Page 5 of 9

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:44 pm
by EquALLity
RedAppleGP wrote:
What do you mean, 'but not for male anatomy'? Men don't need to sit with their legs spread wide out.
You are saying that because you've never had to sit with something between your legs all the time. Especially when you're wearing tight pants, and when it's hot outside, thus it gets unbearable. We have the right to have a little breathing space, you know what I mean?
:lol:

I did some reading about it, and it seemed like it can be uncomfortable to squeeze them together, but that you still don't need to spread them out like this guy: http://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-content ... atured.jpg

I think there's a reasonable limit. :P

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:00 am
by brimstoneSalad
EquALLity wrote:But at the same time, it's not as easy to lose weight as it is to not sit with your legs spread ridiculously wide out,
Not so: a man can have his genitalia removed, but it's not covered by insurance, and then he has to take testosterone shots for the rest of his life. This will likely harm his quality of life; losing weight is easy and will improve an obese person's quality of life (and lessen that person's harm on the world).
EquALLity wrote:you can't assume that everyone who is overweight isn't trying to lose weight or is even overweight due to diet.
This is actually a very safe assumption. In fact, when you say things like that you harm people by bringing into doubt thermodynamics and enabling obesity by making people lose hope in weight loss.
The only exceptions (which make it harder, but still not impossible) are legitimate thyroid conditions, which should be diagnosed by a doctor and treated with medication.

Thermodynamics dictates calories in vs. calories out. If you eat less, you'll lose weight. If anybody's body doesn't follow this law, then that person qualifies for the JREF million dollar prize since his or her body is producing power from some supernatural source. That's breatharian logic. Never happened.
EquALLity wrote:What do you mean, 'but not for male anatomy'? Men don't need to sit with their legs spread wide out.
They kind of do. Not 90 degrees wide, but it depends on the man, the temperature, his body fat, the seat, and the length of his legs (which increase the apparent spread), as well as his jeans.

This is a reasonable spread: http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... -1-web.jpg
(The image you linked to is staged as a comic illustration, I think the above image is real)

The woman beside him isn't really losing any room at all, because it's very easy for her to keep her legs together, and there's even a pole there so she couldn't spread if she wanted.
The camera angle makes the guy on the far right look like he's spreading less, but it's not a significant difference.
It's also easy to note that the width that men spread is rarely wider than their shoulders anyway.

A really tight angle (which fits in a subway seat, which are too small) can be painful due to pressure, or unbearably hot as Red mentioned for some men if held for more than a few minutes.
Most men are not trying to take up more room than they need to in order to sit comfortably.
The same is the case on airplanes, which have comically small seats. Men aren't actually spreading far on subways, it just looks like it because of the context. That's how they always have to sit. Take a look at guys in class and how they are sitting at their desks, and compare to girls. If you wanted to, you could make a simple device to measure the angles too and compare to public transit angles.
EquALLity wrote:I'm not sure what your point is; I never denied any of this.
It's important to clarify that there are social conventions on both sides, and this isn't necessarily unreasonable. It does divide people by sex, but this isn't inherently wrong. E.g. separate but equal.

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:33 am
by EquALLity
brimstoneSalad wrote:Not so: a man can have his genitalia removed, but it's not covered by insurance, and then he has to take testosterone shots for the rest of his life. This will likely harm his quality of life; losing weight is easy and will improve an obese person's quality of life (and lessen that person's harm on the world).
I'm not advocating for men getting their genitalia removed. :P

I'm saying that, despite their genitalia, they don't need to spread out their legs so much.
In contrast, losing weight takes a very long time and can be difficult.
brimstoneSalad wrote:This is actually a very safe assumption.
There are two statements there- which are you saying is a safe assumption?

