Political Correctness thread

[Wild Bill]

This thread is just the opposite of the echo chamber that you all hate.

I doubt anyone will run to a safe zone if you express dissent.

 

[IrishLax]

I doubt anyone will run to a safe zone if you express dissent.

Nevermind that there sure seems to be a lot of open disagreement for an "echo chamber."

 

[JughedJones]

We live in a society where many people consider the idea of being a 'Social Justice Warrior' to be a bad thing.

That boggles my mind as much as seeing so many people who I respect on the football part of this board acting like dinosaurs here.

I know I come across horribly sometimes, but it's mainly because I love our community and can't believe some of you are this caustic.

It's alright. I know we're just different fundamentally. I just can't understand how we're so alike in so many ways, and I kind of hate you in others.

Sounds like family.

 

[Irish#1]

No joke, this has happened to me twice in the past three years. I work on a relatively small college campus, and our "regular" students and faculty are a fairly small community where everybody basically knows everybody, so I try to be polite at work (and life in general of course, because why not, but especially on campus). I'll wait on someone that's still got a good walk to the door just to hold it for them, or I'll hold the elevator doors for an extra few seconds to see if anyone is hurrying around the corner in the morning.

One day, I was aware that there was a female walking behind me, so I slowed down once I got to our entrance and then held the door for a few seconds. When she got to the door, she said, "you waited all that time to hold the door for me? Chivalry is so degrading sometimes ugh" as she walked right by me. I was speechless. I thought she was kidding at first, so I kind of laughed and said to her back, "yeah sorry!" in a sarcastic tone, but she turned and gave me the worst stink-eye I've ever seen. Unreal.

Another time, I was walking ahead of an older lady. I held the door for her, just like I do for every single person that walks behind me, and she had this pissy look on her face and said, "I can get the door myself, thank you."

Either I give off predator vibes that I'm not aware of, or these women be trippin' on obviously aggressive feminism.

I can distinctly remember my mom teaching and reinforcing these manners. I still hold the door for women and/or men. When walking on a sidewalk I will always be the one closer to the street.

IMO, the problem with those who are the most vocal about PC, tend to let it blind them to the point they take it to the extreme and typically want to humiliate or degrade you if you don't share their extreme view. There usually isn't a middle ground they will accept.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Great post, JJ!

It is like the comedian who goes into a seeming diatribe about 'PC.' By the time he gets to his example of 'Frat boys' being out, as poor has become economically disadvantaged, etc.,) he reports the new term as 'Rapist-Americans.'

I certainly see everyone's point on this explosive topic. I don't know how germane the attack on liberals is as name callers, but I do think their can be something pedantic in their less oft sack-less approach to defending their beliefs.

But don't see me as a champion of conservatives. Those that have a brain, (some minority do not, which makes sense, because you don't have to imagine or problem solve to express a conservative position), still can suffer from the 'pay-off syndrome.'

The payoff syndrome is simple to understand. Anyone who has a gripe, grudge, general feeling of inadequacy, or even a behavioral or mood disorder, can group with and individual or cause who shows support for their tenant, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched it seems. (Let alone those that have been traditional societal customs, no matter how archaic they have become in this modern world.)

So I did something groundbreaking <sic : not >!

I researched Milo :

