Political correctness (or not) on SFN

[bascule]

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.

 

Okay, so now you're mad at me for being politically incorrect? Wow, I feel like Bill Maher.

 

So who's being politically correct here? It still looks like... you.

 

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.

 

I'm sorry, have I offended you? Maybe I should be more politically correct in the future.

[Pangloss]

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

 

I'm talking about how they're defined.

 

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 ((Presumably where Bascule collected the phrase for his question.)). Conversely, the term politically incorrect is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy ((how I've been using this concept)).

 

 

 

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.

 

Fine, but it's a straw man in present context, if the purpose is to use it to dismiss my entire argument. Either I'm making my case on an objective basis, regardless of what I may or may not have done in the past, or I am not.

 

And I note for the record that Bascule used rudeness multiple times in this thread, and was not challenged for it by anyone other than myself and ParanoiA.

[bascule]

And I note for the record that Bascule used rudeness multiple times in this thread

 

And apparently you're missing the irony of me being rude in a thread where you've singled me out and accused me of political correctness. You think political correctness is bad, but dislike rudeness... which I guess further proves that you have no idea what political correctness actually means.

 

Pangloss, I hate political correctness. I call African-American people "blacks". I call Jewish people "Jews". This may very well be rude to some people (particularly practitioners of political correctness). I don't care. I'm not going to dress up my language to be inoffensive.

 

If you want me to dress up my language so as not to be offensive, you're being politically correct. If you think political correctness is bad that makes you a f*cking hypocrite.

[ParanoiA]

Pangloss' date=' 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....[/quote']

 

Uh...

 

As far as I'm aware' date=' there is no direct evidence that oil was a factor.[/quote']Nope! On a completely unrelated matter have a look at the value of Halliburton stock

If you think that it's completely unrelated, then what's your point?[/quote']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.

 

 

 

This is the beginning of the exchange, Reaper. The only one appearing to be avoiding countering a point is the unchallenged oversimplified, overgeneralized pop culture endorsed rhetoric by bascule. Seems pretty obvious Pangloss was going out of his way to find out what his point was, so he could then counter it - and then he charged right into the face of it. Look how many posts it took to do that.

 

So, where exactly did you get the notion he was avoiding anything?

 

At this point, I'm beginning to believe it may be PC on this board to bash Pangloss.

 

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.

 

From what I've seen, those here who resent the Bush admininstration also resent you. I've seen it on several threads. In fact, the ones who scream the most about you "misrepresenting" their views, are usually the worst ones about misinterpreting yours.

[iNow]

I think Pangloss is trying to make the point that contrary views (like on GW or relativity or whatever) are politically incorrect here on SFN. That they are shunned. His point seems to be that it's not about political correctness, but incorrectness.

 

However, what this misses is the fact that science by it's very nature is adversarial. It attacks claims and forces defense to be made. It is not for sissies. You make a claim, prepare for the onslaught. If you manage to support your claim through that onslaught, then your claim is taken seriously (ever notice that you have "defend" your thesis to get your degree in higher education?).

 

It's not about some good old boys club, or some set of shared values... it's about attacking shitty arguments and disposing of them. Science is very aggressive and very confrontational, and that's what's made it so powerful through the years.

 

I just think this whole concept of political correctness is being misapplied. It clearly does not fit in scientific discussions, so I'm left to think that all of this applies to politics threads, where Pangloss is tired of being outnumbered by opposing opinions.

 

I get that. It's not a comforable position to be in, but it's not about shunning views, it's about forcing people to support the ones they decide to share and discuss.

 

Now, in this thread, I was harsh to you. You brought up Reaper who was expressing his opinion, and he wasn't attacked because most of us agree that opinion... In your history here, you've "played the politically correct card" far too often. It's your go to trump card when you're not doing well in a debate, and that's what we are challenging.

 

Bascule is being mean to you, but he's trying to prove a point. He's not attacking you just for the fun of it, but showing you how he is being anything but politically correct, and how your definition seems rather narrow and nonapplicable.

 

As I said in my last response. Learn to support your points well and people will agree with them. Always saying that your opponent is "just beng PC" when they disagree with you IS a cop-out.

