find enough substance to challenge, but I do think people with contrary points of view don't always get a fair shake.

 

(Note that I'm NOT including somebody like RevPrez in this, for example. He made some great arguments, but it was his personal rudeness that got him kicked.)

[Dak]

[1] We have a societal group here, and it has tendencies and positions, some of which are accepted more than others[....]

 

[2] People who post in that "outside" region aren't hated or kicked from the board, but they most certainly have to deal with a higher number of dissenting replies, some of which often use suprious reasoning and/or disrespect, which often goes undetected [...]

 

2 is just a natural repercussion of 1: pretty much as you said, most people on this board tend to agree in certain areas; hence, if you post a 'dissenting' opinion, you will have a higher number of people argue against you; conversly, if you post something inline with the majority opinion, you will have less people bother to argue against you, even if your logic is shady. it's not "side A's" job to rebuke the arguments of other members of "side A", it's "side B's", even when "side A" outnumbers "side B" heavily.

 

that's not political correctness in as much as it's not 'politically incorrect' to take a dissenting opinion, it's just uncommon, with all the natural repercussions that entails, vis: less people will be on your side.

[Pangloss]

2 is just a natural repercussion of 1: pretty much as you said, most people on this board tend to agree in certain areas; hence, if you post a 'dissenting' opinion, you will have a higher number of people argue against you; conversly, if you post something inline with the majority opinion, you will have less people bother to argue against you, even if your logic is shady. it's not "side A's" job to rebuke the arguments of other members of "side A", it's "side B's", even when "side A" outnumbers "side B" heavily.

 

that's not political correctness in as much as it's not 'politically incorrect' to take a dissenting opinion, it's just uncommon, with all the natural repercussions that entails, vis: less people will be on your side.

 

What's politically correct about it is that when dissenting opinion is raised, it's data efficacy is questioned, it's objectivity is "exposed", it's motivations are "explored", it's poster's goals are interrogated, and so on and so forth. That is political correctness, and that is something that happens here. Not always, but too often.

[iNow]

Nonsense. Are you suggesting that it's "politically correct" when people challenge relativity and they are asked for clear evidence and math in support of their position? Are you suggesting that it's "politically correct" when people say creationism is science and people challenge the faults and mistakes in their claims? Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.

 

The fact that you are challenged so frequently may, just may, have something to do with the fact that you are so frequenly mistaken in your assumptions. Yeah. Go figure.

[Pangloss]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, though I guess I can understand how you got that impression from my last, rather simplified post. I'm not saying that challenging statements or asking for evidence is political correctness, or that it's wrong. What I'm saying is that it has become a predominent trait that unpopular opinions receive higher degrees of negative attention, regardless of whether the poster's opinion is accurate or not.

 

Put another way, just because someone who brings up a subject here cannot defend that subject doesn't mean that they're wrong. If an engineer comes in here and states that gravity is <insert correct value here> and for some reason nobody here believes that value to be correct, and that engineer can't back up that value with a reference source that people agree upon, that does not mean that he has the incorrect value for gravity. It just means HE can't back it up.

 

But all too often these arguments seem to go the way of "well if you can't back it up, then it must not be true, SEEYA CHUMP" followed up with high-fives all around. Not that you nor most people here would ever be so openly crass about it, but there IS often rudeness, there IS often disrespect, and there IS often an assumption that the truth has prevailed, when in fact that's not what happened at all.

 

Such is how global warming is treated at SFN. It's not that you're wrong about it, and for the most part you (iNow) and most others are fairly cordial at least initially towards moderate dissenters. But it is often EXTREMELY difficult for anybody to get a word in edgewise about perfectly legitimate, rational points, such as how the economy might be affected by some of the more drastic suggested actions, or how uncertain some of the declarations are.

 

Also, I have to say that you haven't really been here long enough to pass that kind of judgement about me, iNow (vis-a-vis "so frequently mistaken in your assumptions"). I know you're upset and I recognize that you're not alone in that, but frankly there are plenty of people on this board who know better. My attention to this and other, similar matters goes back several years, and has resulted in specific actions that moderated the presentations of members who still post here, some of whom probably seem quite reasonable to you today, but might not've had you seen them before.

 

I'm sorry to digress this far off the thread subject, by the way, but I felt I had to respond, and not dodge the question by suggesting we take it elsewhere. But I'll happily discuss this subject with anyone, anytime, anywhere. Threads, PMs, the Suggestions board, wherever.

