What exactly is political correctness?

[EquALLity]

I never suggested we should stop activism for gay people, but instead think we should minimize activism for political correctness.

They're largely intertwined.

Why do you think we should minimize activism for political correctness?
Like I said, it definitely has gone too far in certain situations, but overall it's centered around good ideals and has mostly been beneficial.

Ah, okay. Then wouldn't anti-hate speech policies be discriminatory?

Discriminatory towards what?

If multiple people from any group discriminate, this indicates that the entire or majority of that group discriminates?

I never implied that, but it says something about our society and police culture that these cops did this and got away with it for so long.

Where did they find roughly equal usage rates?

Go on the link and look at the slideshow under the title 'Marijuana Arrests by the Numbers'.

Correct.

What?

Offense is just annoyance with insult.

It was tongue in cheek, but:
Bad meaning not good, is etymologically derived from the Middle English term bæddel, meaning hermaphrodite. Considering that hermaphrodites were not accepted during this period of time, the word has historically been used to denigrate hermaphrodites.

I know you weren't actually suggesting that usage of the word 'bad' is wrong; it sounded like you were being sarcastic to convey the message that people getting upset by usage of the n-word is as silly as them getting upset by usage of the word 'bad' (as if those two things are equal).
Is that accurate?

Its impossible to tell without previous knowledge of the person.

I don't disagree... That's my point; you can't tell in the way you can tell with black people who use the n-word what the motives are, and they very well might be racist.

How do you know? Recall that a vast majority of Americans don't think blacks are tribal savages.

Because if you're making a racist joke, you're finding racial stereotypes funny in some way, which suggests you may believe them to be true.
Of course, not everyone who makes those jokes is racist, but there's a good chance many are.

That's awesome!

Yeah, it is.
And it suggests that, with the free exchange of ideas, the good ideas prevail.

Consider the chokehold they have on major social media sites and bulletin boards.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/82892.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comme ... _mass_sex/

The first link is about sites not allowing hate speech, which isn't just a SJW issue. If speech may incite violence, it could make sense for sites to choose not to allow that speech.

As for the second link, look at the negative response of reddit users to that decision by reddit.

That isn't necessarily a problem. Do these facts incite immoral behavior?

No, they are just facts that demonstrate how horrible the Chinese government is.
If you distribute photos of the Tienanmen Square (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen ... ts_of_1989), or facts about the stock market issues, your score decreases.
The stock market thing might be beneficial to the economy to an extent, but it's still a stretch to punish the distribution of facts about it.

Interesting. I'll look into her.

There's a funny Stephen Colbert quote about her:
"I believe Ayn Rand's first love poem went: Roses are red/violets are blue/finish this poem yourself/you dependent parasite."

The public's perception of what defines a scientist or philosopher is irrelevant to what is a scientist or philosopher. Are theories actually guesses since that's what a lot of people think? Is Andrew Wakefield actually a scientist since anti-vaxxers think that he is?

Of course, but in practice, it's the public's perception that matters.

The groups of scientists and philosophers are isolated from one another. In order to corrupt the system, each and every body must be corrupted.

Why would all of them need to be corrupt?

You're giving these people a huge amount of power (which corrupts people), and it's not a stretch to believe that they'd do things to benefit their interests as opposed to the interests of citizens.

After all, the Chinese government is already doing that.

Like this:

Sorry, I meant the American mainstream media, again. I know Europe is a lot more liberal.
Note that the Daily Mail is extremely right-wing, though, and not a legitimate news source.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

They're largely intertwined.

How?

Why do you think we should minimize activism for political correctness?

Issues should be given attention proportional to their moral weight and political correctness is worth a lot less time than it gets.

Like I said, it definitely has gone too far in certain situations, but overall it's centered around good ideals and has mostly been beneficial.

Besides the fact that it is slightly more moral than not being politically correct, how has it been beneficial?

Discriminatory towards what?

People who produce hate speech using their vocal chords and / or fingers.

I never implied that, but it says something about our society and police culture that these cops did this and got away with it for so long.

So you're suggesting that these cops were racist assholes, not all cops?

Go on the link and look at the slideshow under the title 'Marijuana Arrests by the Numbers'.

Sorry, I meant where the statistics came from. I want to look at the study, specifically.

Offense is just annoyance with insult.

And its completely avoidable.

Is that accurate?

Yes

I don't disagree... That's my point; you can't tell in the way you can tell with black people who use the n-word what the motives are, and they very well might be racist.

So is everyone just guilty unless they're black? That seems ridiculous.

Because if you're making a racist joke, you're finding racial stereotypes funny in some way, which suggests you may believe them to be true.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Of course, not everyone who makes those jokes is racist, but there's a good chance many are.

