Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ottae

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Ottae

Since the debate in this topic about Jeremy Clarkson being suspended had shifted a great deal from the original purpose of the topic, I thought it would be fitting to start a discussion here about what is now being discussed in that topic.

 

The debate that is happening in that topic is multi-faceted and has changed greatly over the course of the last few pages, but it comes down to these questions:

  • Can the majority within a society have an opinion on discrimination if they haven't experienced it themselves?
  • Can minorities discriminate?
  • Does equality mean that only the minority can have an opinion?

As I said, there's more to it than those three questions, but this is a starting point.

 

---

 

My view on this matter is that anyone can have a view on anything, as long as that view isn't a malicious, prejudice attack on someone. It doesn't matter if this opinion is considered to be without merit because of the person saying it, they are entitled to their opinion and you can choose to ignore it if you so wish.

 

I believe that people who have the "privilege" of being white males are still entitled to an opinion and that by saying they can't have an opinion constitutes to discrimination in itself.

 

I believe anyone can discriminate regardless of their own gender/race/wealth, because in the end "discrimination" means:

 

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

 

So if one person thinks that another should be given different treatment based on their race/age/gender, then they are discriminating against that person. Although this is less common towards white people and towards men, it does still happen and it is still possible to be racist against white people and sexist towards men.

 

The movement towards equality is good and shouldn't be stifled, but the current mentality by some people (known as Social Justice Warriors) is that men should be inferior to woman and that white people should be inferior to people of colour. This isn't equality, you're just flipping the tables the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Right, I've hidden all the inane bullsh*t which just got moved here and the ensuing pissing match, so let's start again. Proper discussion is fine, but take the juvenile name-calling to PM if you so wish.

 

 

 

I'm of the belief that much of what is labelled "political correctness" is simple, common decency. I'm of the view that if you wouldn't do it at work in your average tertiary-sector industry, you can't dismiss it as "political correctness".

 

I agree with the fundamental idea that privilage or lack of it does not determine the value if one's views on a subject, but that's because I'm a strong supporter in the idea of meritocracy. Historically, some of the strongest and most vocal campaigners on issues such as social and economic equality, the living wage and other phenomena which primarily affect the societally disadvantaged have been relatively affluent, come from privileged backgrounds and in some instances haven't even had direct exposure to the discrimination or depravation they argue against. In my view, statements on social justice issues should be valued solely on their empirical merit, with individual opinions being of secondary concern at best. Then again, I'm a staunch advocate of completely ignoring public opinion and just doing what's quantifiably best for society as significant numbers of expecually vocal people are prejudicial, ignorant to empiricism and factual accuracy, fickle, selfish and fundamentally stupid.

 

I don't agree with your claim that so-called "social justice warriors" seek to turn current social norms on their head and created an environment where the white male is societally inferior. I think it's basically a fabrication; either an unwitting, unwilling one created from passive ingestion of much of the right-leaning rhetoric on the subject which casts anyone attempting to argue for greater equality as the enemy of the upper-middle-class white man (who,let's be perfectly honest, still holds the overwhelming majority of economic, social and political power in the West), or through the active belief that such a movement exists. For the record, I've never seen any evidence of anyone trying to make whites socially subservient to other races, or men socially subservient to women, and struggle to actually understand where the belief some people seem to hold that thus is the case actually comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jatiger13

 

 

 

I didn't think anything he said could be considered racism, if it came from a white person. Not according to the definition I go by.

 

 

 

I'm sure your definition of what constitutes racism is flimsy as f*ck anyway, but his 'racism can go both ways' bullsh*t is simply racist apologism.

 

Actually it isn't "racist apologism".

A black person can be a racist. A native American can be a racist. A Chinese person can be racist. So racism can go both ways. That's the truth of the matter.

 

Racism

Prejudice, discrimination or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

 

Racial insensitivity these days gets labeled as racism far too often.

Edited by jatiger13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Racial insensitivity is, under most circumstances, entirely indistinguishable from actual racism. Using a racial epithet casually through carelessness doesn't appear, to an outside observer, any different from the casual use of a racial epithet by an actual racist. You can say something racist without actually being racist, through carelessness or stupidity, but that doesn't mean what you've said isn't racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

The thing I find concerning or frustrating, is that there seems to be an increase in treating something that is only mildly offensive or non-PC, as though it is full on hate speech or just as unacceptable to say as full on hate speech. The goal posts have been moved quite far, and anything that might slightly upset a group of people, is suddenly completely unacceptable. It's also full of double standards, which I find particularly annoying. If you want to joke about the Americans being fat, violent and stupid, fine. If you want to joke about the British being ugly with bad teeth, being up their own arses and goofy, fine. If you want to joke about the French being adulterers, smelly and cowardly, fine. Want to make a similar joke about Mexicans or Indians, nope unacceptable. Can't do that it's racist and xenophobic.