[iNow]

I'm not saying that challenging statements or asking for evidence is political correctness, or that it's wrong. What I'm saying is that it has become a predominent trait that unpopular opinions receive higher degrees of negative attention

Gee... Thanks Captain Obvious. (okay, that's harsh, but come the hell on, man).

 

 

Put another way, just because someone who brings up a subject here cannot defend that subject doesn't mean that they're wrong.

Okay, that's valid, but if they can't defend themselves against the attack their subject receives, why the hell did they bring it up in the first place? If you say something, be prepared to defend it, or don't bring it up. Simple really.

 

 

If an engineer comes in here and states that gravity is <insert correct value here> and for some reason nobody here believes that value to be correct, and that engineer can't back up that value with a reference source that people agree upon, that does not mean that he has the incorrect value for gravity. It just means HE can't back it up.

Okay. It also means that there is literally ZERO reason to abandon the existing position of what the value of G is, there is no reason to walk away from the already accepted value. Come on... really? Is that your argument?

 

 

But all too often these arguments seem to go the way of "well if you can't back it up, then it must not be true, SEEYA CHUMP" followed up with high-fives all around.

That's a strawman, sorry. It does not mean that at all. What it means is, "Hey, you can't back your shit up, so I'm not inclined to believe you. Go do some more work and try again later."

 

 

Not that you nor most people here would ever be so openly crass about it, but there IS often rudeness, there IS often disrespect,

I don't deny that I can be an asshole, but at least I correct myself when proven incorrect.

 

 

Such is how global warming is treated at SFN. It's not that you're wrong about it, and for the most part you (iNow) and most others are fairly cordial at least initially towards moderate dissenters. But it is often EXTREMELY difficult for anybody to get a word in edgewise about perfectly legitimate, rational points, such as how the economy might be affected by some of the more drastic suggested actions, or how uncertain some of the declarations are.

Nonsense. I've explicitly stated how our mitigation of global climate change can result in positive economic effects. Hell, the company who provides my paycheck is an easy example of this. I don't want to say strawman again, but I will say that you appear to be arguing against a situation that is not representative of reality.

 

 

Also, I have to say that you haven't really been here long enough to pass that kind of judgement about me, iNow (vis-a-vis "so frequently mistaken in your assumptions").

Works both ways, mate. You pass judgment on me all the time. Poor you. What am I to do but respond to the posts you make and the words you use...

 

Again, really? Come on...

 

 

I'm sorry to digress this far off the thread subject, by the way, but I felt I had to respond, and not dodge the question by suggesting we take it elsewhere.

You know I charge by the hour, right? At least I have a comfy couch where you can tell me about your dreams...

 

 

Seriously... I'm struggling to understand how you believe so much in your stance yet you can't even stay on topic when arguing your position. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?

 

Yeah... I'm harsh, but get off your soapbox about being attacked and support your position. Maybe if you were making quality arguments you wouldn't feel so alone and isolated all of the time in your position and perspective.

[Pangloss]

That's ok, I'll take harsh with honest at the moment. Let me just reply briefly as I've got to head out.

 

Works both ways, mate. You pass judgment on me all the time.

 

Yes I know, and I'm sorry about that.

 

 

You know I charge by the hour, right? At least I have a comfy couch where you can tell me about your dreams...

 

Rofl. I'll take three more hours, please. Just bill me.

 

 

Seriously... I'm struggling to understand how you believe so much in your stance yet you can't even stay on topic when arguing your position. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?

 

Yeah... I'm harsh, but get off your soapbox about being attacked and support your position. Maybe if you were making quality arguments you wouldn't feel so alone and isolated all of the time in your position and perspective.

 

Well certainly of late I've had a harder time aiming my criticisms accurately, and I've acknowledged that with you privately and with board leadership as well. I think we probably agree more than disagree, but we also have a fundamental difference of opinion about how to handle dissent, and I've undermined my position on that by not treating your arguments fairly.

 

But that doesn't mean that I think we're ultimately at odds -- I think your posts are extremely valuable and inciteful even when I disagree with both your points and your (if I may put it admittedly unfairly for the sake of brevity) underlying desire to run jokers out of town on a rail. The fact that we look at things differently should be a positive rather than a negative, I just haven't been very good at recognizing or supporting that lately.

 

As I've said many times when bringing this issue up amongst mods/admins, I don't think we have a problem with PC here, I just think it is something that happens sometimes (yeah I know, I'm Captain Obvious). At this point it might be best if we moved this to the suggestions board, or private, or some other venue. But I would be happy to discuss it further if any/all are interested.

