Has political correctness actually gone mad?

VHP Activist Files Complaint Against Prashant Bhushan Over Lord Krishna Tweet

https://thewire.in/120952/vhp-activist-complaint-prashant-bhushan-lord-krishna-tweet/

@sammsky1 This is what happens when you start having "my religion wasn't represented exactly as I like" bans on free speech.

Context: there are "anti-Romeo" squads recently launched by the govt of one state in India, they basically harass young couples (who are usually just walking or sitting) on the streets, besides also harassing groups of young boys. There is a Hindu god called Krishna famous for his flirting and success with women. So this lawyer asked whether this govt, run by a Hindu nationalist party, would rather call them "anti-Krishna" squads.
He now has to go to court.

Edit: people from both national parties have filed complaints about it. Which tells you what the situation is with regards to freedom of speech vs religion.
 
berbatrick said:
VHP Activist Files Complaint Against Prashant Bhushan Over Lord Krishna Tweet

https://thewire.in/120952/vhp-activist-complaint-prashant-bhushan-lord-krishna-tweet/

@sammsky1 This is what happens when you start having "my religion wasn't represented exactly as I like" bans on free speech.

Context: there are "anti-Romeo" squads recently launched by the govt of one state in India, they basically harass young couples (who are usually just walking or sitting) on the streets, besides also harassing groups of young boys. There is a Hindu god called Krishna famous for his flirting and success with women. So this lawyer asked whether this govt, run by a Hindu nationalist party, would rather call them "anti-Krishna" squads.
He now has to go to court.

Edit: people from both national parties have filed complaints about it. Which tells you what the situation is with regards to freedom of speech vs religion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tag.

The point made by the tweet could have been made in so many different ways without referring to Lord Krishna, so why do it? Also there is a huge difference between the content of this tweet and the content of the Hebdo cartoons. Lastly I broadly apply Libertarianism in my life so personally wouldn't have to alter my language if I was banned from mockery which emotionally injured others. There is constructive criticism and there is outright malicious intent. I do my best never to do it anyway and my life is full of enough intellectual discourse and laughter.

I'm not even that much of a practicing Muslim but I was furious and upset by those cartoons a few years ago: because they maliciously mainly because the intent was so and calculated and vicious. I dont see any good that came from that entire exercise: it was lose-lose-lose so I cant see why such a concept is worth fighting for.

I live in the west so have to tolerate such nasty abuse from time to time, but I totally disagree with it. Freedom of speech is a total fallacy anyway with different constraints in different countries. I've had this opinion for many years and seen no new argument or incident to convince me to change my mind.
 
The internet has given everyone a voice. With that you get some nutbags I guess.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
The internet has given everyone a voice. With that you get some nutbags I guess.
Click to expand...

Everything is cultural appropriation for some people. It's a type of segregation; people of one race can only talk about its own problems and sufferings and failings and there should be no common ground between races/cultures/whatever identity.
That's what this feels like. It's disgusting.
 
An interesting article by the guy behind that pre-election viral piece explaining the appeal of Trump...

I'm not 100% onside with his nihilist outlook, and I'll admit to often being dismissive of - or even insulting towards - the very attitudes he's talking about, but he definitely raises some difficult but prescient points...That are worth consideration.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-were-quietly-letting-racists-win/

In my opinion, inoculating that age group -- turning the rejection of bigotry into an automatic reflex that requires no further explanation -- is no longer possible. They were raised in humanity's first era of total information transparency, in 4chan's "everything goes" culture. The more you tell them not to look into a subject, the more they want to do it. Racist shitheads are taking advantage.

Do you remember the day your parents sat you down and taught you how to masturbate? The day Dad showed you how to browse the best porn sites ("Remember son, even if you have the video muted, the LiveJasmin ads can still make noise") and Mom told you what to look for in a novelty butt plug?

