The psychology of political correctness

And what is this alleged "view of most liberals" that you think too extreme?I'm usually considered liberal. And most of the people that I worked with were liberal. I don't recall ever hear any of them say much about PC.But I do hear lots of claims that liberals hold extreme views. I'm inclined to think much of that is the typical right wing exaggerations and inventions. I guess they wouldn't get much traction if they went around admitting that most liberals are pretty decent folk.

I hope you never experience a trauma which gives you PTSD. If you do, I hope you don't suffer with obsessive and compulsively reliving the trauma when presented with material other people think is innocuous. I hope this does not dissuade you from any ambition to improve your education.

1. It was a joke, I'm sorry I offended you with my National Lampoon (magazine 1970-1980) / Robert Crumb sense of humor. Please note I did use the winky button thereby issuing a trigger warning.2. Your point is well taken, special circumstances should warrant special accommodations when appropriate. However, censorship for all is never warranted to appease the sensitivities of the few. 3. Jeez what a stuck-up prig -- no wonder we declared independence.Edited by anglagard, : To more directly respond to insult

Of its extreme view in political correctness, again, with the provision that it's just my opinion! What I mean to say is that subjective opinions cannot be qualified empirically. Percy, that's too many experiences to list off the top of my head. But one that comes to mind is when the Seattle chapter of Black Lives Matter shouted down one of their strongest advocates, Bernie Sanders. And he dare not call them out for being incredibly rude and counterproductive because that wouldn't be politically correct.The way it has been described in various Progressive circles, there is an imagined hierarchy of oppression. The more underprivileged you are, the more you have the perceived right to have your complaint addressed first.

Well, agree to disagree.

quote:

---

I don't really like the view of most liberals

---

You quotemined the hell out of me... I clearly said I don't like the view of most liberals "when it comes to political correctness." And there is nothing factual to back up when I also clearly stated that I was simply giving my opinion on the matter.

Well Faith, you have done it again. Hijacked another thread. You ignored the rest of what I said, which was:

quote:

---

The whole "life begins at conception" issue, for example is both silly and ignorant. Living cells are combined so there is no new "life" being made, and then only ~30% of zygotes (egg+sperm) make it to fetus category: the other ~70% don't, and never will, qualify as a human being, so even the more relevant definition of "human life" does not apply to conception.

​

Anyone wanting to discuss this should go to Legal Death, Legal Life:

---

That was your hint/cue/advise/etc to place your predictable argument on a different thread, because abortion is not the topic. The topic relevant issue was:

quote:

---

The point here, is that basing your "morality" on a false paradigm is actually worse than silly or ignorant, it is immoral -- to liberal thinking.

---

The topic involves how conservatives and liberal decide something is moral or immoral. And thank you for providing an example of what the topic is about -- that conservatives have more mental boxes that actions must fit inside to be considered "moral" than liberals, boxes that liberals think are silly and irrelevant.Read Message 1 and reply to that.Enjoy.

Nope. See Legal Death, Legal Life:

quote:

---

From the above link we can see that over 70% of zygotes do not normally and naturally become living breathing thinking human beings. Over half of conceptions are not human beings - a single cell that passes out of the uterus is no different than a skin cell that is shed, an ejected blastula is no different than tissue that is accidentally or intentionally cut off (like a toenail), and an empty pregnancy sac is not a living organism.

---

The point here for this thread, is that basing your "morality" on a false paradigm is actually worse than silly or ignorant, it is immoral -- to liberal thinking -- because it interferes with other peoples lives, and enforcing it on others interferes with the ability of people with more open viewpoints on morality to live their life by their choices.We can also talk about the death penalty, which many conservatives feel is moral and many liberals think is immoral. On this issue we see that the "pro-life" position is hypocritical, while the "pro-choice" position is that life in prison allows for reparations in cases where errors in prosecution have been made, while still preventing the properly convicted from causing more social harm.The FACT that more blacks are given the death sentence than whites demonstrates a fundamental problem with the justice system that is immoral - imho - in being so blatantly biased.Again the issue is how we decide what is moral and what is immoral.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : -

