The Politics Thread

[NSIS]

PC is a massive problem and is getting completely out of control in the UK, IMO.

I'm most certainly not a racist, but if for instance, most knife crime in London can be shown to have been committed by black male teenagers, what's the matter with reporting or saying that?

But, you try it, the facts won't be allowed to come into it. You'll be howled and shouted down and accused of racism and anything else they can think of....

 

[RobSpur]

OK, I need to put a response plan togethor here.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

PC is a massive problem and is getting completely out of control in the UK, IMO.

I'm most certainly not a racist, but if for instance, most knife crime in London can be shown to have been committed by black male teenagers, what's the matter with reporting or saying that?

But, you try it, the facts won't be allowed to come into it. You'll be howled and shouted down and accused of racism and anything else they can think of....

I don't think that anyone reasonable has a problem with that statement.
I'm not sure what anyone's supposed to do with it, though.

 

[lennypops]

Agreed
Don't see this as a zero sum game. People who feel that they are disadvantaged act differently and change the world for the worse. Even if they are wrong. Acting in a way that takes better account of other's perceptions and weaknesses makes the whole world a happier place through positive feedback.

For me it is not political correctness that is the issue - it is politeness. If i always act in the way that I'd be happy for people to act towards me then that is likely to work well. Too often in the past there have been classes of people in the world where the people in powerful positions (usually white, older men) have ignored this simple rule and we are now all feeling the backlash.

Yeah I mean if middle-aged, middle-class white men (of which I am one) are now cruelly oppressed then I'll say that oppression nowadays is a hell of a lot better than it used to be! A fantastic price for a more enlightened society which I'm happy to pay.

No need to thank me.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Neanderthal man and another neanderthal man, I think.

This is a massive part of the problem, though.
I don't care if somebody feels bullied. I do care if they actually have been bullied. That's not the same thing.

People respond to their feelings though, not reality. Actually very few people who feel bullied react publicly to it at all, they just suffer in silence. I therefore may have a prejudice towards those that do react in some way as I think bullies should be exposed. Hence my Costa/Dembele analogy above. Costa is a bully, Dembele reacted. That doesn't make Dembele a bully

 

[RobSpur]

My skeleton response to Lenny's post at the bottom of page 43 :

Tampon tax - state disagreement. Include a couple of points and move on.

Re level of debate being low - explain how this is a deliberate policy of feminist movement. Consider making reference to media manipulation.

Re millenia of patrical society - explain how this has ocurred. Make reference to biological differences, and historical evolution of roles of men and women for common good. Briefly discuss interface of updating this to modern war free society, and comment on there being biological limitations to removing gender from society entirely.

Hollywood argument - ignore, due to being an oddity.

Clinton - state disagreement. Make reference to female leaders you respect. Distinguish Clinton.


Further skeleton responses to follow, before making full, considered responses

 

[NSIS]

I don't think that anyone reasonable has a problem with that statement.
I'm not sure what anyone's supposed to do with it, though.

It's just an example of how this PC nonsense has gotten out of hand. Out of hand to the point that you can't publicly state proven facts, such as my example, without being subjected to abuse and condemnation by the PC police.

 

[RobSpur]

When was the last time you read an interview with or an analysis of a male politician/actor/scientist/sportsperson/writer/campaigner/artist etc where the interviewee was asked about how their being a man affected their life and work?

Right. Now see if "being a woman" isn't somehow relevant to the policies/roles/research/training/writing/issues/artwork etc for their female counterparts when they are interviewed.

Oh ffs. This is another essay on its own.

 

[PowerSpurs]

It's just an example of how this PC nonsense has gotten out of hand. Out of hand to the point that you can't publicly state proven facts, such as my example, without being subjected to abuse and condemnation by the PC police.