 

It stifles free speech, and can be used to try silence a group of people who are critical or disagree with a certain culture, concept or ideology. I think it does much more harm than good. It's completely unnecessary. Abandon this attempt to protect people from being offended and upset for the most trivial things. I think America has it about right, and we're far too oversensitive and Draconian about this stuff. Our stance on free speech is a joke frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

The free exchange of opinion and information is the lifeblood of any healthy society. To demand a shielded, risk free environment for your particular opinions and viewpoints from other peoples, weather the majority or not, is plainly absurd.

Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

Great thread. Thanks for posting.

 

My opinion on political correctness is that this is the new dictatorship: it violates free speech and is always an excuse to shut people up and discriminate, in the name of equality, diversity, community cohesion... -add the progressive marquee word you like-. This concept assumes that the freedom and rights of others are subirdinate to the "feelings" of a minority. In my opinion, freedom is above any feeling. And political correctness is the greatest threat against free speech the Western world is suffering.

 

- "Can the majority within a society have an opinion on discrimination if they haven't experienced it themselves?"

 

Yes, why not?

 

Also, to be part of the majority doesn't mean you have never experienced discrimination. Minorities can discriminate, too. Also, members of the majority can discriminate other members of the majority.

 

- "Can minorities discriminate?"

 

Yes, why not?

 

Members of the minority are no different than others.

 

- "Does equality mean that only the minority can have an opinion?"

 

To progressives, minorities are more "equal" than others, so yes, to them it means just this. In my opinion, everyone is entitled to an opinion and free speech to express it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

The thing I find concerning or frustrating, is that there seems to be an increase in treating something that is only mildly offensive or non-PC, as though it is full on hate speech or just as unacceptable to say as full on hate speech. The goal posts have been moved quite far, and anything that might slightly upset a group of people, is suddenly completely unacceptable. It's also full of double standards, which I find particularly annoying. If you want to joke about the Americans being fat, violent and stupid, fine. If you want to joke about the British being ugly with bad teeth, being up their own arses and goofy, fine. If you want to joke about the French being adulterers, smelly and cowardly, fine. Want to make a similar joke about Mexicans or Indians, nope unacceptable. Can't do that it's racist and xenophobic.

 

It stifles free speech, and can be used to try silence a group of people who are critical or disagree with a certain culture, concept or ideology. I think it does much more harm than good. It's completely unnecessary. Abandon this attempt to protect people from being offended and upset for the most trivial things. I think America has it about right, and we're far too oversensitive and Draconian about this stuff. Our stance on free speech is a joke frankly.

There's plenty of issues with political correctness gone mad, but "people can't get away with being only kinda slightly racist" isn't one of them. If you honestly believe that you are now living bound and gagged due to a culture of people flipping out over perceived racism, you must be a huge racist, or simply lying. I know you don't care either way about PC gone mad, you just want to tacitly silence groups who stand up for themselves.

 

There appear to be two ideas at the core of your political consciousness: "There are too many immigrants in Britain" and "underprivileged groups are too shielded from criticism." Everything you say as far as politics is concerned revolves around those two ideas. Does that sound like a reasonable way for a citizen of a democratic society to carry on?

 

I don't know why I bother, if you're so warped that you consider reactions to racism to be a much, much, much, much bigger issue than racism itself, then you probably don't give a f*ck about reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Lol Mel, come on. I don't know why you're trying to do a Freudian disection of my political psyche, but I'm not here to discuss all that. This topic is about political correctness, not what's going on inside Stu's brain.

 

It's not that I'm living bound and gagged, I'm not important enough to cause controversy. The problem lies with the media and people in the public eye, who if they say anything remotely upsetting or offensive, get a massive sh*tstorm of hate and are pressured to make a grovelling apology and/or resign by a small minority and often their employer who is happy to go along with it. Although worryingly it can also in a limited number of cases affect members of the public who make a slightly offensive post on social media, which then gets picked up on by a baying mob of SJW's who then spam their account with hate messages and try pressure their employer into firing them and basically ruin their lives.

