US The Coddling of the American Mind

Take heart. The ultimate anti-PCer (except of course when it comes to what's said about him) is president-elect.
 
To find out why college kids are so politically correct, Bill Maher asks a person in their 50s.

Seems legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freesia
tumblr_ohodzzypK21shriyoo1_1280.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: PTree15 and KLS52
Being free to express your opinion does not automatically mean you will use that freedom to be verbally abusive. What you have below there is simply based on a false presumption that free speech advocates are using it for solely nefarious purposes.

Free speech = Being abusive. I think that would fall under false dichotomy/false choice.


 
A lot of people seem to be able to express their opinions without being accused of being offensive, at least not on a regular basis.
 
Being free to express your opinion does not automatically mean you will use that freedom to be verbally abusive. What you have below there is simply based on a false presumption that free speech advocates are using it for solely nefarious purposes.

Free speech = Being abusive. I think that would fall under false dichotomy/false choice.

It's not about all free speech advocates, it's about the people who use free speech as a way to complain about the consequences of their words and the backlash against them.

If you're not one of those people then there's no need to get defensive about it really. But generally, people who regularly say **** like the sentence on the left of the image very much mean the sentence on the right.

Free speech != being abusive. Using free speech as an excuse to abuse people = being abusive.
 

Let me put it this way: if you want to call me a n***er, so hate speech, I will defend your right to say that. If you don't want to serve me food because I'm black, so association, I will defend your right to do whatever you want to do in your private business. If you don't want to call me by my correct pronoun, like these triggered snowflakes here, I will be offended, but also, I will defend your right to call me whatever the hell you want.

I don't even feel like going into why this is nonsense because I have better **** to do, but for anyone looking at this and shaking their head, wondering what this video is: this is the kind of nonsense in the video. Don't waste eight minutes of your life listening to people who think "triggered snowflakes" is a totally cool thing to say sit there and sabotage themselves for the sake of some misguided ideological purity.

ETA: Because I'm a masochist I watched a little more of this and he eventually launches into a tirade about universities indoctrinating students with postmodernism. This should be a familiar narrative to anyone even a little familiar with academia, especially the newer disciplines. These folks are so predictable, it would be genuinely funny if it weren't so disappointing.
 
Why only free speech? What about the freedom to punch other people's noses when you feel like it?

Most civilized nations do have laws in place that limit a person's ability to insult or defamate other people.
I don't know about the US.

In other words - I personally do not agree with the message of that video.
 
Most civilized nations do have laws in place that limit a person's ability to insult or defamate other people.
I don't know about the US.

Yes, the US has laws against defamation, and against the intentional infliction of emotional harm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy_T
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia

Everything in the above links seem reasonable to me except "emotional distress" which is far too broad given how hyper sensitive certain groups are today. Especially since the majority of those offended by certain words are people who believe that the group in question should be offended, regardless of whether said group is actually offended or not.

When anyone can claim offense of any word, eventually nothing except "approved" words will be spoken.

But who determines what's approved? They will be the true masters of the future.

That may make certain people all warm and fuzzy now, but in the long run, they'll end up regretting it.
 
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia

Everything in the above links seem reasonable to me except "emotional distress" which is far too broad given how hyper sensitive certain groups are today. Especially since the majority of those offended by certain words are people who believe that the group in question should be offended, regardless of whether said group is actually offended or not.

I mean, if someone is going to try and file a lawsuit against someone else because something they said might have offended a group that they're not a part of, then I'd agree that's silly. Usually that's not what's going on.

When anyone can claim offense of any word, eventually nothing except "approved" words will be spoken.

I imagine you're getting this from newspeak? There are a lot of reasons citing 1984 is a bad idea generally - the most glaring being that Orwell was a hypocrite and a hack.

But who determines what's approved? They will be the true masters of the future.

That may make certain people all warm and fuzzy now, but in the long run, they'll end up regretting it.

You don't have to tiptoe around it, the phrase ~certain people~ makes it pretty clear. If you're sick of Those Pesky Minorities demanding to be treated like human beings you can just come out and say it. A lot easier if you ask me.
 
BC, have you ever paused to consider that you are "hyper sensitive" to some things, for example the perception that your freedom of speech is somehow being infringed upon by other people's "hyper sensitivity"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FortyTwo
BC, have you ever paused to consider that you are "hyper sensitive" to some things, for example the perception that your freedom of speech is somehow being infringed upon by other people's "hyper sensitivity"?

Usually the people most concerned about ~political correctness~ are the most sensitive to things like, say, white people jokes, or gay folks ragging on straight people. If someone in a minority group is getting **** on, they need to get over it, but the second someone makes a mean joke about how awful men are, then it's suddenly all What About The Men?

I feel like a lot of the modern iteration of this comes from (or is mirrored in) gaming culture. You get these people who think feminists should just get over it when some development team puts giant boobs on a half naked warrior lady, but when someone puts a trans character in their game it's pushing an agenda.
 
Time for me to post some obnoxiously long video essays of my own!

I highly recommend this series of videos. Not for folks like beancounter, but for folks who want to understand how folks like beancounter operate, how they got there, and why they're wrong.

It also gives a really nice rundown of the whole Gamergate phenomenon, which was one of the main factors in the formation of the alt-right over the past few years.
 
I'm on part three of the series. Very informative...makes a lot of sense...and opens up a whole lot of questions, for me, anyway, that I won't ask, haha. But it does make me want to read/learn more. It's 4 am so I'm going to wait and continue watching when I'm more alert.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FortyTwo