First you aim criticism generally at liberalism, then you say it was meant to apply to a subset of liberalism, and now it seems you're casting the criticism at all liberalism again. I'm now very uncertain who among liberals you're criticizing, all of them or a subset.You replied to my original post saying about liberals having a false impression of conservatism because of the extreme views of their news outlets, and since then I've just been trying to maintain my side of the conservation by making sure I understand what you're saying. But the more I seek clarification the more difficult that is becoming. Of course subjective opinions can be "qualified empirically." There's science for one thing, but science wasn't my point. You said observations don't inform opinion, but that's just crazy. Opinions of any validity don't form in a vacuum. Valid opinions are supported by informed and careful observation. Observations of reality lie at the core of opinions. And opinions should be continually examined and recast in light of new observations and of all the weaknesses and missteps we know surround their formation. It would have been politically *inadvisable* (not incorrect) to alienate what should be an important segment of the electorate for him. I don't know what a "Progressive" is exactly, but are the Progressives the subset of liberalism you're criticizing? Or is this again about all of liberalism?The implementation isn't politically incorrect thinking. It's just rational thinking. If you're going to right wrongs, then it makes the most sense to right the biggest wrongs first.--Percy

Well, thank you for adding 'insulting my intelligence' to the list of social offense. I am aware of this, but it doesn't change that your joke relies on misunderstanding its own subject matter in order to be funny. Which it isn't anyway.Furthermore the joke punches down. You haven't identified someone stood a pedestal and thrown rotten fruit at them. You've found someone lying in the gutter and pissed on them.There can be humour here, but it's usually mean-spirited. Please note, I was not offended. I am now upset with you because despite me in quite a kind fashion telling you that trigger warnings are used to help people avoid experiencing profound and debilitating mental health crises NOT about protecting sensitivities or avoid offending people - you carried on with the core misunderstanding that your 'joke' relied on to try and defend your posting it.Would the joke be funny if it was about providing 'Allergy Warnings'? Like is it funny that someone with a potentially lethal chronic condition surrounding coming into contact with nuts? Is it funny if a school or college campus sends a message to all pupils asking them to avoid as much as possible, bringing nuts onto site.This is funny? Would it be funny to suggest that people with chronic hypersensitivity just eat a bag of nuts and get over it?Or is it only funny when the person's mind is hypothetically swelling up and killing them - safely out of sight? Trigger warnings do not replace content. They are appended to it so that people with chronic mental health problems can CHOOSE whether they want to confront those issues, rather than being surprised by them and having to have a highly personal mental health crisis in front of their peers.That you would bring up the word censorship in this context is worrying.Am I censoring you? No. I am criticising you. If this is why you brought up censorship then I say that if you want to speak in a free society, you are the one that should take Prof. Chris Rock's class - because it's going to happen An American saying this to a British person? Now that's punching up.

---

If you have the urge to complain about the contents of this post - please bare in mind that initially I pointed out that your comments may not have been awesome and why in the kindest possible fashion. This post right here is a response to your defensiveness on this.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I suppose we might be quibbling over what constitutes a mishap. But surely that is beside the point I am making with Faith, which was that despite her claims to the contrary, that some conservatives really do concern themselves with conception, and that her won arguments did not preclude such a thing. I certainly do not buy those arguments myself.I note that Faith then admitted to being exactly that kind of hyper conservative and more. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The point was not what your particular view was, but that you attributed the view to most liberals. I apologize that leaving off the rest of your quote was misleading, but it was the phrase "most liberals" that is the point of my comment. Can you respond to that issue?

Sometimes my jokes hit and sometimes they miss, but at least I tried. I have never even seen you make a joke and judging from your posts, I think you are one of the most humorless people to inhabit the earth since Timur the Lame, or, pardon me, Timur the Mobility Impaired.As for punching up or down, doesn't a lot of English comedy such as Monty Python, Are You Being Served, Faulty Towers, Keeping Up Appearances and so on do a considerable amount of punching down? I still find them funny, evidently you do not. You know where I screwed up? I should have titled the post How to Eliminate the Need for Most Trigger Warnings. In this nation trigger warnings are vastly overused. Don't accept evolution - trigger warning; climate change - trigger warning; Civil War about slavery, not state's rights - trigger warning; Hydrology class requires knowledge of differential equations - trigger warning. Revolutionary War not about taxation only, had more to do with being treated like non-citizens - trigger warning.I also noticed you left the most important part of my post out -- namely:

quote:

---

Your point is well taken, special circumstances should warrant special accommodations when appropriate.

---

Instead you go off on some bizarre tangent about Anglagard the peanut allergy killer.Hmm...humorless, hysterical, and intentionally deceitful -- just to score some brownie points off of yours truly. Well, maybe not entirely humorless.