[ParanoiA]

Nonsense. Pangloss has a tendency to lose confidence when the whole room is against him. He is absolutely right on about political correctness in this forum.

 

Bascule's reponse was the intellectual equivalent of "Oh yeah, well your mama's so fat...". It wasn't a reply to Pangloss's point at all, it was a straight up red herring without any subsequent logical support. And the only person to call him out on it was Pangloss.

 

This board should have been all over that. But nobody cared because the majority of the board believes Halliburton = Evil, Oil = Evil, Bush = Evil and another dozen oversimplified appeals that lack critical thought or analysis. It wasn't challenged because the position matched the board - despite the obvious complete lack of logical association, let alone sound reasoning. Positions are for politicians, I thought this board was about reasoning, logic - the support behind the positions.

 

Who cares if someone's final position matches yours if their reasoning sucks? We may all agree that slavery should be illegal, but if person "A" comes to that conclusion because he thinks blacks are superior to whites, then person "A" is wrong and I'm going to take him to task over it - and I would expect the same from others.

 

I don't know if I've interpreted Pangloss's point correctly or not, but he seems to be saying that dissenters are not "appreciated", but rather are bullied into shutting up. Personally, I appreciate all who disagree with my heavily libertarian-like ideals. It forces me to own up to the faults associated with my reasoning, keeps me honest with myself and actually strengthens my position and my logic supporting it. I want to know that my beliefs are right - that REQUIRES dissenters to challenge them so I can be sure they hold up.

 

There are actually only a small handful of folks all of this is aimed at, and they know who they are. They view any challenge on their beliefs or ideas as a personal affront and consistently go into attack mode. (Reminds me of the "touchy christian" accusation I hear from iNow). As if a right leaning dissenter deserves to be beaten and humiliated, not used for good, logical testing and critical thought exercises. And on a science board no less.

[Dak]

Bascule's reponse was the intellectual equivalent of "Oh yeah, well your mama's so fat...". It wasn't a reply to Pangloss's point at all, it was a straight up red herring without any subsequent logical support. And the only person to call him out on it was Pangloss.

 

so? it's not as if anyone else has joined in against pangloss either.

 

the argument went:

 

sisypus: oil

panglos: (rather cautiously) no evidence of that

bascule: haliburton profited from war

panglos: so? [abridged version]

 

I really don't see anything wrong with that argument, nor the fact that no-one else joined in.

 

Who cares if someone's final position matches yours if their reasoning sucks? We may all agree that slavery should be illegal, but if person "A" comes to that conclusion because he thinks blacks are superior to whites, then person "A" is wrong and I'm going to take him to task over it - and I would expect the same from others.

 

yes, but, at the end of the day people will only argue against what they want to argue against, and that's generally oppinions that are counter to their own. here, the oppinion that blacks are superior is the opposite of mine and your oppinion, so we'd argue against that.

 

If we're just talking crap logic, i'd be quite happy to simply ignore it and have the outnumbered side do the same, or quickly rebuke it with a refference to the fallicy.

[Pangloss]

That's it in a nutshell, ParanoiA, and I appreciate the support. I do understand that silence is not the same thing as agreement (one of the more insidious aspects of online debate), but over time as we've gotten to know one another, it's not hard to spot trends in silence.

 

But I think it's important to keep in mind that while there may be a PC tendency here, that doesn't mean the membership isn't open to reason and discussion. You and I have both had discussions with bascule and iNow and others where we disagreed but managed still to find common ground. That's why I ultimately think this is not so much a problem as just a fact of life.

[bascule]

This is what I mean by SFN political correctness, by the way. You can just scream "Hallburton!" and throw an ellipses on the end of a post and nobody on this board challenges your "argument" except for me. That is political correctness, bascule.

 

So really quick, what identity group is it that I'm seeking to minimize offense to?

 

Unless you're operating under some definition of "political correctness" of which I'm not aware, your usage of the phrase represents a diction error.

 

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

-- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

 

Halliburton is not an oil company

 

Halliburton is the primary employer in my hometown. Why are they there? To extract oil from the massive amounts of shale present in the valley and surrounding canyons my hometown is located in.

 

http://www.halliburton.com/

 

"Halliburton offers a broad array of oilfield technologies and services to upstream oil and gas customers worldwide."

