Do we have to listen to stupid arguments?

[Neu Leonstein]

I read a lengthy interview with a self-described young, wealthy and educated prospective Trump voter today. This guy's argument for voting Trump seemed to be more or less entirely that Trump is not PC. The voter feels that we live in culture in which views he considers "not politically correct" cannot be expressed. Voting Hillary would, in his view, further this climate, while voting Trump would maybe change it, just because Trump is an example of someone who breaks PC taboos all the time.

But when you look at the guy's specific examples, and the hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints against political correctness, SJWs and so on brought by people on the internet, most don't really seem to be about actively being prevented from stating ones opinion. Such cases exist, to be sure (e.g. denying someone a university stage, or trying to prevent a Trump rally via protests), and they make good explicit events to point at. But my sense is that what this guy (and others) wouldn't suggest that PC-culture is only about such cases of actively denying someone's ability to say something non-PC. Rather, it is about the sense that there is now some sort of social pressure to conform, that saying something non-PC can get you socially ostracised. Like, you can still say whatever you want. But people might not engage with your argument or with you in the way you hoped for, and instead will judge you for that opinion according to their own values. In the words of the Trump voter: "Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it."

So according to this guy, PC culture is oppressive because people don't respect his opinions, listen to them and treat them on what he considers to be their merits. So I suppose, in his ideal world, any opinion would be fairly discussed. In his ideal world, if you think and say that Mexicans are rapists, then people shouldn't label you or shun you or stop being your friend because of that. People wouldn't be judged for their opinions.

To those of you who consider yourselves to be against "PC culture", against "SJWs" or who sympathise with this guy's lament - how far would this go? Do all of us have a duty to take any opinion or argument seriously? Even if that argument is really stupid, or has nothing to do with facts? Would someone be part of the PC police, or be a social justice warrior, if they decided not to interact with you anymore because of some opinion you held?

[Galloism]

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

[Khadgar]

Personally I figure people who rail against "political correctness" are just assholes who got told off for being an asshole.

Oh and put me firmly in the "No I'm not going to listen to your stupid argument" camp. If it's stupid I'll say it's stupid and hopefully I'll so offend the person with the stupid argument that they'll stop talking to me.

[Alvecia]

There are people on all points of the spectrum that would rather stick their fingers in their ears and hum the national anthem rather than listen to any point of view that is opposed to theirs or that criticises their views.
But listening to what the other guy has to say is important, it prevents an echo chamber of ideas, it can help identify some easily fixed misunderstandings, it can help by challenging your own views and forcing you to really understand what it is you are identifying with, and it helps remind you that not everything has a good reason, that sometimes, people are just arseholes.

[Zoice]

Donald Trump is all of the bad stuff of PC (pro-censorship, dishonest, reactionary, extremely thin-skinned) with none of the good stuff (well-intended).

Dumb arguments should be listened to, otherwise you can't refute them.

[Inter-Universal Republic of Earth]

I would listen to the argument, and refute the points. Join the conversation, say what I think about the subject. If an argument is stupid show your opinion against it. Do not just walk away. As long as you don't threaten the person with violence, or vandalize their property, you have the right to yell or refute their points.

[Hesse Darmstadt]

Donald Trump is all of the bad stuff of PC (pro-censorship, dishonest, reactionary, extremely thin-skinned) with none of the good stuff (well-intended).

Dumb arguments should be listened to, otherwise you can't refute them.

Hes more honest than Hillary.

[Ifreann]

PC Culture: Trump says something. I think it's racist. I say back, "Oi Trump, yer a racist!"
Politically Incorrect Culture(PI Culture): Trump says something. I think it's racist. I can't call Trump a racist, because that would be PC. So instead I say back "Oi Trump, yer a faggot!"

[AiliailiA]

I haven't finished reading the anonymous 22-year-olds "argument", but I'm getting some strong clues that he's a die-hard Republican mustering up every argument he can think of to vote for Trump.

