LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-13-2020, 12:16 PM   #46
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 19
Posts: 5,995
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006Reputation: 3006

All I gotta say. Being 6 foot 7 inches.

Better be far enough away when insulting me and mine.

I get into trouble for this mind set from time to time.
But I use the old fashion methods of teaching politeness.

Other folks with different ways do not bother me.
Just don't be Xenophobic.
Living on the Mexican border.
I learned all humans suffer from this trait.
It is a human condition.

I'm just grinning on how uncomfy a melting pot culture can be to some folks when one is used to a single ingredient.
 
Old 03-13-2020, 12:37 PM   #47
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,197

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372Reputation: 2372
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
I'm just grinning on how uncomfy a melting pot culture can be to some folks when one is used to a single ingredient.
Melting pots are not the trouble. When I was growing up, Britain was a melting pot. There were people here from a variety of national and racial backgrounds (our lot were central European Jews) but everyone aspired to be British and within a generation or so, everyone was.

That changed in the 60's. I think it was due to white racism originally. Certainly the Windrush people wanted to integrate, but they often weren't allowed to. So their children chose instead to segregate themselves, to talk with fake Jamaican accents and play their own kind of music. Something similar happened with Asians, especially Pakistanis. We ended up with something called "multiculturalism" which was basically voluntary segregation. And now anyone who suggests that maybe that wasn't such a good idea gets called a racist.
 
Old 03-22-2020, 03:38 PM   #48
RickDeckard
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2014
Location: Acworth, Georgia, USA
Distribution: Arch Hardened, Ubuntu 18.04, Fedora 30
Posts: 168

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I think the "pendulum" in pendulum theory is definitely a thing.

Back in the decades-long past, if you dared to suggest that rock music wasn't the work of Satan or that homosexuals were people who deserved love and respect like any other human being is initially given you were threatened with hellfire.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot and if you have a problem with a ten year old drag queen being sexualized you're called a Nazi. Which, to leftist social justice warriors who don't believe in God, is worse than hellfire.
 
Old 03-22-2020, 05:14 PM   #49
andigena
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2019
Location: Western USA
Distribution: Debian, Slackware
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickDeckard View Post
I think the "pendulum" in pendulum theory is definitely a thing.

Back in the decades-long past, if you dared to suggest that rock music wasn't the work of Satan or that homosexuals were people who deserved love and respect like any other human being is initially given you were threatened with hellfire.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot and if you have a problem with a ten year old drag queen being sexualized you're called a Nazi. Which, to leftist social justice warriors who don't believe in God, is worse than hellfire.
You know, I agree to some extent with the underlying idea here (if not the dramatic gobbledygook being used to punctuate it). It seems as though the young generation tends to look towards what's "counterculture" or "edgy" to determine their views. In the 2000s, the perceived mainstream culture was more right-wing and so online youth tended towards being anti-religious liberals. But now that those anti-religious liberals have grown commonplace enough to become the mainstream, they see hard right movements as the cool ideologies, so Gen Z ends up being further to the right than millenials, and so on.

I'd like to think this would eventually peter out and converge on a nice medium place without all the edgelordism, but the reality seems to be that it'll continue at the same intensity until humanity extinguishes itself.
 
Old 03-22-2020, 09:07 PM   #50
phantom_cyph
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: West Africa
Distribution: Slackware/Debian (when necessary)
Posts: 2,453
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 119Reputation: 119
This is likely to spawn a whole lot of weird reactions.. but here goes..

Political correctness has been a (bad) joke from the start. Despite most people now claiming to have an "open mind", it would appear that this only applies as long as you share the same perspective as them. In truth, political correctness interferes with both freedom of speech and respect for an individual's right to have/form their own opinion.

I.e.: "You can believe and say whatever you want.. as long as you follow the specified criteria.."

Reality has (and always will be) a matter of perspective. Liberal vs conservative, tea vs coffee, Ford vs Chevy, hot vs cold, etc etc. Now that more minorities have been given rights to express their opinions, they've pushed beyond simple acceptance and legalization in order to redefine what is "correct" or "incorrect" for everyone else.

I myself am a conservative. I do not support or involve myself with the LGBT community whatsoever. That being said.. I fully stand behind the idea that they (as individuals) have the right to their own opinion. However, I do not feel that their opinion should have the right to define how I view them or raise my children to view them. This is beyond the scope of freedom.

A couple examples:

I frequently find myself being called a racist for things that I say.. until my native African wife walks around the corner with our daughter. At this point, a prompt apology confirms that somehow me being a white man married to a black woman somehow allows a topic of discussion or particular word to be accepted when it would otherwise not be.

...

Years ago working at a grocery store, a trainee of mine (female) complained that she should not have to perform a task at the store which required higher physical labor as she was "a woman" and therefore "it was unfair" to ask her to perform a task (collecting carts from the parking lot). I heard her out and then in front of an elderly female customer, simply stated: ".. and after all the years fighting for equal rights.."

The elderly woman chuckled and promptly looked up and agreed with me.