I don't! For me and every single person I know, these were things we had to find out for ourselves, because they were Forbidden Subjects and us kids were not to be corrupted by them. "A good boy does not think of such things," they said. "Your curiosity is temptation, indulging it is sin." Their position has always been that giving real sex education to teenagers will encourage them to have sex. Speaking frankly about porn, fetishes, self-pleasure, or even sexual technique is giving the impression that it's within the realm of things teens are allowed to do (and we certainly can't have that).

And yet 100 percent of those teens diddiscover those things, because the urges and curiosity were natural, and thus there will always be others (often with grossly cynical motives) willing to satisfy them. In my day, it was older kids with porn magazines. Now, The Forbidden is always a click away. The grownups in my life didn't give me answers about sex, so my worldview was shaped by pornographers and profiteers who told me what I wanted to hear (which boiled down to "Females only exist for male pleasure").

The exact same thing is happening to young kids who are curious about race. If you don't talk to them in a blunt, frank way that addresses the ugly parts, someone else fecking will.
Click to expand...

I still believe Political correctness (or at least what it originally meant) to be mostly a force for good. But in a world that's become angry and bitter enough to make it a catch-all scapegoat for every ill under the sun, it's better to defend it's advantages with knowledge, than attempt to simply insult it's detractors away.
 
Last edited:
'Trouble is, those of us who broadly agree with the concept - or rather, the tenets - of political correctness are placed in the position of parents ('do-gooders', prissy types who are 'no fun' etc); this position casts the anti-pc people as rebels, and some therefore revel in what others view as immature, unconsidered thinking.

Ironically, in view of the above, this kind of self-defeating nonsense needs binning if we're to get anywhere at all:
"A good boy does not think of such things," they said. "Your curiosity is temptation, indulging it is sin."
Click to expand...
 
Mockney said:
An interesting article by the guy behind that pre-election viral piece explaining the appeal of Trump...

I'm not 100% onside with his nihilist outlook, and I'll admit to often being dismissive of - or even insulting towards - the very attitudes he's talking about, but he definitely raises some difficult but prescient points...That are worth consideration.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-were-quietly-letting-racists-win/

I still believe Political correctness (or at least what it originally meant) to be mostly a force for good. But in a world that's become angry and bitter enough to make it a catch-all scapegoat for every ill under the sun, it's better to defend it's advantages with knowledge, than attempt to simply insult it's detractors away.
Click to expand...

Interesting read in spite of the annoying clickbait title.

I think it's all about finding a balance between the normalisation of certain uncomfortable ideas and yet also being willing to discuss certain things.

As has been said the idea liberals exist in their own bubble is generally overplayed and it's probably more conservative types who are guilty of it, but in the cases I do know of liberals who could be accused of being the types not receptive to opposing ideas, there does seem to sometimes be a disconnect between them and people who'd they disagree with...and not even those who hold particularly extreme views as such.
 
SteveJ said:
'Trouble is, those of us who broadly agree with the concept - or rather, the tenets - of political correctness are placed in the position of parents ('do-gooders', prissy types who are 'no fun' etc); this position casts the anti-pc people as rebels, and some therefore revel in what others view as immature, unconsidered thinking.

Ironically, in view of the above, this kind of self-defeating nonsense needs binning if we're to get anywhere at all:
Click to expand...

Which is kind of interesting because in past times you'd typically think of those who would've pursued ideas associated with political corectness, ie equality for people of different races, gender equality, gay rights etc, as the more outspoken, rebellious types who were out on the streets campaigning, defying social norms for what they thought was right etc, and yet now they could arguably be seen in the opposite light. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but typically it'd be the conservatives who'd be thought of as the parental, prissy types. Suppose that's sort of the goal of the alt-right type movement though - to paint themselves in a different light to traditional conservatism (hence the alt) and appeal to younger generations by being more edgy and outspoken, and also painting themselves as this sort of oppressed minority who are having their views suppressed.
 