I'm guessing you agree that it's not a safe assumption to assume that any overweight person you meet isn't trying to lose weight.
brimstoneSalad wrote:In fact, when you say things like that you harm people by bringing into doubt thermodynamics and enabling obesity by making people lose hope in weight loss.
The only exceptions (which make it harder, but still not impossible) are legitimate thyroid conditions, which should be diagnosed by a doctor and treated with medication.
Those conditions are what I'm talking about when I say that being overweight isn't necessarily a result of dietary choices. I'm not saying that eating less calories doesn't make you lose weight.
brimstoneSalad wrote:This is a reasonable spread: http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... -1-web.jpg
That looks totally fine, and I'm pretty sure nobody is upset by it.
brimstoneSalad wrote:(The image you linked to is staged as a comic illustration, I think the above image is real)
Is it? :lol:
My bad, I just searched 'manspreading'.

If you search that, you'll find similar photos.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Most men are not trying to take up more room than they need to in order to sit comfortably.
Of course they aren't trying to take up more room than they need to. They just don't think about it, and I'm just saying they should try to be more aware of it to be more considerate.
brimstoneSalad wrote:It's important to clarify that there are social conventions on both sides, and this isn't necessarily unreasonable. It does divide people by sex, but this isn't inherently wrong. E.g. separate but equal.
Social convention:
Social conventions are those arbitrary rules and norms governing the countless behaviors all of us engage in every day without necessarily thinking about them, from shaking hands when greeting someone to driving on the right side of the road.

So, in this context... gender roles?
Of course they exist within both sexes, and they're usually harmful. People shouldn't feel pressured to shave their faces to not look like 'bums', or whatever.

I just find it odd that, in these types of discussions, people feel the need to point out that both sexes have disadvantages when specific ones of the other sex are identified, almost as if it's a contest.

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:45 am
by brimstoneSalad
EquALLity wrote: I'm guessing you agree that it's not a safe assumption to assume that any overweight person you meet isn't trying to lose weight.
What does "try" mean?
Counting calories is not rocket science. If somebody "tries" based on myths about weight loss rather than mainstream scientific consensus, then he or she may not succeed, but part of trying to do something is learning how to do it, and that's hardly difficult: calories are pretty common knowledge.
Most people who are fat are reluctant to try, either because of lack of will power, or social pressure/shame.
EquALLity wrote: Those conditions are what I'm talking about when I say that being overweight isn't necessarily a result of dietary choices.
Eating fewer calories will still solve the weight issue. But that's another choice: There are treatments for thyroid conditions, and at least in modern countries where everybody has access to them, anybody who shuns them is choosing.
EquALLity wrote: That looks totally fine, and I'm pretty sure nobody is upset by it.
That's one of the images people are using as an example and to complain about manspreading.
EquALLity wrote: If you search that, you'll find similar photos.
A lot of staged photos, yes. And then people being reasonable. ;)
EquALLity wrote: They just don't think about it, and I'm just saying they should try to be more aware of it to be more considerate.
People are aware, it's just a problem that doesn't really exist. That's why the whole issue is such a joke.
EquALLity wrote: So, in this context... gender roles?
Of course they exist within both sexes, and they're usually harmful. People shouldn't feel pressured to shave their faces to not look like 'bums', or whatever.
Why do you assert that gender roles are harmful?

A certain standard of aesthetic hygiene and presentability has utility.
EquALLity wrote: I just find it odd that, in these types of discussions, people feel the need to point out that both sexes have disadvantages when specific ones of the other sex are identified, almost as if it's a contest.
It's implicitly sexist to only bring up one side like that, it buries the other side when the whole issue is actually about gender roles and hygiene.
At best, it's something of a lie of omission usually used for purposes of rhetoric (which in itself can be sexist if we're talking about feminist or MRA hetoric).

Kind of how your mother pointing out that whites will be a minority is implicitly racist. A perceived problem or thing that may bother some 'whites'; a "disadvantage" to whites (a very small one) -- which is being a minority -- is mentioned, despite many ignored disadvantages others face. It's trivializing and minimizing the problems of others to be one-sided like that.
Why even bring up these supposed "problems" when they're really trivial if not to undermine the problems of others by comparing them or foisting them above others' more serious problems? Unless you think they're serious (which is implied), and if you think whites being a minority is a serious problem you're probably a racist.