Yiannopoulos, who is gay and highly critical of “politically correct chaos” on college campuses, has dubbed the Dangerous Faggot Tour.
His website also lists a canceled event at Ohio State University, but a spokeswoman there said, “No one at Ohio State has knowledge of this event being scheduled here.”
Yiannopoulos himself says the number of university event cancellations is as high as 10 in the last 12 months, but he has agreed not to publicize some at the behest of student groups that were involved.
. . .
He was once also removed from a protest march against rape culture, called a SlutWalk, which he attended while holding a sign that read, “Rape Culture and Harry Potter: Both Fantasy.”
“Students aren’t used to hearing alternative points of view,” Yiannopoulos wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “That has been the case for a decade or more. It enrages them that not only do I make evidence-based arguments and consistently beat them on the rare occasion they show up, but I do so with style, sass, and my trademark humility.”
“If you don’t want to come to a Milo Yiannopoulos lecture, don’t come. But you have no right to deny others the chance to,” he wrote. Aside from a “tiny minority” of “social justice warriors,” he continued, “pretty much everyone else agrees with at least some of what I’m saying, because they recognize that, for example, feminism hurts women as much as it hurts men and they are mystified that feminists are unwilling/incapable of defending their wacky positions.”
Among the articles he’s written for Breitbart is a piece entitled “Feminists and Progressives Attack College Football With More Dodgy Rape Statistics,” which is critical of a study that found reports of rape near big-team colleges increased on game days. The prevailing concern about campus rape, he writes, “isn’t about protecting women. It’s about man-hating. It’s a confected moral panic directed against young, male, mostly white American college students despite the fact that American college campuses are among the safest places for a woman to be, and despite the fact that rape rates have been dropping for 30 years.”
“It’s a campaign,” he writes, “aimed squarely at undermining masculinity—the sort of healthy male athleticism and competition perfectly encapsulated by the great American tradition of college football. Don’t fall for it.”
. . .
In another article, running under the headline “Why Equality and Diversity Departments Should Only Hire Rich, Straight White Men,” Yiannopoulos argues that “all heads of diversity and indeed every employee of any diversity or equality department should be white men—the more privileged the better. After all, only rich, well-educated, well-connected heterosexual white males have the required detachment and lack of emotional connection to the issues at hand to make the right calls.”
. . . .
“American college campuses have changed and demographics once considered disadvantaged are no longer held back by racial, homophobic or sexist bias,” explains the scholarship’s website. “Research now suggests that low-income Caucasian males are the most in need of help. Women’s advantage in college graduation is evident at all socioeconomic levels and for most racial and ethnic groups.”
“He says things that are definitely inflammatory but contain a kernel of truth,” said Deion Kathawa, a University of Michigan student who writes for and edits a right-leaning student publication and who spearheaded an effort to recreate on his campus the debate that was canceled at the University of Manchester. The go-to word among Kathawa’s friends, he said, was provocateur. (Yiannopoulos has characterized himself in a similar way, telling a Fusion reporter, “The only proper response to outrage culture is to be outrageous.”)
. . . .

There you have it. This guy is an opportunist, maybe a megalomaniac who is intent on capitalizing on the fears and prejudice of the society in which he enjoys the greatest level of freedom man has ever known.

As these kooks, (a term of my fathers, one that he would have used in this case) claim that no one has to listen to them, no one has to give them a venue to speak, they don't have to speak, and if some find them dangerous, those who do have the right to counter-attack with the same vitriol.

A friend of mine (male) and I were talking about the term 'femi-nazi.' the other day. My thirteen year old daughter was present and she interjected, "the problem isn't just that point of view, that most women are out to punish men, it is that they degrade those women working for equal rights by comparing them to one of the most hideous expressions of inhumanity the world has ever seen. Would they have called MLK, Jr., a generation earlier a N-word-Nazi? Who would have listened to that?"

Yes, my daughter comes up with jewels like that, regularly. I couldn't be more proud of her. And, so I think about sending her away to college in four years.

• Between 20% and 25% of women will experience a completed and/or attempted rape during their college career (1)
• More than half of raped college women tell no one of their victimization (1)
• 80% of sexual assault and rape victims are under the age of 30 (1)
• 44% of sexual assault and rape victims are under the age of 18 (1)
• Persons with a disability had an age-adjusted rate of rape or sexual assault that was more than twice the rate for persons without a disability (1)
• Juveniles (youth ages 17 and under) account for almost 90% of male victims in every type of sex crime (1)
• 99% of people who rape are men (1)
• In 1 in 3 sexual assaults, the perpetrator was intoxicated (1)
• Only about 2% of all sexual assault accusations reported to police turn out to be false. This is the same rate of false reporting as other types of violent crimes. (1)
• Victims were on a date with the perpetrator in 12.8% of completed rapes and 35% of attempted rapes (2)
• 43% of the sexual victimization incidents involve alcohol consumption by victims and 69% involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrators (2)
• Approximately 1 in 5 female high school students report being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner (3)
• College freshmen and sophomore women appear to be at greater risk of being victims of sexual assault than are upperclassmen. 84% of the women who reported sexually coercive experiences experienced the incident during their first four semesters on campus. (4)
• Students living in sorority houses and on-campus dormitories are 3 times and 1.4 times (respectively) more likely to be raped than students living off-campus (5)
• 38% of college-aged women who have been sexually victimized while in college had first been victims prior to entering college, making past victimization the best predictor of future victimization (6)
• At least 50% of college student sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use (7)
• Fraternity men have been identified as being more likely to perpetrate sexual assault or sexual aggression than nonfraternity men (8)
• College men who participated in aggressive sports (including football, basketball, wrestling and soccer) in high school used more sexual coercion (along with physical and psychological aggression) in their college dating relationships than men who had not. This group also scored higher on attitudinal measures thought to be associated with sexual coercion, such as sexism, acceptance of violence, hostility toward women and rape myth acceptance. (9)
• 90% of acquaintance rapes involve alcohol (10)
• 30% of the college women who said they had been raped contemplated suicide after the incident (11)