 

"Since 1919, Halliburton has continued to earn the trust of our customers around the world by leading the [oil] well-site services industry through the delivery of innovative technology, reservoir-specific expertise and outstanding service quality. No matter how challenging their technology or service issues may be, our customers know that we will find a way to fulfill on our promise: The [Oil] Reservoir — Delivered."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

 

"Halliburton major business segment is the Energy Services Group (ESG). ESG provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production."

[Saryctos]

Wouldn't this be the inverse of PC?

 

I certainly understand where Pangloss is coming from. I myself just simply don't post because I really don't want to have to put in the effort to argue for my opinion against so many. The effort it takes just isn't worth it. That's why you'll see me pop in and out throwing little drive-by oneliners*. There've been plenty of times where I'll write up a post, sit there thinking about what parts weren't worded perfectly, and how I'd need to go find a source to make up for it, then just delete my post and move on. This could be part of my own personal shortcomings, but it certainly seems like the board itself has had some influence on it in recent months.

[Pangloss]

So really quick' date=' what identity group is it that I'm seeking to minimize offense to?

 

Unless you're operating under some definition of "political correctness" of which I'm not aware, your usage of the phrase represents a diction error.

 

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

-- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride[/quote']

 

The group is SFN membership, and I've demonstrated your second paragraph above to be false.

 

The redefinition of political correctness as an objective, independent measurement has become a politically correct meme itself here, as exhibited by the quote in the post above. That quote is intended to resonate with members covertly at my expense. In other words, a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

[swansont]

I don't see how, if Alice states an opinion, and Bob agrees with it, that Bob is obligated to "challenge" Alice's argument. If Alice states a fact, and Bob does not have a reason to suspect it to be incorrect, I don't think he has an obligation to challenge it. The demographics involved here have nothing to do with political correctness; I think that term has been overused. As far as I am aware, political correctness is about certain opinions not being deemed acceptable and certain "facts" that are not allowed to be questioned (something with which I happen to disagree). The existence of a (for example) 4:1 difference of opinion on a topic is not political correctness — that would be the case if the one were not allowed to present a dissenting view.

 

If someone challenges a statement of fact or scientific conclusion, the default response cannot be an accusation of political correctness. In that context it's a strawman, red herring and/or ad hominem — a diversionary statement that is meant to absolve the original poster of an obligation to defend their statement. Such use of logical fallacies cannot be permitted.

 

Global warming has been offered up as one example, and the difficulty here is that discussion of GW involve both opinion and facts, and the line gets blurred. There are politically correct stances in some of these issues, but there have also been accusations of PC-ness when people have been asking for (or, as it often becomes, demanding) some substantial evidence to back up a scientific claim. The counterexample of relativity is a good one, IMO, because there really isn't any sociopolitical baggage there. When someone pops up and makes some crackpot claim about relativity, and five or six people respond, poking holes in the argument, there aren't any claims of PC-ness (except, perhaps, by the crackpot, when he claims that we've all been indoctrinated by the dogma of physics). because it's not there — any scientific claim can be questioned, and the basis of that is science, not political correctness.

[bascule]

The group is SFN membership

 

In what way am I minimizing offense to SFN membership? How is SFN membership even an "identity group"?

 

and I've demonstrated your second paragraph above to be false.

 

Where? I'm not seeing it. Can you post a link to an authoritative source? An encyclopedia? A dictionary?

 

And, for that matter, can you state your personal definition of what "political correctness" means?

[swansont]

That quote is intended to resonate with members covertly at my expense.

 

IMO, assumption of motive is another thing that falls under the category of "should not appear in arguments." It's another diversionary tactic that detracts from useful exchange of ideas.

[Pangloss]

In what way am I minimizing offense to SFN membership? How is SFN membership even an "identity group"?

 

I think you're playing to the SFN choir when you post something like you did above. It's an identity group in a very real way -- people interested in science and deductive reasoning and discussion along those lines. In our case the majority of those people lead by key heavy posters have arrived at specific conclusion sets, which are politically more acceptable than others.

 

 

And, for that matter, can you state your personal definition of what "political correctness" means?

 

Copied from post #3 in this thread:

 

Political correctness is determined by a societal group. We have a societal group here, and it has tendencies and positions, some of which are accepted more than others. That doesn't mean that everyone here agrees on everything, or that we don't listen to people with other opinions, it just means that there's a generally accepted set of positions and arguments, and a wide gray boundary beyond which acceptability rapidly falls off.

 

 

 

Where? I'm not seeing it. Can you post a link to an authoritative source? An encyclopedia? A dictionary?

 

Can you? It's not an authoritatively defined concept, bascule, and you are the ones trying to tell us that it has been defined, and that my definition is wrong. Why is the onus of proof on me?