 

I want to tacitly silence groups that stand up for themselves? Err no I just expect people to stop acting so f*cking fragile and like they deserve some special protection from being offended or that they can't in any way be the butt of a harmless joke. People need to develop thicker skins for christ sake. In fact by affording minority groups special privileges such as making them free from offence you're only harming them because you're treating them as though their weaker, inferior and need extra protection. If you can't tell the difference between Jeremy Clarkson making a stupid joke and some neo-Nazi maliciously shouting racial slurs at someone then I don't know what to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Lol Mel, come on. I don't know why you're trying to do a Freudian disection of my political psyche, but I'm not here to discuss all that. This topic is about political correctness, not what's going on inside Stu's brain.

 

It's not that I'm living bound and gagged, I'm not important enough to cause controversy. The problem lies with the media and people in the public eye, who if they say anything remotely upsetting or offensive, get a massive sh*tstorm of hate and are pressured to make a grovelling apology and/or resign by a small minority and often their employer who is happy to go along with it. Although worryingly it can also in a limited number of cases affect members of the public who make a slightly offensive post on social media, which then gets picked up on by a baying mob of SJW's who then spam their account with hate messages and try pressure their employer into firing them and basically ruin their lives.

 

I want to tacitly silence groups that stand up for themselves? Err no I just expect people to stop acting so f*cking fragile and like they deserve some special protection from being offended or that they can't in any way be the butt of a harmless joke. People need to develop thicker skins for christ sake. In fact by affording minority groups special privileges such as making them free from offence you're only harming them because you're treating them as though their weaker, inferior and need extra protection. If you can't tell the difference between Jeremy Clarkson making a stupid joke and some neo-Nazi maliciously shouting racial slurs at someone then I don't know what to say.

I agree with Stu here pretty much. I believe people by and large are too easily offended. And the media jumps in and supports them all too often with a double standard. The media doesn't jump on people who make jokes about Catholic priests being child molesters (which as a Catholic I find those jokes funny but that's beside the point), but says how awful it is to make fun of Islam or even try to discuss the issue of Islamic terrorism. I've even noticed that the media stopped caring about people who make fun of Hispanics or Asians (landscaper/computer expert jokes etc.), but pile the f*ck onto anybody that says something about the issues in the black community that lead to crime in areas. And this transgender stuff is becoming a f*cking disaster. If you don't say that you're in support of there being 4 different bathrooms, or call somebody out for walking around a women's lockeroom with their dick swinging and saying they're "transgender" (http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/2015/03/11/complaint-about-man-in-planet-fitness-locker-room-gets-woman-banned/70155596/) you're considered an intolerant bigot. So I do think there is an issue with this bullsh*t going too far, and truthfully I see no defense for it. People need to f*cking sack up, seriously. Take a god damned joke. That goes for Catholics offended by pedophile priest jokes, Muslims offended by depictions of Mohammed, anybody.

 

 

 

Can minorities discriminate?

I think the answer to this is also a resounding yes, and another display of the double standard we see all too often. It's alright if a minority says offensive things about the majority group, but if it's the other way around, it's a complete travesty. How about recognizing that it's f*cking bullsh*t for both sides to act in that way, and people need to grow up and stop dividing each other by their f*cking skin color. That goes for both sides.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

What should be asked for any of those question is.... why not?

 

If anything going off on people especially just for making jokes isn't a very good way to get accepted anywho.

Edited by mr toasterbutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Apologies in advance for spelling and grammar issues as I'm on my phone.

On the one hand I think it's laudable that society has generally become aware of racism and discrimination, but things aren't perfect. I have Muslim friends and, trying to be cordial during a discussion, I said something along the lines of "Islam is an inherently peaceful religion". Both of my friends responded in the same way: "Yeah, we think that way--but others disagree". These two guys, devout Muslims, admitted that Islam has a serious problem with extremism and I respect them for saying that. Many hardline PC advocates would be aghast to admit as much. On the other hand, I've honestly never heard them speak up about antisemitism, despite the fact that people have died in the last few years in numerous antisemitic attacks in Europe and in Israel. I'd wager that this has a lot to do with the anti-Israel agenda that many of these people are proponents of. Ultimately it shines light on the fact that "political correctness" has a long way to go before becoming truly "correct".