Cheesy said:
Which is kind of interesting because in past times you'd typically think of those who would've pursued ideas associated with political corectness, ie equality for people of different races, gender equality, gay rights etc, as the more outspoken, rebellious types who were out on the streets campaigning, defying social norms for what they thought was right etc, and yet now they could arguably be seen in the opposite light. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but typically it'd be the conservatives who'd be thought of as the parental, prissy types. Suppose that's sort of the goal of the alt-right type movement though - to paint themselves in a different light to traditional conservatism (hence the alt) and appeal to younger generations by being more edgy and outspoken, and also painting themselves as this sort of oppressed minority who are having their views suppressed.
Click to expand...
It's kinda exemplified, for me, by Trump throwing his hands up after saying something outrageous & following up with "Hey, I'm just putting it out there"; that faux innocence and dereliction of responsibility is similar in spirit to the non-apologetic-apology which has become fashionable.
 
SteveJ said:
It's kinda exemplified, for me, by Trump throwing his hands up after saying something outrageous & following up with "Hey, I'm just putting it out there"; that faux innocence is similar in spirit to the non-apologetic-apology which has become fashionable.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's been that sort of "well at least he's honest" effect he's been trying to put across in a lot of his speeches. As if it's more relatable for someone to say abhorrent shite than to say nothing of note at all.
 
These types knowingly cast themselves as victims, and selfless enquirers; like David Irving, the famously dispassionate historian and truthseeker.
 
Cheesy said:
Interesting read in spite of the annoying clickbait title.

I think it's all about finding a balance between the normalisation of certain uncomfortable ideas and yet also being willing to discuss certain things.

As has been said the idea liberals exist in their own bubble is generally overplayed and it's probably more conservative types who are guilty of it, but in the cases I do know of liberals who could be accused of being the types not receptive to opposing ideas, there does seem to sometimes be a disconnect between them and people who'd they disagree with...and not even those who hold particularly extreme views as such.
Click to expand...

Conservatives undoubtedly live in the bigger bubble, but the problem is they vote, whilst their leftist counterparts either don't, or get bogged down in the mire of righteous antagonism, endlessly quibbling over which kind of liberalism is the right one to throw their weight behind.

I've several issues with his argument, but one I can't deny is that the left has meekly conceded the "free speech" flag, despite it traditionally being one of our strongest totems.

When Monty Python were being attacked for The Life of Brian, or Jerry Springer the Opera was being accused of blasphemy, it was the liberal left that jumped to their defence. Now we're the side that balks at religious satire, whatever it's ills, for fear of offence, which has allowed a generation of secularists, raised on the ideals the left fought for, to be seduced by the opportunistic racist right.

It's a tough one because what was once the easy fight against soft Christianity, has morphed into the complex fight against sensitive Islamism, and the reason we've abandoned the secularist approach is understandable in the light of recent Muslim persecution. But by doing it in the black and white way that article suggests, we've pushed a whole generation weaned on rationalism and tolerance, into a straight choice between the two. Now you can either be a secular rational right winger, or a tolerant, understanding left winger, but we're so polarised that pushing the boundaries of either side is tantamount to treason...We should be able to be both. That was the point!

All of this has little or nothing to do with Political Correctness in its original form (which was merely a social agreement to be a bit nicer to each other) But it's somehow been allowed to embody it, due to the escalating polarisation of values.
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
Which is kind of interesting because in past times you'd typically think of those who would've pursued ideas associated with political corectness, ie equality for people of different races, gender equality, gay rights etc, as the more outspoken, rebellious types who were out on the streets campaigning, defying social norms for what they thought was right etc, and yet now they could arguably be seen in the opposite light. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but typically it'd be the conservatives who'd be thought of as the parental, prissy types. Suppose that's sort of the goal of the alt-right type movement though - to paint themselves in a different light to traditional conservatism (hence the alt) and appeal to younger generations by being more edgy and outspoken, and also painting themselves as this sort of oppressed minority who are having their views suppressed.
Click to expand...

The thing is, it still is, and that's part and maybe one of the sources of the conflict.
People on twitter, etc, whether they are talking about BLM or about why white people shouldn't do yoga or something equally ridiculous, do have (with some justification) the tone of someone challenging established power.
 
To oversimplify. The left has been fractured by 'ideas vs feelings'.