 

But we can look at some common sources, sure:

 

The wikipedia (not an academic source, but it appears to be the definition you used when framing your questions):

 

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Conversely, the term politically incorrect is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

 

Do you agree with that definition? The language suggests it was the one you were thinking of earlier when you mentioned "minimizing offense", and you asked me about specific identity groups, so I'm guessing you've read this and that it's acceptable?

 

So how is it inconsistent with my usage, Mr. Montoya? I think it's very consistent with what I've been saying. The last sentence, which specifically refers to political incorrectness, is revealing, saying that it is used to refer to ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy. In this societal group, the orthodoxy is a list of generally-accepted subjects, such as "global warming is caused by humans", or "Iraq is a disaster".

 

Again, that doesn't mean that all members agree on those issues, it just means that certain issues generate more negative response than others, regardless of the accuracy of the stated positions. Good luck suggesting that humans may not be the cause global warming here (a perfectly defendable position), for example -- you'll be run out of town on a rail. And yet those positions are accepted elsewhere, and in scientific discourse and investigation. Just not here.

 

In a pair of words, political correctness. Q.E.D.

 

 

I don't see how, if Alice states an opinion, and Bob agrees with it, that Bob is obligated to "challenge" Alice's argument.

 

He isn't, I absolutely agree. I'm talking about long-term trends and generalizations here. I'm not accusing "Bob", I'm saying that we have an institutional situation that has developed quite reasonably and logically over time, based on the evolving membership.

 

It probably has a lot to do with the current predominence of left-of-center political thinking amongst scientists and engineers, a generally-accepted supposition that has been discussed here at SFN several times (with one long-time member even posting scientific studies proporting to "prove scientifically" that liberalism is the more logical and scientific position!). Whether that makes sense or not (ever talk to a tree-hugger?) is a legitimate question, but there seems to be no doubt about leftist trending, at least in so far as things can be measured in that one axis (another good debate, but irrelevent at the moment).

 

It seems to me that people accept things along peer-group lines, and they sometimes dislike and resent dissention inside those peer groups. It's just my opinion, and I think it's just human nature.

 

 

If someone challenges a statement of fact or scientific conclusion, the default response cannot be an accusation of political correctness. In that context it's a strawman, red herring and/or ad hominem — a diversionary statement that is meant to absolve the original poster of an obligation to defend their statement. Such use of logical fallacies cannot be permitted.

 

I agree, and I've made that mistake in the past, and I've been corrected on it. I don't believe it is at issue in the current discussion. It is not my suggestion that challenging facts is an example of political correctness, and I've stated such in this thread already.

 

Incidentally, I'm sure you just missed it when I stated it before, but hypothetically speaking, if someone knows that's my position, and then makes the above statement anyway, knowing it's not my position, then that is also a strawman. But again, I don't mean you.

 

 

Global warming has been offered up as one example, and the difficulty here is that discussion of GW involve both opinion and facts, and the line gets blurred. There are politically correct stances in some of these issues, but there have also been accusations of PC-ness when people have been asking for (or, as it often becomes, demanding) some substantial evidence to back up a scientific claim.

 

I think that's a very astute point, and I've highlighted in bold above a couple of things that are frequently overlooked in GW discussion here. I think you've done an admirable job bringing moderacy back into those discussions.

 

But yes, I do agree with your final (and perhaps your main) point above about how "PC" has been used by both sides as (am I correct in this rephrase?) an accusation and a pejorative.

 

I agree with the relativity example, and I think the Pseudoscience board is one of our most valuable resources. The separation of that area could be construed (for example by frequent posters in that area) as political correctness, and they would not be far wrong, but it is what I would consider to be legitimate, because it's what we SAY we're going to do. It is consistent with our purpose here.

 

The stuff I'm talking about is really not. Though again, I don't really consider it to be seriously problematical either. It's there, it's worth pointing out on occassion, but it's not insurmountably detrimental to the quality of discourse here.

 

IMO, assumption of motive is another thing that falls under the category of "should not appear in arguments." It's another diversionary tactic that detracts from useful exchange of ideas.

 

And yet, you responded to my post, not bascule's, in spite of this sequence of events:

 

Bascule: You're using a statement incorrectly! Here's a little joke about that from a common movie we've all seen. Isn't that funny?

 

Pangloss: That quote is intended to resonate with members covertly at my expense.

 

Swantont (am I paraphrasing you correctly?): PANGLOSS, you're assuming something about Bascule's argument that may or may not be there.