The problem is you are using the appropriate narrow definition of trigger warnings that is likely used in your nation and I am condemning its overuse to avoid the truth and censor content in this nation.I think we are actually speaking past each other because we are actually debating two different subjects.So I agree with you for the second time concerning the narrow definition and apologize for my lack of clarity in emphasizing this fact.I hope you understand I am very much against the overuse of trigger warnings in this nation in order to shield one from disagreeable facts, not against their use to warn the vulnerable that they may find any future content disturbing.Have I made my position clear to you now? Edited by anglagard, : Provide more appropriate title in regard to the situation in the USA

"Trigger warnings" have a far different meaning to the current snowflake generation than they did a few generations back to the 18-year-olds who were storming the beaches of France.Those guys didn't need any fainting couches!

And you also came close to landing the dismount. We judges will judge Then you haven't been paying attention. Message 1 - 'Umour The Eighth
Message 20 - The abdominal snowman
Message 23 - six pack sasquatch
Message 25 - 's no man
Message 29 - Liars and horses and bears (oh my!)
Message 290 - he calls me tk421 when no-one is aroundI litter my posts with jokes, the odd pun, alliteration, cultural reference etc., quite regularly. I was awarded the Fray Grant for being such a pun gent. I have the world record for blending custard creams with jelly - and that's no trifling achievement! It's just Timur. You are anglagard the mobility privileged.Besides Timur was Irony in Khanate: He was powerful and is dead, so that's fair, right?That last question contained a pun.That's just gold. Come on?^* Not quite, but close. Jimmy Carr does do this, but he also intertwines analysis of comedy into his routines and his punching down is typically only to add tension to the wordplay to comic effect. Frankie Boyle relies on delivery more heavily, and it gets him into a lot of trouble...delivery doesn't come across in quotes for one thing.I didn't say it was impossible. But it is difficult and in most people's hands it simply comes across as mean spirited. I don't think that's their typical style. They are usually referred to as being irreverent and anti-establishment. Take the Twit Olympics. They could have made the routine almost identically and called the 'Retard Olympics'. Somebody probably has. But they chose to take the mickey out of a stereotype of the upper class. Not watched much but I think most of the humour comes out of the pretensions of the staff and innuendo. You mean Flowery Twats? The exact opposite. Basil is almost always the one that comes out looking bad (and Cybil to a lesser extent). The major and the ladies may be punching the old, with stereotypes....so to speak, but they are portrayed as basically lovely people who Basil is sometimes mean to.Ultimately Basil Fawlty is the owner of a cheap hotel that is just about in site of the English Riviera. He hires foreign and part time staff, and has pretensions for running the kind of hotel that attracts 'a bit of class, not the normal riff-raff'. He's the archetypal British snob acting above his station...a pedestal we the audience like to see him knocked off as his lies and misdirections all fall apart around him. It's also fun because we feel for him because he tries and the absurd ironies of the farcical environment interact with his own poor character to prevent him. Did I say Basil was the ultimate Archetype? Hyacinth Bucket may be a competitor. It's just I don't find it that much fun. Richard is the only character played by someone who can act well, which doesn't help. And change the rest of the joke too. But yes! There is some humour in the absurdity that comes out of lawyers telling people its better to put a warning on. Like a bag of peanuts with 'may contain nuts' on it.Maybe a gun with a trigger warning? Well we both agree, so decided to avoid quoting and saying 'indeed' or something. I was drawing attention to the fact that mental health problems are just another body health problem. Making these people the targets of the joke, rather than your real target, excessive use of trigger warnings, is comparable to making jokes at the expense of people with somatic conditions such as peanut allergies. I feel cracking jokes while in the middle of explaining to you that it wasn't funny and why your response was upsetting to me might have undermined my point a little. If I came across as 'hysterical' might I point out that I initially simply hoped you wouldn't get PTSD and have it affect your life - the message could have left there, a polite rebuke if ever there could be one. You got all whingy about me getting offended and how it was a joke, suddenly express distaste for censorship and rail about not preserving the sensitivities of the few and then called me a stuck up prig.I did warn you to keep this in mind before you complained, so I gave you fair warning on that. When you include 'intentionally' I know with a huge degree of confidence this is false. Brownie points? Who the hell is here that I care about their brownie points?I was hoping to persuade you to target your humour away from people with psychological conditions. Indeed, humourlessness and hysteria don't earn brownie points around here. In this, social...political at times...climate perhaps there is a correct way for me to have gone about doing this that would have not caused you to call me names, elicit a number of PMs from others and perhaps damage my reputation here at EvC?Perhaps you can tell me what the Politically Correct way for me to have done that was. Bam! Back completely on topic after a divergence into British comedy. I am good

---

^* Timur, in old Turkic means 'Iron'