On the subject, I think the reaction against "political correctness" and "social justice warriors" is from lame debaters who feel disempowered by actual free speech. Their opinions aren't getting the respect they think they deserve — the respect they may get in real life when they can rely on their social privilege — when voiced publicly and responded to by less privileged people with an equal say. Where "free speech" doesn't cost money, and there's so much speech and so much false persona that judging the quality of the speech by the reputation of the speaker just isn't enough. They're sore because the content of their speech just isn't very good and they're getting beaten in debate by complete strangers who likely don't even have a good job.

To turn their goad back on them: what's the alternative to being politically correct? You want to rally a majority around being politically incorrect? Make a majority while claiming to be wrong? You go right ahead and try!

[AiliailiA]

Donald Trump is all of the bad stuff of PC (pro-censorship, dishonest, reactionary, extremely thin-skinned) with none of the good stuff (well-intended).

Dumb arguments should be listened to, otherwise you can't refute them.

Hes more honest than Hillary.

He's more sincere than Hillary Clinton, I think you mean.

He doesn't "say it like it is", it's more saying whatever the fuck he thinks. Which is kind of charming in a way, it's honest in the sense of "I can see where this guy is coming from" but as he does it he lets us see deeper and deeper into his mind and his character. And there isn't much there.

If you're looking for an empty can for Congress to kick down the road, Trump's your man. He won't even put up the resistance a full can of shit would, just clang clang bounce clang kick clang bounce bounce down the road. You can't possibly think the man is a strong leader when he buckles under questioning by journalists and says whatever he thinks will undo the stupid thing he said before. He's a political empty can, a big ol' can of nothing.

[The first Galactic Republic]

Most people who complain about SJWs censoring them are also really quick to shut down the conversation if it's something they don't want to hear.

Angry people hide behind free speech. What's new.

[Zoice]

Donald Trump is all of the bad stuff of PC (pro-censorship, dishonest, reactionary, extremely thin-skinned) with none of the good stuff (well-intended).

Dumb arguments should be listened to, otherwise you can't refute them.

Hes more honest than Hillary.

I wouldn't go that far. Hillary is a manipulative politician, Trump is just better at it than her, and he's mostly been in real estate so far.

[Conserative Morality]

No, but it's entertaining to to listen to them to properly mock and belittle them.

[Kelinfort]

There are no heroes in this fight. The last one died in 2003.

[Kelinfort]

Hes more honest than Hillary.

I wouldn't go that far. Hillary is a manipulative politician, Trump is just better at it than her, and he's mostly been in real estate so far.

I don't know, she may not look like she knows what she's doing, but she's made it this far with constant negative attention.

Trump basically just started.

[Digital Planets]

Why do they have to hate on Personal Computer culture? What have we done to deserve this? We're hardly even political. All we want to do is download more RAM.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

People do not have to respect your opinions. Plain and simple. His whining is idiotic.

[Zoice]

I wouldn't go that far. Hillary is a manipulative politician, Trump is just better at it than her, and he's mostly been in real estate so far.

I don't know, she may not look like she knows what she's doing, but she's made it this far with constant negative attention.

Trump basically just started.

I really hope you're right, and Trump loses.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

That's like saying 'do we have to read stupid comments on YouTube' or 'do we have to click obvious clickbait online'. No. No, we don't. It might be useful on occasion to hear the latest idiocy going about so one might better prepare to debunk it, but one doesn't have to listen to stupidity any more than one has to listen to sense. Individual choice, you know. You could very well go about your entire life with your fingers in your ears if you really wanted to.

Sometimes I think some of the various frothing-at-the-mouth radicals of this bent or the other may just have done about that, actually. Or at least opted to get some idea stuck in their heads, and refused to listen to anything after. *shrugs*

[Greed and Death]

I read a lengthy interview with a self-described young, wealthy and educated prospective Trump voter today. This guy's argument for voting Trump seemed to be more or less entirely that Trump is not PC. The voter feels that we live in culture in which views he considers "not politically correct" cannot be expressed. Voting Hillary would, in his view, further this climate, while voting Trump would maybe change it, just because Trump is an example of someone who breaks PC taboos all the time.

