Rofl! I would never call my girl masculine just because she’s stronger than average men, lol. She’ll feel not really comfy, I mean imagine how would you feel when someone call would being feminine because you love fuchsia, god sake
It’s, you know, calling you something that doesn’t really fit in because the term of ‘masculine’ traditionally is associated with men, right?
Didn’t say it’s a bad thing, imho, but in 100 years the future societies will pretty much LoL that our societies still clings to these terms of describing males/females. What’s the natural reaction when somebody describes you as being feminine as a male? “Erm… do I look like a female to you?”
Hah, I would love to see a 10year experiment how “kids these days” implement fullscale censorship on not-so-kind-speech or hate-speech ( because verbal abuse / discrimination is already treated in the law ).
The identity politics is something like if you identify with some group, no matter what. For example this can be abused as identification as a chainsaw <- but that’s just abuse. Identity politics helps minorities feel stronger about their sense of identity, like arabs in Israel, or aboriginals in AU. And each bigger group have their own minorities inside them, and they start speaking up about their not-so-standard things like opposite sexual orientation.
Political correctness is something like talking about the AU citizens as being all white face2face with a aboriginal. It feels insulting for the aboriginal to be called white or british. Like, an empire conquers your land and they start calling the locals british - political correctness tells us that that’s insulting to the locals.
Political correctness denial / destruction is also about calling Pirate Party populist right because @AndrewDowning has a misunderstanding about the ‘political correctness’ term, because it’s insulting for all the pirates, even for Andrew if he takes the wiki to learn about the term.
But… did Andrew / Pirates censor you because of that? Did the admins of this group deleted your post?
Nope. Radicals that take ‘political correctness’ to another level are the ones responsible for putting the term ‘political correctness’ into a bad position. This term is about caring about the other person’s identity, and not deny the person’s existence and rights.
It has also been defined as anti-racist, anti-xenophobic, etc. For example, it’s not politically correct to say that “women are in such ways that you don`t understand them”, instead of “the majority of women in this county have this thing in common and I cannot shake the feeling they all do the same thing”. It treats logical fallacies of generalization, which most probably that’s what @AndrewDowning also doesn’t like.
Now, the whole politics with political correctness and identity politics is when you enforce them. It sounds to good to be true for some radicals and for minorities. But, as Stephen Fry pointed out: "Enforcing political correctness will never be effective, and that’s what the new generations must understand. Unfortunately, on their own skin. "
And, I hope as political Pirates, we understand this fact. But personally, as a definite useless and nonharmful troll, I would like to take some popcorn and beer and have the young ones censor themselves. It will be one of the most funny movies I would ever watch in my life
It will not be funny anymore when corporations will use that censorship and create a thing called “corporate-denial” and go with stuff like “If we enforce political correctness, that means we should be exempted from taxes, and socially protected by the law!”. But that’s just a conspiracy, I don’t think corporations are that bad
Thank you for your attempt to clear up my lack of understanding of these issues. It hasn’t been fully successful. It seems there’s good and bad identity politics? For example I would have thought it a good thing to strengthen aboriginal identity after everything that’s happened in the last 230 years.
Perhaps the examples of the scourge on civilisation which I have been promised will clear it up.
I believe Glenn Greenwald’s words might help explain how the type of anti-hate-speech laws often championed by the “left” often end up hurting those marginalised people they was meant to protect the most, as well as their allies.
But hate speech restrictions are used in those countries to suppress, outlaw, and punish more than far-right bigotry. Those laws have frequently been used to constrain and sanction a wide range of political views that many left-wing censorship advocates would never dream could be deemed “hateful,” and even against opinions which many of them likely share.
The dangers (authoritarian to totalitarian) of people in power getting to decide what is and isn’t acceptable political speech are very real, and I know this not just because I’ve seen one (relatively mild) example up close here in Germany.
