Has Political Correctness Gone too Far?

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

Well, having faulty sources being pointed out automatically equals Ad Hominem, crying "character attack" when using blogs as sources, derailing your own thread because someone had an opinion contrary to yours..... if I could actually list the number of examples of you using emotion in your posts, I'd get a warning from the mods for spamming.

Any specific example though? One would do

Pointing out that a blog is not exactly a reliable source.

Ooh, a blog! How reliable!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

And again.

Seriously, do you have any support outside of blogs?

Do refrain from character attacking.

Do you disagree with the content that was posted? If so, explain why. Do something other than character attacking the source of the content.

So, PC should be used to shut down my right to worship. Honestly, you're talking sense, that is what is going on at the moment it seems like.

"Who the fuck gave you the right to have an opinion contrary to others?! On your knees, mongrel!"

[Valystria]

You can make that argument. "Women are weak, feeble, emotionally incontinent, and need a mans help with everything because of their gender", as an example.

Neo-puritanism in the whole EMRAGERD SEX IMAGERY! Stuff, etc.

SJW's argue that there are a million genders, that religion is oppressive, that we need to cut back on teaching "dead white men" in school, etc. There is absolutely nothing traditionalist about them.

No one is arguing that there a million genders. It's okay to dislike SJWs. It's not okay to misrepresent their positions.

SJWs are ironically the ones defending religion. There are none so vigilant as them in defending Islam in particular. Any NSG thread will do for a sample of that phenomenon. SJWs uphold freedom of religion as a noble and glorious ideal our society must be bound by. They are on your side on that specifically.

Cutting back on teaching dead white men? This proves the point. Traditionalism. No longer do we have an environment of tacit racism against minorities. Now we have de facto racism against the majority, of course in the name of opposing racism. Traditionalist values turned on their head.

[Morr]

SJW's argue that there are a million genders, that religion is oppressive, that we need to cut back on teaching "dead white men" in school, etc. There is absolutely nothing traditionalist about them.

No one is arguing that there a million genders. It's okay to dislike SJWs. It's not okay to misrepresent their positions.

SJWs are ironically the ones defending religion. There are none so vigilant as them in defending Islam in particular. Any NSG thread will do for a sample of that phenomenon. SJWs uphold freedom of religion as a noble and glorious ideal our society must be bound by. They are on your side on that specifically.

Cutting back on teaching dead white men? This proves the point. Traditionalism. No longer do we have an environment of tacit racism against minorities. Now we have de facto racism against the majority, of course in the name of opposing racism. Traditionalist values turned on their head.

SJW's think there are a lot more genders than male and female.

SJW's don't defend religion unless they're Mainline Protestants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs
Also there are some Catholic SJW's, but they don't follow their religion.

There's nothing traditional in Western culture about cutting back on dead white men in literature. THIS is traditionalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHoAQW_DBI4

[Visegradian Poland]

Not all colleges are like that. Check your privilege.

[Valystria]

Any specific example though? One would do

Pointing out that a blog is not exactly a reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

And again.

Do refrain from character attacking.

Do you disagree with the content that was posted? If so, explain why. Do something other than character attacking the source of the content.

And I really don't see how any of helps your case. Those posters did not address the content of the source, but merely dismissed it based on the (blog) character of the source. If applying the same consistency elsewhere, anyone and everyone's posts could be dismissed on the grounds of the character of the post being that of a post, such as dismissing a post on the grounds that it's merely a post even when that post happens to be relevant and valid on its own merits.

No one is arguing that there a million genders. It's okay to dislike SJWs. It's not okay to misrepresent their positions.

SJWs are ironically the ones defending religion. There are none so vigilant as them in defending Islam in particular. Any NSG thread will do for a sample of that phenomenon. SJWs uphold freedom of religion as a noble and glorious ideal our society must be bound by. They are on your side on that specifically.

Cutting back on teaching dead white men? This proves the point. Traditionalism. No longer do we have an environment of tacit racism against minorities. Now we have de facto racism against the majority, of course in the name of opposing racism. Traditionalist values turned on their head.

SJW's think there are a lot more genders than male and female.

SJW's don't defend religion unless they're Mainline Protestants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs
Also there are some Catholic SJW's, but they don't follow their religion.

There's nothing traditional in Western culture about cutting back on dead white men in literature. THIS is traditionalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHoAQW_DBI4

Don't move the goal posts. You said "a million genders".