It's amazing how often a fight for equality turns into a fight for supremacy.

If everyone is entitled to their own opinion, then it should indeed be everyone. If you choose to accept these new "PC" ideas or patterns, then so be it. If you don't, then don't. But in either case, each side should be willing to defend the other's right to have their own opinion - not force a given set of beliefs on another.

"Live and let live" seems apt.

No progress will ever be made within human society if we continue to squabble and bicker over these various subjects while trying to cling to the idea of being "accepted" and "open minded".

My two cents.
 
Old 03-22-2020, 09:58 PM   #51
cwizardone
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib."
Posts: 5,421
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867
@phantom_cyph,

Hear, hear!

Very well said!
 
Old 03-23-2020, 04:22 AM   #52
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,722
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791Reputation: 3791
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom_cyph View Post
It's amazing how often a fight for equality turns into a fight for supremacy.

If everyone is entitled to their own opinion, then it should indeed be everyone. If you choose to accept these new "PC" ideas or patterns, then so be it. If you don't, then don't. But in either case, each side should be willing to defend the other's right to have their own opinion - not force a given set of beliefs on another.
Well said.

This also seems fitting: Rowan Atkinson on Free Speech
 
Old 03-25-2020, 11:25 PM   #53
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 381

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The crux is that denial of political correctness, a term that looks neutral enough, doesn't hurt people equally.
Therefore, maintaining and championing it behooves those who are affected by a lack of it the most, the most.
This, of course, means that there are groups out there who peddle it the most, because losing it would damage them the most.

Any grief about excess of political correctess should be directed toward those groups.
The fact that I cannot go into detail about this without earning a ban is testament to this truth.
 
Old 03-26-2020, 01:28 AM   #54
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,662

Rep: Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
The crux is that denial of political correctness, a term that looks neutral enough, doesn't hurt people equally.
Therefore, maintaining and championing it behooves those who are affected by a lack of it the most, the most.
This, of course, means that there are groups out there who peddle it the most, because losing it would damage them the most.

Any grief about excess of political correctess should be directed toward those groups.
The fact that I cannot go into detail about this without earning a ban is testament to this truth.
I dunno, Geist. I was taught "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me". Seems it is the hurt one's perception at fault to me, especially where it is obvious no mean intent is present.
 
Old 03-26-2020, 09:33 AM   #55
andigena
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2019
Location: Western USA
Distribution: Debian, Slackware
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I dunno, Geist. I was taught "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me". Seems it is the hurt one's perception at fault to me, especially where it is obvious no mean intent is present.
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1216/
That saying is wrong. Language is incredibly powerful and very important.
 
Old 03-26-2020, 10:01 AM   #56
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,662

Rep: Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785
Quote:
Originally Posted by andigena View Post
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1216/
That saying is wrong. Language is incredibly powerful and very important.
Then we disagree. From my POV it's concepts and ideas that are powerful and important, the things themselves, not any symbolic representation. When those symbols are mean they are still merely a subjective opinion not an objective assessment. The simple fact is, despite that ideally we would pretty much all prefer everyone like us, is that no one person can possibly please everyone else. Either we stand for something or we don't and both cases can be judged either exalted, inconsiderable or vile by someone. That's just how it actually is so we should not be hurt if someone expresses an opinion of us that is unflattering. If those words are actually threatening action then there is a transition from passive to active to consider but it is the action to be defended against, not the words themselves.

One example is right here. You and I apparently disagree on this but that is no cause to say or especially do anything harmful to one another, right? There are those, however, that will take great offense at simple disagreement. I think those people are misguided and wrong.
 
Old 03-26-2020, 12:45 PM   #57
andigena
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2019
Location: Western USA
Distribution: Debian, Slackware
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Then we disagree. From my POV it's concepts and ideas that are powerful and important, the things themselves, not any symbolic representation. When those symbols are mean they are still merely a subjective opinion not an objective assessment. The simple fact is, despite that ideally we would pretty much all prefer everyone like us, is that no one person can possibly please everyone else. Either we stand for something or we don't and both cases can be judged either exalted, inconsiderable or vile by someone. That's just how it actually is so we should not be hurt if someone expresses an opinion of us that is unflattering. If those words are actually threatening action then there is a transition from passive to active to consider but it is the action to be defended against, not the words themselves.

One example is right here. You and I apparently disagree on this but that is no cause to say or especially do anything harmful to one another, right? There are those, however, that will take great offense at simple disagreement. I think those people are misguided and wrong.
But even if the underlying point is the same, the representation can be meaningfully different. If somebody says "I despise [X person] due to their abhorrent political views" and another person says "[X person] is a bigoted shill and a waste of air," they're fundamentally communicating essentially the same point, but one of those means of conveying that point is far less combative and harmful to the discourse.