 

 

If I were to summarize my first post in this thread, and how I've felt reading it all the way through....

 

Quit whining like a bitch, grow a spine, and cowboy up. If you can't support your arguments, you lose the debate. Stop crying to mommy about everyone being PC... (sorry, that was harsh again, but I'm not trying to bash you, I'm trying to show you why you are being received by others the way you are...) If someone doesn't answer your question, ask it again in a different way, and show what you meant more clearly... don't accuse them of being PC or liberal or whatever...

 

When you attack me, I support my position and show you why I have that position. I don't accuse you of being a conservative right-wing nutter who is trying to appeal to the republican base...

 

 

I do get angry with you when you dismiss my arguments as "leftie" or as if they were taken from moveon.org (which I've never even viewed, btw). This is why you get bashed, is because people don't like how you pidgeon hole them and avoid the substance of their posts... we've discussed this in PM, though, and I know you are aware of my meaning.

[PhDP]

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.

 

...a point I repeatedly tried to make, I even made a topic about it. It's yet another rethorical tactics used to attack someone's motivation instead of their logic.

[CDarwin]

I rather wish we could ban the phrase "politically correct" from all discourse. It serves no constructive purpose anymore, and is just an easy way to dismiss an argument (I'm not saying that's quite what's going on here, but it has certainly been the case on SFN before).

[swansont]

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.

 

No, I disagree. Whether global warming is caused by humans is something that can be analyzed and discussed using science, and while you claim it to be a perfectly defendable position, there is a decided lack of actual scientific defense of the position, in the threads I've seen. The calls for evidence to back that position up are scientific ones, not politically correct ones. The arguments against AGW are generally bad scientific arguments — logical fallacies and inexcusably poor scientific practices, and in some cases, out-and-out misrepresentation.

 

 

 

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?

 

It seems to me your phrasing implied that you thought bascule had done something to attack you, rather than just make a point that he disagreed with you. I pointed it out because it was in the thread. (There are worse examples elsewhere). I don't think there was anything covert about it, nor would it resonate with anyone who didn't already agree, it simply underscores the point that you seem to be using a different definition than others are.

[Pangloss]

No, I disagree. Whether global warming is caused by humans is something that can be analyzed and discussed using science, and while you claim it to be a perfectly defendable position, there is a decided lack of actual scientific defense of the position, in the threads I've seen. The calls for evidence to back that position up are scientific ones, not politically correct ones. The arguments against AGW are generally bad scientific arguments — logical fallacies and inexcusably poor scientific practices, and in some cases, out-and-out misrepresentation.

 

This is a good example of what I'm talking about, so I appreciate that you brought it up. You've done something above that even the IPCC couldn't do -- determine factually that global warming is caused by humans and declare the debate over. Millions of scientists can't do that, but here at SFN it's a proven fact that cannot be refuted. That's awesome. Can I get in on it when we publish?

 

... and you don't see a problem with that. Well okay, good on you, but I do. Sorry. Like I said, I don't think it ruins the board, because I've watched you hear people out on the subject and require that responders be polite. But I do think it colors and reduces the quality of discourse on the subject when we have adopted a foregone conclusion that isn't even accepted by the scientific community.

 

 

It seems to me your phrasing implied that you thought bascule had done something to attack you, rather than just make a point that he disagreed with you. I pointed it out because it was in the thread. (There are worse examples elsewhere). I don't think there was anything covert about it, nor would it resonate with anyone who didn't already agree, it simply underscores the point that you seem to be using a different definition than others are.

 

So it's okay to be rude to someone so long as you're making a valid point?

 

Isn't that what I've been talking about? People who are rude on certain subjects are allowed to let go, "because they're making a point". People who are rude in the other direction get singled out and admonished by the membership.

 

(I'm not talking about infractions, btw, in case that's not clear. I didn't think bascule's post above deserved one. I'm talking about acceptance and admonishment from the membership.)

[ParanoiA]

iNow - you're missing this by a country mile. The whiners are the ones being accused, yourself included. Pangloss countered all of those points and INCLUDED the label of politically correct - he didn't use the label of political correctness to dodge those points. So you're ass out there.