The modern left puts feelings above ideas and seeks stiffle debate through silencing and labelling, while many believe that debate of ideas is the only way to reach 'truth' and then a workable solution to any issues.

The secondary issue is the idea of the modern left that you should only punch upwards. You have the moral imperative to greatly consider the feelings of those in a less privileged social class than you, while those above you or in the same class can be criticised freely.

I think the left is broadly motivated a good intentions but these ideas are incompatible with free speech and are actually more damaging in the long term.

The majority of the public fall into groups which can be cricitised and they can grow resentful of the idea of protected classes, but are driven to either withdraw from public discourse where they can be persuaded due to fear of being called a bigot, and then they vote based on the uncontested resentment on voting day, or they own the label and become hardened by public criticism. Meanwhile the left are parading around this 'vurtue' (which by itself is a deeply unattractive trait) to seek approval and votes from the minority groups. Then when they lose on election day the left label the majority bigots and the cycle begins again.

It's a worrying dynamic for liberal minded people like myself because it hardens the drive to the extremes of politics.
 
Drainy said:
To oversimplify. The left has been fractured by 'ideas vs feelings'.

The modern left puts feelings above ideas and seeks stiffle debate through silencing and labelling, while many believe that debate of ideas is the only way to reach 'truth' and then a workable solution to any issues.

The secondary issue is the idea of the modern left that you should only punch upwards. You have the moral imperative to greatly consider the feelings of those in a less privileged social class than you, while those above you or in the same class can be criticised freely.

I think the left is broadly motivated a good intentions but these ideas are incompatible with free speech and are actually more damaging in the long term.

The majority of the public fall into groups which can be cricitised and they can grow resentful of the idea of protected classes, but are driven to either withdraw from public discourse where they can be persuaded due to fear of being called a bigot, and then they vote based on the uncontested resentment on voting day, or they own the label and become hardened by public criticism. Meanwhile the left are parading around this 'vurtue' (which by itself is a deeply unattractive trait) to seek approval and votes from the minority groups. Then when they lose on election day the left label the majority bigots and the cycle begins again.

It's a worrying dynamic for liberal minded people like myself because it hardens the drive to the extremes of politics.
Click to expand...

I do think there is a certain lack of pragmatism in the way left leaning people vote.
They vote based on ideology rather than reality.

They'll vote for the hippie with 0 chance of actually being part of the government over the liberal party with the leader whos a bit of snake / weasel but could get in power
and would be preferable to the conservative psychopath
(in theory at least, sometimes you'd be better off with a sane conservative party than a populist hate mongering liberal one)
 
@Mockney
Worse then youtube comments mentioned in the article are those on random sites - non-political ones. I found a nice reliable football stream on reddit, and the users on that stream are from either reddit or 4chan or maybe voat. Given the level of the "debate" (football or otherwise) in the comments, those guys must be under-18, maybe even 13ish.
Their politics are easily to the right of Le Pen, probably Hitler. It's hard to tell what is irony and what isn't, but obfuscating by using irony is in fact an alt-right tactic. They revel in nastiness and nihlism, towards any groups sometimes including themselves. I think some of those comments originally started from a desire to shock, but it's now the "mainstream" line in those chats. Samples from today: men are better off by being far away from women. Hitler was right. All Africans have AIDS. Sweden is the rape capital of the world. No, it's Nigeria. This is because Africa has no electricity and so can't watch porn. Islam is a religion of peace is a meme they use often. Kebab removal is their favourite policy. They also make a lot of fun of Americans for saying soccer and being fat, so I'm assuming they're mostly British. For some reason the last few days I've also been seeing a lot of bald-hate. Either it's just a new object to hate or it's a code. The commonest insult in any comment is fag, or gayyy, and then everyone ironically claims to be gay (I don't pretend to understand them).*

If they are in any way representative of the next generation that follows the (politically awesome) millennials, the liberal order of the west is over (it's already happened in other countries).