It's not SJWs who "think there a lot more genders than male and female". There are more. We know this to be factually true. Various countries have actually given third genders legal recognition on legal documents and passports. You're conflating positions you're personally against as being positions SJWs are against. You're linking these positions you dislike to SJWs.

You have missed the point of how the SJW practice of discriminating based on race is an inverted revival of racism. Shortly after our society begins moving past discriminating based on race, a group of social justice activists rapidly gaining in power and influence begin tacitly discriminating based on the majority race all in the name of anti-racism.

A hundred years ago it would've been discrimination based on the minority race. Now it's the majority race being discriminated against in the name of being against racism. They view it in the Oppressor or Oppressed Dichotomy. If black people are oppressed, white people must be the oppressors. Therefore we must oppress the oppressors to liberate the oppressed.

Ideally the concept of race should have continued fading from public thought as race is a debunked social construct. But now it's been merged with the Oppressor or Oppressed Dichotomy. There is an SJW saying; racism = privilege + power. In other words, the racism of traditionalism having been revived and inverted with a new spin on it.

[Shaggtopia]

Words only go too far when they are destructive. In this respect yes PC can and has gone too far on occasion. But I don't blame the PC sentiment for this, instead I choose to blame people, particularly those that don't do the basic level of fact checking, additionally those who join the conversation with the specific intent to derail it and hurt feelings (and if we are being completely honest here both Pro- and Anti- PC camps pull this shit enough to have weekly top 10's for the most embarrassingly thinly veiled straw manning.)

[Morr]

Don't move the goal posts. You said "a million genders".

I don't think there is any quantifiable cap on the number of genders they think exist.

It's not SJWs who "think there a lot more genders than male and female". There are more. We know this to be factually true. Various countries have actually given third genders legal recognition on legal documents and passports. You're conflating positions you're personally against as being positions SJWs are against. You're linking these positions you dislike to SJWs.

You have missed the point of how the SJW practice of discriminating based on race is an inverted revival of racism. Shortly after our society begins moving past discriminating based on race, a group of social justice activists rapidly gaining in power and influence begin tacitly discriminating based on the majority race all in the name of anti-racism.

A hundred years ago it would've been discrimination based on the minority race. Now it's the majority race being discriminated against in the name of being against racism. They view it in the Oppressor or Oppressed Dichotomy. If black people are oppressed, white people must be the oppressors. Therefore we must oppress the oppressors to liberate the oppressed.

Ideally the concept of race should have continued fading from public thought as race is a debunked social construct. But now it's been merged with the Oppressor or Oppressed Dichotomy. There is an SJW saying; racism = privilege + power. In other words, the racism of traditionalism having been revived and inverted with a new spin on it.

None of this is traditionalist anymore than burning churches and saying, "well it was traditionalist to discriminate against atheism, therefore it is traditionalist to persecute Christians."

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

Pointing out that a blog is not exactly a reliable source.

And again.

And I really don't see how any of helps your case. Those posters did not address the content of the source, but merely dismissed it based on the (blog) character of the source. If applying the same consistency elsewhere, anyone and everyone's posts could be dismissed on the grounds of the character of the post being that of a post, such as dismissing a post on the grounds that it's merely a post even when that post happens to be relevant and valid on its own merits.

They pointed out the flaws in the source due to it being more or less one sided or made by a single individual with no reasonable data to back up said claim. The burden is on you to provide a proper source (i.e. from a reputable organization or an article regarding a well-studied topic) and not from someone who's idea is based on an uneducated hunch. I judge sources based on their credibility and clarity (hardcore evidence and well-documented facts), not popularity (x number of people like it because it's oversimplified or doesn't connect with the whole topic). Some truths are unpopular, while others are. Blogs fall on the latter on this site, and not in a good way. People who use blogs as sources shouldn't be surprised that they will face ridicule because of it.

[Valystria]

And I really don't see how any of helps your case. Those posters did not address the content of the source, but merely dismissed it based on the (blog) character of the source. If applying the same consistency elsewhere, anyone and everyone's posts could be dismissed on the grounds of the character of the post being that of a post, such as dismissing a post on the grounds that it's merely a post even when that post happens to be relevant and valid on its own merits.

They pointed out the flaws in the source due to it being more or less one sided or made by a single individual with no reasonable data to back up said claim. The burden is on you to provide a proper source (i.e. from a reputable organization or an article regarding a well-studied topic) and not from someone who's idea is based on an uneducated hunch. I judge sources based on their credibility and clarity (hardcore evidence and well-documented facts), not popularity (x number of people like it because it's oversimplified or doesn't connect with the whole topic). Some truths are unpopular, while others are. Blogs fall on the latter on this site, and not in a good way. People who use blogs as sources shouldn't be surprised that they will face ridicule because of it.