(1) U.S. Department of Justice
(2) National College Women Sexual Victimization
(3) Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Abuse, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy and Suicidality
(4) An Examination of Sexual Violence Against College Women
(5) Correlates of Rape While Intoxicated in a National Sample of College Women
(6) Our Vulnerable Teenagers: Their Victimization, Its Consequences, and Direction for Prevention and Intervention
(7) High Risk Drinking in College: What We Know and What We Need to Learn
(8) Coercive Sexual Strategies
(9) Dating Aggression, Sexual Coercion, and Aggression-Supporting Attitudes Among College Men as a Function of Participation in Aggressive High School Sports
(10) National Collegiate Date and Acquaintance Rape Statistics
(11) Warshaw, Robin, 1994

And, here is an old study, before any 'feminist' slant skewed the data with 'any emotional or PC charge.'

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

It sickens me.

Finally, with the huge number of sexual abuse statistics of both boys and girls coming to light, we have to admit that rape isn't a 'dark alley' occurrence as fits our stereotypes. It is an in home, by a known perpetrator kind of occurrence, first and foremost.

So, then, comparing what the occurrences of rape on a college campus, versus in the general population is irrelevant. One would expect the incidence on a campus to be lower, much lower, because the simple fact is that opportunity is diminished. If we have learned anything in the last twenty years, it is that rapes occur in safe-zones for the rapist, not the victim. But often the victim feels safe in that environment until it is too late.

Man, I love you all, but I have to tell you, I don't care about a nut-job, ass-hat like this Milo guy, and let yourself be wound up by him if you must, but I two am really fearful of an opportunist that stirs up public sentiment under the guise of repressed free speech just to perpetrate a climate that does not decrease the chances of my daughters being raped when they go to college!

Like that daughter of mine, who is challenged for her willingness to speak up about her beliefs, with all the force her opinionated little self can muster, "You got to do it when you see something you believe is wrong is just ignored by everybody. How else will things ever change?"

I hope that by the time my daughter gets to college the chances of her being raped plummets.

And I hope that all the young men I have met, that less than often impress me with the respect they hold for women, have a major change of heart. How else can we as men expect women to finally respect us?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Originally Posted by IrishLion View Post
No joke, this has happened to me twice in the past three years. I work on a relatively small college campus, and our "regular" students and faculty are a fairly small community where everybody basically knows everybody, so I try to be polite at work (and life in general of course, because why not, but especially on campus). I'll wait on someone that's still got a good walk to the door just to hold it for them, or I'll hold the elevator doors for an extra few seconds to see if anyone is hurrying around the corner in the morning.

One day, I was aware that there was a female walking behind me, so I slowed down once I got to our entrance and then held the door for a few seconds. When she got to the door, she said, "you waited all that time to hold the door for me? Chivalry is so degrading sometimes ugh" as she walked right by me. I was speechless. I thought she was kidding at first, so I kind of laughed and said to her back, "yeah sorry!" in a sarcastic tone, but she turned and gave me the worst stink-eye I've ever seen. Unreal.

Another time, I was walking ahead of an older lady. I held the door for her, just like I do for every single person that walks behind me, and she had this pissy look on her face and said, "I can get the door myself, thank you."

Either I give off predator vibes that I'm not aware of, or these women be trippin' on obviously aggressive feminism.

I can distinctly remember my mom teaching and reinforcing these manners. I still hold the door for women and/or men. When walking on a sidewalk I will always be the one closer to the street.

IMO, the problem with those who are the most vocal about PC, tend to let it blind them to the point they take it to the extreme and typically want to humiliate or degrade you if you don't share their extreme view. There usually isn't a middle ground they will accept.

Remember guys, the average coed gets hit on by about a zillion older men, who are panicking about their diminishing sexual appeal, every day!

I am sure that some cannot distinguish between the "creeps," and the respectfully chivalrous. After all, some have never experienced it before!