*Forgot to add: there are only 2 genders. Insisting on this point seems to be common, even in non-political reddit subs dedicated to memes (the highly upvoted one I saw was in r/prequelmemes)
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
@Mockney
Worse then youtube comments mentioned in the article are those on random sites - non-political ones. I found a nice reliable football stream on reddit, and the users on that stream are from either reddit or 4chan or maybe voat. Given the level of the "debate" (football or otherwise) in the comments, those guys must be under-18, maybe even 13ish.
Their politics are easily to the right of Le Pen, probably Hitler. It's hard to tell what is irony and what isn't, but obfuscating by using irony is in fact an alt-right tactic. They revel in nastiness and nihlism, towards any groups sometimes including themselves. I think some of those comments originally started from a desire to shock, but it's now the "mainstream" line in those chats. Samples from today: men are better off by being far away from women. Hitler was right. All Africans have AIDS. Sweden is the rape capital of the world. No, it's Nigeria. This is because Africa has no electricity and so can't watch porn. Islam is a religion of peace is a meme they use often. Kebab removal is their favourite policy. They also make a lot of fun of Americans for saying soccer and being fat, so I'm assuming they're mostly British. For some reason the last few days I've also been seeing a lot of bald-hate. Either it's just a new object to hate or it's a code. The commonest insult in any comment is fag, or gayyy, and then everyone ironically claims to be gay (I don't pretend to understand them).

If they are in any way representative of the next generation that follows the (politically awesome) millennials, the liberal order of the west is over (it's already happened in other countries).
Click to expand...
It's worth keeping in mind that the biggest voices on those venues are wholly unrepresentative. Most normies close the chatbox and don't bother spamming, reading or replying to anything on it. It's a bit like people being abusive on online games, it can easily seem like it's a massive thing, but it's usually a minority of, mostly young guys, with no life.
 
Silva said:
It's worth keeping in mind that the biggest voices on those venues are wholly unrepresentative. Most normies close the chatbox and don't bother spamming, reading or replying to anything on it. It's a bit like people being abusive on online games, it can easily seem like it's a massive thing, but it's usually a minority of, mostly young guys, with no life.
Click to expand...

I'll have you know I owned a game chatbox once. It was a Trump v Clinton fight, about "MSM" and it was quite insane, and all I needed was Chomsky.
 
You only need to look at how overwhelming younger people were pro Remain, or liked Bernie Sanders to realise that they're not a new wave of nihilists. All that's happened is that where before 14 year olds would say dumb shit to their dumb friends they now say it on 4chan instead. And where before holocaust deniers would meet in borderline derelict pubs, they now posts on the youtube comments section.

The reason they may seem like extremists perhaps is because everything is still controlled the baby boomers, the ideological gap between your average teenager and a baby boomer is the size of a fecking ocean.
 
Silva said:
You only need to look at how overwhelming younger people were pro Remain, or likes Bernie Sanders to realise that they're not a new wave of nihilists. All that's happened is that where before 14 year olds would say dumb shit to their dumb friends they now say it on 4chan instead.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Sanders and remain voters were by definition above 18.
What I'm scared about is if kids who are immersed in reddit/4chan learn all their politics through that (and so it's more than just a phase). This is democratising in a way, that you no longer rely on media which tends to have its own biases, but those are spaces which the right has captured very well.
 
berbatrick said:
Yes, the Sanders and remain voters were by definition above 18.
What I'm scared about is if kids who are immersed in reddit/4chan learn all their politics through that (and so it's more than just a phase). This is democratising in a way, that you no longer rely on media which tends to have its own biases, but those are spaces which the right has captured very well.
Click to expand...
Most of the kids who were immersed in 4chan culture are of voting age at this point. I remember visiting and posting on there a decade ago, most of my friends visited it and posted dumb shit and took memes of it, and unless they're hiding it really, really well, they're not holocaust denying anarchists. 4chan isn't a new phenomenon, most of the people there at it's peak, and there now, were and are of voting age.
 
And what even is reddit culture? It's just an aggregator of content, of course it's going to aggregate regressive as well as progressive, and status quo, and everything in between or outside them. It doesn't have a concrete culture, r/wholesomememes and r/the_donald might as well be different websites.
 