An important concept in pragmatics is the separation between connotation and denotation, meaning the implied social consequences of the use of a lexeme or other linguistic unit and the actual dictionary definition of that linguistic unit. For example, the difference between the N-word and "black person" is one of connotation -- in terms of denotation, they both refer to a person with dark skin, primarily of African ancestry, but one of them has an extremely checkered history and conveys very strong social implications depending on the races of and relationship between the interlocutors (its social gravitas being to the point that I, as a white person, do not feel comfortable and may not even be allowed to write out the word here).

I'm interpreting your argument as being that, essentially, only the underlying message of language matters, which just flies in the face of sociolinguistics and pragmatics, largely ignoring the crucial element of connotation in discourse.
 
Old 03-26-2020, 10:22 PM   #58
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,662

Rep: Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785Reputation: 2785
In responding to your understandable example, I'm saying why do we even need a symbol, a word, an adjective to describe a person's pigmentation? It literally tells us nothing about that person's character. I submit that if people become more concerned with the things themselves rather than some subjective symbol, and develop a thicker skin regarding negative opinions, a huge portion of human conflict would simply disappear.

Since this thread centers around gender issues, why is it not possible to realize that there are differences not only between typical males and typical females but even within those categories and each has their own advantages and limitations. If we focus on the thing itself, whether or not a person is qualified for a job or to be your friend, what does it really matter what genitalia they possess or who they prefer as sexual partners? Obviously, prejudice is never going to totally go away but neither is lying and other forms of deception, but honesty is still a worthy ideal, worthy of striving for it.

Most importantly creating laws to specify and enforce types of speech even down to specific words is a "solution" with vastly greater harm than good, and harm that hurts far more than someone's feelings. Freedom of Speech is literally the single most important freedom there is. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, given Free Speech, all the others are attainable. Without it, none are. I think he hit the nail squarely on the head.
 
Old 03-27-2020, 06:51 AM   #59
cwizardone
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib."
Posts: 5,421
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867Reputation: 2867
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
................
Most importantly creating laws to specify and enforce types of speech even down to specific words is a "solution" with vastly greater harm than good, and harm that hurts far more than someone's feelings. Freedom of Speech is literally the single most important freedom there is. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, given Free Speech, all the others are attainable. Without it, none are. I think he hit the nail squarely on the head.
Hear, hear!
 
Old 03-27-2020, 10:07 AM   #60
andigena
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2019
Location: Western USA
Distribution: Debian, Slackware
Posts: 122

Rep: Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
In responding to your understandable example, I'm saying why do we even need a symbol, a word, an adjective to describe a person's pigmentation? It literally tells us nothing about that person's character. I submit that if people become more concerned with the things themselves rather than some subjective symbol, and develop a thicker skin regarding negative opinions, a huge portion of human conflict would simply disappear.
Sure, everything would be cool and good if people didn't care what race other people were, but they do. That's simply how society works, and until we reach full racial equity, we're going to need a term to discuss these sociological groups. It seems like your ideas about this exist within a utopian society that simply doesn't exist.
Quote:
Since this thread centers around gender issues, why is it not possible to realize that there are differences not only between typical males and typical females but even within those categories and each has their own advantages and limitations. If we focus on the thing itself, whether or not a person is qualified for a job or to be your friend, what does it really matter what genitalia they possess or who they prefer as sexual partners? Obviously, prejudice is never going to totally go away but neither is lying and other forms of deception, but honesty is still a worthy ideal, worthy of striving for it.
It certainly shouldn't matter what gender a person is when considering whether they are qualified for a job (perhaps barring a few very specific exceptions) or friendship, but the point of pronoun declarations isn't that. It's simply a fact that in English, we differentiate third-person pronouns based on the gender and animacy of the person or thing to which we are referring, and in cases where the gender of a person is ambiguous or unknown (such as when you're online and have a gender-neutral name or if you're transgender and don't "pass" well), it can be difficult to choose a pronoun -- hence, the person being referred to can make it easy by explicitly saying what they are.

Of course, an easy solution to this would be for everyone to stop speaking English and speak Turkish, Persian, Kyrgyz, etc. instead, since they don't have gendered pronouns (you'd say ал to refer to a person or thing of any gender or animacy in Kyrgyz, for example). Not terribly feasible, though!
Quote:
Most importantly creating laws to specify and enforce types of speech even down to specific words is a "solution" with vastly greater harm than good, and harm that hurts far more than someone's feelings. Freedom of Speech is literally the single most important freedom there is. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, given Free Speech, all the others are attainable. Without it, none are. I think he hit the nail squarely on the head.
I'm not advocating for laws restricting language, so I'm not sure why you found this relevant. I'm simply suggesting that language is important and self-moderating it can help to create a better society.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Social justice warriors and political correctness harming FOSS smeezekitty General 68 08-28-2015 01:39 AM
Info on Runtime locking correctness validator saurin Linux - Kernel 1 04-13-2013 04:08 PM
Runtime locking correctness validator saurin Linux - Newbie 2 04-13-2013 04:07 PM
Are there "const correctness" rules for Java with final? johnMG Programming 1 07-11-2004 10:58 AM
:mad: Installation prob :mad: soodvarun Red Hat 0 09-12-2003 01:44 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration