Has political correctness actually gone mad?

DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It doesn't. It's pressuring young boys to conform to male stereotypes, though. Nothing out of the ordinary, of course, there is gender pressure everywhere you look in advertising - as it's a very effective way of selling stuff - but still... it should feck off.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't classify rape culture as a male stereotype, more a male cultural trait abhorred by any rightminded male.
 
Jippy said:
I wouldn't classify rape culture as a male stereotype, more a male cultural trait abhorred by any rightminded male.
Click to expand...
I wasn't doing either. I was just having a moan about the t-shirt.
 
@PedroMendez

This is courtesy of @Bacon apologist in the newbs. I might not approve of his username but I approve of this article :p

Why the “Conceptual Penis” Hoax is Just a Big Cock Up.

After the revelation that a paper on “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” was submitted as a hoax to the journal Cogent Social Sciences there’s sure to be a lot of merriment at the expense of Gender Studies departments. But it turns out that the joke’s on the hoaxers themselves–both for failing to spot some very obvious red flags about this “journal,” and for their rather bizarre leaps of logic.


In brief, two academics, Peter Bognossian and James Lindsay, submitted an obviously silly article to a journal Cogent Social Studies. It was accepted after what seems to be very cursory peer review, and, from this, they’re claiming that the entire field of Gender Studies “is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil.”

It might be. But their hoax gives us absolutely no reason to believe this. First, let’s look at the “journal” that they were accepted at. Like all the digital, open-access journals run by Cogent (a house most people have never heard of before now) it charges authors fees to publish. No reputable journal in the humanities does this. Worse yet, it allows authors to “pay what they can”. This appears to signal that this journal publishes work from authors who can’t get institutional support to publish in it. (Or, if they could, don’t seek this as they would prefer it not be widely known that they’re paying to publish.) The journal boasts also that it is very “friendly” to authors (a clear sign of a suspect outlet) and notes that it doesn’t necessarily reject things that might not have any impact. (!) It also only uses single blind review. The whole thing just screams vanity journal.

Now, the hoaxers are aware of all of this. But they try to duck the “facile” objection that they submitted to a junk journal by noting that it’s part of the Taylor and Francis group, and that it’s “held out as a high-quality open-access journal by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)”. Yet even a quick perusal of the journal’s website makes it clear that it operates entirely independently of Taylor & Francis, and that its publishing model is utterly different to theirs. And the DOAJ is a “community run” agency with (it seems) no official standing–and whose express criteria for something being a peer-reviewed journal with quality control is that it “must exercise peer-review with an editor and an editorial board or editorial review…. carried out by at least two editors”. As far as I know, most vanity presses meet this very minimal standard.

Having managed to pay for a paper to be published in a deeply suspect journal the hoaxers then conclude that the entire field of Gender Studies is suspect. How they made this deductive leap is actually far more puzzling than how the paper got accepted. (It’s thus more than a bit embarrassing that one of them’s a philosophy professor–who, ironically, teaches critical thinking.) I’ve no doubt that there are many things to criticize about Gender Studies. But that a suspect journal published a hoax paper whose topics was gender studies-ish isn’t one of them.

UPDATE: The first journal that Bognossian and Lindsay submitted their hoax paper to, and that rejected it, was NORMA: The International Journal for Masculinity Studies. This journal doesn’t even hit the top 115 journals in Gender Studies. So, what happened here was that they submitted a hoax paper to an unranked journal, which summarily rejected it. They then received an auto-generated response directing them to a pay-to-publish vanity journal. They submitted the paper there, and it was published. From this chain of events they conclude that the entire field of Gender Studies is “crippled academically”. This tells us very little about Gender Studies, but an awful lot about the perpetrators of this “hoax”…. and those who tout it as a take down of an entire field.
Click to expand...
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/05/conceptual-penis-hoax-just-big-cock/


Edit: I think this is (to invoke existentialism :D) in bad faith by the 2 professors. The fact it was rejected by a good journal and accepted by a shit one is the story. The same has happened in hard science with the new open-access journals too, so it has nothing to do with pomo or the degeneracy of social sciences.
The current publishing system is a complete failure. Traditional journal articles cost >35$/article for individual access, and even universities with multimillion dollar endowments struggle to get institutional access for all of them. This makes science inaccessible for >99% of people (who are paying for it) including students in most 3rd world countries.