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:47 pm
by EquALLity
brimstoneSalad wrote:What does "try" mean?
Counting calories is not rocket science. If somebody "tries" based on myths about weight loss rather than mainstream scientific consensus, then he or she may not succeed, but part of trying to do something is learning how to do it, and that's hardly difficult: calories are pretty common knowledge.
Try, as in they are doing it, but losing weight takes time.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Most people who are fat are reluctant to try, either because of lack of will power, or social pressure/shame.
There shouldn't be social pressure/shame in being overweight.

Being overweight due to diet doesn't mean you are wasteful necessarily; it could just mean you were wasteful.
If you're overweight, and you start eating healthy, the weight isn't going to evaporate overnight. This is why you can't make assumptions, and why fat-shaming is wrong.

It's also wrong because, of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with wastefulness anyway. It's about making people feel bad about how they look.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Eating fewer calories will still solve the weight issue. But that's another choice: There are treatments for thyroid conditions, and at least in modern countries where everybody has access to them, anybody who shuns them is choosing.
I think it's something like 1/5 Americans can't avoid prescribed medication.

Also, if you're overweight due to a thyroid condition, you did nothing wrong, and there's no reason other than your own health why you should lose weight. You're not being wasteful etc..
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's one of the images people are using as an example and to complain about manspreading.
I'm skeptical, source?
brimstoneSalad wrote:A lot of staged photos, yes. And then people being reasonable. ;)
Why do you assume they are staged?
brimstoneSalad wrote:People are aware, it's just a problem that doesn't really exist. That's why the whole issue is such a joke.
Well, I have been on subways like twice in my life, but based on the pictures it seems like people should be more mindful. I also don't see why people would be complaining about it if people were just spreading their legs as wide as the guy in the picture.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Why do you assert that gender roles are harmful?

A certain standard of aesthetic hygiene and presentability has utility.
I'm not going to say that all gender roles are necessarily harmful.
Some based on biology might be reasonable. Like if women were 'womanspreading' with their legs spread wide out, they wouldn't really have any argument of justification... :P

But there's no reason why men should be stereotyped for not shaving their faces, for example. I don't see how that's useful, and it seems extremely snobby and superficial.
brimstoneSalad wrote:It's implicitly sexist to only bring up one side like that, it buries the other side when the whole issue is actually about gender roles and hygiene.
At best, it's something of a lie of omission usually used for purposes of rhetoric (which in itself can be sexist if we're talking about feminist or MRA hetoric).
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I don't think it fits with this context anyway.

We weren't talking feminism/MRA stuff though, ThatNerdyScienceGirl was just listing examples of things she thinks are too-PC, and I was responding to them individually. It's not a debate about sexism; it's a debate about political correctness.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Why even bring up these supposed "problems" when they're really trivial if not to undermine the problems of others by comparing them or foisting them above others' more serious problems?
She was bringing them up because she was giving examples she thought were political correctness going too far.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Unless you think they're serious (which is implied), and if you think whites being a minority is a serious problem you're probably a racist.
Especially if you want to 'preserve' your skin color because you think it's 'special'. :lol:

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:58 pm
by Red
brimstoneSalad wrote: Why do you assert that gender roles are harmful?

A certain standard of aesthetic hygiene and presentability has utility.
I think what EquALLity is trying to get at is gender roles within a society, i.e. men aren't supposed to be emotional, or sensitive, they're supposed to be aggressive, like sports, play video games, etc., which, if they do not comply, will be met with some degree of stigma.

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:01 pm
by EquALLity
RedAppleGP wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote: Why do you assert that gender roles are harmful?

A certain standard of aesthetic hygiene and presentability has utility.
I think what EquALLity is trying to get at is gender roles within a society, i.e. men aren't supposed to be emotional, or sensitive, they're supposed to be aggressive, like sports, play video games, etc., which, if they do not comply, will be met with some degree of stigma.
Yeah, those are what I think of when I hear the term 'gender role', and why I say most are very negative.

But I also don't see utility in stigmatizing men for not shaving their faces, just because of aesthetics.

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:28 pm
by brimstoneSalad
EquALLity wrote: Try, as in they are doing it, but losing weight takes time.
I see what you mean, and that may be possible, but it doesn't take very long to lose weight. It's kind of like the answer to the Fermi Paradox: for any world, a civilization spends a vanishingly small amount of time being cosmically visible. You'd have to be very lucky to catch somebody in the process of legitimately losing weight. People spend decades fat or skinny, and a few months in transition from fat to skinny.

