Serious PC thread

[britbox]

Tell me what I got wrong, then.

I'll use the animal kingdom as an example... with a rough find and replace on your wording as a kind of allegory.

When I explained that some people don't identify as Queer and some do, I thought that made it clear. For some it's an umbrella term, maybe most, anymore, but it didn't used to be. As I said, there is a time when it was an insult, only that now it has been embraced by most. For some, the main identification might be lesbian or gay and for others, it's less specific than that. It's a way of inclusion, and it does still include the T and the plus sign, for most.

Some Lions and Lionesses identify as Q, some don't. It's a widely used term but it didn't used to be. Some Lions mocked other Lions by calling them Q's, yet other Lions embrace the term Q. It could be Lionesses who like Lionesses, Lions who like Lions but might not be. It's a way of Lions being accepted, and also includes Tigers... and maybe Leopards... for most of the big cats.

 

[Moxie]

I'll use the animal kingdom as an example... with a rough find and replace on your wording as a kind of allegory.


Some Lions and Lionesses identify as Q, some don't. It's a widely used term but it didn't used to be. Some Lions mocked other Lions by calling them Q's, yet other Lions embrace the term Q. It could be Lionesses who like Lionesses, Lions who like Lions but might not be. It's a way of Lions being accepted, and also includes Tigers... and maybe Leopards... for most of the big cats.

Well, that's pretty facile and not really that informative, is it? Certainly with no empathy. And it still doesn't tell me what I got wrong. We're talking about humans, not large cats. You're really just being cheeky, and not even trying to understand.

Let's say I give it a go:

Some Conservatives identify as QAnon, some don't. It's a widely used term but it didn't used to be. Some Conservatives mocked other Conservatives by calling them QAnon's, yet other Conservatives embrace the term QAnon. It could be QAnon believers who like Conservatives, Conservatives who like Trump but might not be. It's a way of QAnon being accepted, and also includes Proud Boys... and maybe Oath Keepers... for most of the fat cat Conservatives.

That's it using your words. Now try it using mine. But you really are just making a mockery of what is supposed to be a conversation. If you don't get it, why just be snide?

 

[Federberg]

Well, that's pretty facile and not really that informative, is it?

That's the point! It's not informative at all

 

[tented]

So, would you prefer binary gay to be one group? I.e., gay men and lesbians. You left off the "Q" altogether. Bisexuals have always been controversial. Would you rather have trans, bi-, and gender-queer people separate? Wondering where you find community, and not community. Seriously asking.

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals all involve sexuality — homosexuality or bisexuality.

The T part involves gender/gender reassignment/surgery/hormonal drugs — something isn’t right and needs to be corrected; changes need to be made. This is a realm which may or may not intersect with homosexuals, since it also involves heterosexuals.

I noticed you pointed out above that T was initially transvestites, then transsexuals. That’s my understanding of the history of the letter T as well. But no matter which group that is, they don’t necessarily involve homosexuality or bisexuality. I used to go to a bar where every month or so a group of straight men would gather in drag and have dinner and drinks together. They were not gay; they were straight men who enjoyed dressing up as women.

 

[Moxie]

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals all involve sexuality — homosexuality or bisexuality.

The T part involves gender/gender reassignment/surgery/hormonal drugs — something isn’t right and needs to be corrected; changes need to be made. This is a realm which may or may not intersect with homosexuals, since it also involves heterosexuals.

I noticed you pointed out above that T was initially transvestites, then transsexuals. That’s my understanding of the history of the letter T as well. But no matter which group that is, they don’t necessarily involve homosexuality or bisexuality. I used to go to a bar where every month or so a group of straight men would gather in drag and have dinner and drinks together. They were not gay; they were straight men who enjoyed dressing up as women.

Yes, my friend and I were talking about that aspect of transvestitism, as well. That's just a kink. My friend, W, (you've heard me speak of him over the years, also a gay man,) thinks that transexuals have always been under the umbrella, were long in the fight for gay rights, and long associated with gay men and women. I understand if the rainbow nation wants to debate the T for inclusion or exclusion, and it's not my place to say. I appreciate your response to me on the question.

 

[britbox]

Well, that's pretty facile and not really that informative, is it? Certainly with no empathy. And it still doesn't tell me what I got wrong. We're talking about humans, not large cats. You're really just being cheeky, and not even trying to understand.