I did provide additional sources. The same posters then proceeded to engage in a character attack towards the figure in the article, Dawkins, the moment it was no longer feasible to character attack the source itself.

Later yet another source was provided, this time of a study. The same posters chose to either outright ignore the validity of the study or fabricate phantom flaws with which to attack it.

Don't move the goal posts. You said "a million genders".

I don't think there is any quantifiable cap on the number of genders they think exist.

It's not SJWs who "think there a lot more genders than male and female". There are more. We know this to be factually true. Various countries have actually given third genders legal recognition on legal documents and passports. You're conflating positions you're personally against as being positions SJWs are against. You're linking these positions you dislike to SJWs.

You have missed the point of how the SJW practice of discriminating based on race is an inverted revival of racism. Shortly after our society begins moving past discriminating based on race, a group of social justice activists rapidly gaining in power and influence begin tacitly discriminating based on the majority race all in the name of anti-racism.

A hundred years ago it would've been discrimination based on the minority race. Now it's the majority race being discriminated against in the name of being against racism. They view it in the Oppressor or Oppressed Dichotomy. If black people are oppressed, white people must be the oppressors. Therefore we must oppress the oppressors to liberate the oppressed.

Ideally the concept of race should have continued fading from public thought as race is a debunked social construct. But now it's been merged with the Oppressor or Oppressed Dichotomy. There is an SJW saying; racism = privilege + power. In other words, the racism of traditionalism having been revived and inverted with a new spin on it.

None of this is traditionalist anymore than burning churches and saying, "well it was traditionalist to discriminate against atheism, therefore it is traditionalist to persecute Christians."

It's the practices, customs, rituals, and social behaviours of traditionalism having been revived and inverted with new rhetoric.

That doesn't mean it's traditionalism. It's merely aspects of traditionalism having flipped around and given new rhetoric. That makes it something else entirely, but an inversion and revival of traditionalism nonetheless.

[Morr]

It's the practices, customs, rituals, and social behaviours of traditionalism having been revived and inverted with new rhetoric.

That doesn't mean it's traditionalism. It's merely aspects of traditionalism having flipped around and given new rhetoric. That makes it something else entirely, but an inversion and revival of traditionalism nonetheless.

Traditionalism is completely about preserving our cultural heritage.

[Valystria]

It's the practices, customs, rituals, and social behaviours of traditionalism having been revived and inverted with new rhetoric.

That doesn't mean it's traditionalism. It's merely aspects of traditionalism having flipped around and given new rhetoric. That makes it something else entirely, but an inversion and revival of traditionalism nonetheless.

Traditionalism is completely about preserving our cultural heritage.

You are making up definitions.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/traditionalism

The upholding or maintenance of tradition, especially so as to resist change.

“The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.” ~ Confucius

The practices of traditionalism are being saved and strengthened by having been inverted, sexism and racism being done in the name of being against sexism and racism. It's traditionalism without being traditionalism.

[Morr]

Traditionalism is completely about preserving our cultural heritage.

You are making up definitions.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/traditionalism

The upholding or maintenance of tradition, especially so as to resist change.

“The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.” ~ Confucius

The practices of traditionalism are being saved and strengthened by having been inverted, sexism and racism being done in the name of being against sexism and racism. It's traditionalism without being traditionalism.

No it isn't. That's like saying fighting a war for one cause makes the cause identical with that ideology of another war. "Sexism", for instance, in traditionalism is not a end, it is merely a method. The end is a traditional, stable family.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You are making up definitions.



“The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.” ~ Confucius

The practices of traditionalism are being saved and strengthened by having been inverted, sexism and racism being done in the name of being against sexism and racism. It's traditionalism without being traditionalism.

No it isn't. That's like saying fighting a war for one cause makes the cause identical with that ideology of another war. "Sexism", for instance, in traditionalism is not a end, it is merely a method. The end is a traditional, stable family.

Except homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual ones, so that isn't true at all. It's a fictional end; such a result does not and will not result from a pursuit of traditionalism.

[Morr]

No it isn't. That's like saying fighting a war for one cause makes the cause identical with that ideology of another war. "Sexism", for instance, in traditionalism is not a end, it is merely a method. The end is a traditional, stable family.