The way I see it, political correctness is a failure. It punishes people for making minor mistakes and does nothing to address the genuine problems regarding racism in society. I say again, it's great that society is becoming more aware of itself and people are trying to have more respect for other cultures, but things are far from perfect. We need genuine education about other cultures in schools, but this can't be a one-sided "righto let's teach the kids about blacks and Muslims just to tick the governments box" type thing--we need to educate our youth about other cultures in a meaningful way and ensure that all major cultures are included. I was very lucky to have a good RE teacher in school who ensured we learned not just about Christianity, Hinduism and Islam (as is standard in the UK), but also Judaism. Meeting other people from the UK and learning that they never learned about Judaism or even the rudiments of Jewish history in school is depressing and explains why so much ignorance regarding the Jews exists. What I'm trying to say is that, if we want to truly move forward as a society, we need to educate people about other cultures and explain in a general way why people might be offended by something. Publicly shaming someone for a harmless joke does no good.

Irviding and Stu make good points regarding jokes. There is a difference between banter and genuine racism. As someone who's experienced discrimination I can earnestly say there's a stark difference between being called a racial slur by an ignorant kid during a football fixture (racism) and having a laugh with your mates ("Lol you've got no foreskin", "Hah better than ginger pubes like you", etc) [growing up].


Bottom line: we need to make sure our young people are aware of bigotry in its various guises and educate them accordingly, that means a diverse education on other cultures in school. However, as Irviding and Stu point out, this doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to take a joke. I tend to avoid making jokes a out other cultures, but if Irv can take jokes about Catholics there's no reason other cultures should be immune. Sure, some tasteless jokes are offensive, but to say that all jokes are off limits is just ridiculous. In fact humour has historically been employed by Jews as a shield against antisemitism.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Agreed, and it's important to also consider that these people who claim we need more political correctness and sensitivity seem to divide us up even more. When you convince people that they are victims and are stuck with no social mobility because they are a minority, that becomes a self sulfilling prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

The problem with this "political correctness" is it's too often used to shut down people's arguments. Claiming that I cannot say anything that these people disagree with because of "offensiveness" is absurd because people have different definitions of what is racist and what is offensive. I have different definitions of what I think is offensive in the same way someone else does.

 

And this whole "check your privilege" think is ridiculous. By claiming someone has "privilege", which can apply to basically anything these days, you are basically implying that other people are "superior". When it comes to race or ethnicity, it's especially troubling because it still reinforces the idea that ethnic minorities are still inherently inferior because they don't have as much "privilege" as a white person does. And that is the worst mindset to have. The same logic is used anywhere "privilege" is used in a context defining the fortunes of one individual against another.

 

It says a lot about society, in the United States at least where this whole privilege thing has caught on, where people are still defining superiority and inferiority by the defining character traits of any person and even by the color of their skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

Fundamentally there are no restrictions to your freedom of speech, you can say anything if you are able to face the societally-imposed consequences of it. People that genuinely believe that what they say is just banter, and not going to offend anyone feel free to do so; after all, anyone that could take offence is obviously just riding on the PC bandwagon, so why should you care what they think anyway?

 

Privilege, MichaelW, does not equate to superiority - it means you hold a position of advantage over other people simply because of the manner of your birth. Equating the two is quite the backwards notion: I imagine such a principle featured prominently in the pre-1860's American political agenda, you know, the one where whites were 'privileged'. I imagine a man such as yourself, burdened by great knowledge, is also a proponent of other brilliant vehicles of disadvantage such as trickle-down economic policy.

Edited by Share Sharqi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

By claiming someone has "privilege", which can apply to basically anything these days, you are basically implying that other people are "superior".

Superiority and privilege are not analogous. Saying someone is "privileged" does not not state or imply that they are quantifiably superior to another person; although generally superiority, both quantifiable (as in "X is better at Y than Z because...") and legally enshrined (see pre-civil-rights America) usually results in privilege. Privilege in this context simply means the propensity for individuals from particular socioeconomic subgroups to receive favourable access to education, employment and services based solely on their presence in this socioeconomic subgroup rather than on actual merit. Accepting that there are still circumstances in which ethnic minorities are demonstrably disadvantaged despite having parity in actual capability- being neither superior or inferior but technically equal, if you will- does not in any way promote the notion that they are inferior- as legally and in terms of capability they aren't.