But when you look at the guy's specific examples, and the hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints against political correctness, SJWs and so on brought by people on the internet, most don't really seem to be about actively being prevented from stating ones opinion. Such cases exist, to be sure (e.g. denying someone a university stage, or trying to prevent a Trump rally via protests), and they make good explicit events to point at. But my sense is that what this guy (and others) wouldn't suggest that PC-culture is only about such cases of actively denying someone's ability to say something non-PC. Rather, it is about the sense that there is now some sort of social pressure to conform, that saying something non-PC can get you socially ostracized. Like, you can still say whatever you want. But people might not engage with your argument or with you in the way you hoped for, and instead will judge you for that opinion according to their own values. In the words of the Trump voter: "Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it."

So according to this guy, PC culture is oppressive because people don't respect his opinions, listen to them and treat them on what he considers to be their merits. So I suppose, in his ideal world, any opinion would be fairly discussed. In his ideal world, if you think and say that Mexicans are rapists, then people shouldn't label you or shun you or stop being your friend because of that. People wouldn't be judged for their opinions.

To those of you who consider yourselves to be against "PC culture", against "SJWs" or who sympathise with this guy's lament - how far would this go? Do all of us have a duty to take any opinion or argument seriously? Even if that argument is really stupid, or has nothing to do with facts? Would someone be part of the PC police, or be a social justice warrior, if they decided not to interact with you anymore because of some opinion you held?

I think he has a point, and some of the punishments are beyond mere ostracization. Kids have been kicked out of public university because they said the N word at a private off campus event and were secretly recorded doing so.

[Zoice]

I read a lengthy interview with a self-described young, wealthy and educated prospective Trump voter today. This guy's argument for voting Trump seemed to be more or less entirely that Trump is not PC. The voter feels that we live in culture in which views he considers "not politically correct" cannot be expressed. Voting Hillary would, in his view, further this climate, while voting Trump would maybe change it, just because Trump is an example of someone who breaks PC taboos all the time.

But when you look at the guy's specific examples, and the hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints against political correctness, SJWs and so on brought by people on the internet, most don't really seem to be about actively being prevented from stating ones opinion. Such cases exist, to be sure (e.g. denying someone a university stage, or trying to prevent a Trump rally via protests), and they make good explicit events to point at. But my sense is that what this guy (and others) wouldn't suggest that PC-culture is only about such cases of actively denying someone's ability to say something non-PC. Rather, it is about the sense that there is now some sort of social pressure to conform, that saying something non-PC can get you socially ostracized. Like, you can still say whatever you want. But people might not engage with your argument or with you in the way you hoped for, and instead will judge you for that opinion according to their own values. In the words of the Trump voter: "Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it."

So according to this guy, PC culture is oppressive because people don't respect his opinions, listen to them and treat them on what he considers to be their merits. So I suppose, in his ideal world, any opinion would be fairly discussed. In his ideal world, if you think and say that Mexicans are rapists, then people shouldn't label you or shun you or stop being your friend because of that. People wouldn't be judged for their opinions.

To those of you who consider yourselves to be against "PC culture", against "SJWs" or who sympathise with this guy's lament - how far would this go? Do all of us have a duty to take any opinion or argument seriously? Even if that argument is really stupid, or has nothing to do with facts? Would someone be part of the PC police, or be a social justice warrior, if they decided not to interact with you anymore because of some opinion you held?

I think he has a point, and some of the punishments are beyond mere ostracization. Kids have been kicked out of public university because they said the N word at a private off campus event and were secretly recorded doing so.

The only part of that that Trump would change is that instead of the N-word getting you expelled, you'd be getting sued for saying something bad about Trump, or some other rich censor-happy jackass that has the means.

[Cannot think of a name]

I read a lengthy interview with a self-described young, wealthy and educated prospective Trump voter today. This guy's argument for voting Trump seemed to be more or less entirely that Trump is not PC. The voter feels that we live in culture in which views he considers "not politically correct" cannot be expressed. Voting Hillary would, in his view, further this climate, while voting Trump would maybe change it, just because Trump is an example of someone who breaks PC taboos all the time.