Same issue as above. Evidence?

Yeah, it is.
And it suggests that, with the free exchange of ideas, the good ideas prevail.

Or that atheists are more likely to use the internet to anonymously discuss atheistic issues without real life consequences.

The first link is about sites not allowing hate speech, which isn't just a SJW issue. If speech may incite violence, it could make sense for sites to choose not to allow that speech.

The German law is extremely vague. Simply criticizing Arab culture or Islam could be considered hate speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

As for the second link, look at the negative response of reddit users to that decision by reddit.

That's a good point. Maybe it would be better to suggest that social justice warriors occupy positions of power on Reddit?

No, they are just facts that demonstrate how horrible the Chinese government is.

This prevents violent revolution.

If you distribute photos of the Tienanmen Square (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen ... ts_of_1989)

This also prevents violent revolution.

or facts about the stock market issues, your score decreases.

This one seems silly.

The stock market thing might be beneficial to the economy to an extent

How so? This would justify the above issue.

but it's still a stretch to punish the distribution of facts about it

Why?

There's a funny Stephen Colbert quote about her:
"I believe Ayn Rand's first love poem went: Roses are red/violets are blue/finish this poem yourself/you dependent parasite."

This... This is beautiful!

Of course, but in practice, it's the public's perception that matters.

Isn't this an issue of implementation?

Why would all of them need to be corrupt?

I should have elaborated earlier, but the consensus of the isolated groups is what determines what is and isn't censored.

You're giving these people a huge amount of power (which corrupts people), and it's not a stretch to believe that they'd do things to benefit their interests as opposed to the interests of citizens.

They don't need to know why they're doing what they're doing. Additionally, how would they be corrupted if they're isolated from the rest of society?

After all, the Chinese government is already doing that.

Are we conveniently forgetting China's corruption crackdown?

Sorry, I meant the American mainstream media, again. I know Europe is a lot more liberal.

As stated previously, I don't watch American news, despite the fact that I am American.

Note that the Daily Mail is extremely right-wing, though, and not a legitimate news source.

If they were extremely left-wing would they be a legitimate news source?
Here's an example of the BBC not calling terrorists terrorists: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34824375
Here's a left-wing outlet on the "girl" issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05 ... 1401207840

[EquALLity]

How?

Acceptance and tolerance of gay people is a PC idea.

Issues should be given attention proportional to their moral weight and political correctness is worth a lot less time than it gets.

I think it depends on what elements of political correctness you are talking about.
Being accepting of and abstaining from disparaging minority groups is political correctness, and it's obviously important.

Whether or not the school cafeteria acknowledges the cultural significance of foods is political correctness that's just silly.

Besides the fact that it is slightly more moral than not being politically correct, how has it been beneficial?

The difference between calling most illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists and being tolerant towards immigrants isn't really slight.

It's beneficial in that, when good, it promotes a more compassionate and understanding society.

People who produce hate speech using their vocal chords and / or fingers.

How would that be discrimination?

I just noticed your edit, by the way. I'm actually not sure where I stand on hate speech at the moment.

So you're suggesting that these cops were racist assholes, not all cops?

I'd never say that all cops are racists. Good cops turned in the corrupt ones in this case.
What I'm saying is that there is systematic racism in policing, and a problem with police culture.

Sorry, I meant where the statistics came from. I want to look at the study, specifically.

Oh, do you want to see the methodology?

I found the report: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu- ... a-rel2.pdf

Marijuana use is roughly equal among Blacks and whites. In 2010, 14%
of Blacks and 12% of whites reported using marijuana in the past year; in
2001, the figure was 10% of whites and 9% of Blacks. In every year from
2001 to 2010, more whites than Blacks between the ages of 18 and 25
reported using marijuana in the previous year. In 2010, 34% of whites and
27% of Blacks reported having last used marijuana more than one year
ago — a constant trend over the past decade. In the same year, 59% of
Blacks and 54% of whites reported having never used marijuana. Each
year over the past decade more Blacks than whites reported that they had
never used marijuana.

Another interesting paragraph about the effectiveness:

The relentless criminalization of marijuana has not had a noticeable
deterrent effect on usage rates, which have remained constant over time.
Notably, marijuana use reached an all-time low around 1990, when there
were far fewer arrests for marijuana possession. As law enforcement
has increasingly prioritized marijuana possession arrests, usage rates
have risen. Generally, from 1980 to 2000 there was no upward trend in
the number of people using marijuana. Since 2000, however, marijuana
use has generally increased among persons aged 18 or older and has
remained approximately the same for persons aged 12 to 17.

And its completely avoidable.

Are you suggesting that you never become insulted?