So, it's not a perfect assumption, but it's a pretty safe one. And it's a stigma people can probably bear for a couple months, particularly when they see themselves shedding pounds so they know it won't last long.
EquALLity wrote:There shouldn't be social pressure/shame in being overweight.
No, fat people can be shamed by their fat friends and family for trying to lose weight.
EquALLity wrote:Being overweight due to diet doesn't mean you are wasteful necessarily; it could just mean you were wasteful.
They'll have to bear that for a few months as they lose weight as they were bearing it beforehand.
99.9...% of the time it's going to be a fat person not in the process of losing weight.

EquALLity wrote:It's also wrong because, of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with wastefulness anyway. It's about making people feel bad about how they look.
I don't think that's necessarily true. The reason we consider fat shaming acceptable but not ugly shaming is because of its connection to gluttony and ill health as a matter of choice.
EquALLity wrote:I think it's something like 1/5 Americans can't avoid prescribed medication.
Avoid?
EquALLity wrote:Also, if you're overweight due to a thyroid condition, you did nothing wrong, and there's no reason other than your own health why you should lose weight. You're not being wasteful etc..
That's extremely rare, though.
EquALLity wrote:I'm skeptical, source?
That's just where I found it, from an article on manspreading. It was an example image.
EquALLity wrote:Why do you assume they are staged?
They're spreading to an uncomfortable degree, you can tell they're forcing it, and they're posing for a camera. You can also find numerous shots for many of these people, including looking at the camera. They appear very clearly staged to me.
EquALLity wrote:I also don't see why people would be complaining about it if people were just spreading their legs as wide as the guy in the picture.
That's the point. Many of these so called feminists are just trying to find things to complain about by inventing problems so they can be relevant again. This is the psychology of an adversarial or victim complex.

The same applies to religion: Why would so many Christians be complaining about being persecuted in the U.S.A. if they aren't being?
EquALLity wrote:I'm not going to say that all gender roles are necessarily harmful.
OK. It's important to look at them individually.
EquALLity wrote:But there's no reason why men should be stereotyped for not shaving their faces, for example. I don't see how that's useful, and it seems extremely snobby and superficial.
Fashion has some utility. In another time, it might be having a braided beard (and if you don't have a tidily braided beard, but a messy beard instead, then you're out).
It's a matter of applying a certain effort to physical appearance that helps people filter the bums from the socially acceptable.

There are any number of arbitrary aesthetic requirements that can create utility for this purpose. Being neatly shaven is one. Men can have beards, but they must be meticulously groomed. Arbitrary rules, sure, but where having rules of some kind (any kind) has a purpose.
EquALLity wrote:She was bringing them up because she was giving examples she thought were political correctness going too far.
I think criticizing those examples requires an awareness of why and how they're going too far, which means looking at the context and both sides of things. With fashion, it's a little more complicated.

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:39 pm
by EquALLity
brimstoneSalad wrote:I see what you mean, and that may be possible, but it doesn't take very long to lose weight.
If you're obese, it could take awhile to have a healthy body weight.
brimstoneSalad wrote:You'd have to be very lucky to catch somebody in the process of legitimately losing weight.
I don't think so. You can't make assumptions like that.
brimstoneSalad wrote:So, it's not a perfect assumption, but it's a pretty safe one. And it's a stigma people can probably bear for a couple months, particularly when they see themselves shedding pounds so they know it won't last long.
Can you explain exactly why we should have the stigma on being overweight?

I think the only stigma should be on being wasteful, which can be tied in with being overweight, but not necessarily. It's not fair to assume that all overweight people you meet are wasteful.

If it's only about being wasteful, and nothing about appearance, why should there be the stigma on being overweight specifically?

Also, note the serious downsides to stigmas on being overweight (eating disorders etc.).
brimstoneSalad wrote:No, fat people can be shamed by their fat friends and family for trying to lose weight.
What? :?