But when you look at the guy's specific examples, and the hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints against political correctness, SJWs and so on brought by people on the internet, most don't really seem to be about actively being prevented from stating ones opinion. Such cases exist, to be sure (e.g. denying someone a university stage, or trying to prevent a Trump rally via protests), and they make good explicit events to point at. But my sense is that what this guy (and others) wouldn't suggest that PC-culture is only about such cases of actively denying someone's ability to say something non-PC. Rather, it is about the sense that there is now some sort of social pressure to conform, that saying something non-PC can get you socially ostracized. Like, you can still say whatever you want. But people might not engage with your argument or with you in the way you hoped for, and instead will judge you for that opinion according to their own values. In the words of the Trump voter: "Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it."

So according to this guy, PC culture is oppressive because people don't respect his opinions, listen to them and treat them on what he considers to be their merits. So I suppose, in his ideal world, any opinion would be fairly discussed. In his ideal world, if you think and say that Mexicans are rapists, then people shouldn't label you or shun you or stop being your friend because of that. People wouldn't be judged for their opinions.

To those of you who consider yourselves to be against "PC culture", against "SJWs" or who sympathise with this guy's lament - how far would this go? Do all of us have a duty to take any opinion or argument seriously? Even if that argument is really stupid, or has nothing to do with facts? Would someone be part of the PC police, or be a social justice warrior, if they decided not to interact with you anymore because of some opinion you held?

I think he has a point, and some of the punishments are beyond mere ostracization. Kids have been kicked out of public university because they said the N word at a private off campus event and were secretly recorded doing so.

Nine times out of ten when anecdotes like this are given context they're not as 'innocent' as they seem. Which is why they're often just given as passing references and not linked to sources. Hopefully people just read the short mention and go, "Why, that's terrible!" without perhaps finding out that the person in question was leading a song about how 'niggers' would never be let into a particular school group or something like that. Depending on which anecdote you're pulling.

[Italios]

Honestly, I think a ton of people who advertise themselves as "anti-PC" or "anti-politically correct" are really just using it as an excuse to be a jerk, get too sensitive about others' standards of politeness, or just want to seem cool.

A good chunk of issues and stories - i.e. Islamphobia and liberals' "fear" to insult Muslims - that are advertised as "politically correct" really have nothing to do with appealing yourself to the more sensitive side of the political spectrum. Most people who avoid using stigmas attached to religions, races, genders, et all, are really doing it out of pure politeness, no political attention attached, or at least that's what I've observed. Back to the Islam thing: of course Islam is filled with problems, but that doesn't call for barring Muslim refugees or immigrants from entering other countries, and defending Muslim rights has NOTHING to do with finding the religion flawless. Allowing Muslims to practice their religion in countries like the US with a guarantee of freedom of speech isn't being politically correct, it's obeying the Constitution. Some people need to be more less sensitive when it comes to sensitivity.

The other part of the "anti-PC" group: they just thing it's badass or like the Donald Trump voter, they put it on a pedestal. Not being a generic presidential candidate doesn't make you qualified to the job - Trump isn't politically incorrect, he politically has no idea what he's doing. The fact that he's comfortable with calling Mexicans 'rapists' doesn't mean he'll do a magnificent job in the White House cutting back immigration crimes, it means he's fine with turning off a large group of voters from him.

[Liriena]

No, we do not. Nor are we, private citizens, under any obligation to provide people whose expressions we find objectionable, ridiculous, or dangerous, with a platform. Any opinion can be spoken in public, but not every opinion is entitled to a podium, a microphone and an audience.

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

I'm the Pope of NS, and I approve this message.

[Luziyca]

No, we do not. Nor are we, private citizens, under any obligation to provide people whose expressions we find objectionable, ridiculous, or dangerous, with a platform. Any opinion can be spoken in public, but not every opinion is entitled to a podium, a microphone and an audience.

Why I do declare I think XKCD handled this already.

(Image)

I'm the Pope of NS, and I approve this message.

Amen.