Yes

Well, like I said, I think that's an unreasonable equation.
The n-word was historically and still is a word used to attack and intimidate black people, so of course they're going to be put off when you use it.
That's very different from a word that in some context nobody knows about could be interpreted as an attack.

So is everyone just guilty unless they're black? That seems ridiculous.

No, I didn't say that.
You just asked if it was PC for black people to use the n-word, and I said that I guess it is because they're not going to be racist towards themselves.

And I agree that teens making jokes are not necessarily racist, but they're more likely to be racist than the black people who use the n-word.
I never said that either group is automatically innocent or guilty.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

What do you mean? I'm just using logic there. What do you disagree with?

If you find a racist joke funny, you must find some kind of racist idea funny. If you find a racist idea funny, then there's a significant chance you believe it to be true.

Same issue as above. Evidence?

That part is just based on the above part.
If there's a legitimate reason why something is motivated by racism, then by extension those who partake in it are often racists.

Or that atheists are more likely to use the internet to anonymously discuss atheistic issues without real life consequences.

That wouldn't explain the rise of atheism.
It's not like the Internet just has a ton of atheists and that's that. It's that atheism is on the rise because of the Internet.

The German law is extremely vague. Simply criticizing Arab culture or Islam could be considered hate speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

That's not what was going on with Facebook, though.

That's a good point. Maybe it would be better to suggest that social justice warriors occupy positions of power on Reddit?

Ok, but I think that the backlash from reddit outweighs that.

This prevents violent revolution.

What makes you think that?
So we should never share any negative facts about government, or even make negative statements about it, because it might inspire some people to commit acts of violence?
How could we ever have progress?

This also prevents violent revolution.

You can't just let the government brush bad things it does under the rug and pretend they never happened.
If anything will inspire violence it will be resentment built from that.

How so? This would justify the above issue.

Brimstone explained it on the Sesame Credit topic (I really need to finish my reply there ).
Here's the quote:

Economic predictions don't act outside a bubble, but are often self fulfilling prophecies, since belief about economy affects action of the agents in the economy which affects the economy negatively or positively.

By posting about how the economy is crashing (true or not), you can help crash the economy. By posting about recovery and inspiring confidence in the economy, you can help recover the economy.

Economics functions on fairy logic, sort of. Belief becomes action which becomes fact.

Why?

Because that would ban facts for being unfavorable towards the government.

This... This is beautiful!

Isn't this an issue of implementation?

Yes, and implementation is relevant.

They don't need to know why they're doing what they're doing. Additionally, how would they be corrupted if they're isolated from the rest of society?

What do you mean? The scientists and philosophers won't know they're impacting government?

What do you mean by isolated?

Are we conveniently forgetting China's corruption crackdown?

I think their 'corruption crackdown' is very questionable.

As stated previously, I don't watch American news, despite the fact that I am American.

Ah, hahaha. Well that's what I'm referring to when I say 'mainstream media'.
Why don't you watch American news? Too much bullshit?
I don't watch it much myself, though I do obsessively watch CNN on caucus/primary nights (like the New Hampshire primary tonight! )...

If they were extremely left-wing would they be a legitimate news source?
Here's an example of the BBC not calling terrorists terrorists: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34824375
Here's a left-wing outlet on the "girl" issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05 ... 1401207840

I don't just mean that they have conservative leanings.
Scroll down to 'Best of the Daily Fail'.

That's irritating about the BBC, but like I said, I'm referring to American news.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I apologize for the late response, it was only recently that I realized you had replied to me!

I have no idea what otherkins are.

Otherkin are people who identify as members of different species.

Not having a voice because nobody has heard of you isn't the same as being born a certain way and facing daily discrimination, targeting by police. etc.

Did I ever suggest it was? Why is this relevant?

Comparing a political affiliation to race and sexual identity isn't worth a response.

Why? Are you too cool to respond to me?

Most people who bitch about political correctness aren't as edgy as they think they are.

Because people who disagree with you just do it to be edgy and hip, yo!

White people will soon be a minority in the US so maybe this will be a moot discussion down the road.

Why will the malevolent white hivemind become a minority?

If you're a white male you have literally nothing to be afraid of.

Is this sarcasm?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Acceptance and tolerance of gay people is a PC idea.

No, it isn't.

agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people

How tolerating and accepting gay people has anything to do with word choice, I do not understand.
Unless we are using the "not being an asshole" definition of political correctness?

Being accepting of and abstaining from disparaging minority groups is political correctness, and it's obviously important.

Telling racist jokes and calling less sensitive friends by racial slurs does not necessarily disparage minorities.

Whether or not the school cafeteria acknowledges the cultural significance of foods is political correctness that's just silly.