 

The whole point in "privilege" is that it isn't deserved. Not to bang on the meritocracy drum again, but a socioeconomic environment where individuals are unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged because of their gender, race or sexuality is technically inferior to one where individuals are fairly advantaged and disadvantaged on the basis of their capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Privilege, MichaelW, does not equate to superiority - it means you hold a position of advantage over other people simply because of the manner of your birth. Equating the two is quite the backwards notion: I imagine such a principle featured prominently in the pre-1860's American political agenda, you know, the one where whites were 'privileged'. I imagine a man such as yourself, burdened by great knowledge, is also a proponent of other brilliant vehicles of disadvantage such as trickle-down economic policy.

 

And that advantage over other people by birth is called what? Superiority. "Privilege" is just a modern term for the same idea that people are inherently better than one another by the virtue of their birth. A white person has "privilege" because they are white, not because of anything else. In the same way that a black person or a person of any other ethnic minority doesn't have "privilege" and is therefore inferior. This is a terrible mindset. I've not denied this nor said that there is any inherent ethnic superiority or inferiority between any ethnic groups. Not that you'll actually understand this because you're too busy pretending the rationale behind privilege isn't moronic or based on outdated concepts of ethnicity.

 

Which of course, your fit of indignant rage, failed to see. Frankly, I'm not surprised that you missed this, given that you've just played right into the point I was making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

"Privilege" is just a modern term for the same idea that people are inherently better than one another by the virtue of their birth.

Not to repeat myself, but shouldn't this read '"Privilege" is just a modern term for the idea of thinking people are inherently better and one another by virtue of their birth when in any quantifiable, demonstrable or empirical way they aren't'? Because, if so, I agree with you, but believing someone is inherently better because of their race, ethnicity, skin colour of gender doesn't actually make them better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

 

By claiming someone has "privilege", which can apply to basically anything these days, you are basically implying that other people are "superior".

Superiority and privilege are not analogous.

 

Except that they are though. The idea that people have inherent "advantages" because of birth is basically the same as saying a group of people is inferior because of their birth and their character traits. The whole concept of "privilege" is the construed idea that one group of people is inherently better than another.

 

It's got to the stage where there is such a thing as "thin privilege", the idea that thin people have inherent advantages that fat or obese people do not. As I said, it's a terrible mindset, because it promotes the idea that a certain group of people are inherently better than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

 

Privilege, MichaelW, does not equate to superiority - it means you hold a position of advantage over other people simply because of the manner of your birth. Equating the two is quite the backwards notion: I imagine such a principle featured prominently in the pre-1860's American political agenda, you know, the one where whites were 'privileged'. I imagine a man such as yourself, burdened by great knowledge, is also a proponent of other brilliant vehicles of disadvantage such as trickle-down economic policy.

 

And that advantage over other people by birth is called what? Superiority. "Privilege" is just a modern term for the same idea that people are inherently better than one another by the virtue of their birth. A white person has "privilege" because they are white, not because of anything else. In the same way that a black person or a person of any other ethnic minority doesn't have "privilege" and is therefore inferior. This is a terrible mindset. I've not denied this nor said that there is any inherent ethnic superiority or inferiority between any ethnic groups. Not that you'll actually understand this because you're too busy pretending the rationale behind privilege isn't moronic or based on outdated concepts of ethnicity.

 

Which of course, your fit of indignant rage, failed to see. Frankly, I'm not surprised that you missed this, given that you've just played right into the point I was making.

 

What, exactly was the point you were trying to make? That we should not recognise the advantages given by virtue of birth to the majority, because if we talk about it in term of race, that makes it racist? Unfortunately, no, you are misguided. You cannot ignore the fact that socioeconomic disadvantage is inextricably linked to race, gender and ethnicity, as you sit in a position of privilege whereby you can freely ignore social inequality as, for you, inequality is a statistic rather than a fact of everyday life.

Edited by Share Sharqi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Except that they are though. The idea that people have inherent "advantages" because of birth is basically the same as saying a group of people is inferior because of their birth and their character traits.

How are they the same, unless you falsely assume that the reason the inherent advantage for white males exists is because they do have superior character traits or other quantifiable attributes? The whole issue with "privilege", as I keep saying, is that it isn't based in anything quantifiable and is effectively just discrimination based on an identifying characteristic. The inherent "advantages" bestowed on white males from birth cannot be compared with character traits or genetic disposition because they aren't actually real, by which I mean they are not quantifiable and do not exist anywhere except inside the heads of the people who perpetrate the discrimination based upon them. I refer you, yet again, to meritocracy (deserved privilege) versus prejudicing someone positively or negatively due to gender, race or ethnicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

 

Except that they are though. The idea that people have inherent "advantages" because of birth is basically the same as saying a group of people is inferior because of their birth and their character traits.