I have actually thought about this being raised the same way. All I do now is act the same way for men, as women. It seems to actually work. I get the door for anyone when it is convenient. I just don't make a show of it.

Note : I have been told by my daughters friends that slowing down to let a woman walk ahead, even if it is to set up a kind act like getting a door is a big 'no-no!' Continue to walk ahead, open the door, and look for anyone to hold the door for, before you go through. May reduce the creep factor.

 

[JughedJones]

My man, Bogs.

That is the reason I get stupid on here sometimes = People quote "Milo" like he's a reasonable thinker.

It's so fringe, alt-right, nasty, that I want to punch something.

I don't feel like that's my fault, but something has gone haywire in how we interact with each other.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

My man, Bogs.

That is the reason I get stupid on here sometimes = People quote "Milo" like he's a reasonable thinker.

It's so fringe, alt-right, nasty, that I want to punch something.

I don't feel like that's my fault, but something has gone haywire in how we interact with each other.

First world entitlement?
Lives so busy and complicated they would drive any sane person nuts?
Social mores becoming so uselessly obsolete, so rapidly, that society cannot come up with suitable replacements quickly enough?
Over emphasis of the material, or tangible over the spiritual or transcendent, even in modern religion?
Media, entertainment, and other institutions all promoting ideals far to lofty for most to have any kind of shot at achieving?

 

[JughedJones]

First world entitlement?
Lives so busy and complicated they would drive any sane person nuts?
Social mores becoming so uselessly obsolete, so rapidly, that society cannot come up with suitable replacements quickly enough?
Over emphasis of the material, or tangible over the spiritual or transcendent, even in modern religion?
Media, entertainment, and other institutions all promoting ideals far to lofty for most to have any kind of shot at achieving?

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x0ddOmzQlgY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




You're far too much of a man for that, if Mao did it so can you
What's the freedom of us all against the suffering of the few?
That's the kind of self-deception that killed ten million jews
Just the same false logic that all power-mongers use
So don't think you can fool me with your political tricks
Political right, political left, you can keep your politics
Government is government and all government is force
Left or right, right or left, it takes the same old course
Oppression and restriction, regulation, rule and law
The seizure of that power is all your revolution's for
You romanticise your heroes, quote from Marx and Mao
Well their ideas of freedom are just oppression now

 

[JughedJones]

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yrLhn_xDmww" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishLax]

The last 4 posts in this thread pretty much epitomizes what the thread was about.

1. JJ calls people that disagree with him "dinosaurs" and "caustic".... he says he "hates" them out of "love."
2. Bogs posts a novel that is generally fine but in the middle goes out of its way to deride and belittle a person with non-liberal beliefs. Then rather than address Milo's take on PC and the obvious tongue-in-cheek point he is making, he calls him a "megalomaniac" who is "capitalizing on fears and prejudice" and a "kook".
3. Irish#1 posts on common decency and politeness, and Bogs defends women verbally attacking men for the crime of being polite as it being the fault of men-in-general for being sexual predators and "creeps." That's right, holding the door open for someone == a creepy, sexually-charged situation per the PC police.
4. JJ comes back and praises these posts for being PC, and says that viewpoints from the other side are "nasty" and make him want to "punch things."

...

It's odd because posts are seemingly made in attempt to show why the PC thread is "wrong." Instead, they end up illustrating the very attitudes and issues that the thread was created about.

 

[JughedJones]

The last 4 posts in this thread pretty much epitomizes what the thread was about.

1. JJ calls people that disagree with him "dinosaurs" and "caustic".... he says he "hates" them out of "love."
2. Bogs posts a novel that is generally fine but in the middle goes out of its way to deride and belittle a person with non-liberal beliefs. Then rather than address Milo's take on PC and the obvious tongue-in-cheek point he is making, he calls him a "megalomaniac" who is "capitalizing on fears and prejudice" and a "kook".
3. Irish#1 posts on common decency and politeness, and Bogs defends women verbally attacking men for the crime of being polite as it being the fault of men-in-general for being sexual predators and "creeps." That's right, holding the door open for someone == a creepy, sexually-charged situation per the PC police.
4. JJ comes back and praises these posts for being PC, and says that viewpoints from the other side are "nasty" and make him want to "punch things."

...

It's odd because posts are seemingly made in attempt to show why the PC thread is "wrong." Instead, they end up illustrating the very attitudes and issues that the thread was created about.

All respect, nope.