TRIGGERED

The difference between calling most illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists and being tolerant towards immigrants isn't really slight.

Good point: politically incorrect statements that actively and intentionally misinform in a way that might incite immoral behavior are legitimate threats.

How would that be discrimination?

Laws that prevent discrimination discriminate against discriminators. This is by no means a suggestion to not have anti-discrimination laws, but rather, an interesting paradox.

I just noticed your edit, by the way. I'm actually not sure where I stand on hate speech at the moment.

If and when you determine your viewpoint, I'd be more than glad to hear.

What I'm saying is that there is systematic racism in policing, and a problem with police culture.

This is very misleading. There is systematic racism in some policing and a problem with some police cultures. The way you have it written down suggests that these problems persists in all or a majority of police.

Marijuana use is roughly equal among Blacks and whites. In 2010, 14%
of Blacks and 12% of whites reported using marijuana in the past year; in
2001, the figure was 10% of whites and 9% of Blacks. In every year from
2001 to 2010, more whites than Blacks between the ages of 18 and 25
reported using marijuana in the previous year. In 2010, 34% of whites and
27% of Blacks reported having last used marijuana more than one year
ago — a constant trend over the past decade. In the same year, 59% of
Blacks and 54% of whites reported having never used marijuana. Each
year over the past decade more Blacks than whites reported that they had
never used marijuana.

Ah, okay. Interesting, but blacks are much more likely to be subject to poverty and by extension live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty police.
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

Are you suggesting that you never become insulted?

No, I've been insulted before, but I now I rarely do.

Well, like I said, I think that's an unreasonable equation.

Agreed.

The n-word was historically and still is a word used to attack and intimidate black people, so of course they're going to be put off when you use it.

Maybe if some random stranger calls you by a racial slur, it would be an appropriate response, but if a friend tells a stupid joke, they're probably not trying to oppress you. If the person who said it doesn't seem dangerous, it might be helpful to ask them why they said what they did instead of assuming it was an attempt to denigrate you.
For example, if someone saw me with another boy and yelled "God hates fags", it would be reasonable to simply avoid the person. However, if my friend tells a stupid joke about gay people, I can tell they are not attempting to harm me, and I'll have a laugh at the ludicrous nature of the joke.

That's very different from a word that in some context nobody knows about could be interpreted as an attack.

See above.

You just asked if it was PC for black people to use the n-word, and I said that I guess it is because they're not going to be racist towards themselves.

Black people can become Neo-Nazis. I'm not even joking right now.

And I agree that teens making jokes are not necessarily racist, but they're more likely to be racist than the black people who use the n-word.
I never said that either group is automatically innocent or guilty.

Alright. We both agree on this then.

What do you mean? I'm just using logic there. What do you disagree with?

I don't understand how someone who is making racist jokes would be significantly more likely to be racist. Do most people agree with the components of the jokes they make?

If you find a racist joke funny, you must find some kind of racist idea funny. If you find a racist idea funny, then there's a significant chance you believe it to be true.

The racist joke would be funny due to the ludicrous nature of the stereotypes and the connections made using them. They're not as funny as puns though, because puns aren't funny, making them infinitely funnier.

If there's a legitimate reason why something is motivated by racism, then by extension those who partake in it are often racists.

Do you live in a racist area? I only know one racist person, and he doesn't tell racist jokes, he makes animal noises.

That wouldn't explain the rise of atheism.
It's not like the Internet just has a ton of atheists and that's that. It's that atheism is on the rise because of the Internet.

Then good ideas will prevail in the free exchange of ideas, but it takes time and bad ideas can survive for a while too.

That's not what was going on with Facebook, though.

They're censoring hate speech in cooperation with the German government. It seems reasonable to suggest that they are going to take German law into account.

Ok, but I think that the backlash from reddit outweighs that.

Agreed.

What makes you think that?

When you tell people they are living bad they will want change and might resort to violence. This is not only bad for the Chinese people, but also a threat to the rest of the world because China is a big military power.

So we should never share any negative facts about government, or even make negative statements about it, because it might inspire some people to commit acts of violence?

Maybe. I'm not sure about that in general, but it seems like the safer option right now.

How could we ever have progress?

In what particular respect do you think China needs to progress? I think I can answer for specific cases, but not in general.

This also prevents violent revolution.

You can't just let the government brush bad things it does under the rug and pretend they never happened.

Actually, I think that would solve a lot of things. A lot of issues stem from historical tensions.

If anything will inspire violence it will be resentment built from that.

Not if it's all they know.

Economic predictions don't act outside a bubble, but are often self fulfilling prophecies, since belief about economy affects action of the agents in the economy which affects the economy negatively or positively.