How are they the same, unless you falsely assume that the reason the inherent advantage for white males exists is because they do have superior character traits or other quantifiable attributes? The whole issue with "privilege", as I keep saying, is that it isn't based in anything quantifiable and is effectively just discrimination based on an identifying characteristic. The inherent "advantages" bestowed on white males from birth cannot be compared with character traits or genetic disposition because they aren't actually real, by which I mean they are not quantifiable and do not exist anywhere except inside the heads of the people who perpetrate the discrimination based upon them. I refer you, yet again, to meritocracy (deserved privilege) versus prejudicing someone positively or negatively due to gender, race or ethnicity.

 

Exactly, by virtue of the socially-constructed advantage of the 'superior' classes, and only through the perspective of the advantaged, can you see others as inferior by comparison.

Edited by Share Sharqi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I would say a lot of the "privilege" enjoyed by white people is by and large a result of their already beneficial placement in society. I simply do not believe that in today's day and age there is a widespread problem of people saying flat out "yeah sorry I don't want any towelheads here" or whatever else and just affording greater benefits to white people. White people, believe it or not, live in disadvantageous situations and are in entrenched poverty too in many cases. The idea that modern disadvantages affecting minorities only affects minorities is just not the case. There are plenty of well off black Hispanic and Asian families all over the country who enjoy the same benefits of white people because of their good placement in society. And again, that just furthers the narrative that divides everybody even more.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

:devil:

Edited by Absurdity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S0lo

The thing I find concerning or frustrating, is that there seems to be an increase in treating something that is only mildly offensive or non-PC, as though it is full on hate speech or just as unacceptable to say as full on hate speech. The goal posts have been moved quite far, and anything that might slightly upset a group of people, is suddenly completely unacceptable. It's also full of double standards, which I find particularly annoying. If you want to joke about the Americans being fat, violent and stupid, fine. If you want to joke about the British being ugly with bad teeth, being up their own arses and goofy, fine. If you want to joke about the French being adulterers, smelly and cowardly, fine. Want to make a similar joke about Mexicans or Indians, nope unacceptable. Can't do that it's racist and xenophobic.

 

It stifles free speech, and can be used to try silence a group of people who are critical or disagree with a certain culture, concept or ideology. I think it does much more harm than good. It's completely unnecessary. Abandon this attempt to protect people from being offended and upset for the most trivial things. I think America has it about right, and we're far too oversensitive and Draconian about this stuff. Our stance on free speech is a joke frankly.

 

In your first 3 cases you are making jokes about members of your own race based on their nationality. it's boringly cheap and unfunny humour, but meh. In the later 2 cases you attack people of other races. that's what makes it racist. quite simple, actually. People of other "Latino" heritage than Mexicans can make jokes about them like you do about Brits and French without being racist. You can't. And i honestly have never seen anybody joking about national traits of other races without that terribly obvious racial bias coming through.

 

While i argue that people who enjoy nationalist humour usually also enjoy racist humour, as they come from the same understanding that it is funny that people are different (e.g. worth less) because they aren't from your neck of the woods, it still is fact that only the later of your examples is racist. quite obvious, actually.

 

regarding "xenophobic"... all of your examples are. doesn't make it any better.

Edited by S0lo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

S0lo, you just pretty much described the real problem here. Everyone can be made fun of except the minority groups, that's literally flat out what you said. It's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

 

 

Privilege, MichaelW, does not equate to superiority - it means you hold a position of advantage over other people simply because of the manner of your birth. Equating the two is quite the backwards notion: I imagine such a principle featured prominently in the pre-1860's American political agenda, you know, the one where whites were 'privileged'. I imagine a man such as yourself, burdened by great knowledge, is also a proponent of other brilliant vehicles of disadvantage such as trickle-down economic policy.

 

And that advantage over other people by birth is called what? Superiority. "Privilege" is just a modern term for the same idea that people are inherently better than one another by the virtue of their birth. A white person has "privilege" because they are white, not because of anything else. In the same way that a black person or a person of any other ethnic minority doesn't have "privilege" and is therefore inferior. This is a terrible mindset. I've not denied this nor said that there is any inherent ethnic superiority or inferiority between any ethnic groups. Not that you'll actually understand this because you're too busy pretending the rationale behind privilege isn't moronic or based on outdated concepts of ethnicity.