I've never heard of that happening, but yeah, that could be a deterrent to being healthy.
brimstoneSalad wrote:They'll have to bear that for a few months as they lose weight as they were bearing it beforehand.
99.9...% of the time it's going to be a fat person not in the process of losing weight.
Why should they have to bear it? What's the point?

You want to stigmatize people for being wasteful, not for simply being overweight. Being wasteful is the issue; being overweight is just a consequence.
It makes sense to attack the core issue, but no more.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think that's necessarily true. The reason we consider fat shaming acceptable but not ugly shaming is because of its connection to gluttony and ill health as a matter of choice.
Most people are extremely gluttonous, and rich people are idolized for it, so I don't see it as a gluttony issue.

Harming yourself by having ill health isn't immoral.

I think it's because being overweight is considered 'icky'.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Avoid?
Whoops, I meant afford.
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's extremely rare, though.
But it's further reason why fat-shaming makes no sense.

Saying that we should have a stigma on being overweight, because it is often the consequence of something bad, makes no sense.
It's like stigmatizing all conservatives because a lot of them are crazy, and a lot of them are conservatives because they are crazy. :P
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's just where I found it, from an article on manspreading. It was an example image.
Can you link the article? Maybe it's a random article that takes the issue way too far.
brimstoneSalad wrote:They're spreading to an uncomfortable degree, you can tell they're forcing it, and they're posing for a camera. You can also find numerous shots for many of these people, including looking at the camera. They appear very clearly staged to me.
Some of them, maybe.

Would you consider this obviously staged (I wouldn't)?: http://thesource.com/wp-content/uploads ... S_MSFC.jpg
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's the point. Many of these so called feminists are just trying to find things to complain about by inventing problems so they can be relevant again. This is the psychology of an adversarial or victim complex.
I don't really see this as a feminist issue (it's a consideration one), but I know there are some radical feminists who do, and that probably does play a part in it.
brimstoneSalad wrote:The same applies to religion: Why would so many Christians be complaining about being persecuted in the U.S.A. if they aren't being?
I think it's partially what you're suggesting, but also:

Christians have been in power so long, having their religion shoved into our government and having the power to use it to discriminate against people, and now the tide is turning. Religion is dying- 1/3 millenials don't identify with a religion, and our government is becoming increasingly secular. Our next President might even be a secular Jew... :D
So, when they compare then and now, it seems like they are losing ground (and they are), and they see the equalizing as persecution.
brimstoneSalad wrote:It's a matter of applying a certain effort to physical appearance that helps people filter the bums from the socially acceptable.
That's why I'm saying it's negative. It's encouraging snobbery and superficiality.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Arbitrary rules, sure, but where having rules of some kind (any kind) has a purpose.
A negative purpose.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I think criticizing those examples requires an awareness of why and how they're going too far, which means looking at the context and both sides of things. With fashion, it's a little more complicated.
I don't think so. We have to analyze the issues, but only for the purposes of determining whether or not they matter to determine if they are examples of political correctness are going too far.

Re: What exactly is political correctness?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:52 pm
by brimstoneSalad
EquALLity wrote:If you're obese, it could take awhile to have a healthy body weight.
With diet alone, around 3 lb per week could be possible. With exercise too, rather than extreme dietary restriction, more could be possible.
If you want to lose 100 lb of excess fat, that should take a little over six months. It doesn't take long.
EquALLity wrote:I don't think so. You can't make assumptions like that.
There's nothing to disagree with there. It's not an assumption, it's just a statistical fact.

If somebody spends 30 adult years obese, then decides to lose weight in the late 40's, and took six months to lose weight, what are the chances that a random encounter with that person while still significantly overweight were while losing weight?

One in 61. Under a 2% chance.

But most fat people never do lose weight. They live fat and they die fat. The odds, in effect, are far lower than that.

Most fat people aren't in the process of making a legitimate effort to lose weight, but rather yo-yo-ing with absurd fad diets, pills, and quick fixes because they can't be bothered to exercise some impulse control and change what they eat for real.