 

You really don't see why anybody should have an issue with that sequence of events?

[Reaper]

Pangloss, I do have to ask this now that this topic has been brought up. Why do you seem to scream "political correctness" every time someone doesn't agree with what the current opinions/actions of the government, military, public policy, etc. is? Or when knowledgeable people come in and attempt to correct misconceptions that people might have (or squash erroneous arguments)?

 

It seems like you are just slapping that label around so that you can avoid actually having to counter their points....

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, I do have to ask this now that this topic has been brought up. Why do you seem to scream "political correctness" every time someone doesn't agree with what the current opinions/actions of the government, military, public policy, etc. is? Or when knowledgeable people come in and attempt to correct misconceptions that people might have (or squash erroneous arguments)?

 

It seems like you are just slapping that label around so that you can avoid actually having to counter their points....

 

I don't know why it seems that way to you, but I think I've answered every question that's been put to me on this subject in great detail. If there's something I've missed or overlooked please feel free to bring it to my attention.

[bascule]

It's not an authoritatively defined concept, bascule

 

What bullshit are you on about now? (that un-PC enough for you?)

 

Let's try:

 

politically correct

adj. (Abbr. PC)

 

1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

 

political correctness

 

Term' date=' originally derisive, but accepted by some of its targets, for an influential movement on US campuses beginning in the late 1980s. Appealing to the principle of affirmative action and to various understandings of‘multiculturalism’, the movement for political correctness sought changes in undergraduate curricula to emphasize the roles of women, non-white people, and homosexuals in history and culture, and attacked the domination of ‘Western’ culture by dead white European males. It promoted anti-sexist and anti-racist speech and behaviour codes, which opponents denounced as illiberal.[/quote']

 

Sounds like it's been "formally defined" to me, unless you think Oxford isn't an authoritative source on the matter.

 

Do you agree with that definition? The language suggests it was the one you were thinking of earlier when you mentioned "minimizing offense", and you asked me about specific identity groups, so I'm guessing you've read this and that it's acceptable?

 

No. You're using it here to mean "expressing ideas the majority of the community agrees with", I guess with the implication that saying things they disagree with would be offensive and therefore politically incorrect.

 

However, I'm not expressing these ideas for the sole purpose of being inoffensive to the SFN community. That's the last thing on my mind... seriously. I obviously have no trouble offending you. So how the hell am I being politically correct?

 

That seems to be what you think is going on, that this is some sort of big jerk circle, and we just say these things to make everyone else happy. Sorry, that's not what's going on.

 

Again, that doesn't mean that all members agree on those issues, it just means that certain issues generate more negative response than others, regardless of the accuracy of the stated positions. Good luck suggesting that humans may not be the cause global warming here (a perfectly defendable position), for example -- you'll be run out of town on a rail. And yet those positions are accepted elsewhere, and in scientific discourse and investigation. Just not here.

 

What are you talking about? There's ongoing threads in which people have challenged all sorts of aspects of global warming, presenting evidence. Other people present counterevidence. They don't get "run out of town on a rail". Look at SkepticLance.

 

Pangloss, what is this all about? It seems like you're whining because you're opinions make you something of a pariah around here, and you really don't like that.

 

It seems as if you want people around here to stop saying things which are directly offensive to you and your minority opinions. If that's really the case, what you're doing is asking us to be politically correct.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I would personally be rather disturbed if people stopped agreeing with other people when they share viewpoints, and if they stopped disagreeing with people who disagree with them.

 

I am currently, however, most disturbed by the assumptions of motive being used. Perhaps I will make an amendment to the forum rules: "Assume good faith."

[Pangloss]

Bascule, you've inserted "political correctness" in the place of the phrase that I've been using, which is "political incorrectness". I don't care why you're posting, or whether you're trying not to offend a social group. I care why you're trying to offend (a different) one.

 

And that was an extremely rude reply, which I don't think was warranted at all. I've been forthright, impersonal and inoffensive in this thread, and you're attacking me on a personal level in response.

 

What bullshit are you on about now?

 

It seems like you're whining

 

Am I just failing to assume good faith here, Cap'n? Really?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Bascule, you've inserted "political correctness" in the place of the phrase that I've been using, which is "political incorrectness".

That's not the phrase you've been using it. The last time you used the word "incorrectness" on SFN was in October 2007.

 

Am I just failing to assume good faith here, Cap'n? Really?

That's not "just" what you're doing, but you do tend to assume others have motives and agendas that they may well not have.