 

Which of course, your fit of indignant rage, failed to see. Frankly, I'm not surprised that you missed this, given that you've just played right into the point I was making.

 

What, exactly was the point you were trying to make? That we should not recognise the advantages given by virtue of birth to the majority, because if we talk about it in term of race, that makes it racist? Unfortunately, no, you are misguided. You cannot ignore the fact that socioeconomic disadvantage is inextricably linked to race, gender and ethnicity, as you sit in a position of privilege whereby you can freely ignore social inequality as, for you, inequality is a statistic rather than a fact of everyday life.

 

 

My point, for those of you who need it explained to you, is that "privilege" is the reinforcement of the idea that certain people have inherent advantages bestowed upon them by birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

 

 

 

Privilege, MichaelW, does not equate to superiority - it means you hold a position of advantage over other people simply because of the manner of your birth. Equating the two is quite the backwards notion: I imagine such a principle featured prominently in the pre-1860's American political agenda, you know, the one where whites were 'privileged'. I imagine a man such as yourself, burdened by great knowledge, is also a proponent of other brilliant vehicles of disadvantage such as trickle-down economic policy.

 

And that advantage over other people by birth is called what? Superiority. "Privilege" is just a modern term for the same idea that people are inherently better than one another by the virtue of their birth. A white person has "privilege" because they are white, not because of anything else. In the same way that a black person or a person of any other ethnic minority doesn't have "privilege" and is therefore inferior. This is a terrible mindset. I've not denied this nor said that there is any inherent ethnic superiority or inferiority between any ethnic groups. Not that you'll actually understand this because you're too busy pretending the rationale behind privilege isn't moronic or based on outdated concepts of ethnicity.

 

Which of course, your fit of indignant rage, failed to see. Frankly, I'm not surprised that you missed this, given that you've just played right into the point I was making.

 

What, exactly was the point you were trying to make? That we should not recognise the advantages given by virtue of birth to the majority, because if we talk about it in term of race, that makes it racist? Unfortunately, no, you are misguided. You cannot ignore the fact that socioeconomic disadvantage is inextricably linked to race, gender and ethnicity, as you sit in a position of privilege whereby you can freely ignore social inequality as, for you, inequality is a statistic rather than a fact of everyday life.

 

 

My point, for those of you who need it explained to you, is that "privilege" is the reinforcement of the idea that certain people have inherent advantages bestowed upon them by birth.

 

<Jeez, thanks for explaining that one to me - to think, that was what people were talking about the whole time - who knew?>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

S0lo, you just pretty much described the real problem here. Everyone can be made fun of except the minority groups, that's literally flat out what you said. It's ridiculous.

Minority groups are at a social disadvantage due to minimal representation in the mainstream media, the use of humour which targets these groups with banal stereotypes is unfair because they have limited representation and cannot fairly dispel or shed these stereotypes. Also, if you have noticed, you are comparing jokes about nationality with jokes about genetics (racial minorities), and beliefs (ethnic minorities/religions) - Americans may be all prideful about their national identity, but I am pretty sure if you remark on the latter two you are trying to reduce somebody's entire existence down to the punchline of a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Although worryingly it can also in a limited number of cases affect members of the public who make a slightly offensive post on social media, which then gets picked up on by a baying mob of SJW's who then spam their account with hate messages and try pressure their employer into firing them and basically ruin their lives.

I've seen this happen approximately once, and the guy was literally condoning rape and admitting to being a rapist.

 

Since you're so passionate about people being harassed online for their opinions, you must have been frothing at the mouth during Gamergate.

 

 

 

I want to tacitly silence groups that stand up for themselves? Err no

Well you may not, but the people you're parroting do. That's pretty much the subtext of all this faux exasperated eye rolling at the idea of political correctness.

 

 

 

In fact by affording minority groups special privileges such as making them free from offence you're only harming them because you're treating them as though their weaker, inferior and need extra protection.

This is just too f*cking stupid to even address.

 

You're skirting around the issue. Even if the concerns you're raising were valid (they aren't), you still haven't explained why you care so much. What is about political correctness gone mad that offends you so much more actual racism, sexism and homophobia. Hell, it's your pet issue, you care about it more than anything else: Starvation, climate change, nuclear war... all these issues pale in comparison to no more racist jokes in the workplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.