By posting about how the economy is crashing (true or not), you can help crash the economy. By posting about recovery and inspiring confidence in the economy, you can help recover the economy.

Economics functions on fairy logic, sort of. Belief becomes action which becomes fact.

In that case, it might be worthwhile to have it told to everyone that the economy is always great and is progressing, with the exception of economists.

Because that would ban facts for being unfavorable towards the government.

Which is potentially very useful for everyone.

Yes, and implementation is relevant.

And I thought I conceded that implementation was near impossible or extremely difficult?

The scientists and philosophers won't know they're impacting government?

Exactly. If they think they're just doing honest work for independent companies, they'll never know the power they have.

What do you mean by isolated?

Physically isolated from others. As in hidden away.

I think their 'corruption crackdown' is very questionable.

Why so?

Why don't you watch American news?

I only got interested in the news and such recently, and before I started, I asked my grandpa what he recommends as the best, unbiased sources of news. One of the outlets he suggested was the BBC, and I've stuck with them since.

Too much bullshit?

I'm pretty sure all news has too much bullshit

I don't watch it much myself, though I do obsessively watch CNN on caucus/primary nights (like the New Hampshire primary tonight! )...

Would you reccomend watching CNN?

I don't just mean that they have conservative leanings.
Scroll down to 'Best of the Daily Fail'.

On the Daily Mail?

[vegan81vzla]

Political Correctness is the term applied when people are forced to refrain themselves from their own opinion for the fear of rejection from the mass accepted current "ethic" or "moral" values and standards. Either could be right or wrong, that is irrelevant (mainstream or the personal opinion) but as they are usually opposed, individuals tend to keep it to themselves. For example saying that caring for animals is not the main drive for people becoming vegan among vegans, that that would be political incorrect.

[Jaywalker]

For example saying that caring for animals is not the main drive for people becoming vegan among vegans, that that would be political incorrect.

Wouldn't that just be factually incorrect?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Wouldn't that just be factually incorrect?

Yes, and grammatically atrocious.

[EquALLity]

No, it isn't.

Yes it does, in many cases.
Tolerance isn't just law; it's also about what you say.

How tolerating and accepting gay people has anything to do with word choice, I do not understand.
Unless we are using the "not being an asshole" definition of political correctness?

The not being an asshole thing is intertwined with words. The 'not being an asshole' definition is not some separate definition that I just pulled out of the air.

"Fucking faggot, get out of my face" is wrong because of word choice.
Do you see what I'm saying?

Another example is what Donald Trump said about Mexicans.

Telling racist jokes and calling less sensitive friends by racial slurs does not necessarily disparage minorities.

Political correctness is not just about jokes, like I said.
It's about not disparaging minorities in general.

TRIGGERED

I know that the trigger warning and safe space stuff has gotten extremely out of hand, but people can be legitimately triggered, and some safe spaces make sense (like for victims of rape etc.).

Laws that prevent discrimination discriminate against discriminators. This is by no means a suggestion to not have anti-discrimination laws, but rather, an interesting paradox.

That's like saying murder laws discriminate against murderers.

If and when you determine your viewpoint, I'd be more than glad to hear

I think that in instances where there is a very good chance speech will incite violence, and when that speech is not useful to the free exchange of ideas, that it should be banned.

Like for example, walking up to a black person and saying, "I hate fucking niggers!"

This is very misleading. There is systematic racism in some policing and a problem with some police cultures. The way you have it written down suggests that these problems persists in all or a majority of police.

No it isn't. I think systematic racism exists in police culture in general, but that it's not a problem with most policemen.

If it wasn't systematic, why do police rarely get in trouble for violence against black people? Why do black people disproportionately get killed by police? Why do police lie about the races of people they investigate? Why do police chiefs defend obvious acts of police brutality?

Ah, okay. Interesting, but blacks are much more likely to be subject to poverty and by extension live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty police.
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf

What do you mean by 'shitty police'?

No, I've been insulted before, but I now I rarely do.

Oh, so you still get offended?

By your own metric, you are too easily offended.

Being offended doesn't necessarily make you right or wrong; it's just the default consequence of feeling like you've been insulted.

Agreed.

I'm confused... You said that you agreed, and then you gave an explanation for why you think that what I said was wrong.
It's an unreasonable equation because of the history and modern usage of the n-word vs the bizarre context of 'bad' in a situation nobody is aware of.

Maybe if some random stranger calls you by a racial slur, it would be an appropriate response, but if a friend tells a stupid joke, they're probably not trying to oppress you. If the person who said it doesn't seem dangerous, it might be helpful to ask them why they said what they did instead of assuming it was an attempt to denigrate you.
For example, if someone saw me with another boy and yelled "God hates fags", it would be reasonable to simply avoid the person. However, if my friend tells a stupid joke about gay people, I can tell they are not attempting to harm me, and I'll have a laugh at the ludicrous nature of the joke.