Predatory OA journals cost >1k/article for publishing, which immediately provides a bad incentive for publishing. This is coupled with the incentive to have a publication to show your grant review and to have open access to possible boost citations.

Of course (as with every other problem) the underlying illness is capitalism ;)
 
Last edited:
Earlier in this thread I remember saying no, but I live and have always lived in small towns, so my experience with the extreme left has been minimal, and the nutters online I've considered as just nutters. But God damn me, looking over more social networks online and policies, it's gone way, way too far.
You can't do anything without offending someone (or worse, offend by proxy)...
 
Think I'm still thread banned from Lingards thread for calling one of his passes 'retarded'.

fecking these days...
 
Minimalist said:
Think I'm still thread banned from Lingards thread for calling one of his passes 'retarded'.

fecking these days...
Click to expand...
Probably wasn't me, as I rarely go in to player threads, but would've reported you had I seen it :)
 
http://www.barstoolsports.com/dmv/b...arned-how-to-make-better-tortillas-in-mexico/

Burrito Shop Bullied Into Shutting Down Because The Owners Learned How To Make Better Tortillas In Mexico

Wow, look how happy they are with their burritos! I bet a lot of people love them….NOT SO FAST!!!!

Heat St - Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly, owners of Portland pop-up shop Kooks Burritos, just wanted to make and sell some really great burritos. So when they were on a trip to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico, they “picked the brains” of the local tortilla ladies and brought those recipes back to the States.

“I picked the brains of every tortilla lady there in the worst broken Spanish ever, and they showed me a little of what they did,” Connelly told Willamette Weekly. “They told us the basic ingredients, and we saw them moving and stretching the dough similar to how pizza makers do before rolling it out with rolling pins. They wouldn’t tell us too much about technique, but we were peeking into the windows of every kitchen, totally fascinated by how easy they made it look. We learned quickly it isn’t quite that easy.”

Whelp, apparently this interview sparked an Internet shitstorm, which ended in Kooks Burritos shutting down and the two white women who owned it scrubbing social media of the business’ existence.

Wilgus and Connelly were accused of cultural appropriation by the Internet mob, and even the theft of PoC’s recipes.


“Now that you all boldly and pretty fecking unapologetically stole the basis of these women’s livelihoods, you can make their exact same product so other white ppl don’t have to be inconvenienced dealing with a pesky brown middle woman getting in their way,” wrote a woman in the interview’s comment section.

The company’s Yelp reviews are flooded with one-star reviews from the PC police, using terms like “white mediocrity” and “Latinx” while comparing Kooks Burritos to colonialism.

What a story. Two ladies go to Mexico to learn how to make better burritos, tell a newspaper about their experiences, and get shamed and bullied until they are forced to shut down. All because they just wanted to make a better tortilla. And it’s not like they set up surveillance at the competing burrito shop around the corner. They picked the brains of some nice folks 4,000 miles away, across the border. All to help their customers in Portland….and they were harassed and bullied because of it. If cultural appropriation is real, this is certainly the opposite of it.


I guess this will teach everyone a lesson- don’t try to get better at what you do. Stay complacent, stay average, and never aspire to be better. If you do, white hippies will yell at you and force you out of business.

PS: This is the trade off for living in the Pacific Northwest. You work 5 hour days, everyone smokes pot and is really laid back, but the SJWs are the plague. You can’t even stop to tie your shoe without being yelled at for appropriating cobbler culture.
Click to expand...
 
You can't steal anything these days.
 
Come to think of it the word filter for feck is making half the caf guilty of cultural appropriation. I won't stand for it.
 
Jippy said:
Bit of a hop, step and a jump to get to 'perpetuating rape culture'.

Mum's anger over 'offensive' £4 Asda jumper for kids
She argued that the wording perpetuates rape culture


Asda.jpg


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/mums-anger-over-offensive-4-10440491
Click to expand...

