Has political correctness actually gone mad?

[Synco]

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?
Sure, most religions are geographical (or how to say it), but there are muslims, christians, etc of all races.

It can be racist because "race" itself is just an arbitrary pretext for what racism is really directed at. It's just what gave racism its name in the light of the historical dominance of biological race ideology. Today, for example, an equally essentialist understanding of "culture" has often taken the place of "race". It serves the same function as old "race"-based racism, but is nowadays deemed more acceptable.

The pretext could be really anything that fits the purpose of stereotyping ethnically or religiously defined groups, in order to justify hate, exclusion, violence, or simply feel superior to "half-civilized savages".

That said, I don't consider well-founded criticism towards Islam, or any other religion, racist at all. Religious criticism is a very justified & necessary thing, as is pointing out culturally established bigotry and violence. At the same time, criticism of religion is another possible and often used excuse for modern "raceless" racism. But the difference between these two uses is mostly not that hard to spot.

 

[SteveJ]

The guy in the 2nd photo looks a bit like Jose.


"There'll be more biting political comment from Steve later. Now, here's Trixy McBoobs with the weather."

 

[Wibble]

It's pretty easy to start a society at a university. If a student or group of students want to do something, i.e start a society that invites homophobic speakers, they usually can.

At my work it takes minutes to fill out a simple form.

 

[Siorac]

The guy in the 2nd photo looks a bit like Jose.


"There'll be more biting political comment from Steve later. Now, here's Trixy McBoobs with the weather."

Jewsé Mourinho.

 

[Adebesi]

It's a tricky one, my understanding is that while it is generally accepted that most Jews have some kind of descent going back to the Middle East circa 1,000 - 500 BC or something like that, there have been some waves of conversions over the centuries, and a lot more intermarriage than has been traditionally recognized. I seem to remember reading that with Ashkenazi Jews

I really doubt many people would consider these three Israeli politicians to be of the same race, but I'm not sure everyone agrees what exactly they mean by 'race':

Absolutely. I think most people accept Jewishness is a bit of an anomaly, part race, part religion, both and neither. It cant really be defined for the reasons you gave. But it is definitely not the same as other religions.

 

[2 man midfield]

True but most of the sort of people who I'm talking about are so beyond the pale that their own mothers think they are cnuts.

Of course Uni's sometimes get it wrong but it is their venue to get it wrong. They aren't stopping anyone from expousing an opinion, just not validating it with a platform.

Well I agree there. I don't think any uni should obligated to host anyone as such. Their gaff, their rules. It's just a bit sad that some students want to ban speakers with conservative but perfectly legitimate political views. It's a bit like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" to yourself. I say that as someone left leaning myself too. I don't think there's anything wrong with hearing alternative viewpoints.

 

[Grylte]

It can be racist because "race" itself is just an arbitrary pretext for what racism is really directed at. It's just what gave racism its name in the light of the historical dominance of biological race ideology. Today, for example, an equally essentialist understanding of "culture" has often taken the place of "race". It serves the same function as old "race"-based racism, but is nowadays deemed more acceptable.

The pretext could be really anything that fits the purpose of stereotyping ethnically or religiously defined groups, in order to justify hate, exclusion, violence, or simply feel superior to "half-civilized savages".

That said, I don't consider well-founded criticism towards Islam, or any other religion, racist at all. Religious criticism is a very justified & necessary thing, as is pointing out culturally established bigotry and violence. At the same time, criticism of religion is another possible and often used excuse for modern "raceless" racism. But the difference between these two uses is mostly not that hard to spot.

I work with lots of muslims, of litterally ever skin colour and origin, i think most of them are cnuts because the way they use their religion to defend how they do their job. I have heard stories from my customers where they have experienced some ridicolous stuff, because the collegue of mine they met, couldn't help them cause they were gay, had a dog, had perfume on, and stuff like that.
Also want to mention how they totally ruined the door on my work place's toilet, cause they have to shower in the sink before they pray, and spilled water all over it for a long time.
These things affect me, my employer, and the whole business, in a bad way.
I could not care less where they are from or what colour their skin is, which is what i learned racism is about.
But if i say anything, i'm told i'm racist.... really....?

 

[Charlie Foley]

Agreed. Lots of strawmen being used there.

On the other end I thought that you could see quite well when Peterson left his academic territory when he compared the transgender activists with Mao because they have the same philosophy which imo is a poor statement as in way to unprecise and potentially dangerous. He was going from this laid back, science based (from what one can observe by the interview) argumentative guy to a complete parody of it in a matter of seconds.

Agreed. I think to give him his due, I've seen him get to points like that in interviews where he announces he's getting to that point, the limit of his knowledge/expertise, and is getting increasingly likely he'll say something wrong. No way he could be that honest with Newman as she would have twisted that too. He also would most likely feel he wasn't yet at that point when he said the bit about Mao!