I didn't say it's always good to assume about intent.

But, regardless of intent, the n-word is a very nasty racial slur, so it's really not cool to make jokes describing black people that way.
That doesn't necessarily make the joke-tellers racist (though it does increase the chances they are), though.

Black people can become Neo-Nazis. I'm not even joking right now.

I know that some black people are racist towards themselves (similar to how some women are sexist towards themselves), but it's a very tiny percentage of them.

I don't understand how someone who is making racist jokes would be significantly more likely to be racist. Do most people agree with the components of the jokes they make?

Again, I'm just using logic.

"Because if you're making a racist joke, you're finding racial stereotypes funny in some way, which suggests you may believe them to be true."
What part of this do you disagree with? That there's a good chance you believe the racial stereotypes to be true if you're telling jokes about them?

If so, see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hu ... ote-racism

In the experiments, subjects completed a questionnaire that measures the extent to which they hold prejudiced views against each of these groups. Later, they read several jokes targeting homosexuals and racists. In the next part of the study, they were told that due to budget cuts, the university has to cut money from several student organizations and they ask for their help to determine how to allocate the money. The subjects had to determine what organizations should lose the university support and suffer from budget cuts. Among the organizations presented to the subjects were the gay and lesbian student association and a racist organization, Southern Heritage Student Association (SHSA). The SHSA was described as "committed to serving and protecting the political and social advancement of White people, and has recently drafted a proposal to eliminate government oppression of students through affirmative action admission policies."

The results were very clear. Subjects that held anti homosexual views supported significantly higher cuts for the gay and lesbian organization after they were exposed to anti gay humor, compared to subjects who were not prejudiced against gays and lesbians who were exposed to the same jokes. On the other hand, disparaging jokes against racists did not foster more cuts to the SHSA from people who were high on prejudice against racists, and their cuts were no different than the ones offered by subjects with low prejudice towards racists.

In other words, when we consider groups that most people discriminate against, and feel they are justified in doing so, disparaging humor towards that group does not foster discriminatory acts against them. On the other hand, for groups for whom the prejudice norm is shifting, and there is still no consensus not to discriminated against (women, gays, Muslims and so on), if you hold negative views against one of these groups, hearing disparaging jokes about them "releases" inhibitions you might have, and you feel it's ok to discriminate against them.

Previous studies by Ford and others on sexist humor showed the same pattern. People who are sexist to begin with and enjoy sexist jokes show higher tolerance for sexist events, tend to accept rape myths, and tend to show greater willingness to discriminate against women.

This shows that jokes aren't always 'just jokes'.

The racist joke would be funny due to the ludicrous nature of the stereotypes and the connections made using them. They're not as funny as puns though, because puns aren't funny, making them infinitely funnier.

That's one reason some people might tell them, but racism is also often a motivator.

Do you live in a racist area? I only know one racist person, and he doesn't tell racist jokes, he makes animal noises.

I don't really live in a racist area.
I don't think that's relevant though. I'm just using logic here.

Then good ideas will prevail in the free exchange of ideas, but it takes time and bad ideas can survive for a while too.

Sure, but good ideas will win in the end, and it's worth the time the bad ones take to go away because they are much less likely to come back this way, and people have more freedom as a result (it's freedom and rationality).

They're censoring hate speech in cooperation with the German government. It seems reasonable to suggest that they are going to take German law into account.

Well, if they actually end up restricting information about Islam, then there's reason for concern.
Until they do, this is really just speculation.

When you tell people they are living bad they will want change and might resort to violence. This is not only bad for the Chinese people, but also a threat to the rest of the world because China is a big military power.

Violence isn't the first resort. It's what happens after a build up of constantly oppressing your population (which is what you'd be doing by massacring them and trying to pretend it never happened), and when people don't think there's another option.

Maybe. I'm not sure about that in general, but it seems like the safer option right now.

Is this about China, America, both, or everywhere (or somewhere else)?

Regardless, this policy is more likely to lead to violence than people telling the truth about government.

In what particular respect do you think China needs to progress? I think I can answer for specific cases, but not in general.

Climate change, dealing with refugees, relations with North Korea, etc..
I wrote about it on that Sesame Credit topic.

Actually, I think that would solve a lot of things. A lot of issues stem from historical tensions.

No, it just pretends the problem never existed, giving the government permission to do anything.

They'll never be held accountable for them anyway, so why not commit some massacres (like China)?
The government needs to be kept in check. If the people feel like the government is going unchecked, that could inspire violence.

Not if it's all they know.

It's not all that they know, and you can't stop the flow of information anyway.