Let's say I give it a go:

Some Conservatives identify as QAnon, some don't. It's a widely used term but it didn't used to be. Some Conservatives mocked other Conservatives by calling them QAnon's, yet other Conservatives embrace the term QAnon. It could be QAnon believers who like Conservatives, Conservatives who like Trump but might not be. It's a way of QAnon being accepted, and also includes Proud Boys... and maybe Oath Keepers... for most of the fat cat Conservatives.

That's it using your words. Now try it using mine. But you really are just making a mockery of what is supposed to be a conversation. If you don't get it, why just be snide?

Your re-wording amplifies the original point. I prefer the idea of identifying people as individuals, rather than classifying them with alphabet letters or assuming to know what they think, how they feel and what score they deserve on the empathy register. Dividing people into such broad categories tends to end up with malevolent forces utilising it for their own ends.

 

[Federberg]

Your re-wording amplifies the original point. I prefer the idea of identifying people as individuals, rather than classifying them with alphabet letters or assuming to know what they think, how they feel and what score they deserve on the empathy register. Dividing people into such broad categories tends to end up with malevolent forces utilising it for their own ends.

It's ironic that this whole categorisation/classification thing being pushed by the left has become such a scourge on modern society. The concept of racial categorisation started by the British during the slave trade was taken up by those we would associate with the right now. That was incredibly damaging to society then. Few now realise that at least one of the Roman Emperors at the time when Rome had conquered Britain was black. His skin colour wasn't an issue then. But in the last few centuries these classifications have done tremendous damage to humanity. You would think the left in their ostentatious efforts to empathise with the marginalised would try to find better solutions. But then I guess we should know better. There was a time when the tendency for feelings (and faith) to be given primacy over scientific fact was the domain of the right. But now here we are in this brave new world where this is the tactic of the left. A person feels that they were born with the wrong gender is supported entirely in opposition to the science. I'm sick to death of the extremes and irrationalities on both sides...

 

[Moxie]

I think you guys are wrong in imagining that it is "progressives" pushing these labels on people rather than open-minded people accepting labels that certain groups choose for themselves.

This is interesting:

From LGBT to LGBTQIA+: The evolving recognition of identity

As society’s understanding of diverse sexual identities and gender expressions has grown more inclusive, so has the acronym used to describe them.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Federberg]

I think you guys are wrong in imagining that it is "progressives" pushing these labels on people rather than open-minded people accepting labels that certain groups choose for themselves.

This is interesting:

From LGBT to LGBTQIA+: The evolving recognition of identity

As society’s understanding of diverse sexual identities and gender expressions has grown more inclusive, so has the acronym used to describe them.

www.nationalgeographic.com

thanks for the article, I'll have a look in a bit.

I can give you an example of progressives labelling people. This whole Latin X thing...

But to be perfectly honest, the whole concept of intersectionality is at the core of the progressive movement. The average person doesn't want to have anything to do with this type of thing. I can tell you for free that men, in general, don't want to feel like they're victims. Being categorised as such is not what we want. This is why conservatives are so effective at turning these culture issues right back on progressives. It amazes me that they never learn.

But even if we excuse the whole labelling thing, the solutions prescribed by the State based on these categorisations often have extremely damaging and unforeseen impacts. That alone should give us pause

 

[Federberg]

lol! Just seen the Jimmy Kimmel Emmy's thing, as it was trending on my twitter. FFS... some folks are talking about white privilege? What the sweet fuck is going on people? Is there no room for comedy anymore. Even lame comedy? Have we lost our collective sense of humour? So, are white men not supposed to do comedy skits in front of black women? Are black men (I'm asking for Chris Rock - even if I thought it was a shite joke)? The whole world is going to the dogs...

 

[Federberg]

To the dogs people... I hope this club goes bankrupt

 

[tented]

To the dogs people... I hope this club goes bankrupt

A resourceful maneuver to soothe those who aren’t looked at, and nourish their jealousy of those who are.

 

[Moxie]

thanks for the article, I'll have a look in a bit.

I can give you an example of progressives labelling people. This whole Latin X thing...

But to be perfectly honest, the whole concept of intersectionality is at the core of the progressive movement. The average person doesn't want to have anything to do with this type of thing. I can tell you for free that men, in general, don't want to feel like they're victims. Being categorised as such is not what we want. This is why conservatives are so effective at turning these culture issues right back on progressives. It amazes me that they never learn.