 

[Adebesi]

The Mao thing was just one of her more successful straw men. There is more to Mao than the people he killed. His analogy wasnt meant to suggest feminism will lead to mass murder, it was about controlling thought. It may be a clumsy analogy - its always a risk to use mass murdering dictators for this purpose - but in other instances people understand analogies are not meant to be perfect comparisons, they compare very specific aspects of different situations.

 

[Synco]

I work with lots of muslims, of litterally ever skin colour and origin, i think most of them are cnuts because the way they use their religion to defend how they do their job. I have heard stories from my customers where they have experienced some ridicolous stuff, because the collegue of mine they met, couldn't help them cause they were gay, had a dog, had perfume on, and stuff like that.
Also want to mention how they totally ruined the door on my work place's toilet, cause they have to shower in the sink before they pray, and spilled water all over it for a long time.
These things affect me, my employer, and the whole business, in a bad way.
I could not care less where they are from or what colour their skin is, which is what i learned racism is about.
But if i say anything, i'm told i'm racist.... really....?

Have work to do now, I'll answer later.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

Why? I might not agree with some Uni's decisions about who to invite to speak and who not to but they have the right to invite who they like. Free speak doesn't mean the right to speak anywhere you choose even when the owners of a particular place don't want you there.

It isn't the university though, it's a minority who want to supress free speech that disagree with their world view that bully the university. So anyone who states 'A transexual is technically still a male' will be protested against and barred from speaking. Even a feminist otherwise liberal speaker.

Technically the hallmarks of fascism and certainly not liberalism.

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?

If you discriminate against a group of people because their muslim then you're a bigot. If you're against the seperation of genders in public places, against homophobia, against oppression of women, against Islamic schools and against the burkah you may have some valid arguments.

 

[Member 5225]

I don't think giving a platform to everyone is an absolute duty of a University. Personally I'd tend towards free speech but you shouldn't give platforms to people with vile views.

Who decides what is ‘vile’ and what is not - that’s the fundamental question though isn’t it?

 

[Ubik]

Who decides what is ‘vile’ and what is not - that’s the fundamental question though isn’t it?

Well, I'd say for a start anything that encourages violence or the treatment of a defined group as being somehow less than human. That seems something even Mill would agree with.

 

[Adebesi]

Well, I'd say for a start anything that encourages violence or the treatment of a defined group as being somehow less than human. That seems something even Mill would agree with.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with that.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well, I'd say for a start anything that encourages violence or the treatment of a defined group as being somehow less than human. That seems something even Mill would agree with.

So we shouldn’t allow anyone to speak at a university who’s gone on record that they’re in favour of the whole “punch a Nazi” thing?

I’m (obviously) being devil’s advocate but it’s very hard to avoid getting sucked into grey areas here.

 

[horsechoker]

Jewsé Mourinho.

 

[Grylte]

If you discriminate against a group of people because their muslim then you're a bigot. If you're against the seperation of genders in public places, against homophobia, against oppression of women, against Islamic schools and against the burkah you may have some valid arguments.

I don't discriminate anyone personally or as a group, i'm just generally against religion.
And it pisses me off when it makes it a problem for them to do their job properly, and it affects me and my job's reputation.
But it is still not racism, and i wouldn't call it bigotry either.

 

[Ubik]

So we shouldn’t allow anyone to speak at a university who’s gone on record that they’re in favour of the whole “punch a Nazi” thing?

I’m (obviously) being devil’s advocate but it’s very hard to avoid getting sucked into grey areas here.

I'd say if they were speaking about wanting to punch nazis, or their whole shtick elsewhere is about punching nazis, then yeah. If someone just wrote on twitter when Spencer was punched that they, too, would punch a nazi then I don't think anyone would care. I'm not saying this should be a law, fwiw (even though it's probably already covered under hate speech), it was just a point that "vile" views tend to have a fairly widespread acknowledgement as being vile, and so there's already cover for people to tell some speakers to piss off and remain true to free speech.

One particularly grey area I suppose would be in something like a humanitarian situation where a regime was engaging in ethnic cleansing or just generally killing its civilians, and someone wanted to speak advocating a military intervention (violence by any definition, even if it's in aid of saving people). I know plenty are firmly against any interventions like this, but saying people shouldn't be able to speak in favour would be a little ridiculous.

I'm tempted to also include people that speak on climate and other science issues whilst presenting misleading (and often false) data but that's probably too far

 

[Member 5225]

As per the 3/4 posts above - shows how hard it is to set the rules, regulate, etc

 

[Vato]

Oscar Isaac is such a great method actor.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

The Mao thing was just one of her more successful straw men. There is more to Mao than the people he killed. His analogy wasnt meant to suggest feminism will lead to mass murder, it was about controlling thought. It may be a clumsy analogy - its always a risk to use mass murdering dictators for this purpose - but in other instances people understand analogies are not meant to be perfect comparisons, they compare very specific aspects of different situations.