In that case, it might be worthwhile to have it told to everyone that the economy is always great and is progressing, with the exception of economists.

As it's crashing right before their eyes? The government should just blatantly lie to the people?

Again, the government needs to be kept in check.

Which is potentially very useful for everyone.

useful for government*

And I thought I conceded that implementation was near impossible or extremely difficult?

You did?

If so, this doesn't even matter. We're not going to have a society ruled by scientists and philosophers. We have to work with what we have, which is bringing back democracy in America.

Exactly. If they think they're just doing honest work for independent companies, they'll never know the power they have.

Ok, so who is/are above them?

It's still prone to corruption, because officials above the philosophers and scientists know their immense power.

Physically isolated from others. As in hidden away.

How are you going to do this so that they wouldn't suspect anything?

Why so?

See the Sesame Credit topic.

I only got interested in the news and such recently, and before I started, I asked my grandpa what he recommends as the best, unbiased sources of news. One of the outlets he suggested was the BBC, and I've stuck with them since.

Ah, ok.

I'm pretty sure all news has too much bullshit

Online news is often a lot better, IMO.

Would you reccomend watching CNN?

No way. I just watch CNN during the primaries and caucuses to get updates on the percentages.

On the Daily Mail?

Oh, whoops. I forgot to link the article.
Here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Yes it does, in many cases.
Tolerance isn't just law; it's also about what you say.

Tolerance is not the defintion of political correctness.

Unless we are using the "not being an asshole" definition of political correctness?

The not being an asshole thing is intertwined with words. The 'not being an asshole' definition is not some separate definition that I just pulled out of the air. [/quote]
Then it would be fair to say political correctness and accepting gays fits into the "not being an asshole" category, not the political correctness category.

"Fucking faggot, get out of my face" is wrong because of word choice.
Do you see what I'm saying?

There are instances in which the two meet paths, but that they are synonymous or even that one is the other's umbrella. Christian morality can overlap with rational, secular morality, but the two aren't synonymous or derivatives of one another.

Another example is what Donald Trump said about Mexicans.

Same as above.

Political correctness is not just about jokes, like I said.

Of course, but the jokes seem to be where most of our disagreement lies.

It's about not disparaging minorities in general.

And not all types of non-politically correct speech do that.

I know that the trigger warning and safe space stuff has gotten extremely out of hand, but people can be legitimately triggered, and some safe spaces make sense (like for victims of rape etc.).

I agree. I believe the term originally applied to people with PTSD.

That's like saying murder laws discriminate against murderers.

They do. I'm not suggesting that's a problem, but something noteworthy.

I think that in instances where there is a very good chance speech will incite violence, and when that speech is not useful to the free exchange of ideas, that it should be banned.

I strongly agree.

Like for example, walking up to a black person and saying, "I hate fucking niggers!"

I don't think this is a good example, actually. A simple declaration of hatred doesn't compel to take action, but a declaration of problems or a literal call to arms might. For example, "We need to stop them fence-hoppers from stealin' jobs from fine white men like us folk!".

No it isn't. I think systematic racism exists in police culture in general, but that it's not a problem with most policemen.

Does that mean that most policemen ignore or disregard police culture?

If it wasn't systematic, why do police rarely get in trouble for violence against black people?

Ask the individual juries. Unless you think most jurors are racists?

Why do black people disproportionately get killed by police?

They tend to live in worse neighborhoods, which tend to have more oppressive police.
Here's what I think is a liberal outlet on the issue: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... der-100000

Why do police lie about the races of people they investigate?

Likely so that they aren't branded racists.
Can you give me specific examples?

Why do police chiefs defend obvious acts of police brutality?

Likely because adults are really just lazy children in suits.
Can you give me specific examples?

What do you mean by 'shitty police'?

More oppressive and prone to violence.

Oh, so you still get offended?

I haven't recently, but yes I have.

By your own metric, you are too easily offended.

Agreed. However, it might be more useful to use the phrase to compare different people. For example, "Bob is more easily offended than Tina".

Being offended doesn't necessarily make you right or wrong; it's just the default consequence of feeling like you've been insulted.

Its also rather insignificant and avoidable most of the time.

I'm confused... You said that you agreed, and then you gave an explanation for why you think that what I said was wrong.
It's an unreasonable equation because of the history and modern usage of the n-word vs the bizarre context of 'bad' in a situation nobody is aware of.

I gave the explanation before and told you it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I don't think the two are comparable. Ignore the given explanation if it makes more sense that way.

I didn't say it's always good to assume about intent.

It might be useful to generalize, but I think edgy joke tellers are generally harmless.

But, regardless of intent, the n-word is a very nasty racial slur, so it's really not cool to make jokes describing black people that way.