But even if we excuse the whole labelling thing, the solutions prescribed by the State based on these categorisations often have extremely damaging and unforeseen impacts. That alone should give us pause

White non-hispanics did not impose LatinX on anyone, if that's what you're saying. This article from History.com is interesting on the origins. They also mention Argentina. I have a friend there who substitutes all of her written gender specific a/o's with x. And I heard the spoken version, "u" in a recent Argentinian/Spanish film with Penelope Cruz. It is true that some Latinos and Latinas don't like it, but it's not universally reviled. It's a way of some Spanish speakers solving the masculine deference inherent in the language. (I think you must know that Spanish, French and Italian all default to the masculine when any group is mixed or unknown.)

As to intersectionality, I disagree that it is "at the core of the progressive movement," especially in the way that it tends to be defined by conservatives. I always have to look it up when it gets a mention here, since it's not a common term. And I realize why: like "critical race theory," (to which it is related,) it has been taken from its academic origins, redefined and weaponized by the conservatives, it seems. I was genuinely confused when you said intersectionality, and then went straight to the bit about men not wanting to be made into victims. This is an article in Vox that interviews the woman who did the original academic work, and it's informative, I think, on divining the original intent, and how it gets boiled down to "victimhood," which is NOT the intention.

I don't mean to be giving reading assignments, and of course you are free to skip them, but you can skim for the relevant bits, too. A basic difference between us, around here, I think, is that you and Britbox find using categories at all to define people is dangerous, and I believe that when people are in groups they identify with, it is respectful to use the terms that they prefer. If I've gotten intentions wrong, I don't mean to, or definitions. I'm happy to keep discussing, if it's interesting.

 

[Moxie]

To the dogs people... I hope this club goes bankrupt

All the fun just went out of going to a club, and the point of it.

 

[Federberg]

White non-hispanics did not impose LatinX on anyone, if that's what you're saying.

I don't think I mentioned 'white non-hispanics'. Isn't it sad that you immediately sub-categorised the group (progressives) that I mentioned? The article does raise an interesting issue that illuminates the difficulty Democrats have with the community. It's not a monolith. Immigrants from Cuba are different from those from Argentina, or Chile, or Brazil... etc. These are different people. Trying to sweep them all into one grouping is culturally disrespectful and politically dangerous. They want different things and see the world in different ways.

I'm not sure how conservative define intersectionality. I'm familiar with Crenshaw, and her thinking on the term. My point is that in order to use the State to legislate away the obstacles that sub-categories (black, woman, gay, disabled etc) you are implicitly assigning victimhood to them. I'll speak for men, we don't like being associated with victimhood. and legislating away obstacles or barriers hasn't been particularly successful or has resulted in unintended consequences. In most cases there are already laws on the books that would serve the cause if used. Let's try that, advocate for that...

If I may presume to represent both @britbox and myself, we have a rather more cynical view of the effectiveness of the State. We don't necessarily always disagree with your intent, what you want the State to do, or how you wish the world to be. We just recognise that establishing laws to achieve those aims is extremely dangerous and often counterproductive

Let me try to give you one example, that's resulted in the utter devastation of African American culture, so far as I can see. After the civil rights legislation, and also sex discrimination legislation, I have no doubt that progressives assumed that a brave new utopian world would arise from those major victories. But on the ground... in the real world. Companies and the government, faced with navigating the new legal terrain quickly realised that in order to comply with the legislation they could kill two birds with one stone. They hired African American women, to the disadvantage of African American men. Which led to a powerful feedback loop into the African American community, with the men becoming less motivated to seek higher education. The net result over time has been the devastation of the African American family unit. Pre- 1960, divorce was less likely in the African American family than in any other racial group. Now only 25% of African American women will ever get married in their lifetimes, if I understand the data correctly. This was not something that could have been predicted. It's an unintended consequence. Be wary of the change you push for, it might lead to changes never wanted.

 

[britbox]

I don't think I mentioned 'white non-hispanics'. Isn't it sad that you immediately sub-categorised the group (progressives) that I mentioned? The article does raise an interesting issue that illuminates the difficulty Democrats have with the community. It's not a monolith. Immigrants from Cuba are different from those from Argentina, or Chile, or Brazil... etc. These are different people. Trying to sweep them all into one grouping is culturally disrespectful and politically dangerous. They want different things and see the world in different ways.