I swear an increasing number of people these days really don't understand the idea of comparison at all, and instead think that it means you're saying two things are identical in every way.

 

[afrocentricity]

About this minority of students that are banding together to clamp down on free speech, is there not an opposing group that can argue against them?

If there is then maybe they weren't very compelling, if there isn't then why the fuss?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

About this minority of students that are banding together to clamp down on free speech, is there not an opposing group that can argue against them?

If there is then maybe they weren't very compelling, if there isn't then why the fuss?

From what I’ve read there is and they are but the faculties consistently err on the side of those who feel most offended. Which is understandable. Although that also explains why there’s a fuss.

 

[berbatrick]

To get your perspective, in what way?

@2cents

You are correct about abnormally high consanguinity among Jews; it is (IIRC) specifically related to Askenazi Jews. At least that is wht I learnt in class.

However, there is this fairly recent (and very interesting) review paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2014.00462/full
It mentions the recessive diseases found among them (that were considered a mark of a fairly related population), but also mentions that genetic data hasn't corroborated this properly, except for certain populations of priests. I had not read it before (still not finished it) and it seems to be both informative and not overly technical. (still, a warning: population genetics is probably the hardest stuff to read within bio)

@Synco it might be interesting for you also

One particularly grey area I suppose would be in something like a humanitarian situation where a regime was engaging in ethnic cleansing or just generally killing its civilians, and someone wanted to speak advocating a military intervention (violence by any definition, even if it's in aid of saving people). I know plenty are firmly against any interventions like this, but saying people shouldn't be able to speak in favour would be a little ridiculous.

That's an interesting point actually - there has been a parade of Bush-era neocons and Obama-era nat sec people (all advocates of various wars, all taking about "global security challenges") giving talks at my univ without a hint of protest.
Even more stunningly, there was also known idiot Sean Spicer and famous pizza pedo Podesta, who came and left without incident. White text.

 

[afrocentricity]

From what I’ve read there is and they are but the faculties consistently err on the side of those who feel most offended. Which is understandable. Although that also explains why there’s a fuss.

Sorry mate but they can't be that compelling

But seriously, can you give examples? A wanted Z to speak for reasons, B wanted to stop Z and succeeded/failed because... (sizes would help too)

 

[Wibble]

Who decides what is ‘vile’ and what is not - that’s the fundamental question though isn’t it?

The clubs and societies invite and occasionally the Universities veto. Which is fair enough. It is the University's venue so they have the right of veto. No fundamental questions involved.

 

[Wibble]

It isn't the university though, it's a minority who want to supress free speech that disagree with their world view that bully the university. So anyone who states 'A transexual is technically still a male' will be protested against and barred from speaking. Even a feminist otherwise liberal speaker.

Technically the hallmarks of fascism and certainly not liberalism

Fascism? Hardly. And protesting against what people say is an inherant part of democracy.

 

[Wibble]

Well I agree there. I don't think any uni should obligated to host anyone as such. Their gaff, their rules. It's just a bit sad that some students want to ban speakers with conservative but perfectly legitimate political views. It's a bit like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" to yourself. I say that as someone left leaning myself too. I don't think there's anything wrong with hearing alternative viewpoints.

I tend to agree no matter how vile most of the mainly right wing nutjobs in question are. I'd personally prefer they were allowed to speak and the students organised protest rallys like used to occur.

Of course the right wing press would love that.

 

[Synco]

I work with lots of muslims, of litterally ever skin colour and origin, i think most of them are cnuts because the way they use their religion to defend how they do their job. I have heard stories from my customers where they have experienced some ridicolous stuff, because the collegue of mine they met, couldn't help them cause they were gay, had a dog, had perfume on, and stuff like that.

If I had co-workers who would do things like that, I'd be pissed off, no question. That's what I was referring to in the last paragraph of my post. It's also noteworthy that, according to what you say, these persons themselves seem to claim their religion is coupled with homophobia and intolerance. Such an interpretation of Islam deserves criticism, period. (What I don't get, though: how could that co-worker know that some particular customer is gay?)

So as long as you can still treat other individuals fairly, I can't see anything wrong. I think @WackyWengerWorld has put it well in post #4228/second part.

But if i say anything, i'm told i'm racist.... really....?

If you don't mind to tell: Who said that, and in which situation?

 

[Synco]

@Synco it might be interesting for you also

Very interesting indeed, for its historical breakdown of both inner-Jewish debate and scientific developments. My ability to grasp the latter is limited of course, so I naturally got lost somewhere in the second half. I just have to assume the author's deductions are valid.