I'll only speak for myself, but my comment about 'hating out of love' is kind of touching. I revised that a number of times, it was a little narcissistic, but it was from the heart. I actually really dig you guys and it hurts me to see you act like buffoons.

If you would like evidence of said buffoonery, please let me know. Anybody who quotes 'Milo' needs to be called out immediately and not be treated seriously. Anyone who even tacitly endorses the current crop of conservatives doesn't even deserve a debate.

Bogs said it right.

 

[connor_in]

We live in a society where many people consider the idea of being a 'Social Justice Warrior' to be a bad thing.

That boggles my mind as much as seeing so many people who I respect on the football part of this board acting like dinosaurs here.

I know I come across horribly sometimes, but it's mainly because I love our community and can't believe some of you are this caustic.

It's alright. I know we're just different fundamentally. I just can't understand how we're so alike in so many ways, and I kind of hate you in others.

Sounds like family.

Jug,

You know I like and respect you, so please don't take this post as arguing, just views another viewpoint.

First off, as far as the term social justice warrior, I generally have not seen people use it to describe themselves. My experience is people using the term as derogatory speech towards someone who they think is going beyond pale. So honestly I have generally not seen it used with a good connotation, more as a sarcastic item.

I want to let you know that, generally, those of us expressing opposing viewpoints from yours love our communities too.

Sometimes you may come across "horribly", but you are far from alone. {However, I will point out that your quoted post above seems to refer to those who disagree with you as dinosaurs and caustic, so that may be part of it.}

The last part of your post referring to family is very true and how I look at IE as well, and is my biggest takeaway from your post. We all agree we love ND, but we disagree on how ND should go about things much less on how religion or politics should go.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread even though we probably disagree it is through expression of various viewpoints that we learn about one another and grow as people.

 

[IrishLax]

All respect, nope.

I'll only speak for myself, but my comment about 'hating out of love' is kind of touching. I revised that a number of times, it was a little narcissistic, but it was from the heart. I actually really dig you guys and it hurts me to see you act like buffoons.

If you would like evidence of said buffoonery, please let me know. Anybody who quotes 'Milo' needs to be called out immediately and not be treated seriously. Anyone who even tacitly endorses the current crop of conservatives doesn't even deserve a debate.

Bogs said it right.

This is literally the PC problem. Belittle/dismiss/censor anyone with different ideas via ad hominem attacks.

 

[JughedJones]

Jug,

You know I like and respect you, so please don't take this post as arguing, just views another viewpoint.

First off, as far as the term social justice warrior, I generally have not seen people use it to describe themselves. My experience is people using the term as derogatory speech towards someone who they think is going beyond pale. So honestly I have generally not seen it used with a good connotation, more as a sarcastic item.

I want to let you know that, generally, those of us expressing opposing viewpoints from yours love our communities too.

Sometimes you may come across "horribly", but you are far from alone. {However, I will point out that your quoted post above seems to refer to those who disagree with you as dinosaurs and caustic, so that may be part of it.}

The last part of your post referring to family is very true and how I look at IE as well, and is my biggest takeaway from your post. We all agree we love ND, but we disagree on how ND should go about things much less on how religion or politics should go.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread even though we probably disagree it is through expression of various viewpoints that we learn about one another and grow as people.

Word.

Thanks.

 

[JughedJones]

This is literally the PC problem. Belittle/dismiss/censor anyone with different ideas via ad hominem attacks.

You thinking I or anyone else are censoring you is laughable.

Get a grip, man.


I might belittle the things you say, and I apologize for when it's personal, but you're supporting people who think "Milo" is reasonable. I want nothing to do with it and don't think it's worthy of serious intellectual debate.





Edit: I said I wanted nothing to do with it. Clearly I do.

 

[IrishLax]

You thinking I or anyone else are censoring you is laughable.

Get a grip, man.


I might belittle the things you say, and I apologize for when it's personal, but you're supporting people who think "Milo" is reasonable. I want nothing to do with it and don't think it's worthy of serious intellectual debate.

Edit: I said I wanted nothing to do with it. Clearly I do.

You're completely missing the point, again. I'm not saying you're censoring me (or even attacking me)... I'm saying what you're doing right now is the exact thing millions of liberals do every day that caused this thread to be made, and for left-leaning publications like The Atlantic to write disturbing pieces on the effect of PC on college campuses, and on and on.