@Declan Well, it’s like you put it. It’s cool that identity politics helps aboriginals strengthen up. I know it definitely worked for my people when we were minorities back in the imperial ages in balcanic Europe.
It’s also not cool when that identity politics help racists find each other while identifying themselves as racists [yes, people that clearly hate skin color exist, and they really identify as racists - that’s how they find each other, sometimes pretty damn loud & public]
It’s just like any other kind of political current, but it strictly nuances itself based on differences between humans, and insists on those differences. For example, in Europe we used to conduct a lot of multicultural enhancement for the youngsters, like cultural exchange between highschools in different countries of Europe, and so forth. That helped strengthen the ties between europeans and understand different cultures and most importantly, understand people who identify with their culture, and uphold it.
Now imagine how that would’ve turned out if Europe forced all the europeans to respect and/or like one particular group that identify with a particular culture? Or deny europeans the right to dislike one particular group that identifies with a particular culture?
It matters how you use identity politics. You can use it to strengthen up or to start enforcing. Identity politics is not a new tool in politics, but it’s a tool, like a hammer. Hammers can repair houses or kill people. Trust me, it really matters how you use it.
Given the thread we’re in, I feel like i should point out that Petersons main objection to hate speech laws, has always been “AND THAT’S THE THING - Who’s going to decide? It’ll never be the person you’d want it to be.”
Interesting article in the Guardian this morning. Seems i’m not the only one who reads Peterson in a way they you don’t Andrew.
'So, there are online communities that exist under the umbrella of what we know as the Red Pill, which are men connected by common resentments against women, immigrants, people of colour,” she explains. “What I was surprised to find was the extent to which they are using ancient Greek and Roman figures and texts to prop up an ideal of white masculinity.”
Rofl, I might have an idea how to get rich, right now. Become another defender of hate-speech and pretty much every right-winger will follow me, nevermind I love social equality, diversity, multiculturalism, being a Pirate with no-religion, borders or nations. Those folks you named there would still support me as much as they support JP
They would support anyone nowadays to fight against the young tides of anti-hate-speech enforcement movements. Literally anyone, even soviet communists
Whoa, wait right there. You’re suggesting @AndrewDowning shouldn’t be allowed to? If Andrew wants to live by those ideas, and the person that loves him lives by the same idea, it’s kinda… their business.
Problem is when they start enforcing on others. @PLB this is where bad stuff kicks-in.
You’ll need to define masculine here and what exactly do you mean by ‘hormonal?’
I’d have thought it pretty obvious that gender traits are almost entirely constructed. (perhaps i’m misunderstanding you here). I’d need to see some of these studies. I’d be particularly interested in how they remove culture from their analysis.
I didnt say he or anybody else shouldnt live by ‘eternal values,’ i’m merely interested in whether or not Andrew holds to the notion, after Peterson, and what exactly these eternal values are? He, of course, has every right to tell me to fuck off and mind my own business but from what i’ve gleaned so far i suspect that Andrew will engage with the question and not be offended by it.
Of course Andrew would love to answer, I’m sure of that, we’re all reasonable people here and I love that as well
But, you know, there are people that accept the existence of discrimination and fight against it, and in the same time uphold traditional values of relationship between males and females. I hope we’re clear on that
And + the right to invent stories, like JP did. I’m actually wondering how’s his private life now, if his wife is being oppressed or if he considers her the symbol of Chaos that should be fought against, rofl.
Not everyone should have in their private beds the same types of relationships that exist in the wild
Later note: @PLB , a more personal question, not related to the subject too much, do you think Chaos is a bad thing?
Indeed, but my question is rather oriented in the mystical sense that JP presented it to be.
The most interesting fact in his story about Chaos is that he’s clearly scared of it and fantastically puts his female wife around it
Personally I’m so-and-so.
Chaos is a wonderful thing, it created everything, even Order <- we came from it, we will go back -> but that doesn’t mean I want it now, that means I thrive to live with what I have, but I will embrace it whenever it comes back. No Universe lives forever anyway