Except homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual ones, so that isn't true at all. It's a fictional end; such a result does not and will not result from a pursuit of traditionalism.

Yeah, heterosexual relationships of today are hardly traditionalist.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Except homosexual relationships are more stable than heterosexual ones, so that isn't true at all. It's a fictional end; such a result does not and will not result from a pursuit of traditionalism.

Yeah, heterosexual relationships of today are hardly traditionalist.

You'd prefer one with the wife being considered legal property, able to be raped and abused with impunity, and with children subject to mentally destructive violence as "discipline?"

[Morr]

Yeah, heterosexual relationships of today are hardly traditionalist.

You'd prefer one with the wife being considered legal property, able to be raped and abused with impunity, and with children subject to mentally destructive violence as "discipline?"

wtf are you talking about? When did I say I was a political traditionalist?

[Imperial Idaho]

where i live if you were to say make a 9/11 joke people would find it offensive (obviously), but its not so bat shit crazy to where people are being called racists for wearing black shirts.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

where i live if you were to say make a 9/11 joke people would find it offensive (obviously), but its not so bat shit crazy to where people are being called racists for wearing black shirts.

...out of curiosity, where is that last part happening, exactly?

[Morr]

where i live if you were to say make a 9/11 joke people would find it offensive (obviously), but its not so bat shit crazy to where people are being called racists for wearing black shirts.

...out of curiosity, where is that last part happening, exactly?

Black shirts are the fascist equivalent to brown shirts.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...out of curiosity, where is that last part happening, exactly?

Black shirts are the fascist equivalent to brown shirts.

I'm aware of the militant Italian fascists that were known as Blackshirts... because they wore black shirts. But where are people being called racist simply because they wore black shirts?

Hell, I think black bloc participants might take a bit of offense at that.

[Morr]

Black shirts are the fascist equivalent to brown shirts.

I'm aware of the militant Italian fascists that were known as Blackshirts... because they wore black shirts. But where are people being called racist simply because they wore black shirts?

Hell, I think black bloc participants might take a bit of offense at that.

They possibly are in places in Europe where fascists are openly active. Golden Dawn, for example.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm aware of the militant Italian fascists that were known as Blackshirts... because they wore black shirts. But where are people being called racist simply because they wore black shirts?

Hell, I think black bloc participants might take a bit of offense at that.

They possibly are in places in Europe where fascists are openly active. Golden Dawn, for example.

Usually the same places where black bloc is also active. In your example, Greece. The far left is quite prevalent there, and considering black is kind of anarchism's color, I find it hard to believe people are getting called racist for wearing it.

[Valystria]

You are making up definitions.



“The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm.” ~ Confucius

The practices of traditionalism are being saved and strengthened by having been inverted, sexism and racism being done in the name of being against sexism and racism. It's traditionalism without being traditionalism.

No it isn't. That's like saying fighting a war for one cause makes the cause identical with that ideology of another war. "Sexism", for instance, in traditionalism is not a end, it is merely a method. The end is a traditional, stable family.

Sexism and racism are components of traditionalism that have been revived and inverted.

Doing the same things as traditionalism but flipping it around and using new words means it's the same other than having been inverted and given new rhetoric. It doesn't matter that the form is different when the substance (sexism and racism) remains the same with new targets and new mandates.

where i live if you were to say make a 9/11 joke people would find it offensive (obviously), but its not so bat shit crazy to where people are being called racists for wearing black shirts.

No one does that.

Black shirts are the fascist equivalent to brown shirts.

I'm aware of the militant Italian fascists that were known as Blackshirts... because they wore black shirts. But where are people being called racist simply because they wore black shirts?

Hell, I think black bloc participants might take a bit of offense at that.

Or anyone wearing a black shirt, really.

[Morr]

Sexism and racism are components of traditionalism that have been revived and inverted.

Doing the same things as traditionalism but flipping it around and using new words means it's the same other than having been inverted and given new rhetoric. It doesn't matter that the form is different when the substance (sexism and racism) remains the same with new targets and new mandates.

Yes, the cultural goal is completely different. The goal is to atomize the family and destroy diversity in culture.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm aware of the militant Italian fascists that were known as Blackshirts... because they wore black shirts. But where are people being called racist simply because they wore black shirts?

Hell, I think black bloc participants might take a bit of offense at that.

Or anyone wearing a black shirt, really.

Yeah... I wear mostly dark colors, black being the most common color of shirt I wear. I'm a bit confused as to where he could've gotten that idea.