Its exactly the same negative feedback I've been referring to. Your statement refers to three distinguishing features: black, male and teenage. Because there is no doubt that black people have been discriminated against for no reason they simply see such statements as advanced justification for future prejudicial treatment and indeed many politicians and newspapers will use it exactly like that. If the statistics showed that knife crime was more likely to be committed by blond males over 6 feet two inches tall, it wouldn't be any sort of issue reporting it for the simple reason that that group has not been previously oppressed. But I also doubt whether the Daily Mail and Nigel Farage would be calling for the police to have a stop and search policy based on height and hair colour.

 

[lennypops]

My skeleton response to Lenny's post at the bottom of page 43 :

Tampon tax - state disagreement. Include a couple of points and move on.

Re level of debate being low - explain how this is a deliberate policy of feminist movement. Consider making reference to media manipulation.

Re millenia of patrical society - explain how this has ocurred. Make reference to biological differences, and historical evolution of roles of men and women for common good. Briefly discuss interface of updating this to modern war free society, and comment on there being biological limitations to removing gender from society entirely.

Hollywood argument - ignore, due to being an oddity.

Clinton - state disagreement. Make reference to female leaders you respect. Distinguish Clinton.


Further skeleton responses to follow, before making full, considered responses

Haha. Like it. Great way to debate.

Think you might have missed my point re tampon tax. I was called out for being a mysogynist because I pointed out that tampons etc were not charged at some special high rate but actually at some special low rate. (Is there an argument that they should be taxed at 0%? Maybe. But that's another discussion).

Also I dunno if the low quality of debate is a concious ploy of the feminist movement. In fact I'll go as far as to say I know it's not. It's just that most of what we see/read is detritus from the web and general gobshites. There is a whole field of very intelligent, very cogent academic and otherwise intellectually serious, useful stuff out there. Also on this point: have you not seen the rest of the world?! If dumbing down debate is a concious tactic used by feminists then it's also a concious tactic used by literally every single political movement/philosophy, every single organisation, individual and area of human thought. Feminism is not alone in having shrill, unthinking no-brainery associated with it.

God - sorry I can't do your skeletal thing. I totally appreciate your doing it!

 

[RobSpur]

...

In a world where a woman asking for a pay rise is a bitch and a man doing the same is strong (for example)

....

I interrupt the prepararion of my skeleton response to say

"Errrrrr. Excuse me ?????? You have surely just made this up ???"

 

[lennypops]

Oh ffs. This is another essay on its own.

Go for it.

 

[NSIS]

Its exactly the same negative feedback I've been referring to. Your statement refers to three distinguishing features: black, male and teenage. Because there is no doubt that black people have been discriminated against for no reason they simply see such statements as advanced justification for future prejudicial treatment and indeed many politicians and newspapers will use it exactly like that. If the statistics showed that knife crime was more likely to be committed by blond males over 6 feet two inches tall, it wouldn't be any sort of issue reporting it for the simple reason that that group has not been previously oppressed. But I also doubt whether the Daily Mail and Nigel Farage would be calling for the police to have a stop and search policy based on height and hair colour.

The example I gave would be nothing more than a statement of the facts. Only a PC lunatic is going to have any objection to that.

But why let facts get in the way of perceived racism. What's next, a Witch hunt?...

 

[PowerSpurs]

The example I gave would be nothing more than a statement of the facts. Only a PC lunatic is going to have any objection to that.

But why let facts get in the way of perceived racism. What's next, a Witch hunt?...

I agree with you, but as Lennypops has pointed out most of the PC brigade, like every group who debates political issues are apt to over-react, I was just explaining why people are more likely to if the human trait that is being subject to factual analysis happens to be one that is already the subject of discrimination.

 

[lennypops]

I interrupt the prepararion of my skeleton response to say

"Errrrrr. Excuse me ?????? You have surely just made this up ???"

So there are those studies which I and PNP alluded to which show a reluctance by women to negotiate wage increases. This is, I would suggest, at least partly if not mainly because of differences in how identical behaviour of men and women are perceived very differently.