 

Why don't you just man up and quit crying about it? It's been pointed out to you and everyone else that the SFN PC Club doesn't care about the logic that drives anyone's positions, just that they match. So why deny it? You won't take anyone to task that criticizes Bush, or any other conservative no matter how insane their logic may be.

 

If you feel offended by it, then try some critical thinking and pretend you're a republican and make an argument. You should be able to make an argument as a republican, a democrat, a libertarian, a statist... If you can't do that, then you're not even trying.

[iNow]

If you feel offended by it, then try some critical thinking and pretend you're a republican and make an argument. You should be able to make an argument as a republican, a democrat, a libertarian, a statist... If you can't do that, then you're not even trying.

I'm confused. Are you asking me to argue Pangloss' position for him?

[ecoli]

This thread no longer has any value that I can see.

 

Closed

[Pangloss]

I think Pangloss is trying to make the point that contrary views (like on GW or relativity or whatever) are politically incorrect here on SFN. That they are shunned. His point seems to be that it's not about political correctness, but incorrectness.

 

I appreciate that.

 

 

However, what this misses is the fact that science by it's very nature is adversarial. It attacks claims and forces defense to be made. It is not for sissies. You make a claim, prepare for the onslaught. If you manage to support your claim through that onslaught, then your claim is taken seriously (ever notice that you have "defend" your thesis to get your degree in higher education?).

 

It's not about some good old boys club, or some set of shared values... it's about attacking shitty arguments and disposing of them. Science is very aggressive and very confrontational, and that's what's made it so powerful through the years.

 

I just think this whole concept of political correctness is being misapplied. It clearly does not fit in scientific discussions, so I'm left to think that all of this applies to politics threads, where Pangloss is tired of being outnumbered by opposing opinions.

 

I get that. It's not a comforable position to be in, but it's not about shunning views, it's about forcing people to support the ones they decide to share and discuss.

 

Now, in this thread, I was harsh to you. Reaper is expressing his opinion, and wasn't attacked because most of us agree... In your history here, you've "played the politically correct card" far too often. It's your go to trump card when you're not doing well in a debate, and that's what we are challenging.

 

Bascule is being mean to you, but he's trying to prove a point. He's not attacking you just for the fun of it, but showing you how he is being anything but politically correct, and how your definition seems rather narrow and nonapplicable.

 

As I said in my last response. Learn to support your points well and people will agree with them. Always saying that your opponent is "just beng PC" when they disagree with you IS a cop-out.

 

This gets back to another subject, which is whether or not it's okay to (as I put it earlier) run dissenters out of town on a rail. You think it's not only okay, but desirable. But I would just point out that your rap sheet (which is the only one I've ever seen on this board that actually required two pages to store!) seems to testify to the fact that this isn't really what board leadership wants (and remember, I've only given you one actual infraction, ever!). We really do need a modicum of politeness and fairness, and I think there are valid reasons for that desire.

 

But like I said earlier I think that your attitude is actually a positive, 99.9% of the time. I like the fact that you're ready to step up to the plate and knock one out of the park whenever it's required. We just have to continue to ensure that people are treated with fairness and respect.

 

 

I do get angry with you when you dismiss my arguments as "leftie" or as if they were taken from moveon.org (which I've never even viewed, btw). This is why you get bashed, is because people don't like how you pidgeon hole them and avoid the substance of their posts... we've discussed this in PM, though, and I know you are aware of my meaning.

 

Yes, and I've gotten that point, and accepted it.

 

Add: Well I seem to have last-worded this -- I thought that post was going to get merged with my previous, but a flurry of new ones appeared while I was replying to iNow and ecoli seems to have closed it. Anyway it wasn't my intent to get the last word here, so let me just say that I acknowledge the personal criticisms from iNow and bascule, and realize that I've earned a certain degree of that.

 

I also feel I have also raised a valid observation about tendencies here, which I think has been supported at least in a general sense, even by iNow at a certain level, who at least acknowledges my opinion, and some who have suggested that I'm just using the wrong terminology.

 

Let me just close by acknowledging that maybe it would be best for me to drop the "PC" monicker, at the very least, and work harder not to read between the lines. And my PM box is always open if anyone wants to discuss it further.