Youtube has a canny way of appearing as whatever you search. To me it looks like a hotbed of left leaning comedians. The Minecraft generation spends more time watching Netflix than youtube anyway. And not watching youtube based ideologues, their base is made up of mostly young voting aged folk belonging to demographics who are overwhelming liberal.
 
Last edited:
hobbers said:
Youtube has become a real hotbed of right-leaning thought. Commentaries, conservative debating points, endless videos of leftist college kids embarrassing themselves. Easily explains why the Minecraft generation are getting heralded as the most conservative generation this side of WW2.

More generally the left's unwillingness or inability to debate has resulted in a serious lack of representation on some of the most popular social media platforms. But I suppose it's only natural for the power of the arguments to decay the further the political pendulum swings.
Click to expand...
Such as? Isn't it just Youtube, due considerably to Youtube debating no longer being a thing since Google changed how the comments worked.

Anyway, my go to man for truth, Alex Jones, seems quite sure Youtube are waging war against them, so there may not be long left for the crusade against the liberal media.
 
berbatrick said:
That is naive optimism.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/the-post-millennial-generation-should-worry-democrats/

Rosa Luxemborg rightly said, socialism or barbarism, and we don't have socialism :)
Click to expand...
It looks like the main poll they're relying on is massively swung by white kids, which the article itself points out will not be a majority of Gen Z. It also looks like the tried and tested method of asking the same questions, which mean different things to kids as they would to adults. A conservative 14 year old is to the far left of a conservative 70 year old.
 
Silva said:
It looks like the main poll they're relying on is massively swung by white kids, which the article itself points out will not be a majority of Gen Z. It also looks like the tried and tested method of asking the same questions, which mean different things to kids as they would to adults. A conservative 14 year old is to the far left of a conservative 70 year old.
Click to expand...

Meh, I hope so. I remember seeing the numbers on Bernie for 16-18 and they weren't good. By contrast, he was dominating 18-29.
 
Part of it is that the younger someone is the more ignorant of history they're going to be. And any grown adult claiming they're more conservative than any generation since WWII is historically ignorant. If we're comparing them to older generations, we're comparing a current 14 year old with little white kids who were smiling at lynchings, we're comparing them with a generation that chemically castrated Alan Turing. It would be incredible if the kids growing up today did something further to the right of that generation.

A conservative child today might grow up to want the NHS to have a little less funding, rather than for it to not exist. Might want the their country not to be peacekeepers on another continent, rather than continue colonising it. Etc. Etc.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the days before the internet was discovered. We would have to take a trip down to the local public toilets and read the political writings daubed on the wall in pen and shit and spunk, if we were to ever gauge the political mood.
 
C-OiVT8VwAEpIz6
 
Possibly not the right place for this but whatever. This one actually made me laugh.

I mean it's obviously making the face brighter and face/nose thinner, which would make most (white) people a bit more attractive if the Snapchat filters are anything to go by. This app is crap at it anyway.

FaceApp sorry for 'racist' filter that lightens skin to make users 'hot'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...t-filter-that-lightens-skin-to-make-users-hot
 
VeevaVee said:
Possibly not the right place for this but whatever. This one actually made me laugh.

I mean it's obviously making the face brighter and face/nose thinner, which would make most (white) people a bit more attractive if the Snapchat filters are anything to go by. This app is crap at it anyway.

FaceApp sorry for 'racist' filter that lightens skin to make users 'hot'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...t-filter-that-lightens-skin-to-make-users-hot
Click to expand...
:lol:Ouch, that's not too subtle.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...king-eye-contact-could-guiltyof-racism-oxford
Students who avoid making eye contact could be guilty of racism, Oxford University says

Students who avoid making eye contact with their peers could be guilty of racism, according to Oxford University’s latest guidance.

The university’s Equality and Diversity Unit has advised students that “not speaking directly to people” could be deemed a “racial microaggression” which can lead to “mental ill-health”.
Click to expand...

I must be well racist, bloody anxiety :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.