I'm not sure how conservative define intersectionality. I'm familiar with Crenshaw, and her thinking on the term. My point is that in order to use the State to legislate away the obstacles that sub-categories (black, woman, gay, disabled etc) you are implicitly assigning victimhood to them. I'll speak for men, we don't like being associated with victimhood. and legislating away obstacles or barriers hasn't been particularly successful or has resulted in unintended consequences. In most cases there are already laws on the books that would serve the cause if used. Let's try that, advocate for that...

If I may presume to represent both @britbox and myself, we have a rather more cynical view of the effectiveness of the State. We don't necessarily always disagree with your intent, what you want the State to do, or how you wish the world to be. We just recognise that establishing laws to achieve those aims is extremely dangerous and often counterproductive

Let me try to give you one example, that's resulted in the utter devastation of African American culture, so far as I can see. After the civil rights legislation, and also sex discrimination legislation, I have no doubt that progressives assumed that a brave new utopian world would arise from those major victories. But on the ground... in the real world. Companies and the government, faced with navigating the new legal terrain quickly realised that in order to comply with the legislation they could kill two birds with one stone. They hired African American women, to the disadvantage of African American men. Which led to a powerful feedback loop into the African American community, with the men becoming less motivated to seek higher education. The net result over time has been the devastation of the African American family unit. Pre- 1960, divorce was less likely in the African American family than in any other racial group. Now only 25% of African American women will ever get married in their lifetimes, if I understand the data correctly. This was not something that could have been predicted. It's an unintended consequence. Be wary of the change you push for, it might lead to changes never wanted.

Agree with most of that except I don't believe in the "unintended consequences" part. It was intended.

 

[tented]

Let me try to give you one example, that's resulted in the utter devastation of African American culture, so far as I can see. After the civil rights legislation, and also sex discrimination legislation, I have no doubt that progressives assumed that a brave new utopian world would arise from those major victories. But on the ground... in the real world. Companies and the government, faced with navigating the new legal terrain quickly realised that in order to comply with the legislation they could kill two birds with one stone. They hired African American women, to the disadvantage of African American men. Which led to a powerful feedback loop into the African American community, with the men becoming less motivated to seek higher education. The net result over time has been the devastation of the African American family unit. Pre- 1960, divorce was less likely in the African American family than in any other racial group. Now only 25% of African American women will ever get married in their lifetimes, if I understand the data correctly. This was not something that could have been predicted. It's an unintended consequence. Be wary of the change you push for, it might lead to changes never wanted.

I’d never put all of that together before now, but you make a persuasive argument. And I do think it was unintended. Why have such outcomes as intended goals?

The question now is what can be done about this? I seriously don’t know. Perhaps it’s too late to turn this around?

 

[Federberg]

Agree with most of that except I don't believe in the "unintended consequences" part. It was intended.

ooof! That's deep! And depressing. I'm not sure the State is competent enough to be that intentionally malicious though..

 

[Federberg]

I’d never put all of that together before now, but you make a persuasive argument. And I do think it was unintended. Why have such outcomes as intended goals?

The question now is what can be done about this? I seriously don’t know. Perhaps it’s too late to turn this around?

That's a tough one. I do agree generally with Republicans that a lot of legislation could be swept away. But only if those same Republicans are willing to allow the original laws to be implemented fully, or interpreted in ways that are consistent with the lived experience of Americans in the 21st century. There are aspects of the 14th and 15th Amendment for example that are simply ignored that would handle a lot of what is wrong. Originalism seems to be highly subjective or so it seems to me

 

[mrzz]

ooof! That's deep! And depressing. I'm not sure the State is competent enough to be that intentionally malicious though..

I agree with BB on this. Surely was intended, because you *do not* need to know the precise outcome. You only need to know that, in general, nanny policies result in a weaker, more dependent society. And this part is clear to everyone.

The basic question one needs to answer is always the same:

Given politician/party/ruler/monarch/whatever did so and so out of her/his/their/it good heart, or because she/he/them/it is sure that this would help her/him/them/it to stay in power even longer? The answer is blatantly obvious.