But its really not that much worse if you do. Maybe making a joke involving the term nigger gives you -0.000001 morality points since you violated someone's trivial will to not be offended, but making the joke about the neutron instead only gives you +0.000001 morality points.

I know that some black people are racist towards themselves (similar to how some women are sexist towards themselves), but it's a very tiny percentage of them.

Its also a rather small percentage of Americans who think black people are apes in clothes.

"Because if you're making a racist joke, you're finding racial stereotypes funny in some way, which suggests you may believe them to be true." What part of this do you disagree with? That there's a good chance you believe the racial stereotypes to be true if you're telling jokes about them?

I disagree with the notion that most people believe the premises of their jokes to be true. If I told you a joke about a neutron at the bar, am I significantly more likely to believe that sentient neutrons go to bars?

The results were very clear. Subjects that held anti homosexual views supported significantly higher cuts for the gay and lesbian organization after they were exposed to anti gay humor, compared to subjects who were not prejudiced against gays and lesbians who were exposed to the same jokes.

This is supporting evidence for the claim that "homophobic jokes generally make homophobes more homophobic", it does little to support the claim that "people who tell homophobic jokes or find homophobic jokes funny are more likely to be homophobic".

This shows that jokes aren't always 'just jokes'.

Jokes aren't always just jokes, if you tell them to the wrong people.

I don't really live in a racist area.
I don't think that's relevant though. I'm just using logic here.

The problem with the logic being employed is that it only works if we assume that most people believe the premises of their jokes, which is rarely the case. Anecdotal testimony may be of some worth here, since we lack empirical evidence.

Sure, but good ideas will win in the end, and it's worth the time the bad ones take to go away because they are much less likely to come back this way, and people have more freedom as a result (it's freedom and rationality).

But what damage will the bad ideas cause while they fight the good fight?

Well, if they actually end up restricting information about Islam, then there's reason for concern.
Until they do, this is really just speculation.

It seems like they are, based on right wing coverage. I imagine you don't consider the right wing media to be reliable though.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01 ... te-speech/

Violence isn't the first resort. It's what happens after a build up of constantly oppressing your population (which is what you'd be doing by massacring them and trying to pretend it never happened), and when people don't think there's another option.

Are you agreeing that the Chinese people would resort to violent revolution since they have been oppressed?

Is this about China, America, both, or everywhere (or somewhere else)?

Everywhere.

Climate change

Lying about climate change is certainly an issue, but they are a developing nation, so greater emissions relative to other nations should be expected.

dealing with refugees, relations with North Korea, etc..
I wrote about it on that Sesame Credit topic.

I don't know much about these issues. I'll reread the thread.

No, it just pretends the problem never existed, giving the government permission to do anything.

The US government is very likely hiding some of their past from you. Are they rampant tyrants?

They'll never be held accountable for them anyway, so why not commit some massacres (like China)?

If they wait, or do some political reform, they can concede that the old system (which they will want to vilify anyways) committed atrocities.
How do you recommend they share this information without triggering uprising? Or do you think destabilizing superpowers is okay?

The government needs to be kept in check. If the people feel like the government is going unchecked, that could inspire violence.

Do you not think that telling the Chinese people how awful their government is would inspire violence?

It's not all that they know, and you can't stop the flow of information anyway.

You can't stop the flow of information, but you can pass it through a distorted lens. Have you read George Orwell's Animal Farm?

As it's crashing right before their eyes?

You can't see what your eyes aren't trained to look for. Not all Chinese citizens are economists.

The government should just blatantly lie to the people?

If it's useful to the people.

Again, the government needs to be kept in check.

A government kept in check is not intrinsically one that doesn't have censorship.

useful for government*

and the people

You did?

I believe so.

If so, this doesn't even matter. We're not going to have a society ruled by scientists and philosophers. We have to work with what we have, which is bringing back democracy in America.

Let me clarify. I don't know how the implementation of policy works. If you could recommend resources on how this works, I'd be much obliged.
Additionally, I do think that a system like Sesame Credit could be implemented, since it has been in China.

Ok, so who is/are above them?

More people who think they are working for an independent research company.

It's still prone to corruption, because officials above the philosophers and scientists know their immense power.

Only if the employees understand the system they are a part of.

How are you going to do this so that they wouldn't suspect anything?

Have all the employees remain ignorant, except maybe, high ranking officials. Not sure about it though.

See the Sesame Credit topic.

Will do!

Online news is often a lot better, IMO.

What are your favorites? Why?

Oh, whoops. I forgot to link the article.
Here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

This seems politically unbiased!
Certainly right wingers must never be a reliable source of news! Not even if they report on the same issue and in the same manner as a liberal outlet.