'Boys will be boys' or 'Men will be men' was historically often used to excuse sexual assault and rape. It's up there with 'she was asking for it' in terms of unpleasantness. Entire generations of women right up to the 70s/80s had to deal with frequent unwanted sexual groping and intimidation and the standard response if they tried to complain would be 'men will be men'.
 
Kentonio said:
'Boys will be boys' or 'Men will be men' was historically often used to excuse sexual assault and rape. It's up there with 'she was asking for it' in terms of unpleasantness. Entire generations of women right up to the 70s/80s had to deal with frequent unwanted sexual groping and intimidation and the standard response if they tried to complain would be 'men will be men'.
Click to expand...
Has it? I've heard that phrased used in so many different scenarios not relating to sexual groping or intimidation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the phrase "Boys will be boys" is equivalent or up there with "She was asking for it" which is only used in one scenario.
 
Kentonio said:
'Boys will be boys' or 'Men will be men' was historically often used to excuse sexual assault and rape. It's up there with 'she was asking for it' in terms of unpleasantness. Entire generations of women right up to the 70s/80s had to deal with frequent unwanted sexual groping and intimidation and the standard response if they tried to complain would be 'men will be men'.
Click to expand...
Agree with @SteveTheRed i wouldn't liken it 'she was asking for it', which puts the blame directly on the woman. I'd link more to mischievous children than anything more sinister tbh.
 
When I was a kid in the 70's it was mostly mothers saying this about their own male children's talent for getting up to mischief, especially fighting with each other.
 
Kentonio said:
'Boys will be boys' or 'Men will be men' was historically often used to excuse sexual assault and rape. It's up there with 'she was asking for it' in terms of unpleasantness. Entire generations of women right up to the 70s/80s had to deal with frequent unwanted sexual groping and intimidation and the standard response if they tried to complain would be 'men will be men'.
Click to expand...
No.

You're starting by substituting 'boys' for 'men' and then jumping again, this time even further, by suggesting an equal status with 'asking for it'.

Either is too big a jump, alone. Both is very silly.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
When I was a kid in the 70's it was mostly mothers saying this about their own male children's talent for getting up to mischief, especially fighting with each other.
Click to expand...

Same, but that's because we were kids and wouldn't have heard open discussions about accusations of sexual assault. I'm basing what I said off many accounts of sexual assault from the past and the way society and even police responded.
 
Jippy said:
I think the settings of rural India and an Asda in Tunbridge Wells are somewhat different though tbf.
Click to expand...

It's part of the same mentality though. One that says boys will misbehave just because they're boys, and that's not only ok but funny. It might seem a stretch from misbehaving child to potential rapist, but the idea that some types of bad behaviour are just acceptable or winked at is one that can have long term repercussions. Look at the cases of rape in America with spoiled athlete students, and you'll see exactly that 'boys will be boys' attitude shown by college authorities and local communities as they try and cover it up.
 
Im not sure if this a right thread but er wtf?? :wenger::lol::lol:

 
And another



What's tragironic is that she explicitly advocates for a broad working-class movement, not a race-first one. She wrote this:

If we told them together, it could allow us to see that the anxieties, stresses, confusions, and frustrations about life world today are not owned by one group, but are shared by many. It would not tell us that everyone suffers the same oppression, but it would allow us to see that even if we don’t experience a particular kind of oppression, every working person in this country is going through something. Everyone is trying to figure out how to survive, and many are failing.

If we put these stories together, we would gain more insight into how ordinary white people have as much stake in the fight for a different kind of society as anyone else.

We wouldn’t so casually dismiss their suffering as privilege, because they do not suffer as much as black and brown people in this country. In fact, we might find that the privileges of white skin run very thin in a country where nineteen million white people languish in poverty.

Apparently, the wages of whiteness are not so great that they can stop millions of ordinary white people from literally drinking and drugging themselves to death, to escape the despair of living in this “greatest country on earth.”
Click to expand...
 
Jippy said:
DAtFQceWAAUhU_4.jpg
Click to expand...
I prefer calling it smugsplaining, because it doesn't imply that the smug arse talking down to you is sexist (not that I mind smug idiots getting their comeuppance, but accusing someone of being sexist is pretty serious and should be reserved for cases of actual sexism).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.