I have no doubt that many fat people report at any given time that they are "trying" to lose weight, but their 'attempts' are self deception, not weight loss.
Like I said before, it's not rocket science, they just have to eat fewer calories than they burn, and in order to feel good on a low calorie diet they have to start eating more nutritious foods and getting more fiber for satiation.
EquALLity wrote:Can you explain exactly why we should have the stigma on being overweight?
We don't want to encourage people to be obese. It should be viewed negatively, and that's fair: it's not healthy and it's not ethical (waste), and it's a personal choice people make to be fat every single day.
EquALLity wrote:It's not fair to assume that all overweight people you meet are wasteful.
It's a fair assumption when the legitimate diseases that cause obesity are so profoundly rare:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20014834

Just as if you see somebody eating meat, it's a safe assumption that it isn't road kill that he or she found, cleaned, and cooked to eat.

In your whole life, if you criticized meat eaters and fat people every single day, you'd probably never make the mistake of criticizing somebody who was innocent. It's a very safe bet.
EquALLity wrote:Also, note the serious downsides to stigmas on being overweight (eating disorders etc.).
I understand that. But if somebody is losing weight, there is no reason such a stigma should still affect him or her. If you're losing 3-5 pounds a week, you're pretty far above any of that bullshit because you know in a few months that won't be you anymore. Psychological detachment.
EquALLity wrote:What? :?

I've never heard of that happening, but yeah, that could be a deterrent to being healthy.
It's pretty serious. Probably far worse than skinny people shaming them (which does drive them into depression and may result in them eating their feelings, but that's a choice too) since it's actually inhibiting change when they make a legitimate attempt.
EquALLity wrote:Why should they have to bear it? What's the point?
Because in those profoundly rare cases where somebody really is losing weight, there's no way for people to know that unless there are context clues.
I can tell you that anybody really losing weight is getting compliments around the clock from people who know them (and aren't fellow fat people shaming them) for weight loss. This (which can be identified with) combined with the detachment from the insults since that won't be them anymore soon, very likely makes it a positive experience for anybody in the process of losing weight.
EquALLity wrote:You want to stigmatize people for being wasteful, not for simply being overweight. Being wasteful is the issue; being overweight is just a consequence.
It makes sense to attack the core issue, but no more.
You can't tell when a skinny person is wasteful. If people wore that on them as badges, then it would be more helpful.
EquALLity wrote: I think it's because being overweight is considered 'icky'.
Why do you think it's considered 'icky'?
I don't think you're substantiating this well, when there are many well known reasons. Some people may think this, but that kind of sentiment can't be upheld long without real reasons to support it.

And harming your own health isn't without moral consequence when you drag down the economy and social healthcare with your health problems.
Suicide is less harmful, but again, still wasteful and abandoning your responsibility to society.
EquALLity wrote:Whoops, I meant afford.
How much are generic thyroid medications? Are you certain these are not covered under medicare?
EquALLity wrote:But it's further reason why fat-shaming makes no sense.
No, it isn't. I don't think you fully grasp the rarity of this.
You can't give people the benefit of the doubt when the doubt is so astronomically small that it basically means you can't ever blame anybody for anything ever -- no matter how much evidence, because the evidence might be wrong.
EquALLity wrote:It's like stigmatizing all conservatives because a lot of them are crazy, and a lot of them are conservatives because they are crazy. :P
It's not at all like that. The correlations are several orders of magnitude removed.
EquALLity wrote:Can you link the article? Maybe it's a random article that takes the issue way too far.
You'd have to check the link, I don't know where it is, I just noted the article when I found it. The point is that everything about manspreading is taking it too far.
EquALLity wrote:Would you consider this obviously staged (I wouldn't)?: http://thesource.com/wp-content/uploads ... S_MSFC.jpg
Not obviously, no. There's nobody to his right, and he's not touching that woman to his left (although the camera angle makes it look like it).
EquALLity wrote:That's why I'm saying it's negative. It's encouraging snobbery and superficiality.
Why is having standards bad?
EquALLity wrote:I don't think so. We have to analyze the issues, but only for the purposes of determining whether or not they matter to determine if they are examples of political correctness are going too far.
The criticism missed the other side. If it were more complete, you would have to explain why the other side is different and why it doesn't affect the evaluation.