This thread is not about "who is right" between liberal vs conservative... it's about political correctness. If conservative called an openly gay liberal and his supporters "buffoons" they would be DESTROYED for being homophobic.

Yet liberals can call an openly gay conservative and his supporters "buffoons" and in the same breath say "anyone with a different viewpoint than me doesn't even deserve to have their voice heard." That's just a hypocritical and disappointing way to approach things.

 

[JughedJones]

You're completely missing the point, again. I'm not saying you're censoring me (or even attacking me)... I'm saying what you're doing right now is the exact thing millions of liberals do every day that caused this thread to be made, and for left-leaning publications like The Atlantic to write disturbing pieces on the effect of PC on college campuses, and on and on.

This thread is not about "who is right" between liberal vs conservative... it's about political correctness. If conservative called an openly gay liberal and his supporters "buffoons" they would be DESTROYED for being homophobic.

Yet liberals can call an openly gay conservative and his supporters "buffoons" and in the same breath say "anyone with a different viewpoint than me doesn't even deserve to have their voice heard." That's just a hypocritical and disappointing way to approach things.

This is why I can't even debate you.

You consider Milo to be a reasonable voice that deserves consideration.

We'll call it good here I guess. I would ask you to look into Gamergate, Redpill, MRAs, and everything else he espouses, but I'm sure I'd be yelling at a wall.

It's like trying to debate when Trump says we need to ban all Muslims from coming into the country. Where do you even start? It's so utterly nonsensical, that any argument from the other side would surely be as absurd.

How can you debate someone who says things that are objectively ridiculous? You only end up sounding equally stupid, and I'm proving it right now!

 

[irishroo]

This is why I can't even debate you.

You consider Milo to be a reasonable voice that deserves consideration.

We'll call it good here I guess. I would ask you to look into Gamergate, Redpill, MRAs, and everything else he espouses, but I'm sure I'd be yelling at a wall.

It's like trying to debate when Trump says we need to ban all Muslims from coming into the country. Where do you even start? It's so utterly nonsensical, that any argument from the other side would surely be as absurd.

How can you debate someone who says things that are objectively ridiculous? You only end up sounding equally stupid, and I'm proving it right now!

Are you saying these things on purpose to prove his point or do you not realize you're doing so?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So this is all going great.

 

[zelezo vlk]

So this is all going great.

Just as planned

 

[T Town Tommy]

So. You run into a rash of folks telling you not to refer to black people as black?

Or was that a thing you saw on the internet?.

Be honest.

It was actually as I posted. Was simply watching some videos from MTV during my college days on YouTube and saw a few of the "Year in Rock or Year in News" shows that MTV would do. At the end of one of them - around 1989 or so - Loder brought up the subject in one of their segments. A few days later this thread was started and I thought the info was relevant to the conversation. It peaked my interest as to when and where PC actually started... hence the question I posted out here.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I remember encountering some of this same PC ranting and "I'll scream at you and call you names if you disagree with me or question my beliefs" BS even when I was in college. Around '84 I was in a restaurant near campus that was frequented by students as a place to study or hang out while guzzling coffee and getting a cheap meal. I had books & papers spread out all over my table and was minding my own business cramming for an exam.

A young woman who looked like the epitome of the angry feminist sat down at a table next to me and soon began trying to engage me in conversation (or rant at me) about sexual assault against women on campus. I was obviously busy studying and trying NOT to be disturbed, so I just gave her short, noncommittal, polite responses and kept studying while trying to ignore her and hoping she'd get the point that I was busy and not interested in a conversation.

No matter how politely I tried to avoid her or get her to move on to someone else and see that I was busy and not interested in arguing with her, she just got more aggressive & shrill. Pretty soon she was screaming at me that since I didn't know all about her organization and support it wholeheartedly and enthusiastically, I must therefore think it was OK for women to be raped and was probably a rapist myself. When she finally began screaming at me that I was a rapist and should be shot, the owner threatened to call the police and kicked her out on her loony fat ass.

So no, this crazy PC #safespace "My beliefs give me the right to say or do anything to you if you disagree with me" and "You're evil for having a differing opinion" and "I don't care about facts or reason... I'm entitled to believe anything I want and scream at you if you try to actually discuss any of it with facts or reason" crap has been around for awhile. It's just become more prevalent lately.

 

[PLACforever]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BCn_NFKq-y1/

 

[BeauBenken]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BCn_NFKq-y1/

What?

Also, dude, you should consider decreasing the size of your signature.

