Except you're just making stuff up again.

I do not 'say that instead of' anything, there is no tell. It's a very straightforward PC reason that i appreciate you disagree with because you're anti political correctness.

No that's just you making stuff up when in fact you're just anti political correctness. PC is not about rudeness, I dont care how rude you are.


lol

A classic example of you just making stuff up to try to be mean. You're inability to understand political correctness (if I allow you're being genuine) is entirely down to you.

Wow another post full of made up stuff.
I'm not remotely furious with you fly - that's something you make up

I have no objection to calling racist stuff racist and I do it myself a lot. - that's you making stuff up again

The fact my actual views don't match your straw world is entirely your fault.

Chezbot is stuck in a recursive loop.

There's a bug in there somewhere

This argument gets brought up a lot. Is it really that hard to understand why in a forum of 90% liberals, there might be some liberals who have a majority of their posts which criticize or disagree with other liberals? I know you guys love it, but for a lot of people it's not that interesting to make a post which echoes and piles on to what 10 other people have already said.

And THIS argument gets made a lot, where for some reason a specific argument gets abstracted into a general point about "disagreement" which goes into, of course, whining about civility.

When the subject that you disagree with liberals about is THE INHERENT EQUALITY OF ALL MANKIND, yeah, man, that's not just being a contrarian.

Jesus Christ.

chez ain't out here talking about the nuts and bolts of school funding or environmental regulation, Alex, he's out here relentlessly defending explicit white supremacy. Relentlessly. And even more harmfully, he then tries to construct this bizarre right wing fairy tale about how liberals are just so mean that they won't honestly listen to the facts about black inferiority.

Now now now, of course chez doesn't think we should let FoldN post about his racial intelligence theories. It is "not PC". But at no point has chez even HINTED that FoldN is wrong. chez has, again through an absolutely astonishing level of self-delusion, managed to convince himself that political correctness is just not saying ethnic slurs and that liberals who sincerely disagree with racism are therefore anti-PC since they sometimes accuse racists of being racist.

Not defending it at all fly. It's all just your straw world.

We could discuss the nuts and bolts of schools if you like. I'm against the grammar school proposals - what do you think of them?

Like it's important to unpack that "Fly and Trolly and Dvaut are anti-PC" thing he's started using. What he means is that when some racist comes in here with dogwhistley bull****, we call them on it, say that what they really mean is that blacks are lazy, gays are an abomination, Muslims are dangerous, and so forth.

chezlaw correctly identifies that second statement as "un-PC" and therefore wants US TO STOP SAYING IT, but he's totally cool with the dogwhistley bull****. Because, of course, he agrees with it. He just wants that civil discourse.

Dunno if FoldN is technically using a dogwhistle when he's explicitly describing racial intelligence theories.

Not at all fly.

PC evolves to make dogwhistles unacceptable. Just as it evolves on which words are unacceptable.

And you've just made up that bit about me agreeing. You couldn't be further from the truth but that's what you get when you just keep making stuff up to try to be mean.

Good job. Your Hildawg vote in AZ could end up meaning a lot more than mine in CA.

Micro should like this one

This isn't a reflection of reality though, at least not as a general rule.

When people speak up about their abhorrent social views and are hostily confronted, it makes them uncomfortable. If this happens with any kind of regularity, people get conditioned to keep abhorrent social views quiet in public. This is true even if the response is hostility in return; they might reply with choice words and raised voices about the ****ing PC Police or whatever, but if anything that just is evidence that they were rattled when called out for their bull****.

Unless you're an attention starved troll, getting this kind of aggressively negative attention will have a punishing effect. That's an ideal end result for those who don't want bigots feeling empowered.

It can happen that way and I certainly agree with standing up to bigoty. You're missing that people who feel attacked do generally attack back, disengage from rational consideration and become more entrenched in their views. There's also the problem of fast diminishing returns which can eventually results in the catastrphe of people identifying with the very thing we want them to reject. We want people to look at their bigoted views as 'not them' rather than to become bigoted and proud.

So sure it's good to make them uncomfortable if the directuion of more comfort is productive but apart from as a shock tactic the better approach is to attack the bigotry and enforce/encourage the better behavior with the reality of rules and laws.

Plus attack the causes of bigotry and promote liberal values wherever possible

I was with you until not long ago. In fact, I'm still with you WRT close family and loved ones as I'd much rather engage and pursuade.

With 99.9999% of the population, though, I'm FAR more interested in what they choose to express and far LESS interested in what they believe. Truth is that changing deeply engrained belief systems is a bitch, and will be ineffective in passing or occasional / infrequent exchanges.

A much more reasonable goal (one which we can all positively and significantly contribute to) is for the Trump-emboldened bigots - who existed in equal numbers before his rise and will persist after he leaves - to go back to only sharing their hot takes on race & culture on internet message boards, or while at their private parties.

Ridicule and public shaming is broadly effective at achieving this goal, unless of course the individual is a troll and/or is deeply attention starved and too socially inept to seek attention healthily. This is the rare exception. The vast majority - even those who respond with ire - will be uncomfortable by getting publicly and hostily called out, and if this target response occurs with any kind of frequency it will have lasting effects.

But political correctness is about what they chose to express. We're not in disagreement about that.

The reality is that if we didn't have the PC biased rules here then the ridicule and shaming wouldn't work at all. People have deluded themselves if they think it's personal attacks that are doing the heavy lifting.

Ridicule is a great thing - big fan. Shaming has it's place as well. We covered this in the last post.

Gays are definitely an abomination because the Tonys and show tunes are vile, Muslims confirmed dangerous because they shot at me when I invaded their country, and the jury is still out on lazy blacks until I see what Obama does in retirement imo.

♫ When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way ♪

I'm talking about IRL though, even going so far as to explicitly state that internet message boards and private dinner parties are where these views need to stay. There's little to be done about those contexts, as you'll either have no access (private events) or the social distance is too great to have much influence (internet).

Moreover, the shame & ridicule approach is gonna be far less effective on 2+2 for the very reasons I listed in the prior post. You'll FAR more frequently encounter the exceptions-to-the-rule here; trolls be plentiful, as are socially inept shut-ins who never learned healthy ways to meet their social needs IRL. These profiles are gonna feed off the negative attention their expressions bring them and ignoring / banning is gonna be the best route.

It was good. The end was very good. I don't know why I would especially like it (or not if you were being sarcastic).

Aren't you the one always talking about churchil's warcrimes?

What about lazy blacks winning Tonys for Hamilton? Not sure how I'm supposed to feel about that.

Kissinger?

Yeah, I guess.