I also like the conclusion, proper no-nonsense materialism.

Spoiler

Obviously, what kept Jews identity were their language, culture, tradition and religion. Thus, whatever their biological hereditary kinships, both the trans-generational vertical, and intra-generation horizontal relationships are secondary consequences. However, the increasing reliance on scientific reductionism in biological thinking of the last two centuries eventually culminated in turning the evidence of DNA sequences into the essence of the characterization of Jewishness rather than its consequence. Still, in spite of repeated efforts, there is no agreed upon criterion to identify Jews, and samples examined for the distribution of biological or molecular markers all depend on the preconceived biases of the investigators. Races, it is assumed, may differ in inherent properties that are evaluated differentially. But races are not biological-meaningful classification entities. And if so, why is racism a bad property? The answer must be: Because it provides socio-cultural justifications for discrimination on the basis of presumed and irrelevant biological properties.

Nice to see you undermining BDS, by the way.

 

[Bobcat]

About this minority of students that are banding together to clamp down on free speech, is there not an opposing group that can argue against them?

If there is then maybe they weren't very compelling, if there isn't then why the fuss?

There is and has been, but in many of those cases it has escalated into violence which is why this is so fecked up. Both stances are so extreme that any civilized debate is almost impossible, so when hurling insults does not work any longer they resort to violence instead. It's like we are back to the fecking 30's

 

[Grylte]

If you don't mind to tell: Who said that, and in which situation?

Not directly to me, i'm careful what i say to people, i generally try to stay out of trouble snd drama
But i read it several times on facebook, where if people voice negative opinions about muslims, they are being accused of being racist.

 

[Oscie]

Not directly to me, i'm careful what i say to people, i generally try to stay out of trouble snd drama
But i read it several times on facebook, where if people voice negative opinions about muslims, they are being accused of being racist.

But that is being bigoted. Why would you have negative views on a whole group of people?

If a black guy swerves out in front of me, a reasonable response would be "Prick! Hope you die horribly in front of your family". Not "Bloody black people! Hate them all" - then complain when people were being 'PC' and calling me racist because of it. What possible reason could there be to give a negative opinion against a whole group of people on the basis that they share one characteristic with one person/a few people you dislike?

 

[2 man midfield]

But that is being bigoted. Why would you have negative views on a whole group of people?

If a black guy swerves out in front of me, a reasonable response would be "Prick! Hope you die horribly in front of your family". Not "Bloody black people! Hate them all" - then complain when people were being 'PC' and calling me racist because of it. What possible reason could there be to give a negative opinion against a whole group of people on the basis that they share one characteristic with one person/a few people you dislike?

That's the difference I think. You can have an opinion about Islam, but not all Muslims. One is a concept, the other is literally hundreds of millions of individuals.

 

[Grylte]

But that is being bigoted. Why would you have negative views on a whole group of people?

If a black guy swerves out in front of me, a reasonable response would be "Prick! Hope you die horribly in front of your family". Not "Bloody black people! Hate them all" - then complain when people were being 'PC' and calling me racist because of it. What possible reason could there be to give a negative opinion against a whole group of people on the basis that they share one characteristic with one person/a few people you dislike?

Thay's not at all what i said, or mean, maybe i worded it wrong.
I judge everyone on how they treat me and others, not how i think they are because they are religious.
It's the moment they use their religion as defense for why they do something, that afrects others in a negative way.

And your example is pretty much exactly the point i made in my first point.
There's a difference between 'black people' in your example, and 'muslims' in mine, cause one is a race/skin colour, the other a group of religious people.
I never discriminate anyone for their race, which is pretty much what racism is about.
People chose their religion, or are taught(brainwashed) from their families, a race is not chosen, that's who you are, shows where you and your family are from.

I respect everyone until they show they are not worthy of my respect, regardless of their skin colour or where they are from. But race and religious belief is not the same.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

I'll flip if anyone disses Xenu.

 

[Member 5225]

Well, I'd say for a start anything that encourages violence or the treatment of a defined group as being somehow less than human. That seems something even Mill would agree with.

Guessing you’re ok with this Presidents club thing - they have the right (like the Universities) to pick and choose, correct?

 

[Ubik]

Guessing you’re ok with this Presidents club thing - they have the right (like the Universities) to pick and choose, correct?

uwotm8?

 

[Member 5225]

uwotm8?

Apologies replied to the wrong post! Argh standby

 

[Member 5225]

Why? I might not agree with some Uni's decisions about who to invite to speak and who not to but they have the right to invite who they like. Free speak doesn't mean the right to speak anywhere you choose even when the owners of a particular place don't want you there.

Was meant for this post. I am guessing this recent outrage at the Presidents Club thingy is crazy for you; they have a right to pick and choose, correct?