 

[phgreek]

No joke, this has happened to me twice in the past three years. I work on a relatively small college campus, and our "regular" students and faculty are a fairly small community where everybody basically knows everybody, so I try to be polite at work (and life in general of course, because why not, but especially on campus). I'll wait on someone that's still got a good walk to the door just to hold it for them, or I'll hold the elevator doors for an extra few seconds to see if anyone is hurrying around the corner in the morning.

One day, I was aware that there was a female walking behind me, so I slowed down once I got to our entrance and then held the door for a few seconds. When she got to the door, she said, "you waited all that time to hold the door for me? Chivalry is so degrading sometimes ugh" as she walked right by me. I was speechless. I thought she was kidding at first, so I kind of laughed and said to her back, "yeah sorry!" in a sarcastic tone, but she turned and gave me the worst stink-eye I've ever seen. Unreal.

Another time, I was walking ahead of an older lady. I held the door for her, just like I do for every single person that walks behind me, and she had this pissy look on her face and said, "I can get the door myself, thank you."

Either I give off predator vibes that I'm not aware of, or these women be trippin' on obviously aggressive feminism.

...I hope you continue to open doors for people because that is who you are. I honestly do the same thing, and I've gotten some pretty funny responses over the years. I guess I know I hold doors for people because it provides an opportunity for joy, camaraderie, and positive energy in your day...shrug. If people are so steeped in their anger that someone opening a door for them is offensive...they are not likely worth further consideration.

 

[Irish#1]

I remember encountering some of this same PC ranting and "I'll scream at you and call you names if you disagree with me or question my beliefs" BS even when I was in college. Around '84 I was in a restaurant near campus that was frequented by students as a place to study or hang out while guzzling coffee and getting a cheap meal. I had books & papers spread out all over my table and was minding my own business cramming for an exam.

A young woman who looked like the epitome of the angry feminist sat down at a table next to me and soon began trying to engage me in conversation (or rant at me) about sexual assault against women on campus. I was obviously busy studying and trying NOT to be disturbed, so I just gave her short, noncommittal, polite responses and kept studying while trying to ignore her and hoping she'd get the point that I was busy and not interested in a conversation.

No matter how politely I tried to avoid her or get her to move on to someone else and see that I was busy and not interested in arguing with her, she just got more aggressive & shrill. Pretty soon she was screaming at me that since I didn't know all about her organization and support it wholeheartedly and enthusiastically, I must therefore think it was OK for women to be raped and was probably a rapist myself. When she finally began screaming at me that I was a rapist and should be shot, the owner threatened to call the police and kicked her out on her loony fat ass.

So no, this crazy PC #safespace "My beliefs give me the right to say or do anything to you if you disagree with me" and "You're evil for having a differing opinion" and "I don't care about facts or reason... I'm entitled to believe anything I want and scream at you if you try to actually discuss any of it with facts or reason" crap has been around for awhile. It's just become more prevalent lately.

Another great point. You may have something extremely important you need to take care of, but if you won't take the time to join in their conversation, you are automatically labeled. Another tactic the extreme PC folks like to use.

Manners are a lost art. If PC police want to interpret an act of kindness (hold a door open) as a threat to them, then that's their problem. I have no PC radar that tells me who may be offended by such a simple act.

 

[dales5050]

This is why I can't even debate you.

New to the party but it's obvious the reason you can't or won't debate him is because he's 100%, you're in the wrong and your refuse to admit it.

 

[GowerND11]

The College That Wants to Ban ‘History’ - The Daily Beast

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The last 4 posts in this thread pretty much epitomizes what the thread was about.

1. JJ calls people that disagree with him "dinosaurs" and "caustic".... he says he "hates" them out of "love."
2. Bogs posts a novel that is generally fine but in the middle goes out of its way to deride and belittle a person with non-liberal beliefs. Then rather than address Milo's take on PC and the obvious tongue-in-cheek point he is making, he calls him a "megalomaniac" who is "capitalizing on fears and prejudice" and a "kook".
3. Irish#1 posts on common decency and politeness, and Bogs defends women verbally attacking men for the crime of being polite as it being the fault of men-in-general for being sexual predators and "creeps." That's right, holding the door open for someone == a creepy, sexually-charged situation per the PC police.
4. JJ comes back and praises these posts for being PC, and says that viewpoints from the other side are "nasty" and make him want to "punch things."
...