To return to the Clinton example. Forget whether you like her or agree with her or not. The following point is not about that. When I listened to her entire speech and then listened to the reactions from the commentators I was incredulous. And I was not at all primed to have any specific reaction either to her speech or to analyses of it.

But when one of the pundits talked about how aggressive she was I was stunned. I literally, honestly had not got that impression at all. At all. And this is a very well-observed phenomenon. Women get judged as being "spikey", "difficult", "bitchy" for behaviour that we wouldn't judge a man negatively for at all.

I believe that happens. I believe there are perhaps understandable, biological, historical reasons why that's the case. It no longer needs to be the case. It'd be better and smarter if it were not the case. Im time it will not be the case. Might as well embrace and perhaps even encourage that change.

 

[NSIS]

I agree with you, but as Lennypops has pointed out most of the PC brigade, like every group who debates political issues are apt to over-react, I was just explaining why people are more likely to if the human trait that is being subject to factual analysis happens to be one that is already the subject of discrimination.

Yeah agreed. Even that mob would struggle to find a cause celebre in white, blond males. Even if they were actually being discriminated against!...

 

[RobSpur]

I've got to drop onto something else. I'll be back later, initially to conclude my skeleton response.


I also want to add the picture at the top of this article into the discussion :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37025554

 

[RobSpur]

So there are those studies which I and PNP alluded to which show a reluctance by women to negotiate wage increases. This is, I would suggest, at least partly if not mainly because of differences in how identical behaviour of men and women are perceived very differently.

To return to the Clinton example. Forget whether you like her or agree with her or not. The following point is not about that. When I listened to her entire speech and then listened to the reactions from the commentators I was incredulous. And I was not at all primed to have any specific reaction either to her speech or to analyses of it.

But when one of the pundits talked about how aggressive she was I was stunned. I literally, honestly had not got that impression at all. At all. And this is a very well-observed phenomenon. Women get judged as being "spikey", "difficult", "bitchy" for behaviour that we wouldn't judge a man negatively for at all.

I believe that happens. I believe there are perhaps understandable, biological, historical reasons why that's the case. It no longer needs to be the case. It'd be better and smarter if it were not the case. Im time it will not be the case. Might as well embrace and perhaps even encourage that change.

Can we save the debate until I have written out my full responses ? Otherwise I'll never get there. And I'm sure you are keen to have a legitimate debate/discussion here, upholding the principle of due process etc, rather than entering into ambush teritory.

I am hopin by the way, that you don't see this so much as a debate, as opossed to a discussion, and that in spite of your - no doubt appropriate - intellectual confidence, you remain open minded to the idea of changing your views by the end of the discussion

 

[lennypops]

All this talk of feminism. Has anyone actually read any? Cos if you think that feminism has any interest whatsoever in "removing gender from society altogether" then you're just totally wrong as far as I know.

I admit that I've not read any myself (which seems a bit embarrassing this far into the debate) and have all my understanding of it through articles and conversations with pretty intelligent, educated feminists and just sort of thinking about it.

But to be honest I wonder if most of what people argue against re feminism is not as much a misapprehension of what the core ideas are as someone believing that socialism implies doing away with money or capitalism implies slave-ownership or presidential systems require ginger people to be leaders whereas parliamentary ones need the electorate to all travel to the capital city to vote.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I just think it might be a really relevant point.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

People respond to their feelings though, not reality. Actually very few people who feel bullied react publicly to it at all, they just suffer in silence. I therefore may have a prejudice towards those that do react in some way as I think bullies should be exposed. Hence my Costa/Dembele analogy above. Costa is a bully, Dembele reacted. That doesn't make Dembele a bully

Your example is perfect, as both acted wrongly. You've also emphasised my point about things that are real.
What's more important: how someone's perceived something or what actually happened?

Clinton... how aggressive she was

Hey, she called for people to assassinate her opposition if she lost! No, wait, that was Trump, wasn't it?
How the hell is he still in the running? Absolutely ridiculous.