It's odd because posts are seemingly made in attempt to show why the PC thread is "wrong." Instead, they end up illustrating the very attitudes and issues that the thread was created about.

Hey, Bud!

(2) I really liked the novel chide, that was genius!

Here is the sequel! Remember :

I also decried liberals as 'sack-less' and 'pedantic.' You can't have it both ways. You cannot decry someone for attacking what you perceive as your views (whether it is in fact an attack on your 'views' or not,) and then attack them on what they say, or their views! It just doesn't work that way, and I think you know it is weak sauce.

For the record, I think either extreme, that conservative view that purposefully or accidentally, harbors views of misogyny, racism, or classism, is wrong. It is wrong for the lack of empathy it requires, and the illness it harbors. Please not that I am not saying any of those, let alone all of those who support this, or any conservative ideal are ill, the overwhelming majority are not. They just allow the ill to follow along with them to bolster their numbers; fellow travelers, so to speak. Which is exactly why I take umbrage.

You and many of the other conservative posters at IE are remarkable gentlemen, and men of great dignity, and honor. So why claim I am defending the mentally ill, or dysfunctional, that have no couth, less empathy, or humanity that those that truly believe in the precepts espoused by the right?

(3) I merely gave a couple of tips to not bring out the worst in others, based upon a conversation at hand. The advice I gave, was based upon advice I received. And trust me, those who gave it are not this stereotypified nightmare of modern womanhood that some insist on authoring to add to the drama of today's social tension.

It wasn't that I thought anything was wrong with Irish, or Lion. But, if everyone seems to be laughing with me at dinner, and I go into the john, and as I am washing my hands I take a look in the mirror; when I come out I sure as hell want to know why nobody told me about the little piece of spinach stuck to my tooth!

As a fellow traveler, with the advice I received, I wanted to share a success I had that reduced the interpersonal tension in my life.

In fact, I didn't comment on the woman in the example because I cannot know her motivation, just like I didn't make a value judgement on 'a male working it to walk behind a female.' See? You can find value judgements to make everywhere, yet I have pretty much not made any, except given the benefit of the doubt, that everyone involved in this discussions have had as honorable of motives as I have attempted to have.

My view, it is kind of like a path. Everything. Let's take the value judgement out of it and eliminate the Judeo-Christian work ethic influence of the clichéd easy path versus the hard path full of brambles. What does every path have in common?

There is a traveled portion in the middle which most follow, which results in the path becoming worn and easier to follow. And each traveled portion is bounded by two sides, one to the left, and one to the right. This is where the brambles are found. This is what the sane, healthy traveler seeks to avoid.

And I would like to dispel the notion that any path worth traveling is rough, or hard. That is subjective allegory, related to the authors perspective, health, and agenda. It is most often an attempt to control those who listen to the message.

If you believe like I do that people are mostly good, and that most people are mostly good, and that people start off at their best, and hard knocks take their toll, roughening and hardening our hearts, any path worth traveling is old, well established, and has enough traffic ahead of ourselves to wear it reasonably smooth. Any view that it is less is a result of hubris, in my opinion. And a need for drama.

So about political correctness :
Some is good and affirming. African-American, or black, which I find is still accepted, even though some say it is not, is a great improvement over the racial epitaphs of the American past.

Like with anything some go too far.

The comedians line about frat boys becoming Rapist-Americans hits this point with a double edge. I think we should call a monster for what he is with no candy coating. And we certainly don't need to complicate things further, to the point that our phraseology takes away all vestiges of meaning.

Poor can be disadvantaged.

True, that works to those born into poverty. But those that remain in poverty are something else. Some are incapable of changing their condition, most rise from their poverty (unlike some stereotypes profess), and others are freeloaders, confidence operators, or criminals.

And a huge flaw in PC speak is an assumption it makes, which is that those that speak it actually know their asses from holes in the ground. This is a presumption based upon few if any facts. It is as much fallacy as those that try to bust it, by pointing out its many flaws with their own anecdotal evidence.

I hope you got that I really don't believe either extreme is correct. And that I support everyone's feelings, and rights to hold their beliefs. And I hope that you look at what I have expressed as what I hold, and believe. And that it is not an attack on anyone's actual beliefs.

I try to attack only concepts, not individuals. And the concepts that I attack are not individual beliefs, but aggregate collections of beliefs that don't have a positive or efficient effect on a working social dynamic in this modern world.

Thank you for your consideration.